« PreviousContinue »
Mr. JACKSON. There were some of those in one district in the last fiscal year, where trustees have improperly used funds, where they have paid employees for services for which they were not qualified to give during this fiscal year.
Mr. Rooney. How long ago was it that the shortage was disclosed in the Alaska U.S. commissioner's office?
Mr. JACKSON. That was shortly following statehood, Mr. Chairman. Judge Hodge requested one of our examiners to come up and help him to separate Federal from State work. During the time of that visit the examiner checked out a number of the commissions, and this shortage was disclosed at that time.
DEMANDS ON EXAMINERÁ BY THE JUDICIARY
Mr. ANDRETTA. Mr. Chairman, incidentally, speaking of the Judiciary, they have been making more and more demands on us to have
ur examiners go in certain districts to look into matters, to examine the operations of the clerks' offices, and to look into other matters. Also, to check out when a clerk leaves and a new clerk is appointed. We have been very helpful to the courts on these matters. Mr. Olney told me that they would look with great favor on expanding our examining staff because many times we are not able to service them because we have so few examiners or they are engaged in certain parts of the country.
RECRUITMENT OF EXAMINERS
Actually, we could use even more examiners, but the difficulty is finding them. It is a very difficult job to recruit for chiefly because the man is always traveling. He has no home. He has no place to get his roots in. He is in travel status practically the whole year round. It is very trying on anybody who has a family or any domestic responsibilities. Besides that, you must find a man who is competent in the fields of law and accounting. When you consider that we start them in grade 9, you can see that it is not a very attractive position.
Mr. ROONEY. What are the grades of the 10 authorized positions at the moment?
Mr. ANDRETTA. Of the examiner positions now? They go from 9 to 12. Only four of the examiners now are oldtimers. By that I mean who have been there more than 3 or 4 years. There are five new ones.
Mr. JACKSON. Who have been there less than 2 years.
Mr. ROONEY. Are there any questions with regard to the Administrative Division?
MIMEOGRAPH AND MULTILITH SERVICES
Mr. MARSHALL. On page 9-26, I note that you have a figure for mimeographed copies, 1958 actual, 3,952,000 pieces; and then in 1959 actual, 1,463,000 pieces. Then I note in 1960 you go up again. What is the reason for that?
Mr. ANDRETTA. It is probably that we have swung over from mimeograph to multilith. In other words, the kind of copy they wanted would not lend itself to a mimeograph machine, so it went over onto multilith. You will notice there is an increase in the multilith by about 500,000 sheets. Much of that material, Mr. Marshall, depends on the number of pages of the documents that are sent down for duplicating, and so forth. There is some fluctuation. Actually, when you once cut the stencil, the big job is in the assembly of all the copies rather than running them on the machine, because the machine can run 50,000 or 100,000 just as easily as 10.
Mr. MARSHALL. You have found it no more desirable, then, to go back to mimeographing copies?
Mr. ANDRETTA. We are trying to encourage mimeographing a little more because they have now come out with a better grade of paper so you do not get smudged copies. For example, we cannot send mimeographed documents to the courts. They will generally not accept them on mimeograph paper. That means we have to send multilithed copies, which are better appearing copies.
Mr. MARSHALL. When you multilithed copies, why did the second line immediately above not drop? You seem to have been mimeographing about the same number of lines even though you were not mimeographing as many copies.
Mr. ANDRETTA. You mean total lines here as against copies ? For example, you would have 1,000 20-page documents, with a lesser number of lines in the single copy. Whereas another one of say, 100 pages, would be made up of 500 copies. Although you have fewer copies you would have more pages and lines actually.
Mr. MARSHALL. How do you arrive at the lines of copies? Does somebody count those ?
Mr. ANDRETTA. Yes. They keep pretty much a check in our duplicating section when the documents come in. For example, they get up a brief of 30 pages, let us say. They want 1,000 copies. quick runoff you know approximately the number of lines on a page, and then by multiplying the number of pages by the number of copies, you get a count quickly. They keep a count of that in the duplicating section.
Mr. MARSHALL. From the standpoint of the taxpayer, what advantage is it to have those lines counted ?
Mr. ANDRETT 1. None whatever. It is just an indication to us of the way the work is going, whether the office is being pushed for time and help, and what not. It is just a workload indication, that is all.
Mr. MARSHALL. Over on page 9–34, I note that you show you are saving square feet of space. In 1958 you saved 34,600 square feet of space. Then that increased to 41,860 in 1960, up to 48,600 in 1960. Then in your projected estimate for 1961 you are not saving as much space. Why would that be? Have you reached the saturation point as to how much space you can save?
Mr. ANDRETTA. No. We would potentially need more space if the records retirement program did not catch up with incoming records. Then there is a sort of plateau you reach and things go along until the records accumulate enough again that you can tack them onto a disposal schedule in order not to fall behind.
Space and our number of file cabinets is limited. The Department, of course, is primarily an operation handling much paper. All your basic tools in the Department are papers, files, and records. In order for us to conserve space and filing cabinets we have to maintain a very active records disposal program.
They follow the schedules that are set up by the Congress and the GSA archival operation. As fast as we get records up to a certain age that have no historical significance, we withdraw them either by destroying them or sending them to Archives records center. It is only by keeping up with that disposal that we are able to take care of the new material flooding in without increasing the file cabinets and the space we have to use for our files. We are pretty proud of our records disposal program. I have a figure here somewhere which shows that we saved over a million dollars worth of file cabinets and space rental by our records withdrawal program.
Mr. ROONEY. Where does that appear in the budget? Where have you taken out that million dollars?
Mr. ANDRETTA. We have not taken it out. That is what we have saved over a period of years by not buying file cabinets and saving space.
TOTAL SAVINGS IN 1960
Mr. Rooney. I am looking at pages 9–34, and you claim in the past fiscal year total savings of $550,469. Where does that now come into play in connection with this budget, or did it last year in connection with the current year's budget?
Mr. ANDRETTA. We would have to ask for that money if we did not have this program.
Mr. ROONEY. Oh, these are what you would call potential savings. Mr. BROWN. Constructive.
Mr. ANDRETTA. Constructive, let us say. By doing this we save the Government this much money, not having to come back to get money for this program.
Mr. MARSHALL. It is a little bit like the person with his gas savers on his gasoline tank. He puts so many on that the gas is running out of the tank after a while.
Mr. ROONEY. The next matter, gentlemen, is entitled, “Salaries and Expenses, General Legal Activities," and is to be found beginning at page 90 of the committee print and under tab 11 of the justifications. We shall at this point insert in the record pages 11-1 through 11-6 of the justifications.
(The pages referred to follow :)
This appropriation provides for the operating expenses of: Office of Solicitor General; Tax Division; Criminal Division; Civil Division; Lands Division ; Office of Legal Counsel; Internal Security Division; and Civil Rights Division.
It is estimated that an appropriation of $15,120,000 will be needed for fiscal year 1962 to meet the requirements of the several legal divisions listed above. This is a net increase of $945,300 over the amount required for 1961.
The current appropriation act includes the following language that is permanent legislation and therefore should not be carried in future acts :
*Section 20 (b) of the Indian Claims Commission Act of August 13, 1946 (25 U.S.C. 70s), is hereby amended by adding at the end of the second sentence thereof a new sentence as follows:
"In similar manner and with like effect either party may appeal to the Court of Claims from any interlocutory determination by the Commission establishing the liability of the United States notwithstanding such determination is not for any reason whatever final as to the amount of recovery; and any such interloctury appeal shall be taken on or before January 1, 1961, or three months from such interlocutory determination, whichever is later : Provided, That the failure of either party to appeal from any such interlocutory determination shall not constitute a waiver of its right to challenge such interlocutory determination in any appeal from any final determination subsequently made in the case.”
PROGRAM AND PERFORMANCE
The following legal activities of the Department are financed from this appropriation:
1. Conduct of Supreme Court proceedings and coordination of appellate matter.-This consists of supervising and controlling all appellate matters and representing the Government before the Supreme Court.
2. General tax matters.—This involves the prosecution or defense of cases arising under the internal revenue laws and other tax statutes.
Pending, beginning of year..
4, 416 7,300 7, 300 4, 416