EXAMINATION BY MR. DOLD:

Question. I'm just asking if you know of a situation. I think you said you didn't. Is that correct?

Answer. That's correct.

[Chapman Deposition Exhibit No. MC-6 was marked for identification.]

EXAMINATION BY MR. DOLD:

Question. I have placed before Mr. Chapman what has been marked as MC-6. And this is a draft letter to Rose Gurnoe, Gaiashkibos, and Arlyn Ackley, tribal chairmen of the applicant tribes. I'll just ask you to take a quick look over that. Answer. Uh-huh. Okay.

Question. Have you ever seen this document before?

Answer. I do not recall seeing it.

Question. You'll note on the first page it's, draft, dated June 29th, 1995. And then if you'll turn to page 3, you'll see that the draft is for Ms. Deer's signature.

Do you have any idea why this document so late in June was drafted for Ms. Deer's signature?

Answer. I do not.

Question. Did you ever talk with Ms. Deer about the rejection?

Answer. I believe I faxed her a copy of Mr. Anderson's letter that day, but not— to get it to her and share it with her, but not having any substantive conversation about the merits of it, no.

Question. And you faxed a copy of the letter to her

Answer. In Wisconsin.

Question. Do you know where in Wisconsin she was at that time when she received the fax?

Answer. I do not.

Question. If I can briefly turn to page 2 of this, there's an indented paragraph, and then one, two, the third paragraph down, the second sentence says, "The record before us indicates that the surrounding communities strongly object to this proposed trust acquisition."

Were you aware of the opposition or the rejection to the trust acquisition by the local communities?

Mr. YEAGER. I think he's answered that question, Counsel.

The WITNESS. In retrospect, certainly I'm aware of it. But at the time

EXAMINATION BY MR. DOLD:

Question. Not in retrospect. At the time?

Answer. I do not, no.

Question. Were you ever at a meeting or did you ever overhear anybody talking where issues regarding the Hudson Dog Track, like the increased law enforcement expenses due to potential exponential growth in crime and traffic testing-it's right down here at the bottom of the paragraph-to the testing wastewater treatment facilities with the problems of solid waste, et cetera, were ever discussed?

Answer. No.

Mr. YEAGER. Would you have been at such meetings where those things would have been discussed?

The WITNESS. No.

EXAMINATION BY MR. DOLD:

Question. On page 3, and this will be my last question on—well, no. I'll ask another after that.

But the first full paragraph says, "We have received numerous complaints from individuals because of the proximity of the proposed Class III gaming establishment to the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway."

Two questions on this: Have you ever heard anybody talk about the concerns of the St. Croix National

Answer. No.

Question [continuing]. Scenic Riverway?

And did you ever have conversations or overhear anybody talking about the proposed Class III gaming facility?

Answer. Outside of that April meeting, no.

Mr. YEAGER. Would you have known whether or not the relevant decision-makers, staff members would have had those kinds of conversations?

The WITNESS. No.

EXAMINATION BY MR. DOLD:

Question. Mr. Chapman, was it common to have letters drafted for either the Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Secretary on matters? You'll notice that this letter here is drafted for both Ada Deer and then, different, for the Deputy Commissioner, who I believe was Hilda Manuel.

Mr. ELLIOTT. Mr. Dold, just to clarify what you're asking, you mean a single letter drafted in that fashion?

Mr. DOLD. Yes.

Mr. ELLIOTT. As opposed-but the obvious answer to your question is yes. There were letters that were drafted for either one.

EXAMINATION BY MR. DOLD:

Question. A single letter where it would be for one or the other, but a single letter drafted that way. Was that a common thing or one that you were aware of? Answer. No.

Question. Mr. Chapman, do you know Tom Collier?

Answer. Yes.

Question. Do you know where they are? Are they still with the Department of Interior?

Answer. No, they are not.

Question. Do you know where they are today?

Answer. They're in private practice. I can't tell you the law firm.

Question. Do you know if anybody at the Department of Interior has had contacts with them?

Let me rephrase that. Let me how do you know Mr. Collier and Mr. Duffy?
Answer. As Chief of Staff and Counsel to the Secretary.

Question. Have they had any contact while in private practice with your office?
Answer. With-no.

Question. Do you know?

Mr. YEAGER. Your office being the office of the Deputy Commissioner of the BIA? Is that what you mean?

Mr. DOLD. Yeah. That's fine.

EXAMINATION BY MR. DOLD:

Question. Do you know of them contacting the Bureau of Indian Affairs do you know of any contact they would have had with the Bureau of Indian Affairs on official matters since they left the Department of Interior?

Answer. I'm aware that they represent Indian interests and tribes. I couldn't tell you which tribes. And they have interfaced with our office, yes.

Question. They have interfaced with your office?

Answer. [Indicating in the affirmative.]

Question. Do you recall on anything specific?

Answer. No.

Question. Has anyone ever discussed with you or have you ever overheard the political affiliation of any of the tribal representatives in favor of the Hudson Casino application?

et.

Answer. Am I aware of their political affiliation?

Question. Yes.

Answer. I am aware of Gaiashkibos' political affiliation at the time.

Question. Okay. And what was his political affiliation?

Answer. He was Republican.

Question. How do you know this?

Answer. Because he ran for State legislature in Wisconsin on the Republican tick

Question. Was this ever discussed with anyone at the Department of Interior? Answer. No.

Question. And when were you aware that he was running?

Answer. During the course of the race, I believe, I don't-I assume it was '92.
Question. Has anyone at the Department of Interior-

Answer. '94.

Question. '94?

Answer. [Indicating in the affirmative.]

Question. Has anyone at the Department of Interior ever discussed Tommy Thompson's, the Governor of Wisconsin's position on the Hudson Dog Track?

Mr. ELLIOTT. Would

The WITNESs. Not that I'm aware of.

Mr. ELLIOTT. Okay.

EXAMINATION BY MR. DOLD:

Question. Has anyone at the Department of Interior or-scratch that.

Has anyone ever discussed with you either in person or otherwise means-has anyone ever discussed with you in person or otherwise the political contributions the tribes opposed to the Hudson Dog Track application-scratch that.

Has anyone ever discussed with you whether the opponent tribes ever made political contributions?

Mr. YEAGER. I would like to take a few minutes if I could. Mr. DOLD. No problem. Let's go off the record for 5 minutes. [Recess.]

Mr. YEAGER. You're finished?

Mr. DOLD. I'm finished

EXAMINATION BY MR. YEAGER:

Question. On behalf of the Minority, I would like to thank you for coming in today and spending as much time as you have today. I have a few quick questions.

You mentioned that you were aware that Ada Deer had recused herself from any decision-making role in this fee-to-trust application.

Answer. Uh-huh.

Question. Do you know when you became aware of that?

Answer. I do not.

Question. Do you remember having any kind of conversation with Ms. Deer about whether to recuse herself or not?

Answer. Yes.

Question. Can you tell me a little bit about that conversation?

Answer. We discussed after the April meeting when I became, certainly, familiar with the issue or the volatileness of the issue. And shortly thereafter her, Ms. Manuel, and I discussed her recusal. And my concern was Gaiashkibos, who was chair of the Lac Courte Oreilles tribe, had testified on her behalf at her confirmation hearing; and she had given a political contribution to his State legislative run, and as a result, the appearance of a conflict was there. And I had recommended in a discussion or contributed to a discussion that she might want to consider recusing herself.

Question. You recommended that to Ms. Deer?

Answer. Uh-huh.

Question. And did she indicate one way or the other whether she would recuse herself at that time?

Answer. She was in agreement with it. But I didn't convey-it was only my suggestion to her that she might consider it. It wasn't my responsibility to convey that to whoever, the Gaming staff or the Secretary's office. So I'm not I did not convey it. I only had recommended that she do it; she agreed with it, and I don't know what she

Question. What she did or who knew about it?
Answer. Right.

Question. I have made an issue today about the fact that you've indicated that you played no substantive role in this fee-to-trust application. So I'll be careful in the way I frame my question.

Did you at any time observe any conduct or hear any communication that led you to believe that any improper influence was brought to bear in the fee-to-trust application process?

Answer. I was not aware of any such conversations or privy to them, so no. Question. Do you have reason, any reason to believe whatsoever there was any improper conduct in the Department of Interior in connection with this

Answer. I do not.

Question [continuing]. Application?

Thank you again for coming today.

EXAMINATION BY MR. DOLD:

Question. Just a couple very, very brief follow-ups.

The meeting that you had discussing Ms. Deer's recusal

Answer. Uh-huh.

Question [continuing]. On this issue, who else was in attendance in that meeting? Answer. It was Ms. Deer, myself, and Ms. Manuel.

Question. And you don't recall-was there any memorandum, anything memorializing that meeting?

Answer. Not that I'm aware of.

Question. And was this meeting shortly-you say shortly after your April, the April meeting out in Wisconsin; isn't that correct?

Answer. Correct.

Mr. DOLD. Mr. Chapman, on behalf of the Government Reform and Oversight Committee, and on behalf of Mr. Wilson and myself, thank you very much for coming in today.

The WITNESS. Thank you.

Mr. DOLD. We can go off the record.

[Whereupon, at 11:53 a.m., the deposition was concluded.]

[The exhibits referred to follow:]

William Safire (column. Dec. 31) jumps to erroneous conclusions as to why the Interior Department denied the application by three Wisconsin tribes to establish a casino 85 to 188 miles from their reservation.

It was the right decision, made for the right reasons, and I have told the truth about it. This department does not force off-reservation casinos upon unwilling communities. City councils of the towns of Hudson and Troy, as well as three senators from both political parties, seven Minnesota members of Congress, the Republican Governor of Wisconsin and many others opposed the casino.

Mr. Safire opines that Harold M. Ickes "caused heat to be put on" me to deny the application. The facts, spread across a voluminous record, prove otherwise. I did not participate in the decision, and as I have said in sworn testimony. I have never spoken to Mr. Ickes nor to anyone else at the White House or the Democratic Na tional Committee - about this matter.

Mr Safire falsely asserts that a "staff recommendation" approving the casino was changed for political reasons In fact, the draft memoranJum cites only the criteria to be considered in determining local opposition, not whether the casino should be approved The decision to deny was based on the recommendation of the senior civil servant in the gaming office and supported by his staff. They testified they were unaware of any contributions by interested tribes or of any communications between the inbes and the White House or the DNC BRUCE BABBITT Secretary of Interior Washington, Jan. 2, 1998