patent" are those for which the Indian owner was issued a fee patent. In both cases the Bureau of Indian Affairs' responsibility ceases with issuance of the patent. During the 10-year period studied (1948-57), 2,595,413.66 acres of individual trust land were completely removed from all trust status. After subtracting the land acreage in the category of "takings for public purposes," the figure emerges as 2,174,517.85 acres removed from individual trust status through actions or approvals of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Therefore, at the outset the questionnaire verified two major points: (1) An alarming acreage of individual Indian trust land has been removed from that category during the 10-year period and (2) "takings for public purposes" and "sales to tribes" were not the major areas of removal. After dividing the period under study into two 5-year segments I found that while 804,763.84 acres were removed from 1948 to 1952, inclusive, the period from 1953 to 1957 alone shows 1,790,649.82 acres were removed. This shows that my concern at the outset of this study was well founded-individual Indian trust land alienation is climbing at a potentially disastrous rate. The statistics by year for Indian trust land removed from that status are as follows:

The magnitude of these removals raises a question as to whether the Indian Bureau has exercised its authority wisely in granting so many applications for sales and patents. Has the Bureau fully considered the possible adverse effects on both the tribe and individuals in each case? I feel this question can only be satisfactorily answered by further investigation of the committee.

One of the important aspects of the Indian land problem concerns "key tracts" generally considered Indian trust lands, which, if sold, would reduce the value and use of surrounding Indian trust land. In view of the fact that sale of key tracts has a direct and important bearing on the entire Indian land problem, the inadequacy of the Bureau returns were quite discouraging. Major problems encountered on this point were: (1) Lack of clarity in the Bureau returns, (2) varied understanding as to the meaning of the term "key tract" by Bureau officials, (3) lack of sufficient returns from the tribes, and (4) confusion over the responsibilities of Bureau versus tribal personnel. Answers to various questions on the subject such as “* * * since 1953 there were not very many," are impossible of interpretation. However, as stated in the Library of Congress analysis "* * * a much clearer picture is needed of the problem and methods of ascertaining accurate data from which a more conclusive analysis can be made.' I suggest the committee use this information as the basis for future consideration of the problem.

Another aspect concerning the general land problems of our Indians concerns those Federal lands acquired since 1930 for the use and benefit of our Indian population. As you know, part of our questionnaire was intended to develop not only the total acreage of such lands still in Federal ownership but how much is actually being used for the benefit of Indians at this time. There are 529,991.17 acres of such land now set aside for the Indians, and of this acreage 389,

640.80 acres are currently being used by our Indian population, leaving a balance of 140,350.37 acres not being used expressly for the Indians' benefit.

I would like to call the committee's attention to the very evident interest on the part of some Indian tribes in the subject of disposal from trust status of individual Indian lands. A fairly large segment of tribes have real-estate committees which are either vested with authority to approve tribal real-estate transactions or to advise the tribal councils in this connection. Some tribes have their own realestate employees while others pay the salaries of agency employees who handle these matters. A number of tribes have employed realestate specialists as advisers and consultants, and some have developed tribal land enterprises and formulated land programs.

During the course of this study, the source of several major problems concerning Indian land problems became quite obvious, and possible solutions presented themselves. I am therefore submitting for the committee's consideration various suggestions concerning the Bureau of Indian Affairs, tribal councils, and the committee itself.

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

Under the heading of a press release by the Bureau of Indian Affairs entitled "Emmons Issues Policy Statement on Sale of Individually Owned Indian Lands" (May 15, 1958), it is stated that "during the past 4 years the Department and Bureau have been giving a great deal of intensive study to this problem." The returns to this committee's questionnaire indicate that very few studies have been or are being made at the agency level. The studies referred to in the press release must then be in process here in Washington and the committee would undoubtedly be interested in a progress report. This also raises the question as to whether the committee might recommend that studies. be made at the agency level. Such a procedure would enable the Bureau of Indian Affairs to utilize personnel familiar with the problem and stationed at the scene, who can obviously produce more substantial data from which a more adequate policy can emanate.

Applications for sale to fee status or patents in fee filed by individual Indians are a source of concern not only to the various tribes but to fellow Indians owning nearby trust land. It is at this stage that our problems of tribal land acquisition programs and key tracts enter the picture. It is at this point also that the effectiveness of Bureau operation is most felt, since its decision is so all-important to other Indian owners of trust land. Returns to our questionnaire show that the Bureau field officials do not follow the uniform procedures in passing on an application for sale or fee patent. In some cases a fairly detailed study is made while in others the application is simply brought to the attention of the tribe. This is not in keeping with the position of the Federal Government, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs in particular, as guardians and caretakers of Indian trust land. Primary responsibility for decisions in this area resides with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and while the tribes should certainly be made aware of all such action, they should also have the benefit of advice and competent studies of the Bureau's professional staff. The committee might consider recommendations to the Commissioner of Indian Af

fairs concerning more specific instruction and regulations for the guidance of field officials. Such regulations would help to bring about a more adequate assumption of their guardianship responsibilities by Bureau field officials, and would undoubtedly be of assistance to the tribes.

While the Bureau's stated policy has been to study the "key tract" problem, our material indicates a very confused situation among Bureau field officials who seem to have varying interpretations of what is meant by the term. It is my thought that the committee consider suggesting to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs that a much more specific definition of the term is needed for the guidance of field officials. Such definition might take into consideration tracts that may be "key" to: (1) Tribal land acquisition programs, (2) surrounding tribal trust land, and (3) adjacent individual Indian trust land. It would seem appropriate that such a definition would be formulated with the most beneficial utilization of surrounding tribal and individual Indian trust land in mind.

I might bring it to the committee's attention that the study shows Bureau field officials and employees are diligently striving to assist the Indians but are operating under somewhat of a handicap for lack of more specific direction from both the area and central offices. While I understand that regulations cannot be so stringent as to leave the field official entirely without necessary flexibility, nevertheless they should not be so vague that various agencies are operating by entirely different methods and standards. Perhaps the committee should consider recommendations to the Commissioner which would lead to more specific regulations concerning Indian land sales activities of the Bureau. Such a coordination of Bureau activities would undoubtedly assist in creating a closer cooperation between tribal and Bureau officials at the agency level.

TRIBAL COUNCILS

While I found that some tribes had organized land acquisition programs and active real-estate committees, many others had not. The committee might consider the possibility of recommending that tribal councils organize such activities and also make a study of individual trust lands in their area. These actions could serve several purposes: (1) The Congress would have adequate up-to-date information concerning tribal land problems and planning, (2) the Bureau of Indian Affairs would have a guide indicating the objectives of the tribe in rounding out their land base, (3) the tribe and the Bureau would profit by agreeing on "key tracts" before individuals apply for fee patents or sales to fee status, (4) a closer cooperation and understanding of each others problems would result between tribal and Bureau officials. It is hoped that should the committee make such a recommendation the Bureau of Indian Affairs will assist the various tribes in their planning and also cooperate with them in all future transactions.

COMMITTEE

I strongly recommend that the committee continue this valuable study and develop more fully the problem areas that have been brought to light. Specific areas that might be pursued further are: (1) Fed

eral lands acquired for Indian use and not being so used at this time; (2) methods of halting any further lands from going into "heirship status," perhaps through some program of tribal acquisition; (3) procedures of Bureau approval of fee patents and sales to fee status as they are now being applied and the participation of the tribes in such determination; (4) tribal land-acquisition programs and their problems; (5) possibility of turning over Federal lands acquired for Indian use to the tribes; and (6) the feasibility of legislative action designed to financially assist tribes in the purchase of individual Indian trust land.

I believe that the moratorium has had a salutary effect in causing officials of the Indian Bureau, Members of Congress, and the general public to pause to consider the ultimate consequences of the present land-sale policies.

I wish to thank the many Indian Bureau field officials and Indian tribal officials for their diligent work in preparing the answers to the questionnaires, although I am disappointed that more tribal groups did not respond to the questionnaire. I am particularly grateful to Dr. William H. Gilbert and Stephen A. Langone, of the Legislative Reference Service, for their painstaking analysis of the questionnaires, and to Dr. Ernest Griffith, former Director of Legislative Reference, Library of Congress, and his successor, Dr. Hugh L. Elsbree, who arranged for these two Indian Affairs specialists to analyze the material during this busy season. JAMES E. MURRAY, Chairman.