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 Alaska 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.

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,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.:

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.

Hon. E. L. BARTLETT,

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.:

JUNEAU, ALASKA, March 13, 1963.

American Legion, Department of Alaska, strongly urges favorable action on S. 625. Veterans more than 500 miles from VA hospital badly need care this would provide. This would be much cheaper than building VA hospitals in Alaska and Hawaii. Convention resolution explains more fully.

DONALD L. MOLES, Department Commander.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Thank you, Senator Bartlett. Your entire statement will be received, together with those documents that you have referred to and it is ordered that they be printed in full in the record, together with the accompanying resolutions and telegrams. Are there any questions, Senator Burdick?

Senator BURDICK. Senator Bartlett, what your amendment really does, is extend the present law for different categories of non-serviceconnected disabilities, does it not?

Senator BARTLETT. I beg your pardon?

Senator BURDICK. What your amendment really does is to extend the present law to four other categories. I am sorry, I have the wrong bill.

Senator BARTLETT. No, we do not propose any extension in reference to the categories for which veterans might be eligible in respect to treatment.

Senator YARBOROUGH. S. 342 by Senator Fong and S. 625 by Senator Bartlett and Senator Gruening are identical in terms. Senator Inouye's bill is on a different subject.

Senator BARTLETT. I see that.

Senator YARBOROUGH. It also applies only to Alaska and Hawaii, but it extends to certain categories in those two States.

Senator BARTLETT. And S. 625 does not.

Senator YARBOROUGH. S. 625 and S. 342 do not extend the categories. They merely provide for hospitalization as was provided prior to statehood.

Senator BARTLETT. Right.

Senator BURDICK. Now that I have the right bill, you would restore the share which you had prior to statehood?

Senator BARTLETT. That is what it seems to do that and nothing

more.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Are there any further questions?

Senator BURDICK. No.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Senator Jordan?

Senator JORDAN. No questions.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Thank you, Senator Bartlett.

Sneator BARTLETT. I hope, since this will be the third time, that it will be successful.

Senator YARBOROUGH. I hope so, too.

Senator Gruening has a statement in support of S. 625 and I will order Senator Gruening's statement to be printed in full in the record at this point. It has certain statistical information in it that the Veterans' Administration will, I am certain, want to note. It concerns the estimated costs of the bill.

STATEMENT OF HON. ERNEST GRUENING A. U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA

Senator GRUENING. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have this opportunity to endorse legislation which would put an end to unintentional but serious discrimination which beclouds the rights of approximately 15,000 veterans in the State of Alaska and the many veterans who live in Hawaii. I refer to the need by the Veterans' Administration to authorize private hospital care for non-service-connected disabilities of veterans in the two States.

For the past three Congresses, or since statehood, the Alaska congressional delegation has introduced this legislation, which has been examined and approved by this subcommittee and by the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee, indicative, I suggest, of general support. I wish the Veterans' Administration were as sympathetic.

There is a positive and prevailing need for this legislation. Alaskan veterans should have more convenient and less expensive medical care for non-service-connected disabilities.

On May 2, 1960, I strongly endorsed S. 2201. When I appeared before the Veterans' Affairs Subcommitee on behalf of legislation identical to that being considered today, I said:

"The need for introducing this bill came about as a result of an inadvertent disadvantage to veterans in the new States of Hawaii and Alaska occurring with the advent of statehood.

"As I am sure you are aware, there is a provision in existing legislation which authorizes the Veterans' Administrator to contract with private hospitals for the care of veterans with non-service-connected disabilities in territories and possessions of the United States and in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Before Alaska and Hawaii became States this special provision of law was applicable for the benefit of veterans living there.

"However, with the coming of statehood this valuable benefit was lost, as the law does not provide for contracts for hospital care of veterans with non-service-connected disabilities in the State.

"The effect of the law results in an unintentional but serious discrimination against veterans living in the two new States.

"The reasons that the present state of the law is discriminatory against Alaskan and Hawaiian veterans and the reasons for this corrective legislation are the same."

The reasons outlined then have not changed. The States of Alaska and Hawaii have no veterans' hospital. Veterans may receive care in other Government facilities, but they are dependent upon the uncertain availability of space and they are denied the consideration and care which they may obtain in the hospitals which are built for their use alone. This is unfair, unnecessary, and not in keeping with the accustomed generosity of a nation familiar with the services of its veterans. I stated in 1960, again in 1962, and I reiterate today, "In the event that, due to administrative requirements or lack of space, they [veterans] cannot be cared for in other Government facilities in Alaska and Hawaii they must travel thousands of miles for admission to veterans' hospitals in other States. As a result, they must bear cruel separations from home and families at a time when they need the comfort of familiar persons and surroundings the most."

Indeed, Mr. Chairman, the reasons for this legislation are as applicable and evident in 1963 as they were before statehood when veterans had this care. The great distances of Alaska and Hawaii from the other States have not been changed. The advent of statehood does not change basic facts of geography. The number of patients who would need such care has not increased. These were the original reasons for the special provisions for the territories. They still apply.

Distances make the fact of eligibility for treatment in a Government facility meaningless if help cannot be obtained in time of

emergency.

Alaskans are united in their support of this legislation.

I will not take the time of the committee today to detail the correspondence I have received urging enactment of this type of legislation. Proponents include doctors, medical societies, veterans groups, State employees, and Gov. William Egan.

This is no political baseball to toss carelessly. One curve ball is enough. The opposition of the Veterans' Administration is puzzling. The cost of S. 625 and earlier bills was modest, around $150,000 to $200,000. The convenience would be considerable.

I recall the comment in March of 1961 by the Administrator of the Veterans' Administration, Mr. James Gleason, when he said: "We believe that the needs in both Alaska and Hawaii are being met to a reasonable and proper extent by the use of these Government facilities."

The comment may be well intended but any saving foreseen by the Veterans' Administration is quickly dissipated should a veteran in Nome find it necessary to travel over a thousand miles for treatment.

I have noted, as have others, that areas comparable in size to Alaska have an average of 34.4 hospitals for veterans, the nearest of these no more than 5 hours' traveltime away. Let us see how this might work in Alaska.

Our ill veteran suffering from a non-service-connected disability must fly from Nome where he cannot be treated at the Missionary Hospital. Arriving in Anchorage, he discovers that all available bed space in the Elmendorf Air Force Base Military Hospital and the Alaska Native Hospital is taken. Hopefully he will be treated in Seattle. He will have traveled 2,000 miles to get there. Through two World Wars and in Korea thereafter I have observed the efforts of veterans to keep our Nation free. Men and women have served willingly when called. Many have not returned to resume their roles in civilian life.

So when I find a Federal agency whose purpose when created as defined in the U.S. Government Organization Manual was to consolidate and coordinate Federal agencies especially created for or concerned in the administration of laws providing benefits for veterans turning a cold shoulder toward some of its clients, I wonder where this Nation is heading? Where is its conscience?

We spend over 50 percent of our yearly budget to keep militarily strong.

We recall to the service men who have only begun to make a business profit or use their professional skills of medicine, law, and the

like.

96180-63- 4