BY MS. OLSON:

Q I would like to attach this document. For the record, I am going to attach Mr. Livingstone -- I assume that he had sent the pictures -- as Deposition Exhibit 24A, a handwritten note that is signed, "Best wishes, Craig Livingstone," dated July 5th, 1994. It says, "Dear Director Freeh, I came across the enclosed photos, thought you might like them."

[Livingstone Deposition Exhibit No. 24A

was marked for identification.]

BY MS. OLSON:

Q Do you recognize that handwriting and is it yours?

A Yes, ma'am, and I would like to state that that would be consistent with what I would do if I came across photos of people I knew. I thought it was a good thing to do on behalf of the President and the White House.

Mr. Turk. Why didn't you just show him that document first?

BY MS. OLSON:

Q I have a document which I will mark as Deposition Exhibit 25, Bates stamp number CGE 47888. It is dated July 10th, 1993, and is entitled, "An assignment from Bill Kennedy and Craig Livingstone."

[Livingstone Deposition Exhibit No. 25

was marked for identification.]

BY MS. OLSON:

Q Do you recognize that document?

Mr. Waxman. Can we have a copy of it?

Ms. Olson. Yes.

Mr. Mica. That is one I submitted for the record at the hearing last week.

The Witness. I am not familiar with this document.

BY MS. OLSON:

Q Are you familiar with the contents of the document?

Mr. Waxman. What is this document?

Ms. Olson. This is a document which was produced to us from the White House. It appears to be a statement that there is an assignment coming from Bill Kennedy and Craig Livingstone with a due date on June 17th, 1993, of certain questions concerning drug use and law regulations of drug use in the White House or Executive Office of the President, which would include if one admits to present or prior drug use what are the duties and responsibilities of President Clinton with respect to that individual.

Mr. Waxman. And again the relationship between this and the post office -- I mean the Travel Office? Because it is not obvious.

Ms. Olson. Mr. Livingstone is director of the White House Office of Personnel Security. Now we have him addressing legal issues if people could come into the White House on drugs. It is an assignment that's coming from Bill Kennedy and Craig Livingstone and I am just asking if he did make that assignment, if he knows any information. He said he doesn't recognize the document so I have asked him if he recognizes the substance of it.

Mr. Waxman. So my question is, why is an assignment from him, whatever the assignment means is, relevant to the Travel Office firings?

Ms. Olson. Well, several of these items fit in with items about individuals that you have objected to me asking questions, who were in charge of the office, who were in charge of the Travel Office files, who did have FBI background files on prior administrations, who did testify before this committee. Those questions have been objected to and I haven't gone into them. So I am trying to see if Mr. Livingstone was making assignments and if this concerned any individuals who were working for him in his office and probably put in charge of his office while he was doing advance work for the President.

Mr. Waxman. Let's put this aside with that other issue that still has to be taken up with the Chairman if he ever returns from the speech or whatever he is doing downtown.

Mr. Turk. It is when you make those speeches and add those little tag-ons, those nasty little tag-ons, that's the kind of thing that's going to damage people's reputations.

Ms. Olson. Mr. Turk, I am asking for the connection.

Mr. Turk. I let you finish. Please let me finish.

I would ask when you make those little speeches for the record you try to preserve the reputations of people who are not here to defend themselves and who are going to have to live the rest of their life with the kind of information that you apparently want to put into the public record.

Mr. Kanjorski. I suggest further, Ms. Olson, that you walk out in the hall and make those type of comments.

Ms. Olson. I would never walk out in the hall and make those comments.

Mr. Kanjorski. Because you wouldn't want to be subjected to being sued.

Ms. Olson. Mr. Kanjorski, that is not my job. I am a staff member. I am doing a deposition under authority.

Mr. Kanjorski. You are going way beyond a staff person when you are characterizing and defining and concluding things that are not a matter of record, that we do not have firsthand information about and are pure conjecture.

Mr. Waxman. Which may be handed out in the hallway to the press people.

Mr. Kanjorski. And you are using the immunity of the Congress for the protection to do that, and I resent that.

Mr. Turk. Let's move on, because Mr. Livingstone has no testimony.

Ms. Olson. All I am asking is if Mr. Livingstone has any knowledge of the information in here. He has not seen the document.

BY MS. OLSON:

Q Do you have any knowledge of making such an assignment?

A No. I am sure that I would not make such an assignment. This -- it's not -- it's prepared by an attorney, I believe. It is not my style of writing. So I am sure that I didn't even draft it.

Mr. Mica. Did you seek answers to any of these questions from legal counsel?

The Witness. I am happy to answer that. No.

BY MS. OLSON:

Q Did you seek answers?

A No. I have no recollection of this whatsoever.

Q Although we went through numerous questions concerning the detail of Anthony Marceca, there is a letter which we have received from the White House, and I will mark it as Deposition Exhibit 26, CGE 54006. It is to Secretary Lloyd Bentsen and it has your name and is signed by you.

[Livingstone Deposition Exhibit No. 26

was marked for identification.]

BY MS. OLSON:

Q Did you write that letter at anyone's request?

A No. I think we sent the letter because we really appreciated the effort that Mr. -- well, excuse me. Inspector Martin was making on behalf of what I thought above and beyond his work in trying to be helpful.

Q And was that one of the duties that you assumed within the Office of White House Office of Personnel Security?

Mr. Turk. What duty?

Mr. Waxman. Thank you.

Ms. Olson. The letter writing to Secretary of the Treasury, commendation letters. I see that it is cc'd to Mack McLarty and David Watkins.

Mr. Turk. I don't believe that he testified that this was a duty.

Ms. Olson. I asked him if that was one of the duties that he assumed within the office.

The Witness. By way of explanation, you may or may not have other letters that I have written; I also wrote a nice letter for the woman that cleaned my office to her GSA supervisor and said what a great lady she was. I remember writing a letter to the telephone operators for their patience and help, on the night that Mr. Foster committed suicide, with the telephone communications. I wrote letters because I thought it was a nice thing to do.

Mr. Waxman. Did you consider it appropriate as in your professional capacity or just a nice thing to do as a human being?

The Witness. I just thought it was a nice thing to do, sir.

BY MS. OLSON:

Q Which would include letters to the Secretary of the Treasury concerning a Secret Service agent?

A That's what I just said, yes, ma'am.

Q Did you draft any letters for the President and Vice President to sign, that you recall?

A Draft letters for them or ask them to send like happy birthday to a 95-year-old lady?

Q No, drafting actual letters.

A I don't think so. I don't recall ever doing that.

Q Did you ever request Tony Marceca to draft a letter concerning the death of the police officer, Jason White, for the President and Vice President to sign?

A I don't know who I asked to help me with that, but I did ask for help with that.

Q And was that for the President and Vice President?

A Well, as you are probably aware, and for the record, I don't believe the President and the Vice President see a lot of these letters that get drafted under their signature. My interest --

Mr. Kanjorski. What do you mean, he doesn't personally sign all those letters at night?

Mr. Turk. Like some of the letters I get from Chairman Clinger.

The Witness. I am trying to be helpful.

Ms. Olson. We are getting short on time. I would like an answer.

The Witness. I am trying to be helpful.

Mr. Kanjorski. Is it germane, Ms. Olson?

Ms. Olson. It is, because there is an entire correspondence group that drafts the President's letters, and Mr. Livingstone and Mr. Marceca are drafting letters, which is a wonderful thing.

Mr. Kanjorski. I am asking how many people are constituents of his that send him a request for letters and suggest how it could be written, ask any Member of Congress.

Ms. Olson. I doubt he has a correspondence office that is hired specifically to do just that. It establishes a relationship, and I would like to just ask the witness why he was drafting that letter and who requested that he draft that letter, rather than it going through the normal channels of the correspondence office.

Mr. Turk. Objection to relevancy.

The Witness. Because I thought it was a horrible thing that this officer got slain on a street doing his job. I think I had learned that the officer was -- his family was from Tennessee and I thought it would be a nice gesture if the President would send a letter or communication expressing sympathy. I believe the facts are that the Vice President's office drafted the letter for the Vice President. I think that's correct.

BY MS. OLSON:

Q Did you ask Mr. Marceca to help you with that drafting?

A Of the Vice President's letter? I don't think so. No. That was done independently. I don't know anything about Mr. Marceca in relation to this letter.

Mr. Turk. Can I just interpose an objection to this entire line of examination on the grounds of pertinence. You may continue to answer but I just want the record to reflect that I think this is more wasted time and you have 4 minutes.

Ms. Olson. I understand.

Mr. Turk. At least until you said you were going to quit.

Ms. Olson. I understand, and that's the time the Chairman said we will stop and he would make the decision whether we are going to continue this deposition.

Mr. Kanjorski. I assume we have done this in priority now and we are down to thank you letters. Is that a reasonable gauge of what the priorities are in this investigation at this point? Or do we have something that's really major out there that we should have been inquiring into?

Mr. Waxman. Let's let her pursue any questions she might have.

The Witness. I also forgot, I did ask that a letter be drafted for the uniform division of the Secret Service for the Christmas party.

BY MS. OLSON:

Q You were sent to take care of the funeral arrangements for the President's mother; is that correct?

A I was one of the people that worked on her burial site in Hope, Arkansas.

Mr. Turk. Let the record reflect that I have a pertinence objection to this line of inquiry. You may proceed.

BY MS. OLSON:

Q That's while you were the director of the Office of Personnel Security?

A Yes, ma'am.

Q How did you come to be requested to go to Little Rock or go down to Arkansas to take care of that?

Mr. Kanjorski. What is the germaneness of this?

Ms. Olson. This is a person who has a job, which is a very important job. We had testimony from people who had held his job before him. There were events going on in this office that everyone has agreed shouldn't have gone on. This gentleman has been on advance trips. He is taking care of funeral arrangements, writing letters, which is all very commendable, but there was a job that was a very big job that was going on and we know that there were files ordered and no one knows except for to say it's a mistake. There is a young lady who was put in charge of an office, who by her own document was her first job out of college, while Mr. Livingstone is gone.

If someone is handling a funeral arrangement, my question goes to whether he was requested by the President or had a relationship where he would want Mr. Livingstone to go down there, rather than -- why would you pluck your director of your Office of Personnel Security to leave his job and handle a funeral arrangement?

Mr. Waxman. This deposition is an important deposition of our committee and an investigation that's a very important investigation of our committee. Yet the Chairman hasn't been here in over an hour and maybe -- well, since he was called an hour ago to come -- because he is doing something else as well.

I would not in any way be critical of him for doing more than one thing at the same time, and I don't see what relevance there is as to whether Mr. Livingstone, because of his experience as an advance person, might on occasion be called on to do that and certainly not to write a letter now and then, which couldn't take much of his time away from his other responsibilities.

Ms. Olson. The advance work, as well as the letter writing -- this committee will be making recommendations, I assume, and the Members will want to know whether this happened perhaps because there were too many jobs being attended to.

Mr. Kanjorski. Okay. I understand that the deposition today and the extension of authority was because you had extremely important facts and documents that had to be determined whether Mr. Livingstone was aware of or not and the only way that could be ascertained would be to -- what we are talking about today is activity that could have been examined into 30 hours ago, probably was, has no relevancy to his last deposition of July 17th until now. If this is the best we have, I think we have completed the examination, Ms. Olson. What is the point?

Making the assumption he did go to Little Rock and he did assist the President's advance team for the funeral, should we take him out and shoot him or something?

Ms. Olson. No, sir. It is a concern of -- there will be a recommendation by this committee as to what the director of that office should do. It's a determination by this committee.

Mr. Kanjorski. I thought we were investigating a problem of the Travel Office. I didn't think we were investigating the effective and efficient use of White House personnel. That's where we have gone now?

Ms. Olson. I do think recommendations would be made.

Mr. Kanjorski. Is it wrong to write thank you letters to people or to request the President or the Vice President send thank you letters or to move on down and assist in arrangements for the funeral of the mother of the President? I mean, we are --

Ms. Olson. The director of the Office of Personnel Security was undertaking these jobs while there were a lot of things going on in the White House that had very serious consequences. I know the Chairman is looking to make recommendations and, yes, they do involve the inner working of the White House.

Mr. Kanjorski. I think that's a conclusion you are forming with serious consequences, and that's why we are here to get facts.

Ms. Olson. The serious consequence I am referring to is the FBI files.

Mr. Kanjorski. You are not inquiring into those serious consequences, you are inquiring into his working 80 hours a week. If he wanted to work writing letters, if he wanted to go to Little Rock, find out how many hours a week the gentleman worked and I will conclude -- I will bet you he worked 80 hours a week.

Ms. Olson. Okay. I will ask that because we do have his ins and outs.

Mr. Mica. Let me question.

Mr. Waxman. She was about to ask that question.

Ms. Olson. I don't want to interrupt. It is just you said he worked 80 hours. We do have Mr. Livingstone's hours.

Mr. Kanjorski. Let's hear it. Let's hear it. I am curious how long he worked.

Mr. Mica. Now, when you were on this assignment outside to Arkansas --

Mr. Waxman. We have that question pending. Let the witness answer it.

Ms. Olson. I will wait. I am going into a new area of his hours.

The Witness. Ms. Olson, as I remember it, the President's advance team was on a summit or a foreign trip or some big trip, and they asked me to help out with this -- with the mother's funeral. That's the way I remember it. It wasn't like they thought of me first.

Mr. Kanjorski. Let me ask the question. Mr. Livingstone, how many hours a day did you work when you worked in the White House?

The Witness. The beginning of the White House, I was there very long hours.

Mr. Kanjorski. What's very long hours?

The Witness. I worked certainly full-time, plus on weekends giving tours, working on special events, that type of thing, after hours.

Mr. Mica. Could I ask just a quick question about the work. And you did help out, then, on the funeral and you helped in --

The Witness. I said yes, sir.

Mr. Mica. Were you gone very long? A couple of days or a week?

The Witness. I don't recall how long I was gone but I assume it was probably 4 days maybe, maybe 5.

Mr. Mica. Who was in charge of the office when you left?

The Witness. I don't know. It would have been Mari Anderson or Lisa Wetzl, depending on who was the executive assistant at that time.

Mr. Mica. And could they have ordered up documents when you were gone or records while you were gone?

Mr. Livingstone. Well, as you are aware, those -- that level of personnel was the level of personnel that routinely ordered documents pursuant to the job.

RPTS BOYUM

DCMN GALLACHER

The Witness. I said that, sir.

Mr. Mica. So while you were gone for 4 days, in fact they could have gone through documents and -- they had complete control of the documents in the vault in the office while you were gone, or was there some checking?

The Witness. In the same way, sir, when I was in the West Wing or on the South Lawn or in the bathroom, they had control.

Mr. Mica. But you said you were gone 4 days and we don't know what happened to the documents. The person that was probably left in charge, before I think your testimony was Lisa Wetzel.

Mr. Turk. Lisa Wetzel or Mari Anderson, depending on whoever it was who was his executive assistant at the time.

Mr. Mica. That makes me even more concerned because there are questions relating to the backgrounds of individuals who worked there.

Mr. Kanjorski. We have an understanding and we are waiting for the Chairman before --

Ms. Olson. The Chairman is not going to be back. I don't know where he is.

Mr. Turk. We've got to get done. Let's get to the important stuff.

Mr. Mica. I would like to get into this.

Mr. Kanjorski. Not on the record.

Ms. Olson. We can always not make the record public.

Mr. Kanjorski. Is it really questionable how many people work with you, Craig, how many males and how many females?

Mr. Turk. Ms. Olson has already put on the record someone's name, and I believe there is absolutely no way that if that matter is gone into that it is not obvious what is going on. So I would like to make this objection.

Mr. Waxman. I would like to go off the record. I don't think --

Mr. Mica. Did you agree to go off the record?

Ms. Olson. I guess we will go off the record.

Mr. Mica. We will go off the record for a minute.

[Discussion off the record.]

Mr. Waxman. Let's go back on the record.

Mr. Kanjorski. What haven't you completed?

Mr. Mica. I haven't gotten into specific questions, who's in charge of this office.

Mr. Kanjorski. We know those two documents.

Mr. Mica. And what is happening to documents and how this relates to other operations.

Ms. Olson. I will go over the topics for the record.

I have not completed the fact that Mr. Livingston had made a physical threat on an individual --

Mr. Kanjorski. Wait. First of all -- wait. I am objecting and I don't want it on the record. Are you asserting that as a matter of fact or are you asserting that there are some allegations of fact?

Ms. Olson. That there was an event report filled out by a police officer that there was --

Mr. Kanjorski. And you were there and witnessed it firsthand?

Ms. Olson. No, but I have a copy of the report from the police.

Mr. Kanjorski. That makes it a fact?

Ms. Olson. No, it is in the report, Mr. Kanjorski, that he did in fact make a physical threat.

Mr. Kanjorski. Because that report says that, that makes it a fact?

Ms. Olson. No, I was going to ask Mr. Livingstone if --

Mr. Kanjorski. That is correct. It is an allegation. Those are very precise words in the law. They are not facts. You started out your comments by saying I have facts. You don't have any facts. You have allegations.

Ms. Olson. You don't know the question I was going to ask. It is an event that --

Mr. Kanjorski. I don't want you going into topics and categorizing or classifying with conclusive language because as far as I am concerned you have no conclusions yet. That is what this inquiry is all about.

Ms. Olson. This report which was filled out by an officer --

Mr. Kanjorski. It doesn't mean that anything in that report is factual or correct.

Mr. Waxman. These are the things she wants to go into.

Mr. Turk. We know this. Everybody knows what it is. We read about it in the newspaper. What else have you got?

Mr. Mica. Are we off the record?

Mr. Waxman. No.

Mr. Turk. No, we are on the record. We have been here since 10 o'clock this morning. I want to know what else you have.

Ms. Olson. A file that check -- checked out Billy Dale's file from the Office of Records Management on June 6, 1996, and Mr. Dreylinger on the 5th, and I want to ask him about that, who asked him to check the file out and whether anyone in the White House asked him to review the file.

There are some dates concerning those files that do not match up that I am hoping Mr. Livingston can recall because others could not.

Mr. Turk. What dates?

Ms. Olson. Concerning the files of Billy Dale and the files of Mr. Dreylinger and turning over of those files to the FBI.

I have documents that concern --

Mr. Waxman. I thought you would have started with that.

Mr. Turk. Instead of thank you letters from people for tours and pictures. Why don't we finish this? Let's cover that.

Mr. Olson. I have a meeting with the Chairman -- the Chairman has asked us to stop.

Mr. Waxman. Let me say something for the record. Mr. Burton asked at least 2 hours of questions, Ms. Olson at least 150 questions since then, including questions on: Did you take an intern for a White House tour? Did Mrs. Clinton throw a lamp at the President?

Ms. Olson. I didn't --

Mr. Waxman. I am speaking.

Did you do an advance trip to Boston? Did you receive a letter from Director Freeh thanking you for sending him framed photos? Were you sued by Mel Market?

Mr. Livingston has been here for 7-1/2 hours, maybe 8 by now, which means he has answered questions from this committee for over 40 hours. And now I know why this isn't done in public, you would all be embarrassed to spend all this time asking such trivial questions. If you had something on those Travel Office files, that should have been the first thing you should have asked. If you want to ask him let's do it, get it over with and end this deposition and finish it. I just think it is an outrage.

Mr. Turk. Could we also just hear what other categories you got because --

Mr. Waxman. I expect also for the record that nothing of this will be mentioned by anybody in this room about any allegations of drug use by anybody to the press. Because the whole question of all that is -- this is a confidential deposition. The questions of relevance of it isn't for the deposition whether the deposition will be public.

Mr. Mica. I might remind the Member that some of these documents I have already had in open hearings and asked questions both of the FBI, the Secret Service, and others to respond, and any of those documents I feel free to discuss with the --

Mr. Waxman. I don't think you can discuss confidential --

Mr. Kanjorski. Let me suggest, if you please, discuss them outside on the street with the press so that you are subject to libel and slander.

Mr. Waxman. Well, you will not be sued for libel or slander under any circumstances.

But the letter to Mr. Clinger to you should not be released by you without Mr. Clinger's agreeing to that fact. If he agrees to that fact, I think it would be a reprehensible action on his part as well as yours because people's lives and careers are involved if any kind of hint of accusation is made about them without substantiation and by people who abuse their position of power against people who are defenseless against it.

Mr. Mica. I am very concerned, as I have stated to you, about certain things we have learned and contents, and I am not going to disclose any names but witnesses who came before us and the situation that they may have been put in and compromised.

Mr. Turk. Sir, I apologize for interrupting, but it is 20 of 6:00, my client has been here since 10:00 this morning, Ms. Olson identified two or three that remain as major areas --

Mr. Mica. We still have major areas to cover.

Mr. Turk. I understand your major areas, but I wonder if we couldn't finish up these Travel Office questions so --

Mr. Mica. If he feels under stress or duress, I would be happy to have him go and come back.

Mr. Waxman. That is the most perfect set of questions that would relate to the Travel Office firing questions, that is what the investigation is about, so let's get those questions done, probably take you less than 5 minutes and we will be finished with it.

Ms. Olson. The other topics I have are the --

Mr. Waxman. Now, Ms. Olson --

Ms. Olson. -- section that Mr. Livingstone wrote, and I have a section on the pay raises that Mr. Livingston requested from White House counsel and the rest of the White House who are requesting the pay raises.

Mr. Turk. Can you pick among those the ones that you think the most important and see how much time we need to do that?

Ms. Olson. Mr. Waxman has asked me to ask why, if the Members request, of course. This document I will mark as Deposition Exhibit 27.

[Livingstone Deposition Exhibit No. 27

was marked for identification.]

BY MS. OLSON:

Q There is a -- it has not got a Bates stamp number. This is a list of names entitled "White House Personnel Security Files," prior to -- I just direct your attention to Billy Dale's file, which has a date of 6-6-96 and has your name written by it.

Do your recall removing Mr. Dale's file on June 6, 1996?

Mr. Turk. Isn't what you really want to ask him is does he know what this entry means, who did it, you know?

Ms. Olson. We have had testimony. I believe the entry is done by the Office of Records Management when the file is removed. But this list actually is the list the FBI went through as they were taking the files and realized Mr. Dale's file was gone.

Mr. Turk. Now does this mean -- this isn't Craig Livingstone's handwriting, as you well know. Does this mean Craig came up and got this file or somebody came and got it and said it's for Craig Livingstone.

Ms. Olson. I am asking Mr. Livingstone if he remembers taking the file or having asked to have the file removed.

The Witness. I can't recall the specific day, but I recall counsel calling me and asking that we get Mr. Dale's file, original file for the independent counsel.

BY MS. OLSON:

Q Independent Counsel Starr?

A Oh, yes, I mean recently. In that time frame.

Mr. Turk. This is June 1996.

BY MS. OLSON:

Q Did you actually retrieve the file?

A No, I didn't retrieve the file, to my knowledge.

Q Do your recall who actually retrieved that file?

A No. I assume based on what you have told me that someone from records management brought the file to me. I don't even recall if I actually -- yes, I think I actually gave it to independent counsel.

Q And at this time I believe the FBI were wearing gloves so that fingerprints didn't get on the files. Were you ever instructed not to handle the files with your fingerprints?

A No.

Q I take it you didn't wear special gloves when you took Billy Dale's file up to counsel?

A I had no reason to.

Q Were you told the independent counsel wanted to do fingerprints?

A Yes -- no, I don't know that that is correct. I was told the independent counsel wanted this file.

Q Were you given any indication that the purpose was to do fingerprints on the file?

A I don't recall that. I don't have any memory of that discussion. I remember them asking for the original file.

Q The other file that has your name on the side is John Dreylinger. It says, has your name, 6-5-96, which is the day before. Do your recall Mr. Dreylinger's file being removed?

A No.

Q Do you have any memory of anyone bringing his file to you?

A All I recall around that time period, ma'am, was when -- all I recall around that time period was that all these files, I believe the 300 or so on this list, were determined by counsel that they needed to be removed and they were returned to the FBI.

Q And you don't have any specific recollection of the day before having John Dreylinger's file removed or requesting that it be removed?

A No.

Q Did there come a time where you gave Ms. Sherburne Barney Brasseux's file after the FBI had come over and taken the bulk of the FBI background files on the Republican administration?

A I don't recall specifically that chain of events. I am sorry.

Q Do your recall anything about Barney Brasseux's file being sent over to the FBI at a later date?

A No ma'am.

Q Were you involved at all in pulling his file?

A I don't know. I just don't recall.

Q And just to be clear, you don't recall whether there was an issue about fingerprints being taken with Billy Dale's file or not?

A At the time as I recall your question was, did someone say bring me Billy Dale's file, the IC wants it to be fingerprinted.

Q I want to be more vague, did you hear anything about there would be a fingerprints issue or there was something having to do with that file and fingerprints being taken?

A I can't remember the context of when I learned that but --

Q Do you believe it was before you delivered the file up to -- Billy Dale's file up to counsel's office?

A I don't know. I don't have any reason to believe that. I know for a fact, and I will restate it, that counsel did not say, we don't want you to handle it, can you please try and get gloves from the Secret Service, things like that.

Mr. Turk. Do you want to go to your next most important category?

Ms. Olson. No, I don't. I think I have to sit down with the Chairman, with the documents that are left, and have him make an assessment.

Mr. Mica. I think we also need to get a determination from the Chairman on this issue.

Mr. Turk. I understand that issue is outstanding, but I thought the more of these issues we knock off while we are here --

Mr. Mica. Would you like to recess and come back later tonight?

Ms. Olson. They have testimony before the Senate tomorrow.

Mr. Waxman. The witnesses are willing to answer more questions where we don't need a ruling by the Chairman, are you not willing to ask questions?

Ms. Olson. I am willing to ask questions but the Chairman asked us to stop at 5:30. I have now gone 20 minutes later than he asked me to stop.

Mr. Turk. We have a hearing before the Senate tomorrow and there is no way that we are going to be available the rest of this week or next week. I am in, as you well know, a very tight deposition schedule and I am just not going to be around. And Craig, after 2 days of this --

Ms. Olson. I have the questions but --

Mr. Turk. I would suggest you ask questions now.

Ms. Olson. I assume it would be objected to by Mr. Waxman.

BY MS. OLSON:

Q Were you aware of any individuals who were approved for a White House pass who had used drugs after starting work in the White House?

Mr. Turk. That's a drug issue.

Mr. Waxman. I object to that question.

Mr. Turk. That is a drug issue, we have tabled those. Why don't we get to the categories of documents you have there you say you want to get to?

Mr. Waxman. About the physical assault, ask him about that.

Mr. Mica. I would rather go back to the drug issues.

Mr. Goldberg. I am sure you would.

Mr. Waxman. Did you physically assault somebody?

The Witness. No, sir. I am happy to answer that question, that has been misreported on the assault thing.

Mr. Turk. That is an important issue for the committee to get into, let's get it done.

Ms. Olson. I am not going to go into this. This is not an attitude or the right environment for the question. I then have a list of questions I have not asked read into the record.

Mr. Turk. We are here for you to ask questions.

Ms. Olson. The drug issues are now off limits, and I guess a member of our committee has been forbidden to ask questions by Minority and I do think we probably need the Chairman because I don't know the procedure when a Member is denied asking a question.

Mr. Waxman. This witness has been here all day answering questions. Before today he was here for 40 hours answering questions. I think he has done everything he needs to do. If you have more questions, ask them. If they are questions in dispute, the committee will have to decide about those questions. If there are other issues you want responses to, there is no reason you can't submit them in writing and get an answer for the record in writing.

Mr. Mica. They are several questions relating to several matters about the operation of his office I think that are very pertinent, and some of them deal with the personnel who were in the office and their access to certain records.

Mr. Turk. Why don't you ask some of those questions? I don't consider that to be the matter to what has been objected to. Let's get to the questions. We are here.

Mr. Mica. I would like to ask a couple questions again.

The Witness. Yes, sir.

Mr. Mica. When you were gone again, you said there were two individuals. Were there more than two individuals who were working with you in that office who had access to the personnel?

The Witness. Sir, Ms. Olson asked me that, asked me about Ms. Wetzel. I should point out that Mari Anderson was executive assistant for about a year that Ms. Wetzel was her assistant, first became executive assistant; just by way of explanation.

Again, when I was gone from the office, whether it was to go to the washroom or to perform some other function for the administration, the executive assistant would assume responsibility for safekeeping of the office.

Mr. Mica. Were there other individuals then also that were under their charge?

The Witness. Yes, sir.

Mr. Mica. How many?

The Witness. One or two and the interns.

Mr. Mica. One or two and the interns.

And we went through in our hearing that I guess the interns weren't subjected to a certain background check or the same level as the other employees. Was that correct?

The Witness. I certainly would have liked to have done that but all I could get authority to do was what is called an expanded name check, which is quite frankly not much more than a name check. Checks local resources. Certainly not as lengthy has a background investigation.

Mr. Mica. So there were periods of time that you were not physically there, for example, this instance that she referred to where other individuals who were left either in charge of reporting to you were overseeing other individuals who did not have full clearances but they had access to files and information there.

The Witness. Well, they didn't have access, they were briefed properly, they went to a security briefing as far as I know, they had full understanding that they were not to have access to those documents that were marked classified or confidential. But to answer your question, precisely, yes, they were in the office.

Mr. Mica. Was there a written formal chain of command? I mean, was there a flow chart or structure for the office.

The Witness. Sir, there was only three of us and the people in the office certainly understood what they could and could not do.

Mr. Mica. You said there were three of you.

The Witness. Myself, the executive assistant.

Mr. Mica. Then you said there were several others and then interns.

The Witness. Another assistant and that would be three and two interns.

Mr. Mica. Two interns. But they in fact could have had access when you were gone to get information?

The Witness. Yes, sir, in the similar way that your interns could have access to your office when you are gone.

Mr. Mica. Okay. And the other question I had was were there any special requirements for these individuals as far as background check? Now, we talked about the interns and they just underwent that name check I guess. But the others, did they have full clearances and --

The Witness. No, sir, and I think that is a good point. If they use interns in that position, they certainly should have background investigations. I would agree with you.

Mr. Mica. Okay. But the other staff that was in the office, they had --

The Witness. Oh, yes.

Mr. Mica. They had all full background checks.

The Witness. Yes sir.

Mr. Mica. Did you check their background too when you put them in charge.

The Witness. Sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off. As with all the staff at the White House, sir, all background investigations went to the associate counsel before they came to me, so they reviewed them and then -- in my instance where I would like to hire people they would review the backgrounds.

Mr. Mica. And some question came up about one of the individuals, some problem, if an agency was looking into some individual would they go first to the White House Legal Counsel's Office or would they come to you with the problem?

The Witness. I believe they would discuss it with me, but I would try and make sure they discussed it with associate counsel. I don't know if there was an established procedure for that.

Mr. Mica. Were any of the interns or other employees that were in the staff, did they have any problems in their background that was brought to your attention --

The Witness. I'm sorry, I didn't hear the first part of your question.

Mr. Mica. Did any of the employees or the interns have any problems that had been reported to you or you became aware of relating to their behavior or activities or whether they were charged with something? I mean, if someone made accusations or maybe a police charge or something against them, would you -- you would be the person who would be notified?

Mr. Waxman. Are you talking about after the FBI checks had been completed?

Mr. Mica. Yes. And they were in the office.

Mr. Waxman. You are talking about after their security clearance, if there was a problem after?

Mr. Mica. Yes.

The Witness. No, the police wouldn't call us.

Mr. Mica. The police would call.

The Witness. No, wouldn't call us.

Mr. Mica. You would not be made aware. You don't have to be specific, just --

The Witness. If the Secret Service called us, if something happened on a trip --

Mr. Turk. He was trying to answer.

Mr. Mica. I am sorry. Go ahead.

The Witness. If the Secret Service was aware of that they would let us know if they thought it was a suitability concern.

Mr. Mica. I don't want you to name any individuals, but was there any instance when any agency, the FBI, Secret Service or any other agency, raised some concerns about any individual's background that worked for you?

Mr. Turk. After they had already been approved?

Mr. Mica. Yes, after they had been approved.

The Witness. I want to make sure I understand the question.

Mr. Mica. After they had been approved.

The Witness. Did someone come to me and say so and so is a problem, they did this?

Mr. Mica. Yes.

The Witness. No.

Mr. Mica. There was never an instance?

The Witness. No.

Mr. Waxman. What relevance would that have to the Travel Office matter?

Mr. Mica. Well, if you go from Travel Office firing down to where we are with the FBI files, I am trying to find out what took place in the office, who was in charge.

I also Chair the Civil Service Subcommittee. I am trying to find out what kind of personnel practices are in place. We got into the question of his employment, being in charge, and how the thing is run.

I am just trying to establish some idea of what went on in the White House from Travelgate with the alleged misuse of the FBI and we haven't gotten into the IRS but maybe that would be taken up in the next Congress, on down to --

Mr. Waxman. For the record, the Inspector General of Treasury said there was no problem with the IRS, so I wouldn't want anybody to read this deposition and think there is an allegation.

Mr. Mica. I said we had not gotten into that. But, again, down to the point where our counsel here had asked the question about like who is in charge, this might even be something that maybe things went on that Mr. Livingston didn't know about when he was gone off on 4 days or whatever it was and maybe he is, in fact, not responsible for some of these things that --

The Witness. I don't think anyone said that I am responsible yet.

Mr. Mica. Pardon?

The Witness. I don't think anyone has said that I am responsible.

Mr. Mica. Again, I am trying to find out.

The Witness. You said in fact was responsible.

Mr. Mica. Well, again, this is an investigation, an oversight subcommittee, and there have been problems from the White House and we will go back to that.

He asked the question of Travelgate and the firing of those employees and --

The Witness. I am sorry, do you have another question? I am trying to answer your questions.

Mr. Turk. He said no when you asked him whether the agency brought him any information on anyone working for him and there was a problem. He said the answer to that is no.

Do you have any more questions?

Mr. Mica. The question was as I recall and as you responded was -- the first part of my question dealt with after the White House and FBI check had been done and you had received that, were there any instances where you knew before?

Mr. Waxman. Before what?

Mr. Mica. Before the FBI investigation was complete.

Mr. Waxman. I don't understand the question.

Mr. Mica. He had in his charge or his employ several assistants that were full time and some interns. They did a certain check on the interns, which was the name check; they did background investigations, or the FBI did. I think he testified that he didn't conduct those. He didn't know of anyone who had a problem after those approvals, initial reviews were done by these agencies.

My question now is did he have knowledge of any problems? I don't want to be specific with a person or individual by name, but did he know of any problems.

The Witness. Sir, I think it is a very unfair question. If you wouldn't mind, I don't think it is a fair question because of the number of people, Ms. Olson, that work in my office.

Mr. Waxman. Excuse me, Mr. Livingston?

Mr. Mica. By answering --

Mr. Waxman. I think this is not a question that is pertinent to the Travel Office investigation. If you want to ask something pertinent to your Civil Service Subcommittee go ahead and hold an investigation, but he ought to be asked about the Travel Office files. Do you have any information that anybody --

Mr. Mica. I am trying to find out who had access to the travel file documents when he was gone for 4 days, who was there, who looked at those, who had access, did he know about those individual's backgrounds either as they were being employed, brought on board or after their employment?

He has answered half the question. I am trying to find out --

Mr. Waxman. I think he has answered those questions on the record at our hearing.

Mr. Mica. I think it is a fair question and it has to do directly with access to those files with the procedures within the White House dealing with those files, to personnel practices that date all the way to Filegate and what is going on again in the chief executive office.

The Witness. There were no personnel who worked for me and received a permanent pass that had any unresolved issues.

Mr. Mica. That had any unresolved issues. Well, I'll accept that as an answer.

Ms. Olson. He resolved them.

We have got to stop. We have just gotten a call that the Minority will not allow our meeting to start as long as this deposition is in progress. So this deposition is down.

The Chairman will review the documents and pursuant to the subpoena determine whether this deposition will need to be continued under the current subpoena. It is ongoing.

Mr. Turk. I would note for the record that it is 5 after 6:00, we have been here since 10 o'clock to answer questions by the committee, and I am going to request that if the committee has any additional questions that they be asked at a public hearing rather than these closed depositions with counsel roll their eyes and include in their questions allegations and purported facts.

Mr. Mica. I would conclude on the Majority side I have been here for 2 hours and I have never heard so many interruptions and so many commentaries by the Minority and so many diversionary tactics that have in my history of attending depositions --

Mr. Waxman. How many depositions have you attended, Mr. Mica?

Mr. Mica. Several, as a matter of fact. Not of this witness but of others. Thank you.

Ms. Olson. We are down. We are off the record.

Mr. Schiliro. Wait a minute, Congressman Waxman has a statement to make.

Ms. Olson. Well, I didn't know that. We will certainly take time if a Member has a statement to make. You don't have to yell at me. Don't do that.

If the Member has a statement to make, fine, I don't need you yelling at me.

Certainly I apologize.

Mr. Mica Go ahead, Mr. Waxman.

Mr. Waxman. Let me note the witness has been here all day since early, what was it, 10 o'clock when we were noticed --

Mr. Turk. 10 o'clock.

Mr. Waxman. -- noticed for this deposition. Counsel for this committee has asked 150-plus questions of the witness. We have gone into all sorts of areas of investigation, most of which led nowhere, like lawsuits that Mr. Livingston never heard about and other issues that really seemed peripheral to this investigation, and we are now leaving this inquiry when the witness is still here willing to answer further questions at a public hearing or here tonight.

Mr. Mica. I think there is no further business.

Ms. Olson. There are no further statements, and I agree, is there no further statement?

Then the record is down. This deposition is closed at this time to be continued at the Chairman's decision.

[Whereupon, at 6:05 p.m., the deposition was concluded.]

CONTENTS

EXHIBIT NO. PAGE

Livingstone Deposition Exhibit No. 1

was marked for identification............................. 104

Livingstone Deposition Exhibit No. 3

was marked for identification............................. 109

Livingstone Deposition Exhibit No. 5

was marked for identification............................. 122

Livingstone Deposition Exhibit No. 6

was marked for identification............................. 124

Livingstone Deposition Exhibit No. 7

was marked for identification............................. 141

Livingstone Deposition Exhibit No. 8

was marked for identification............................. 144

Livingstone Deposition Exhibit No. 9

was marked for identification............................. 167

Livingstone Deposition Exhibit No. 1A

was marked for identification............................. 167

Livingstone Deposition Exhibit No. 10

was marked for identification............................. 168

Livingstone Deposition Exhibit No. 11

was marked for identification............................. 173

Livingstone Deposition Exhibit No. 12

was marked for identification............................. 176

Livingstone Deposition Exhibit No. 13

was marked for identification............................. 177

Livingstone Deposition Exhibit No. 14

was marked for identification............................. 178

Livingstone Deposition Exhibit No. 15

was marked for identification............................. 184

Livingstone Deposition Exhibit No. 17

was marked for identification............................. 193

Livingstone Deposition Exhibit No. 18

was marked for identification............................. 208

Livingstone Deposition Exhibit No. 19

was marked for identification............................. 212

Livingstone Deposition Exhibit No. 20

was marked for identification............................. 224

Livingstone Deposition Exhibit No. 21

was marked for identification............................. 259

Livingstone Deposition Exhibit No. 22

was marked for identification............................. 262

Livingstone Deposition Exhibit No. 23

was marked for identification............................. 265

Livingstone Deposition Exhibit No. 24

was marked for identification............................. 268

Livingstone Deposition Exhibit No. 24A

was marked for identification............................. 277

Livingstone Deposition Exhibit No. 25

was marked for identification............................. 278

Livingstone Deposition Exhibit No. 26

was marked for identification............................. 282

Livingstone Deposition Exhibit No. 27

was marked for identification............................. 300