[The deposition of Thomas Corcoran follows:] EXECUTIVE SESSION COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT, DEPOSITION OF: THOMAS CORCORAN WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1997 The deposition in the above matter was held in Room 2203, Rayburn House Office Building, commencing at 10:08 a.m. Appearances: Staff Present for the Government Reform and Oversight Committee: Robert J. Dold, Jr., Investigative Counsel; James C. Wilson, Senior Investigative Counsel; Elliott Berke, Counsel; and Michael J. Yeager, Minority Counsel. For MR. CORCORAN: THOMAS CORCORAN, ESQ. 1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006-3483 Mr. DOLD. Good morning, Mr. Corcoran. On behalf of the members of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, I appreciate and thank you for appearing here today. The person transcribing this deposition is a House reporter and a notary public and I will now request that the House reporter place you under oath. THEREUPON, THOMAS CORCORAN, a witness, was called for examination by Counsel, and after having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: Mr. DOLD. I would like to note for the record those who are present at the beginning of this deposition. I am Bob Dold, the designated Majority counsel for the committee; I am accompanied today by Jim Wilson, also with the Majority staff, and Elliot Berke, who is also with the Majority. Michael Yeager is the designated Minority counsel for the committee. And Mr. Corcoran is accompanied today by Mr. Robert Adler. Although this proceeding is being held in a somewhat informal atmosphere, because you have been placed under oath your testimony here today has the same force and effect as if you were testifying before Congress or a court of law. If I ask you about conversations you have had in the past and you are unable to recall the exact words used in the conversation, you may state that you are unable to recall the exact words and then give me the gist or substance of any such conversation, to the best of your recollection. If you recall only part of a conversation or only part of an event, please give me your best recollection of those events or parts of conversations that you recall. If I ask you whether you have any information on a particular subject, and you have overheard other persons conversing with each other regarding it, or have seen correspondence or documentation regarding it, please tell me that you do have such information and indicate the source, either a conversation or document or otherwise from which you derive such knowledge. Majority and Minority counsels will ask you questions regarding the subject matter in the investigation. Minority counsel will ask questions after the Majority has finished. After Minority counsel has completed questioning, a new round of questioning may begin. Members of Congress who wish to question will be afforded an immediate opportunity. And although I do not anticipate them coming up here today, if they do, they will be offered an immediate opportunity to ask questions. At the conclusion of their questioning, counsel will pick up where they have left off. Pursuant to committee rules, you are allowed to have an attorney present to advise you of your rights. Any objection raised during the course of the deposition shall be stated for the record. If a witness is instructed not to answer a question or otherwise refuses to answer a question, Majority and Minority counsel will confer to determine whether the objection is proper. If the Majority and Minority counsels agree a question is proper, the witness will be asked to answer the question. If an objection is not withdrawn, the Chairman or a Member designated by the Chairman may decide whether the objection is proper. This deposition is considered as taken in executive session of the committee, which means it may not be made public without the consent of the committee. You are asked to abide by the Rules of the House and not to discuss with anyone other than your attorney this deposition and the issues and questions raised during this proceeding. Finally, no later than five days after your testimony is transcribed and you have been notified that a transcript is available, you may submit any suggested changes to the Chairman. The transcript will be available for your review at the committee office and the committee staff can make any typographical or clerical changes that you request. Any substantive changes, modifications or clarifications or amendments to the deposition transcript submitted by you must be accompanied by a letter requesting the changes and the statement for the reasons for each proposed change. A letter requesting such changes must be signed by you. Any substantive changes shall be included as an appendix to the transcript conditioned upon your signing of the transcript. Do you understand everything we have gone over thus far? The WITNESS. Yes, I do. Mr. DOLD. Just a few ground rules. Have you been deposed before? The WITNESS. No. Mr. DOLD. If you don't understand a question, please say so and I will repeat it or rephrase it so that you will understand the question. The reporter will be taking down everything we say and will make a written record of the deposition. You must give verbal, audible answers because the reporter cannot report a nod of the head or determine what a gesture means. Do you understand that? The WITNESS. Yes, I do. Mr. DOLD. If you can't hear me, please say so and I will repeat the question or have the court reporter read the question back to you. Please wait until I finish each question before answering and I will do the same for you. This will help make a clear record, because the court reporter cannot take down what we are both saying at the same time. Your testimony is being taken under oath as if we were in court, and if you answer a question, it will be assumed that you understood the question and your answer is intended to be responsive to it. Do you understand that? The WITNESS. Yes, I do. Mr. DOLD. I see that you are here voluntarily and not as a result of a subpoena; is that correct? The WITNESs. That's correct. Mr. DOLD. Do you have any questions before we begin the substantive portions? The WITNESS. No questions. Mr. ADLER. No. Mr. DOLD. Mr. Yeager. Mr. YEAGER. Just a brief comment. I have objected before and I will object again to this deposition and all depositions related to the Hudson casino matter. By Hudson casino matter, I'm referring to the decision by the Department of the Interior to deny the application by three Indian tribes to place land in trust for development of a casino in Hudson, Wisconsin. This matter has been investigated thoroughly by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee. The Justice Department is currently investigating it. I understand that the Resources Committee of the House has commenced an additional investigation, and these depositions seem to the Minority to be entirely duplicative and unnecessary. As I have stated before, we don't take the position that the committee lacks the power to pursue the inquiry. We think that it is an imprudent and oppressive use of that power. So I would like to thank Mr. Corcoran, former member of this institution, for coming in voluntarily, and that's all. Mr. DOLD. Before I really get into the substantive questioning, Mr. Yeager had made reference to the Hudson Dog Track as a fee-to-trust application. Throughout the deposition I, too, will be making reference to the Hudson Dog Track, and what I mean is the fee-to-trust transfer of land in Hudson, Wisconsin. The WITNESS. I understand. Mr. YEAGER. Understand. EXAMINATION BY MR. DOLD: Question. Would you spell your name? Answer. Spelled C-O-R-C-O-R-A-N. Question. And can you give us a brief educational background? Answer. I was educated in local schools in Illinois, graduated from Notre Dame University, attended graduate school at the University of Illinois, University of Chicago, and the Northwestern University. Question. Can you give us a brief employment history after you graduated from school? Answer. I got started in politics and government while at the University of Chicago, because in 1962 I was on the campaign staff of the late Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen. After service in the Army as an artillery officer, I began working for the Illinois State Senate on the staff. Subsequently, I came to Washington as the staff director for the State of Illinois Washington office. I then joined the Chicago and Northwestern Railroad as an officer. I was elected to Congress in 1966 and served four successive terms. After retirement from the United States House of Representatives, I worked as a consultant and a corporate director. I became associated with O'Connor & Hannan in late 1991, worked as a consultant for the law firm, and effective January 1, 1994, I was elected as a general partner. And that's my current status. Question. Have you discussed this deposition with anyone other than counsel? Answer. Only my attorney. Question. Have you given documents regarding the Hudson Dog Track to the Department of Justice and, more specifically, their campaign task force? Answer. No, I have not. Question. Has anyone from the Department of Justice spoken with you about the Hudson Dog Track matter? Answer. No. Question. Mr. Corcoran, when were you first aware that there was a possibility that the Hudson Dog Track might be used for gaming purposes by three Indian tribes? Answer. My first awareness of this project occurred in the early part of 1995, and in early February, I think it was February the 7th of 1995, we entered into a contract with the St. Croix Tribe of Wisconsin on this matter. Question. When you say you entered into a contract with the St. Croix Tribe, was that something that somebody brought to your attention as a member of the firm? Answer. Yes. It was, as I recall, Larry Kitto who first talked with me about the possibility of O'Connor & Hannan representing the St. Croix Tribe, and possibly other tribes. But as it turned out on this particular issue, the Hudson Dog Track matter, we only represented one client and that was the St. Croix Tribe. Question. So Mr. Kitto was the one that first brought this up to your attention? Answer. That is correct. Question. And who else was involved in the lobbying effort with you on the Hudson Dog Track? Mr. ADLER. You mean after the engagement started? EXAMINATION BY MR. DOLD: Question. After Mr. Kitto first came to you. Mr. ADLER. And let me get a further clarification. Obviously, this is a matter of public record, but there were lots of various people involved in this. Are you talking about O'Connor & Hannan people involved? EXAMINATION BY MR. DOLD: Question. Specifically talking about O'Connor & Hannan people, Mr. Corcoran, who you would be working with in the lobbying effort. Your supposed lobbying team, if you will. Answer. The lobbying team at O'Connor & Hannan, this particular matter, consisted of myself, Pat O'Connor, Larry Kitto, Pat O'Donnell and Tom Schneider. Also, at one point, Michael Callapy was brought into the issue for advice that was given to me. I don't think that there was anybody else in our firm that was involved. Question. With regard to O'Connor & Hannan, you have Mr. Pat O'Connor, Larry Kitto, Pat O'Donnell, Tom Schneider, yourself and Mike Callapy. Answer. Michael. Question. Michael. Answer. And he would insist on Michael. He did not lobby, is what I was attempting to suggest. I asked him a question and he-but he and I don't know if he ever charged time on it or not. I don't recall that he did. But within our firm, those were the only people that were ever involved in this particular matter. Question. Was there a designated area that each was involved in; specific duties that one would take as opposed to another? Answer. Well, first of all, my role in this particular matter was to run the file, manage the file and provide overall coordination for our lobbying effort. With respect to individual assignments, they developed pretty much as we learned the nature of the issue and the problem that was confronting our client. But I would say that with respect to your question, the person who had the responsibility of approaching and trying to enlist the assistance of the White House was Pat O'Connor. The person who had the responsibility of working with the Democrats in Congress was Larry Kitto, and on a specific assignment and only one assignment Pat O'Donnell was asked by me to assist in arranging a meeting with Senator McCain. Question. We will get into this a little more specifically, but a quick follow-up. When you say Pat O'Connor was involved in dealing with the White House, why did you feel it was necessary to get the White House involved on a matter that the Department of Interior would have decision-making power over? Answer. I felt that the White House had already become involved in the issue of Indian gaming and the responsibilities that the Department of Interior had in that respect. The St. Croix tribe was not the first involvement that I had with the tribes and Indian gaming. Early in the Clinton administration, when Bruce Babbitt first became Secretary of Interior, he spent some time in Indian country with meetings and speeches and indicated, to the delight of the tribes, that he had a pretty expansive view of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and agreed with them and with us that the intent of the Congress, when in 1988 the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act became law, was that it would be used as a tool for economic development. Sort of a code word, economic development. And tribes love that characterization of it. Soon after he had made several contacts with Indian country, and it doesn't take too long to do that in this country Question. Sure. Answer [continuing]. The White House learned from a number of Governors, who of course had been, in a sense, colleagues of our President at that time while he was Governor, talked to him about this, and as a matter of policy it appeared to me that there was a change in the approach that Secretary Babbitt was going to take to the implementation of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Secondly, and finally, he provided some organization, basically reorganization, within the Office of the Secretary so that on Indian gaming issues, because of their policy nature, because of the controversies that arise, and because of the potential intrusive involvement that they can have at the State level and local level, that a decision had been made, it appeared to me, that there would be within the Office of the Secretary a review of all applications coming from the Bureau of Indian Affairs dealing with Indian gaming. Question. And when you say the White House was looking into, when it had an active role in Indian gaming or IGRA, was there a hope that the White House would contact Secretary Babbitt on this particular issue of the Hudson Dog Track? Answer. I don't think that there was any plan on our part to involve the President himself in this matter; but I think, given the policy position that the administration had taken already, that with respect to what is a very unusual matter-and that is the fee-to-trust off-reservation transfer of land for gaming purposes, which to my knowledge only once in the history of the United States has ever been approvedthat on something of that nature, with those policy implications, that given the history of this administration, that they would want to be aware of what was happening. And, as we know, it was moving pretty rapidly through the Department of the Interior to headquarters. Mr. YEAGER. Just to clarify, if I could, your understanding was that the White House was interested in giving policy guidance to the Department of the Interior because Governors-affected Governors had expressed concern about the Secretary of the Interior's previously stated position about Indian gaming; development of Indian gaming facilities? The WITNESS. Yes, that's correct. That's what prompted it, in my opinion. Mr. YEAGER. And by that you don't mean to say-and correct me if I'm wrongthat the White House was involved in individual decisions? The WITNESS. No, I don't think the White House, at the beginning, was involved in individual decisions, nor did we want them to become involved in this particular individual decision. Mr. YEAGER. Thank you. EXAMINATION BY MR. DOLD: Question. When you say that only once in the history of IGRA did this fee-to-trust for gaming purposes off-reservation come, I guess it's come to fruition at this point in time, do you know of other times when it went through the Department of the Interior and was approved by the Department of the Interior? It happened more than once at that point in time; correct? Answer. No. I think there may be one or two examples of that wherein the Governor vetoed it, or in the end-but the point I was attempting to make was that this is a very unusual proceeding and only once had such a proposal been approved to the point where a casino went into operation, and that is the project in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. And it was brought forcefully to my attention by our client, because in that particular case, that very unique case, our client supported the proposal, as did all the other affected nearby tribes. And in this particular case, despite their efforts with the Bureau of Indian Affairs at the local and area level, they had been unsuccessful in getting a denial of the application. Question. Do you know if the St. Croix tribe made any political contributions in the 1996 election cycle? Answer. Not to my knowledge. Mr. YEAGER. You're talking about at the time he was actively involved in the case? Mr. DOLD. Whether he knows at any time if the St. Croix had made political contributions during the 1996 election cycle. The WITNESS. Not to my knowledge. Mr. YEAGER. Sitting here today what does he know, or did he know it at the time? Mr. DOLD. Sitting here today, any time, if he knows of any contributions. The WITNESs. No, I do not. Mr. DOLD. I'm showing Mr. Corcoran what has been marked as TC-1, which are some calendar entries from Patrick O'Connor. [Corcoran Deposition Exhibit No. TC-1 was marked for identification.] [Note. All exhibits referred to may be found at the end of the deposition.] EXAMINATION BY MR. DOLD: Question. And I would like to just take a little time and run through some of these and perhaps you can make sense of them for us. On February 2nd, this first sheet on the calendar, up here on the right side, it says, Secretary has to sign off, meet with Secretary. Then underneath, it says, Tom Foley. Do you know if Patrick O'Connor-did he ever tell you that he was meeting actually with-is this Secretary Babbitt, to your knowledge? Mr. ADLER. You will have to ask Mr. O'Connor. You can ask if he knows. EXAMINATION BY MR. DOLD: Question. Did Mr. O'Connor tell you he was actually meeting with Secretary Babbitt? Answer. No, he never told me that. And to my knowledge he did not meet with Secretary Babbitt. Question. At the bottom it says, St. Croix Indian tribe, New Life, Corcoran, discussion Corcoran. Answer. I think that says new file. Question. New file. Okay, good. New file, Corcoran. Discussed Corcoran regarding forthcoming meeting with Duffy of Interior regarding creating trust lands at Hudson, Wisconsin, dog track for a casino and need to contact Tom Collier. Is this in reference to what we discussed before about Patrick O'Connor coming to you and having you set up a file for the Hudson-or do you have any idea why he would have put this on his calendar? Mr. ADLER. It wasn't O'Connor who came to him. The WITNESS. It was Kitto. EXAMINATION BY MR. DOLD: Question. I apologize. Answer. At that time we were having discussions, Kitto had brought it to my attention about the possibility of being retained by the St. Croix tribe, and my view |