for the best interests of veterans. Perhaps judgment changes from time to time, but currently the officers and delegates are conscientious and sincere in the belief that their action is correct and in the best interests of veterans.

The convention committee, in the last 2 years, and the convention itself, by their voting, expressed the viewpoint that we want basic justice for veterans and their dependents.

We believe, basically, we have it now through the BVA, but we believe it can be improved within the present structure. We want to see what can be done in this respect.

Of course, I do not know what action the delegates will take next year or the year after. I do not know what their attitude toward the Administrator's responses to our recommendations will be.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Well, if I could sum this up, what I think you have said here this morning, along with Mr. Stover, is this: The VFW is not completely happy with all the decisions it has been getting out of the Board of Veterans Appeals. They have suggested to the Administrator that some changes be made to improve this situation.

Now, if I heard your testimony and followed is correctly, I also gather that you have already had some indication from the Veterans' Administration that certain of those changes are not going to be made.

Mr. JONES. The only major one in which they have indicated a flat rejection to date is the appointment of properly qualified lay persons as associate members, and, at a personal conference with the Deputy Administrator, he assured me that this recommendation will receive further consideration. The others have either been accepted or are still under consideration. The matter of making the associate members originally responsible for the determinations is now under pilot study.

I cannot tell you this morning that the VA will agree to implement this plan permanently. We are not saying that the consultants who serve as associate members are less qualified or more qualified. We are simply saying that, if the associate members are responsible, let's have them make the decision first, and not have it presented to them on a silver platter.

Mr. QUIGLEY. I am in this position: I think there is a problem here, and you think there is a problem here, and my colleague thinks that there is a problem here.

He, as others, has suggested a specific remedy, the creation of a court of appeals. You have said "No" to that remedy. I am not so sure his remedy is going to give us the answer (but I feel much more confident that your approach to the problem is not going to give us the answer.

In other words, is seems to me that if you were in private practice as a lawyer, and here I am turning all the VA cases over to you, and if you only won 10 or 15 percent of your cases, you would not remain. very active in your profession very long.

Now, either you are taking the wrong cases or you are not handling them properly or you have a bum court.

Now, I do not see how you can answer that question except by conceding that the courts could and should be improved.

Mr. JONES. Let me answer it this way, partially: That cases that go to the Court of Veterans Appeals are cases that have received full

consideration by other VA divisions, and their decisions should have been correct.

Mr. SAYLOR. Can't you forget you have representatives in all the field offices? I do not know whether it is possible to get this figure or not, but can the VFW furnish us with the number of cases they represent down in the field, and find out how successful they are down there, because from my information you are not any more successful down there than you are up above, percentage wise.

Mr. JONES. Yes; certainly, much more so.

Mr. STOVER. The point to make is that on these appeals there is no selectivity. As I understand, a veteran may have a right to appeal even though it may be the most hopeless case in the world. The VFW is appointed as a representative and we go to bat for him on the case. Mr. QUIGLEY. Even conceding, like any lawyer, you handle a certain number of "dogs" because you cannot get out of them, and that this makes your batting average look bad, but let's face it, you must have your heart and soul and your firm belief in an awful lot of these cases that you do not win.

I mean I cannot believe that the VFW, with the staff it has and the people who are interested in this thing, are only putting their heart and soul in 10 or 15 percent of the cases. You must be losing an awful lot of cases that are heartbreakers, and it seems to me it is completely unnatural, as a lawyer-if I lose a case that I believe in, I want to go higher. If I have to go all the way, I will go all the way. Sometimes, economically, it does not make sense. If a client cannot afford it and the lawyer cannot afford it, but you just think there is a basic injustice in the thing, and you are going to fight it.

Mr. JONES. We go back for reconsideration on those with a good deal of success. I believe our service officers do such a good job that we do not lose many good cases. While we have a good staff, we are not perfect in representing the claimants.

We would not want to presume we are absolutely sure that our approach is the final answer to the problem, but, regardless of whether it is or not, or whether our organization concludes it is or not, I think our efforts with respect to the operations of the Board of Appeals will result in measurable improvement.

Mr. QUIGLEY. I think you are doing that as a good public service to your members, generally, and to the country, but I am not optimistic that this approach and this approach alone is going to give us the answer. I am not convinced that the court is going to give us the answer completely, but I am of the opinion that the mere existence of the court, the mere fact that when a Board member writes a decision he knows he has somebody looking over his shoulder who is not the Chairman of the Board or the Veterans' Administration, but a completely, totally independent agency, to wit, a court, and this is going to make a difference in his decision, and it is going to make a difference in his writing.

Mr. JONES. You may be correct in your statement, but it is a matter of conjecture. We have people who think that local rating boards turn down a case which is marginal because the claimant can and should appeal, if he thinks his case has considerable merit.

If a special court is established, or other judicial review permitted, it is possible that some Board of Veteran Appeals members might

adopt somewhat the same attitude, contrary to your views of what might happen. That is the thinking of some of our people.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Well, I would be inclined to take exception to it because I know of no lower court, and I know of no administrative agency in the State or Federal Government that enjoys being overruled. They try to anticipate what the appellate court is going to say, and they take a certain pride-and understandingly so-in not being overruled. I know judges who campaign for reelection on the fact that in 10 or 20 years on the bench the supreme court of their State has never overruled one of their decisions.

I do not know whether they are good questions or whether it means just this was always done in their court, but you have to give the guy credit for knowing the laws and knowing the courts' interpretation of the law, and deciding it accordingly.

Mr. SAYLOR. I would like to just mention the fact that on the bottom of page 2 the establishment of a court, as proposed, will not do anything to the Veterans' Administration. You say that you continue your insistence that the Veterans' Administration be kept intact. Nobody has come up with the proposition that we are going to get rid of the Veterans' Administration, or get rid of the Board of Appeals, but we say that we feel there is not justice being done in every case, so in those cases where justice is not done, with the present methods, there is one step more.

Maybe the time will come that we have to go more than one step. If it does, let's look at it then. Congress is a continuing body, and we are going to have the veterans' problems with us as long as we have a country, and we are going to look at them time and time again. We are not going to do anything to ruin the Veterans' Administration, but to do things to make sure that your organization. as a representative of veterans, can do a better job by seeing to it that all segments of our country and all segments of our Government are open to you as an organization, to represent the veteran who has a justifiable cause. Mr. QUIGLEY. We are running out of time. I have only one question-and you may not be able to answer it.

The study that was made by the VFW, by the commanders committee, in 1958, are those recommendations available to this committee? Mr. JONES. Yes, I have them with me, with the VA responses.

If you consider it proper, I shall be glad to leave a copy for the record. It will be 22 mimeographed pages.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Well, I think that this is necessary background for me as a member of the committee, to know the thinking of what the committee recommended, why it recommended it, and what the VA's reaction was.

Mr. JONES. Perhaps I should not leave this for the record now, but submit a copy of our recommendations with the reasoning for them, which I do not have with me.

Mr. SAYLOR. That is what I had marked here on page 3 of your statement. In other words, both the recommendations and the reasons for it, and then the letter from the administrator to the VFW on August 14, 1959, so as to look at the thing as complete.

Mr. STOVER. We will be glad to furnish that information.

(The material referred to follows:)

VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED STATES,
NATIONAL REHABILITATION SERVICE,
Washington, D.C., April 7, 1960.

Hon. OLIN E. TEAGUE, M.C.,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. TEAGUE: During hearings on proposals to authorize judicial review of decisions of the Board of Veterans Appeals, Wednesday, April 6, 1960, a member of the subcommittee conducting the hearings requested that I furnish for the record all recommendations for improvement of the Board of Veterans Appeals submitted by the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, and the Administrator's responses thereto.

Enclosed are the following documents which should be inserted in the record in the order in which listed below, and as indicated by numbers on the first page of each document for proper chronology:

1. Letter dated January 6, 1959, addressed to the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs by V.F.W. director, Omar B. Ketchum.

2. Copy of letter from the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs dated August 14, 1959, responding to the recommendations.

3. Copy of letter addressed to the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs under date of March 8, 1960, requesting further consideration of certain recommendations.

4. Copy of letter from the Chairman, Board of Veterans Appeals, dated March 25, 1960, indicating further action with respect to certain recommendations.

I was also requested to furnish information concerning the number of claims represented by the V.F.W. allowed and denied by the Veterans' Administration by rating agencies below the Board of Veterans Appeals. I shall furnish this additional statistical information at an early date.

Sincerely,

NORMAN D. JONES, Director.

VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED STATES,
NATIONAL REHABILITATION SERVICE,
Washington, D.C., January 6, 1959.

Hon. SUMNER G. WHITTIER,
Administrator of Veterans Affairs,
Veterans' Administration, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. WHITTIER: In view of the probability that the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs will conduct hearings on the subject and for other reasons, the delegates to the 59th National Convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, convened in New York City, August 17-22, 1958, deemed it proper to consider the necessity and advisability of a special court to review certain negative decisions of the Veterans' Administration Board of Veterans Appeals. The convention adopted resolution 280 which generally opposes the establishment of a separate court but which expresses the viewpoint of the delegates that there are certain inadequacies now existing in the appellate structure of the Veterans' Administration.

In adopting resolution 280 the convention delegates recommended to the commander in chief that a special committee be appointed to evaluate the present operation of the Board of Veterans Appeals, delineate any inadequacies from whatever cause, and recommend corrective policy, procedural, and organizational changes, within the VA. The commander in chief appointed the following members of the national welfare and service committee to act as the special committee for this purpose:

Past Commander in Chief Merton B. Tice, chairman;

Commander in Chief John W. Mahan;

Past Commander in Chief Timothy J. Murphy;

Past Commander in Chief Cooper T. Holt;

Past Commander in Chief Richard L. Roudebush.

The special committee has met twice and has thoroughly considered information, opinions, and recommendations of staff personnel, and has unanimously approved the attached report which outlines inadequacies in the present operation and suggests remedial recommendations.

The committee believes you will determine many items in the attached report to be worthy of careful consideration by yourself, the Chairman of the Board of Veterans Appeals, and other members of your staff. The committee is also confident that you will not hesitate to direct any changes which your evaluation indicates are necessary or desirable.

The committee has recommended to the V.F.W. commander in chief that if the V.F.W. testifies before any committee of Congress on the subject of a special court to review Board of Veterans Appeals actions, the V.F.W. especially advise the Congress that it does not at this time recommend the establishment of a special court but prefers substantial improvements within the existing VA appellate organization. Further, that the V.F.W. will be disappointed, and may subsequently reverse its policy and favor the establishment of such a special court if, after an appropriate period of time, substantial improvements in the present appeals policies, procedures, and decisions, are not evident. The commander in chief, the members of the committee, and the staff of the national rehabilitation service recognize and desire to convey to you appreciation for the sincere interest of yourself as Administrator of Veterans Affairs, and Mr. James W. Stancil, Chairman of the Board of Veterans Appeals, in assuring just decisions by the Board of Veterans Appeals.

The National Welfare and Service Committee plans to meet in the New York Room of the Statler Hotel, Washington, D.C., Tuesday afternoon, February 3, 1959. You, Mr. Stancil, and any other members of your staff you may desire to have accompany you, are invited to meet with the committee at 3 p.m. on that date to discuss in general terms the present operation of the Board of Veterans Appeals and any other subjects or problems of mutual interest which you may wish to discuss with the committee. You are assured of the most courteous reception and I hope you will be able to arrange your busy schedule to permit you to meet with the committee.

Sincerely,

OMAR B. KETCHUM, Director.

VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED STATES-APPARENT INADEQUACIES OF THE VA BOARD OF VETERANS APPEALS AND RELEVANT CORRECTIVE RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The Board of Veterans Appeals cannot, by its decisions, violate certain VA directive publications, particularly VA regulations and Administrator's decisions. Some current VA directives are of questionable legality and propriety. The Board of Veterans Appeals, by the very nature of its duties, has knowledge of most of the existing problems resulting from restrictive regulations. Because VA decisions, including decisions of the Board of Veterans Appeals, are largely controlled by interpretations of statutory provisions as expressed in VA directive publications, it is of the utmost importance that such issues reflect a proper, fair, and legal interpretation of legislation enacted for the benefit of veterans and their dependents by the Congress of the United States. In recognition of the obvious fact that the Chairman of the Board of Veterans Appeals observes the effect of various VA restrictive directives on final decisions with respect to benefit claims, it is believed the Chairman should be more persuasive and his comments and recommendations should be most thoroughly considered with reference to the development and promulgation of pertinent directives.

It is also recommended that the Administrator consider the feasibility of establishing an advisory committee, including representatives of congressionally chartered veterans organizations, for each major benefit program and refer proposed regulations and other publications and changes thereto to such committee for comments. This would be comparable to the present advisory committee to the Administrator with reference to the education and training program under Public Law 550, 82d Congress, as amended.

2. For many years only attorneys or physicians have been appointed as associate Board members. Previously, one member of each three-member section was usually a lay person. Because each three-member section of the Board evaluates facts, it is believed that the participation of a lay member in the consideration of each case would insure a more practical and fair evaluation of the facts and would in effect accord the claimant consideration somewhat resembling a trial by jury of his peers in civilian life.