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 deposition. In july, i became aware of a hold being placed on obligation of the State Departments military financing or fmf and dods usai fund. In meetings i heard the president directed the Office Of Management And Budget to hold the funds because of his concern for corruption in ukraine. Let me say at the outset 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 july 26th chaired by National CouncilSecurity Leadership as in all other interagency meetings on this topic of which i was wear, the
national Security Community expressed unanimous support for resuming funding in the u. S. National security interests. At the July 26th Meeting there was also a discussion how ukrainian anticorruption efforts were making progress. Dod reiterated what we had said in our earlier certification to congress stating sufficient reform including anticorruption to justify the usai 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 the money was legally required to be obligated by September 30th, the end of the fiscal year. The ensuing weeks until the hold was released on september 11th. I pursued three tracks, first starting july 21st at an interagency meeting i made clear to the interagency leadership my understanding that once dod
reaches the point at which it does not have sufficient time to obligate all the funding by the end of the fiscal year, there were only two ways to discontinue obligation of usai, a president Directed Recision or dod directed reprogramming action, either of which would need to be notified to congress. I never heard either was being pursued. Second wine was in communication with the Dod Assistance Implementing Community to try to understand exactly when they would reach the point at which they would be unable to obligate all the funds by the end of the fiscal year. I received a series of updates. In a Serptember 5th update i an other Senior Leaders were informed over 100 million could not be obligated by September 30th and, third, i was advocating with levels with the president to explain why
assistance should go forward. Although i heard of attempts to discuss the issue with the president i never received details other than a Status Update that the hole had not been lifted. Other than the decision to release the funds on september 11 of this year my colleagues at the Dod Assistant Enterprise worked tirelessly to ultimately obligate 86 of the funding by the end of the fiscal year, more than they originally estimated they would be able to. Due to a provision in septembers continuing resolution appropriating and amount equal to Unoperating Funds in fiscal twnt 19 we ultimately will be able to obligate all of the usai funds. Given how critical these funds are for bolstering ukraines security and deterring russia i appreciate this congressional action. That concludes my opening statement. But before answering your
questions, there is one other matter i would like to address. I testified in a deposition before this committee and other committees on october 23rd, 2019. At that time, i was asked questions about what i knew about when the Ukrainian Government may have learned about any hold on Security Assistance funds. I answered those questions based on my knowledge at that time. Since my deposition, i have again reviewed my calendar and the only meeting where i recall a ukrainian official raising the issue with me is on September 5th, at the ukrainian Independence Day celebration. I have, however, since learned some Additional Information on this subject from my staff. Prior to my Deposition Testimony i avoided discussing my testimony with members of my staff or anyone other than my attorney, to insure my Deposition Testimony was based only on my personal knowledge. My Deposition Testimony was publicly released november 11th, 2019. Members of my staff read the testimony and have come to me since then and provided Additional Information. Specifically, on the issue of ukraines knowledge of the hold or ukraine asking questions about possible issues with the flow of assistance, my staff showed me two unclassified emails that they received from the State Department. One was received on july 25th, at 2 31 p. M. That email said that the Ukrainian Embassy and House Foreign Affairs committee are asking about Security Assistance. The second email was received july 25th at 4 25 p. M. That email said the hill knows about the fmf situation to an extent and so does the Ukrainian Embassy. I did not receive either of these emails, my staff does not recall informing me about them and i do not recall being made
aware of their content at the time. I do not have any Additional Information about precisely what the ukrainians may have said, what may have been their source of information about a hold or possible issues with a flow of assistance or what the state Department Officials may have told them. My staff also advised me in the last few days of the following additional fact that may be relevant. To this inquiry. Again, my staff does not recall informing me about them and i do not recall being made aware of this. July 3rd, 4 23 p. M. , they received an email from the State Department saying the cm is currently being blocked by omb, currently referring to the state investigation the state would send for mff. On november 25th, a member of my staff got a question about what was going on with ukraine Security Assistance. At that time, we did not know what the guidance was on usai. The apportionment arrived that day but this staff member did not find out about it until later. I was informed the staff member told the ukrainian official we were moving forward on usai but recommended that the Ukraine Embassy check in with state regarding the fms. Sometime during the week actuate 610, a ukraine officer told a member of my staff a ukrainian official might raise concerns about Security Assistance in an upcoming meeting. My understanding was that the issue was in fact not raised. Again, i have no further information about what concerns about the Security Assistance ukraine may have had at that time. M staff also recalls Thinking Ukrainians were aware of the hold on Security Assistance during august but they cannot pinpoint any specific conversations where it came up. My staff told me theyre aware of additional meetings where
they saw officials from the Ukrainian Embassy in august and they believe the question of the hold came up at some point but tai told me they did not find any correspondence or record of those meetings, consequently neither they nor i know precisely when what additional Discussion Mays have occurred with ukrainians in the month of august. If i had more details on these matters, i would offer them to the committee. This is the extent of Additional Information i have received since my deposition. Mr. Chairman, i welcome your questions, i will answer them to the best of my ability. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. For this hearing we will forego the questions by Member Counsel and go immediately to member questions. I want to respond that this was a surprise to the minority. We informed the minority last
night after our hearing that we would, because of the nature of testimony today we did not believe a Staff Member Round was necessary and the message we got back from the minority, okay, got it, thanks for the headsup. The minority was on notice and raised no objection to going directly to member rounds. I also want to point out that the minority has represented we have not called any minority witnesses. That is not accurate. Mr. Hale appears tonight as a minority witness. I know thats not how you characterize yourself, mr. Hale but your testimony was kresd by the minority, ambassador wilson and mr. Volker were minority witnesses. Ambassador volker testified he didnt believe any allegations against joe biden and in retrospect he should have
understood an investigation into burisma should have been known to be an investigation into biden which was inappropriate. And conversations with ambassador sondland about conversations we layed to the ukrainians about the hold on the Security Assistance being a result of the failure to secure the investigation. I can understand why the minority does not want to now characterize them as minority requested witnesses and nonetheless they are minority requested witnesses. I now recognize myself for five minutes. I want to begin by asking you, miss cooper, about what you just informed us of so i understand the import of what youre saying. As early as july 25th, the same 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 it was ready to purchase more javelins on that date, you got inquiries, your staff got inquiries from someone at the Ukrainian Embassy, who was concerned about the status of the Military Assistance, is that correct . Sir, thats correct. I would say specifically the Ukrainian Embassy staff asked what is going on with ukrainian Security Assistance. Did that connote to you something was in fact going on with it . Yes, sir. I guess your staff received more than one inquiry on that date . What was the nature of Theory Inquiry on july 25th . Sir, that was the one inquiry to my staff, but the other points that i had raised were emails reflecting outreach to the State Department. So the Ukrainian Embassy was also contacting the State Department to find out about its portion of Military Assistance . Yes, sir. And was that similarly a concern about whats going on with our military aid . It was similarly a question about whats going on with Security Assistance. And your staff or one of the other Department Staff also heard in august additional inquiries from the Ukraine Embassy about a Potential Holdup in the Military Assistance . Sir, i want to be careful about how i phrase this. My staff recall having had meetings with Ukrainian Embassy representatives during the month of august, and they believe that the topic came up at some point during those meetings but they dont recall the precise date or specifically what the nature of the discussion was. But your staff at least
gleaned from those conversations the Ukrainian Embassy learned there was some kind of hold on the assistance . The way i would phrase it is there was some kind of an issue. Yes. You are now, miss cooper, the third witness before our committee, who has testified that the ukrainians found out about the problem or hold on the Security Assistance prior to it becoming public but youre the first to indicate that may go back as early as the date of the president s call to president zelensky. Let me move to a related issue. In august, you testified at your deposition you met with kurt volker, i believe, it was on august 21th. The hold on Security Assistance was still in place. You testified ambassador volker told you if he could get president zelensky to make a Public Statement that would disallow the elections and
politics involved in Election Interference it might lift the old on Security Assistance, is that correct . Sir, i believe i testified it was my interference that would lift the hold on ukraines Security Assistance. That was your in fir reince because at the time youre talking about the hold on Security Assistance . Thats right. The first part of our conversation was about the hold on Security Assistance. It was during that part of the conversation he brought up the effort to get this Public Statement . It was during that conversation. Im not sure i would say its during that part of the conversation. What else did you discuss in the conversation . The only two topics that i recall are the urgency of lifting the hold on Security Assistance and him relaying this separate diplomatic evident i had previously been aware of. You didnt have any
discussion about any white house meeting . Sir, i dont recall specifically talking about the white house meeting but i had many conversations about the desire for the white house meeting. Its likely that was part of the conversation. The two things you do recall are that you talked about hold on Security Assistance and he brought up this Public Statement they wanted president zelensky to get he thought might be useful . That is correct, sir. Mr. Nunes. Thank you for yielding. Mr. Hale and miss cooper, thank you both for being here. In is opening, mr. Nunes referenced the skepticism of foreign aid being provided toForeign Countries, would you agree with that characterization, ambassador hale . We often heard at the State Department the president of the United States wants to make sure foreign assistance is reviewed scrupulously to make sure its truly in u. S. National interests and we evaluate it to make sure it meets certain criteria the president established. Since his election is it fair to say he has looked to overhaul how aid was distributed . Yes. There was a Review Process august or september 2018. Throughout his campaign his administration sought to refrain American Foreign policy in economic terms, as he described, America First policy, and well before there was whistleblower were talking a pause on aid to the ukraine, the president expressed genuine concern about
providing foreign assistance. Is it fair to say the president wanted to make sure the american taxpayer money was being fairly and efficiently spent outside the United States. That is the broad intent of the foreign assistance along with other goals. And he suspects our allies to give their share of aid as he referenced during the july phone call with president zelensky. The burden of sharing for allies and other likeminded states is an important part of the assistance. Is it true to say the foreign assistance aid is withheld from Foreign Countries for a number of factors . Correct. You testified in your prior testimony it is normal to have delays on aid . I may have said it that way, but its certainly an occurrence and does occur. In the past year ukraine was not the only country to have aid withheld from it, correct. Correct. In the past year, was aid
withheld from pakistan . Yes, sir. Why was aid withheld from pakistan . Because of unhappiness over the policies and behavior of the pakistani government toward certain proxy groups that were involved in conflicts with the United States. In the past year was aid also withheld from honduras . Aid was withheld from the three states in the northern central america, yes. In the past year, was aid withhel