Mr. FICKINGER. In that particular situation we have had to say to the people in the field, "You know your own work load, and you know what your problems are. If you are able to pay twice a month, well and good, but if you cannot pay more than once a month, you must be the judge."

We do not have an opportunity to get out into the field and look into these things. I have not been in the field for 4 years, and it is impossible to do an intelligent job of administering the functions of a bureau as diversified and widely scattered as the Indian Service without some personal contacts with the field conditions.

This an attempt to enable us to try to do something about some of the things that this committee critized us for last year. We know things are not as good as they should be, and we know we can improve them. We must get out in the field in order to see conditions.

We are constantly trying to find ways of expediting work and simplifying our procedures. It is our honest belief that we can make considerable headway if we could have an administrative supervisory unit that would spend its time in close supervision of administrative matters at our field agencies.

Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. Suppose, instead of giving you $4,250,000 more to operate on for the next year fiscal than you have for the current year, that this committee would give you $4,000,000 to $5,000,000 less than you operated on last year, and suppose you were handed, say, $20,000,000 instead of $30,000,000 that you are requesting in a lump sum and say "We want you to handle this in a businesslike way, just like you would handle any private business.' Do you not believe a good businessman could go into the Indian Service and reorganize it from top to bottom and operate it more efficiently than it is being operated today?

Mr. FICKINGER. Personally I am not in a position to say "yes" or "no" to that question, because I do not know. There would be some advantages and some disadvantages, probably.

Mr. ZIMMERMAN. I would be willing to try it with half of the $4,000,000. But there would be always other factors that we cannot control, concerning procedures established by the General Accounting Office and by the Treasury Department, and also many procedures established and required by statute, and there is a very considerable volume of other business that must be approved in Washington, for no reason except that the statutes require the Secretary of the Interior to do certain things.

Mr. BROPHY. I want to go into this matter with the idea of understanding what is going on, and I will do so, and I hope with all the information that is available in the Service as to criticisms that have been made in and outside of the Service.

Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. I appreciate that suggestion, Mr. Brophy, and this committee hopes and believes that you will do that. As stated when you appeared before the committee the first time, this committee has accepted you at full face value. This committee wants to give you an opportunity, and there is an opportunity, a marvelous opportunity, for a young man to make an outstanding record. We know you have ability, and we hope you have the will and will expect you and the staff to do that in before another year.

I have said these things because year after year we have discussed it in the committee, and evidently the higher-ups have not considered that we were serious about it, and evidently have not given it any consideration.

Mr. BROPHY. I would ask for patience, Mr. Chairman, because it is a tremendously big proposition and one in which speed might hurt more than help.

Mr. NORRELL. In your justifications on page 170 you have set up quite an ambitious and expensive program regarding construction work.

Are you doing any construction work now?

Mr. FICKINGER. This group is responsible for supervision of the repair program. We are not doing construction work now.

Mr. NORRELL. I knew that, but do you not think it is rather a topheavy arrangement for supervisory work?

Mr. FICKINGER. There are approximately 2,000 agency buildings, plus the school buildings, hospitals and other structures that have to be cared for. Many of the structures are a disgrace to the Federal Government, and I believe you will think so, too, if you go out on the reservations and see some of those buildings.

Mr. NORRELL. My point is that you have a supervising construction engineer, at $4,600, plus 25 percent additional money on account of his working in Alaska. Then you have a construction engineer, another construction engineer, and then you go down to superintendents of construction, and then superintendents of construction again, and you also have an engineer aide and an architect. You have not done any work when you get through with that. It seems to me, just for the ordinary upkeep of school houses and other buildings that you have on the Indian reservations, you would not need that expensiver overhead personnel.

Mr. FICKINGER. This staff is at the present time, or at most of them, engaged in supervising the repair and maintenance of our existing facilities. They constitute our professional and technical advisers on this type of work.

Mr. NORRELL. I know there is no new construction except what is being done by the Government, and very little repair work which would require the services of that construction staff, but you still

have it.

Mr. FICKINGER. It is a very reduced staff from what it was prior to the war, and this is a minimum amount that we estimate we can get along with.

Mr. NORRELL. It seems to me you have a lot of people in the planning section, and you have had nothing to plan for several years. Now you are asking for an increase along that same line?

I doubt, if you were running a private business, that you would employ all that personnel, in view of what you have had to do for the last few years.

On page 175 of the justifications, you have provisions for a law and probate unit, with an estimate of $126,480. You have provisions for two district counsel, and two attorneys, with salaries amounting to $21,025, including the 25 percent additional. You have an attorney acting as a special legal representative. I do not know what he would do. You also have provision for an examiner of

inheritances and a law clerk. You also have a provision for a supervisory attorney and a probate attorney, all to the tune of $126,480. That is something new that you are trying to put in this here. Mr. FICKINGER. No, sir; there is no increase requested.

Mr. NORRELL. I am wondering if you need all that legal staff. I am an attorney, but I think the law departments in most of our departments are overstaffed.

Mr. ZIMMERMAN. The district counsels are two in number. One is stationed in Billings, Mont., and one is at Los Angeles, Calif. They are in effect the representatives of the solicitor, or the general counsel of the Indian Service. They are advisers to the superintendents in the area. They make contacts with the United States attorneys and other Department of Justice representatives in the different areas.

Both of them actually carry on litigation.

I would say, as a matter of fairness, that each of those men is doing the work of two normal men. The bulk of this item represents expenditures made for the probate of Indian estates.

These examiners are representatives of the men in the field who hold hearings and examine witnesses and make recommendation to the Department, on the basis of which estates are distributed.

Mr. NORRELL. My only point here is that once a person is employed in the Government service he usually keeps that job until he resigns or dies, even though the work may be eliminated. The Departments receive raises when they have more work to do, and when the work is reduced they should reduce the personnel. I think it would be a lot easier now to get additional personnel if this was the custom.

Mr. FICKINGER. In this group I am reminded of the man who responded to a question by saying that you could take his business. On the other hand, you cannot shrink this business. Probates of estates are essential in connection with the Indians.

Mr. NORRELL. But they do not do anything but take over papers and check them, they do not have very much of that to do.

Mr. FICKINGER. In these matters of inheritance, it is important. They may examine 50 witnesses.

Mr. NORRELL. I expected you to defend them; that is all right.

Mr. ZIMMERMAN. If we did not defend them they would probably be eliminated. I would like to say further that the Probate Division is in one of the few divisions of the Indian Service that is able to keep its work current.

Mr. NORRELL. When there is a trial to be held in court, we usually get the United States district attorney to handle it, or a special attorney out of the United States Attorney General's office. Very few trials are handled in the courtroom by the representative of the Indian Office.

Mr. FICKINGER. That is true.

Mr. NORRELL. In saying that, I am not reflecting on the attorneys, but that is the way the thing is operated.

Mr. FICKINGER. That is true. But it happens that these two district counsels are trial lawyers and handle large volumes of trial work.

SUPPORT AND REHABILITATION OF NEEDY INDIANS

Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. On page 42 of the committee's print here is an item "for general support and rehabilitation of needy Indians in the United States."

The amount of the estimate for 1946 is $739,000.

I am amazed, I am shocked to find that you are asking for an ncrease for needy Indians, considering the fact that any Indian or any white man can get a job in almost any county, town, or hamlet n the United States.

With all of the young Indians in the Army who are sending money to the old folks, I have expected that this would be one of the items that you could come in and look us in the face and say, "We will curtail this item for the duration."

There might be a few isolated cases of old people who would need a few dollars and there may be some old people who are too old to work, who do not have any revenues, and who might need some help.

But you ask for more money than you had last year for this item. It makes us believe that possibly you are padding your requests, and are not even expecting us to give you what you ask for. Those are blunt words, but that is my deliberate feeling in the matter.

Mr. FICKINGER. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that this covers general relief and rehabilitation for needy Indians, about which we had considerable discussion last year. We have come to you for an increase.

Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. This is a proposed increase of $251,000. Mr. FICKINGER. There is a proposed increase of $251,219. Included in this amount is $39,700 for a portion of the $725,000 plans and survey item.

Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. You have them not together in this bill, have you? But you are going to put that together so we will find out how big the baby is that was born, and assuming it will be born sometime in this year, I want to find out how much it is.

Mr. FICKINGER. I have here a complete statement of the plans and survey items that I will hand to the clerk. This present item, is one on which the committee had considerable discussion last year, and on which there was finally placed a restriction of not to exceed $100,000 for rehabilitation purposes.

I am frank to say that we in the service were just a little bit confused because we did not quite understand what the committee had in mind by rehabilitation.

Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. I am surprised at the statement you just made here, that you cannot read the English language, and what is meant by $100,000.

Mr. FICKINGER. There was considerable discussion about the cost of houses. We concluded that the committee did not want any of the money used for construction of houses for old and indigent Indians, and none of the money has been used for that purpose. We were not sure as to what the committee considered as rehabilitation. I was confused myself, and yet we wanted to do what the committee wanted us to do.

Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. What did you do with it?

Mr. FICKINGER. We used the rehabilitation portion generally in making needed repairs to Indian homes, minor farm buildings, to build chicken houses, and for other purposes that would tend to help them to help themselves and eliminate direct relief, such as the furnishing of a cow, chickens, garden seed, and so forth.

Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. I think in general that the committee had in mind that you would not construct new homes under this item under the guise of furnishing relief or rehabilitation.

Mr. FICKINGER. I think that that will make for clarification of the item.

Fickinger, he said this money
At least I am glad to give the
They are going to make the

Mr. JENSEN. As I understood Mr. would include the furnishing of a cow. Indian Service credit for one thing. Indians support themselves to some extent by getting the milk from

a cow.

I give credit to the Department for at least making them work a little for the milk.

I do not think there is any use of spending any more time on this item, and as far as I am concerned I am willing to eliminate the whole thing, this whole item at this time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. I am ready to entertain a motion now to eliminate the entire item.

Mr. JENSEN. I will second that.

If there is ever any need that justifies at this particular time having this gratuity item for relief, I cannot see it. I think you have insulted the Indians.

I listened to the Indians in Demonico when we were there, and when we were there, and Mr. Brophy was there, and when the suggestion was made that they get help through the W. P. A., they said "No; we do not need any of it; take it away and give it to somebody that does need it." They said, "Leave us alone.'

Then you come to us with a request like this, when they are making plenty of money and can buy what they want, they can take care of themselves, because they still have a good liberal spirit among the Indians, probably more so than the whites. They get along very well in most instances when you leave them alone. There are certain things that we have to do for them, but I do not believe we should furnish them with a cow or a hog, because they have a natural ability to get along. Most of them would rather be left alone, and I am certain that this item is out of order, as far as I am concerned.

Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. Do you think, Mr. Fickinger, that it is better to furnish a needy Indian who has no income with a cow than furnish milk in a bottle, so that this needy Indian might help himself rather than to spend relief for a new house, as has been done in several instances?

Mr. JENSEN. I would not be opposed to furnishing a cow to an Indian if he had no cow, and the need was there.

Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. I would agree with the gentleman, and no doubt there are still some such cases of real need, especially among aged Indians. But to bring in a request like this with proposed increase of rather sizable figures, astonished me.

Mr. ZIMMERMAN. I would like to make a brief statement of certain facts.

First, there are about 2,000 Indians on our lists who are dependent upon this appropriation.