Mr. ELLIOTT. Mr. Hartman has been deposed by this committee, and he is a financial analyst for the Indian gaming management staff for the Bureau of Indian Affairs of the Department of the Interior.

EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:

Question. Let me just ask a critical policy question here. Was it Department policy to give every applicant or to give the applicant in any gaming application every opportunity to address or cure problems in their applications?

Answer. That would be a more appropriate question for the gaming director, because he is involved in the processing of these applications. The general policy of the Department, as I have stated, is to carry out a policy of consultation with the tribes, and sometimes it is not possible, but that is what we try to do.

Question. So to characterize what you just said correct me if I am wrong—that it is your belief that when you were there, you tried to give applicants an opportunity to address and cure problems?

Answer. That is a question you have to refer to the gaming director.

Question. Fair enough.

Would Indian tribes have been consulted if the Department was considering a significant change in how it interpreted section 20 of IGRA when you were at the Department?

Answer. It's such a major provision, yes, there would have to be some type of communication.

Question. The Presidential memorandum that we were examining earlier also indicated there would be consultation with tribes on major issues of interest to the tribes. If you, as Assistant Secretary, had changed the policy of the Department from one in which opposition to a proposed off-reservation casino had to be supported by factual evidence of detriment to a policy which gave local communities a right to veto a proposed off-reservation facility, would you have consulted with Indian tribes beforehand-all Indian tribes beforehand?

Answer. You can't consult with all Indian tribes, there are over 556—well, I suppose you could if you had to do it.

Question. To the extent possible, consistent with the Presidential director? Answer. Whenever there are major policy changes that impact the tribes and issues, they try and do this, and if you look at the record of administration, you will see that there have been numerous consultations by various officials withinfrom the Cabinet level on down. You have Secretary Babbitt, Attorney General Reno, former Secretary Cisneros, and various Assistant Secretaries and others who have taken this memo to heart and have consulted with the tribes. And it is a continuing issue, because it takes, you know, planning and organization, and it is a vast country, and if you look at the previous administrations and this is not to cast aspersions, this is an evolution of Indian affairs in this country-you will see that there has been much better communication with tribes on many issues-education, environment, you know, justice issues.

Question. Was there a policy at the Department of the Interior as of July 14, 1995, that the distance between a tribe, a tribe's reservation, and a proposed offreservation casino, should be considered in determining whether the proposedwhether the proposed casino would be detrimental to the surrounding community? Answer. Well, it would be a factor for consideration. Again, there are numerous portions in implementing a policy. That would be one factor for consideration. Question. Was that a policy that was ever written down?

Answer. Maybe, but I don't recall seeing it.

Question. If Mr. Duffy-and I am asking this question as an "if" question, but if Mr. Duffy made a policy decision of the distance between the reservations of the three Wisconsin tribes and Hudson, Wisconsin, was a factor to consider in determining whether the proposed Hudson casino should be approved or whether it was detrimental to the surrounding community, in your view, would that have represented a new policy?

Answer. Well, he was counselor to the Secretary, and so he would operate under the mantle of the Secretary.

Question. Is that the type of policy that you consider should rise to the level of consultation with the tribes?

Answer. That could be a possible point for consultation.

Question. When you made the campaign contribution to Chairman Gaiashkibos in December of 1994, you were aware that you were going to be the final decision maker in the proposed Hudson casino application; is that correct?

Answer. No.

Question. You weren't?

Answer. No.

Question. Were you aware, at the time that you made the decision to recuse yourself, that Mr. Duffy was recommending that approval of the proposed dog track facility be denied?

Answer. No.

Question. Did you ever tell Mr. Duffy that you didn't want to be the signatory on a letter that had anything to do with the application in the Hudson Dog Track mat

ter?

Answer. No. I had communicated my recusal to Mr. Anderson, and I assumed he had communicated this to Mr. Duffy and to others.

Question. Did the Secretary ever sign decision letters in matters arising under IGRA?

Answer. Well, since the counselor is the lead person on gaming, water, and land, I would assume so. I don't know for sure.

Question. Do you know of any other occasion where the Deputy Assistant Secretary, Mr. Anderson, signed a decision letter in any matter arising under IGRA? Answer. I'm not aware that I can recall at this point, but I do, when I travel, delegate my authority to him.

Mr. WILSON. Okay. At this time, I have no further questions.

Mr. YEAGER. Counsel graciously allowed me to interject questions throughout today, so I have no questions.

Thank you on behalf of the Minority for coming in today voluntarily and spending so much time for us today.

The WITNESS. I try to do my citizen's duty.

Mr. HORN. We thank you and wish you well.

The WITNESS. I wish you well, too. I appreciate the approach and manner that you have all utilized in this, and I appreciate the Minority counsel's participation. Mr. WILSON. Actually, one thing before we go off the record, and I appreciate your kind words, but they may be revoked immediately.

Mr. YEAGER. Only if you are going for another 2 hours.

Mr. WILSON. We did send you a letter indicating that you might be called as a witness in a hearing.

The WITNESS. Where did you send it? I mean, I never got it.

Mr. ELLIOTT. They sent it to Madison, Wisconsin.

The WITNESS. Everybody thinks I am gone already.

Mr. WILSON. I wanted to just work through this with you. It's a letter that actually went to the University of Wisconsin. I will pass this out, and it is not necessarily the conclusion we need today, but it indicates that which I just said.

Mr. YEAGER. Counsel, do you know if the Minority was copied on all of these letters?

Mr. WILSON. I do not know for a fact.

The WITNESS. Listen, I feel that I have done my duty here. I have nothing more to say. I am starting a semester at the university, and I would respectfully ask you all to utilize this appearance rather than having me come back to testify.

Mr. WILSON. Before we go off the record, I will indicate we did provide Ms. Deer with this letter, and at this point we can discuss this further.

I would like to thank you very much for appearing here. You did appear voluntarily. You took a great deal of time to do this. Thank you very much.

If we can go off the record.

[Whereupon, at 6:19 p.m., the deposition was concluded.]

[The exhibits referred to follow:]

On November 15, 1994, the Minneapolis Area Office of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) transmitted the application of the Sokaogon Chippewa Community of Wisconsin, the Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin, and the Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin (collectively referred to as the "Tribes") to place a 55acre parcel of land located in Hudson, Wisconsin, in trust for gaming purposes. The Minneapolis Area Director recommended that the decision be made to take this particular parcel into trust for the Tribes for gaming purposes. Following receipt of this recommendation and at the request of nearby Indian tribes, the Secretary extended the period for the submission of comments concerning the impact of this proposed trust acquisition to April 30, 1995.

The property, located in a commercial area in the southeast corner of the City of Hudson,. Wisconsin, is approximately 85 miles from the boundaries of the Lac Courte Oreilles Reservation, 165 miles from the boundaries of the Red Cliff Reservation, and 188 miles from the boundaries of the Sokaogon Reservation. The St. Croix Band of Chippewa Indians, one of the eight Wisconsin tribes (not including the three applicant tribes), is located on a reservation within the 50-mile radius used by the Minneapolis Area Director to determine which tribes can be considered "nearby Indian tribes within the meaning of Section 20 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA).

EXHIBIT

Section 20 of the IGRA, 25 U.S.C. § 2719(b)(1)(A), authorizes gaming on off-reservation trust lands acquired after October 17, 1988, if the Secretary determines, after consultation with appropriate State and local officials, including officials of other nearby tribes, and the Governor of the State concurs, that a gaming establishment on such lands would be in the best interest of the Indian tribe and its members and would not be detrimental to the surrounding community.

The decision to place land in trust status is committed to the sound discretion of the Secretary of the Interior. Each case is reviewed and decided on the unique or particular circumstances of the applicant tribe.

For the following reasons, we regret we are unable to concur with the Minneapolis Area Director's recommendation and cannot make a finding that the proposed gaming establishment would not be detrimental to the surrounding community.

The record before us indicates that the surrounding communities are strongly opposed to this proposed off-reservation trust acquisition. On February 6, 1995, the Common Council of the City of Hudson adopted a resolution expressing its opposition to casino gambling at the St. Croix Meadows Greyhound Park. On December 12, 1994, the Town of Troy adopted a resolution objecting to this trust acquisition for gaming purposes. In addition, in a March 28, 1995, letter, a number of elected officials, including the State Representative for Wisconsin's 30th Assembly District in whose district the St. Croix Meadows Greyhound Track is located, have expressed strong opposition to the proposed acquisition. The communities' and State officials' objections are based on a variety of factors, including increased expenses due to potential growth in traffic congestion and adverse effect on the communities' future residential, industrial and commercial development plans. Because of our concerns over detrimental effects on the surrounding community, we are not in a position, on this record, to substitute our judgment for that of local communities directly impacted by this proposed off-reservation gaming acquisition.

In addition, the record also indicates that the proposed acquisition is strongly opposed by neighboring Indian tribes, including the St. Croix Tribe of Wisconsin. Their opposition is based on the potential harmful effect of the acquisition on their gaming establishments. The record indicates that the St. Croix Casino in Turtle Lake, which is located within a 50-mile radius of the proposed trust acquisition, would be impacted. And, while competition alone would generally not be enough to conclude that any acquisition would be detrimental, it is a significant factor in this particular case. The Tribes' reservations are located approximately 85, 165, and 188 miles respectively from the proposed acquisition. Rather than seek acquisition of land closer to their own reservations, the Tribes chose to "migrate to a location in close proximity to another tribe's market area and casino. Without question, St. Croix will suffer a loss of market share and revenues. Thus, we believe the proposed acquisition would be detrimental to the St. Croix Tribe within the meaning of Section 20(b)(1)(A) of the IGRA.

We have also received numerous complaints from individuals because of the proximity of the proposed Class III gaming establishment to the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway and the potential harmful impact of a casino located one-half mile from the Riverway. We are concerned that the potential impact of the proposed casino on the Riverway was not adequately addressed in environmental documents submitted in connection with the application.

Finally, even if the factors discussed above were insufficient to support our determination under Section 20(b)(1)(A) of the IGRA, the Secretary would still rely on these factors, including the opposition of the local communities, state elected officials and nearby Indian tribes, to decline to exercise his discretionary authority, pursuant to Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, 25 U.S.C. 465, to acquire title to this property in Hudson, Wisconsin, in trust for the Tribes. This decision is final for the Department.