Answer. He did, yes. Question. And what were those matters? Answer. He called me concerning the status of an application dealing with land in trust, I think, for the Wyandotte. Not the Wyandotte. I'm sorry. I'm trying to think here. Wait a minute and I'll think about the name of the tribe. It was a tribe in-well, I can't think where the tribe is located that wanted to take land into trust in Massachusetts. I believe I had a conversation or meeting with him about that, and I believe he called me on one other occasion, but I can't recall the Question. Is the Massachusetts one different from Connecticut? Mr. TAYLOR. It is. The Gay Heads? The WITNESS. This is the Gay Heads, yes. Question. Is it a Martha's Vineyard? Answer. Yes. And I believe that he also called to inquire about the status of an application for land in trust for thes Pequots. Question. Do you recall when that was? Answer. I don't. Sometime a long time ago. Question. A long time ago, like in 1993? Answer. '93 or '94. Early '94. Question. Do you know if you have any documents or records relating to those contacts? Answer. I don't. Question. Do you recall what the nature of his inquiry was? Answer. He just asked about the status of the application. Question. Do you recall what you told him? Answer. That we were working on it. Question. Do you know why he was calling? Answer. I don't know. Question. Do you have any knowledge of why he needed that information? Answer. I believe the matter was receiving a considerable amount of congressional attention at the time. Question. That's the Connecticut matter? Answer. Right. Question. And then the Massachusetts matter that you referenced? Answer. I think there was congressional interest in that as well. Question. Do you recall when that inquiry was made? Answer. I don't, no. Question. Generally— Answer. I don't believe he talked to me. I think he talked to-I think he first talked to the Chief of Staff. Question. About both of those matters or just Answer. Just about-Anne Shields at the time. Mr. TAYLOR. Just about which? The WITNESS. About the Gay Head. Wampanoag. Question. That would have been when Anne Shields was Chief of Staff? Answer. Yes. Question. So that would be after July of '95 or thereabouts? Answer. Absolutely. Question. Do you recall what the nature of the contact was? Answer. He was interested, as there was congressional interest in our dealing with the application, he was interested in that. I don't know. We had a meeting. That's all I remember is we had a meeting with him. Question. Was that a meeting at the White House? Answer. I don't remember if it was the White House or the Executive Office Building. Question. But you went there, he didn't come to the Interior Department? Answer. No. And I went, I think, with the Chief of Staff is my recollection, right. Question. Was there a meeting just on the Massachusetts matter, or was there a meeting on the Connecticut? Answer. This was on the Wyandotte matter. There was no meeting on the Massachusetts matter. I believe I received a telephone call at some point in time on that matter. Question. Is that all you recall about the contacts with Mr. Ickes? Answer. Right, that's all I remember. Ms. COMSTOCK. I have no further questions at this time. EXAMINATION BY MR. BALLEN: Question. Mr. Duffy, just to follow up on that, so Mr. Ickes made a number of contacts with you on matters relating to land in trust for Indians? Answer. Two occasions which I had contact with Mr. Ickes about these matters. Question. Your testimony is he never had any contact with you on the Hudson Casino matter? Answer. No, absolutely not. Question. Just to put this in context, sir, as part of your responsibilities, did you have any line responsibility in deciding the Hudson Casino matter? Answer. No. Question. Did you have this as a policy matter within the Office of the Secretary? Is that how you were looking at it? How did you see your relationship to the staff? Answer. I was, as I testified on my Senate deposition, in oversight. I was monitoring the decision-making process. Question. And what was your concern in monitoring the decision-making process? Answer. It wasn't the concern. It was there was the matter had been brought to the Secretary's attention by the request for the February 8 meeting. It was a controversial issue. Therefore, in the gaming-it was a controversial issue in the gaming area, and I wanted to and was supposed to monitor those type of issues and make sure that we understood in the Secretary's office the direction that those issues were taking. Question. In monitoring those issue, did you ever instruct the staff on how to decide that issue one way or another? Answer. No, I did not instruct them on how to decide the issue. Answer. I expressed what I thought was the Secretary's policy direction on this type of activity. Question. Within the other matters you handled, if you could estimate, what percentage of time did you spend on this matter from February until the final-February '95 until the final decision was? Answer. A very, very small amount. This was an application proceeding through the Bureau of Indian Affairs. So my job, as I testified on my Senate deposition, was to dip in and out and determine how things were going. Question. So you did not see your role as being substantively involved in the details of the decision or the analysis? Answer. No. Question. Sir, are you aware of any improper conduct whatsoever within the Department of Interior in deciding this issue? Answer. I'm not aware of any improper conduct, no. Question. Are you aware of any political pressure from the White House or from the Democratic National Committee? Answer. I personally am not aware of any White House pressure or any pressure from the Democratic National Committee to decide it one way or another, no. Mr. BALLEN. I have nothing further. EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK: Question. I just have a couple of questions on another matter very briefly. Were you aware of attempts to get Webster Hubbell's wife a job, Suzanne Hubbell a job at the Interior Department? Mr. TAYLOR. What's the relevance of that to this inquiry? Ms. COMSTOCK. The committee is looking at matters related to Mr. Hubbell, and there have been a number of meetings with Mr. Collier that Mr. Hubbell had at or around this time, so I was just wondering if this witness might have any knowledge of that. The WITNESS. I have no knowledge other than that she got a job-that Suzy Hubbell was employed at the Department of Interior, I know that. EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK: Question. Were you aware of any contacts from the White House in order to secure that position for Mrs. Hubbell? Answer. I was not aware of any, no. Question. Were you aware of Mr. Collier meeting with Mr. Hubbell after he left the Justice Department in the spring of 1994? Answer. I have no awareness of that, no. I'm not aware of that. Question. And you have never discussed any matters relating to Mr. Hubbell with Mr. Collier? Answer. No. Ms. COMSTOCK. Thank you. That's all I have. [Whereupon, at 12:45 p.m., the deposition concluded.] [The exhibits referred to follow:] Thank you for your letter of December 19, 1994, and the kind words contained therein. The Clinton Administration is serious about reinventing Government, and that means being responsive to the concerns of our citizens. I have sent a copy of your letter to the Indian Gaming office and asked them to explain to you both the process for approval and the present status of the application. I appreciate your offer and that of local business and community leaders to travel to Washington to discuss the matter with the Secretary. At this time, however, I do not believe that the application has progressed to the point where such a trip would be necessary. Sincerely, counsel t the Secretary As you may know, on February 8, 1995, I met with Senator Paul Wellstone, Representatives Jim Oberstar, David Minge, Bill Luther, Bruce Vento and tribal representatives from the Mille Lacs, Bois Forte, Leech Lake, Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux, Red Lake and St. Croix Tribes, to discuss their concerns with your application to place land located in Hudson, Wisconsin, in trust for the Sokoagon Chippewa, Community, the Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians and the Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians for gaming purposes. At this meeting, tribal representatives indicated that they did not believe the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) had complied with the tribal consultation requirements of Section 20 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, and that they lacked sufficient information to adequately respond to your proposed acquisition. They specifically requested that they be granted additional time to submit reports detailing the impact of the proposed acquisition on nearby tribes. We agreed to this request, but did not set a deadline for the submission of this information. In order not to unduly delay consideration of this proposed acquisition, we have advised the parties with whom we met on February 8 that any additional information must be submitted by April 30, 1995, in order to be considered by the Department of the Interior in making the Section 20 determination. Please be assured that our commitment regarding the submission of additional information will not delay consideration of other aspects of your application by the BIA's Indian Gaming Management Staff. Should areas of concerns with the application be identified, you will be so notified. EXHIBIT bce: 2 Sincerely, 15/ Johny. Duffy John J. Duffy Secy Surname, Secy RF(2), 101-A, Bureau RF, Surname, Chron, Hold BIA:GSkibine:trw:3/16/95:219-4068 corr per JDuffy:trw:3/27/95 Identical letters sent to: wp:a:ackley.dog gaiashkibos, Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Chippewa |