Page images
PDF
EPUB

no provision in the President's budget for any increase in pension benefits for this year.

Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. If there are no further questions on pensions, the committee will adjourn until 1:30, and, Mr. Kornegay, I hope you have your Judicial Review Subcommittee here, and we will start with judicial review at 1:30.

Mr. KORNEGAY. I will make every effort, Mr. Chairman.

(Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the committee recessed until 1:30 p.m., the same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. The committee will come to order.

STATEMENT OF J. S. GLEASON, JR., ADMINISTRATOR OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS; ACCOMPANIED BY W. J. DRIVER, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR; A. H. MONK, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR; J. W. STANCIL, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS; ROBERT C. FABLE, JR., GENERAL COUNSEL; CYRIL F. BRICKFIELD, CHIEF BENEFITS DIRECTOR; A. W. FARMER, DIRECTOR, COMPENSATION AND PENSION SERVICE; AND DR. H. M. ENGLE, ACTING CHIEF MEDICAL DIRECTOR

Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. We hope that everybody had a good lunch and feels better.

Mr. GLEASON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. You may continue, Mr. Gleason, with judicial review.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt and ask the chairman's permission to ask the Administrator a couple more questions relating to pensions that occurred to me since we adjourned at 12 o'clock.

Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. Yes, sir.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Mr. Administrator, how much money is in your budget this year for nonservice connected pensions?

Mr. GLEASON. Approximately $1,800 million, Congressman.

Mr. KORNEGAY. And now, what amount of this will go to World War I veterans?

Mr. GLEASON. For living veterans it will be $1,022 million, and, including their dependents, widows, and orphans, an additional $315 million, for a total of close to $1,340 million.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Now, I do not know whether you have it here or not, but do you have the percentage, that is the relationship of the amount going to World War I veterans or their widows and children, as opposed to the total amount going to all?

Mr. GLEASON. Well, that will be pretty close to 77 percent, Con

gressman.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Between 75 and 80 percent?

Mr. GLEASON. Yes, sir.

Mr. KORNEGAY. All right, sir. Thank you very much.

Mr. GLEASON. Any other questions, sir?

Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. That is all.

Mr. GLEASON. Do you wish to proceed with judicial review?

. TEAGUE of Texas. Yes.

. GLEASON. Your committee went so extensively into the quesof judicial review just last year, in hearings before a special mmittee chaired by Mr. Kornegay, that you are thoroughly iar with my views on legislation of this type.

ry briefly, I cannot see how legislation which would subject the and regulations of the Veterans' Administration, as well as the ions in individual cases, to a review by an independent agencyher a U.S. district court, the Court of Claims, a Court of VeterAppeals, or an independent Board of Veterans Appeals-would vantageous to veterans.

a matter of principle, I feel that the Veterans' Administration Id never be placed in an adversary position-much less become an sing litigant-with respect to the claimant. And this would be practical result of any provision for an independent review of our ions. I believe there is a real danger that, no matter how carewe would guard against it, this philosophy would filter down ugh our adjudication processes to the disadvantage of the veteran

nant.

here are other disadvantages to the veteran from this type of inndent review. For example, since one purpose of a judicial reI would be to make a final disposition of the points at issue, the ing liberal rules of the Veterans' Administration and the Board of erans Appeals with respect to reopening and reconsidering claims ld, as a practical matter, be impaired.

want to assure the committee that there is no factor of personal e influencing my view. I would drop my opposition to judicial ew in an instant if I could be convinced there were overriding adtages to the veterans in having an independent appeal. I just ot believe such advantages exist.

he Board of Veterans Appeals, as presently constituted, gives a ough and impartial review of all veterans' cases. By and large Board operates completely independently of the Veterans' Admination. Its independence is reinforced by the fact that while Board nbers are formally appointed by the Administrator, the necessity Presidential approval has the consequence of making them Presitial appointees and free from internal dominance.

'he chairman's letter of February 20 asked that I particularly cuss the position of the Veterans' Administration on H.R. 3531. s bill would establish a Court of Veterans Appeals to decide stions involved in decisions of the Board of Veterans Appeals ting to claims for death or disability compensation, or dependency I indemnity compensation which bear directly on the question of ether or not a disability or death is service connected, or a widow, ld or parent is entitled to benefits (that is, to death compensation dependency and indemnity compensation). In other words, the isdiction of the court would be, principally, to determine service nection and relationship although there apparently would be other estions which it could consider in death benefits cases as, for mple, dependency and income of a parent.

H.R. 3531 shows that it has been carefully drafted to avoid many the technical and administrative problems which have been pointed t in prior hearings on judicial review with respect to bills to estaba a Court of Veterans Appeals. Further, by restricting the juris

diction of the court largely to questions which are capable of final resolution, as opposed, for example, to questions of degrees of disablement which can and do change drastically from time to time, some of the more obvious problems in affording a degree of finality to the court's decision have been avoided. Whether there would be general acceptance of the concept of limited jurisdiction is problematical. But, in any event, while for the reasons I have indicated H.R. 3531 is an improvement over earlier bills to establish a Court of Veterans Appeals, I still cannot recommend its favorable consideration. For those areas which would be subject to the court's jurisdiction, rigid precedents would be created which the Veterans' Administration would inevitably be forced to follow. We would also still have uncertainties as to whether the court might overturn our regulations and instructions affecting thousands of cases and this uncertainty would continue until the question had been passed on by the court.

To summarize, I believe that the veteran now receives fair and impartial consideration before the Board of Veterans Appeals, and that further progress lies in the direction taken by the Committee on Veterans' Affairs in the 87th Congress of improving the adjudicative and appellate procedures in the Veterans' Administration. I am, of course, thinking of the three bills initiated by your committee and enacted into law during the last Congress which have already improved the quality of the Veterans' Administration appeals operation and will do more in the future-as procedures under these laws are refined. These are:

1. Public Law 87-97 which requires that Board of Veterans Appeals decisions set forth separately stated specific findings of fact and conclusions of law in all decisions.

2. Public Law 87-666, which requires that claimants wishing to appeal an adjudication action be furnished with a statement of the

case.

3. Public Law 87-671, which permits the Board of Veterans Appeals to secure expert medical opinion outside the Veterans' Administration on complex or controversial medical problems.

The last two of these laws became effective January 1 of this year, about 3 months ago.

I share your belief that they would definitely increase the measure of due process in the disposition of veterans' claims, and I can assure you that you will have our full cooperation in their implementation.

Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. What was the position of the Veterans' Administration on these three laws before they were passed?

Mr. GLEASON. As I recall, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to check this, but I believe we were favorable on all three of them. That is correct.

Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. The committee had a favorable report on all three of them?

Mr. GLEASON. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, when you asked about their being passed, and this is before the three acts became law, I believe we took a reluctant position in the House but in the Senate we did favorably recommend them.

Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. That was my remembrance, and I wondered if we passed judicial review if next year you will come up and tell us that you thought that it was a good idea.

r. GLEASON. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think under any circumce, if there were a board or a court of judicial review I am certain there would always be some cases that would be allowed that e not been to this date.

his, I believe, is why we have a circuit court of appeals and why have a Supreme Court.

here is always that possibility. However, Mr. Chairman, I think estly this would be to the detriment of the best interests of not the veteran and the Veterans' Administration, but to this comsee, which I am now appearing before, because I honestly believe if a court of judicial review were appointed that they would not able to come within the jurisdiction of this committee, which I k they should.

Ir. TEAGUE of Texas. Mr. Kornegay?

Ir. KORNEGAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ir. Gleason, I want to thank you for a couple of statements here
connection with judicial review, and I specifically speak to the
nd paragraph on page 2 of the section relating to judicial review
ere you say that H.R. 3531 shows that it has been carefully drafted
avoid many of the technical and administrative problems which
e been pointed out in prior hearings on judicial review.
n another sentence, you say that:

or the reasons I have indicated, H.R. 3531 is an improvement over earlier
s to establish a court of veterans appeals. I still cannot recommend its
orable consideration.

Of course, you know that considerable work was done on this tter in the 86th Congress and the 87th Congress.

Do you think if we continue to work on it and work on it hard that neday we will come up with a proposal that you could and would ommend?

Mr. GLEASON. Well, Congressman, I really do not believe so because goes against the fundamental philosophy which I think this comEtee and the Veterans' Administration have been trying to operate der ever since the Veterans' Administration and its predecessor encies were formed.

Mr. KORNEGAY. In other words, you, as a matter of philosophy, uld just be opposed to providing any type of court.

Mr. GLEASON. Yes, sir; because I do not think the Veterans' ministration or this committee should place itself in a position of ng opposed to a veteran, and this would certainly be the case. fore the board or the court of judicial review.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Well, let me ask you several questions, Mr. Adminrator, concerning judicial review.

Now, in view of the experience which this committee has had with
e Board of Veterans' Appeals and with your agency in general, in
e adjudication of veterans' claims, I was somewhat surprised to
ad in your statement and to hear you say that you think all is per-
et, or certainly near so, in the handling of decisions involving com-
nsation and pensions.

You refer with approval to Public Laws 87-97, 87-666, and 87-671.
Now, all these measures originated in this committee and originally
et with considerably less than enthusiastic response from the agency.
Mr. GLEASON. That is correct.

[ocr errors]

the Board of Veterans' Appeals include specific findings of fact and conclusions of law separately stated.

In reporting on this measure, as introduced, you said:

There is certainly no objection to the substance of this bill.

It appears to us that the administrative steps already undertaken will achieve the desired results without the potential rigidity which might be created by enacting these requirements into law.

The chairman indicated, in a letter dated January 17, 1963, the chairman of the Board of Veterans' Appeals, that he had

to

come to the conclusion that members of the Board do not seem to understand the purpose of findings of fact and conclusions of law.

He further stated that, in his opinion:

All opinions of the Board should contain all material facts established by the evidence.

This letter was occasioned by decision of the Board dated last November, given to a Member of Congress who is not a member of this committee.

The following were the findings of fact:

There is no showing of obvious error in the Board's prior determinations.

The evidence received since the prior determination the Board relates to the same facts on which proof was previously adduced and considered relevant to service connection for diabetes mellitus.

Would you comment on this finding of fact, and do you consider that it meets the requirements of Public Law 87-97?

Mr. GLEASON. Congressman, we are still struggling with this, but I would like to go back and say that my initial reluctance to voice approval of this particular law was based on the fact I did not think that administratively we should use undue pressure upon the Board of Veterans' Appeals.

I was fairly new at this position at that time.

Since then I believe that, through administrative channels, it is necessary to try to oversee some of the situations to exercise administrative jurisdiction.

And so I think now that what has to be done can be done by this committee in enacting legislation such as the three laws that you did last year.

Mr. KORNEGAY. This case that I refer to came down subsequent to the enactment of those laws.

Mr. GLEASON. Well, we do have some bad ones now and then. The chairman of the Board of Veterans' Appeals would like to reply specifically to that.

Mr. STANCIL. I remember the letter to which you refer, and I remember the reply to the letter, which conceded that the particular decision you refer to leaves much to be desired in carrying out Public Law 87-97.

This was something of a problem with as many cases as we have and with as many people as we have.

With the absence of specific guidelines in the textbooks and the court decisions, as to just exactly what is a finding of fact and conclusion of law, this is somewhat of a problem.

We evolved some rules which we have published for the guidance of all of our professional personnel, and the reply to the letter that you speak of stated essentially two things:

« PreviousContinue »