committee recognizes, however, that due to the differences in methods of computing royalties in some cases, where the landowner shares in expenses of operating, the royalties should be computed on an equitable basis but exceptions can only be made with the approval of the Director.

Section 6 (a) allows the Reconstruction Finance Corporation to set up revolving funds to help carry out the purposes of the act. Such a device was used under the Premium Price Plan by the Metals Reserve Company to expedite getting incentive payments to the operator and proved most effective, especially in aiding the small producer.

Section 6 (b) provides that the RFC shall purchase all materials produced under the act and shall transfer them to the national stock piles. It is provided further that the producer need not deliver the actual, physical material produced from his mine but may substitute material equivalent in value of a satisfactory form and grade. Materials produced under the act will in the course of processing necessarily become commingled with material not produced under the act. Furthermore, in some cases it may be advantageous to substitute material of different grades or make deliveries from points other than where the material was actually produced or processed. It is the committee's intention that substitution should be permitted provided the Government incurs no loss and the substituted material is acceptable to the Munitions Board for stock-pile needs.

Section 6 (c) provides that anyone receiving incentive payments shall have access to his file at any reasonable time so he may see how the computation of his incentive payments was made. It also is provided that the producer shall be mailed or otherwise delivered a copy of the analysis used as a basis for assignment, revision, or denial of his individual production and exploration payment contracts. the past it was found that the practice under the premium price plan of refusing to furnish the applicant with anything more than a blunt statement that "your premium will be so and so," created a vast amount of irritation, controversy, and dissatisfaction. Many errors in calculation must have gone undiscovered which should have been rectified and which the operator readily could have caught. Only those who could afford the time and money of a trip back to Washington had any chance of finding out how their premiums were calculated. The Senate Small Business Committee, which made a careful study of the administration of the premium price plan, stated in 1946:

It appears the quota committee adopted this policy deliberately in order to avoid controversies with produces and to keep the work load at a minimum. However, this places producers at an unfair advantage. Without a copy of the analysis most producers have no way of knowing what improper assumptions, oversights, and errors in calculations may have been made by the committee.

It is realized that where simple, automatic contracts are made on a similar basis to those which were made during the war with small producers under Metals Reserve Company circulars and, currently, through circulars of the Atomic Energy Commission, case analyses would not be made and this section therefore would not be applicable. Section 6 (e) provides that copies of all rules, regulations, and any changes therein shall be furnished to each producer coming under the plan and that they also be published in the Federal Register. Failure to do this in the early days of the Premium Price Plan caused a good

deal of avoidable friction and unrecoverable losses to producers, who did not know the rules under which they were operating.

Section 6 (f) calls upon the Secretary to make annual reports in such detail as will enable the Congress to evaluate its administration and the need for amendments and related legislation.

Section 7 (a) provides the Reconstruction Finance Corporation shall be the disbursing agency of the incentive payments ordered by the Mine Incentive Payments Division up to a total amount of $100,000,000 per year. Assuming that $20,000,000 of this sum goes for exploration incentives, which is the amount estimated by the Interior Department in certain of their proposals to the committee, the prior rates of disbursements adjusted to present price and cost levels indicate that $60,000,000 should take care of copper, lead, and zine, leaving $20.000.000 for the other strategic and critical minerals and metals which are more numerous but less in dollar volume of production. The committee realizes the difficulty of fixing the actual limits and does not wish to specifically recommend any arbitrary division of the funds. When costs fall to a reasonable figure relative to metal and mineral prices the dollar volume of incentives paid will be low. After a year's experience under the present conditions, especially with stimulation of the strategics other than copper, lead, and zinc, the limit of expenditure and the required appropriation for purchases will have to be adjusted by the Congress up or down to suit conditions. The committee feels, however, that it has set a reasonable figure which will result in the stimulation of many times its value in production. The committee notes that production payments represent that increment of total disbursements which is in excess of current market price and that the maximum amount authorized by this section pertains only to exploration and production payments. Section 7 (b) provides that no contract shall extend beyond June 30, 1954, the expiration date of the act. It is pointed out that exploration projects will have to be carefully planned and executed in order to come within the final date.

Section 7 (c) authorizes the appropriation to the Reconstruction Finance Corporation of sufficient sums to carry out the provisions of the act, including amounts in excess of the incentive authorization of section 7 (a) for the actual administration thereof and (b) amounts required for the market price portion of the total payments under section 6 (b).

The committee feels this is emergency legislation and recommends that it be passed without delay.

INCLUDING IN SECTION 16 OF THE ACT OF JUNE 18, 1934 (48 STAT. 984), THE MDEWAKANTON AND WAHPEKUTE SIOUX INDIANS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

MAY 31, 1949.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. MORRIS. from the Committee on Public Lands, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. R. 2610

The Committee on Public Lands, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 2610) to include in section 3 of the Act of June 26, 1936 (49 Stat. 1967), the Midwakanton Sioux Indians of the State of Minnesota, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with amendments and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.

The amendments are as follows:

Page 1, line 3, strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in ieu thereof the following:

That the Mdewakanton and Wahpekute Sioux Indians residing on the Lowe. ioux (Morton), Prairie Island, and Upper Sioux (Granite Falls) Reservations. n the State of Minnesota, shall be recognized as a band of Indians for the purpose of organizing in accordance with section 16 of the Act of June 18, 1934 48 Stat. 984), except that the Indians residing on the Upper Sioux Reservation at Granite Falls, Minnesota, shall not be deprived of their right to hold land assignments by anything contained in this Act, and the exercise of control with respect to such lands and land assignments shall be governed by rules adopted by the Granite Falls Community and approved by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs

Amend the title so as to read:

A bill to include in section 16 of the Act of June 18, 1934 (48 Stat. 984), the Mdewakanton and Wahpekute Sioux Indians of the State of Minnesota.

EXPLANATION OF THE BILL

H. R. 2610, as amended, officially recognizes three groups of Sioux Indians in Minnesota as a band coming within the jurisdiction of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. No expenditure of Federal funds is required.

H. Repts., 81-1, vol. 4-5

Less than 1,000 Indians would be affected by this legislation. Those petitioning its enactment are members of the Lower Sioux group at Morton, Minn., the Prairie Island group at Eggleston. Minn., and the group at Granite Falls, Minn.

Since these Indians are not recognized as a band under the Indian Reorganization Act, they have no right to engage an attorney to protect their interests. For this and other reasons, the Indians concerned feel that the enactment of this bill would work to their advantage.

The Department of the Interior has no objection to the passage of H. R. 2610 as amended. The committee has amended the bill to correct the statutory reference, to protect the land rights of the Granite Falls Indians and to insert the accepted spelling of the tribal

names.

Pertinent comments from the Department's report, which are self-explanatory, are set forth below and made a part of this report: The necessity for this legislation is not entirely apparent, but neither would it be objectionable if amended as suggested herein.

The purpose of the bill is to recognize three groups of Sioux Indians, the Lower Sioux at Morton, Minn., the Prairie Island group at Eggleston, Minn., and the group at Granite Falls, Minn., as a band for the purpose of organizing under the act of June 26, 1936 (supra).

The first two of these groups are composed of descendants of certain Sioux Indians who remained in or returned to Minnesota following the Indian uprising of 1862. Those who were removed to Nebraska became known as Santee Sioux. while those who were settled in the Dakotas were subsequently known as the Sisseton and Wahpeton or Devil's Lake Sioux. Those remaining in Minnesota have clung to their original designations, Mdewakanton and Wahpekute.

The Sioux were required to relinquish all lands held in Minnesota following the 1862 incident, but in later years lands were purchased at Morton, Eggleston, and Shakopee, Minn., under various appropriation acts, as follows: Act of July 4, 1884 (23 Stat., 87), act of March 3, 1885 (23 Stat., 375), act of May 15, 1886 (24 Stat.. 39), act of June 29. 1888 (25 Stat.. 228), and act of January 14. 1889 (25 Stat.. 992).

The same two groups, Lower Sioux at Morton and Prairie Island, have adopted constitutions and charters in accordance with the Indian Reorganization Act of June 18, 1934 (48 Stat. 984). At the time formal organization was under consideration in 1936, the two groups first proposed to organize as one community The 30 families residing near Morton formed a compact group, as did also the 25 families residing near Eggleston or Prairie Island. It was decided finally that. in view of the distance between the two, separate organizations would facilitate the attempts of each community to exercise control over the local affairs of each. The group at Granite Falls, composed in 1939 of about 100 individuals, descendants of five different Sioux tribes or bands, namely Santee, Sisseton, Yankton, Flandreau and Mdewakanton, was entirely landless Evidently the community was formed after the land purchases mentioned above were made. Under authority of section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act, 738 acres were purchased for the use and benefit of the new Upper Sioux Indian community" at Granite Falls On October 6, 1938, these lands were proclaimed an Indian reservation, in accordance with Section 7 of the Indian Reorganization Act Following this the Granite Falls Indians indicated a desire to organize under the terms of section 16 of the Indian Reorganization Act. Difficulties developed when it appeared that the descendants of the Minnesota Mdewakanton Sioux desired to limit membership in the organization to persons of that tribal descent Since the lands had been purchased for all the Indians residing in the community, the Bureau of Indian Affairs could not agree to an organization limited in that manner. Instructions were issued to that effect and, further, field officials were informed that Indians enrolled elsewhere would be required to relinquish such other membership 'n order to avoid receiving dual benefits

It is difficult to see how three groups as widely scattered as the three in question could operate successfully under a single governing body, but if they desire so to organize. no objection would be made It would be a mistake, however, to cite