Pine Ridge Reservation to try to consolidate these minute holdings, individual fractionated holdings, using the existing authorities. It is not easy. The prime stumbling block in the situation is the fact that every owner must give his consent to anything pertaining to that piece of land. This is difficult. It is really difficult in this case.

Another thing we are doing with the help of Congress through appropriation of a considerable amount of money to improve records-we are getting a modern system of recordkeeping on Indian land. We are looking to the utilization of the ADP procedure for distribution of income. In fact we are already using this procedure in two or three agencies in a rather substantial manner for distributing range grazing fees. This is going along very well we think. We think the project can be completed within the time limit we set on ourselves of about 5 years. This, I think, will be a substantial contribution to doing something about this problem.

Mr. BROOKS. About the increasing cost of administering this?
Mr. CROW. Yes, sir.

Now, the increase in individual Indian money accounts. I say it is not due entirely to the growing heirship problem but it is due to many other things. Through increased management tools, as represented by this increase in Federal money for mangement of Indian land, we have increased the income to the Indians, thereby creating the need for more accounts to distribute this and get it out to them. The Indian Claims Commission is accelerating its work on settling and adjudicating the many Indian claims. Some judgments have been paid. This, too, is also an increasing activity in this department. Mr. BROOKS. Have you had any success in your efforts at legislation?

Mr. CROW. On heirship?

Mr. BROOKS. On heirship.

Mr. CROW. We have not to date. Both Interior committees of both Houses of Congress have conducted rather exhaustive study of the subject. They have held hearings on various proposals for legislation. No legislation has been enacted. I think that it will continue to receive the attention of the committees in the coming sessions. It is something about which everyone recognizes a need. There is some disagreement on what is needed. This seems to be the problem. Mr. BROOKS. Do you have any questions, Mr. Schweiker? Mr. SCHWEIKER. No questions.

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Nedzi?

Mr. NEDZI. No questions.

DISTRIBUTION OF OIL AND GAS LEASE ROYALTIES ON INDIAN LANDS DIRECTLY BY LESSEES TO COMPETENT INDIAN OWNERS

Mr. BROOKS. While you are still here we might go into the problem of the administrative cost-the probability rather of reducing your cost of operation if the lessee companies prepared and distributed royalty checks to the Indians.

In managing Indian trust property, the Bureau of Indian Affairs executes oil and gas leases on Indian lands and distributes the revenues from these leases. A large percentage of the individual Indian lands under the Bureau's supervision are owned by multiple parties. The multiple Indian heirship interests in the leases cause considerable

administrative work for the Bureau because lessee companies normally prepare a single monthly check for the royalties. The Bureau must make frequent elaborate computations and entries to record the receipt and disbursement of the lease revenues to each Indian owner based on his fractional interest in the land.

The subcommittee is informed that the lessee companies have been sending royalty checks to individual Indians of the Five Civilized Tribes of Oklahoma since September 1951. These direct payments are being made to those Indians whom the Bureau has determined do not need supervision over their lease revenues. As a result of using the direct-payment method for the Five Civilized Tribes, it is estimated that about $44,000 is saved each year in personnel costs for maintaining the individual Indian money accounts, in addition to other savings in related supervisory and administrative costs.

Now, my question is this: In the light of that, what savings could the Bureau achieve by having all of the lessee companies prepare and distribute royalty checks to competent Indian landowners?

Mr. CROW. Well, Mr. Chairman, if it were as simple as that the savings would be quite considerable. It is not as simple as that and I don't know where your estimated figure of savings in the Muskogee area came from but I would have some question as to whether that represented a total savings to the United States.

Mr. BROOKS. I believe that the estimate on savings came from a GAO report dated July 7, 1960, No. B-114868.

Mr. CROW. The point I was getting to, it may have saved the Bureau of Indian Affairs that much but it may have caused the Geological Survey to spend a part of that to do the necessary accounting on these. I simply don't know.

Mr. BROOKS. This was the basis of it and I would assume that it was accurate. I don't think the Department questioned that saving because they made it and it was a step forward for them.

What I am pointing out is if we could do it for the Five Civilized Nations and apparently it has been done for them and must be working in that area-why it might not be instigated and adopted in the other areas, and have relatively similar savings.

Mr. CROW. This is being given consideration in the Department. Mr. BROOKS. In response to a report on the Bureau of selected activities at certain locations, the Bureau of Indian Affairs as of October 1959-this was submitted October 26, 1960, and they pointed out there that:

There are many aspects of this matter—

this under the Bureau's administrative cost

could be reduced if the lessee companies distributed royalty checks to competent Indians.

We agree it would be more economical to the Government if direct payments were made to certain Indian owners. However, there are many things that must be considered before a final decision is reached. The matter is under study in the Department.

Now, that has been almost 2 years ago and I am wondering what is the status of that study.

Mr. BEASLEY. It is an area in which there is still considerable disagreement as to whether there should be this change in the existing procedure. This involves both the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Geological Survey. The Geological Survey is responsible for varying

the amounts due to the Indians as a result of the production on their lands. The Secretary has statutory trust responsibility to see what the Indian is entitled to. If these checks are made directly to the Indian, there is no accountability as to whether the Indian is receiving his full share. It is conceivable that the Federal Government would be responsible if the Indians could later prove that the Secretary failed in discharging his trust responsibility by protecting what he was entitled to.

I don't mean by this reference to frighten the committee into thinking something can't be done or should not be done. It has been studied frequently and I have learned that it will require either a change in legislation or a change in regulations. We are going to pursue this as a result of this committee's inquiry into this matter, the possibility of changing the regulations which will facilitate the accomplishment of this arrangement.

Mr. BROOKS. I think that would be helpful and certainly the example you have set by following that arrangement in Five Civilized Tribes might well be adopted to save money and give the Indians little a better service.

Now, I appreciate your being here, Mr. Crow, and would like at this time to bring up one more matter and I am sorry Mr. Wallhauser had to be gone at this point. He just left and we have come to a problem he was interested in which is the backlog of land appeals in the Office of the Solicitor.

STATEMENT OF EDWARD W. FISHER, DEPUTY SOLICITOR, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; ACCOMPANIED BY ERNEST F. HOM, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR, LAND APPEALS

Mr. BROOKS. If you will be seated, we will be glad to hear you. Mr. FISHER. We have Mr. Hom, the Assistant Solicitor of the Branch of Land Appeals.

BACKLOG OF LAND APPEALS IN OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR

Mr. BROOKS. Perhaps you could submit that question of fractionalization to your associate.

The subcommittee has made an intensive study of the serious backlog of appealed land cases pending in the Branch of Land Appeals of the Solicitor's Office. As of March 31, 1962, there were 686 appeals pending. The inflow of appeals has during the past 3 years substantially exceeded the number disposed of. The backlog has been getting worse and worse. Attorneys throughout the country have increasingly complained that something must be done about the backlog.

The subcommittee is pleased to note that the Solicitor, about 3 weeks ago, authorized the Assistant Solicitor of the Branch of Land Appeals to sign appeals decisions. We hope that this enabled the Department to dispose of most of the more than 113 cases on which decisions had already been prepared in the Branch Appeals.

The subcommittee would like to know what else is being done to cut down the backlog.

Such things as removing the classification cases, the temporary transfer or assignment of personnel to this work, or direct request for

additional lawyers to help you process and complete these appeals. Mr. FISHER. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Going to the matter of the 113 that were pending for signature of the Department Solicitor or the Secretary as of March 31, I will ask Mr. Hom to check my figures, but I believe I report accurately that 64 have been signed and the parties notified and the cases completely closed. Twenty-one have been signed and are now in the process of duplication for issue. That is a total of 85 that have been signed and 28 are still pending.

Mr. BROOKS. Will you run through that again. Sixty-four have been signed and are on the way? Mr. FISHER. And closed. The parties notified. Twenty-one have been signed and are now in the process of duplication for issuance. That leaves 28 of the 113 still pending.

Mr. BROOKS. How are those coming along, Mr. Hom?

Mr. Hoм. Some of those cases have been held up, we hope temporarily, because of questions of policy involved. For example, we have a half dozen cases involving the question of public sale of lands and the question of the determination of value at which the land should be sold. So these cases have not yet been disposed of.

Mr. BROOKS. The longer you hold them the better off we will be because the value is going up and the current fair market value is that of today and not 10 years ago. I am glad that you are looking at those carefully. I say this without knowing what they are.

Mr. Hoм. We have had some other cases which involve the questions of policy and land disposition so that we have held up action on those cases too. So that I think there probably is an explanation for the delay in disposing of the 28.

Mr. BROOKS. Well, there is no question in the committee's criticism of a thorough review where justified at your level. Certainly not. It is just that some of them just needed to be signed. There was no real question about them. It seemed like a waste of effort and an unnecessary delay, tedious and troublesome to everybody to just have them sitting there.

STEPS TAKEN TO REDUCE BACKLOG IN LAND APPEALS

Mr. FISHER. Mr. Chairman, we quite agree. I would like to observe that the approximate first 18 months in which the Solicitor and I had an opportunity to observe these matters, we were attempting to familiarize ourselves with the nature, character, and types of appeals that we were getting all the way from classification to matters of law, to questions of procedure, It was at the end of that time that we decided that it was an unnecessary level of review and that is why we thought we could get rid of the cases if they were reviewed in Mr. Hom's branch and moved along without the necessary additional level of review and the time it takes and the expense involved.

Mr. BROOKS. Certainly you ought to be commended for that, you and the entire Department.

Now, getting back to those 798, what do you recommend about getting those expedited?

Mr. FISHER. Let me recite certain other additional steps which we are taking. Prior to the delegation to Mr. Hom, which was very recently in July, we had moved to Mr. Hom authority to handle cases

that involved procedural defects-cases that did not comply with our rules of procedure.

Additionally we are attempting to limit our review to the issues raised on an appeal. We think this is an orderly procedure.

Mr. BROOKS. Had they previously been de novo?

Mr. FISHER. They had previously been de novo and a search has been made of complete records, which has been very time consuming. Now, this we think will help. We feel in the appeal process we clearly provide for the filing of a statement of reasons which should delineate the issues and therefore we are confining our review to those issues raised.

Mr. BROOKS. Do you feel that this would enable you to catch up on this backlog and get it settled?

Mr. FISHER. I think it will help, Mr. Chairman. I don't want to be so optimistic as to say it will cure it but it will be a step in the right direction.

Mr. BROOKS. Well, certainly you have to walk before you can run. Mr. FISHER. That is true and secondly, I believe you made reference to our request for additional attorneys.

Mr. BROOKS. That is right. This may or may not be necessary. We just asked.

Mr. FISHER. We think it is necessary. We requested additional attorney positions in the 1963 budget. We did not get as many as we felt we needed but we got substantial help and we are planning to add at least two or three attorneys to the staff and we are in the process of recruitment at this time. We think this will help.

Mr. BROOKS. I think this is commendable. I hope that if these two steps do not solve the problem of the backlog we ought to figure out some other way to get it accomplished because I really think, and I know it is a problem to both of you gentlemen to have people say, "Why haven't you decided that case and are you going to do it." I understand it is a problem of professional embarrassment to them, that there is sometimes delay in field decisions and you will both be glad to handle the cases just as soon as they get in.

Mr. FISHER. We will, indeed, Mr. Chairman. It is of concern to us. I might mention additionally that we are attempting another measure which we hope will be helpful.

Mr. BROOKS. What is that?

Mr. FISHER. We are attempting to write what we would term in shorthand memorandum decisions.

Mr. BROOKS. On routine matters?

Mr. FISHER. On routine matters where we think the precedents are clear.

Mr. BROOKS. Where there is no question about what the judgment would be if you started from scratch?

Mr. FISHER. We think it is a needless effort on the part of attorneys and staff and stenographic help and reproduction to write at length a recitation of facts where those already appear in the record, either as a basis of a hearing examiner's decision or the basis of a prior decision from which appeal is taken.

Now I might say if these do not provide the answer to reducing this backlog and putting ourselves on a more current basis we have other considerations in mind. One I would like to mention: We have thought in terms of reducing the levels of appeals. I personally think