Watch prime time reairs on cspan or stream any time on demand pot cspan. Org impeachme nt. The House Intelligence Committee just concluded its fifth open hearing of the impeachment inquiry against President Trump. Lawmakers heard testimony from Deputy Assistant secretary of defense for russian, ukrainian, and eurasian affairs, laura cooper. And under secretary of state for Political Affairs david hale. We will show you that hearing now in its entirety. [silence] [inaudible background conversations] [silence] the committee will come to order. Good afternoon everyone. This is the sixth in a series of public hearings the committee will be holding as part of the house of representatives impeachment inquiry. Without objection the chair is authorized to declare recess of the committee at any time. There was a quorum present. We will proceed today in the same fashion as her other hearings i will make an Opening Statement that the Ranking Member mr. Nunez will have an opportunity to make a statement. We will turn to our witnesses for their Opening Statements if they should choose to make one. For audience members we welcome you and respect your interest in being here. In turn we ask your respect as we proceed with this hearing. As chairman i will make any necessary or take any necessary appropriate steps to maintain order and ensure the committee has run in accordance with house rules and House Resolution 660. With that, i recognize myself to give Opening Statement in the impeachment inquiry into donald j trump, the 45th president of the United States. This afternoon the American People will hear from two witnesses were both better and National Security professionals, one of the department of state and the other at the Defense Department. David hale is the under secretary of state for Political Affairs, third most senior official in the department and most Senior Foreign Service officer. Laura cooper serves as Deputy Assistant secretary of cadefens for russia, ukraine, eurasia and responsible for broad range of countries and the former soviet union and the balkans. Between them they have several decades of National Security at experience serving both the public and and democratic president s. As we heard from other dedicated Public Servants like former ambassador to ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, former Deputy Assistant secretary of state george kent, ambassador bill taylor, Lieutenant Colonel alexander brenneman, and jennifer williams, their only priority has been the security of the United States. Secretary hill was witness to the Smear Campaign against ambassador to ukraine Marie Yovanovitch and the efforts by some of the state of burma to help her. In late march jovanovich ab unless there was a strong statement of defense of her from the state department. Hale push to get the state department to provide a robust fullpage statement of defense and praise ambassador Marie Yovanovitch to no avail. The silence continues to today. Late april we heard in riveting testimony last friday from ambassador yovanovitch she was recalled to washington and informed that she had lost the confidence of the president. Secretary of state did not meet with her, the subordinates dealt with her instead. With the department departure of yovanovitch hill watched as three new players moved into assume a prominent role in trumps ukraine policy. The three amigos were not only led by Energy Secretary rick perry, but it would be ambassador volker and ambassador sondland presumably working with ambassador taylor who would be the ones doing the continual work here. Midsummer trump ordered a suspension of military aid to ukraine. Despite the fact that the aide had been authorized and piappropriated by congress and that the Defense Department in consultation with the state department had certified ukraine met all the necessary requirements to receive the aide including anticorruption reform. The aide was in the National Interest of the United States. And critical to Ukraine Security. A country that had been invaded by russia. From her office in the pentagon ms. Cooper oversaw significant amount of Security Systems flowing to ukraine and was involved in efforts to understand and reverse the suspension of nearly 400 million in u. S. Aide. Cooper along with others during about the freeze a series ofs interagency meetings the last two weeks of july. At the first meeting on july 18 and owen be representative relayed that the white house chief of staff has conveyed that the president has concerns about ukraine and Ukraine Security assistance. And a whole had been ordered by the president. No explanation was provided. All of the agencies responsible for ukraine policy supported Security Assistance and advocated for lifting of the hold. The only dissenting voice was the office of management and budget, which was following the orders of President Trump. And still no good explanation of the hold was provided. While the eight suspension had not been made public, word was getting out, catherine croft, special advisor for ukraine negotiations work closely with ambassador volker received two separate calls in july or august from officials of the Ukrainian Embassy who approached me quietly and in confidence to ask me about an security ld on ukraine assistance. Croft was very surprised at the effectiveness of my ukrainian counterparts diplomatic tradecraft as and to say they found out very early on, much earlier than i expected them to. Ukrainians wanted answers but croft did not have a good response. Then in late August Cooper met with kurt volker abvolker revealed he was engaged in an effort to have the government of ukraine issue a statement that would commit to the prosecution of any individuals involved in election interference. Cooper understood that if volkers efforts were successful, the hold might be lifted. Unbeknownst to cooper, no such statement was forthcoming. But the aide was abruptly restored on september 11 days after the three committees launched an investigation into the trump ukraine scheme. I now recognize the Ranking Member. Thank you. As we republicans have argued at these hearings, the American People are getting the skewed impression of these events. Thats because democrats assume full authority to call witnesses and they probably rejected any new witnesses republicans requested. I would like to take a moment to discuss a few of the people whose testimony has been deemed unacceptable for the American People to hear. The whistleblower, the whistleblower the key figure who started this entire impeachment charade by submitting a complaint against President Trump that relied on secondhand and thirdhand information and media reports. This began a bizarre series of events although the complaint had no intelligence component whatsoever, the Intelligence Community Inspector General accepted it and even change the guidance on the complaint forms to eliminate the requirement for firsthand information. In his office backdated the forms to make them appear as if they were published a month before. Democrats then took the extremely rare step of pushing a whistleblower complaint into the public. Using it as a centerpiece of their impeachment crusade. We later learned that the democratic staff and prior coordination with the rwhistleblower, though democrat themselves denied it on national television. Following that revelation, democrats did a dramatic aboutface, they suddenly dropped to the assistance that the whistleblower testified and rejected a request to hear from him. Then in the hearing yesterday the democrats cut off our questions and accused us of trying to help the whistleblower. Even though they claim they dont even know who he is. Alexander chalupa, chalupa is a former operative abin order to smear the Trump Campaign in 2016. She met directly about these matters with then Ukrainian Ambassador shall awho himself wrote an article criticizing trump during the 2016 campaign. All of which were aimed at the Trump Campaign. Once you understand that ukrainian officials were cooperating to undermine his candidacy its easy to understand why the president will want to learn the full truth about these operations and why he would be skeptical of ukraine. Biden is another witness who the democrats are sparing from cross examination. Securing of an extremely wellpaying job on the board of the corrupt ukrainian company, breeze mama, highlights the corrupt problem in ukraine that concern not only President Trump but all of the witnesses weve interviewed so far. The democrats have dismissed questions about bidens role in breeze mama as conspiracy theories. Yet they are trying to impeach President Trump for having expressed concerns about the company. If we can hear from biden we can ask him how he got his position, what did he do to earn his lavish salary . And what light could he shed on corruption at this notorious company. Biden would make it inconvenient witness for the democrats so they blocked. These hearings weve heard a lot of secondhand thirdhand information and speculation about President Trumps intentions but in the end and the only direct order weve heard from the president is his order to our last witness investor sondland that he wanted nothing from ukraine. That is consistent with the testimony provided by senator rojohnson who said President Trump angrily denied accounts that a quid pro quo existed. Aside from rejecting our witnesses the democrats have tried other petty tricks to shape public opinion. Just this morning they called a break in the hearing in order to push their arguments to tv cameras. And as they pad as previous witnesses. Through a bizarrely considered has their star witnesses. When you look through the presumptions and assumptions of smoke and mirrors, you see the facts of the case are clear. President trump was skeptical of foreign aid generally and especially skeptical of aid to corrupt countries like ukraine. A brief hold on ukrainian aide was lifted without ukraine taking any steps. They were supposedly being brought to do. President zelinski repeatedly said there was nothing improper about President Trumps call with him and he did not even know about the hold in aid at the time he was supposedly being extorted. What exactly are the democrats impeaching the president for . None of us here really know. Because the accusations change by the hour. Once again, this is impeachment and search of a crime so chairman, i would urge you to bring this to a close and ouduring the hearing and move o. And get back to the work of the intelligence committee. Today we are joined by ambassador david hale and laura cooper. David hale serves as under and her secretary of state for Political Affairs department of state a position hes held since august 30, 2018. Mr. Hale joined Foreign Service in 1984 and holds the rank of career ambassador. He previously served as ambassador to pakistan ambassador to Lebanon Special envoy for middle east peace deputy special envoy and investor to jordan. Ambassador hale also served as Deputy Assistant secretary of state and executive assistant to secretary of state albright. Laura cooper is the Deputy Assistant secretary of defense for russia, ukraine, eurasia at the department of defense. She is a career member of the Senior Executive service ms. Cooper previously served as principal director in the office of the assistant secretary of defense for Homeland Defense. In Global Security affairs. Prior to joining the department of defense she was aboffice of coordinator for counterterrorism. Two final points before witnesses are sworn, first, witness depositions were unclassified in nature and all open hearings will also be held at the unclassified level and information that might touch unclassified information will be addressed separately and congress will not tolerate threat of reprisal or attempt to retaliate against any u. S. Official. If you both please rise, and raise your right hand, i will begin by swearing you in. Do swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, so help you god . Let the records show the witnesses answered in the affirmative. Please be seated. The microphone is sensitive, please speak right into it. Without objection you written statements will be made part of the record. Ambassador hale you are free to give Opening Statement and after that ms. Cooper you are free for Opening Statement. I dont have a prepared Opening Statement but i would like to comment as you said, ive been undersecretary since august 2018 Foreign Service officer for over 35 years and ambassador three times serving both republican and democratic administrations proudly and im here in response to your subpoena to answer questions of the committee. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, members of the committee, i appeared today to provide facts and answer questions based on my experience as the Deputy Assistant secretary of defense for russia, ukraine, and eurasia. I would first like to describe rmy background as well as my role advantage point relevant to your inquiry. I bring to my daily work and to this proceeding my sense of duty to u. S. National security. Not any political party. I probably serve two democratic and two republican president s i entered Government Service to the president ial management and joining the state department in 1989 to work on counterterrorism in europe and the former soviet union. Inspired by working with the u. S. Military on department of defense rotational assignment i decided to accept Civil Service position in the policy organization of the office of the secretary of defense in january p2001 tumor have remained for the past 18 8 year. My strong sense of pride in serving my country and dedication to my pentagon 8 colleagues were cemented in the moments after i felt the pentagon shake beneath me on september 11, 2001. My office was scheduled to move into the section of the pentagon that was destroyed in the attack but a construction delay meant we were still at her old desks in the adjacent section on that devastating day. After we had wiped the black dust from our desks and tried to get back to work, i found meaning by volunteering to work on afghanistan policy and would give my next four years to this mission. I later had the opportunity to move into the leadership ranks of my organization. And ive had the privilege to manage issues ranging from defense Strategic Planning to Homeland Defense and mission assurance. I accepted the position of principal director for russia, ukraine, and eurasia in 2016 and was honored to be appointed formally in 2018. In my current role i worked to advance u. S. National security with a focus on deterring russian aggression and building strong partnerships with the frontline states ukraine and georgia as well as 10 other allies and partners from the balkans to the caucuses. Strengthenings ukraines capacity to defend itself against russia aggression is central to my teams mission. The United States and our allies provide ukraine with Security Assistance because it is in our National Security interest to deter russian aggression around the world. We also provide Security Assistance so that ukraine can negotiate a peace with russia from a position of strength. The e human toll continues to climb in this ongoing war. With 14,000 ukrainian lives lost since russias 2014 invasion. These sacrifices are continually come in my mind, as i lead dod efforts to provide vital training and equipment including defense of Legal Assistance to the Ukrainian Armed forces. Ive also supported a robust Ukrainian Ministry of Defense Program of defense reform to ensure the longterm sustainability of u. S. Investments and the transformation of the Ukrainian Military from a soviet model to a nato interoperable force. The National Defense authorization act requires the department of defense to certify defense reform progress to release half of the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative or us ai funds. The provision we find very helpful. Based on recommendations from me and other key dod advisors, the department of defense and coronation with the department of state certified in may 2019 that ukraine had taken substantial actions to make defense Institutional Reforms for the purposes of decreasing corruption, increasing accountability, and sustaining improvements of combat capability. Meriting obligation of the entire 250 million and usi iphone. This brings me to the topic of todays proceedings. I would like to recap my recollection of the timeline in which these events played out. I testified about all of this at length in my enin july i became aware of a hold being placed on obligation of the state Department Foreign military financing or fms and dod usa iphone. In a series of interagency meetings i heard that the president had directed the office of management and budget to hold the funds because of his concerns about corruption in ukraine. Let me say at the outset that i have never discussed this or any other matter with the president and never heard directly from him about this matter. At a senior level meeting i attended on july 26, chaired by National Security council leadership, as at all other interagency meetings on this topic, of which i was aware, the National Security community expressed unanimous support for resuming the funding as in the u. S. National security interest. At the july 26 meeting there was also discussion of how ukrainian anticorruption efforts were making progress. Dod reiterated what we had said in our earlier certification to congress, stating that rsufficient progress in defense reform including anticorruption had occurred to justify the us ai spending. I and others at the interagency meetings felt that the matter was particularly urgent because it takes time to obligate that amount of money, my understanding was that the money was legally required to be obligated by september 30 at the end of the fiscal year. Over 100 million could not be obligated and third, i was advocating for a meeting of the cabinet level principle with the president to explain why the assistant should go forward. To discuss the issue with the president i never received the details about any conversations other than a status update that the hold had and been lifted. After the decision to release the funds to september 11 but this year, my colleagues across the dod Security Assistance enterprise worked tirelessly to be able to ultimately obligated of 86 of the fund in by the end of the fiscal year due to a provision in septembers alcontinuing resolution we ultimately will be able to obligate all of the funds given how they are for ukraines security and deterring russia, i appreciate this congressional action. That concludes my Opening Statement. There is one other matter i would likefo to address that the time i was asked questions about what i knew about when the Ukrainian Government may have he planned about any hold on the fund. I answered those questions based on my knowledge at the time the only meeting where i recall the officials raising the issue with me i have however since learned some Additional Information about the subject fromm my staf. Prior to the deposition testimony, i avoided discussing the testimony with members of my staff or anyone other than my attorney to ensure the deposition testimony was based only on my personal knowledge. My deposition testimony was publicly released on the 11th, 2019 they provided Additional Information. Specifically on the issue of ukraine knowledge are asking questions about possible issues with the flow of assistance, my staff showed me two unclassified emails that theyve received from the state department. One is received on july 252 july 252 31 p. M. The email says that the Ukrainian Embassy and the House Foreign Affairs committee are asking about security assistan assistance. The second email was received july 25 at 4 25 p. M. That email said they know about the situation to an extent and so does the Ukrainian Embassy. I didnt receive either of these emails and i started in recall informing me about them and i didnt recall being made aware of their content at the time. I do not have any Additional Information about precisely what they may have said, what may have been the source of information about the hold or any possible issues with the flow ofin assistance are state Department Officials may have told them. O staff advised me the last few days of the following additional ldctors that may be relevant to this and very. Again, my staff doesnt recall informing me about that and i do not recall being made aware of this. On july 3, at 4 23 p. M. He received an email from the state department stating that they had heard its currently being blocked by omb. This refers to the congressional notification state for ukraine and i have no further information on this. On july 25, a member of my staff got a question from a Ukrainian Embassy contact asking what was going on with ukraines Security Assistance. Because at that time, we didnt know what the guidance was. They noticed an apportionment staff member told the ukrainian official that we were moving forward on u. S. Ai is recommended that the Ukrainian Embassy checking with state regarding the sms. Sometimes during the week of august 6 through 10th, the Embassy Officer pulled a member ofta my staff that an official might raise concern about Security Assistance at an upcoming meeting. My understanding is that the issue was not. I have no further information about what concern they may have had at that time. The staff also requested that the ukrainians were aware of the hold on Security Assistance during august that they cannot pinpoint any specific conversations where it came up. They told me they are aware of the additional meeting from the Ukrainian Embassy in august and they believe the questions came up at some point. But they told me they didnt find any corresponding email or record of the meeting and consequentially come either they nor i knew precisely when or what additional questions may o have occurred with the ukrainians in the month of august. If i had more details on these matters i would offer them to the committee, that this is the extent of Additional Information i have received as the deposition i will answer questions to the best of my ability. Thankio you. Under the fiveminute rule i do want to respond to the comments of my drinking member that suggested this was a surprise of the minority. We informed the minority last night afterth the hearing becaue they didnt believe the staff member ralph was necessary. They were on noticed and it raised no objection about the member rounds. I also want to point out that theyve represented we havent caught any minority witnesses. That is not accurate. Appearing as a minority witness, that isnt how you characterize yourself, but your testimony like the two witnesses yesterday, the ambassador volker as well as mr. Morrison were both requested witnesses he should have understood an investigation into burisma was an investigation into bite in which he acknowledged would be inappropriate and ms. Morrison gave testimony as to the conversations that he had with ambassador sondland about the conversations that he had related to the ukrainians about the whole assistance being a result of the failure to secure the investigation, so i understand why the minority doesnt want to characterize them as the minority requested with this i want to begin by asking what he would informed us about on july 25 of the sam 25te day President Trump spoke with president zelensky on the phone and asked for this favor the same day that president zelensky thanked the United States for its military support and signaled they were ready to purchase more on that date. You got the inquiries from someone at the Ukrainian Embassy who was concerned about the status of the military assistance. Is that correct . Specifically the Ukrainian Embassy staff asked whats going on with the ukrainian Security Assistance. Hispanic and were they concerned something wasnt going on with that . Your staff received more than one inquiry. What was the other one on jul july 25 . That was the one to my staff, but the other points that i had raised were emails reflecting outreach to the state departme department. Hispanics are to find out about its portion of the military assistance. Yes, sir. Was the similarly concerned about the military aid . It was a question about whats going on with Security Assistance. And your staff are one of the other departments have also heard in august additional inquiry from the ukrainian and to see about the potential holdup in the military assistance . I want to be careful about how i phrase this. My staff recalled having had meetings with ukrainian as the representatives during the month of august and it came up at some point during the meeting. But they dontt recall the precise date or specifically with the nature of the discussion was. But your staff at least gleaned from the conversations that the ukrainian as he was aware that there was some kind of a hold on the assist is. The way that i would phrase it is there was some kind of an issue, yes. Prior to it becoming public you are theut first to indicaten the related issue august we testified at the deposition that he met with kurt volker i believe it was august 20, the hold was still in place. You testified at she told you if he could get zelensky to make a Public Statement, that would somehow disavowor the defense of connect to the prosecution of any individuals involved in the electionthth interference in it might put a hold on the Security Assistance. This was your inference because at the time you were talking about the enrollment security . Thats correct. The first part of the conversation was about a hold on Security Assistance. Th and it was during that portion he brought up the effort to get this Public Statement . It was during that conversation. That it during that part of the conversation. What would you say that you discussed . The urgency of lifting Security Assistance and then relaying the diplomatic effort that i had previously. You didnt have any discussions about the white house meeting . It is likely that that was a part of the conversation. The two things that you do recall talked about the hold on Security Assistance and then he brought up this Public Statement that they wanted to zelensky to get that he thought might be useful. That is correct, sir. In his opening Ranking Member reference to President Trumps skepticism of providing aid in the amount being provided to the Foreign Countries would you agree with that characterization . We have often heard at the state department that the president of the United States wants to make sure that foreign orassistance is viewed for the National Interest and evaluated continuously. Is it fair to say they overlook how . They launched the review process something late august or early september, 2018. It was effectively and efficiently spent outside of the United States it was the broad intent. Has the president expressed he expects our allies to get our fair share. You testified in your prior testimony that it is normal to have the n delay is of aid. Certainly an occurrence in cuthe past year was it withheld from pakistan . Yes, sir. Why was it withheld . Because of the unhappiness and policies behaviors in the ae government towards certain groups that were involved in the United States. In the past year were they also withheldn from honduras . From the three states in northern central america. Was it withheld from lebanon . Yes, sir. And was it withheldig from lebanon were you given the reason why it was withheld . No. Having no explanation for why it is being withheld is not uncommon backs i would say iti isnt the normal way that we function, but it does happen. And when it was being withheld is that the same time that it was being withheld fromn ukraine . You testified the aid to lebanon still hasnt been released is that right . That is correct. That the aid was released on september . Yes. Its fair to say that it had been withheld from several countries across the globe for various reasons in some cases unknown just in the past year . That is correct, sir. The assertion has been made that changed when there was a pause when the aid was withheld. ,is that an accurate statement . That is not the way that i i understood things. We were not given an explanation. In terms of the policy, and the aid to ukraine you described as very robust as evidence by President Trumps policy position to provide lethal defensive weapons that was very robust, yes, sir. And that was a decision President Trump made into the Prior Administration that they hadnt been provided to ukraine in the Obama Administration. I was not involved in the affairs during the Obama Administration, so i dont know competent to address that. When the aid to ukraine for i believe you testified that there may have been concerns by secretary kent and ambassador taylor that was contributed to a potentially negative effect on the u. S. Ukraine relations. Do you agree with that . The state Department Decision was to advocate for theu continuation as an important element of the strategy to support ukraine against russia. My time is expired. I yield back. Thank you to the witnesses for testifying. He just perfectly summarized the defense that my republican colleaguesmr are mounting on ths behavior. The defense goes like this. The president is acting on some deep historical concerns apparently invisible concerns about corruption and because hes so concerned about corruption in ukraine hes holding up the aid and being judicious its pretty easy to dispose of because President Trump wasnt worried about corruption in ukraine in fact in the conversations he had on april 21 of july 25, off one as the president of the United States use the word or mention corruption. The second part of thatte is a little more interesting that hes being prudent holding up aid. That isnt just wrong. It is illegal. I want to help us walk through this since the act of 1974, the president hasnt had the authority on a whim or because of a general skepticism of the foreign aid to stop the aid. Under the constitution of the congress, not the president that controls the power of the purse, is that right . Yes, sir. And the assistant was authorized was authorized and appropriated by the congress, correct . Yes, sir. Congress is also concerned about corruption and wants to make sure that its spent wise wisely. When Congress Authorizes money it builds and conditions. By law, ukraine wouldnt get all the money until it demonstrated it had undertaken substantial reforms. Under the law for department of defense worked with other agencies to establish anticorruption benchmarks and determine whether ukraine has meant those benchmarks, correct . That pertains to this Security Assistance initiative. That is a legally specified process that isnt manifesting a general skepticism of foreign aid. Its a congressionally mandated theis process. Does it take place in the funding that was held up in july . It took place prior to may. Not only did it take place before as required by law but months before he throws the money, the department of defense in consultation with states sent a letterth certifying and you sd this in your Opening Statement the government of ukraine has taken actions to make reforms for the purpose of decreasing corruption of increasing accountability and sustaining improvement of combat capability enabled by u. S. Assistance. By the time he throws the aid, the department of defense had spent weeks if not months determining that the Ukrainian Government met every requirement in the law and made significant strides in combating corruption is that correct . That is correct we made that determinationtr in may. So this wasnt about corruption. If there was any doubt about what was going on here, the chairman referred to your inference from the conversation with the ambassador that if they made a statement it would be lifted and you covered that with the chairman then we have to the press conference of october 17 when Nick Mulvaney let the cat out of the bag and revealed President Trump talked about the corruption related to the dmz server and admitted that thats why we held up the money. Any other explanation is a farce. In my remaining 30 seconds so people understand what i prefer to in the 1970s nixon referred to cope a general skepticism of foreign aid or whatever but he decided to hold up a congressionally mandated aid and aas a result, Congress Went to work and passed the act of 1974 which prohibits the president from withholding funds without the approval of congress is that correct . I am not a lawyer but that is my understanding. I will go with that and yield back the balance of my time. My colleague failed on this certain issue with certification. This wasnt corruption with large it was narrowly focused on the Institutional Reforms and combat capability is that correct . That is correct. Thank you for being here this afternoon i appreciate that. The certification didnt really speak to the concept of corruption throughout the rest of ukraine that the president would be familiar with. The certification must specific to the Defense Sector and industry and it did reference the control of the military to release more broadly to to the i think all of us would argue that throughout the rest ofel te country. Maybe you could shed some light on this specific instance. Some would argue people died in august because of the cause. Can you help us understand exactly what obligated are there things that were about to be delivered, were they out of commission, where they out of all this stuff because of the pause they didnt get through to equipment that they neede need o protect folks during the month of august . We will deliver there is no shortfall and that equipment delivery that was expected in the timeframe to obligated means that youre putting the funding on the contract starting the process. They were fourthquarter perhaps or whatever it was. I have to say that im a policy of official, not a contracting expert. But my understanding is that we will be able to make up for lost time in the contracting process. Went through the three or four steps because you disagreed with the whole being placedti on that assistance and i certainly agree with that, but did you get any criticism from folks but you deal with because you were going against the omb production to put a hold on that, did you get criticized for that . Absolutely not. My chain of command was supportive ofat advocating or removing the hold on the fund. I face no restrictions. Thank you for that. I thought you might be more in touch with the specifics of the process. I will defer any further questions. Thank you for being here and ics will yield back. Cc ambassador, when did you find out about the hold was that on july 21 . In the deposition i misspoke. When they sent the scene up for the clearance it was the 21st when i think i heard that there was a potential hold. Thank you for that the clarification. Did you attend the july 26 Deputy Committee meeting that occurred . You cited. Was it your understanding that the president directed this hold . We were told by the omb representatives that they were objecting because the president t had so directed through the chief of staff. What was the state Department Position regarding the hold . As i did in the meeting for all of the assistance consistent with policies and interest in ukraine. D you believe what you said, in the release of the hold . Did anyone at the meeting at the end of july support the hold . Did anybody wanted to remain and if so, which agency . Connect the only Agency Representative indicated that they supported the hold was omb. Didnt you understand similarly that there was an overwhelming inner agent consensus to lift the hold and that omb at the direction of the president was the only roadblock pleroadblock . How is the Security Assistance and interest of the Unitedd States . Why should we care about theof whole of thhold that on the secy assistance . Yesman. This specific assistance helped the capacity of the forces. Thats important to understand that these are forces that are writing to defend themselves against russian aggression everyday. It is an ongoing war so they do need this equipment to support their ability to defend themselves. We believe it is important to strengthen the capacity of ukraine in order to be sure the russian aggression elsewhere around the world. Were you ever able to get a reason whynd the hold was on . The only thing i ever heard aboutou it and was that the president was concerned about corruption. Were you ever provided Additional Information about the hold . No man. I was yield the balance of my time to the chairman. I think the gentlewoman and my colleagues on the minority asked is it common to have holds on military aid and i think you said it is not unusual. Would you agree that it would be a usual to place a hold to leverage a foreign country to get them to a investigate a political opponent . Yes. And you agree that would be completely inappropriate . It would be inconsistentyo in general. It would also be wrong, wasnt it . If any witness testified that is the case. I will yield my time. Thank the gentleman for yielding. First i just want to know what the chairman decided. The ambassador was one of our witnesses, they are all the witnesses. You called 17 witnesses and subpoenaed 15 of them. We didnt get to subpoena anyone or call anyone. You gave the opportunity to get a listt to you a couple days ago when we madeyo suggestions on wo you might allow us to have. They could provide a framework for this entire thing so once again, thank you both for being here and for your service to the country. Yo ambassador to pakistan, but an ongoing ambassador to jordan, bahrain, saudi arabia. Youve been every hot spot onon the planet. Thank you for those hardship assignments. We appreciate your service. The first, ambassador sondland said he was denied access to some of his records and the state department put out a statement and said ambassador sondland like every state employee called before congress in this matter retained and continues to retain full access ta the documentary records and state Department Email account cewhich hes always been free to access and review as well. Thats an accurate statement from the state department isnt it . I have not seen it until entering the hearing room sounds accurate, yes. Appreciate that. You are aware of no connection inth exchange for any kind of investigation is that correct . Im sorry i missed the key word, can you repeat the question . You are not aware of the connection for the aid and be announcement by ukraine . You are notd aware of secretary pompeo having any direct knowledge of the connection between the investigations and security aid. Im not aware of that. He didnt speak to me about that. Not awareai of any motive to withhold aid to ukraine. Outhats correct. You testified what you knew is president of trump was skeptical of the foreign assistance generally, that was highlighted in the round of questioning and number two, stepped up skeptical of the environment in ukraine is that accurate . We heard that. That was the general impression of the state department. Into the aid was then released is that correct as well . Yes, i read that as well. There was a 55 day or less and twomonth pause in the actual hold on the aid. Is that right ambassador . It seems so, yes. Is a top principle of the department by an investigation into the bidens, burisma never happened by the ukrainians is that correct . I dont know that i have the ability to answer that question having taken the job in august of 2018. Since youve taken the job, how about that. Thank you. I will yield back. Mr. Cooper, ukraine is the line of defense against the russian aggression and expansion into europe in your deposition you testified at providing securityac assistance is vital o helping the ukrainians be able to defend themselves. What did you mean by that . We have a longstanding policy of helping ukraine become a resilienbecoming a resilient n order to be able to defend itself. We want to want a reliable economic partner in ukraine that can stand up to the russian intimidation and aggression. You testified at the time of the 2014 attacks of Ukrainian Armed forces were, quote, significantly less capable than it is today. What you say that the Ukrainian Forces were out matched by the military in important ways . What you say that the Ukrainian Forces were out matched by the military in critical ways . Absolutely. They have a long way to go. Would you say that the forces are now completely selfsufficient how much of an impact does the usb to have in terms of that deterrence and how critical is the relationship between both ukraine and u. S. . The ukrainians are on the right path to be able to provide for their own security, but then will still need u. S. And allied support for quite some time and they need that support in the form of tangible assistance as well as political and diplomatic support. Gi this question is for both of you. Why was russias illegal annexation so significant in your mind . Russia violated the sovereignty of the territory and illegally annex. They alsoha denied ukraine acces to its naval fleet at the time and to this day, russia is building a capability on crania designed to expand russian ilitary Power Production far beyond the region. In 2014, were there concerns in washington coming here in washington and european capitals that it might not stop inwh ukraine . I was not in my current position in 2014, but it is my tunderstanding that there was significant fear about where the russian aggression would stop. What about today if the u. S. Were to withdraw its military support of ukraine, but effectively would have been . It is my belief that if we were to withdraw our support, it would embolden russia and it would also validate russias violation of international law. Which country stands to benefit the most, would benefit the most from such a withdraw . Russia. Ambassador taylor testified about the importance of the u. S. Upholding an International System and it has underwritten since the end of world war ii and the aspect ensures russia cannot change its orders by military force. That is why there is strong bipartisan support providing ukraine with security assistan assistance. That is why it is so incredibly destructive ofng the president ,f the United States to withhold the assistance as a part of the team tove pressure ukraine to investigate and debunk the theory and attack former Vice President biden. I will yield back. Thank you mr. Chairman and both of you for being here. Army reserve surgeon i can save it served proudly for two republican and two democratic president s myself. I want to go to, ms. Cooper, if i can, page three. The president directed the office of management budget of holding the funds because of the concern about corruption in ukraine. And you come from the dod side. I served a year in iraq and it was important and i think its something that the army always does as i have seen this we dont want to deliver aid or assistance if it is going toe some corrupt or being delivered in a correct way if we are going to build a medical Treatment Facility for the iraqis we want to make sure we are not getting charged ten times as much. Gein general when we are delivering funds through the dod is that correct . Yes, sir. That is a normal thing to want to be concerned about and we would do that in iraq and especially if we are providing payments for something. I just want to go through a few things with you because multiple witnesses testified strong support. Ambassador yovanovitch said the president of trumps decision to provide lethal weapons to ukraine the policy of stronger over the last three years. She also said in terms of the anll assistance we felt it was very significant that this Administration Made the decision to provide lethal weapons to ukraine. Ambassador taylor said there was a substantial improvement in that this administration provided antitank weapons. Very Strong Political message that said the americans are willing to provide organ blankets. Ambassador volker testified at providing these have been extremely helpful. Mr. Volker also stated that mr ease and blankets and all that is fine but if you are being attacked with mortars and artillery and tanks, you need to be able to fight back. Secretary george cant stated that they are incredibly effective weapons of stopping armed advance and the russians are scared of them. Special advisor stated they help ukraine defend themselves in the position to provide them we believe is counter to the russian interest. Do you dispute what these witnesses have testified to, including ambassador yovanovit yovanovitch, volker and diverse . I absolutely agree that the system is an important capability and this is an important decision to support ukraine with this capability. And youve already testified you are personally proud of the Trump Administration position two on ukraine, correct . That is correct. One of the things on page three tonight comey talked about the meeting on july 26 then after that you said i was aware of the National Security community expressed unanimous support for resuming the funding as in the u. S. National security interest. Thats correct . Thats correct. I guess i take a question with resuming because we dont want to resume as is. Thats incorrect because that wouldnt include us. Sir, im not sure im following. The Previous Administration, they were not provided even though they could have been. President obama stopped avvelins. I think i should clarify what i meant by the statement. Presuming is referring to the fact omb had placed a hold on the assistance so we were not spending and i wanted to resume the spending so that we could maintain this policy, maintain the strength maintain the policy, but i guess im asking, there is a difference and i think undersecretary hill, i saw you nodding. The difference being that as it is presumed in this case that included javelins which the Obama Administration denied, is that correct . It is true that the Trump Administration approved the release of defensive lethal assistance to include jacqueli s with the Previous Administration diadministrationdid in support. Do you have a comment on that . That is correct. I think we will conclude more than blankets and mr ease has been holding the ukrainians and the legal defens lethal defensee something the Trump Administration has approved and has been a benefit to all of us. Thank you. Ms. Spear. Thank you all for being here this evening. There is a mystery surrounding the hold on the aid in july it appears. Back in may i believe you said there was aid that was conditioned, but you certify that the conditions had been met and that they included progress on the command and control reform and to pursue the reform and pass laws to enable the government. That is correct. When you find out in july the concern about corruption, you are scratching your head, right . Yes maam, we didnt understand. Do you know of any effort was undertaken to assess the corruption in ukraine in june, july, august . As i believe i said in my deposition that only specific discussions that i am aware of related to that series of interagency meeting. The policy Coordination Committee and the deputy small group. In those meetings, participants did discuss the degree to which corruption was a concern and the degree to which there was progress. My recollection of what the purpose of the said in the meetings is that there was a very positive sense about progress was being made. So you have these meetings, progress is being made, but nothing really changes from may until september that would trigger the release of the money accept a whistleblower came forward. I do not know what triggered the release of the funding. The fact that there was reference made to money being held in other countries say by some of our colleagues, but in those situations, to countries like pakistan, lebanon and most of the funding streams, correctb of those accounts fall outside of my curfew so i cannot answer that question. Ive been told that his case, so there isnt the immediate angst financially that would potentially accrue, but the difference as i see it in ukraine as compared to the other countries is that ukraine is engaged in a hot war with russia right now and it seems to withholding that money was irresponsible considering they have taken steps to meet all the conditions that we had requested of them and congress had appropriated the funds, is that not the case . Maam, i and my colleagues indicated for the release n of e funds because of the National Security importance. So, basically the department of defense and the state department were consistently supported of releasing the funds everyone was mystified as to why the funds had been withheld and everyone is running around trying to get an answer and you are getting kind of two responses saying it was the president because of corruption. Now, what cc is president zelensky get elected in april. The expectation as Vice President en mike pence is goingo attend and then the president calls the carpet out from under him in terms of him going. And then he proceeds in june or july to withhold the fun. There is a concerted effort by the president of the United States to act in a manner that is not consistent with our interests and wanting to protect ukraine and help them deal with of the Russian Federation at its borders. Would you agree with that . I have advocated for the Security Assistance and ive advocated for highlevel engagement with the government of ukraine because i think both are in the National Security interest. With that i will go back. Thank you chairman. Undersecretary, assistant secretary, thank you both for being here. You are both recognized as experts, dedicated Public Servants and ive got to tell you being president of the United States is the most complicated endeavor in the world. No one couldid do it without people like you to provide the backbone if you do. Thank you for doing that. I dont mean to repeat the same questions acknowledging him, but i think weve reached a point of a bouncit now seems sometime yey or sometime ago. Its some repetitive hearing so forgive me for that. Although i do have some questions based on something you said previously. It described withholding the aid had come from the capital is that true . Are you referring to my statements today orr something i believe this is a question we had previously. Are you aware of that . I dont think i have enough information to make an assessment. Assessment. Is it from a particular page in my deposition . It is just reporting weve heard that there may have been communications with you and someone on the Foreign Communications committee. As thats not true . That there may have been communications with me . I am not aware. Okay. Thank you. And for clarification as well, someone may have asked you from the embassy about withholding of aid, is that true that you hear from them . I testified earlier that the communication from the Ukrainian Embassy was to my staff, and my staff mentioned this to me after my deposition. The only specific communication that i recollect with the ukrainians about this specific issue was i believe on septemb september 5 at the Ukrainian Embassy. And was that just an inquiry generally about the forthcoming aid or wasnt specific regarding them being aware that the aid was being withheld . Just to be clear, the september 5 conversation that i had was specific to the hold. There was an awareness of that into question of concern. Thank you. You know, ms. Cooper, welcome to both of you, secretary hill as well comeok at the end of the dy it really does come down to this transcript im holding up is ae transcript between the phone call between president zelensky and president of trump that i would hope every american would take the opportunity to read. Its only a few pages long. Tu and much more information beyond that is maybe helpful to inform, but it comes down to those conversations and a few sentences. Going quickly throughgh the questions and i have your answers here so this wont take long, youve answered them. The United States should evaluate whether they are worthy of our aid. Yes sir. You understand us all President Trump has been skeptical of pouring aid into some off the money weve given them is that their . I think so. Thats fairly consistent hes done since before he was elected. Others in the process have a long history, but this and [inaudible] do you think that it was right, the test is the right word to use prior to providing Security Assistance . President zelensky was new. I met him in february and i was impressed by him, but i think that it was understandable that the administration has a new president in zelensky coming into office to understand better. The present policies that is the key because we have hadte referred to about the same time. She didnt have a history of governance. He didnt come from a public background and it seems prudent to test him and see if he was serious about ukraine. At some point im going to conclude they were able to engage about the same time by the way that there were others as well as the burden sharing review is completed and shortly after the aid is released. Is that your understanding . I was never informed why the assistance was released. Of those events did happen and it seems like it was released. Thank you and i will yield back. Thank you both for being here and thank you for your service. You both have asked about the importance of this military assistance as it affects the sovereignty and its importance because of the potential greater ambitions byy the russians. Let me try to put it in context and get your reaction from both of you from someone who had been there before and the National Policy expert on such things. His quote seems to strike from today he wrote russia can either be an empire or a democracy, but it cannot be both. Without ukraine, russia ceases to be an empire but with ukraine then subordinated, they automatically become an empire. Your thoughts on how this puts this into context today, please that is a very powerful and accurate quote. I would agree. You talked about emails that were drawn toee your ten an attention. They were sent to your staff, is that correct . The emails that i discussed this evening were those that were sent to my staff, that is correct. I think first of all it is important to point this out but its not something you were aware of but it points to the Defense Department and the state department has refused to comply with a duly issued a subpoena to provide the committee with documents that would further shed light on precisely if ukrainians knew about the hold. So this is something you are aware o of but theres untold information out there that would draw cause a Greater Light and p us understand. Is there anything else out there that you are unaware of or a possibility with the dod or state department that could help us shed light on what the ukrainians knew and when they knew it . I have shared with the committee all that i recollect, that i havent done an exhaustive investigation so i cant really speculate on what might be available by coming through all of th with the defes that are substantial. Did the state department of the department of defense ask you for your information or do they coordinate with you to get the information that you had . I was told not to destroy anything in our it personnel had been collecting documents is my understanding, so that occurs without them they were collected and passed around the state or dod, is thatdi correct . You set your department was collecting it. Were they then passing it onto you, they were passing it on to the state department . The department of defense . This is what they reported to me. I havent seen the documents collected. I only know the documents that i have produced or that my staff have brought to my attention that ino have received. So, no i doou not know what has happened with the documents that have been collected. Same general question todo y, sir. I requested and was granted access to documents that either originated or had been sent to me that were relevant to the matters of the investigation during a finite time here co. I dont have information about what else is going on in terms of other documents at that i did not produce or did not receive. There was a move to gather them and i understood generally they had been gathered. That is the extent of my knowledge. But they passed them on to you or the administration somehow . The only documents i received were into those described given for the documents that are either produced or sent to be relevant to the matters we are on today. Thank you and i will yield back. Thank you to those of the witnesses for your service today. Ms. Cooper, i wanted to just start with you. And to your knowledge there were no Strings Attached to the aid echo correct i have no such knowledge you have no knowledge of aid being held for investigation. So intel ambassador taylor sent you the cable you had never heard of the word by and or burisma. Not in the context of what we are discussing, correct. You talk about that on page 96 and then we know aid was released to ukraine. I read that. Talk about the context that you testify is not just ukraine but in fact there were other countries Security Assistance was on hold the aid package and from the northern triangle countries in central america. Into reform to our concerns regarding terrorist on the afghan pakistan border. So lets broadly talk about the context all of these holds on aid i always think about these our hardearned taxpayer dollars. Would you agree . Absolutely. Isnt it true that Trump Administration has been conducting a foreign assistance review to a reestablish norms you testify this had been going on for quite a while to take that approach to foreign assistance and that it continues for ever and they have tosi be evaluated if we were beneficiaries and it made sense to avoid nationbuilding to provide assistance to countries with the policy to adversaries. Correct . And that you warmly welcomed this review. Correct. Security assistance was leaked to ukraine but this is an important point. I yield back. Your testimony today destroys two of the pillars with oneo justification first no harm no foul that you did not know the hold was in place so it didnt hurt them. The second pillar this president was a real champion of anticorruption caring about corruption in ukraine. Is it your testimony now after an employee came forward to you you believe you have some evidence that ukrainians by july 25 this year and then to talk to president zelensky where the investigation of the bidens were brought up. Is that right quick. I only know what has been reported publicly on the. That was reported. Thats correct so your testimony today on may 23 use certified that as far as it related to your duties ukraine had met the corruption concerns for the aid to beo released. The Defense Department certified. After that a date inexplicably the president of the united state puts a hold on Security Assistance. That is what i heard in july, yes. This anticorruption president that cares about rooting out corruption did he ever call you after to say whats going on in ukraine . No sir. Ambassador hale did he ever call about corruption . No sir secretary pompeo quick. I dontan know. Ms. Cooper did he call the bosses you had at department of defense secretaries or acting secretaries . I dont know sir. The justification is that the Obama Administration only provided blankets so ukrainians should be grateful even after being shaken down by the Trump Administration provided more the truth is ms. Cooper under the Obama Administration and european reassurance initiativee 175 million was provided from us taxpayer dollars to the ukrainians for is that right quick. I dont have that figure will be typically say is one. 6 billion to date but i dont have the breakdown in front of me. The Obama Administration trained five military battalions. I dont have the figures in front of me but yes the Training Program beganhat in te Obama Administration. Founding the ukrainian assistant initiative providedmi ukrainians with armored humvees tactical drones armored vests and medical equipment. That sounds like pieces of equipment provided in the Obama Administration to my recollection. Is that a lot more than blankets. Yeseseq sir. Ambassador hail the aid withheld to lebanon and pakistan for were legitimate Foreign Policy objectives. I would say that is true i have not heard an explanation on the lebanese program. You would agree with holding aid to investigate a political opponent is not a policy objectives. F so to make charitable contributions your testimony today ms. Cooper demonstrates the power of coming forward to defy lawless orders from the president. Because you came forward and testified we learned this new information that destroys the central defense republicans have put forward because ambassador taylor came forward one of his employees learned the defense that all they had was hearsayay evidence and actually said i heard the president ambassador where are we . Your courage has aided the investigation despite the president s continued obstruction. I yield back. Thank you chairman. Ambassador hail, in essence you are the number three guy. Correct representing 70000 folks. Im partt of them you were part of a pretty fantastic workforce we share time together and pakistan i know often timess they dont get the pat on the back or the accolades for National Security but i do recognize that and i appreciate that. Did anybody raise issues about the investigation of the bidens or burisma . Know. Ms. Cooper i dont think my staff would have read my 115 page deposition and give me feedback so i give them gold stars. You say in your deposition that you certified that ukraine aid for the Defense Industry would pass the corruption test. Is that correct. I think the wording was more along the lines of progress has been made or sufficient progress has been made it didnt reference any anticorruption test. Becausewa president zelensky was two days did that have an impact how he would continue those pieces was that taken into account . Not prior to may 23rd. No sir. The review wasisw . Done on te previous portion. Yes sir although it is important that the review related to the ministry of defense. Sure but there were changes. Correct. T . Yes a new minister of defens defense. I know the Foreign Military finance departmentnt can you describe that between the usaid funding and with the ukrainians. And also how the ukrainians get lethal aid is that covered . There are threeee separate pieces to our overall ability to provide equipment to the Ukrainian Armed forces back of the first is Foreign Military finance system which is a state department that countries around the world have that authority for training and equipment also the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative unlike the dod authority is ay oneyear authority and third there is opportunity for defensetu and that is what we are working with ukrainians on now so they can purchase us equipment pick up at the javelin specifically was provided under sms initially and now the ukrainians are interested in the purchase of javelin. There was not a hold on purchasing of equipment. Is that correct . Not to my understanding, know. Can i ask you a non impeachment question . My time is yours. What can we be doing to help ukrainians defend against Russian Electronic Warfare . What i can say in an open hearing there is some Electronic Warfare detection equipment that is included in the usaid package the capability we are already working to provide them that this topic is more suitable for a clues on a closeddoor session. I c yield back. Thank you for your testimony today i want to make an important distinction because i feel like colleagues have rattled off countries where we have held up aid there is a big distinction between holding up aid for Foreign Policy reasons because it is part of a shakedown because its in the service of a president who asks for a political favor of a country to investigate a political rifle i think thats important to note. So ms. Cooper you said the money was cleared to go on may. Thats correct and is not released until september 11. Iat should clarify the second part off the ukraine Assistance Initiative was notified may 23rd than a waiting period for congressional approval but june that point in mid roughly it was available. So for perhaps 95 days. That sounds right. But you testify those systems is not in the National Security interest of the United States and the hold could embolden russia weve heard the same from other witnesses that this is not the only issue. We understand people within the United States government itd significant concerns of the legality of the hold with a control act because the money was authorized by congress and signed into law by President Trump at the july meeting were there discussions if the hold could be implemented in a legalal fashion quick. In the july 26 meeting, my leadership raise the question of how the president s guidance could be implemented and perhaps a re programming action would be the way to do this but more research would need to be done but after that discussion we had a lower level discussion on the 31st of july. They said your conversation on the july 31st interagency meeting what were the legal hechanisms available at that time quick. I expressed it was my understanding there were two ways we could implement president ial guidance to stop obligating the Ukraine Initiative first for the president to do a precision the second is a reprogramming actio action. Both of those require congressional notice an extra step the president would have to take to notify congress was there any notice sent out to congress. I did express i believed it would require notice to congress and there was no such notice to my knowledge. And never any official programming of that money . Not to my knowledge. Omb came up with the alternative solution with creative footnotes when the department of defense didnt support those footnotes out of concern dod could not obligate the funds before the end of the fiscal year in violation of the control act. Despite the concerns of the footnotes nevertheless the hold continued through september 11 even though after the whistleblower had come forward. That is correct though hold was released. I know i and many of us here share dods concerns of the legality of the hold thank you for voicing these concerns to the white house to pursue National Security interest of the United States. I yield back. Based on the email you mentioned in your opening and the subsequent declaration of my democratic colleagues that those were evidence ukrainians were aware of a military hold on july 25th now reporting says it reveals that ukrainians asked about the stalled security aid it is being widely reported that ukraine asked about the hold on military aid on july 25th. Thats not what i heard from you. Is that correct . My exact words were one email said the Ukrainian Embassy and the House Foreign Affairs committee are asking about Security Assistanceeo. Not a hold. Assistance. And the hill knows about the situation and so does the Ukrainian Embassy those were the exact words. What does Security Assistance mean . I dont want to speculate wide it means. It doesnt necessarily mean hold. Correct . Not necessarily. Is a denture around the same time omb put a hold on other accounts including sms. I dont know that specific detail. Youannot say one way or another if the inquiries were about the hold. Is that fair quick. I cannot say for certain. You cannot say one way or the other if the ukrainians knew that before august 282019 when it was reported in politico. Correct . I can tell you the recollection of my staff they likely new but i do not have a certain data point. But thats not unusual for Foreign Countries to inquire about foreign aid they are expecting from the united state states. In my experience with the ukrainians they typically , would call about specific things not generally just checking in on their assistance package. Are you aware president zelensky on october 10 in response to questions from more than 300 reporters over the course of the afternoon stated he was not aware and hader no knowledge of Security Assistance during the july 25th phone call with President Trump quick. I believe i saw that media reporting. I yelled back. Thank you for being here thisis evening ambassador hale last week the country watched as President Trump attacked and intimidatedsa your colleague or attempted to ambassador yovanovitch who wears a witness to this proceeding and subsequently the secretary pompeo secretary pompeo silence is nothing less than a betrayal of the men and the women he swore an oath to lead and it is a betrayal with longterm consequences to attracting and retaining workforce to their morale to their effectiveness and overall strength. So, ambassador hale, i want to give you an opportunity to do what secretary pompeo did not do much 2091 2019 with a vicious Smear Campaign and use had a strong statement in support of her or last week when she wasas attacked again. Im offering you the opportunity to reaffirm to this committee and those who are watching that ambassador yovanovitch is a dedicated and courageous patriot serving with grace andnd dignity even in the face of that orchestrated an unsubstantiated smear attack against her. Ambassador hale im giving you the opportunity to demonstrate leadership im giving you the opportunity to send a clear and resounding message to the men and women who serve in dangerous foreign post throughout the globe that what happened to ambassador yovanovitch was wrong. Ambassador hale quick. Thank you i endorse entirely your description of ambassador yovanovitch i only met her when i took this job we had an exceptional officer doing exceptional work and during my visits i was impressed to the extent i would have been asking her to stay that was a possibility i support and believe in the institution and the people of the state department. I am one of them and have been 35 years we all committed to americas National Security the best group of diplomats anywhere in the world extending to all state officers have testified before this committee i would like to read a letter to the undersecretary of management wrote to the Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in response the number of Department Employees testifying before the house of representatives during ukraine no employee has faced any adverse action by the department for testimony on this matter the department will not discipline anyone before one four appearing before congress is actively proactively establish a program to give Financial Assistance for those legal fees incurred there is Additional Information but that is the essence. s you are saying ambassador yovanovitch is a dedicated and courageous patriot . I endorse what you say. And in the face of a Smear Campaign. As she did and what happened to her was wrong. I believe she should have been able to stay in her post and do the outstanding work. And what happened to her was wrong. Thats right. Thank you for clarifying the record. I was not sure where it was she could go to set the record straight to get her good name and reputation back if it wasnt you. Indeed i want to encourage you in the strongest terms possible to stand your ground americas security and prosperity and strength is in no small part with the Foreign Service is core and they needre to know is the highestranking professional diplomat in the entire state department have their back. Thank you for having ambassador yovanovitch back this evening and with that i yield back. Thank you mister chairman. Ms. Cooper, why did omb put a hold on the funds . The only information i received was from omb they were operating at the direction of the president and reported he had concerns about corruption. You put that in your testimony he directed omb to hold the funds because of concerns of corruption in ukraine. That is a legitimate reason. Do you agree . But that is a statement the president reported the maid as reported to me by omb. You said based on those recommendations that the department of defense with the state certified may 2019 ukraine had taken the steps necessary and you certified the release. Is that accurate. That is correct. But there was a small change in ukraine. But there was a small change in ukraine. Can you elaborate. President zelensky was elected. Yes. You have a brandnew guy cominggo in. He was just sworn in the day that you are approved the dollars. May 23rd . Maybe a couple days before but there is a change that it seems would warrant at least maybe a second look and thats exactly what played out for a short time less than two minutes 55 days our government evaluated the new situation, pretty radical change with the new government. In fact the previous one we heard all kinds of things about the prosecutor general and the previous regime and how bad he was. So it took a while for that to happen. The new president is sworn in and hes not even until septembh they get rid of the prosecutor then a few days later it is released. But the democrats have other things they want to talk about part of the way this played out it is as about as logical as you can do it if you put it into a broader framework with this president is in the corruption issue in ukraine the experience you had with high ranking ukrainian officials criticizing him with the election in 2016 that shows why it played out the way it did i yield back. Thank you mister chairman i want to go back to your support of ambassador yovanovitch. What irt understand, thank you for that. Military leaves no soldier on the battlefield and those who are in leadership positions in the state department and Intelligence Community have a bond to one another and it is very reassuring you represent that. You got information about her situation in march secretary pompeo mentioned sometime in the fall to receive a letter from a former member of Congress Regarding the ambassador. Correct that member of congress . Congressman sessions. Were there any claims to the basis of disloyalty . No i did not. In fact you discussed extending ambassador yovanovitch term to remain in her post. That was a personal idea of mine. That you valued her continued service and you stated that ambassador yovanovitch represents the president of the Unitedd States and trying to stand behind your statements to give her public support but and yet weeks later the president and mister giulianini unleashed an ugly Smear Campaign to oust her. What was your reaction to those news articles where the corrupt prosecutor . We were concerned about these allegations as they related to the do not discussedlist and what we could do with this matter. But then the problems continuedat for ambassador yovanovitch as i understand it she emailed you on march 24 to indicate social media and other criticisms were such she felt she could no longer function unless there was aa strong statement of defense of her from the state department is that correct . Correct in this message secretary pompeo was aware of her situation. Yes i briefed him the next day. The ultimate authority to issue that strong statement of support. T correct. He never did. He did not issue a statement at that time. But youiss testified around the same time he did not render assistance to a highly respected ambassador he made two phone calls to Rudy Giuliani. One on march 28th another march 29th. I saw a record of that. And then the statement never came forward and why secretary pompeo would not meet with her. I dont know this. It went to the deputy secretary i was on foreign travel at the time. It would be interesting to have secretary pompeo be here to tell us what his conversations were with Rudy Giuliani with the person with the ambassador fighting corruption i want to thank you and ms. Cooper for your service. Ms. Cooper and secretary hale thank you for working late on a wednesday the last time we attempted to hear your testimony the republicans brought pizza. [laughter] i know we have detained you for about five hours that days half of the committee thank you for your forbearance we do appreciate your patience. A quick question was dod able to put all the security assistant funds before the end of the fiscal year . No sir. How much could they not obligate or what was left unobligated . I believe the figure was 35 million we could obligate 80 percent total. That is because of legislation the Congress Passed with the resolution . The remainder we are in the process of obligating right now because of the provision and the continuing resolution. Right. For an act of congress you couldve spent all the money. If we did not receive the provision of the continuing resolution we would have obligated 88 percent but not thee full amount. Right. Which would be a violation of law to not spend money that congress appropriated. Im not a lawyer but that is myy understanding. Secretary hail where were you born . Michigan. Is your family from ireland . Strike that. Another question. With respect to ambassador yovanovitch you served as ambassador to three countries quick. Jordan lebanon and pakistan. While you were ambassador to those three countries did anyone ever ask you to issue support praising the president of the United States . No. How do you view that . Depending on the situation if you are having a problem with your job and said how can i do better they saidtu publish something personally praising the president flattering to him with that strike youd as unusual . Yes. If somebody told you go big or go home with that change her mind quick. I dont understand. That is what ambassador yovanovitch was treated to when she was seeking advice and said that would strike as to political is at the approach you may take. Thatt sounds sensible. I remaine, on dash youll back the remaining time. Thank you both. Just a quick question before i get into the ambassador. If President Trump withheld Critical Military aid from ukraine because high ranking officials supported the president s political opponent would you consider that an official appropriate action by the president of the United States . That is not what i would advise. That does not sound appropriate. Ambassador hail you testified ambassador sondland went beyond the normal part of the ambassador to the european unio union. As you understood it who authorize ambassador sondland to work on ukraine. I have no firsthand knowledge. I received a readout from a meeting the president had with the delegation on may 23rd in which the briefing that i received at the president wanted members of the delegation that included ambassador sondland to carry forth those policies. So that occurred in an meeting in the Oval Office May d where you heard that t information. Yes. You testified it was clear that delegation was empowered by the president and youat also said as a practical matter it would be ambassador voelker and ambassador sondland working with taylor that would really do the continual effort do you understand that ambassador sondland had direct access to the president. Those few occasions that i had with ambassador sondland he often let it now he was in direct contact with the president thats all i knew. You receive that directly from ambassador sondland he had direct contact. In previous occasions not related to this. Is anything about ambassador sondland role that strike you as problematic quick. Based on what i knew at the time i was satisfied this delegation is what the president wanted to pursue these policies and i saw that ambassador sondland was a professional and ambassador with distinction in Foreign Service officer was part so i had no great concerns. What you knew at the time you are okay with his role did your opinion change about the appropriateness of his role . As i testified i wasas not aware of these negotiations over preconditions related to that i was not aware of it so i had no reason to make judgment one way ori the other. Did you look at the Text Messages between ambassador sondland and ambassador voelker. We surprised by anything you heard reported oret witnessed. I was surprised by whatt i sa saw. To understand your testimony you believe ambassador sondland was empowered by the president by what you found out by the may 2 meeting but none of that really struck you as problematic because of the timeme difference. Is that correct. Based on what i do, yes. You are the under secretary you testified that capacity you are responsible for the bilateral relations with every country in the world that we recognize for the management of our policies as well as our relationship that relate to multilateral organizations is that include us policy in relations with ukraine . It does but with a special envoy to the secretary that envoy will take the daytoday responsibilities. What about relations with althe european union. But you were not aware of fully of the activities on behalf of President Trump. Correct. I yelled back. Good evening thank you for being here. Under secretary you and your colleagues testified with the state department with the uunderstanding they would be provided to congress quick. I was not involved in the decisionmaking i have no read on decisionmakinggh but i understood it was and i received the documents that i described earlier. In terms of materials collected, do they include electronic files and emails . I can only speak to it was available to me. And paper documents. Would tape recordings be among those files gathered quick. I could not speculate onrd tha that. But you cannot rule out that possibility. I dont know on tape recording so i cannot comment. Areng you familiar like the individual custodians of what has been collected. Despite the duly authorized subpoena that has been served on the subpoena you have yet to read on we have yet to receive that. I understand that. With the interagency process did anyone or any Committee Bring up the lack of allied funding is a reason why there should be a hold on military assistance to ukraine . I can only speak to the three meetings that i attended and i have no recollection of allied burden sharing coming up at that point they did provide information what i thought was a completely separate query that i received in midjune from the secretary in one of the questions there asked a question of the degree to which allies were contributing to the assistance. But after the hold was put ttin place you didnt hear any concerns of lack of allied funding as a reason why it should be in place. In those meetings that i attended i do not recall hearing that asth a reason the only reason i heard is corruption. I assume you did not hear of lack of allied funding. No i never heard a reason for the hold. I assume neither of you heardly 1 whatsoever why the hod was in place except for the fact would be put in place at the direction of the president. And one of my colleagues brought up the idea the hold was put in place to assess if t6 was legitimate i assume that was not a reason that was authored on offered either . No sir i didnt hear that. What is the importance of a world leader having a meeting at the white house quick. It is casebycase but for a new leader it is an extremely important opportunity to demonstrate the strength of the relationship at a leadership level and common goals. What about t6 how important was it to have this meeting with President Trump quick. I didnt talk about that myself i metho with him but as an expert onme these matters to say a new world leader such as president zelensky having a meeting at the white house with President Trump is extremely important for the image that he projected to folks like russia. That is valuable for any foreign leader indeed what you said it is to demonstrate the bond between United States and. What have we learned from the democrats impeachmente inquiry . The impeachment version of the notorious short card trick and it stands no chance of winning in fact they have told us we need to speak with a whistleblower and then we learn the whistleblower coordinated with democratic with theoreey Inspector General so then the democrats gaslight the country and pound the table to tell us the whistleblower is entitled to an imaginal imaginary statutory availability to accuses to out the whistleblower knowing that they are the only ones who know who he is. They argue the law is against you or the law is against you argue the facts of both are then pound the table and yell ndke help her go it seems that law school teaches the fourth tactic and then to read the game. This is not the impeachment inquiry it is an inquisition the inquisitor is free to act on his own to bring suit against any person which is ele subject of the lowest rumor. And the accused was denied any right to cues confront their accusers. Given their track record inquisition victim has more rights and they give the president inquisition victims are have the right to know their accusers names for those of your home its time to change the channel turn down the volume or hide the kids and put them to bed now i yield to Mister Schiff for the story time. I think the gentleman is always for his remarks. [laughter] i will be brief. Its been a long day and i said what i wanted to say earlier in the day but so thank you both for your testimony and service to the country we are grateful that you answered the lawful process of a congressionalo subpoena. I want to share a few reflections on tumors that have come up a lot in the course of theseseo hearings. It is corruption and anticorruption. Listening that donald trump is a great anticorruption fighter. s only concern to fight corruption but lets look at that argument look at the president s words and deeds. Ambassador yovanovitch was the anticorruption champion. No one has contradicted that would that has come forth to testify here. And then to acknowledge with another woman who had acid thrown in her face and died a painful death after months, she is called back to washington and a vicious Smear Campaign by Rudy Giuliani and others she is recalled that is not anticorruption. That is corruption. And one of the people responsible for the Smear Campaign is that it is a long and sordid list is a man who the minorities own witness acknowledges he has a poor reputation for selfserving and corrupt. What we see about him and his predecessor with the former prosecutors. But he says they were treated very unfairly on unfairly that is not anticorruption. That is corruption. And ambassador sondland testified today that there was a quid pro quo and everybody knew it that they desperately wanted to show the friend and fellow had the support of the president of the United States when that was conditioned that act was conditioned to the political investigations that was not anticorruption that was corruption. When and what on when ambassador sondland testified he can put two and two together and so can we do with that military aid that it would not be released to have a Public Statement that is not anticorruption. That is corruption. But how is that reform coming in nevada . What are you doing to root out corruption . What about the new anticorruption . Of course not. Where we really to believe that was his priority . Just do us a favor. And with this server conspiracy. And more ominouslypi investigate the bidens that is not anticorruption that is corruption. The next day to be in a restaurant and then to wonder how president zelensky will fight corruption . Of course not. But that investigation that he once into the bidens. That is corruption. And then there that says all you need to know. And then it doesnt seem all that significantrsat in this is that the ambassador volker related his testimony just this past september when he was talking to the top advisor to president Zelensky Andre Yermak and inviting him as he should, you may not want to go through with the investigation or prosecution of former president. To engage in political investigations is not a good idea. To say like you want us to do with the bidens and clintons . There is a word for that and that is calledns hypocrisy. We do have a anticorruption policy around the world. And the great menve and women of secretary hale and ms. Cooper they carry the message around the world but when they see a president of the United States not devoted to the rule of law but instead demonstrates word and deed corruption, they are forced to ask themselves what does america stand for anymore . That concludes this evenings hearing. Asked the witnesses to excuse themselves we have a business matter to take up. [inaudible conversations] by the Ranking Members request that the Committee Issue subpoenas to pursuant to the House Resolution we received this request this morning well add it without objection. By way of overview with compel deposition testimony by the whistleblower and hunter biden they would compel certain parties to produce records the shistleblower to produce documents and Communications Related to the complaint and related to hunterr bidens role on the teethree board and the dnc to produce communications over records relating to alexandria i do not concuri for subpoenas we will not allow before this committee to be used to out the whistleblower or for purposes ofth engaging in the same in proper investigation the president sought toes coerce ukraine. The committee will take them up with the current request to compel by the whistleblower. Mister chairman i moved to table. The meeting has not been noticed. A non debatable motion. All those in favor . Point of order. Point of order mister chairman. Point of order mister chairman. Know. Point of order mister chairman. Those opposed say no. Point of order mister erchairman. The motion is tabled. Callable call. A roll call vote is requeste requested. [roll call] [roll call] call] [roll call] [roll call] thirteen four. The motion is carried. Point of order. Mister chairman was this notice properly by the rules of the house quick. House resolution requires if the maltre d makes a request for subpoena we will take it up and that is what we are doing. Mister chairman i have a question. [roll call] [roll call] there are 13 ayes and five noes. The motion is. And the motion is now to compel documents from the whistleblower. All those in favor . All those opposed . In the opinion of the chair, the ayes havayes have it. The ayes have it. We will now move to the documents under bidens rule burisma board. All those in favor . Opposed . In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The ayes have it in the motion is tabled. Last motion isa on the table to compel documents from the committee. Is there a motion lacks the gentleman moves to table. All of those in favor was a aye. Opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. Point of order, mr. Chairman. Point of order, mr. Chairman. [inaudible conversations] federal bureau of prisons that are testified before the senate judici
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.