Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

Mr. LEAVY. Mr. Commissioner, was not your land acquisition largely out of tribal funds?

Mr. COLLIER. It has become increasingly out of tribal funds as the gratuitous appropriation diminished.

Mr. LEAVY. Were these cuts made out of tribal funds?

Mr. COLLIER. No; from gratuity appropriations. Of course, tribal funds are available only where the tribes have funds. They are not available to tribes that do not have tribal funds, which are more than half the tribes.

ASSESSED VALUATION OF LAND

Mr. FITZPATRICK. Right there may I ask this one question: I have taken up with you on previous occasions the question of whether or not you have found out the tax valuation or the assessed valuation of the land involved. Have you been doing that?

Mr. COLLIER. We appraise the land.

Mr. FITZPATRICK. The tax value, I mean; the assessed valuation? Mr. COLLIER. The assessed valuation would always be below the market value, would it not; assessed for taxation, I mean?

Mr. FITZPATRICK. I know, but you promised 2 or 3 years ago to do that. You have never had the tax valuation or the assessed valuation. Mr. LEAVY. That is land that you proposed to acquire?

Mr. COLLIER. To acquire; yes.

Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. Have you any further general statement, Mr. Commissioner?

Mr. COLLIER. No; I think all that we have to say will come out as the hearing moves on.

REORGANIZATION OF WASHINGTON OFFICE

Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. On page 2 of your justifications I assume you refer to a reorganization that your office is now undergoing. Will you give the committee the benefit of the result of that reorganization?

Mr. COLLIER. This reorganization is a reorganization of the Washington office.

Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. That is what I understand.

Mr. COLLIER. And it is at present in effect only through a process of detail; in other words, a reassignment of duties of some of the men who have been employed all the time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. Will that reorganization when completed result in more or fewer employees?

Mr. COLLIER. It will not result in fewer employees, and ultimately, when reclassification is obtained, it will result in a net increase of around $45,000 in the Washington office pay roll. That would not come now, though.

The reorganization consists in attempting to simplify our flow of business. We have been operating with about 17 divisions, or units, which is too many. We are concentrating those units into a smaller number of branches under branch chiefs. One of those units is called the Indian Resources Branch, in which we place, for example, land acquisition and land use, soil and moisture conservation, and credit; another branch is Administration, into which go all fiscal, administrative, and personnel matters; another branch is Community Services, into which goes health, education, and a new division called

Indian Welfare, and another branch is the Planning and Development unit, another is Engineering.

All those are filled out of present personnel at present pay rates, but ultimately they should be reclassified, and the branch chiefs should receive a pay higher than the division chiefs. There is nothing radical in the scheme, but it does speed the flow of business and insures better-thought long-range and short-range work.

Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. I note you say on page 3 of the justification-and I quote:

Undoubtedly, the new organization will entail some additional expense, but we are confident that the added cost will be more than justified by the improvement in administration that is certain to follow.

Mr. COLLIER. We are very sure of that.

OVERHEAD EXPENSE OF WASHINGTON OFFICE

I might take this opportunity to point out that the overhead of the Indian Service in the District of Columbia is probably the lowest in the Federal Government of any organization with a field service.

Mr. FITZPATRICK. What percent of your entire appropriation is spent here in the District of Columbia?

Mr. COLLIER. Our overhead here is 1.72 percent, which is very low. Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt to say that the 1.72 percent is based on the total appropriations in the Appropriation Act for the fiscal year 1941. Taking into consideration all cash available to the Indian Service during the fiscal year 1941, which includes balances brought over from prior years, Indian trust funds, and our C. C. C. money, the ratio is 1.03 percent as far as the amount available for personal services in the District of Columbia is concerned. Mr. COLLIER. Without wanting to be invidious toward other bureaus and departments, I would say that if we take the Forest Service, soil conservation, and other services, their Washington overhead is three, four, and five fold that of the Indian Bureau, although none of them has to handle the variety of business in Washington that the Indian Office has to handle.

The increase that we will have to get ultimately, if the Civil Service Commission reclassifies the positions under the reorganized set-up, will be around $45,000, but will leave our overhead still well below 2 percent-still the lowest in the Federal Government.

Mr. SHEPPARD. And yet you have a diversification of interests attached to your activities, clear through your Office, that is on a parity with any other department of government?

Mr. COLLIER. Yes, sir; and more than, I think, almost any other department, we have business that has to be done at Washington. We are geared in more complexly with things that are stationed in Washington than almost any other agency. We are more largely administered by Congress than any other agency, by thousands of statutes, and hundreds more every year.

FIELD OVERHEAD EXPENSES

Mr. FITZPATRICK. Let me ask you this question: Taking all money that is appropriated for the benefit of the Indians, what percentage of the total amount is used for administrative purposes all over the country?

Mr. COLLIER. I think that would have to be a matter of definition. For example, would we consider hospitals and schools in the administrative picture? I should say probably not.

Mr. FITZPATRICK. There is money appropriated for that purpose? Mr. COLLIER. Yes.

Mr. FITZPATRICK. And there is administrative expense also attached to it; is not that true?

Mr. COLLIER. There is some, inevitably; yes. I do not know that we have ever made that break-down.

Mr. GREENWOOD. We do not have that break-down, Mr. Fitzpatrick.

Mr. FITZPATRICK. The reason I asked you the question was so as to compare it with other departments.

Mr. GREENWOOD. We can say this, though: That of the total amount appropriated to the Indian Service for the fiscal year 1941, approximately 34.18 percent will be expended for personal services in the field, and 63.4 percent will be expended for other obligations. Mr. COLLIER. That 34 percent includes all our activities. Mr. GREENWOOD. All personal services.

Mr. COLLIER. Education, the health service, and all the other service branches. The reason it would be difficult to make the break-down is that you could see that the superintendent of a reservation would be administrative, but what is an extension agent? It is hard to determine whether he would be classed as a service person or an administrative person.

Mr. FITZPATRICK. I was interested to see just how much of it went directly to the Indians.

Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. I assume very little of it goes directly to the Indians.

Mr. GREENWOOD. It goes to them by way of compensation for services rendered and direct relief.

Mr. COLLIER. And goods, land bought, houses built, and things of that kind. Of the regular employees, about 55 percent are Indians, and when we pass to the emergency services, like C. C. C., these are overwhelmingly Indian. Of the whole expenditure of C. C. C., 65 percent probably goes in wages to Indians. It is a big element in our whole expenditure.

INDIANS EMPLOYED UNDER CIVILIAN CONSERVATION CORPS

Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. What about your C. C. C. work? Is it generally satisfactory?

Mr. COLLIER. Very.

Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. How many Indian youths do employed in this type of work?

Mr. COLLIER. We are running now around 7,000.

[blocks in formation]

Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. And what is the character of the work? Is it high class?

Mr. COLLIER. It is very high class. We maintain that the Indian C. C. C. is the most productive branch of the C. C. C.; that more production is had for the money than in any other branch of the C. C. C.

Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. As I understand, your C. C. C. work in the Indian Service is different from the regular C. C. C. work, in that the Indian youth employed usually remain in their own homes and do this work, and are not gathered in one C. C. C. unit, as is the case with the regular C. C. C.

Mr. COLLIER. That is correct.

the rule with us.

The camp is the exception and not

Mr. FITZPATRICK. How about the amount of money they receive; is it the same as in the other C. C. C. camps?

Mr. COLLIER. Yes, sir; the same pay rates.

Mr. FITZPATRICK. Is there any allowance made to the Indians who live at their own homes?

Mr. GREENWOOD. Yes, sir; $15 a month.

Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. I might say that one exception to the rule is in the district that I represent, near the little town of Fort Cobb, in Caddo County. You have a C. C. C. camp there, and it is one of the most splendid camps I have ever visited. It is well-organized, well-equipped and is doing exceptionally good work. They are doing some very fine irrigation terracing and road improvement work in that area, which work is carried on in a very similar fashion to the regular C. C. C. program.

Mr. COLLIER. Our C. C. C. differs in another respect from the white C. C. C. Our age limits are more flexible.

Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. Yes; I noticed that and also that many married but unemployed Indians have been permitted to enroll in Indian C. C. C. work.

Mr. COLLIER. It differs again in a thing that grows out of the fact that they are working at their homes. Our Indian C. C. C. reaches into the home as an educational force more than the white C. C. C. can. Our Indian C. C. C. is one of our dominant educational re

sources now.

Mr. SHEPPARD. Taking into consideration the law that makes the C. C. C. organization operative, Mr. Commissioner, by what method did you approach the situation in order to have the differentials that apparently exist between the white youngsters of the Nation under the C. C. C. category as compared with the method of handling the Indian children who, I understand, are permitted to work under the C. C. C. banner but do it at home?

Mr. COLLIER. Almost from the beginning you can see why it isthe Indians have been working on the Indian lands. As a rule, the Indians are pretty well dispersed over their lands. It would be most uneconomical to build a system of camps and put the Indians into them. There would be no gain and a good deal of loss. It is far better for them to be at home. It is better for them, and cheaper for the Government. As I say, the educational values of C. C. C. are carried back into the home much better than they could be if the Indians stayed in camps.

Mr. SHEPPARD. And while an Indian is enrolled in camp, if he lives at home he is allowed an additional $15 a month?

Mr. COLLIER. They give him $15 more if he does not live in camp. We figure that is the cost that the Government saves by not having him in the camp.

NUMBER OF INDIANS EMPLOYED IN INDIAN SERVICE

(See p. 12)

Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. Can you advise the committee the exact number of Indians who are employed in the Indian Service?

Mr. COLLIER. Yes; we have that. There are 5,096 permanent employees. If you include the C. C. C., there are 11,038.

Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. But there are 5,000 permanent Indian employees?

Mr. COLLIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. And how does that number compare with the number of Indians employed when you became Commissioner of the Indian Service?

Mr. COLLIER. It is very much more.

Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. I ask that for the reason that it is well known that your administration has favored Indians for the Indian Service, and I would just like to have that figure for the record.

Mr. COLLIER. The percentages do not remain in my mind right now, but I think we will find that the percentage of Indians has about doubled.

Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. That was my impression.

INDIAN EMPLOYMENT SERVICE

Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. Now, you maintain an Indian Employment Service?

Mr. COLLIER. We do.

Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. What are the results? What is the character of the service and the general results? Are they getting

jobs for the Indians?

Mr. COLLIER. They are getting jobs for them. Their placements are both in the Indian country and out in the white world.

Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. How many Indians, if you know, are employed in other governmental agencies and departments?

Mr. GREENWOOD. We have no statistics, on that, Mr. Chairman. Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. You do have the figure of the number of placements that have been made by the Indian Employment Service?

Mr. GREENWOOD. Yes, sir.

Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. Will you give the committee the exact figure?

Mr. COLLIER. The placements within the Indian reservations in 1940 were 826, and those outside numbered 4,815.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Those statistics, Mr. Chairman, will be found on page 85 of our justifications.

INCREASES AND DECREASES IN ESTIMATES FOR 1942

Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. Next we would like to take up the increases in the present bill. Mr. Greenwood, will you explain them? Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, if I may be permitted to supplement Commissioner Collier's remarks, he gave you in round figures the changes in the estimate as compared with 1941 and 1940. I might give you the actual amounts.

Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. Just put that break-down in the record, if you have it.

« ForrigeFortsett »