Mr. DELLENBACK. Was it a decision of Justice not to use force to evict the occupants of the building?

Mr. MELICH. Let me answer that. Mr. Dellenback, I don't want to mislead you. In any of these proceedings that we had in this case, and others that we have, we do have consultation with the Justice Department. So we are advised as to what is to be done. In this case we had a number of meetings as to what procedures should be taken. The strategy to be employed here if the order of the court was to be carried out was, I think, left up more to the U.S. marshal and to the Chief of Police who had to deploy the men who would be required to execute and carry out the order of the court.

The marshal was charged with the responsibility under this order to serve these people, which he did. When the order to show cause was issued after this order or service of this order had been made, then the question came up as to when the order should be enforced, these people arrested and held in contempt of court and brought before Judge Pratt. That was seriously and at some length discussed by the U.S. marshal and Chief Jerry Wilson.

Mr. DELLENBACK. I see that there were two decisions, that were made that would seem to be highly relevant to this. One was whether to use force to evict the occupants of the building. The second was whether or not there would be steps, potentially involving the use of force, to stop the removal of records and other things from the building by the occupants when finally they did leave. Those are two important decisions.

The thrust of my questioning relative to the weaponry and other things in the building went to what I understood was testimony of the Secretary earlier that the decision was made to avoid injury to personnel, even if it meant some destruction of property.

May I ask one question on that before I return to who made the final decisions. Is it indeed a fact that there was, as a result of this meeting, no significant injury to the occupying personnel of the building?

Mr. MELICH. That is right.

Mr. DELLENBACK. So the basic policy decision was not only made but it was successfully implemented?

Mr. MELICH. That is correct.

Mr. DELLENBACK. So while there was destruction of property, which was obvious, you did succeed, with some 300 to 400 people in the building, in getting them out of the building with no loss of life, with no major damage to those people?

Mr. MELICH. That is correct.

Mr. DELLENBACK. I think that is highly important, and parenthetically I may add that it is a highly desirable conclusion. We have had too many other situations involving law enforcement where, rightly or wrongly, when the decisions was made to go another way there was severe injury to personnel and loss of life. In this instance you were successful in reaching what you set as your goal.

I would like to conclude by pinning down who made the decision not to stop the removal of material. Was it made by Interior officials, was it made by Justice officials, was it made by the local police chief, was it made by the marshal?

You talk in terms of consultation, but finally somebody had authority after receiving advice from everybody to say, "This is what we are going to do." Who did that?

Mr. MELICH. I can't give you an answer that I know of my own personal knowledge. I can say this to you: I think the decision on hearsay, was made by Justice, U.S. marshal, and Chief Wilson. I think they considered all of the factors involved and the difficulties. I remember at one of our meetings, Chief Wilson said that if we cordon off the building, or if we put some of our police in that area, and there is a confrontation, or if somebody should fire at one of my police, my police then would have instructions to fire back.

He said if that happens, then we really have trouble. He was concerned that if he put in his policemen there to take some overt action which might precipitate an action from the TBT people in the building, confrontation would occur.

Mr. DELLENBACK. Secretary Loesch or Secretary Morton, would either of you add anything to that?

Mr. LOESCH. No; I don't think so, as far as I am concerned, Mr. Dellenback. I believe it was a decision-the Justice Department and the police, if they did not know themselves, were notified of the fact that Government materials were being taken from the building. So far as I am concerned, I considered that the matter was totally in their hands as soon as they had the information.

Mr. DELLENBACK. Secretary Morton, it was your advice that those officials in charge, pay very serious attention to the question of loss of life. Is that correct from your testimony this morning?

Secretary MORTON. Yes; that is correct.

Mr. DELLENBACK. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HALEY. The gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Chairman, I have four more rather short questions, I think, of the Secretary.

Has your Department made a decision yet, or are you contemplating making a decision as far as granting amnesty is concerned and not prosecuting, or is this within the power of the Department of the Interior?

Secretary MORTON. Our recommendation to the Department of Justice is that prosecution of people who stole any property or records be pursued, and pursued vigorously, pending investigation by the proper authorities.

Mr. ASPINALL. You entered into no agreement?

Secretary MORTON. I understand that as far as the actual occupation of the building is concerned, and as far as the activities within that building are concerned, the agreement was made that they would not be prosecuted for trespass. But there was no agreement made as to stealing of the property.

Mr. ASPINALL. Who made the agreement that there be no prosecution for trespass?

Secretary MORTON. My understanding is that it was a recommendation by Mr. Carlucci of the OMB and Mr. Garment on the President's staff. I will read you that. It says: "We recommend that there be no prosecution for seizure and occupation of the BIA Building." Signed

Frank Carlucci, Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and Leonard Garment, Special Assistant to the President.

However, what I said holds, that we are vigorously, as far as the Department is concerned, in hopes that we make some arrests in connection with the property that was removed from the building.

Mr. ASPINALL. Do you see that there is any more further need of investigation relative to the question of amnesty, whether it is supposed to be granted by one agency of the Government or another? Secretary MORTON. I would think this would be a subject that should be studied in light of action that could come up in the future. It is a difficult subject. It is very similar to the situation that you have, I guess, when you get somebody to agree to state's evidence. It is a very difficult subject, but I see no reason why it should be put aside. In a Government that is as complicated as this one is, and has grown over the years, this subject, I am sure, has come up before and will come up again. Maybe it would be a good thing if the Congress addressed itself to it.

Mr. ASPINALL. Do you have any agreement at the present time, or have representatives of the FBI, for further investigation?

Secretary MORTON. I do not have any further agreement with anybody as far as that is concerned.

Mr. ASPINALL. Do you know whether or not the FBI is making an investigation?

Secretary MORTON. I am told that they are. We have information from the Department of Justice that they are, and that is the reason that they would prefer not to testify at these hearings-because of that investigation which is underway at the present time.

Mr. ASPINALL. I will ask you another $64 question: Why did not the Department determine damages and culpability before paying off the Indians so that they could go home?

Secretary MORTON. The Department did not pay off the Indians. Mr. ASPINALL. We will find out more about that tomorrow.

Mr. Chairman, I am through with my questioning, and I wish to commend the Secretary and his staff for their cooperation today. We have what I consider a difficult situation, that is perhaps more difficult for them now that it has happened than it is for us. But it will be difficult for us in the future.

Mr. MELCHER. Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions.

Mr. Bruce, before we conclude your presentation here today, I have two or three questions for you. Were there any of the tribal leaders in the group any of the duly elected tribal leaders in the group-that occupied the building on November 2?

Mr. BRUCE. No, I don't think so. There were a couple who were on tribal councils, but not tribal chairmen.

Mr. MELCHER. There were two or more that were actually duly elected councilmen ?

Mr. BRUCE. That is right; yes, sir.

Mr. MELCHER. I have been told that you were quoted as saying that you were in favor of what they were requesting, is that correct?

Mr. BRUCE. No, that is not correct. I think I should go back a little and discuss some of the situations that we have been involved with in the Bureau of Indian Affairs. We have been constantly aware and recognize the responsibility-I have it as Commissioner for tribally

elected chairmen and four federally recognized tribes. That is my primary responsibility. I also made that clear to this group. However, I have indicated on many occasions that I am concerned and interested as an Indian myself with Indians, no matter where they are, Sometimes I look at the program that came out of the 1950's, 1948, and so forth, on termination, which involved the employment assistance program, which moved Indians off the reservation into urban communities.

I look at this program and realize that we as a Bureau did a very poor job. Because out of that training program which was supposed to prepare them for their urban life, we fell down in many respects. So I have been groping in my own mind and made some statements at different times for some kind of a program that could serve the nonreservation Indian. I realize that under this administration, the President had designated the National Council of Indian Opportunity under the Vice President's Office to assist this group, but many times they have sought our counsel, and I feel very strongly that I ought to be in a position to listen to what they have to say, not that I would give them the services out of the Bureau, but to listen to them. That is our big problem-to know what this is all about.

We are trying to understand how anybody, how any human being, can wreck a building like this group did. There has got to be some kind of hatred that would build up to this point. I say, as a result of listening to them on Monday night, it is years, a century of frustration, of unresponsiveness on the part of Government, on the part of State agencies, and so forth.

Somewhere along the line we need to give some attention to this group. Now, I did not say that I am all for what they are doing. They know full well that I did not agree to participate on the nine demands which they made. They know this. I am sympathetic with what they were trying to do on the 20 points. That is what I am talking about the twenty points. I don't condone for 1 minute what was done to that building. What was done to-never mind the personal artifacts that we had there, never mind what was done to the building itself-my main concern in all of this, and I have to say this because I was very much concerned with the kids, with the parents, with the people who were innocently involved here for some real purpose they came because our agencies, our BIA agencies, our BIA people, not all but some, had been unresponsive to their needs. I saw that come out.

People were saying that they moved notes under the doors of our superintendent just to hope he would pick them up and read them, because they had some problem with land, allotments, with some of this. So I say it is years and a century of frustration. But I did not agree to their demands. I did not agree to all of their 20 points. But I think we ought to take a look at them.

What did they come for, some of them? They came because they wanted to see the Secretary, because they wanted to have a chance to meet with somebody closer to the top, which probably meant the White House. So I think they need some consideration.

I don't condone what they did a bit. I think there ought to be, as the Secretary said, some prosecutions for whatever was done. I was brought up to realize that when you stole or wrecked other people's property, you had to pay for it, and I still feel that way.

Mr. MELCHER. Mr. Bruce, what was the first time that you were in the building?

Mr. BRUCE. Friday morning I came into the building, about 11 o'clock.

Mr. MELCHER. Were there any weapons that you saw?

Mr. BRUCE. I did not see any weapon then. I did see clubs.

Mr. MELCHER. Were there any threats that you know of to anyone? Did any of the Indians make any threats?

Mr. BRUCE. On me?

Mr. MELCHER. To anyone.

Mr. BRUCE. Not that I know of. No, not that I know of. I didn't hear any.

Mr. MELCHER. Mr. Loesch had been in the building on Thursday?
Mr. BRUCE. Yes.

Mr. MELCHER. Mr. Loesch, as I understand your testimony, you did not notice any weapons on Thursday.

Mr. LOESCH. No, sir. I was in the building on two occasions on Thursday, both of them for some period of time. The first time I went over there about 9 o'clock or a little afterward, and I went to a meeting in Mr. Crow's office. It started as a small meeting, but before long, a few minutes, the room was very crowded. As I said, it became a sort of confrontational type of thing, but not threatening. Sort of demanding but not threatening. I felt disliked but not uncomfortable, if you get what I mean. Then I went from there down to the auditorium, and I made a little talk at their request and answered some questions at their request, and again it was not exactly what I would call the friendliest meeting I have ever been to, but it was by no means threatening or unpleasant. It was a little bit adversary, but not bad. At neither of those occasions was there any threat or any visible weaponry, or indeed any hard position that I could discern of violation of the law.

I went back to my office about 11:30, I believe; and later in the day, about 3 o'clock, I went back to report on what I had agreed to do, which was to explore whether or not there were other accommodations that could be made available to people. At this time I went into Commissioner Bruce's office where the leadership of the Trail of Broken Treaties was, and there were about 15 or 16-I didn't count thema group of about that size in the office. Again I reported rather negatively the only thing we could get for them in the way of accommodations was the interdepartmental auditorium. They were not happy with that idea, but again no threats, nothing at all, except that as I left there, one of them said, "We will just stay here" or words to that effect. But there were no weapons visible, nor any threats of any kind. Again, I had a good, solid suspicion at that time that they might stay in the building against our will, but certainly I didn't feel threatened either personally or vicariously, you might say.

Mr. MELCHER. Mr. Bruce, you were not in town on Thursday?

Mr. BRUCE. I was back Thursday. I had an appointment to meet with two tribal chairmen for lunch, and I didn't get into the office actually you are talking about Thursday?

Mr. MELCHER. Yes.

Mr. BRUCE. I didn't get into the office at all that day because I went to that meeting in Secretary Loesch's office. That is, Thursday night.