Mr. HOWARD. Yes, sir.

Mr. MELCHER. Also furnishing funds to any group that might have furnished, in turn, acting as a conduit.

Mr. HALEY. You have heard the request of the gentleman from Montana. Are there objections? It will be received for the record.

(The Committee was advised that the information was unavailable.) Mr. MELCHER. I would think since there had been discussion for several months about this that you were quite aware of what was involved and what was planned, were you not?

Mr. HOWARD. I was aware of only what was sent as their agenda for the week or so they were going to stay in Washington. Outside of that I have no knowledge of any of the detailed planning that had gone into the program.

Mr. MELCHER. When did you get the agenda?

Mr. HOWARD. The agenda was sent almost a month before their arrival.

Mr. MELCHER. About 30 days prior to their arrival?

Mr. HOWARD. To the best of my recollection.

Mr. MELCHER. Early in October then?

Mr. HOWARD. Yes.

Mr. MELCHER. Have you had discussions since then or have you been informed that any colleges and universities in various parts of the country were contemplating, or probably have allowed credit for Indian students who participated in the caravan?

Mr. HOWARD. Not to my knowledge, no.

Mr. MELCHER. You haven't been made aware of that from any source?

Mr. HOWARD. That is correct.

Mr. MELCHER. The discussions then in the Indian country were never brought to your attention? The preliminary discussions and the preliminary planning and all the work that went into the caravan, were never brought to your attention other than just the agenda for the 30 days?

Mr. HOWARD. No, sir; there was no need. They were requesting our presence at meetings here in Washington. There was no preplanning on our part except here locally.

Mr. MELCHER. If regional officers of OEO were involved in the planning, wouldn't it follow through that you would become aware of that eventually?

Mr. HOWARD. It is very likely I would be aware if the regional offices were involved. I consider that a very unlikely prospect.

Mr. MELCHER. You consider that very unlikely?

Mr. HOWARD. Yes, I do.

Mr. MELCHER. Thank you, Mr. Howard.

Mr. ASPINALL. I yield to my colleague from Pennsylvania.

Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Howard, how long have you been head of the Washington office of OEO?

Mr. HOWARD. Since January 16, 1972, sir.

Mr. SAYLOR. Before that, were you connected with the office of OEO in any way?

Mr. HOWARD. Before that. I was the community action program director for the Blackfeet Indians of Montana for 6 years.

Mr. SAYLOR. Did you say that for 30 days you knew, through your office, that this group was coming to Washington; is that correct?

Mr. HOWARD. That is correct, sir.

Mr. SAYLOR. How were you informed?

Mr. HOWARD. By a letter that was sent to us from the committee, the Trail of Broken Treaties Committee. It was a mimeographed, Xeroxed form.

Mr. SAYLOR. To the best of your knowledge and information, do you know that any of the local OEO offices participated in the organization of this trip?

Mr. HOWARD. To the best of my knowledge, sir, I know of no local assistance.

Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Gallegos, you say that you used section 222 (a) (5) of the OEO Act of 1964 as a basis for your interpretation.

Mr. GALLEGOS. That is correct, Mr. Saylor.

Mr. SAYLOR. I want to ask you if you believe your interpretation is in accordance with the original intent of Congress as far as the OEO Act is concerned?

Mr. GALLEGOS. I do. We discussed it very thoroughly in my office. discussed it with congressional affairs people; and having been a former legislator, I am always aware of intent. So the answer to your question is very definitely, the intent was considered and the background to the best of our ability was considered, and we came to that conclusion.

Mr. SAYLOR. Then you must conclude it was the intent of Congress to pay the expenses home of every group that came to Washington and sat inside a Federal building from the time the 1964 act came into effect until it was repealed. That is a logical conclusion from the statement you have just made. I can't believe that anybody who is trained in the law would ever come to an opinion such as that.

I would sure hate to have you teaching some of the young folks in school today if that is what your interpretation of congressional intent is. Because, if that is the case, all you have to do is come to Washington, occupy a Federal building, go outside and get the gasoline out of cars. bring it inside, threaten to destroy the building, then go to OEO, refuse to give your name, get paid for your expenses while you are here and your expenses going home.

If that is what the law-abiding citizens of this country get from an interpretation of an attorney hired by the executive department downtown, I think they had better have another look at their attorneys. That, sir, is my opinion.

Now, Mr. Howard, you said that you saw a list, a yellow sheet of paper, that gave you some idea of how they arrived at a figure of $60,000.

Mr. HOWARD. Yes, sir.

Mr. SAYLOR. Do you have that list?

Mr. HOWARD. Yes, I do. Not the yellow list. I have a copy of that list.

Mr. SAYLOR. Since you have been in Washington and disbursing Federal money, do you know of any other time that you or any person in your agency ever went to the bank, drew cash, and gave it to two people for distribution to a group to whom the money was to go, got no signatures other than theirs, and no promise to repay from anybody, or any guarantee that the money was going to go to the people for whom it was intended?

Mr. HOWARD. No, sir; I do not.

Mr. SAYLOR. It certainly seems to me that it was a very unusual procedure. If they had a list, it seems to me they would have figured the cost at so much a mile and so much a day, and that you could have at least, when their people were there, distributed the money per capita to them as they left to make sure that the individuals to whom it was intended to go received it. Where did the money come from? Mr. HOWARD. From OEO funds.

Mr. SAYLOR. What account did you charge this to in OEO?

Mr. HOWARD. It is charged to the account 222, emergency food and medical services program.

Mr. SAYLOR. You mean you or someone in your agency went to the Appropriations Committee and asked for at least $66,500 to be put in account 222(a) (5) so you would have this money in case somebody came to town and occupied a Federal building?

Mr. HOWARD. No, sir; I am not saying that.

Mr. SAYLOR. Very frankly, I am at a loss to understand how you or any person occupying your position, or a position in the executive branch of Government, could treat taxpayers' money with such little regard.

I am sure that everybody on April 15, which is just around the corner, when they begin to pay their income tax, are going to take a real good look and wonder if that is the way Uncle Sam handles his money, whether or not it is worth while paying their income taxes. Mr. ASPINALL. Will my colleague yield before he gives up his time? Mr. SAYLOR. I will be happy to.

Mr. ASPINALL. Would it have been just as appropriate to have asked for these funds to come out of the contingent fund that the executive has?

Mr. SAYLOR. I think it would have been much more appropriate to come out of that fund than out of OEO. There are a lot of people in my congressional district that have never been able to get their programs financed because OEO said they didn't have any money. If all it takes is this to get it, I am sure it won't be hard to get a few busloads from my district to come down and occupy buildings here in town. Then if all we have to do is see Mr. Howard and Mr. Gallegos, and they will look at section 222 (a) (5) and go to the bank and we will give somebody's name and they will give them enough money to have a trip to Washington, free of charge, it is the greatest gimmick I've heard of. At least Jesse James used a gun.

Mr. Howard, it is the greatest holdup in American history and accomplished without the benefit of firearms.

Mr. ASPINALL. I yield to my friend from South Dakota.

Mr. ABOUREZK. Mr. Howard, I think that my colleague's discussion is directed to the fact that the Indian groups are not as subtle as some other groups that come to Washington. They will have to learn to refine their techniques a little more, I think, in the future.

Who ordered you to pay out the money? You didn't do that on your own volition?

Mr. HOWARD. The direction was to explore the agency to find out if funds were available. From Mr. Carlucci.

Mr. ABOUREZK. Do you know from where he received the order or direction?

87-427-73- -11

Mr. HOWARD. I am sorry, I don't.

Mr. ABOUREZK. You didn't do it on your own option. It was something you were told to do?

Mr. HOWARD. Yes, sir.

Mr. ABOUREZK. Are you familiar with the three schools that were closed in the upper midwest just recently, the grants that were cut off, two in the Twin Cities, and one in Milwaukee?

Mr. HOWARD. Yes, sir.

Mr. ABOUREZK. What kind of schools are those, specifically?

Mr. HOWARD. They are schools developed around the dropout Indian children from grades 1 through 12.

Mr. ABOUREZK. As I understand it, there is a $113,000 grant. Who was the recipient of that grant?

Mr. HOWARD. The grantee for that sum of money was the Upper Midwest American Indian Center at Minneapolis. The program account reads, the St. Paul A.I.M. chapter, the Minneapolis Red School House, and the Milwaukee chapter.

Mr. ABOUREZK. When you say the recipient was the American Indian Movement-Upper Midwest American Indian Education Agency, what does it mean when you say "program account?”

Mr. HOWARD. It means they received the money. They were a grantee already. They are members of the four model urban Indian center projects that we have.

Mr. ABOUREZK. I have a news story out of the Washington Star which says that Mr. Sanchez, your director, has cut off the funds and he has ordered an investigation because he is gravely concerned about a possible connection between the BIA takeover and the grants to those schools.

Mr. HOWARD. That is correct.

Mr. ABOUREZK. You are familiar with that story.

Well, my question is this: What kind of evidence do you have that the schools played any part? I mean they are just little children, aren't they?

Mr. HOWARD. I don't believe we are talking about the schools per se, sir; I think we are talking about the leadership.

Mr. ABOUREZK. Is the money going to the schools or to the leadership of the American Indian Movement.

Mr. HOWARD. The leadership of the schools is what this is based

on, sir.

Mr. ABOUREZK. Are those people in any way connected with the demonstration here and the takeover?

Mr. HOWARD. At this time our indications from our initial inspections are, yes.

Mr. ABOUREZK. That there is a connection?

Mr. HOWARD. There is a possible connection between the two, yes. Mr. ABOUREZK. Have you completed your investigation?

Mr. HOWARD. No, sir.

Mr. ABOUREZK. But you have shut the schools down though?

Mr. HOWARD. We have frozen the funds to the school, sent a letter of intent to suspend pending the completion of the inspection, completion of the meetings, and other required procedures.

Mr. ABOUREZK. Will the schools continue to operate until such time as you find out whether the funds were misused or not?

Mr. HOWARD. I am unable to answer that. They were operating before they received OEO funds and hopefully they will be operating afterward.

Mr. ABOUREZK. You say you have given them notice to suspend. When do the funds shut off?

Mr. HOWARD. The funds were shut off Friday, 2 weeks ago.

Mr. ABOUREZK. They have been shut off?

Mr. HOWARD. Yes.

Mr. ABOUREZK. You don't know if the schools are still operating? Mr. HOWARD. No, I don't. Not at this moment.

Mr. ABOUREZK. It seems to me you are penalizing wrongfully these children until such time as you have found the funds are misused. It doesn't seem right to me, very frankly.

I have no more questions.

Mr. ASPINALL. Before I yield my time, Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank Mr. Howard and Mr. Gallegos. They have been forthright in their answers and although we may not approve of some of the things that took place, I think I can tell you, Mr. Howard, that we are sympathetic to your position and we are knowledgeable as to why this took place. You have done a good job and Mr. Gallegos, you have done your part as well, regardless of some of the reactions that we have had. Thank you very much.

I yield back my time.

Mr. HALEY. Thank you very much, gentlemen, for appearing here. As the chairman of the full committe said, we may not approve of some of the things that happened in the handling of this particular situation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that you did what you thought was best at that particular time.

Thank you very much.

The next witness is Mr. Charles Trimble, National Congress of American Indians, and Mr. Franklin Ducheneaux, National Congress of American Indians. Will these gentlemen come forward?

STATEMENT OF FRANKLIN DUCHENEAUX, NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS

Mr. DUCHENEAUX. Mr. Trimble isn't here this afternoon. You moved a little faster than he expected. He expected to be up tomorrow. Mr. HALEY. This is a fast operation.

Mr. DUCHENEAUX We were called to testify to factual matters relating to the transfer of the $66,650. As I was involved in most of the transactions, I think I can testify, with some minor exceptions, to anything Mr. Trimble could have testified to.

I have no prepared statement. I am available for questioning.

Mr. HALEY. Then the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Aspinall.

Mr. ASPINALL. As I understand your opening statement, you and Mr. Trimble would have testified to the same thing?

Mr. DUCHENEAUX. Yes, sir.

Mr. ASPINALL. What is your position?

Mr. DUCHENEAUX. I am not an employee of NCAI but have been retained as legislative counsel for about a year and a half.

Mr. ASPINALL. What is Mr. Trimble's position?