[The deposition of Loretta Avent follows:] EXECUTIVE SESSION COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT, DEPOSITION OF: LORETTA AVENT FRIDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1997 The deposition in the above matter was held in Room 2203, Rayburn House Office Building, commencing at 10:00 a.m. Appearances: Staff Present for the Government Reform and Oversight Committee: James C. Wilson, Senior Investigative Counsel; Robert J. Dold, Jr., Investigative Counsel; and Andrew J. McLaughlin, Minority Counsel. For MS. AVENT: WILLIAM ROGERS, ESQ. 555 12th St. N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 Mr. WILSON. If we could go on the record, please. Good morning, Ms. Avent. On behalf of the members of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, thank you very much for appearing here today. 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 she place you under oath. THEREUPON, LORETTA AVENT, 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. I am accompanied today by Bob Dold, who is an investigative counsel with the Majority. Mr. Andrew McLaughlin represents the Minority on the committee. Ms. Avent is represented by Mr. William Rogers. 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 about conversations that 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 those exact words and then you may 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 that conversation or that event. If I ask you whether you have any information about a particular subject and you have overheard other persons conversing with each other regarding that subject or seen correspondence or documentation about that subject, please tell me that you do have such information and indicate the source from which you 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 is finished. After the Minority counsel has completed questioning, a new round of questioning may begin. Members of Congress who wish to ask questions, should they attend today's proceedings, will be accorded an immediate opportunity to ask questions. When they are finished, committee counsel will resume questioning. Pursuant to the committee's 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 the witness is instructed not to answer a question or otherwise refuses to answer a question, Minority and Majority counsel will confer to determine whether the refusal is proper. If Majority and Minority counsel agree that the 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 pursuant to clause 2(k)7 of House Rule XI. No later than 5 days after your testimony is transcribed and you have been notified that your transcript is available, you may submit suggested changes to the Chairman. In your case, Ms. Avent, obviously, you have traveled a great distance to come here today, and as I discussed yesterday with Mr. Rogers over the telephone, we will make every effort to provide you with a transcript of this deposition as soon as possible. It has generally been the case, and I can't make any representations on this, but it has generally been the case that the transcriptions have been available within 2 or 3 days of the deposition being taken, and as soon as we receive the transcript, I will make an arrangement with Mr. Rogers to furnish you with that transcript. The committee staff may make any typographical or technical changes requested by you. However, substantive changes, modifications, clarifications or amendments to the deposition transcript submitted by you must be accompanied by a letter requesting the changes and a statement of your reasons for each proposed change. A letter requesting substantive 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 so far? The WITNESS. Yes, I do. Mr. WILSON. If you don't understand a question, please say so, and either I will repeat it, rephrase it, or ask the reporter to read it back so that you do understand the question. Do you understand that you should tell me if you don't understand my question? The WITNESS. Yes. Mr. WILSON. The reporter will be taking down everything we say, and is obviously making a written record of the deposition. Please give verbal, audible answers in order to assist the House reporter. If you can't hear me, please say so and I will repeat the question or have the court reporter read the question to you. 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 the answer was intended to be responsive to the question. Do you understand that? The WITNESS. Yes. Mr. WILSON. It is my understanding that you have been served this morning with a subpoena and you are here pursuant to your having received that subpoena; is that correct? The WITNESS. Yes. Mr. WILSON. Do you have any questions about this deposition before we begin the substantive portion? The WITNESS. No. Mr. WILSON. If anybody has any statements to make, this would be an appropriate time to put them on the record. Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. I will make my usual note that missing from the preamble is the fact that objections as to relevancy, pursuant to House Rule XI 2(K)8, are the province of the full committee and not the Chairman, and such objections are appealable to the full committee. EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON: Question. Ms. Avent, would you please state your full name and spell your name for the record? Answer. Loretta T. Avent, A-V-E-N-T, Loretta is with one R and two Ts. Answer. No. Question. Could you please provide a very brief employment history from, and I will choose as an arbitrary time period the age of 20 until the present, and I am emphasizing if you could just provide a very brief overview. Answer. Okay. My first job was as a practical nurse at a local hospital, and I went into, I guess I worked at a, I can't even think of the name, a microbiology lab, and then I came under what is considered the umbrella of public administration organizations, and so over a course of a number of years I worked for the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, the National Association of Regional Counsel, the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Governors Association, the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, Freddie Mac, which was under the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, and the National Committee Against Discrimination in Housing, and the American Institute of Planners, which does not mean that I am incapable of holding a job. I just stayed in the same field, and I was referred from one job to the other. In those capacities, they were considered Federal affairs coordinator or legislative assistant. Question. What job did you hold immediately before going to the White House as a White House employee? Answer. I was doing the same thing I am doing now. I was working in my own firm doing political consulting, public relations. That was pretty much it. Question. When did you become a White House employee? Answer. January 21st, 1993. Question. And at that time, what was your position? Answer. Special Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs. Question. Did you hold that same position for your entire tenure at the White House? Answer. No. At some point I moved the title changed and I was Deputy Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs. Question. Who recommended, if anybody did recommend you, who recommended you for the position at the White House? Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. I am just going to note an objection for the record that it is totally irrelevant to the Hudson Dog Track matter. Mr. WILSON. I will ask it, unless your attorney has an objection. Mr. ROGERS. No, that's okay. Go ahead. The WITNESS. Who recommended me? EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON: Question. Well, just to try and save some time on this, I am just trying to get a basic sense of how you came to your position at the White House. Answer. I would hope through my good reputation of having been one of the most competent workers in the area of public administration. Question. When did you leave your position at the White House? Answer. February 1996. Question. And what is your current occupation? Answer. Self-employed. It is Avent & Associates. It is the same kind of firm I had prior to going to the White House. Question. Have you discussed this deposition today with anyone else, apart from your counsel? Answer. No. Question. Have you provided documents regarding the Hudson Dog Track matter to the Department of Justice? Answer. No. Question. Do you have any documents pertaining to the Hudson Dog Track matter in your personal possession? Answer. No. Question. Has anyone from the Department of Justice spoken with you about the Hudson Dog Track matter? Answer. No. I did receive a call from the Department of Justice to have a meeting. Question. And when were you called? Answer. Monday, December the 1st. Monday, December the 1st, if Monday was December the 1st. Yes. Question. Apart from during the course of the deposition today and apart from arranging the logistics of this deposition, have you spoken with any congressional personnel about the Hudson Dog Track matter? Answer. No. Question. And that is a two-part question. I think you have answered it in terms of recently. I am also asking about discussions with congressional personnel in the past, perhaps prior to 1995 or during 1995? Question. When did you first hear about the Hudson Dog Track matter? Question. And from whom did you first hear about Hudson Dog Track? Answer. When I first heard about it, it was not-no one used the term Hudson, the Hudson is coming from the congressional contact I have had when I first got the call from the Senate committee. I first heard about it in '95 after a meeting that I held with a number of tribal leaders from all over the country, and one of the trib 48-493 98-6 al leaders asked, amongst many leaving the meeting, if they could come and have a meeting with me, which was pretty standard, and the tribal leader came in and wanted to discuss an issue with me, and that was the first that I heard about a concern. Question. When was that meeting? Answer. Oh, boy. I did so many meetings. I am going to say that it was somewhere around early '95. Question. Do you remember where the meeting was? Answer. Oh, yes. The meeting was on the 4th floor of the Old Executive Office Building. It is the only room that could hold the number of leaders there. Question. Based on that answer, I am not going to ask you if you would provide a list of everybody that was at the meeting, but who asked you or who brought up the matter? And I will, for simplification, say the nomenclature is a bit difficult and rather than getting into the need of trust and logs of description, I am just going to say the Hudson Dog Track matter as a shorthand. Answer. That's fine. Question. But do you recall who first mentioned the Hudson Dog Track matter? Answer. Yes. Chairman Arlen Ackley, A-C-K-L-E-Y; Arlen. A-R-L-E-N. Question. I have provided Ms. Avent with a document which is being marked as we speak as Exhibit LA-1, and if you could take a moment just to review this document, please. Answer. Okay. [Avent Deposition Exhibit No. LA-1 was marked for identification.] [Note.-All exhibits referred to may be found at the end of the deposition.] Mr. ROGERS. Counsel, do you have another copy? Mr. WILSON. Oh, yes. The WITNESS. This is the memo. EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON: Question. This is a memo that is from Ms. Avent to Harold Ickes and it is dated April 24, 1995. Referring to the meeting that you just-that we just discussed, which was in early 1995, do you know or do you recall whether you had any Answer. Could I just finish going through it, because this is the first I have seen it for Question. Oh, absolutely, absolutely. Answer. Let me just see the whole memo. I have seen excerpts from it, but I just want to go over it. Question. Absolutely. EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON: Question. Is this the first time you have seen this memorandum since roughly a time contemporaneous to the drafting of the memorandum? Answer. Yes. Question. A moment ago we were discussing a meeting with tribal chairmen in early 1995. Do you recall whether you had any contacts with individuals or conversations with individuals about the Hudson Dog Track between that first meeting and April 24 of 1995? Answer. Repeat that again. Question. I will recut the question. Between the first meeting that you had during which Hudson Dog Track was mentioned and you had mentioned earlier that that was in early 1995, and the drafting of this memorandum in April, on April 24, 1995, do you know of any other conversations or meetings that you were present for during which the Hudson Dog Track was mentioned? Answer. No. Question. I would like to take a minute just to walk through this memorandum if we could. Answer. Okay. Question. In the first sentence it states, I just got a call from Bruce in reference to a person named Pat O'Connor. Who is Bruce? Answer. Bruce Lindsey. Question. Where did Mr. Lindsey call from? Answer. I really don't know where he called from. My assistant would probably just say, Bruce is on the line. Question. Please, to the extent you are able to recall, tell us what Mr. Lindsey told you during this telephone call. Answer. I really cannot recall the exact words, and I don't want to make any assumptions, but to the best of my recollection, he mentioned this person had complained about my not being responsive to his call, and I said, okay, I will respond. Question. Did Mr. Lindsey provide any indication why he was well, let me just sort of set some background. It is my understanding that there was a meeting earlier in the day during which Mr. Lindsey was present with Mr. O'Connor and he made this telephone call on the same day as that meeting. Is that your recollection? Answer. I really-I don't know anything about that. Question. What did you tell Mr. Lindsey? Answer. That I would call, that I would call and find out what the concerns were. Question. Did Mr. Lindsey make any comments about the issues involved in the Hudson Dog Track matter? Answer. No. Question. In the second line of this memorandum, there is a statement that, referring to Pat O'Connor as having called on numerous occasions. Answer. Where are you? Question. On the second line of the first paragraph, "whom I don't know, who has called me on numerous occasions." Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. The first sentence of the first paragraph. The WITNESS. Oh, okay. EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON: Question. And I wanted to ask you about, prior to your drafting on this memorandum, had you spoken with Mr. O'Connor about any matters? Answer. No. Question. And do you recall how you were aware that he had called on numerous occasions? Answer. Oh, because I guess he indicated that he had called, and he probably had. Question. Going down to the very last sentence of the first paragraph, which states, "Following the legal advice we have received concerning these kinds of issues, I have not and would not speak with him or any lobbyist or lawyer." What kind of, when you say these kinds of issues, what kinds of issues were you referring to? Answer. Show me where you are. These are not my glasses. These are not mythese are store-bought glasses and I am having difficulty. My glasses are at the Hyatt Regency. I left them there a month ago and they still have them. Question. Well, hopefully we will only have to do this once. Answer. Okay. Just tell me where you are. Question. In the very last sentence of the first paragraph. Question. Just what these kinds of issues are. Answer. Oh. Any issue that dealt with-I mean I didn't deal with any gaming issues, period, and I didn't deal with any issues that dealt with anything that fell under what I considered regulatory agencies, and I considered the gaming issue coming under the National Indian Gaming Commission, so I would not have dealt under any circumstances with that issue. Mr. ROGERS. Did you get the name of the commission? EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON: Question. I probably am jumping ahead of myself a little bit here, but do you know from subsequent conversations why Mr. O'Connor was attempting to contact you? Answer. No, other than Mr. ROGERS. You want to know what she knows now? Mr. WILSON. Yes. The WITNESS. What I know now? Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Wait. From press accounts, or do you mean Mr. WILSON. Well, from any account. The WITNESS. Okay. I don't know much more than I would make the assumption that everybody at anywhere knew that I worked with the Indians, so most people |