母 !! 1. Federal officials have until the end of November 1995 to respond to the Vigorous defense of the Secretary of Interior's right to make such Giving the issue limited attention and put up a luke-warm defense Suggest that the issue be sent back to the Interior Department for review 2 We have been informed that the US. Attorney's office in Madison, WI, is 3. The case is further complicated by the fact that the three Tribes filing the 4 The Indian Rights office within the Justice Department, indicated that This is not an iron that the Cantacus af Tutmine vill grams on onsin... EXHIBIT TC 11 page 2 However, there may be some reluctance in the Indian Rights Office to become involved because this is a case of one group of Tribes vs. another group of Tribes. 5. For the Minnesota and Wisconsin Tabes who were against turning the Hudson Dog Track into a casino, it is in their best interest to see that • The case is defended vigorously by lawyers from the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C who are experienced and learned in Indian law. • That this case not be sent back to the Department of Interior for review and reconsideration 6. As we know, this issue became very political and neither the White House or those in Congress who supported us, will want this issue to come up again during the 1996 election year. 7. We have begun to make contacts with the Congress, the Administration and the White House to alert them about our concerns. Additionally, we suggest that Tabal attorneys, on behalf of their clients, contact the Department of Justice and the Department of Interior to: • Convey that you do not want the case returned to the Secretary of the Interior for a second review. 8. Finally, if and when this case goes to court, Tnbes need to decide how they will support the Government and the defense of the prior ruling. [The deposition of Ada Deer follows:] EXECUTIVE SESSION COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT, DEPOSITION OF: ADA DEER Washington, DC. JANUARY 12, 1998 The deposition in the above matter was held in Room 2247, Rayburn House Office Building, commencing at 1:00 p.m. Appearances: Staff Present for the Government Reform and Oversight Committee: James C. Wilson, Senior Investigative Counsel; Barbara Comstock; Senior Investigative Counsel; Robert Dold, Jr., Investigative Counsel; Michael Yeager, Minority Counsel; and David Sadkin, Minority Counsel. Also Present: Representative Stephen Horn. For MS. DEER: TIMOTHY S. ELLIOTT, ESQ. Deputy Associate Solicitor-General Law 1849 C Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20240 Mr. WILSON. Let's go on the record if we may. Good afternoon, Ms. Deer. On behalf of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight I thank you very much for appearing here today. I am aware that you are appearing here voluntarily, and we appreciate that very much. This proceeding is known as a deposition. The person transcribing this proceeding is a House reporter and notary public, and I will now request that the reporter place you under oath. THEREUPON, ADA DEER, a witness, was called for examination by Counsel, and after having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: Mr. WILSON. I would like to note for the record those who are present at the beginning of this deposition. My name is James Wilson. I am the designated Majority counsel, and I am accompanied today by Robert Dold. Minority counsel today are Michael Yeager and David Sadkin. Accompanying Ms. Deer is Timothy Elliott of the Department of the Interior. Also present today is Congressman Steve Horn of California. 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 the committee or in a courtroom. If I ask you about conversations you have had in the past and you are unable to recall the exact words used in that conversation, you may state that you are unable to recall the exact words and then give me the gist or any 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 that conversation or event. If I ask you if you have any information about a particular subject and you have overheard other persons conversing with each other regarding that subject or have seen correspondence or documentation about that subject, please tell me that you do have such information and indicate the source from which you have derived such knowledge. Majority and Minority committee counsels will ask you questions regarding the subject matter of this investigation. Minority counsel will ask questions after Majority counsel has finished. After the Minority counsel has completed questioning a new round of questioning may begin. Members of Congress, and specifically Mr. Horn who is here today or any others that would choose to attend, will be given an immediate opportunity to ask questions at any time if they so desire. When they are finished, committee counsel resumes questioning and we resume from where we have left off. Pursuant to the committee's rules, you are allowed to have an attorney present to advise you of your rights, and I actually may ask you a question clarifying the relationship of Mr. Elliott and yourself, but it is true that you are accompanied here today by Mr. Elliott of the Department of the Interior. The WITNESS. That's true. Mr. WILSON. Is Mr. Elliott representing you in any capacity? Mr. ELLIOTT. You want me to answer. Mr. WILSON. We may as well discuss this now. Mr. ELLIOTT. Yes. Ms. Deer is here to testify so far as we know about matters that arose as part of her official duty and from her official position, and therefore her views in my judgment converge with those of the Department of the Interior, and insofar as they converge and stay the same, I am representing her, even though I am a representative of the Department of the Interior. When those views diverge, it would be my duty as an attorney to advise her that her interest and those of the department have diverged, and we will then undertake to straighten the situation out if that occurs. It has not yet. Mr. HORN. If I might ask, are you from the Office of the Solicitor? Mr. ELLIOTT. Yes, sir, I am. Mr. HORN. Are you a career civil servant or a political appointee? Mr. HORN. Thank you. Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much, and if there is any need to ask anything, obviously we will do that at the appropriate time. If there are any objections to questions asked during the course of this deposition, the objection will be stated for the record, and if the witness refuses to answer a question, Majority and Minority counsel will confer to determine whether the refusal is proper. If Majority and Minority counsel agree that the question is proper, then 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 if the objection is proper. This deposition is considered as taken in executive session of the committee, which means that it may not be made public without the consent of the committee pursuant to clause 2(k)(7) of House Rule XI. No later than five days after your testimony is transcribed and you have been notified that your transcript is available, you may submit suggested changes to the Chairman. Generally, the reporters have been unbelievably productive and the transcripts get turned around within a day or so, and recognizing that you have circumstances that are out of the usual, we generally ask people to review transcripts in the offices here. We will make whatever accommodation we need to make to reduce the inconvenience to yourself, and I anticipate that we will either send directly to you or arrange with Mr. Elliott a method of getting the transcript to you and allow you to review the transcript when you are back in Wisconsin. Committee staff may make typographical and technical changes requested by you. However, substantive changes or modifications to the deposition transcript submitted by you must be accompanied by a letter requesting changes and a statement of your reasons for each proposed change. A letter requesting substantive changes must be signed by you and any substantive change will be included as an appendix to the transcript conditioned upon your signing of the letter. Do you understand everything I have said so far? The WITNESS. Yes. Mr. WILSON. If you don't understand one of my questions, please say so and I will repeat it or rephrase it so that you do understand the question. Do you understand that you should tell me that you don't understand my question if that's the case? The WITNESS. [Nodding affirmatively.] Mr. WILSON. The reporter will be taking down everything we say and will make a written record of the deposition. So please do give verbal, audible answers in order to assist the House reporter. The WITNESS. [Nodding affirmatively.] Mr. WILSON. Your testimony is being taken under oath as if we were in court, or before the committee, and if you answer a question it will be assumed that you understood the question and the answer was intended to be responsive to it. Do you understand that? The WITNESS. Yes, I do. Mr. WILSON. Again, I will note that you are here voluntarily, and the committee appreciates that very much. Do you have any questions about this deposition before we begin the substantive portion of the proceeding? The WITNESS. No. I think your instructions are clear. Mr. WILSON. Okay. If anybody has a statement or observation to make, this is an appropriate time. Mr. Elliott? Mr. ELLIOTT. Ms. Deer is here, as you mentioned, voluntarily. As she will tell you, her personal and professional life is in a state of flux at this time. She is packing up her goods and moving back to Wisconsin. She has recently left her position as an Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs for the Department of Interior and is taking up a position with the University of Wisconsin. She was deposed by the Senate staff in September and we believe that she testified to everything that she knows about the application of three Indian tribes in Wisconsin to take land off their reservations into trust. She was recused, as that deposition shows, from making the decision, and involving herself in the decision from the time of her recusal. I think, therefore, that the redeposition of her is of little or no use. I think she has nothing to add to a record which she has already made through her deposition. We understand from the Chairman of the committee that it is the intent of this redeposition to depose her on facts and documents which were not before the committee, the Senate committee, when they had her deposition taken. There are very few, if any, of those documents, and there are certainly no facts that have not been brought to light by other testimony in this case. We object to the redepositions, but all of the people that you have asked to redepose have volunteered to come down here. Mr. WILSON. I generally don't respond at this time, but just for the record I would make a couple of points. As Mr. Elliott is well aware, we have received over 6 boxes of information that had not been furnished to the committee. Some of the material in the boxes had been furnished, but there are within material furnished after the Senate's deposition, after testimony was taken by the Senate, a number of significant documents that have not been discussed as far as I can tell by anybody, and consequently, it is an unfortunate by-product of a delayed production of documents that witnesses are subjected to something that we understand is a difficult process, another deposition. Having said this, because substantial new information has come to light, it's necessary, and we regret that, and we regret having had to subpoena the Department of the Interior for the information that was subsequently furnished to us. Also, hoping to avoid unnecessary squabbling during the deposition, it is very difficult to separate information that is commingled. Certainly there will be some duplicative questions. That is just an unfortunate by-product of being unable to separate what is new and what is old, and when information was originally discovered. Mr. Yeager? Mr. YEAGER. On behalf of the Minority, I would just join in Mr. Elliott's observations and concerns about the duplicative nature of this deposition. We do have the benefit of the Senate deposition. I thank counsel for his courtesy in providing us a copy. I trust that the questions today will be limited to new documents produced by the Department of the Interior. To the extent there is some overlap, that's understandable, but I would certainly hope that counsel would take great pains not to go over ground that has already been gone over in the Senate. Mr. WILSON. We are more or less prepared to start, but I will say at the beginning, it is obviously very difficult. We will be speaking about documents that have been presented to Ms. Deer before, and the reason for this is that her answers, in light of the new material that has been discovered are very significant. So unfortunately, that is just the nature of this process. EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON Question. Having said that, Ms. Deer, could you please state and spell your name for the record? Answer. My name is Ada Elizabeth Deer, A-D-A, E-L-I-Z-A-B-E-T-H, D-E-E-R. Question. And I understand that you are about to take up a new professional position. Where will you be employed when you begin your new employment? Answer. This is a resumption of my previous position. I am a senior lecturer at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. It was a joint appointment in the School of Social Work and American Indian Studies Program. Question. And bearing in mind that you are in Washington and you are about to be in transit to Wisconsin, what will your Wisconsin address be? Answer. My home address is [REDACTED]. Question. Apart from with Mr. Elliott, and that's making an assumption you have discussed this deposition with him, have you discussed this deposition with anybody else? Answer. I have mentioned to a few of my colleagues that I would be up here, but in terms of discussing it, no, just that I would be here. Question. Is it fair to say that you have had no substantive discussions with any one? Answer. That's right, no substantive discussions. |