Finally, the measure would repeal the current $10 statutory limitation on the fee which an attorney may receive in connection with a claim, a monetary claim for veterans' benefits.

Currently under section 211(a) of title 38, United States Code, the decision of the Administrator on any question of law or fact under any law administered by the Veterans' Administration is final and conclusive and no other official or any court of the United States has the power to review any such decision.

The Veterans' Administration is the only administrative agency that is explicitly protected in this way from judicial review. In effect, this statutory preclusion makes the Administrator the sole judge of his own

actions.

The question of whether, and to what extent, provisions should be made for judicial review of final Veterans' Administration decisions is by no means a new one. However, these are the first hearings ever held on judicial review by the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee and the first hearings on this subject since 1963.

Today I will listen very carefully to all of the testimony which will be presented. The issues that are raised by this bill are quite complex. I am approaching this hearing with an open mind. I am here to learn what the interested and concerned people of Florida, and particularly the veterans of Florida, have to say, so that I can better represent them in the deliberations of the committee and possibly the deliberations of the whole Senate on this bill, or variations of this bill.

My goals are clear. I want the Veterans' Administration, and indeed all Government agencies, to operate in a fair, compassionate and efficient manner. I want each veteran to receive the benefits to which he or she is rightfully entitled.

My colleagues on the Veterans' Affairs Committee and I agree that S. 364 raises important issues. Therefore, this hearing is the second of fo ur hearings scheduled on the matter. Last June, the committee held the first hearing in San Francisco, and next week the committee will hold a hearing in Columbia, S.C. A third hearing will be conducted on September 21 in Washington, D.C., and the full committee will meet once again to gather additional testimony on this measure. The first hearing was most valuable. Likewise, the testimony received today will be of great assistance to the committee in its deliberations.

I want to again thank all of those people whose efforts have contributed to today's hearings.

I hate to interrupt the hearing, but I am told I have a call from the White House. The hearing will stand in recess for 5 minutes. [Whereupon, a 5-minute recess was taken.]

Senator STONE. The hearing will reconvene. Please excuse the interruption. That was the only call I would interrupt this hearing for. I understand that the Coca-Cola Co. has provided refreshments outside the hearing room and I appreciate their thoughtfulness.

Because there are many witnesses here to testify today, I am going to have to ask all of you to be as brief as possible in your oral statements. Your entire written statements will be included as part of the hearing record and the staff and the members will consider those full statements. As you can see by the witness list, I am going to have to ask some of you to appear as part of a panel. Otherwise, we will never get through everybody's presentation. We do want to hear from absolutely everybody before this hearing is adjourned.

The rule of thumb in our Washington hearings is no longer than 10 minutes per individual witness, or even a panel where possible. Let's do the best we can to stay under that. If you can't, you can't. But let's do the best we can to stay within that 10 minute rule. Remember, we do get all of your written testimony and apart from what I hear, it is the written testimony we will be, and the staff will be analyzing for positions and the reasons for those positions.

We don't, however, want to cut you off entirely. I know some of you have worked all night on your statements; some of you have even driven all night. I appreciate personally the efforts you have put into coming here to let us know what you think.

Before calling the first witness, is Captain Haney still here? May I ask the vice president of the university, Captain Haney, to just say a few words of welcome to greet the people.

Captain HANEY. Thank you, Senator. Senator, staff members, we welcome you to our campus on behalf of President Robinson. To our veterans, we welcome you also here today. We hope you have a very enjoyable and profitable meeting here on our campus and for everyone, as you said, the Coca-Cola Co. has given us free cokes today, and we welcome you again to our campus. [Applause.]

Senator STONE. Thank you. Our first witness, and an old friend of mine, is Grover Robinson. He is accompanied by Mel Chambless, staff director of the Veterans' Affairs Committee of the Florida House of Representatives.

TESTIMONY OF GROVER C. ROBINSON III, REPRESENTATIVE, DISTRICT 1, FLORIDA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, ACCOMPANIED BY MELVIN CHAMBLESS, STAFF DIRECTOR, VETERANS' AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, FLORIDA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. ROBINSON. Let me begin, Senator Stone, by thanking you for arranging the Veterans' Administration hearing here in West Florida, where we have so many veterans and where we have such a rich military background.

Bill Lockward, the chairman of the veterans' affairs committee in the Florida House of Representatives has asked me to send his regards. He had hoped to appear here and testify on S. 364. He is unable to attend.

Since our Veterans' Affairs Committee has not had the opportunity to formally consider this bill, I cannot give you a considered opinion from the entire committee. I will, however, if the time permits-our next meeting is scheduled for October in Tallahassee. I will be glad to ask Representative Lockward to agenda this bill for formal discussion and resolution one way or the other before our committee. I have taken great care to qualify my input on S. 364 because I frankly question the necessity for such legislation to begin with. The veterans, the men and women who have altered their lives and career plans serving in this country's Armed Forces, are special people who deserve special assistance wherever feasible. As I read S. 364, the legal assistance guaranteed therein appears open-ended on the one hand and a duplication of the Veterans' Administration existing services on the other hand.

Of specific concern to me are the provisions in section 3, combined with the last four words of the intent language: "*** and for other purposes." I have not had the opportunity to discuss it with Representative Lockward and other members of the committee although. I have talked about it with staff and other people interested.

There appears nothing in this legislation to prevent the Federal Government from having to provide legal assistance to persons appealing discharges determined by the Veterans' Administration to be less than honorable. If this be the case, then I implore the members of your committee to at least amend the bill to specifically prohibit the taxpayers of this Nation and the other veterans who would otherwise be gaining the remuneration from the Veterans' Administration funds, from them having to pick up the legal tab for persons with less than honorable discharges having to appeal and going through the judicial appeal of these discharges before the court.

I think on a broader plane, this bill, which appears so well intended on the surface, also rises a deeper philosophical issue. In an age when benefits and privileges are increasingly looked upon as rights and then as absolute entitlements, to what financial extremes do the sponsors. of this legislation intend to commit our resources? At a time when our court agendas are already overcrowded with all manner of cases and judicial reviews, why are you adding still another layer of review at taxpayer expense?

Is this judicial review at taxpayer expense a statement that the present VA procedure is failing? If so, is this judicial review the first step in dismantling the Veterans' Administration? I am not trying to raise a red herring at this point. I think it is a legitimate question to ask as to who is going to be handling the function of veterans. If it is not, how can you justify the expense. I realize when I say "you," I mean the Senate. I don't know what your position is on the legislation. Senator STONE. I have not sponsored the bill. I am neutral. That is why I am here conducting the hearing.

Mr. ROBINSON. I have not had a chance to check your office on it. If it is not the case to supplant or to supplement the VA's existing programs, then I wonder how the Senate, the sponsors of the legislation, can justify the expense of duplicating the work of the VA when so many other worthwhile veterans' programs do call out for support and additional money now. And when the taxpayers, who are footing the bill for all of the veterans' programs and every other program of the Congress, cry out for restraint in Federal spending.

In summary, Senator, my review of S. 364, as your office has forwarded it to me, raises questions which lead me at this point to conclude that the bill is probably at best an unnecessary layer of added expense and at worst a distortion of the initial intent to aid those men and women who served in this country's Armed Forces and received honorable discharges.

I have, at the request of your committee, prepared copies of my presentation here for your staff. We normally don't have the oppor tunity, and I don't think you do either, Senator, to speak from prepared notes. It probably helps us not to overlook things we would normally overlook.

As I say, the committee itself has not reviewed the bill. I have just received the bill from your office about 10 days ago. I discussed it with people very much interested in veterans' affairs.

Melvin Chambless, who is the staff director of the Veterans' Affairs Committee of the House, is here. I have not had a chance to confer with Mr. Chambless on this; he may want to speak for Mr. Lockward, I don't know.

Senator STONE. Thank you, Grover, very much.

Mr. CHAMBLESS. I did talk to Mr. Lockward. The sentiments of Mr. Lockward are explained in the statement I made. These are his thoughts almost entirely. He is against any type of amendment of this nature because he feels it could be used for the people who do seek administrative or judicial review through the courts for obtaining discharges and things of this nature. He also feels the veterans' organizations of the United States have served the veterans well and the veterans are best served by the veterans' organizations.

It has been proven time and again on the regional level and in Florida that the hearings before the Veterans' Administration are sufficient. These are additions to Mr. Robinson's statement, but otherwise we can compare pretty closely.

Senator STONE. Thank you very much. First of all, I am informed the bill does strike the $10 limitation on attorney's fees but does not provide attorneys' fees paid for by the VA or the taxpayers.

Is it your feeling that it might lead to that; is that what you are saying? This bill does not provide public financing of these attorneys fees. Is what you are saying that you think it might happen anyway? Mr. ROBINSON. Senator Stone, from my reading of the bill, provisions of free attorneys appears to be about five paragraphs, the next step I would assume. It is a little bit of an unfair representation to a veteran or to somebody seeking an appeal to say we are going to have judicial review, we are going to provide judicial review.

The implication, I think, and it would be a misrepresentation to the veteran if we did not follow up, or if Congress did not follow up, in providing the tab. I was making that assumption from the bill. Senator STONE. In your testimony you indicate most of the evidence allowed by the VA to substantiate a benefit plan would not be allowed in a court of law. If that is the case, would it not be true also that the VA might be allowing evidence that is irrelevant or not competent? This is directed to Mr. Chambless. Allowing evidence which might be detrimental to the veteran's claim of benefits? Do you find any of that in your work?

Mr. CHAMBLESS. Mainly that statement, the type of information that is allowed in this report would be in the form of hearsay.

Senator STONE. You think since hearsay is used in the VA proceedings and it would not be available in judicial review, this procedure would be detrimental. My question is is it detrimental at this point without the bill, just at the VA level, or not?

Mr. CHAMBLESS. I don't think it is detrimental to the VA. There is a lot of times when you are in a situation in combat or whatever that you observe things and get it back to the Veterans' Administration by someone who told you, who later lost his life, or whatever it is, a hearsay type of evidence would not be admitted into a court of law.

Senator STONE. I want to pursue this one step further. You said it would not be detrimental to the VA. My question is not whether it is detrimental or not to the VA is there any indication in your work that accepting hearsay or other evidence that would not be judicially competent, legally competent, in a court of law, is detrimental to the veteran in terms of the veteran's benefit claim or not?

Have you had any complaints about that?

Mr. CHAMBLESS. No, sir, we have not.

But could I add one thing to the question you asked Representative Robinson? As I read it, the last part of the bill in the enactment clause provides for reasonable attorney's fees. That is why Mr. Lockward presented the fact that it might be, this type of fee; tax moneys could be used for this type of appeal.

Senator STONE. Two questions on another subject, Mr. Chambless. You are aware the Florida Board of Regents sued in Federal court regarding the efforts of the VA under section 1785, title 38, to recover overpayments in veterans' education payments.

We have heard testimony that this problem is not just peculiar to Florida. Are you concerned that the VA is not affording the board of regents procedural safeguards to collect overpayments? Of course, we know every dollar collected from the board of regents is from State tax revenues. I want to know what your feeling is on that.

Mr. CHAMBLESS. We had a bill last session, sir, we passed and was enacted into law and we were highly concerned about the fact that the colleges and universities of the State of Florida were not following proper guidelines as put out by the Veterans' Administration to insure the maximum return on our dollar.

We found in the testimony given to the Veterans' Affairs Committee, that there were a lot of abuses and we tried to speak to this by not allowing additional deferments to the various veterans that were going to the colleges and universities of the State of Florida.

Yes, sir, we are very concerned that the board of regents is not following the guidelines they should in order to minimize the loss we have seen in the past from misuse of Veterans' Administration funds.

Senator STONE. This question is a policy question. I will direct it to Representative Robinson. Assuming the VA does determine the State of Florida does owe money in substantial amounts of overpayments, do you believe the State of Florida should have the right and should have the statutory authority to contest that kind of determination in a Federal court?

Mr. ROBINSON. Senator, I think at this point that issue is probably water over the dam. I would say at this point there have been mistakes made in the State of Florida and it is not interested in going to court with the VA. We could spend a lot of money, as you point out, court not really benefiting the veterans.

in

I think the legislation passed by the Florida Legislature this year will correct the problem. The new law was a compromise version. There were elements who wanted to wipe out deferred tuition for veterans entirely. There was another element who wanted to continue the way it was even with the abuses we had.

I think the bill we passed in the 1977 Florida legislative session is a good compromise. I don't have any interest policy-wise in going to court over past problems. There are a lot of dollars involved in competing with the VA in the Federal courts.