veterans of the Korean conflict, and in the view of some have become accepted as an appropriate benefit under the conditions noted in S. 449. Moreover, qualification for the grant would be more restrictive that it is for the wartime groups. In light of the above comments you are advised that the Bureau of the Budget would not object to enactment of S. 449. Sincerely yours, (Signed) Phillip S. Hughes, Assistant Director for Legislative Reference. 8. 274, S. 342, AND S. 625 Senator YARBOROUGH. We will first take up these three bills that relate to the situation of veterans in Hawaii and Alaska. I think that we should hear these three bills together. The first witness this morning is the Honorable E. L. Bartlett, U.S. Senator from the State of Alaska. Senator Bartlett, will you come around, sir? STATEMENT OF HON. E. L. BARTLETT, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA Senator BARTLETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I have here, Mr. Chairman, a prepared statement. I do not know whether or not the subcommittee desires me to read the full text; if so, I will be happy to do so, of course. Mr. Chairman, a bill identical to S. 625 was passed by the Senate in the 86th Congress. This committee reported the bill again in the 87th Congress. As you indicated, Mr. Chairman, it was caught in the last minute rush of business and no action was taken by the full Senate. We are renewing the effort now with the hope that at long last it will he successful. Senator YARBOROUGH. I want to commend you for the diligence and the persistence with which you have represented the State of Alaska. You have presented this matter ably in the 86th and the 87th Congresses. They passed through the Senate once and got caught in the adjournment snarl. It was no fault of yours that this has not been written into law. I am hopeful that by starting this early in the 1st session of this 88th Congress that the Congress will be able to enact this measure that you have sponsored and supported so well and so ably. You can file your statement, if you wish, state briefly the substance of it, or read it in full. You may use your own judgment. Senator BARTLETT. I know that the subcommittee has a busy morning ahead of it, so I will not undertake to read the statement in full. I will be glad to respond to any questions that might be asked and that I am competent to answer. I want to express my personal pleasure that the committee is considering this legislation so early in the session. Until statehood came to Alaska the law provided that the Veterans' Administration should contract with private hospitals for the care of non-service-connected veteran disabilities. The statehood law was interpreted to mean that this could no longer be done. However, the need has not altered in any manner whatsoever. My bill would restore this contracting authority to the Administration. There are an estimated 15,000 veterans in Alaska, and there is not a Veterans' Administration hospital or, indeed, a VA medical facility of any kind in the State. It is true that under the appropriate provisions of law that veterans with non-service-connected disabilities may go to a Defense Department hospital or a public health hospital, if there are beds available. Frequently the room is not available, but even more frequently this just simply is not conveniently adjacent to the place of the veteran's residence. Distances are great and travel costs are high in Alaska. So in the present circumstances provided he cannot get in an Air Force or Army hospital it is necessary for the veteran, at his own expense, to fly to some other State where there is a Veterans' Administration facility. We think that this is not fair. Veterans of Alaska do not now receive treatment comparable to that received by veterans elsewhere. I should add, of course, that Hawaii is in exactly the same situation. The bill which I introduced on behalf of myself and my colleague from Alaska, Senator Gruening, S. 625, would cover the situation in Hawaii as well as in Alaska. I should say that heretofore the Veterans' Administration has opposed this legislation. I have never been able to calculate why-the bill would seem to be to be just. It seems to me that the veterans deserve it. It seems to me this bill would restore equality of treatment. I would like to tell the subcommittee what the cost would be to the Government if this bill were to be enacted into law. However, the estimates are unreliable in the first instance, because some of these cases that are eligible for treatment now go to a Veterans' Administration facility in another State and as a result the Government is already subject to their expenses. The best estimate, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, that we can reach is that if this bill were law there would be an average daily caseload of 14 patients. Senator YARBOROUGH. A 14-patient average daily load? Senator BARTLETT. Yes, which means, of course, that there would be no very considerable financial burden involved, so far as the Government is concerned. Senator YARBOROUGH. Pardon me, is that Hawaii and Alaska both? Senator BARTLETT. That is only Alaska. I do not have the figures relating to Hawaii. On the basis of comparative populations Hawaii's daily caseload should be between two and three times as great. That is pure speculation on my part, however. I should like to ask permission, Mr. Chairman, to file my prepared statement in full text and to include with that statement a joint resolution passed by the third legislature, first session of the State of Alaska, and a wire from Mr. A. H. Romick, commissioner of commerce of the State of Alaska; a wire from Mr. Lewis F. Fiorella, adjutant of the Alaska Department of Veterans of Foreign Wars; and a wire from Mr. Donald L. Moles, department commander, American Legion in Alaska, all favoring enactment of the legislation proposed here. STATEMENT OF E. L. BARTLETT IN SUPPORT OF S. 625 Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased today to testify in support of S. 625, which I have introduced in behalf of my colleague the junior Senator from Alaska and myself. I would like to thank the subcommittee and you especially, Mr. Chairman, for scheduling hearings so promptly on this measure. This bill is important to the veterans of Alaska and Hawaii. They appreciate, I know, the interest and the attention which your subcommittee is giving to their problem. S. 625 would remove a hardship statehood inadvertently placed on Alaska and Hawaii veterans. S. 625 would permit the use of private contract hospitals in these two States for the care of veterans with non-service-connected disabilities. I would like to emphasize, Mr. Chairman, that this bill does not attempt to establish a new precedent in veterans' care. Its purpose is to bring veterans' hospital care in Alaska and Hawaii up to parity with that enjoyed by the veterans resident in the older 48 States. Let me explain: Although there are an estimated 15,000 veterans in my State, there is no veterans' hospital or other VA medical facility. Alaska and Hawaii are the only two States in the Union without a single VA medical unit. It is said that there is not a demand large enough to merit the construction of such a facility. It is the policy of the Veterans' Administration that the medical needs of Alaska and Hawaii veterans can be handled by other means. The policy is to utilize beds in HEW and Defense Department hospitals when available. This works well enough when a Government hospital is nearby and a bed is available. However, as the subcommittee is aware, Alaska is a very large State. It is very sparsely populated, communities are many miles apart, and transportation facilities between communities are both expensive and inadequate. As a result a veteran needing hospitalization may find himself hundreds of miles from a Government hospital. Even if he has the money and even if he is well enough to travel he may find the hospital filled and unable to treat him. If his illness is service connected he has no worry. The Veterans' Administration is by law empowered, in such cases, to contract with private hospitals for the care of veterans whenever VA facilities are not available. If his illness is not service connected, the Alaska veteran may have to travel as far as Washington State or California to find treatment from a VA hospital. This is not only expensive, it could also be dangerous. Prior to statehood veterans with non-service-connected illnesses were treated as those with in-service-connected illnesses are now. Veterans needing medical care, whether because of in-service or out-ofservice-connected illnesses, were treated in private hospitals on a contract basis whenever Government facilities were not immediately at hand. This procedure was followed not only in Alaska and Hawaii but also in the other territories and possessions of the United States. This procedure is still followed in America's oversea possessions. Unfortunately, the law authorizing this practice-section 601 (4) of title 38, United States Code, is worded in such a manner as to apply to oversea territories but not to noncontiguous States. As a result, by the act of statehood, Alaska and Hawaii veterans were denied contract hospital care for their non-service-connected disabilities. I am confident it was not the intent of the Congress to end this service to veterans. The Veterans' Administration has said in explaining the purpose of section 601(4): "*** the exception to permit hospital care in private facilities for war veterans with non-service-connected conditions in a territory or possession was based upon special considerations. These apparently included the factors of great distances from the mainland, difficulty in transferring patients to the States, and the relatively small volume of patient demand in the territories and possessions." (Letter from Administrator Gleason to Senator Lister Hill, Mar. 29, 1961.) Statehood changed the political status of Alaska and Hawaii. It did not change the geography, the transportation difficulties, or the needs of the veterans. It did not change the reasons advanced by Administrator Gleason. My bill S. 625 is written to end the hardship inadvertently caused by statehood and to restore the service which veterans in Ålaska and Hawaii had prior to statehood. My bill would give the Administrator of the Veterans' Administration the authority to contract with private hospitals for the care of veterans with non-service-connected disabilities. It has been estimated that this service would increase the daily patient load in Alaska by only 15. The convenience and the improved care for Alaska veterans would be well worth the cost. This bill, Mr. Chairman, was studied carefully by your subcommittee in the last session of the Congress. It was reported favorably by the full Committee on Labor and Public Welfare on July 20, 1962. It is strongly supported by both State and National veterans groups. It is strongly supported by the State governments of both Alaska and Hawaii. The principle of restoring this care is supported by the Senators of both States and of both parties. I urge the subcommittee to give prompt approval to S. 625 and I thank the chairman for giving me the privilege of appearing before the subcommittee today. (The documents referred to follow :) (In the House, by Messrs. Cashel, Kubley, Ditman, Baker, Josephson, Kendall, Binkley, Blodgett, Christiansen, Hammond, Taylor, Stalker, Sanders, Rader, Longworth, Pearson, M. Reed, Baggen, McCombe, Jarvein, and Lottsfeldt) HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION No. 9 IN THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF ALASKA (Third Legislature, First Session) Relating to hospitalization for Alaska and Hawaii veterans for non-service-connected disabilities Be it resolved by the Legislature of the State of Alaska: Whereas the Alaska delegation to Congress has introduced bills in both Houses of Congress which seek to restore to veterans in Alaska and Hawaii their rights to hospital treatment for non-service-connected disabilities; and Whereas it is the purpose of S. 625 and H.R. 2048 to give Alaskan and Hawaiian veterans the same treatment as veterans of the other States who have easy access to veterans' hospitals; and Whereas Alaskan and Hawaiian veterans requiring immediate emergency hospitalization are not now permitted to obtain the medical services they must have near their homes, but must be flown hundreds of miles to the nearest veterans' hospital in the United States proper; and Whereas the closing of the Alaskan Veterans' Administration contact offices in the cities of Fairbanks and Ketchikan has further aggravated the problem for those veterans in need of medical treatment and care; and Whereas the apparent discrimination against veterans of Alaska and Hawaii, who served just as valiantly as veterans from other States, would be ended with the passage of S. 625 and H.R. 2048; be it Resolved, That the Congress is respectfully urged to take favorable action this year on either S. 625 or H.R. 2048 in order that Alaskan and Hawaiian veterans may receive needed hospitalization under Veterans' Administration contracts with hospitals located in their respective States; and be it further Resolved, That copies of this resolution be sent to the Honorable Lister Hill, chairman, Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee; the Honorable Olin E. Teague, chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs; the Honorable John S. Gleason, Jr., Administrator of Veterans' Affairs; the Honorable Edward Mandell, M.D., Chairman, Administrators' Advisory Council; and the Alaska Delegation in Congress. Passed by the House February 22, 1963. Attest: Passed by the Senate March 1, 1963. Attest: Certified true, full, and correct. [SEAL] Hon. E. L. BARTLETT, BRUCE KENDALL, Speaker of the House. FRANK PAVABOARCH, EVELYN K. STEVENSON. Governor of Alaska. PATRICIA R. SLACK, JUNEAU, ALASKA, March 13, 1963. Please add our support to S. 625 to restore emergency treatment for veterans in contract hospitals in Alaska where no federally owned facilities exist. The initial treatment of emergency cases is extremely costly. Time as well as lack of funds results in serious financial hardships for most veterans. Approval of treatment in contract hospitals would result in minimum cost to VA and retention of pride as well as financial independence for veterans and family. Conditions present serious difference in treatment of Alaska veterans in contrast to those in States having VA hospitals. Veterans population has doubled since statehood and future projections indicate condition will continue to increase problems in this field. Until VA facility is available, S. 625 provides an answer to problem. A. H. ROMICK, Comimssioner of Commerce. Hon. E. L. BARTLETT, JUNEAU, ALASKA, March 13, 1963. Since statehood the VFW has vigorously supported use of contract hospitals in Alaska and Hawaii for veterans with non-service-connected disabilities. Present practices cause undue hardship on veterans not living in vicinity of Federal hospitals. Use of contract hospitals will result in savings to the veteran in time and money at a minimum cost to the VA. The Department of Alaska VFW unanimously endorses passage of S. 625. Also your vote favoring a standing Veterans' Affairs Committee in the Senate will be appreciated by the VFW on all levels. LOUIS F. FIORELLA, Adjutant Department of Alaska VFW. |