2 Fourth, the Department based its decision solely on the criteria set forth in Section 20 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Let me be very clear why this decision was made, and could not properly have been made any other way. Under the Indian Gaming law. and this is a very important point, if tribes wish to place a casino off their own reservations, as in the Hudson case, then the law imposes stringent tests for Departmental approval. The law requires a finding that the casino would not be detrimental to the surrounding community. This determination must be made after consultation with local officials, including officials of other nearby Indian tribes. With respect to this criterion, the Department in this Administration has adhered to a policy that off-reservation gaming will not be imposed on communities that do not want it. In this case, the three Chippewa tribes requested that we acquire off-reservation land to open a casino located within the City of Hudson, which is 85 miles from the nearest of their three reservations. So we had to consider the application under the stringent rules for off-reservation casinos. Under Department policy, the only fair way to make this determination is to give great weight to the view of local elected officials and tribal leaders. In this case, the City Council of Hudson passed a resolution opposing an Indian casino in Hudson. The City Council of Troy, Wisconsin, a nearby community, also passed a resolution opposing an Indian casino in Hudson. The elected state representative from that district in Wisconsin strongly opposed it, as did the Congressman representing the district. Many other elected officials from the region also weighed in against the casino, including Senator Feingold of Wisconsin. Senator Wellstone of Minnesota, and Congressmen Oberstar, Sabo, Vento, Ramstad, Peterson, Minge and Luther, all of Minnesota. In addition, a tribe which has an on-reservation casino within 50 miles of Hudson strongly opposed the proposal. : 3 This Virtually unanimous opposition of local governments, including the nearby St. Croix tribe, required the Department to reject the application. This was the recommendation of the senior civil servant responsible for the matter, and I fully support the decision that was made on the basis of that recommendation. (A copy of the decision is anached.) Fifth, it is not true, as some have alleged, that political appointees in the Department overruled a career civil servant recommendation that the Department approve the Hudson application. In fact, the eighteen-year career civil servant who headed the Indian Gaming Management Staff received both favorable and unfavorable recommendations from his subordinates and reached his own conclusion that the Department should deny the application in view of the strong community opposition. He made that recommendation to the Depury Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs who, in consultation with the Solicitor's Office and others in the Office of the Secretary, agreed with the recommendation and issued a decision to that effect. Sixth. I had no knowledge as to whether lobbyists on one side or the other of the Hudson issue had sought the help of the Democratic National Committee on this matter. But to whatever extent this happened. I can say with conviction that it did not affect the substance or the timing of the Department's decision. In sum, the allegations that there was improper White House or DNC influence and that I was a conduit for that influence are demonstrably false. There is no connection at either end of the alleged conduit. At one end, as I have stated, I did not speak to Mr. Ickes or anyone else at the White House or at the DNC; and, at the other end, I did not direct my subordinates to reach any particular decision on this matter, although during my watch the Department's policy has been not to approve off-reservation Indian gaming establishments over the objections of reluctant communities. The Hudson decision reflected that policy and nothing else. That should end this matter, and I suppose it would have ended the matter had I not muddied the waters somewhat in my letters to Senators McCain and Thompson in describing a meeting I had with Mr. Paul Eckstein on July 14, 1997. This is what happened: Mr. Eckstein and I had been colleagues in law school and law practice. After I became Secretary, Mr. Eckstein, who practiced in Phoenix, came to represent clients in Wisconsin who supported the Hudson application. On July 14, Mr. Eckstein was visiting other offices at the Department to urge the Department to delay a decision in the Hudson case, which was ready to be made and released that day. Mr. Eckstein then asked to meet with me. Against my better judgment, I acceded to Mr. Eckstein's request. When he persistently pressed for a delay in the decision. I sought to terminate the meeting. I do not recall exactly what was said. On reflection, I probably said that Mr. Ickes, the Department's point of contact on many Interior matters, wanted the Department to decide the matter promptsy. :}f I said that, it was just an awkward effort to terminate an uncomfortable meeting on a personally sympathetic note. But, as I have said here today, I had no such communication with Mr. Ickes or anyone else from the White House. It has been reported that Mr. Eckstein recently made the additional assertion that I also mentioned campaign contributions from Indian tribes in this context. I have no recollection of doing so, or of discussing any such contributions with anyone from the White House, the DNC, or anyone else. 5 If my letters to Senators McCain and Thompson caused confusion, then I must and do apologize to them and to the Committee. I certainly had no intention of misleading anyone in either letter. My best recollection of the facts is as I have just stated them. The bottom line is that the Department's decision on the Hudson matter was based solely on the Department's policy not to approve off-reservation Indian gaming applications over community opposition. The record before the Department showed strong. official community opposition to the Hudson proposal. And there was no effort by the White House, directed toward me or, to my knowledge, to others in the Department, to influence the substance or even the timing of the Department's decision. I hope I have clarified this issue. I would be pleased to answer your questions. 82] From: SCOTT KEBP at "DOI/SOL_HQ 3/21/97 7:47AM (1442 bytes: 19 in) Priority: Urgent TO: JOHN LESHY, Heather Sibbison at INTERIOR-CCM, George Skibine at NTBRIOR-COM, DAVE ETHERIDGE, DAVID MORAN, TROY WOODWARD, Tom Hartman at TERIOR-CCM, Hilda Manuel at INTERIOR-CCM, Michael Anderson at "INTERIOR-CCM, #Dont Use, EDWARD COHEN Subject: Sokaogon . Decision Message Contents Late yesterday, in a very "meaty decision" (i.e. lots Plaintiffs will now get to pursue discovery and will be Judge Crabb did decline to reconsider her decision that Mike |