EXAMINATION BY MR. DOLD:

Question. If it were true that that happened, would that have an effect upon the weight granted local opposition?

Mr. BALLEN. Can I ask this, just to break down that question. If it were true what, if it were lobbying or paying for the lobbying?

Mr. DOLD. If it were true that—just as the sentence says, let me look for it again, because I don't want to mischaracterize it.

EXAMINATION BY MR. DOLD:

Question. If it were true, and I'm not making a representation that it is, that opposition to the acquisition is receiving money from the opposing Indian tribes, would that have an effect, or would that carry a different weight with regard to local opposition?

Answer. Can I-who would be getting the money in this? The council, town council? I mean, if it's the town council receiving money, bribes, that would have an impact. I mean, because I think that's-I'm not sure if it would have an impact on this decision, it would have an impact on the criminal law.

Question. Let me just state I am not in any way saying that people are getting bribes; I am just saying if the opposing tribes are tribes that oppose the Hudson casino, started funneling money into Hudson in an effort to drum up local support, and I don't want to belabor this, would that have an effect?

Answer. Into Hudson, you mean?

Question. The Hudson area, people trying to drum up support?

Answer. No. I think that frequently people do campaigns, through funds to local governments, and I think if it's just building public opinion, it wouldn't.

Mr. BALLEN. In other words, if a local tribe ran an ad in the newspaper, that's their First Amendment right?

The WITNESS. Right.

EXAMINATION BY MR. DOLD:

Question. Directing your attention to page 8, are you-and I will just let you take a look at it, at the top, the first full paragraph, just talking about the Mystic Lake casino was estimated to have had $96.8 million net profit in 1993. A reduction of $8 million would be about 8 percent, assuming that net revenue decreased the full amount of the gross revenue reduction.

Mr. BALLEN. I'm sorry, where are you?

Mr. DOLD. Right here, talking about Mystic Lake casino.
Mr. BALLEN. Thank you.

EXAMINATION BY MR. DOLD:

Question. Actually, I will read just a little bit before that, and I apologize: "Therefore, only $5 to $40 million of the Hudson revenues would be obtained at the expense of existing casinos. An average revenue reduction of $1 to $8 million per existing casino would not be a detrimental impact. The Mystic Lake Casino was estimated to have had a $96.8 million net profit in 1993. A reduction $8 million would be about 8 percent, assuming that net revenue decreased the full amount of the gross revenue reduction. At $96.8 million, the per enrolled member profit at Mystic Lake is $396,700. Reduced by $8 million, the amount would be $363,900. The detrimental effect would not be expected to materially impact tribal expenditures on programs under IGRA section 11."

Having given that winded rendition of this, was this ever discussed at the Department of Interior with you.

Answer. I don't recall ever having this discussed. My focus was on the St. Croix tribes. I do have a vague recollection of some kind of Peat Marwick study that was floated around the department, but I don't remember the details of who was considered in that study.

Mr. BALLEN. These particular facts did not have an impact on your decision. The WITNESS. That is correct. The only market analysis I relied on was the St. Croix tribes impact.

EXAMINATION BY MR. DOLD:

Question. When you say floated around, when you say the Peat Marwick study floated around the department, where would it have come from, who would normally have seen a study like that?

Answer. The Indian Gaming Management Staff, and Tom Hartman, as a financial analyst, would have been the person to receive that. Whether he circulated it within

his staff is something I don't know, but that is where it would have been is with Mr. Hartman. I could be confusing that with a Peat Marwick study done in Minnesota about the benefits of Indian gaming in Minnesota, too. I remember some study to that effect as well.

Question. I know we discussed Mr. Hartman had mentioned his belief on competition and those types of things. Did you disagree with Mr. Hartman's findings as he articulated them to you, because you said before you hadn't seen this?

Answer. I heard, in the conversation we had about the Oneida Tribe I don't think he was articulating any findings as to the dog track application. It was talking about detriment generally. So I don't recall, and I don't think I ever had a discussion with Tom on the specific market analysis here. I think I really relied on Mr. Skibine and the letter itself for the conclusions that there was a detrimental impact to St. Croix.

Mr. BALLEN. Mr. Anderson, would it be fair to say you were concerned about St. Croix because they were in fact one of the closest to the proposed site?

The WITNESS. That is right.

Mr. BALLEN. Significantly closer than the three applicants?

The WITNESs. That is correct.

Mr. BALLEN. Would your analysis have been different if this were an on reservation or continuous gaming proposal by the three applicant tribes, as opposed to an off reservation?

The WITNESS. Yes, because, one, section 20 doesn't apply in those circumstances, and my own view is that the tribes' case is more compelling adjacent to the reservation or even a mile or two or ten miles within the reservation, that the market impact of another tribe, since the tribes are all next door to each other, requires a different analysis than when you go far away.

EXAMINATION BY MR. DOLD:

Question. The impact on the St. Croix Tribe, we have discussed, you felt was at least part of the reason for denying the application. Did you know that they were initially contacted about becoming partners in this venture?

Answer. No.

[Anderson Deposition Exhibit No. MA-2 was marked for identification.]

EXAMINATION BY MR. DOLD:

Question. I have placed before Mr. Anderson what has been marked as MA-2. It is the July 14, 1995, rejection letter to Rose M. Gurnoe, the Honorable Alfred Trepania and Arlyn Ackley, Sr. Are you refreshed on this document?

Answer. Yes.

Mr. ELLIOTT. You have seen this before?

The WITNESS. Yes.

Mr. BALLEN. In your Senate deposition, right?

The WITNESS. Yes, I hope that is my signature.

EXAMINATION BY MR. DOLD:

Question. Was this your recommendation?

Answer. Yes. I guess it was not only my recommendation, it was my decision. Question. Could you have decided when all the information came to you that, well, I decided I want to take land into trust and change the letter signed the trust approved?

Answer. Based on these facts, I don't believe I could have supported a decision that would have accepted the application.

Question. What I am trying to get at is the decision is entirely yours?

Answer. That is correct, the decision is entirely mine. I base decisions on advice from career, and legal advice from the Solicitor's Office and policy advice from the Secretary's Office.

Question. And who gave you advice on this matter?

Answer. The primary adviser to me was George Skibine in the Indian Gaming Management Staff. From the Solicitor's Office the person I probably, if not discussed, was in discussions with the most was Troy Woodward and Kevin Meisner of the Solicitor's Office, and from the Secretary's Office John Duffy was the primary policy adviser.

Question. It is my understanding that John Duffy was the lead on Indian gaming issues, land issues and water issues, is that correct?

Answer. The way I would characterize John's role is he had lead in terms of policy. The lead on gaming matters, legal matters, through the Solicitor's Office was John Leshy. The lead in terms of Indian affairs policy advice would be with myself

and with Ada Deer as Assistant Secretary. So I think there is probably a division of responsibilities in the office. Certainly he would be seen as a major policy adviser. Question. Was it your understanding that he was quote, unquote the lead on gaming for the Department of Interior?

Answer. Again, in legal matters he was not the lead. If it was communications with Congress and the public, then John would have been the lead there.

Mr. BALLEN. Just to be clear, Mr. Anderson, you mentioned Ada Deer was involved in being the lead on these matters, but not in regard to this matter?

The WITNESS. That is correct.

Mr. BALLEN. You were the decision maker here?

The WITNESS. That is correct.

Mr. BALLEN. You were just testifying in general, is that correct?

The WITNESS. That is right.

EXAMINATION BY MR. DOLD:

Question. And so you said you made this decision based upon discussions you had, information you received from people like George Skibine, Kevin Meisner and Troy Woodward, John Duffy, and the Solicitor's Office I'm sorry, the Secretary's Office? Answer. I mean, those were the primary advisors on the decision. I also conducted my own analysis of these facts, primarily based on the geography of the tribes and also my interpretation of the section 20 regulations and also the 151 standards, so I guess I would characterize my view as an independent review of the law and regulations informed by the recommendation of the career staff and others.

Question. A couple things. In your own analysis, under, you said, both under 151 and section 20, under your section 20 analysis, what did you factor in as detriment? Answer. The primary

Question. And let me just, so we don't have to go back. I know we talked about tribes, the tribe's economy would be one of them, location would be a second. What besides those?

Answer. The other statements are contained in, I guess, page 2 of this document, in the fourth paragraph. There was discussion, including in the letter, discussion of the traffic congestion, and also the adverse effect on the communities' development plans, both residential, industrial and commercial. The other primary rationale is stated in the same paragraph about the local governmental resolutions expressing opposition, and the rest, too. I mean the St. Croix Scenic National Riverway.

Mr. BALLEN. That would be an environmental concern?
The WITNESS. That is correct.

EXAMINATION BY MR. DOLD:

Question. What was your concern on the riverway? What environmental problems were your concern?

Answer. It was a national riverway that would only be a half mile from the casino. I think the concern, as I recall, is that the documents, the environmental assessment of that area was insufficient.

Question. So the documents weren't sufficient and that was the environmental problem?

Answer. Right. Generally, if you are going to do a proper assessment of environmental impact, you generally need to show there is not going to be an impact or, if there is going to be an impact, that it can be mitigated in some way. My understanding I believe from the discussion we had on May 17 was that the assessment of information wasn't complete.

Question. Did the local area office conduct a FONZI?

Answer. I don't know.

Question. Were the tribes going to build a casino on the site?

Answer. They were going to try to convert the existing facility dog track into casino, which would have meant constructing a casino facility and also I believe expanded parking. So my understanding is there would be new construction in the

area.

Question. External construction or internal construction, if you know.

Answer. I am trying to remember if I remember, but I don't recall the details of the construction plan.

Question. Would that have made a difference in an environmental impact?

Answer. The scope of the construction would have certainly affected the environmental assessment, yes.

Mr. BALLEN. Was there an environmentalist on the Indian Gaming Management Staff who would review these documents?

The WITNESS. I don't know if he reviewed the documents. There is a person assigned in the Indian Gaming Management Staff to review environmental assessments, and the Solicitor's Office also reviews environmental assessments as well.

Mr. BALLEN. So if you received a report from that person or from Mr. Skibine as that person's supervisor that there was a problem with the environmental issues here, you would not necessarily go behind that?

The WITNESS. Right. I typically rely on the career staff or the people with expertise in the area to give me correct information, and I rarely, if ever, have gone underneath original documents.

EXAMINATION BY MR. DOLD:

Question. Did you receive an environmental assessment from anyone at the Indian Gaming Management Staff on the Hudson Dog Track proposal?

Answer. I think the only recollection I would have is if it was maybe discussed at the May 17th meeting. Certainly I was aware that Mr. Skibine concurred in this paragraph, so I basically relied on Mr. Skibine to be accurate in his representation. Question. The May 17 meeting, what meeting was that, which one are you referring to?

Answer. From my travel records, I am just trying to place the meeting that I attended on this, and I think it was only one, it may have been two, but I think that is from documents where other documents I have seen where it said BIA staff met, I think that is the meeting I was at, so it was in Mr. Duffy's office, and I think that is where we had a discussion on these issues.

Question. And who attended that meeting?

Answer. My recollection is Mr. Duffy, Mr. Skibine, Troy Woodward, Kevin Meisner, and myself, there may have been others,.

Question. Was Heather Sibbison there?

Answer. I don't recall.

Question. Was any documentation provided to you on environmental or economic or any impacts?

Answer. I had a vague recollection of Mr. Skibine having letters. It may have been people opposing it from the local community. I think he had some files with him. So I don't recall if anything was circulated when we reviewed them.

Question. Do you recall what the count was, as far as letters or input from the local community was?

Answer. Yes, it seemed that, I believe by that time, I was aware the towns had opposed the individual towns affected opposed the acquisition, but I believe there are also letters from individual citizens and citizen groups that opposed as well, and I seem to recall George Skibine having some stack of letters from individuals. Question. When did you know that you would be making the decision?

Answer. I think sometime in June, and in my deposition with the Senate committee, my best recollection then was early June. I think I also submitted an affidavit in the District Court that said early June. I know that sometime prior to Mr. Trepania being elected as the chairman of Lac Courte, when Mr. Gaiashkibos was still chairman, Ada Deer had recused herself. I knew as the deputy, and probably the person in our office most familiar with gaming issues, I knew I would be on the surname list at a minimum, and that is the department's means of having people check off their agreement with the position. So I knew I would be involved in the final decision, whether it was signing or having Ada sign.

Question. Can you describe for me, very briefly, what the surname checklist would look like?

Answer. When the department makes decisions, there is not an exact science to it, but generally we have the career, in this case, the Indian Gaming Management Staff, sign a letter for signature of the person who is going to sign the letter, to the Solicitor's Office, and gaming matters they circulated through the Secretary's Office, and then they would go to, in our case, Assistant Secretary's Office for final signature. Basically that is the chain of command.

Question. Would it be like a memo and they just check off on the top to all these people?

Answer. Yes, there would be the original for signature, there would be a yellow carbon copy, and then a list of signatures that people would then sign.

Question. Is that a surname?

Answer. Yes, that looks like it.

[Anderson Deposition Exhibit No. MA-3 was marked for identification.]

EXAMINATION BY MR. DOLD:

Question. I will put this in and let you take a look at it. Showing Mr. Anderson what has been marked MA-3, and it has been explained to us that this is a formit is the surnaming process?

Answer. Yes.

Question. On the subject of the Hudson Dog Track letter. And it lists down there for comments the acting director of Indian gaming management staff, Heather Sibbison, Michael Chapman, and then it says Deputy Assistant Secretary for signature, and Heather for copies. Would that be Heather Sibbison again?

Answer. Yes.

Question. Okay. Why don't you take a look at that.

Answer. Okay.

Question. Have you ever seen this document before?

Answer. I saw this document about 4 weeks ago, I believe, somewhere among the document productions.

Question. But not during the time of the Hudson Dog Track?

Answer. I don't recall that. It may have been on the jacket of the letter I signed. I don't recall whether I had just the letter itself or whether it was a part of a file. Question. Up under Acting Director, do you know whose initials those are? Answer. No.

Question. Who was the Acting Director of the Indian Gaming Management Staff at the time? I mean, let me say, I am not trying to be coy with you. My understanding is George Skibine was the head of the Indian Gaming Management Staff? Answer. If George was out of town or not available, they would have an acting person sign for him on his behalf.

Mr. ELLIOTT. And that would have been somebody else from the staff?
The WITNESS. Right.

EXAMINATION BY MR. DOLD:

Question. And let me ask you, it also says down here in the handwritten areas here, I also know Mike Anderson is out, and I know from previous depositions that Mr. Skibine said he was out just prior to the date here at 7/8/95, up at the top right corner, he said he was out as well. Do you know where you were just before this, just before 7/8 or right around that time?

Answer. Yes, I was in Denver with Mr. Skibine at a negotiated rule making session on another matter.

Question. I know you have gone over that, so we are not going to get into that right now.

I am interested, though, it says in the handwritten notes down here, "Also I know Mike Anderson is out, so we will need to have it signed by whoever is acting for him."

Answer. Yes.

Question. "Please call me if you have any questions, Heather."

What was the urgency to have it go out? If you were going to be the person signing this, why not just wait until you got back?

Answer. Well, one, we actually got a copy faxed to us in Denver-the answer is I don't know the urgency, other than that people who wanted the decision and were calling the offices. But a version of this letter was faxed to George and myself out in Denver and, if we approved it, it certainly could have been signed by somebody acting for me.

us.

Mr. BALLEN. Is that what happened?

The WITNESS. No, I signed the letter as I returned, but the letter was faxed to

Could I take one break, please?

Mr. DOLD. Sure.

[Recess.]

Mr. ELLIOTT. Mr. Anderson and I had a conversation at the break, obviously, and I don't recall the question, and it was early in the deposition, about contacts or discussions he may have had with people in Congress or congressional staff. And my problem is I didn't recall the breadth of the question or the exact question, but he and I had a discussion earlier about conversations with Congress people and I think he has a recollection he needs to put on the record to clarify, in case the question was broader than I thought it was.

Mr. DOLD. Just for the record, so I can say, it was for the application period just before around that, up to date. So by all means, please go ahead.

Mr. BALLEN. I'm sorry, I don't understand, it was for what?

Mr. DOLD. The period of the application.