portation available is by air, which is relatively costly. There are no railroads nor highways between the islands.

Until 1959, the year of our statehood, war veterans with non-serviceconnected disabilities could obtain care in private or territorial hospitals which had contract arrangements with the Veterans' Administration. In the last fiscal year before statehood, there were available to war veterans three hospitals on Kauai, two on Maui, one on Molokai, four on our largest island, Hawaii, and four on Oahu-all under contract with the Veterans' Administration. Veterans living on the respective islands could reach these medical facilities easily by auto in no more than a few hours' time.

These arrangements spared veterans living on islands away from Oahu the relatively costly journey by air to Tripler Hospital. Local hospitalization also greatly facilitated family visitations, so important to morale of veteran patients.

Travel and lodging costs entailed by visitors from outer islands to Tripler Hospital impose great financial hardship, particularly if the veteran is confined for a prolonged period. Moreover, air travel is medically inadvisable for certain patients such as those suffering heart ailments.

While it is true the Veterans' Administration will pay transport costs for veterans who state they cannot afford to pay, the Veterans' Administration cannot reimburse costs for family or other relatives.

S. 342 would restore the authority for the Veterans' Administration to arrange for local care of war veterans with non-service-connected disabilities. If previous experience is any indicator, costwise S. 342 may be advantageous. Figures obtained in 1960 showed the Veterans' Administration reimbursing Tripler Hospital at the rate of $21 per day for each veteran treated there. Under its prior contracting arrangements with territorial and private hospitals VA paid only $13.80 per day for each patient.

I think it is important to note for record that, although the Veterans' Administration opposed S. 2201 and S. 801 in the two preceding Congresses, this subcommittee and the full Labor Committee have in both cases overruled the Veterans' Administration. As representative of the people of Hawaii, I want to express how much we appreciate the support of this subcommittee and its parent committee. We hope the present members of this subcommittee will approve the bills before you for Hawaii and Alaska, despite VA objections.

I would be remiss if I failed to note the minority views filed last year. I wonder if the information submitted by the Veterans' Administration subsequent to last year's hearings on S. 801 was available to those who filed the minority views. These data are very pertinent and, in my judgment, support the case for this legislation. So that the record will be complete, I would like to quote from the majority report on S. 801 last year:

"The Veterans' Administration data submitted subsequent to hearings on the bill show that neither does the present system provide hospital care comparable to that available prior to admission of Hawaii and Alaska to statehood, nor would enactment of the bill result in preferential treatment of non-service-disabled veterans in Alaska and Hawaii over similarly circumstanced veterans in other States.

"On May 31, 1958, prior to statehood, of the total Alaskan veteran population, 0.24 percent were receiving medical care for non-serviceconnected illnesses. On May 31, 1962, subsequent to statehood, this percentage had declined to 0.20 percent. The same data for Hawaii show 0.29 percent on May 31, 1959, prior to statehood; and a decline to 0.10 percent by May 31, 1962.

"Data from Nevada, a State with population comparable to Alaska, show that on November 30, 1957, 0.36 percent of the non-service-disabled veterans of that State received medical care. On May 31, 1962, the Nevada figure stood at 0.38 percent. North Dakota, with a population comparable to Hawaii, showed non-service-disabled veterans' care on November 30, 1957, at 0.20 percent and on May 31, 1962, at 0.25 percent.

"National data also demonstrate the nonpreferential nature of the bill. Of the total U.S. veterans population on November 30, 1957, 0.32 percent received care for non-service-connected illnesses; on October 31, 1960, this figure stood at 0.35 percent. In both instances the amount of medical care for non-service-disabled veterans nationally exceeded the amount afforded non-service-disabled veterans of Alaska and Hawaii. These data clearly show that both before and after statehood, the percentage of non-service-disabled veterans receiving hospital care, compared with the total veteran population, was smaller in Alaska and Hawaii than in the country as a whole and in States with comparable populations. In the unlikely event that this legislation should result in inequitable advantage to veterans in the affected States, the VA would be expected to apprise the committee of the pertinent facts so that corrective action could be taken.

"Although the dates used in the foregoing data are not the same in each case, the VA states that the data are typical and indicative of the extent of medical care afforded through the year in the given geographical areas."

Mr. Chairman, I hope this subcommittee will move quickly on this important remedial legislation for veterans in Hawaii and Alaska, too. In that way the prospects for Senate action this year will be improved, which will, in turn, offer greater possibility of House action before the adjournment of this Congress.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Are there any other statements by any other Senators?

We have a statement here from Senator Daniel K. Inouye of Hawaii, which statement is on S. 274. His bill is to extend to Alaska and Hawaii the categories of illnesses for which non-service-connected disabilities might be treated. He would extend in those States that type of treatment to the categories of tuberculosis, Hansen's disease, mental derangement, neuropsychiatric ailments, et cetera. file Senator Inouye's statement in support of his bill and order that it be printed in full in the record at this point.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE OF HAWAII

Prior to the admission of the State of Hawaii into the Union, the Veterans' Administration was authorized to enter into contracts with Territorial (now State) and private facilities to provide hospital care for war veterans. As a result of this authorization, the Veterans' Administration was able to contract for hospital care at the Territorial

Hospital, a hospital caring for the insane and mentally deranged; the Kalaupapa Hospital on the island of Molokai and the Hale Mohalu Hospital in Honolulu for veterans afflicted with Hansen's disease; the Leahi Hospital for veterans afflicted with tuberculosis and a few other county hospitals located on the several islands to provide our war veterans general medical and surgical assistance. Since the admission of Hawaii as a State, all war veterans with non-service-connected disabilities have been required to receive their medical treatment for Hansen's disease, tuberculosis, mental derangement, and other ailments at Tripler Army Hospital, the only Federal hospital in the State located in Honolulu, Oahu. The status of statehood did not affect the many war veterans with service-connected disabilities.

The Veterans' Administration must reimburse to the Department of Defense the sum of $21 per day for every veteran receiving treatment at Tripler Army Hospital. It is very interesting to note that under the contract provisions permitted under section 601 of title 38, the cost to the Veterans' Administration per patient-day was the sum of $13.80. In other words, the Veterans' Administration saved the sum of $7.20 per patient-day by hospitalizing war veterans in private and Territorial hospitals.

Tripler Army Hospital is a fine hospital providing for most of the advanced services now available in some of our better hospitals in the continental United States. However, Tripler Army Hospital has no facilities for the treatment of persons afflicted with Hansen's disease nor does it have facilities for long-term institutionalized care for the mentally deranged and nor does it have facilities for long-term institutionalized care for tubercular persons. As a result, although our laws state that an indigent war veteran with a non-service-connected disability is entitled to hospitalization in a Federal hospital, since Tripler Army Hospital is lacking in facilities as stated above, many of these veterans will have to receive services from State hospitals as wards of the State. This sudden change in medical indigent responsibilities brought about by statehood has resulted in certain budgetary difficulties for the State of Hawaii.

Prior to statehood, approximately 165 veterans with non-serviceconnected disabilities (psychiatric, tubercular, and Hansen's disease cases) received medical and surgical assistance in contract hospitals located on islands other than Oahu. Since statehood, all veterans with non-service-connected disabilities requiring medical and surgical care have received such care from Tripler Hospital. The treatment of these veterans is now costing the Federal Government $21 per patient-day instead of $13.80 at contract hospitals. It has further resulted in other additional costs made necessary by the transporting of such veterans from the outlying islands to Tripler Army Hospital. In addition to the extra added cost to the Government for treatment of veterans at Tripler Army Hospial, the disruption of family relations brought about by the necessity of separating these war veterans from their respective island areas have resulted in misery and inconvenience heretofore not experienced by the veteran and his family. Because these veterans with non-service-connected disabilities are indigents, it should be assumed that their families would be without funds to visit the veteran patients in Tripler. Undoubtedly, the morale of these veteran patients from the outlying islands are very

low. The anxieties experienced by their families on the outlying islands have undoubtedly caused family difficulties. Therefore, I am respectfully requesting this honorable committee to favorably consider S. 274, first as the most economic use of our tax dollars, and second, with compassion for veterans and their families who live on the outlying islands.

Senator YARBOROUGH. I assume that the Veterans' Administration is prepared to testify on all of these bills. If there is any other branch of the Government that is here to testify on any one of these bills we will hear you first and then ask the Veterans' Administration to testify on all of them, but if the armed services are going to testify on all of the bills we believe that we will ask the Veterans' Administration witnesses to come around first, because they will be prepared to go into the full coverage of all of these bills. Is there anyone here from the armed services that wants to be heard on one bill only?

STATEMENT OF MAJ. JOHN G. GARVIN, U.S. AIR FORCE,
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Major GARVIN. Mr. Chairman, the Department of Defense is prepared to testify on S. 384. We have been asked to appear.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Come around, please. We will hear you now. Major GARVIN. Thank you, sir.

Senator YARBOROUGH. S. 384 is to amend the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940 in order to provide increased protection against the eviction of the families of servicemen from premises rented for dwelling purposes. At present this is when the rent does not exceed $80 per month. This bill would increase this limitation to $135 a month. It is felt this legislation is necessary to bring the limitation figure up to present-day perspective.

STATEMENT OF LT. COL. NORMAN A. FAULKNER, CHIEF OF LEGAL ASSISTANCE, JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL'S OFFICE, U.S. AIR FORCE

Colonel FAULKNER. Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommitte, I am Lt. Col. Norman A. Faulkner, Chief of Legal Assistance of the Judge Advocate General's Office, U.S. Air Force. I am here representing the Department of Defense."

The Department of Defense supports S. 384 because it will bring the pertinent section of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act into Îine with the rise in the cost of living since the time of the enactment of the $80 rent limitation in 1940. The Department of Labor's table of adjusted dollar values, 1959, reveals that an $80 rental in 1940 would cost today, $152. Legal assistance officers in the military departments have had occasion to see in the operation of the act, cases in which recalled reservists ran the risk of having their families evicted because the rent they paid exceeded the $80 figure mentioned in the act. Senator YARBOROUGH. Thank you, Colonel Faulkner, for this statement and the very important facts you have cited in it. I think that the morale factor in the Armed Forces is an important matter. Senator YARBOROUGH. Are there any questions?

Senator JORDAN. Just this, Colonel Faulkner. You referred to the 1940 record as being $80. I did not get your figure for 1963 equivalent was it $152?

Colonel FAULKNER. Senator Jordan, I did not have the 1963 equivalent. The 1959 equivalent was based on the Department of Labor table of adjusted values, and that was $152.

Senator JORDAN. Then why do you depart from that table and ask for $135, which is in the bill?

Colonel FAULKNER. Senator, the bill is not a part of the Department of Defense program. We were invited to testify.

Senator JORDAN. As I understand it, it is not your bill, but I am wondering why if there is justification for the raise why the figure of $135 was established. Maybe someone else can testify to that.

Senator YARBOROUGH. I am the author of the bill. I took that $135 figure from another table. I have no pride of authorship in that figure. We will study the tables in executive session and see if that table should be enlarged to some other figure that would be more just and reasonable. At the time this was prepared we had certain data from certain agencies which indicated that was the correct figure.

Senator JORDAN. I was only trying to relate it to the testimony. Colonel FAULKNER. I may quote from one table of quarters allowances, in 1942, a second lieutenant with dependents received $60. In 1963 the same lieutenant would be drawing $110. That bears a very close relationship to the $152 figure that was cited.

Senator YARBOROUGH. It would also bear a pretty close relationship to the $80 and the $135 mentioned. They both have a relationship to the $152 figure.

Colonel FAULKNER. Yes, sir.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Senator Burdick, do you have any questions? Senator BURDICK. No.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Are there any further questions from anyone, are there any questions by either the majority or the minority counsel? If not, thank you.

Colonel FAULKNER. Thank you, Senator Yarborough.

S. 331, S. 625, S. 342, S. 274

Senator YARBOROUGH. We will next have the Veterans' Administration come around with their witnesses. You may proceed.

Mr. BLAND. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, it is a pleasure to be here this morning. We have three different statements. We have tried to classify the bills in groups of related bills or somewhat related bills, and in view of the fact that the first bills that you have considered relate to the medical program, I thought, perhaps, we might present that statement first. The first bill involved will not relate to the Alaska-Hawaii matter, but it will come a little later in the same statement. And if I may read that statement as we have prepared it, I think perhaps it will work out, unless you prefer that I take up first the other proposal.

Senator YARBOROUGH. No, I think you have grouped them in this way. In numbers, of course, the Philippine extension bill deals with hospitals, to extend the program for 5 years, for the use of the veterans there, which is first on the docket, but I suggest that you proceed in these groupings that you have made and introduce your associates.