1. While the intended beneficiaries of this legislation were not subjected to oversea duty and other normal assignments of officers, they did perform duty on a full-time basis with full pay of their rank. Most important, they were subject to the military order of the unit in which they served and, consequently, were prevented from pursuing further education or a civilian career by virtue of this service on a full-time basis.

2. Through no fault of their own, these Air Force officers were prevented from serving on extended active duty only because of unforeseeable circumstances, namely, the Air Force budget would not permit putting these officers on a full-time basis. After having been fully trained for their chosen profession, it was only natural that these persons chose to serve with the National Air Guard at the rank and position for which trained, rather than enlisting in the Regular Air Force at a much lower grade and less responsible and different position.

3. Training for duty is now recognized for disability and death benefit purposes-even inactive duty for training where the veteran is killed while in such status. With this in mind, it would seem appropriate that the type of training referred to in S. 2235 would be adequate for the readjustment benefits which would be provided in this bill. In other words, the intended beneficiaries of this bill would be considered to have been on active duty for readjustment benefit purposes.

4. Testimony by other witnesses revealed apprehension that if this legislation is approved, there are many other groups which would claim similar benefits. No other groups, however, were identified. As previously stated the VFW is without any position concerning this legislation and certainly does not recommend therefore that any other groups be included and at this time is without knowledge of any other groups similarly situated.

On the other side of the argument, it should be pointed out that the intended beneficiaries of this legislation do not come within the definition of beneficiaries of the Korean GI bill. It has been estimated that only 1,500 persons would be affected by S. 2235 and that none of these persons actually performed what has been defined as Federal military service and training. Furthermore, these 1,500 persons were offered the option of enlisting in the Air Force for a 2-year period with a subsequent commission in the Air Force Reserve upon completion of such enlistment or in the alternative to have returned to a civilian status with possible selective service induction. In any event, these persons do not presently qualify under the definition of active duty for readjustment benefits and to approve this legislation means that the Congress is liberalizing the basic definition of "war-time service for readjustment benefits for military service rendered during the Korean conflict."

Trusting this information will be of some help and assistance in your deliberations and consideration of this legislation and thanking you for the opportunity to present the views of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, I am Respectfully yours,

FRANCIS W. STOVER, Director, National Legislative Service.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Do you have any further statement, Mr. Stover?

Mr. STOVER. No, sir.

Senator YARBOROUGH. The subcommittee will stand adjourned. Thank you very much for your concise statements.

Mr. STOVER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

(Whereupon at 11:30 a.m., the subcommittee adjourned, subject to call.)

(The following were submitted for the record :)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. RALPH J. RIVERS

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity of being heard on the matter of S. 2201, a bill to amend section 601 of title 38, United States Code, with respect to the definition of the term "Veterans' Administration facilities." I would like to speak in support of this legislation, which is identical to a measure (H.R. 7910) I have introduced in the House of Representatives.

The purpose of this legislation is simple: It would allow the Veterans' Administrator to make contracts with private hospitals for the treatment of veterans

with non-service-connected disabilities, if said veterans reside in States not having Veterans' Administration hospital facilities, or States not having such facilities within 500 miles of their borders. In practical effect, this bill would, if enacted, apply only to the States of Alaska and Hawaii.

The need for this legislation was first brought to my attention only a few days after I was elected to represent the State of Alaska in the 86th Congress. The Manager of the Veterans' Administration regional office at Juneau, Alaska, Mr. Ernest E. Lincoln, wrote me to the effect that he had been informed by the Chief Counsel of the Veterans' Administration, Lester E. Pope, that since the wording of section 501 (3) of Public Law 85-56 (38 U.S.C. 601 (4) (c)) limits the furnishing of hospitalization for veterans for non-service-connected conditions in private facilities to territories, Commonwealths, and possessions of the United States, the advent of Alaskan statehood meant that it would no longer be possible to furnish hospitalization in private facilities to Alaskan veterans having such non-service-connected conditions. Hence, it was necessary to introduce this legislation.

Section 601 (4) (c) of title 38, United States Code, is an exception to the general provision that hospital care for non-service-connected disorders can only be provided to the extent beds are available in VA or other Federal hospitals.. This exception, according to the Veterans' Administrator, in a report to this committee, is based upon "special considerations." Said considerations include the factors of great distances from the mainland, difficulty in transferring patients to other States, and the relatively small volume of patient demands in the territories and possessions. Without commenting as to whether these "special considerations" ceased to exist with the advent of statehood for the new States concerned-neither of which have any VA hospital facilities-the Administrator points out in his report to this committee that "* * * arrangements have been made in both (States) to care for war veterans with nonservice-connected disabilities in other Government hospitals. In Alaska we have beds allocated for VA beneficiaries in hospitals of the Department of Defense and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare." He then concludes his report by urging that the new States should assume a substantial share of the responsibility for hospitalizing veterans for non-service-connected conditions because our situation is no different than that of the other 48 States. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the Administrator is not correct in stating that the position of the new States of Alaska and Hawaii is similar to that of the other 48 States in our Union. As is stated in the body of S. 2201, Alaska and Hawaii neither have any VA hospital facilities within their borders nor within 500 miles from their borders. This situation is not true of any other State within the Union. In fact, research by the office of the Governor of Alaska reveals that in areas comparable in size to Alaska, there are an average of 34.4 such facilities. In spite of the fact that the population of Alaska is small in comparison to these other areas, it must be admitted that this statistic is impressive. I might point out also that air transportation, the fastest and most practical means of travel in Alaska, is available generally throughout Alaska only once in any 24-hour period. On the other hand, it takes a maximum of only 5 hours' travel time from any point in any of the other States to a Veterans' Administration facility.

Since the situation in Alaska and Hawaii is not similar to any of the other 48 States, it is next necessary to determine whether a substituted program has been provided by the Veterans' Administration so that the veteran in Alaska might be afforded the same opportunities for treatment as are provided for his brethren in the other States. The Administrator, as I have already pointed out, states that arrangements have been made to care for the veteran with a non-service-connected condition in hospitals of the Department of Defense and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Alaskan veterans have also been afforded the opportunity of securing treatment for their conditions on a space-available basis at Elmendorf Air Force Hospital, Anchorage; Ladd Field Hospital, Fairbanks; and Kodiak Naval Hospital. In a letter to me dated April 18, 1960, the Administrator states that there are approximately 21 patients per day being maintained by the VA in these service hospitals, and that 10 beds are available in facilities of the Alaska Native Service Hospital. With regard to the latter, the Administrator comments that only one-tenth the number of patients are using the native hospitals as used these facilities prior to statehood. From this he concludes that the arrangements provided by the VA are apparently adequate.

Again I must differ with the Administrator. In response to my request, the Manager of the VA's regional office at Juneau, Mr. Ernest E. Lincoln, sent me a letter under date of April 15, 1960, in which he says:

"Bed allocations at Elmendorf and Ladd Air Force Hospitals are adequate as they have been in the past. The additional allocation of beds at USPHS hospitals (Alaska Native Service) has not really solved any problem as evidenced by the fact that since the beginning of this new program only 484 bed-days have been used in USPHS hospitals as compared to 3,350 bed-days used in contract hospitals in a previous comparable period. Five hospitals are one- or two-doctor hospitals with limited facilities. Anchorage Hospital provides full service but is adjacent to Air Force Hospital, therefore of no advantage. Mount Edgecumbe Hospital has limited coverage in specialties most frequently used for veteran patients and transportation to this hospital involves several transfers by small aircraft and boat."

Inasmuch as it does not appear that the facilities provided by the Veterans' Administration are adequate to afford Alaskan and Hawaiian veterans the same treatment offered veterans living in other States-to wit, treatment for their non-service-connected ailments on a space-available basis-another solution must be urged upon this committee, namely, treatment in private facilities. If S. 2201 were to be enacted, the Veterans' Administrator would be authorized, for example, to contract with some 15 private hospitals in Alaska-distributed around the State for the care of the veterans in question. These hospitals have facilities that have in past years fitted admirably into the service veterans' medical care program. This is not special or preferential legislation for the States of Alaska and Hawaii. All it seeks to achieve is equality for the veteran of Alaska and Hawaii. This legislation is necessary for Alaska only because it does not have-and indeed is not at the present tim suited for any Veterans' Administration hospital facilities. Should the day arrive when this legislation would be no longer necessary, appropriate action could be taken to repeal the amendment sought by this bill.

In conclusion, I would like to point out that this legislation is supported by the Governor of Alaska, Hon. William A. Egan, the State legislature, and all of the veterans' groups in Alaska.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity of presenting this statement.

Hon. RALPH YARBOROUGH,

DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS,
NATIONAL SERVICE HEADQUARTERS,
Washington, D.C., April 29, 1960.

Chairman, Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR YARBOROUGH: This is in reference to the notice received that there will be an open hearing before your subcommittee on May 2, at which time testimony will be taken on S. 299, S. 2201, and S. 2235.

S. 299 is a private bill and in accordance with our policy the DAV expresses no opinion relative thereto.

S. 2201 would amend the definition of the term "Veterans' Administration facilities" and is of particular interest to the new States of Alaska and Hawaii. The DAV does not have a national convention resolution on this subject but discerns merit in the bill and supports enactment.

S. 2235 would provide benefits established by the Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1952 to persons who graduated from Air Force Reserve Officers' Training Corps training in 1954 and served on active duty for training in the Air National Guard before February 1, 1955. This provision was in the bill H.R. 9700 at one time but was deleted in the events leading up to the final draft that became Public Law 85-857, an act to consolidate into one act all of the laws administered by the Veterans' Administration. The Disabled American Veterans supports this proposal as reiterated in S. 2235.

This statement is submitted in lieu of a personal appearance with the request that it be included in the record.