You cover that with the chairman and then of course we have the press conference of october 17 ed Mick Mulvaney let the cat fully out of the bag and revealed President Trump talk to him the corruption related to the dnc server a and admitted tt is why be held at the money, any other explanation for the hold . In my remaining 30 seconds just so people understand what i refer to, in 1970 Richard Nixon decided, i dont know a general skepticism of foreign aid but he decided to hold a congressionally mandated aid. As a result, Congress Went to work and passed the control act of 1974. Which prohibits the president from withholding congressionally appropriated funds without the approval of congress for any reason. Is that correct . I am not a lawyer, but that is my understanding of the provision. I will go with the approximate. Thank you very much i yield back my balance back mr. Conway. Thank you, mr. Chairman. My colleague failed to put certain issues on certification. The certification was not corruption written large throughout the entire country of ukraine, it was spoke focused on reform and capability. Is that correct . That is correct. Thank you for being here this afternoon i appreciate that. But my colleague left that out. He read it when he registered the book left off the emphasis. So the certification did not speak to the broader concept of corruption throughout ukraine that the president would be familiar with . The main certification was specific to the defense sector, industry, and it did reference the importance of civilian control which relates more broadly none of us would argue that that fixes corruption about the country. Maybe you can shed light onn specific detail, we talk about Security Assistance program 550 million, somewhat argue that people died in august because of cost. Can you understand what obligated and worthy things about to be delivered to ukraine, was ukraine out ofct ammunition and out of javelins and all the stuff . And because of this they did not get certain equipment that they needed in order to protect their folks in the month of august . We will defer must try to get a timeframe. If there was no shortfall in equipment delivery that were expected within that timeframe obligate means youre putting the funding on contract. Those contracts will be fulfilled fourthquarter perhaps or whatever it was question extreme a have to say im a policy official, i am not a contracting expert but my understanding is we will be able to make up for lost time in the contracting process. You go through three or four steps because you disagree with the hold being placed on the assistant and i certainly agree with that but did you get any criticism from the folks that you deal with because youre goingi against the direction to put a hold onh that, did you gt criticized at all for that . Absolutelyre not. My entertainment of command was supportive ofor advocating for removing the hold on the phone. And you were not restricted on advocating on behalf of of getting a hold were you . No, sir i face no restriction. Thank you for that. In. Jaime specifics all refer any further questions and thank you for being here tonight. I yieldch back. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Ambassador hill, when did you actually find out about the hold on the ukraine assistant, was a july 21 . Yes in the deposition i did the closed hearing and i misspoke, i was confused i confusedpodi june 21 to omb for clearance, it was only after about july 18 and the 21st is when i heard a potential hold. Thank you for the clarification. Did you attend the july 26 deputies meeting that occurred . Yes, i did. Was it your understanding that the president directed the hold . We were told in the meeting by omb representatives that they were objecting to receive the assistant because the president had some directive through acting chief of staff. What was the state Department Position regarding the whole . State department advocated as they did in the meeting or proceeding with all the assistance consistent with our policy interest in ukraine spit youou believe in the release of the whole questioning. Yes, i did. To anyone at that enter Agency Meeting at the end of july support the whole . Did anybody want thedd hold remained . What agency. The only agency represented in the meeting that indicated they supported the hold was omb. Ms. Cooper did you understand similarly that there was an overwhelmingb inner Agency Consensus to lift the hold and the omb in the direction of the president was the only roadblock . Yes, maam. How is a Security Assistance in the National Security interest of the United States . What is our interest, explain that to my constituents in e are wondering why we should care about the security that is on the Security Assistance. Yes, maam, this specific assistant helps build the capacity of the Ukrainian Armed forces grade it is important tos understand that these are forces that are fighting to defend themselves against russian aggression every day. Its an ongoing war. So they do need this equipment to support their ability to defend themselves and i would say the larger issue that relates to u. S. Pulse and russia, we believe its very important to strengthen the capacity of ukraine in order to deter russia aggression elsewhere around the world. Exactly. Were you ever able to get a reason why the hold was on did you ever get a reason . Two no maam, the only thing i heard about, again, second and third hand was at the president was concerned about corruption. That was all i overheard. Did you provide any Additional Information for the whole . No maam. I think you and i yelled the balance of my time to the chairman. I think the gentlewoman, high calling of the minority asked mr. Hunter mr. Hale for military aid and you said then unusual, would you agree it be very unusual to place a hold in the military aid in order to leverage a foreign country to get them to investigate a political opponent . Yes. And i take it you would agree that would be completely inappropriate . It would be inconsistent of the Foreign Policy inn general. It would also be wrong when net . Certainly not what i wouldu do. Mr. Turner, it would be interesting if witnesses testified that was the case. I yield my time to mr. Jordan. I think the gentleman for yielding. I want to go with the chairman started, he said that ambassador hale was a witness, you called 17 witnesses and subpoenaed 15 of them, they are your witnesses, we did not get the subpoena or call anyone, you give us an opportunity to get a list to you a couple weeks ago where we made suggestions on who you might allow to add, three people of the 17 said they can provide context and framework for this entire thing. Once again, the folks watching this hearing are not helpful. Thank you both for being here in your service to our country. Ambassador, i read through yours, ambassador of pakistan, leviton, ambassador jordan, tunisia, saudi arabia, every hotspot on the planet, thank you for those assignments. We appreciate your service. Let me go to today mr. Sondland said on a statement on every Current Department or state of the employee call before congress in this matter retained all times and continues to retain for access to the state department document. In the state Department Email account which has always been able to access and review as well. Thats an accurate statement from the state department isnt it . I have not seen until shortly before entering this hearing room but it sounds accurate yes. I appreciate that. Youre aware of no connection with an exchange with an investigation, is that correct . I miss dickie working and repeat. You not aware of any connection between the cause and aid in exchange for some kind of an investigation being done by ststukraine is not right . Right. We are not aware pompeo having direct knowledge of a connection between an investigation and security aid . Is that correct. Im not aware of that and im not speaking about the. You not awarebev of the varis motives from aid to ukraine is that correct. Correct. Who testified what you knew President Trump was skeptical of foreign assistant generally only highlighted that in his round of questions. In skeptical of the corruption environment in ukraine, is that accurate . We had heard that, that was a general impression. And the aide was released to ukraine, is that correct . Yes i readt that. There is a 55 day or less two month pause in the actual hold on the aide, is that right . It seems so. Into your knowledge, top at the state permit, an investigation into the Bidens Burisma of the 2016 election, never happened by the ukrainians, is that correct . I dont know that i have the ability to answer that question i took the jobob in 2018 of august. Sent you taken the job, how about that. To my knowledge that is correct. I yield back. Mr. Carson. Thank you chairman mr. Cooper ukraine is the first line of defense from russia aggression and expansion into europe, numerous witnesses testified that ukraine is in fact burnable to russian, your deposition, you testify providing Security Assistance is vital to helping ukrainians able to defend themselves. What did you mean byst that . That we have a longstanding policy of helping ukraine be a resilient straigh state to be ao defend itself we want reliable and resilient for an economic partner in ukraine that can stand up to russian intimidation and aggression. You testify at the time of russias 2014 attack that Ukrainian Armed forces were significantly less capable than it is today. Would you say sir, Ukrainian Forces were outmatched by russias military . I do not testify would you like to comment . I believe that was my deposition but could you repeat the question. During the time of russias 2014 attack, Ukrainian Armed forces were significantly less capable than isheuk today. Would you say the Ukrainian Forces were outmatched by Russian Military and critical ways . Absolutely. Are the Ukrainian Forces now completely selfsufficient in your mind and essentially in their ability to deter russian aggression . No they have a long way to go. Would you say the Ukrainian Armed forces are now completely selfsufficientth or how much of of impact does the u. S. Need to have in terms of the deterrence and how critical of her relationship with ukraine in the u. S. Customer. Ukrainians are on the right path tons be able to provide for their own security but they will still need u. S. And allied support for quite some time. They need that support in the form of intangible assistance as well as political and diplomatic support. So this question is to the both of you, why would russias illegal crimea so significant in your mind . Russia violated the sovereignty of ukraine territory in russia illegally annexed territory that belong to ukrai ukraine, they also denied ukraine access to its naval fleet at the time and to this day, russia is building capability on crimea designed to expand Russian Military power projection for beyond the immediate region. In 2014, were there concerns in washington and european capitals that russia might not stop in ukraine . I was not in my current position in 2014, but it is my understanding that there were significant smear about where russia aggression would stop. What about today, if the u. S. Were to withdraw its military support of ukraine, what would effectively happen . It is my belief that if we were to withdraw our support, it wouldnt pull in russia and also validate the internationa loss n which country stands to benefit thef most . Russia. Ambassador taylor testified about the importance of the u. S. Withholding theor International System and it has underwritten since world war ii and critical aspect is ensuring that russia cannot change his quarters by military force. That is why there is a strong bipartisan support for providing ukraine with Security Assistance. That is why it is so incredibly indestructive of the president ,f the United States to withhold the assistance of part of a scheme to pressure ukraine to investigate Conspiracy Theory and attack former Vice President biden. I yield back. Thank you, mr. Chairman, thank you both for being here. The Army Reserve Surgeon i can say both of you, i served proudly for two republicans and two democrats present myself. I went to go to page three the president has directed the budget to hold funds because of concerns about corruption in ukraine. And youre coming from the dod side and i serveds a year in iq and it was important and i think its important that the army always does as i have seen, we dont want to deliver aid or assistance if it is going to some corrupt or being delivered and across way in other words it will build a medical Treatment Facility for the iraqis, we want to make sure we are not getting charged ten times as much. And in general through the dod. Yes, sir. That is a normal thing to want to be concerned about and we would do that in iraq especially if we are providing payments for something. I want to go through a few things, multiple witnesses have testified that they provided javelins to ukraine for the Trump Administration demonstrate strong u. S. Support through ukraine. Marie yovanovitch in her deposition says they provide lethal weapons to ukraine in our policy got stronger over the last three years. She also said in terms of Legal Assistance we also had a significant that this ministration made the decision to provide legal weapons to ukraine. Taylor said it was a substantial improvement in that this ministration provided javelins antitank weapons, very Strong Political message and said the americans are willing to provide, ambassador volker provided legal arms to ukraine is been extremely hopeful. Mr. Volker stated lincolns in all that time but if youre being attacked and all tillerys and tanks, you need to be able to fight back. Secretary george kent stated that javelins are incredibly effective weapons and stopping armed advance and russians are scared of them. Special advisor stated javelins ov help ukraine to defend themselves a decision to provide themem we believe is countered o russian interest. Do you dispute what the witnesses have testified including ambassador jovanovic e yovanovitch and others . I agree that the javelin system is in a print capability and for the very important decision to support ukraine with this capability. And you already testified that youre personally proud of the trouble ministration decision onsu ukraine with javelins correct . That is correct sir. One of the things on page three that you are talking abouh on the meeting of july 26 and you said i was aware that the National Security community expressed in unanimous support for resuming the funding as in the u. S. National security interest. That is correct . That is correct. I guess i take a little question with resuming, we dont as is thatume because . Because as is would not include javelins. Sir, i am not sure i am following. The previous ministration, javelins were not provided, even though they could have been, president obama stop the javelins, he could have delivered dublin. I think i should clarify what i meant by that statement, resuming was referring to the fact that omb had placed a hold on the assistance so we were not spending and i wanted to resume the spending so we could maintain this policy and maintain maintain the policy but there is a different and i think undersecretary hale, i thought i saw you nodding, the difference being as it is resumed in this case that would include javelins which the Obama Administration did not, is that correct . That is true that the Trump Administration approved the release of defensive lethal assistance to include javelins where as the previous ministration did not support the policy. Mr. Hale, do you have a comment on that . Crymac that seems correct i deferred to ms. Cooper. Can conclude that blankets and memories that are helping ukrainians in the legale defense of weapons are something that the Trump Administration has approved in a benefit to all of us. You. Thank you, mr. Chairman and thank you both fors s being hee this evening. There is a mystery surrounding the hold on the aid in july, but back and they i believe you said there was a that was conditioned but you certified in may that the condition had been met and they included progress on command and control reform, commitment to pursue reform and passed laws to enable government for procurement. Is that correct . That is correct. When you find out in july the concern about corruption, youre scratching your head right . Yes, maam do you know of any effort that was undertaken to assess the corruption in ukraine in june or july orr august . Man as i believe i said in my deposition, the only specific discussion that i am aware of related to the interAgency Meetings, the sub pcc and the deputies, and those meetings produce pens did discuss the degree to which corruption was a concern in the degree to which there was progress in my recollection of what the participant said in these meetings was that there was a very positive sense that progress was being made, so you have these meetings and progress is being made, nothing really changes from may until september that would trigger the release of the money except the whistleblower came forward. I do not know what triggered the release of the funding. The fact that there was reference made to money being withheld for other countries was made by some of our colleagues but in those situations countries like pakistan, leban lebanon, most of your funding streams. Those accounts are outside my purview so i cannot answer that question. I have been told that is the case. So theres notti the immediate hits financially that would potentially accrue. But the difference as i see it, and ukraine as compared to these other countries is that ukraine engaged with a hot war with russia right now. It seems that withholding that money was irresponsible considering that they had made and taken steps to meet all the conditions that we had requested, that congress had appropriated the funds, is that not the case . Crymac maam, i am my colleagues advocated for the release of these funds because of the National Security important. So basically the entire interest of the department of defense and state department were consistently support a releasing the funds everyone was justified to why the fundsds w e withheld and everyone is running around trying to get an answer in your getting up tos responses saying it was the president because of collusion. What we see is the president zelensky gets elected in april, the expectation that the Vice President pence is going to attend the inauguration of september and the president ulls the carpet out from under him in terms of him going and then he proceeds in june or july to withhold the funds, there is an effort by the president of the United States to act in a manner that is not consistent with their interest in wanting to protect ukraine and help them deal with at the borders. Would you agree with that . I have advocated for the security and i have advocated for highlevel engagement with the government with ukraine because i think theyre both in the National Security interest. I yield back. Thank you chairman. Under assistant secretary think you both for being here. You are both recognized as expert dedicated Public Service and i have to tell you being the president of the United States has most, located endeavors in the world and no one can do it without people like you. To provide the back form that you do, and thank you for doing. That. I dont mean to repeat the same ouquestions but i think we reacd it sometimes yesterday or sometime ago, some repetitive hearing and forgive me for doing that. Although i do have some questions based on something she said previously, just for clarification, there is a question about the emails that i think they claim withholding and they came from capitol hill on the Foreign Affairs committee, is that true . Are you referring to my Statement Today or something i believe this is previous, are you aware of the mall . Im sorry i dont have enough information, is this a particular page on my deposition . Noah reporting that we have heard communication of someone on the Foreign Affairs committee, is that not true . There may have been communication with me . You. D email with i am not aware. Thank you. And for clarification, someone may have askeded you frm the Ukrainian Embassy about the withholding of aid, is that true, did you hear from them . I testified earlier that the communication from the Ukrainian Embassy from my staff and my staff mentioned this to me after my deposition, the only specific munication that i recollect with ukrainians about the specific issue was on september 5 at a reception at the Ukrainian Embassy. Was that just a query generally about the forthcoming aid or a specific regarding them the own aware that the aide was withheld . Just to be clear, the september quick conversation that i had was specific to the hold, there was no awarenesson f that in the question of concern. Thank you. Ms. Cooper, actually to both of you, at the end of the day it really does, ive done this before it comes down to this, the transcript and holding up is a transcript of the phone call between bresson under president zelensky and President Trump, i hope every american takes this opportunity to read it its only a few pages long and much more information beyond that may be helpful to inform but it really comes down to those conversations and those few sentences. But mr. Hill, we are going quickly to these questions and i have her answers so this will not take long. You have answered them generally in the way. You think the United States should evaluate if the country is worthy . Is that fair to say. Yes, sir. President trump has been skeptical generally of foreign aid in sending the money that was given is out there as well . I think so. Thats been fairlyynf hat cot before he was elected and others in the process have testified ukraine has a long history of corruption, that will not surprise anyone of us we talked about that a thousand times. Do you think it wasy right the president would test president zelensky prior to providing Security Assistance . President zelensky was new, i met him in february, i was impressed by him but i think it was understandable for the ministration that a new president and ukraine was coming to office and to understand mibetter at what that policy wod be an add to toward the United States. I think that is key, we had it refer to as dod completed their review, since he was elected, we knew nothing about him. He did not have a history of governance and ukraine, he came wilittle bit after President Trump himself, he did not come from the public background that we would have much information on him. It seems prudent to test him and see if he was serious about ukraine. At some point and going to conclude, i believe labor day the secretary is able to engage the president and the Security Assistance in the same time you had others like vic and shortlye aide was released, is that your understanding . I was never informed as to why the assistant was released, i did read about it. But it did happen and it seemed like there the reason it was released. Thank you both and i yield back. Thank you both for being here and thank you for your service. You both had asked about the importance of the military assistance as it affects reukrainian sovereignty and its important because a potential greater ambition by the russians, i try to put in context and please get your reaction from both of you fromin someone who has been there before a Renowned International policy experts on such things. Ihis quote strike some today, he wrote russia can be an empire oy democracy. But it cannot be both. Without Ukraine Russia ceases to be an empire but with ukraine and subordinated russia automatically becomes an empire. Your thoughts of how to put this into context today . Please. I think that is a very powerful and accurate quote. I would agree. You talk about emails that were drawn to your attention that were sent to your staff, is that correct . Emails i discussed this evening were email sent to my staff, that is correct. I think first of all it is important to point this out, it is not something you areyo aware of, it points to a larger issue that the Defense Department and state department have received to comply with the duly issued subpoena to provide this community with documents that would shed light on the ukrainian new about the withhold. This is something you were aware of but there is untold information out there being blocked that would draw Greater Light and help us understand. Is there anything else out there that you are aware of or a possibility that are out there we dod or the state department which can help us shed light on with ukrainians new and when they knew it . I have shared all that i recollect but i have not done an exhaustive investigation. I cannot speculate on what else might be available by combing through all of the Defense Department records which are substantial. To the state department and the department of defense ask you for your information or do they cordate with you to get information that you have . I was told not to destroy anything and our it personnel has been collecting documents is my understanding. That occurs without the individual were collecting and passing it on to stay or dod is that correct. You said your department was collecting, they were passing on to you, they were passing onto the state department . This is what they reported to me, i have not seen the documents that have been collected i only know those documents that i have produced or my staff has brought to my attention that i have received so no i do not know what has happened with the documents that have been collected. Same question to you. You. I request and was granted access to documents that id originated or been sent to me that are relevant to the pertinent matters during that time period. I dont have any information about what else is going on in terms of other documents that i did not produce or did not receive. There was or did they pass them on to the administration somehow . To make the only documents are what i described i requested given with the documents that were sent to me relevant to the matters we are discussing today. I yelled back. Thank you to both of our witnesses for your service today. Ms. Cooper i want to start with you you spoke eloquently of the threatt of russia when it illegally annexed cry mary crimea threatening the europe and the United States as well. We know that the mosts important support for ukraine is a legal defensive aid is in the form of javelins. Would you agree . Yesesd maam. Which administration where theyey made available . The Trump Administration. Not the Obama Administration. Correct. Have you ever um spoke with ukraineident about aid . No i have not. Undersecretary you said you had no direct knowledge of nefarious knowledge to dwithhold aid to ukraine. Correct. You testified there were no strings attached. Correctwl . Page 184 of your deposition. Most specifically you testified you have no knowledge of ukraine aid being held for investigation. Correct. During thed temporary hold until ambassador taylor sent you the cable you never even heard the word biotin or t burisma. Correct in the context of what we were discussing. That is on page 96. And then it was released to ukraine. Yes i read that. Talk about the context broadly. You say it is those that were on hold. The aid packagein to lebanon where is held in the same fashion. Correct . In foreign aid was held from northern triangle countries. Central america correct. So when you served as ambassador to pakistan Security Assistance was also held regarding our concerns regarding terrorist and other issues on the afghan pakistan border. Correct. Lets broadly talk about all the holds on aid when we talk about aid i think about hard earned tax payer dollars would you agree . Absolutely. Isnt it true the Trump Administration has been conductingng a foreign assistance review to reestablish as we provide aid overseas . Correct. You say this has been going on quite a while and the administration did not want to take this usual approach of foreign assistance once it had received a package it is something that continues forever and you continued the program had to be evaluated that they were theor. Beneficiaries of our assistance we avoid that assistance for countries that are lost in terms of policies to our adversaries. Correct. You testified you welcomed the review. Correct. Just to get this on recor record, Security Assistance was released to ukraine i know i have asked this but it is an important point. Correct. I yelled back i yield back. Your testimony today destroys to the pillars of the president s defense and one justification. The first pillar, no harm no foul they did not know the hold was in place so it didnt hurt them. The second pillar this president was anticorruption he cared about corruption innt ukraine so looking at your new testimony today it is your testimony now after an employee comes forward, you believe you have some evidence the ukrainians first inquired about Security Assistance with someone in your office july 25 this year . Thats correct. That is also the day President Trump officially talk to president zelensky were investigations of the bidens were brought up. I only know what was this. Ed publicly on that was reported. Correct. This president says that your testimony on may 23 you certify that as far as it related to your duties ukraine had met your concerns for the aid to be released. Through the Defense Department. After that date the president of the United States lyt a hold on Security Assistance. That is what i heard in july. Issi anticorruption president that cares so much about corruption did he ever call you after to say whats going on in ukraine . No sir. Ambassador hale did he ever ask about updating the ukraine corruption quick. You dont recall your boss quick. I dont know. Did you ever call the department of defense secretary or acting secretaries quick. I dont know. Now for the justification it is that the Obama Administration only provided blankets so ukrainians could be grateful even after being shaken down with the Trump Administration provided more but the truth is under the Obama Administration and the European Reassurance Initiative 175 million was provided from us taxpayer dollars to the ukrainians. I dont have that figure what we typically use is to say we provided one. 6 billion to date but i dont have the breakdown in front of me. And the obama nministration trained five battalions. I dont have the figures in front of mest but the Training Program began in the Obama Administration. And the founded Ukrainian Assistance Initiative provided the ukrainians humvees, tactical drones, armored vest and medical equipment. That sounds like pieces of equipment that were provided to my recollection. Is that a lot more than ablankets . Yes or. Ambassador hale the aid that was withheld to lebanon and pakistan was legitimate Foreign Policyth objectives . Thats true the assistance of pakistan i have not heard an explanation for the current hold on the lebanese program. You would agree with holding aid to investigate a political opponent is not a legitimate Foreign Policy objectives. Correct. We can agree that even bernie made off major charitable contributions. Ms. Cooper your testimony today demonstrates the power of coming forward and defying lawless orders from the president. Because you came forward to testify we learned this information that destroys the reset the central defense because ambassador taylor came forward one of his employees learned thisef defense from the republicans all we had was hearsay evidence and actually i heard the president of the United States tell the ambassador where are we with the investigations . Your courage has aided this vevestigation despite the president s continued obstruction and i yelled back. Thank you chairman. Ambassador hale in essence you are the number three guy. Correct representing a hundred thousand. Were you part of that fantastic workforce i have been proud to serve alongside we shared time together in pakistan. I know often times they dont get to the pats on the back or the accolades with National Security but some of us do recognize that and appreciate that. Did anybody raise issues to you are bassett or hale about investigations of the bidens with burisma . No sir. You have a great staff coms. Cooper with my 115 page deposition giving me feedback. You said in your deposition that you certified on 23 may the ukraine aid the review industry and department of defense past of the corruption test. Sir i think it was more along the lines that progress has been made or sufficient progress has been made did not reference the anticorruption test per se. Did this change or was there a reevaluation with the president coming in because president zelensky was inaugurated two days before the date to that have an impact on how he continues was that taken into account in this review quick. Not prior to may 23rd, no sir. So the review was basically done on the efforts done on the previous administration. Yes sir although its important to note to the review related specifically to the ministry of defense. Sure but ultimately there were changes under this regime correct quick. Yes there is a new minister of defense. I know Foreign Military financing state department but can you explain the differencee with funding and how the ukrainians get lethal aid. Is lethal aid covered quick. There are three separate pieces to our overall ability to provide equipment to the Ukrainian Armed forces. The first is Foreign Military finance system which is a state Department Authority and that is used for some of the training and equipment also the ukraine Security Assistance initiative unlike the state authority its only one year authority and then third there is opportunity for defense so they can purchase equipment but the javelin specifically was provided under sms initially now the ukrainians are interested in the purchase of javelins. There was not a hold on purchasing that equipment quick. Not to my understanding. So the impeachment inquiry question. What can we be doing to defend against Electronic Warfare by the russians quick. What i can say in an open hearing there is some Electronic Warfare detection equipment that is included in the us package there is a piece of capability that was already working to provide them. But this specific topic is more suitable for a closeddoor session. Thank you for both of your service to our country. I yelled back. Thank you for your testimonyy today i want to make an important distinction because my colleagues have rattled off countries where we have held up aididto. There is a big distinction between holding up aid for legitimate Foreign Policy worries because its part of a shakedown. And thats important to note and i would ask you you said nee money was clear to go may 2d quick. And not released until september 11. T . I should clarify the second half of that initiative was notified of congress on ma may d with congressional approval then after that point. So perhaps 90 days . So the Security Assistance is not in the National Security interest of the United States and the hold in russia we have heard the same from numerous other witnesses coming before us this is not the only issue with the hold we understand those within theus government had significant concerns of the legality of the hold relating to the control act because the money was authorized by congress and signed into law by President Trump were there any discussions whether a hold could be implemented in a legal fashion . In the july 26 meeting my leadership raise the question of how the president s guidance could be implemented and that may be a reprogramming action would be a way to do this but more research would need to be done so after that discussion there was a lowerlevel discussion at my level on the 31st. They say your conversation at the interAgency Meeting did you share your understanding of the legal mechanisms available at that time. Yes sir. I expressed it was my understanding there were two ways to implement president ial guidance the first option is for the president to do a rescission and the second is a reprogramming action the department of defense would do. Is a both require the extra step the president would have to do to notify congress. Was the reverend notice sent out to congress. I did express i believed itth would require notice but there was no such notice to my knowledge. There was never any official rescission of that money quick. Not to my knowledge. So instead of an alternative solution to create footnote one footnotes and then when the department no longer supported these footnotes because of concerns there may not be sufficient time for dod to obligate the funds in violation of the control act so despite those roconcerns and the omb footnotes though hold nevertheless continued through september 11 even now as an aside after the whistleblower had come forward. Correct. Yes the hold was released september 11. We share concerns of the legality of the hold thank you for voicing those concerns to the white house to pursue the National Security interest for the United States. I yelled back. Ta based on the emails you mentioned with your opening and those by my democratic colleagues that those were evidence ukrainians were aware of our military hold july 25th now they say pentagon official reveals they asked about stalled security aid. It has been widely reported that ukraine asked about the hold on july 25th but thats not what i heard from you. Is that correct quick. My exact words were one email said the Ukrainian Embassy in Foreign Affairs committee are asking about Security Assistancee e. Not a hold. The second email was the hill knows about the situation to the extent with the Ukrainian Embassy. Those were the exact words. What does that mean in the situation . I want to speculate. It doesnt necessarily mean eald. Correct. Not necessarily. Isnt it true around the same time omb put a hold on 15 state department and usaid accounts quick. I dont know that specific detail. You cannot say one way or another the inquiries were about the hold. Is that fair quick. I cannot say for certain. You cannot say one way or another if the ukrainians knew about the whole before august 28 when it was reported in politic politico. Sir i can just tell you that the recollection of my staff they likely new but no i do not have a certain data point to offer you. Is notne unusual for Foreign Countries to inquire about foreign aid is it . In my experience with the ukrainians they would typically call about specific things not generally checking in on the assistance package. Are you aware president zelensky october 10 in response to questions from more than 300 reporters over the course of the afternoonon stated he was not aware and had no knowledge of a hold on securityno assistance during thh phone call with President Trump. Mediaelieve i saw that reporting. I yelled back. Thank you for being here. Ambassadorei hale the country watched as the president attacked and attempted to intimidate your colleague ambassador yovanovitch and secretary pompeo declined to condemn the attack. With secretary pompeo silences no less than a betrayal to the men and women he swore an oath. It is a betrayal with longterm consequences to attract and retaining workforce and their overall strength. So ambassador hail, i want to give you an opportunity now what secretary pompeo did not do march 2019 with the Vicious Smear Campaign was kicked into high gear and you sir rightly pressed a strong statement in support of her last week when ghthe president and his son attacked her again. I am offering you the opportunity to reaffirm to this committee and millions of americans hopefully who are watching that ambassador yovanovitch is a dedicated and courageous patron serving with dignity even in the face that orchestrated the unsubstantiated smear attack against her. Ambassador hail 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 posts throughout the globe that what happened to ambassador yovanovitch was wrong w. Ambassador hail . Thank you congressman. I endorse entirely your description of ambassador yovanovitch immediately understood we had an exceptional officer doing exceptional work at the embassy and during my visits i was impressed what she was doing to the extent i asked if she would be willing to stay if that was a possibility. Support andto believe in the institution in the believe of the state department. I am one of them perk all of us are committed to americas National Security we are the best group of diplomats anywhere in there world expense extending to all state officers who have testified perk i would like to read a letter the undersecretary of managementnt wrote to the Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign relationser committee in response the number of Department Employees have testified before the house regarding ukraine. No employee has faced any adverse action or before congress on this matter the congress the department will not discipline any employee in response to a subpoena it has also proactively established Financial Assistance with respect to private Counsel Legal fees include one incurred by Department Employees. Therefore are you saying ambassador yovanovitch is a dedicated and courageous patriot and that she served with grace and dignity in the face of a Smear Campaign. Yes she did. What happened to her was w wrong. I believe she should have been able to stay. And what happened to her was wrong. Thats right. Thank you for clarifying the record because i was not sure where she could go to set the record straight where she could go to get her good name and reputation back perk i want to encourage you encourage when the strongest terms possible stand your ground america strength and prosperity is predicated in no small part on the professionalism of Foreign Services core and they need to know that you as the highest ranking professional diplomat in the entire state department have their back, serve. Thank you for having ambassador yovanovitch back this evening and with that i yelled back i yield back. Ms. Cooper why did omb put a hold on the funds . The only information from omb they were operating at the direction of the president and they reported he had concerns about corruption. You put that in your testimony. To hold the funds because of his concerns about corruption in ukraine thats a legitimate reason. Do you agree . That is a statement the president t reportedly made as reported to me by omb. You say in your testimony from the advisors that department of defense with department of statec certified they had taken the steps necessary and you certified the release. Is that accurate. That is correct. There was a small change in ukraine spring 2019 . Yes sir. Can you elaborate that change quick. The government ambassador yovanovitch was elected. Yes but you have a brandnew guy coming in. In fact i just believe he was sworn in the day you approve the dollarsco. Was it may 23rd . Which i guess is a couple days before but there is a change of circumstances that seem to me would warrant at least maybe a second look. And that is exactly what played out for a short time. For 55 days our government evaluated a new situation, a pretty radical change. You have a new government. In fact the previous one you have heard about the prosecutor general and how bad the previous regime was. It took a while for that to happen to go the new president is sworn in then congress comesto in but not until september 5th that they get rid of the prosecutor and then just a few days later the aid is released. That the democrats of all kinds of other things they want to talk about. The way this played out is as logical as you can do it particularly when you put in the broader framework of where this president is on concern about foreign aid his deep rooted concern in the corruption issue of ukraine , the experience he had with high ranking ukrainian officials criticizing him and in the 2016 election all of that together that plaque one played out the way it did. I yield back. Undersecretary hail i want to go back to your support and affirmation of ambassador yovanovitch. What i understand, by the way thank you for that. Our military leaves no soldier on the battlefield or those in leadership positions with the state department and Intelligence Community have that bond of loyalty to each other. You represent that. As ire understand it you have information about her situation in march. It was mentioned sometime in the fall receiving a member of congress with complaints about the ambassador. Correct. Congressman sessions. Did you see there is any basis to the claim quick. No i did not. You visited in fact you talked about extending ambassador yovanovitch term to remain in her post. That was a personal idea of mine. That is an indication you valued her service. And also ambassador yovanovitch represents the tiesident of the United States and ukraine that america stands behind statements to give her support. Correct. Weeks later the president and Mister Giuliani unleash a Smear Campaign to oust her. What was your reaction to the news articles in late march that your corrupt ukrainian prosecutor attacked the ambassador . We put out aco statement that the allegations were a fabrication. We began to discuss what we could do to deal with this matter. Than the problems continued for ambassador yovanovitch. She emailed march 24th to indicate social media and other criticisms were that she could no longer function unless there was a strong statement of defense of her from the state department. Correct . Correct. Secretary pompeo was aware of her situation. Yes. I briefed him the next day. He is the ultimate authority to ensure that issue that support. Correct. But he never did. We did not issue a statement at that time. But in fact to testify around the same time that the secretary did not render assistance to the long serving and highly respected ambassador. He made two phone calls to Rudy Giuliani. Correct i do see a record he made those phone call. L. One on march 28th and then 29th. I saw the record of that. We dont know what he said but we have a pretty good idea what giuliani said to him. Get rid of ambassador yovanovitch when she was recalled and wanted to find out what happened, secretary pompeo would not meet with her. I was out of the country at the time i cannot comment. And those next in line did not meet with her. I dont know. And then it went to give her the new. A deputy secretary had the meeting i was out on foreign travel at the time. Secretary pompeo we wanted us whate here to telll his conversations were with Rudy Giuliani that at person who was fermenting the discontent with the ambassador fighting corruption. Thank you and ms. Cooper fornt your service. Fo hello ms. Cooper and undersecretary hail. It is late for a wednesday the last time we heard testimony we brought pizza. [laughter] so kidding aside we detained you five hours that day so thank you for your forbearance forbearancee yourur on or patients. Ms. Cooper was dod able to put funds into contract before the end of the fiscal year . No sir. How much was left on obligated quick. I believe 35 million that we could obligate 80 percent total. And you mentioned because of legislation you could do that. We are in the process right now of thee remainder because of the provision in the continuing resolution. But literally for an act of congress you could have sent all the money. If we did not receive the provision in the continuing resolution we would have obligated 88 percent but not the full amount. Which ofol course would be a violation of law to not spend money that congress appropriate appropriated. I am not a lawyer but that is my understanding. Secretary hail where were you born . Michigan. Your family is from ireland . No sir. Im sorry. Strike that. Next question with 61 ambassador yovanovitch youket. Said three countries jordan lebanon and pakistan. Volume ambassador to those three countries did anybody ever ask for support praising personally the president of the United States. How do you review that request . It depends. If you are having a problem with your job and you said how can i do better and you said publish something personally praising the president flattering to him with that strike you aspubl unusual. Go big or go home does that change remind . I dont understand that is what ambassador yovanovitch was treated to ambassador sondland seeking advice that it would strike her as to political s. That sounds sensible. I yield the remaining time back to the chairman. Ambassador hail thank you for being with us just a quick question before i get into ambassador sondland. If President Trump withheld Critical Military aid from ukraine because high ranking officials supported the president s political opponen opponent, would you consider that an unofficial acceptable appropriate action by the president of the United States . Ambassador . That is not what i would advise. That does not sound appropriate. Ambassador hail you testified you were aware that ambassador sondland was involving himself in matters that went beyond the normal part of the ambassador to the European Union. Who authorized ambassador sondland to work on ukraine . I have no firsthand knowledge of that. I received a readout from a meeting the president had with the delegation on may 23rd and the briefing i received show the present one of the members of thatin delegation to discuss the policies that were discussed. So that occurred may 23rd when you heard that information from the readout quick. Yes. And you testified it was clear the members of that delegation were empowered by theea president and you also said as apo practical matter that ambassador sondland would be the one really doing the continual effort. Did you understand ambassador sondland had direct access to the president . A few occasions i had conversations with ambassador sondland hent often let it know he was in direct contact with the president from previous occasions but not related to this matter. What about ambassador sondlands role that was problematic quick. Based on what i knew at the time i was satisfied the delegation to pursue these policiese and that he was professional as a Service Officer and ambassador of distinction and steeped in Ukrainian Affairs was a part of that group so i have no concern concerns. At the time you were okay with his role but your opinion changed about the appropriateness of his role . I was not aware of these areas of negotiation of investigations or preconditions related tous that. Is not aware of it back i had no reason to make a judgment. Did you review the Text Messages between voelker and ambassador sondland. We surprised by anything that you heard reported or her personally witnessed quick. I was surprised what i saw from the media. I want to make sure i understand your testimony you believe ambassador sondland was empowered by the president to according to what you found out from the may 23rd meeting to work on ukraine policy none of that really struck you as problematic because of the time difference. Is that correct . Based on what i do, yes. The undersecretary for Political Affairs you testify in that capacity you are responsible for the management of the United States bilateral relations with every country in the world that we recognize for the management of policies toward those countries as well as a relationship or policies that relate to multilateral organizations. Does not include us policy in relations with ukraine . It does with a central envoy they report directly to the secretary that special envoy will take the daytoday responsibilities. What about us policy in relations with the European Union . That you were not aware fully of ambassador sondland activities on behalf of President Trump. Thats correct. I yield back. Good evening. Thank you for being here. Undersecretary hail, you and your colleagues testified you gathered official records at the state department with the understanding to be provided to congress quick. I was not involved in the decisionmaking to gathering documents i understood it was under way and i receive the documents i described earlier. In terms of the materials collected, do they include electronic files and emails quick. I can only speak to what was available to me and it included emails and paper documents. Would tape recordings be among those files . I cannot speculate on that. You cannot rule out the possibility . I dont know so i cannot commentos. Are you familiar from home the documents were collected . I dont know that. You are aware despite the dulyly authorized to serve on the state department we have yet to receive a single document. I understand that. Ms. Cooper with the interagency process, did anyone or any committee potentially bring up the lack of allied funding as a reason why there should be a hold on military assistance to the soukraine . We can only speak to the meetings that i attended and i have no recollection of the issue of allied burden sharing coming up at that point i did provide in my deposition with that i thought was a completely separate query that i received midjune from the secretary for office and one of the questions there was to the degree the allieds were contributing to the Security Assistance. But after the hold was put sein place july 18 you havent heard any questions for why it should be in place . With those meetings that i attended i did not recall hearing that as a reason the only reason that i heard with the president s views on corruption. The same question undersecretary. I assume you did not hear of the lack of allied funding as a reason for the hold to be put in place . I never heard her reason for the hold. I assume neither of you heard any reason whatsoever white was in place except for the fact that when be put in place at the direction of the president. Thats correct. One of my colleagues brought up the idea it was put in place to assess whether orid not president zelensky was legitds i assume that was not a reason that was offered either. Undersecretary what is the importance of a world meeting having one a world leader having a meeting at the white house quick. For a new leader it is extremely important opportunity to demonstrate the strength of our relationship to build it up at a personal and leadership level to demonstrate common goals. What about president elensky how important was it for him to have a meeting with President Trump at the white house quick. I didnt talk with him myself i did meet with the candidates but as h an expert on these matters is it fair to say that a new World Leaders such as president zelensky having a meeting at the white house of President Trump is extremely important for his image he projects especially to people like russia quick. And Oval Office Meeting is incredibly valuable for any foreign leader and so to demonstrate the bond between the United States and ukraine is strong and continuity in our policies and we will continue tohe Work Together including countering russian aggression and intimidation of ukraine. Thank you so much. I yield back. That concludes member questioning. Do you have any concluding remarks . What we have learned from the democrats impeachment inquiry. What have they delivered plexi impeachment version of the card trick President Trump and the American Public stands no chance of winning. Democrats promised the t whistleblowers testimony in fact they told us we need to speak with the whistleblower t then we learned they court on ecourtney with the democratic staff before alerting the Intelligence Community. To hide that they pound the table telling the country the whistleblower is entitled to an imaginary statutory right of anonymity accusing us to out thee whistleblower knowing that that they are the only ones who know who heny is. They say the facts that are against you is law if it is the law than they are the facts of both are against you then pound the table and run like hell it seems that they are teaching a fourth tactic if the facts and the law are against you then simply rigged the game and hope the audience is too stupid to catch it. This is not an impeachment inquiry for the middle ages the inquisitor was free to act on his own and bring truth against any person even the subject of the lowest rumor. And this was denied any right to confront their accusers. Incredibly or maybe not so much given the track record with the democrats the victim has more rights than they are giving the president after all inquisition victims have the right to know their accusers name. Those of you at home change the channel or turn down the volume or hide the kids and put themem to bed. Now i yield for story time our. Thank you for your remarks as always. [laughter] i will be brief this evening it has been a long day i said what i wanted to say earlier but i do want to end this evening thank you both for your testimony and your service we are grateful you answered the process of the congressional subpoena. Sswant to share a few reflections on two words that have come up a lot in the course of these hearings that is corruption and anticorruption. We are supposed to believe that donald trump is a great anticorruption fighter his only concern with ukraine is that it would fight corruption but lets look at that argument. Lets look at the president s words and deeds. Ambassador yovanovitch was in anticorruption champion. No one has contradicted that that has come forward to testifyy here. She was a champion. On the day she was at a meeting acknowledging ukraine and other anticorruption champion a woman who had acid face and died a painful death after months , she is called back to washington because of a Vicious Smear Campaign by the president sgt lawyer Rudy Giuliani among others. She is recalled that is not anticorruption. That is corruption. And one of the people responsible for the Smear Campaign in addition to giuliani is another man that the minorities own witness acknowledges has a poor reputation as selfserving and corrupt. And what do we see about him and his predecessor . What is the president have to say about these corrupt former prosecutors . He praises them. He says they were treated very unfairly. That is not anticorruption. That is corruption. And when ambassador sondland testified today that there was unquestionable quid pro quo and everybody knew it, conditioning a white house meeting that ukraine desperately wanted to show it had the support the president of the United States with that was conditioned officially aspp an act to the political investigations that is not anticorruption. That is corruption. And when ambassador sondland testified today he could put two and two together and so can wead that there was also a quid pro quo on the military aid it would not be released unless they did a Public Statement of these political investigations. That is not anticorruption that is corruption. And lets look at the president s words on that infamous phone call july 25th that says he asks president zelensky how is that reform coming in nevada what are you doing to root out corruption . What about the newm anticorruption . Of course not. Are we really to believe that was his priority . Know. What does he ask . I want you to do a favor. Investigate this crazy server conspiracy the server is somewhere in ukraine and more ominously investigate the bidens. That is not anticorruption. That iss corruption. And the next day when hes on the phone to ambassador solomon in that outdoor restaurant in key have what does he want to know about . How president zelensky will fight corruption . Of course not. The only thing he brings up in that call is the investigation he wants into the bidens. That is not anticorruption. That isv corruption. Every now and then there is a conversation that says all you need to know sometimes it is significant but this one really struck me with the conversation that ambassador voelker related in his testimony just this past september when he was talking to andre t14 and advising him, as indeed he should, you may not want to go through the investigation or prosecution of former president. To engage in political esvestigations is not a good idea for you know what yermak says . You mean like you want us to do with the bidens and the Clinton Clintons . There is a word for that to. That is called hypocrisy. And this is the problem. We do have an anticorruption policy around the world and the great meno and women in your Department Secretary hail and ms. Cooper carry that message around the world the United States has resorted to the rule of law but when we say colon see the president of the United States not devoted to their rule of law or anticorruption instead demonstrates in word and deed corruption they are forced to ask themselves what does america stand for anymore cracks that concludes this evenings hearin hearing. I will ask the witnesses to excuse themselves pickle members remain. We have a business matter to take up. [inaudible conversations] at the Ranking Members request i cocoon we issue subpoenas section twonk paragraph four we receive that request will add it to the record without objection by way of overview with deposition testimony by the whistleblower that those that would compel certain parties for the record the whistleblower to producehi documents and communications to the whistleblower complaint to produce records of hunter biden and the Democratic National committee relating to alexandria i do not concur in these request for subpoenas we will not allow this committee to be used to out to the whistleblower or for purposes and properg investigation to worse we will take them up with the first minorityde request is there a motion . Mimic i moved to table. This is a non debatable motion. Point of order mister chairman. Point of order, mister chairman. Point of order mister chairman. Excuse me. Those opposed quick. Point of order mister chairman. Point of order mister chairman. It is tabled a roll call sadema the clerk should call the role. [roll call] this business meeting notice properly within the rules of the house . House resolution 660 requires that if the minority next request for subpoenas will promptly take up that request and thats what we are doing. Mr. Chairman, rule 11 a is there motion on that to compel the testimony of hunter biden . Chairman moves the table, all of those in favor say, all opposed say no. In the opinion of the chair the eyes have it. The eyes have it. Motion is now abrequest to roll call vote. Please call the role. [roll call] mr. Chairman there are 13 allies and five nose. Motion to table is carried motion is now on the subpoena to compel documents from the iswhistleblower is there motion . Mr. Chairman i moved to table. All those in favor say i all opposed say no. The opinion of the chair the eyes have it, the eyes have it. We will now move to subpoena number four to compel documents for Hunter Bidens role on bristol board. Mr. Chairman i moved to table. Gentlemen moved to table. In the opinion of the chair the eyes have it. The eyes have it. Motion is tabled. Last motion is on motion to compel documents from the Democratic National committee is there emotion . Mr. Chairman i moved to table. Gentlemen moved to table, all those in favor say i all opposed say no. In the opinion of the chair the eyes have it and mom motion is tabled. We are now adjourned. [inaudible background conversations] [inaudible background conversations] [inaudible background conversations] ambassador hale talked about how they are doing a comprehensive review of foreign aid. How aid gets held up as a fairly common practice in fact, this year but on commit pakistan and ukraine nothing unusual there. I thought a much quicker hearing but another good day another good hearing for the truth and for the president. [inaudible question] the first thing is she says that it wasnt a hold it was an inquiry about Security Assistance. You got the Deputy Assistant secretary for ukraine eurasia and russia, actually a staffer for the Deputy Assistant secretary at the department of defense for ukraine, eurasia and russia getting an email that talked about asking a question about Security Assistance and we have ambassador volker and ambassador taylor and a bunch of other people who all testified ukrainians didnt know about a hold on the need until august 29. Its an email. Its amazing how this comes up at the last minute and its just some email from some staffer. I know what people testified to end and what she said and then she talked about Security Assistance related email she didnt talk about any type of hold she said the email talked about assistance, it didnt talk about a hold on the aide. [inaudible question] most importantly. No announcement of any type of investigation has been released. Thats the focus. The focus is the democrats are trying to impeach the president of the United States 11 and a half months before the next election. Based on anonymous whistleblower with no firsthand knowledge who worked for joe biden. With joe biden. Thats the issue here, not what happened to the ambassador. Thank you for your service. We appreciate lex thats not the issue. She wasnt on the call . [inaudible question] we just asked for subpoena for documents. Didnt even have debate on it. When the process gets fair you can ask us that question until we have any remotely fair process, thats up to the white house. Thats ridiculous. Do you see whats going on . He said today these were our witnesses. We dont have any witnesses. Were not allowed to have witnesses. 17 people adam schiff has brought in for deposition. 15 of them he subpoena. We got to get a list week and and a half ago and on the list we put three of the 15 people he subpoenaed simply because we wanted some fairness, some framework to this whole thing. So when it gets fair maybe they can answer that kind of question. [inaudible question] say that again . Pauls [inaudible question] thats their call. We would like a fair process. But we are not going to get one obviously thats not going to t be the case. Even with all of adam shifts witnesses its been an amazing couple hearings for the truth and for the president. Ambassador volker, i thought he did a tremendous job leaving that out yesterday. I thought this morning with ambassadors, we got the right kind of information there was never any type of quid pro quo. He presumed there was but there wasnt. They never announced any type of investigation and they got the meeting, they got the call and they got the money. Right . Nothing there. Of course we have the e definitive asstatement that the president gave to ambassador sondland when he asked what he wanted from ukraine. Our government can became convinced he was the real deal and got the money. [inaudible background conversations] [inaudible background conversations] weve heard a lot from ohio congressman jim jordan the Ranking Member on the House Oversight committee