12

1 scribe, including, but not limited to, conducting hearings, 2 receiving evidence, taking depositions, qualifying witnesses, 3 and making such reports as the court may prescribe.

4

11

"(b) The compensation of each full-time commissioner 5 shall be fixed by the court, but shall not exceed the maximum 6 rate prescribed in the compensation schedule for the General 7 Schedule of the Classification Act of 1949. Each commis8 sioner shall receive all necessary traveling expenses and a 9 per diem allowance as provided in sections 835-842 of title 5 10 while traveling on official business and away from his bome. "(c) No person may be appointed as a commissioner 12 unless he is a member of the bar of a Federal court or of the 13 highest court of a State, and has engaged in the active 14 practice of law for five or more years. No person may be 15 appointed as a commissioner who within the two-year period 16 preceding his appointment has been a civilian officer or em'17 ployee of the United States serving in the Veterans' Admin18 istration, the Department of Defense, the Bureau of the 19 Budget, or the General Accounting Office.

21

20 "84063. Stenographers; clerical employees; bailiff 10 "(a) The court shall appoint stenographers and other 22 clerical employees in such numbers as may be necessary, each

23 of whom shall be subject to removal by the court.

24

"(b) The court may appoint a bailiff and a messenger

25 who shall be subject to removal by the court. The bailiff

13.

1 shall attend the court, preserve order, and perform such other

2 necessary duties as the court directs.

3 "§ 4064. Fees; charge for court's opinions

4

"(a) The court may by rule impose a fee not exceeding

5 $10 for the filing of any appeal.

6

"(b) The clerk of the court may collect for each certified

7 copy of the court's opinion a fee in such amount as the court 8 may determine.”

9

SEC. 2. (a) The title and table of chapters of part V

10 of title 38, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: 11 "PART V-BOARDS, COURT OF VETERANS'

4101

4201"

13

"73. Department of Medicine and Surgery

"75. Veterans' Canteen Service.....

(b) The table of parts and chapters at the beginning of

14 title 38, United States Code, is amended as follows:

15

16

(1) By striking out

"V. BOARDS AND Departments.......

and inserting in lieu thereof

4001"

"V. Boards, COURT OF VETERANS' Appeals, and DepARTMENTS---- 4001";

14

1 "PART V-BOARDS, COURT OF VETERANS'

6 SEC. 3. (a) Section 3405 of title 38, United States

7 Code, is amended by inserting ", 4055," immediately after 8 "3404".

9 (b) Subsection (a) of section 4004 of title 38, United 10 States Code, is amended by striking out "Final" and insert11 ing in lieu thereof "Except as provided in chapter 72 of this 12 title, final".

13

(c) Subsection (c) of such section 4004 is amended 14 (1) by striking out "Administrator, and" and inserting in 15 lieu thereof "Administrator,", and (2) by inserting imme16 diately before the period at the end thereof the following: 17", and the precedent opinions of the Court of Veterans' 18 Appeals".

Chairman CRANSTON. Our next witness is William Lawson, chairman of the board of directors, American Association of Minority Veterans Program Administrators.

We welcome you back.

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM LAWSON, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF MINORITY VETERANS PROGRAM ADMINISTRATORS, ACCOMPANIED BY NATHANIEL TOLBERT, MEMBER OF THE AAMVPA BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Mr. LAWSON. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, I am William E. Lawson, chairman of the board of directors of the American Association of Minority Veterans Program Administrators, director of Veterans' Affairs for two national educational associations, American Association of Community and Junior Colleges, and the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, and a Vietnam veteran. I am accompanied this morning by Mr. Nathaniel Tolbert, a member of the AAMVPA Board of Directors, who in addition serves as Director of Veterans Affairs for Middlesex County College in Edison, New Jersey. I would like to thank this committee and its staff for continuing to afford AAMVPA the opportunity to appear before you.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we are aware of the time limitations that have been necessary in order that the committee might give each and every witness their fair share of time. Therefore, with your permission, my colleague and I will make very brief statements and submit a more detailed statement for the record at a later date.

Mr. Tolbert and I have just returned from our annual convention held this year in Berkeley, California where the judicial review controversy was of great concern. From the outset, Mr. Chairman, let me say that the AAMVPA fully supports Senate bill 364, the Veterans' Administration Administrative Procedures and Judicial Review Act of 1977, introduced by Senator Gary Hart.

Laws that are still on the books that prohibit due process are not new to the minority people of this country. Though we have no concrete data at this time, we have reason to believe that in certain parts of this country minority veterans may not have been given a fair shake regarding various opportunities available to them by law. We are at present beginning a study to determine whether or not in fact these possible injustices indeed did or did not occur. Findings of this study will be made available to this committee.

As you are aware, Mr. Chairman, the only recourse a veteran has to question or challenge a determination made by the VA is the Board of Veterans' Appeals, which, for the most part, is made up of VA employees. I ask the members of this committee: Is it appropriate that a Federal agency whose primary purpose is to deliver services as mandated by Congress, be allowed to promulgate regulations based on the laws governing veterans' affairs, administer such laws and regutions, and finally assess the fairness of these laws and regulations when certain determinations are questioned?

Equally shared additional concerns are the $10 attorney fee restriction and the VA, not having to adhere to the notice and comment

provision of the Federal Administrative Procedures Act (title 5 USC, sections 551-557).

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this concludes my comments. I believe my colleague has a few words to say.

Thank you for your time and patience.

Mr. TOLBERT. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my concern is as legal counsel to this program and is commensurate as a veteran of the Vietnam era and, excuse me, sir.

I am interested in the entitlement to educational benefits. Educational benefits have not been spoken of extensively, as many service organizations consider them of little importance in proportion to the number of veterans receiving pensions and disability, but I am concerned because Vietnam-era veterans are using veterans' educational entitlements to integrate themselves back into our society, after being away for a long period of time on this country's account.

A number have had extensive drug problems and are now trying to educate and retrain themselves to become a part of our mainstream. In most regions, less than 10 percent of the Vietnam-era veterans who have received undesirable discharges are given the opportunity to receive educational benefits.

Some regions grant benefits as high as in 45 percent of the cases that appear before them and others give 5 percent and less.

One of the things I think could happen if judicial review became a part of the law would be that we would have a more equitable distribution of cases and probably a fairer determination of who would receive benefits.

Currently, I think that the fact that there is no judicial review prevents a large number of veterans from even applying to have a determination made of their entitlement with an undesirable discharge-feeling that they will get no satisfaction or not a fair determination from the VA.

Also, I particularly am concerned about the amount of notice that the VA has in the past given; particularly I am concerned with the fact that appendixes H, N, and O have had on educational institutions.

We had no advance notice of consideration, no opinions were solicited by the VA until August of this year, although the appendixes have been in effect for over 6 months.

We think that if educational institutions, veterans' cost of education and Vietnam veterans' organizations had been able to comment on the regulations, we could have prevented a number of veterans from being precluded from using educational benefits.

These appendixes have worked a great hardship on some veterans. I am talking about the veterans who were notified after their semesters began after the spring semester started and who were enrolled in courses which were considered by the VA as outside the curriculum. Currently, there are in some cases as many as 12 to 1,500 who have not been able to register for school in many instances, because they would not have any educational benefits on which to subsist. Thank you.

Chairman CRANSTON. Thank you both very much.

We look forward to the results of your study. Please communicate them to us when you have that.

You, I believe were both present when the VA testified this morning.

93-774 - 78 - 43