Extraneous material and questions for the record subject to limitation in the rules. To insert something into the record, please have your staff email the previously circulated address or contact full committee staff. As a reminder to members, staff and others physically present in this room, for guidance from the office of attending physician, masks must be worn at all times during todays proceedings except when a member or witness is speaking. Please also sanitize your seating area. They view these as a safety measure and an important matter of order and decorum for this proceeding. For members participating remotely, please keep your video function on at all times. Even if you are not recognized by the chair. Members are responsible for muting and unmuting themselves and please remember to mute yourself after you finish speaking. Consistent with House Resolution 965 and the accompanying regulations, staff and members will view it as appropriate when they arent under recognition to eliminate background noise. I see that we have a quorum and i now recognize myself for opening remarks. Let me welcome our witnesses as ive let the Ranking Member know. Ill be going considerably longer than the customary five minutes. My statement this morning and, of course, ill yield to mr. Mccall for the considerable amount of time i consume. We have a lot to go over before we hear from our witnesses. On the evening of may 15th, friday, the president notified Speaker Pelosi if he was removing the state Department Inspector general steve linick. The law requires 30 days notice to fire an ig, so mr. Linicks last day was june 14th. The president and the secretary, however, violated the spirit of the law by immediately placing mr. Linick on leave and locking him out of both his office and his email. In the days that followed, both the president and secretary pompeo made clear that the firing came at mr. Pompeos urging. I predict that today we may hear the refrain repeated that the president has the power to fire an Inspector General whenever he wants to so long as he provides the reasons for the firing to congress. No one is doubting that, i dont think in the last four months ive heard anyone say otherwise. The president has that power. But weve seen again and again in the last four years, the president shows very little reluctance to abuse his power and in may when mr. Linick was removed, the president was on a firing spree of inspectors general. The executive branchs independent watchdogs who helped provide accountability and transparency in our government. With that in mind and in need of information provided to the committee that mr. Linicks firing may have been retaliatory in nature, again, something that would represent an abuse of power, the committee launched an investigation into mr. Linicks removal, along with the committee on oversight and reform and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee minority office. The state department has refused to date to produce any of the records we requested related to the firing. Witnesses have come forward and given us a lot of good detail and context. Reports in the press have shed even more light on this matter. Now heres what we know. Mr. Linicks firing was not a spur of the moment decision. Mr. Linick was told on may 15th he was being pushed out. His temporary replacement, ambassador steve atgard had already been lined up for a month or more. In his affidavit to the committee, he says that mr. Contacted him on april 9th or april 15th saying 3mr. Linicks ouster was imminent and hed assume the position on an acting basis. Over the next few weeks they spoke several more times including may 14th and may 16th as mr. Linicks removal was going forward. We know that at the time, mr. Linick was fired, his office was conducting two investigations involving secretary pompeos conduct. The first probe dealt with allegations that the secretary and his wife misused Government Resources for their own personal benefit. According to mr. Linicks testimony, his team began reaching out to the office of the secretary requesting documents in late 2019. Mr. Linick stated that about the same time he spoke to mr. Bulatao, among other senior officials to let them know he was seeking information. In his words, his aim was, quote, not to surprise the seventh floor, unquote. Meaning the departments leadership with news of his probe. Mr. Linick said that his office had contacted state Department Executive secretary lisa kenna about this matter as well. Indeed in her interview with the committee, she testified that in march of this year, the oig requested documents related to the pompeos travel. Like mr. Linick, mr. Kenna discussed the matter with Senior Department officials. Mr. Bulatao and also mr. String. Ms. Kenna also stated that every time there is an invitation to mrs. Pompeo that involves travel, i get it to the under secretary for management and he makes the determination, unquote. The under secretary of management being mr. Bulatao. Ms. Kenna authorized the search for these documents, but mr. Linick was fired before they were turned over to the oig. According to ms. Kenna, the documents were only sent to the oig after ambassador card had taken over the igs office. We presume the oigs work on this matter is ongoing so we dont know all the details. Press reports have also alleged that secretary and mrs. Pompeo use Government Employees to handle personal errands. Mr. Ms. Tony porter, an adviser to the secretary, told us in an interview that the secretary and mrs. Pompeo, who is not a state Department Employee, would often have ms. Porter work on matters of special interest to the secretary which apparently included making dinner reservations and helping with the pompeos personal Christmas Cards. Reporting in the press earlier this week disclosed emale traffic involving mrs. Pompeo and ms. Porter and ms. Kenna suggesting they both understood an assignment to ms. Porter to be of a personal nature that worked to keep a tight circle of Government Employees who worked on these matters. The committee has learned there have been a large number of complaints to the oig hot line about the way secretary and mrs. Pompeo were misusing the Department Resources for unofficial matters. This alleged misuse of resources is not just for personal errand. It seems to be focused on the pompeos political future. Specifically, theres the question of a socalled Madison Dinners, dinners the pompeos have hosted from the state departments ornate eighth floor. Ms. Porter testified the pompeos conceived of the dinners as a way to expand the understanding of state department work, unquote. The only problem with that explanation is that aside from the extensive planning that goes into these dinners, barely anyone from the state department attends them. In fact, the secretary is the only Department Official who attends the closed door dinners, no senior diplomats, no regional experts, none of the people who on a daytoday basis carry out state department work. A requirement for the state department to pay for the dinners and a dozen or so guests handpicked by the pompeos, nearly all republican officials or people tied somehow to right wing politics, money or media. But ms. Porters testimony suggests that the foreign dignitary with a boxchecking exercise. The Protocol Office would sometimes swap out one dignitary for another while the pompeos kept a tight grip on the political side of the guest list. Ms. Porter also stated that since the pompeos began hosting these dinners, theyve built a database to keep track of all the people theyve invited whose the people who have been invited, ms. Porters who works for the pompeos goes back decades and involves planning the former congressmans fund raisers called it a management tool. While its understandable that the Protocol Team to keep track of who was invited to official events, mrs. Pompeo had that list sent to her private email address. Suddenly a normal system starts something more like a political contact tool. These dinners were reported paid for out of the state departments k fund and can be used for confidential requirements and the conduct of Foreign Affairs as well as other authorized activities that further the realizization of u. S. Foreign policy objectives. This fund is overseen by undersecretary bulatao. I asked my staff to review the most recent unclassified reports to congress on this fund which was sent a package with classified material and are held in the scif. That raised an eyebrow or two who understand state department budgets. The pompeos have reportedly hosted about 20 of these dinners and after a hiatus brought on by the covid pandemic, the dinners restarted in earnest on monday with three more reported scheduled within the next few weeks. It death with the department more than 8 million arms in sales country. They released its report last month. Theres a lot to unpack here and its important that we lay it all out. In march of 2015 a Saudiled Coalition launched an intervention in the civil war in yemen aimed at the houthi forces. The Obama Administration initially supported this effort through arms sales and logisticcal support. They faced security challenges that threatened freedom of navigation and u. S. Troops stationed in the middle east. Over time, however, it became clear that the saudis were acting recklessly in the way they were carrying out that campaign with u. S. Weapons. Excuse me. Civilian casualties mounted, a humanitarian crisis began burning out of control. The Obama Administration pushed pause on the sale of american weapons to the saudis and their partners. When President Trump took office, it was an early priority of his administration to get the flow of weapons going again. The concerns about civilian casualties had not gone away and both sides of the aisle, myself included, began putting holds on sales of the most lethal weapons used in the war. A sale notified in april of 2018 for 120,000 guided munitions sometimes called smart bombs. Congress passed legislation requiring a certification from the administration that the saudis were taking adequate steps to reduce civilian casualties. On august 9th, 2018, the saudis Left Coalition the Saudiled Coalition blew up a school bus killing 25 children and injuring scores more. Over a month later, secretary pompeo certified to congress that the saudi and iranian governments were, quote, undertaking demon straitabstrab actions. The sales remain in place for nine months while the carnage went on in yemen. Mr congresss concerns about civilian casualties were legitimate. He said that many state Department Officials shared those same concerns. How could you not, weve seen all of the images, collapsed buildings, twisted metal, starving children. We challenge the congress to provide assurances that the weapons would not be used to kill civilians. Secretary pompeo wanted a different way forward. Moving ahead with lots of weapon sales was a major priority for the white house. For mr. Pompeo, a logjam of congress had to be broken and in april 20, 2019, he had found a way to do it. An administration can bypass the congressional approval process by declaring an emergency. He testified that he was worried about what impact such an action would have on the departments relations of capitol hill. After all, senator menendezs concerns hasnt diminished. The state department notified congress that they were declaring an emergency and moving forward with arms sales packaged for saudi arabia and the uae. As i noticed earlier, no one doubts that it exists in the law and the executive branch has the power to invoke that authority. To my knowledge, no one has suggested otherwise despite some of the spin weve heard from the state department. But the questions since last may has been, quote, did secretary pompeo abuse that power when he declared an emergency . Was the emergency phony . Was it a mere pretext to circumvent oversight. Thats why mr. Linick was asked to look into this decision, the findings of that probe are eyeopening. The oig found consistent with what i just said that the Emergency Declaration did not break the law leaving it up to a normal administrations commonsense but the oig also stated explicitly that it did not assess whether there was a real emergency in denying that declaration. Frankly they didnt need to make that assessment the facts speak for themselves. Excuse me. The unclassified portion of the report lays out a timeline for the Emergency Declaration that aligns with mr. Fulkners testimony. It took seven weeks to makes its way through the department. The report also tells us underneath redactions that the department insisted the oig slap on top of the version released to the public that mr. Pompeo determined on may 4th that he wanted to send the Emergency Notification to congress no later than may 24th. An emergency that you can plan for seven weeks in advance isnt an emergency. As far as im concerned, especially when the regular congressional review process would have taken less time. I have to note that mr. Cooper testified before this Committee Last year that the emergency that required this extraordinary action arose between may 21st 2019, when mr. Pompeo briefed congress and may 24th, 2019, when the declaration was transmitted to us. That testimony was false. The report also indicates that most of the arms packages have not been delivered yet. And likely wont be during this calendar year. Again, what kind of wartime emergency can be addressed with weapons that arrive two years later and the answer obviously is none. There is no emergency. Ranking member mccall and i offered an amendment to last years ndaa that would have better defined the word emergency. My view, the nonsense that the department pulled to get around congress is a secondary question. I believe it was an abuse of power and affront to our system of checks and balances. I believe the department made false representations to this committee, but what is this about . Many of us here in congress saw the situation on the ground in yemen and said enough. We thought that before we shipped instruments of death overseas, a precaution should be in place to ensure that those instruments would not used to blow up school buses. We didnt want the United States to be party to the slaughter of innocence. But mike pompeos state department didnt see it that way. His view is summed up in this sentence and i quote, oig Family Department did not fully assess risks and implement mitigation measures to reduce civilian casualties and legal concerns associated with the transfer of pgms included in the secretarys may 2019 emergency certification. Didnt assess the risks, didnt try to reduce civilian casualties, didnt deal with legal concerns, this isnt describing the saudis or the iranians, its describing our own state department under the Trump Administration under mike pompeo. Think about that funding in the broader context ive just laid out and ask yourself, why didnt they do those things . Was it an oversight in the mad rush to get weapons out the door after mr. Pompeo made that Emergency Declaration . Did those questions fall by the wayside. The answer is of course not. The emergency was declared specifically so that the state department could avoid answering those questions and how do we know that . Because those are the precise questions congress was already asking, thats why we held up the arm sales. What are the risks . What are we doing to reduce civilian deaths . This is a deeply damning report. Now that weve seen it, the findings into the igs firing make more sense. Namely that state Department Officials have been trying for months to suppress the findings. In his testimony, mr. Linick said that mr. Bulatao and mr. Spring attempted to bully him by saying they should not be looking into this matter. Of course its an entirely legitimate for an ig to examine policy implementation again per mr. Linicks testimony, mr. Bulatao seemed not to understand the role of an independent ig. Its also quite noteworthy that secretary pompeo refused to be interviewed for the oigs review. Mr. Linick stated last year he approached mr. Bulatao and mr. String about scheduling the interview. They suggested he conduct the interview personally. Mr. Linick told mr. String that he was amenable to the idea as long as one other member could be present as a witness. The secretarys team ignored that request and mr. Pompeo was not interviewed. He provided the oig the written statement that it had never requested. When the pandemic hit in march, and the oig was wrapping up its work on this matter, mr. Linick considered to considered the issue unresolved and hoped to find some time in the future to interview the secretary which he continued to discuss with mr. String. But before he and mr. String reached an accommodation, mr. Linick was fired. Everything mr. Linick said suggested that he considered an interview with mr. Pompeo to be an important piece of unfinished business. Mr. Linicks temporary replacement learned quickly that secretary pompeo was particularly interested in this report. According to the affidavit during his first two weeks on the job, they called him expressing mr. Pompeos curiosity about when the oigs work on arm sales would be done. He recused himself from the process. That was sensible as he did deep conflicts of interest in addition to Services Acting as Inspector General. He retained his role in the state department as the director of the office of Foreign Missions in which he reported both to mr. Bulatao and secretary pompeo. Its easy to see how this would affect his work. Mr. Eckhart began an investigation into an issue that mr. Pompeo didnt want review. The rollout of this report is shrouded in controversy. The evening before the oig released the report, there was a background briefing for press on the reports findings. But it wasnt the oig that held this briefing, it was the bureau of Political Military Affairs, specifically mr. Cooper under the guise of a, quote, senior state Department Official. They stole a page right out of bill barrs playbook. Nevertheless mr. Cooper who wasnt an author of the report but was himself interviewed as a fact witness, tried to spin the media with his most favorable interpretation of the events. The oig found that they didnt technically break the law, its all reminiscent of attorney general barr going out and saying the Mueller Report exonerated the president. The next day the next day the unclassified version of the report was released to the public with a number of key redactions. The public version of the report hid the timeline that undercuts the departments claim of an emergency. In the public version, the timeline only runs from may 21st when mr. Pompeo briefed congress to may 24th when the certification was sent to congress. Hidden are the dates stretching back to early april when the Emergency Authority was first considered. Other redactions hid the fact that few of the weapons at the time of the oigs review had been delivered. The oig has provided us the her ran memoranda showing it was him. Mr. Cooper, mr. String were all interviewed by oig as witnesses in this matter. Mr. Doerson was sent by the Department Early in this investigation and tried to convince my office not to push for documents or witnesses in this manner without disclosing he was a witness himself. The fact that none of them recused themselves from dealing with the oig report before it was released is baffling, a glaring ethics lapse. On the arms sales matter, a considerable chunk of the findings and recommendations are hidden in a classified section and about 40 of that section is also hidden under redactions and not even members of congress are permitted to see behind. And, again, mr. Cooper decided that members of this coequal branch of government that this committee which authorizes and oversee it is state department, could not have access to the oigs findings. It boggles your mind. To recap, we have two oig investigations that are potentially embarrassing for mr. Pompeo. In march of 2019, both of these probes are ramping up, getting closer and closer to the secretary and his top advisers. After a few weeks of back and forth with the white house, mr. Linick is out. In the aftermath, mr. Pompeo pushes mr. Linicks replacement to find out when the arms sales report is going to be ready. When ms. Porter is contacted by the ig to sit for an interview dealing with misuse of resources, mr. Bulatao assures her theres no need to rush to get it on the calendar. Secretary pompeo and mr. Bulataos version of why mr. Linick was fired centers on how the daily beast obtained information about a draft oig report dealing with the legal personal practices by brian hook, another highranking political appointee. After the article ran, leadership wanted an investigation into the leak including the possibility that the draft report leaked from the oig. I have to note here the reporting in the press was all accurate. The ig did find that mr. Hook engaged in prohibited personal practices discriminating against a career employee. He was not disciplined by secretary pompeo or undersecretary for management bulatao. Hes still with the Department Despite press reports indicating he was leaving. Mr. Bulatao has claimed that mr. Linick didnt do what he promised which is to chase down malik. Mr. Bulatao has pointed to the fact that mr. Linick did not turn over the complete findings of the leak investigation, findings that cleared mr. Linick and his office. Mr. Linick addressed that as well saying he was concerned that the staff named in the report would face retaliation. Guess what, as soon as the state department finally got hold of that report, they leaked it to the daily caller, names and all. Mr. Linick was no dummy. Well get into more of that later. But mr. Bulatao, i consider the version of events you lay out in your june 1st letter to be misleading at best. I urge you to think long at hard if youre considering repeating those claims here on the record. It will be up to the American People to decide which version of events is more credible. Did mr. Pompeo fire his watchdog because of the way he handled the investigation into unproven allegations of a leak in the oig . Or did mr. Pompeo fire him because he was getting closer and closer to matters that were embarrassing to mr. Pompeo and his family, matters that implicated the state department in his scheme to bypass congress and sell lethal weapons that might be used for war crimes. For me its much bigger. Everything were looking at, the arms sales, the misuse of resources, firing of the ig, followed by the effort to smear him, the process of getting the state department to cooperate with the investigation with this investigation, and the constantly shifting conditions and snide letters explaining to congress how we should conduct oversight. The attacks on myself and my staff. The lies mr. Bulatao we didnt refuse to hear from you for four months. You wouldnt take yes for an answer. At first you wanted to brief us, well, this is an investigation, not a policy concern. We needed information in a formal setting on the record. Then we had you schedule to be hear in july. The departmeuty called me at tht minute and implored me to postpone the hearing, which i did. When we tried to reschedule, you moved the goalpost laying out a laundry list of any recommendations. We could only hear from you for two hours. What this is all about is that you and secretary pompeo think you should be able to do whatever you want and not face accountability or scrutiny of any kind. Congress is blocking weapons sales, find a way, the ig is looking at how the secretary spends taxpayers money, fire him. The report shows that we made up a phony emergency and didnt do our Due Diligence to prevent civilians from being killed, cover it up. Spin it. Hide it in the classified annex. Redact, redact, redact. The Foreign Affairs committee is investigating. Cancel their briefings, call them names, tell them we know better. And you pat yourself back when its determined you laid out the process laid out in law. More children may die, but your scheme wasnt illegal strictly speaking, congratulations. The fundamental misunderstanding, as far as im concerned, of the way our government is supposed to work. Of the way Public Service is supposed to work. It explains why mr. Pompeo is potentially facing contempt in which he used to serve. I still hope well find a way to avoid that. Well have to see what happens. These are complicated matters and its important there are members watching that understand the whole timeline. We have a lot more to cover. Ill recognize our witnesses for five minutes each for an Opening Statement pending which ill yield to our Ranking Member for as much time as he would like to use. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And thank you undersecretary bulatao and assistant secretary cooper, adviser string for your presence. Before addressing the substance of todays hearing, id be remiss if i did not take this opportunity with senior state Department Officials today to acknowledge that yesterday for the first time in 25 years israel established diplomatic relations with two arab countries. I had the honor to be in attendance yesterday at the white house when these historic Abraham Accords were signed. This is a game changer for the middle east. Its a bad day for iran. And it would not have occurred but for the extensive diplomatic engagement of this administration. So congratulations for this historic accomplishment. The news of Inspector General linicks firing did come as a surprise. Inspector generals are an essential tool in helping congress execute its constitutional oversight of the executive branch. Any time one is terminated, its natural it will raise questions. Inspector generals like other officers in the executive branch do serve at the pleasure of the president. I also want to emphasize that the Inspector General has a team and theyre work continues even after removal. And while i believe the president complied with both the law and with precedent from Previous Administrations and his termination of mr. Linick, some questions surrounding his removal remain and thats why were having the hearing today. Im pleased, though, that all three of you are here to shed more light to the public on the president s decision. And i do think it will be revealing and i think well understand it better. Its important to note that this is not the first Action Congress has taken regarding this matter. Over the course of this year, committee has conducted multiple interviews with current and former state department personnel, spoken to acting Inspector General and conducted an interview with mr. Linick himself. My hope is with todays hearing that these key witnesses can answer any outstanding questions so that we can put this better behind us and turn our attention to the pressing matters that we have before us prior to the end of this congress. I want to thank the witnesses for their service to the state department and to the nation and to its employees around the world. And i will say for the members benefit, there will be a classified briefing after this hearing and just given the information ive received, i believe it will be very insightful to the members. Insightful for the reasons that were taken by the president in firing mr. Linick, especially as it pertains to National Security. And with that, mr. Chairman, i yield back. Pursuant to notice, the committee has convened to hear testimony on why the president fired the Inspector General. Our witnesses this morning are brian bulatao, undersecretary of state for management, mr. Mark string, the Legal Adviser and r. Clarke cooper assistant secretary of state for political and military affairs. As a matter of custom on this committee, we dont swear in witnesses but obviously you are all required by law to answer questions from congress truthfully. Without objection, your complete written testimony will be made part of the record of this hearing and ill recognize you for five minutes each to summarize your testimony. Mr. Bulatao, well begin with you. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, distinguished members of the committee, i appear here today on a matter of great importance and great interest to both the committee and to the department of state. And that is the Critical Role Inspector Generals have in reviewing and promoting the efficiency and the effectivenessness effectiveness of the operations of the executive branch, particularly the department of the state. I would like to submit a written statement for the record. Ill keep my remarks as brief as possible. Let me start by saying ive had the privilege of working with many Inspector Generals over the last 30plus years. Starting with my service as an infantry officer in the United States army, continuing in my role as the chief operating officer of the Central Intelligence agency and my capacity as the undersecretary of state for management. Through these experiences, ive gained firsthand appreciation for the Critical Role that igs play in the executive branch. And effective ig illuminates. They shine the light on the areas that we need to improve, presenting and detecting waste, fraud and abuse so we can achieve outstanding results. We rely on the role of the ig to serve as a catalyst for effective management and internal controls especially given the scope in our operations in every part of the globe. Unfortunately steve linick did not fulfill this role. His failures were substantial and numerous and fell into three broad categories. Failure to execute on the core mission of the ig, failure to take care of the ig team, and failure to lead with integrity. Let me expand upon each of those. Let me talk about failure to execute on the core ig mission. If you go to the website, their mission is to conduct independent audits, inspections and investigations. Mr. Linick failed to complete the annual audit of the state Department Financial statements in a timely manner as required by laws passed by congress. The Agency Financial reports are our key accountability document and reports of the president , the congress and to the American People to disclose our financial status regarding the assets and resources that you have entrusted to us. If we fail to get the audit right, im not sure how effective we can be in identifying waste, fraud and abuse. Many of you that have been in the private sector know if we dont get audits right, then we have a big red flag going on. Second, why did we miss our critical deadline . The ig, mr. Linick, failed to select an auditor in the spring of 2019. The one selected by the panel lacked the experience and the skill to complete the audit so the department had no choice but to remove the auditor and restart the annual audit. There was a risk that we would have no opinion done by the time it was over. Third, why were we in the position of selecting a new auditor . The independent auditor from the Previous Year that was directly supervised by the ig had to be replaced due to a critical and deeply disturbing failure which requires a classified setting to more fully explain. The investigate report that dealt with this failing in august of 17 noted the following, oversight was ineffective placing his representation, human capital, and operations at a considerable unnecessary risk. So just on this core of conducting independent audits, we have ineffectiveness for oversight, we have a failure to select a qualified auditor and failed to get our audit turned in a timely manner. One out of 100plus agency that is turn in their financials. Lets look at the second mission, inspections. The total number of inspections deceased by 10 year over year for the 12 months ended march of 2019. This is all precovid. Lets look at the third mission, investigations. The total number of preliminary inquiries closed declined it means we opened it, the ig is reviewing it and theyve been able to close it. The total number of inquiries declined by 27 year over year ending march 2020. Not precovid. Theres a significant performance issues. Let me move to the second broad category that i mention, failure to take care of the ig team. First there were some major red flags in the oig departments 2019 annual Employee Viewpoint survey. The secretary made a big push to increase our Response Rate and we doubled the total number responses of that survey from 2017. I think we had the highest percent Response Rate in many, many years. Over half of our 38 assistant secretaryled bureaus improved or maintained in all three major index categories year over year. Let me make sure you understand what the categories are, employee engagement, thats employee satisfaction, and thats diversity inclusion. Over half of our 38 improved and all three of those categories. Many improved in at least two of those categories or one. There was one out of our 38 bureaus led by an assistant secretary for the same time period year over year that declined in all three of those categories. That was the office of oig. Whats more concerning to me is when i focus in on the satisfaction index, let me tell you what that really means. This is the willingness that measures the willingness to recommend the organization as a good place to work. The igs Office Experience doubl doubledecline since 2016. We have a problem and it starts with leadership. Second, this failure in leadership resulted in yearlong key vacancies including the deputy ig, the general counsel and it doesnt surprise me now seeing what the results of the survey were that such a negative trend and folks willingness to recommend the ig as a good place to work, no surprise it took a long time to fill that number two position and why it stayed vacant for 12 months. Third the oig failed to provide status on training on the fundamental values of diversity and inclusion. Our one team theme. We talk about professionalism and respect. The oig responded, these are not our core values. It doesnt surprise me. When i look at specific aspects of the employee survey, ill highlight these three. One question, employees, ig employees are protected from health and safety has hazards on the job. The negative or neutral responses were 24 worse from the igs and the department at large. Another question, my organization has prepared employees for potential security threats. 40 of the igs workforce answered negatively or neutral to that question. 40 . The state department we had about 10 answer negative or neutral. Thats a significant red line for me. The work i do is important. That answer was 42 worse than the state department at large. Again, theres a leadership challenge here in the ig. Let me hit my third area that i mention. This is the failure to lead with integrity and the one that is very concerned with me. First the ig failed to selfreport a leak of a draft ig report in september of 2019 to the Integrity Council as he was directed to. He hand selected his own investigator, this was the d. O. D. Ig, without informing the department. The deputy secretary informed ig linick that if he encountered any issues with referring this in writing to the integrity committee, these allegations of wrongdoing by him or his designated Staff Members to promptly inform him of any issues, that never happened. Second, he refused to share this report with the department. He reports to under the general supervision of the secretary of state by law and hes not above accountability. The ig held the report from the departments leadership as far as we know, the entire ig team. Despite their being numerous requests calling into question to see this report. The igs testimony suggests that we never asked for a copy. This is just plain false. Third, and very disturbing, the report found that the ig emailed the highly sensitive draft report to his personal account on multiple occasions. Im not talking about two or three times. Im talking about eight times in the month of august which is a clear violation of the oigs own i. T. Policy. Those mailings to his personal account were within weeks of the draft report being leaked to the media. This may explain why he refused to provide the report to the department. Ig linick admitted to speaking to mr. Fine and mr. Fine is the one that ended up being selected by the ig to conduct the investigation. Nobody recused themselves from that. Thats a major issue, a major conflict of interest in my mind. Ig linick opened his own investigation for the very same issue that we asked him to refer to the Integrity Council even though the leak that was in the media that was attributed to two government sources involved in carrying out the investigation. Anybody in the state department that touched those report, we were going to look at them just as much. Everybody needed to be looked at. The ig decided to look at our folks just as he was not asking the Integrity Council to look at his team. Fifth, upon removal, he was instructed not to return to his office nor contact his employees without prior authorization. We understand that he violated this instruction and sought access to ig work product after the removal. Let me include. The removal was not able retaliation. There have been a variety of unsubstantiated allegations in the media that the secretary recommended removal of the ig because of awareness of these investigations. Nothing could be further from the truth. The deputy secretary of state has issued a letter making clear that secretary pompeo was never briefed by the deputy secretary, the former deputy secretary, myself, nor the executive secretary on any investigation, allegations of misuse of Government Resources. This is unequivocally without any factual basis or truth. The committee has sought hours of depositions of which the vast majority of time was spent on issues on issues unrelated to the igs removal. Let me just say, this removal was about an ig whom in my mind was falling short of expectations. Ig linicks performance failed across all three areas. He failed to deliver and execute on the core mission, he failed to take care of his team and he failed to lead with integrity. The igs failure to perform in just one, one of these critical areas is sufficient to trigger a major loss of confidence. The department deserves an ig that illuminates not denigrates. The department deserves an ig that promotes our shared values, not demotes them. I look forward to your questions on why the recommendation was made for the removal of the ig. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you very much, mr. Bulatao. And i apologize for butchering your name before. Mr. String. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and distinguished members of the committee. Thank you for the invitation to appear today. The committee requested my testimony in connection with my prior position as Deputy Assistant secretary in the Political Military Affairs bureau which i left 16 months ago. I understand that Committee Members may ask questions today related to my current role as acting Legal Adviser for the department. I will do my best to address your questions based on my best recollection, consistent with my professional obligations as an attorney and respect for the attorneyclient privilege. The decision to remove a sitting Inspector General is committed to the president. We have provided the committee with a letter from the office of white House Counsel that describes how the president s decision was consistent with the requirements of the constitution and of federal law as recognized by the court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit. As that letter notes, President Trumps notices to congress used language similar to that used by former president obama when he removed an Inspector General noting that he, quote, no longer had the fullest confidence, end quote, in his ability to serve as Inspector General. In connection with todays hearing the committee has raised issues related to the secretarys may 2019 Emergency Notification. I would like to touch briefly on the notification as well. First, the department fully cooperated with the office of Inspector Generals review of the secretarys Emergency Notification. The oig interviewed 46 Department Staff and received a significant number of documents as requested. The department did not stand in the way of the completion of the oigs report which ultimately concluded that the, quote, emergency certification was properly executed, end quote. In fact, we facilitated its completion. Second, as the department explained in this letter to the committee in june 2019, my designation as acting Legal Adviser had, to my knowledge, no connection to the secretarys decision to exercise his emergency authorities under the arms export control act. The designation was set in motion more than a month before this time when the then Legal Adviser announced her departure in april. As i recall, the office of the Legal Adviser developed legal advise through the career attorneys in the office of the Legal Adviser in advance of my transition to the office. I was expected to serve as a bridge between the former Legal Adviser and the confirmation of a new Legal Adviser based on my significant experience in understanding of the functioning of the office of the Legal Adviser. Leading that team of talented lawyers over the past 16 months has been a distinct honor and privilege and i appreciate their professionalism and commitment to serving our nation, especially during these extraordinary times. Thank you again for inviting me to testify today. I look forward to taking your questions. Thank you, mr. Cooper. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member mccall, members of the committee, the topic of todays hearing, why did the Trump Administration fire the state Department Inspector general, i will provide you the most honest answer i have, i do not know. With that, i would like to turn to matters of substance. Im glad to finally have the opportunity to apprise you of the status of our efforts to support our Security Cooperation partners in the middle east. Two weeks after i took office in may 2019, secretary pompeo certified to you an emergency existed requiring the sale of certain defense articles and services to saudi arabia, the United Arab Emirates and jordan. In the days following the certification, i sat before your committee and testified that a combination of factors led the secretary to determine the situation constituted an emergency and prompted him to make certification including the significant increase in intelligence reporting on threat streams related to iran. The clear and damaging actions taken by irans government and the need to affirmatively respond to military capability requests from our partners. As such, any response i provided members questions during that 2019 hearing, including representative leaven must be understood in my statement in the record, as well as my complete testimony before congress all of which are a part of public record, all of which are available on the extended version of cspan or the full version of cspan. Events since that time serve only to magnify the challenge iran poses to the region and demonstrate the administration is on the right side of history. One can draw from the line of attacks by the iranian supported houthi, to iranian cruise missiles and drone attacks on key Oil Officials to, attacks on u. S. Forces in iraq by iranian to instability in lebanon and so on. As i wrote to you last month, since the administration proceeded with the sales subject to emergency certifications as provided for in the law, iran supports continues to threaten not only u. S. Partners, but have targeted u. S. Personnel and military forces and facilities in the region. On that note, i would be declined to brief the committee at a classified level on iran and im ready to do so as soon as this mornings session takes place. But let me draw for you another line from sanctions and emergency certifications dating back over 40 years to the designation of the revolutionary guard corps as a Foreign Terrorist Organization this spring, to the certification of emergency arms transfers to our partners and ultimately, ultimately as mr. Mccall referenced, the signing of the transformative accords. Not 24 hours ago and barely a mile from where we sit today, with this momentous normalization agreement between key partners in the middle east, theres a Common Thread running along all of these actions, ours and our partners, the need to establish shared capability to respond to iranian threats, be it direct or from proxies or partners, conventional or unconventional, economic or military and while we may disagree on some of the specifics of these responses, i know that you, mr. Chairman, as you acknowledged in your Opening Statement, we do see eye to eye when it comes to the nature of the threat that iran poses and the need to ensure the security of our key partners in the region. Mr. Chairman, the recent Inspector General report into the emergency arm sales did not question these facts. It did not question the nature and existence of an emergency. Instead the ig report concluded that the secretarys emergency certification was executed in accordance with the requirements of the arms export control act. It is also true, however, the ig felt the department could do more to reduce the risk of civilian casualties and that may be as a result of u. S. Provided arms. Thats a finding i not only accept but which i, my bureau, the department and this administration take to heart. Which is why were working to address well before the ig even put pen to paper and which we will continue to address. In april of 2018, President Trump released an updated United States conventional arms transfer policy or c. A. T. That for the very First Time Ever made it the policy of the United States to facilitate ally and partner efforts through United States sales and securities cooperation efforts to reduce the risk of national or Coalition Operations causing civilian harm. A year later in march 2019, the president reaffirmed executive order 13732 which directs u. S. Government agencies to engage with foreign partners to share and to learn best practices for reducing the likelihood of and responding to civilian casualties including through appropriate training and assistance. So sense the c. A. T. Policy was updated, the department of the defense and the department of state have been working together to implement this guidance. We see reducing the risk of civilian harm as an enterprisewide, interagency challenge and have responded with a Systemic Program of reforms and innovations, examples of which i would like to briefly describe for the committee right now. We have created a new methodology to help us assess the risk of civilian harm associated with arms transfers and have made improvements to ensure our decisionmaking is informed by those assessments. The Defense Department has developed a new training curriculum for partners and allies on reducing civilian harm. And is developing a tool kit of advisory materials and services, especially bespoke to the partner. D. O. D. Also identified a set of Technical Solutions to help partners reduce the risks of civilian harm while also enhancing combat effectiveness. For example, the advanced targeting developmentim,m initie or atdi is a suite of solutions and training intended for partners who deploy and use certain u. S. Munitions including precisionguided munitions or pgms. They provide support to key technical aspects to weapons such as target coengineering. It enables them to hit their intended targets and do that accurately, achieve the price damage intended and do so with the ability to estimate collateral effects in advance and modify their engagements accordingly. With these processes, analytics and tool kits now in hand, we also have been increasing our outreach to partners and engaging with them proactively in discussions on how they can reduce the risk of civilian casualties to its lowest possible level. The right time for that conversation is now. These are significant and serious efforts and they have been under way for quite some time. I am encouraged, mr. Chairman, that both the kingdom of saudi arabia and the United Arab Emirates have purchased advanced targeting development. In doing so, they made clear their commitment to reducing the risk of arm to civilians, even as they battle an adversary who judging by the frequency and inaccuracy of the houthi drones, rockets and even Ballistic Missile attacks would appear they have no such compunction. Mr. Chairman, during my time as assistant secretary of state for Political Military Affairs, the department and the administration have identified the right threats, made the right decisions, under the right policies to supported the right partners. Its a team of National Security professionals im very much proud to be a part of and i look forward to your questions. Well now go to the question part of the hearing. Ill recognize members for five minutes each pursuant to the rules. All time yielded for the purpose of questioning our witnesses. Because of the hybrid virtual format of this meeting, i will recognize members by committee seniority, alternating between democrats and republicans. If you miss your turn, let our staff know. And well come back to you. If you seek recognition, you must unmute your microphone and address the chair verbally. As we start questioning, i will start by recognizing myself. Okay. Having trouble with the glasses. We have so much to cover today but at the outset, i want to correct the record on a few things. I regret that mr. Pompeo has attacked this committee, its staff and myself during the course of this probe. All of it unfounded. While im glad youre all here today, it shouldnt have taken this long from the start. I ask that you, mr. Bulatao, appear for a transcribed interview to discuss why the Inspector General was fired. The department rejected my offer and urged that you brief the committee privately. I think its clear why that wasnt enough for us when the committee conducts an investigation of this importance, it has to be done fiscal year formally and on the record. We needed you to speak on the record to answer serious questions about the igs firing. When the state Department Offer that you testify, i immediately accepted. The department pulled you back from the hearing at the last moment and conditioned your testimony on our not talking to anyone else on the record. I hope everyone here today understands that we could not accept that. So, again, its good the three of you are testifying now, but frankly we should have been able to do this a few months ago. So let me ask this question for everybody, would you agree that inspectors general serve an important function in providing transparency. I would like to know yes or no. Mr. Bulatao . Yes, mr. Chairman. They perform a critical function. Mr. Cooper. Yes. The Inspector General performs a critical function. Thank you. Mr. String . Yes, mr. Chairman, i agree. Thank you. Would you all agree that firing an ig in order to cover you will wrongdoing would be an abuse of power, yes or no . Lets start with mr. Bulatao. If you assume theres a coverup of my wrongdoing, yes. Okay. Mr. Cooper. The firing of the ig is the purview of the executive if there was due cause as has been laid out, there is no coverup. Okay. Mr. Smith. The ig serves at the pleasure of the president. Okay. Im not quite getting an answer, but okay. Let me ask you all this. Do you acknowledge Congress Constitutional responsibility to conduct oversight of the executive Branch Policies and operations, yes or no . Yes, mr. Chairman, i understand the oversight responsibility of congress. Thank you, mr. Cooper. Mr. Chairman, yes, understand the authority and oversight of congress. Thank you, mr. String. Yes, mr. Chairman, i recognize the oversight responsibility of the congress. One last thing. Do you think im conducting this investigation for my own personal advertisement . Let me answer that question. I dont enjoy this. Many of you have known me for a long time and understand its my profound preference to advance legislation and hold hearings in this committee in a bipartisan fashion. We call this committee is most Bipartisan Committee in congress, and we always say that politics stops at the waters edge. And i believe very, very strongly in that. For me, this has not been the most pleasant way to bring my threedecadelong congressional career to a close. But ill tell you myself why were here. We have real concerns on this committee that firing of mr. Linick was an abuse of power. And in the four months weve tried to get answers, the state department has been petulant, insulting, and invasive. The fact we had to drag you up here kicking and screaming itself, makes me think that the department has been trying to hide the truth. At this point, weve heard all the excuses, heard the half truths. I want to be clear in this hearing room, my expectation is that you give this body the respect it deserves and answer our questions. I yield the balance of my time and recognize the Ranking Member for five members. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to first talk a little bit about the policy. Secretary cooper, you talked about this. You know, i think in foreign policies, its very important to define who your allies are and who your enemies are. Thats why the chairman and i disapproved of the iran deal under the Previous Administration because it empowered the largest state sponsor of terror. I believe iran is our enemy, and their proxies, the houthi rebels, are the enemy. I think its ironic the timing of this hearing, when just yesterday we had this historic abraham accord, the first peace deal in the middle east in 25 years, a quarter of a century based upon the policies of this administration. And i know the media may not pay a lot of attention to it, but it was historic. And i was there, proud to be there yesterday. I approved of the sale of these weapons to saudi arabia, to jordan and to uae, who came forward as our ally yesterday, with israel against iran. I also approved it because theyre precisionguided, as you mentioned. It actually decreased civilian casualties because of the precisionguided weapons. I think the threat from iran is real, and that is why the secretary made this policy decision to sell the weapons, as did the president. But i want to go to secretary bull, was this a permissible firing . Of course the president , as Legal Counsel stated, has the authority, but did you have justification to do this . He cited basically three main reasons, any of which i think would be adequate for the firing. But the first one is the failure to complete an annual audit mandated by congress. The failure, which actually violated the laws mandated by congress. Can you tell me just on that one alone, what impact does that have on the state department . Thank you, Ranking Member. The impact is, while we recognize the team needed to come together to actually help focus and make sure that we did complete the audit, although 60 days later then it was required to turn in. The good news on that is a lot of the working level team from the inspection the audit team from the ig, game together. The disappointing news was there was no ig leadership. I went to those weekly meetings to make sure we got back on track. Not once did i see the ig linick there himself. I went when we got it done and acknowledged the hard work the team did. Again, there was a missing Inspector General linick there. He was just absent for the process. Its hard to a lead a government, the largest in the United States government, one of the largest, when you cant even conduct an audit, right . That has consequences. Yes, sir. Serious consequences. Look, if the role of the ig whos been designated the role to conduct this independent audit cant be done, how can we identify those areas that we have potential ways, fraud and abuse . How do we know that the assets on the balance sheet, the liabilities, how do we know where these obligations are going . Theres some significant areas which is a core mission that the ig is looking for ways of abuse. Yes, sir. And thats what an audit will reveal. The second thing thats going to come out in the classified briefing that i cant get into, but in your testimony, you said the auditor put our National Security at considerable risk. And i know you probably cant comment on that. But i just want to reiterate that statement because for the press reporting this hearing, i think thats a very important point. Failure to manage the ig team with key vacancies failed on diversity inclusion. The ig saying these are not our core values. I would think on both sides of this aisle, both democrat and republican, that those are core values of this nation is diversity inclusion. Fail to lead with integrity. Leaks a draft report to the media. Thats not even shared with the secretary. And then finally, these allegations of personal misconduct. The secretary didnt even know about these allegations because he didnt see the report. So, the idea that somehow that led to the firing of mr. Linick really is factually the evidence does not support that because the report was not given to him. He had no knowledge of these allegations. So, how can that create some fiction that he fired mr. Linick because of these socalled allegations of personal misconduct. To me, its mystifying. Im glad youre here. Im glad were going to get through this exercise, but i think this nation and the state department has far more serious business, and this committee does as well. And i do appreciate the chairmans comments about this committee, our oversight functions, and under article i of the constitution, its embodied what our Founding Fathers stood for. But i think its time to move on. And with that, i yield back. Before i call on mr. Sherman, i just want to say that i too was at the white house yesterday, and i too think that the according between israel and the arab states are good and important. And i commend the president and everybody who was involved with it. But obviously this is a separate issue that we are talking about. Mr. Sherman. Thank you for having this virtual and inperson hearing. And after i ask my questions, ill vacate my spot here so others can ask their question in person. The question before us is, why was the Inspector General fired . He offers us two rather easily dismissed idea, the audit was late. I assure you that was not the reason. If you look at the department of defense and other departments, the state department being a few weeks late with its audit report, is tiny compared to other agencies and their late or nonexistent audit reports. But if being late with reports is reason to fire somebody, why are we focusing just on audit reports . Theyre not matters of life and death. State Department Foreign policy and this committees decisions affect life and death, and they are chronically late. So, since youre running management over there, since these legallyrequired reports are incredibly late, wouldnt you, yourself, resign if late reports, critically necessary for policy matters of life and death, are late under your watch . But then were told that we should fire the Inspector General because of low morale in surveys. If you had any integrity, you would also be calling for the residence ig nei resignation of secretary pompeo. All of us know what boar ral is like in his state department. And we dont have to rely on surveys where maybe somebody doesnt want to Say Something bad that hurts their immediate supervisor because they and their immediate supervisor are all united, that service in the state department is a incredibly difficult and depressing thing to do. And we have people with media context in the state department right here on this committee. If low morale is reason for someone to be fired, look up, not down. So, the real question here is why was the attorney general Inspector General fired . And there are two possible reasons. One is he was investigating the myriad of ways the state department was being used to meet and personal needs of secretary pompeo. Or two, that a bizarre decision was reached to evade congress on the sale of weapons to saudi arabia and nearby countries. I agree with mr. Cooper. Which of these two . You say you dont know. I dont know. But im going to focus on evading the law because that is a matter of life and death. Those weapons kill. So, we ask what is the emergency . The emergency is that Congress Might prevent the administration from doing what it wants. You see, the emergency here is that is not that an imperial presidency would shred the constitution, but rather that congress would assert its Constitutional Rights and endanger the imperial presidency. The Ranking Member puts toward the idea that because success was reached in an important aspect in the middle east, that therefore we violations of the constitution and the laws we pass to implement it is retroactively legalized. Ive read the constitution. Theres nothing in there that says the executive branch can ignore congressional prerogatives if theyre able to do arrange a Peace Agreement with bahrain and the United Arab Emirates. Now, mr. Faulkner testified that the murder and dismemberment of Jamal Khashoggi was perceived as the emergency. The emergency was Congress Might actually look at these arms sales and reach a different conclusion. It, quote, made it harder to get the sales approved. And of course the president says he saved the crown princes ass for accountability for that murder. Mr. String, who did you talk to at the white house about this Emergency Declaration and the need to issue it to prevent congress from rejecting the arms sale . Did you talk to mr. Jared kushner . Did you talk to Peter Navarro . Thank you, congressman, for those questions. Just one point of clarification. I believe as i recall, congress did vote on these sales ultimately. But to your question, i dont recall ever speaking with mr. Kushner during my time in the Political Military Affairs bureau. I recall speaking to m mr. Navarro, but i do not recall speaking to him about any particular Emergency Declaration. And since this is a youve been interviewed as a fact witness on this. Is it also appropriate for you to be the lawyer and the fact witness in this matter . Thank you for that question, congressman. So, i take ethics obligations very seriously, as we all do, in the department. Weve consulted, ive consulted extensively with the career designated Agency Ethics official in the department. He has confirmed that attendance in meetings by those who are also interviewed is entirely appropriate in this case, and a few facts support that view. First the ig review was not an investigation of misconduct by the investigations unit. Rather, it was a i believe my time has expired, and we understand the gist of your answer. And ill just say that if people are going to be fired because theres low morale, it starts at the top. I yield back. Thank you. Mr. Perry. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I thank our distinguished witnesses. I think this committee has finally accepted one of your numerous efforts to appear before us. Were here today because the members of this committee care about accountability in our government. I have one question, why are my colleagues defending steve linick. Under his leadership the number of inspections across embassies worldwide declined significantly. He also failed to complete a financial audit of the department in a timely manner and had to ask for an extension. His appointment of unqualified auditor set the process back even further. He was further investigated by the dods office of Inspector General for being the leak behind a sensitive draft evaluation of state Department Official. And i find it particularly egregious as a person who is privileged to hold a top secret security clearance for decades. At the time of his departure, mr. Linick was under investigation for leaking classified information to the press and had sent sensitive material to his personal email account numerous times in the span of six months, again, an egregious, egregious, accusation. When he received the dod Inspector General report on march 17th, which detailed the number of inproprieties committed under his own ig rules, mr. Linick decided not to inform leadership that he had the report. During his testimony before members in early june, mr. Linick denied the report was even of interest to the department. He went on to make other claims and testimony that would explain why the report wasnt delivered, starting by blaming the department itself and its leadership for failing to follow up on the reports status, to then saying he preferred to relay the report in person, then citing covid19 for not conveying the report in a timely fashion to then saying there was no reason for him to keep the report away from key stakeholders, to finally admitting on pages 124 and 125 of the dig report that he knew the Department Leadership report wanted the investigation results. Mr. Linick intentionally sat on a report. Think about that for a moment. He chose to withhold the results of an important investigation that could compromise his career. The only mistake this president made in firing steve linick is not doing it sooner. Let this hearing serve as another example that demonstrates how the left wastes taxpayer resources, they are willfully defending a former Inspector General in the name of accountability, blatantly ignoring the fact that mr. Linick failed to hold himself accountable. Theres no reason why mr. Linick withheld the dod Inspector General report instead of providing it to Department Leadership as he should have, none at all. My colleagues on the other side have made numerous incorrect claims regarding this topic. Unfortunately for them, facts matter. If this committee wants to answer their own question, why did the Administration Fire the Department Inspector general . I can tell them the answer. Mr. Linick was a threat to the principle of accountability in government, plain and simple. I commend the president for exercising his authority granted by the u. S. Congress to remove mr. Linick from office. The fact that members of this committee would defend mr. Linicks conduct runs contrary to our duty to maintain the public trust. I do have one question for secretary. Does the ig have the legal right to withhold final internal reports from the Department Leadership . Congressman perry, that is why we had asked the ig to refer this matter, investigation on his conduct, to the Integrity Council, because the requirement in the ig act requires that report to come to the leadership of the department. So, the answer is no, it should not have it does not have the authority to withhold that. Does not have the authority, but did withhold it, didnt he . Yes, sir. I yield the balance of my time, mr. Chairman. Thank you. The gentleman yields his time. Mr. Meeks. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Let me see if i can get something understand some things, and ill ask my questions. So, did you recommend to mr. Pompeo that mr. Len niynbe. I cant speak about my conversations with the secretary, the secretary has made it known it was his recommendation to the president to remove the ig. Im asking about your role. Did you make that recommendation, or was that recommendation straight from mr. Pompeo or the president . That recommendation was from the secretary to the president. So, you were just instructed to go fire mr. . The deputy had the distugs. I was part of the phone conversation. Im saying you had a meeting with him, is that not correct, and you fired him on a friday night in mid may. That was you, correct . No, sir, thats not the point i was trying to make. There was a phone call on may 15th in the evening in which case the deputy secretary of state notified mr. Linick the president had lost confidence in his ability and was removing him from the role of Inspector General at the state department. I was on that phone call. I proceeded to provide Administrative Instructions to mr. Linick and let him know that he would receive a letter as soon as we hung up from the White House Personnel Office notifying him of his removal and that he would be placed on 30 days administrative leave pending the final removal date. So, was mr. Linick given a reason why he was being fired . Congressman, as i just stated, mr. Linick was told based upon what you heard. You were on the phone call. Was he given a reason . Yes. He was asked for a reason. Was he given one . Yes, he was provided the reason that i just stated. Well, he said he wasnt given one, that he was shocked to get not to get any explanation after seven years on the job for why he was being fired with no warning. So, youre saying mr. Linick is a liar . Congressman, what im saying is the deputy secretary informed mr. Linick, the president in his authority in his discretion had lost confidence in his ability and therefore was removing him from the role of ig. That was the reason provided to mr. Linick friday evening on that phone call. See, what confuses me is the fact that two days after he was fired, i believe it was you that told the Washington Post that he was fired because of a pattern of unauthorized disclosures or leaks. Was that not you . Did you inform the Washington Post of that . Congressman, as i laid out in my testimony earlier, there are a number of reasons why i believe personally that the Inspector General failed to perform. I talked about those three areas he performed. Yes or no . Did you tell the Washington Post that the reason that he was fired was because of a pattern of unauthorized disclosures or leaks . Yes or no . Again, the comments that were made its a simple yes or no. I dont recall having a direct conversation with the Washington Post. Well, im going to direct you to that Washington Post because it seems as though, to me, that mr. Linick testified he was not given any information. But now after im reading your testimony today, theres many reasons that are now being given. And i agree with mr. Sherman in that if it was given because he failed to lead with integrity, then we have to look at the top. Its evidenced by whats taking place by the number of career diplomats and talent that has left the state department as a result of mr. Pompeo and the low morale thats therein. So, let me just, one more question. Im running out of time. And i remind you, i understand that you are not in the up forth. But if you provide false testimony, that would be a federal crime. Did mr. Linick tell you that he had talked to cig ziggy and zig had informed him that ziggy was not the appropriate body to conduct the investigation into the leaks . Yes or no . The question i asked Inspector General linick, if he had provided a written referral to the state department, ziggy. No, he didnt. Instead, he provided that the state department was looking to investigate his office. That is not the instruction. What we said is were investigating you because of allegations of disclosures. Thats what we asked him to refer to ziggy. That do not happen. Your letter said the department only learned months later that the refefrral was mae to a different ig. Mr. Linick testified that your statement isnt true, that he told that the department at the time that ziggy didnt have jurisdiction and that he had been advised by ziggy to get another igs office to do that, not in violation of anything. It seems to me, sir, that with these multiple afterthefact reasons, the inseiinuations tha were made by the chairman of the committee, that could this be a cover up by the secretary and the president . Because it seems to me when you look at webster and the definition of cover up is an unusually concerted effort to keep an illegal or unethical act or situation from being made public. And whats taken place the yemen and the killing of innocent individuals and Getting Around Congress to have the sale of someone who is friendly based upon the president s own admission, the crown prince, him and his soninlaw, seems to me, sir, to be leading to an actual cover up. And the ug was doing his job, and he was being stopped by you, the secretary of state, and the president of the United States. I yield back my time. The gentleman yields. Mr. Yoho. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And gentlemen, thank you for being here and your testimony and your patience. You said in the very beginning the Critical Role the ig plays in the executive branch is to shine light on areas that need to be improved and to improve those. And obviously we all think thats a good thing because we want to get rid of waste, fraud and abuse. I think were all in agreement with that. Then you mentioned the three key missions, as chairman mccall pointed out, mission execution, protect the team, and lead with integrity. Just for the record rk, for clarity, were those three things upheld by ig linick . No, sir. Mr. Cooper, you said you werent sure why he was relieved. Do you feel ig linick lived up to those three Mission Statements . Based on the information provided here today, no. Okay. Mr. String . Congressman, i believe under secretary for management laid out a comprehensive case as to the failings of the ig on those three metrics. Okay. So, for the record, ig linicks did not meet what he was tasked to do. It has been said in this testimony under secretary and mr. Cooper that the president has personal, just personal will, to remove an ig at will. Is that correct . Everybodys in agreement with that . Yes, sir. Its his authority. Its his authority. Mr. String and mr. Cooper, i know you want to say. His executive authority. At his discretion, right . Does removing an ig due to lack of confidence in that individual constitute an acceptable reason for removal of an ig . Sir, that rationale has been upheld by the courts. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Okay. So, were all in agreement with that. And thats good because the hypocrisy that we see or the double standard when we go back to president obama whr, when th removed the ig in 09 who was investigating, he was the ig for the corporation for national and commercial commerce services, the federal agency overseeing organizations like americorp. , granted to this nonprofit 850,000 as in ig went through, st. Hope had to replay 400,000 because what they found out is st. Hope was run by soontobe sacramento mayor kevin johnson, who was a large donor to the Obama Administration. And they found that the money had been used. It was supposed to be to help tutor local students, redevelop buildings and enhance heart programs. The people found out that the money had been used to pad staffs hours, and have members perform personal services for mr. Johnson including washing his car, the journal reported. So, when this gets exposed i think it was mr. Johnson went after this guy and removed him because they said the president obama did not have his full confidence. So, the hypocrisy were seeing here today is just unconscionable. It just amazes me. This committee is supposed to be apolitical, and we pride ourselves on it. Im not seeing it. In fact, i havent seen it this whole year, mr. Chairman, and it saddens me. And so with what ive heard from you, the relieving of duty of ig linicks was more than acceptable. It wasnt President Trump just didnt have confidence in this guy. He failed to meet the required time. The committee asked the Inspector General to review the false 2019 emergency that the administration declared to push through that 8 billion in arms sales. Since then weve learned that the igs investigative work was largely done by the end of 2019. Inside the department, obviously the buck stops with secretary pompeo. Hes the one who makes determinations like this about the emergency . Let me just go on, mr. Bulatao. Mr. Linick testified that in this testimony, you, like always, were the gate keeper for secretary pompeo and you helped keep the gate shut. He asked for an interview with the secretary and you asked for the topic areas he wanted to discuss. Thats right, isnt it . And what were those specific topics that the ig told you he wanted to discuss . As i recall that conversation, i asked the ig are there any areas i can help you with. This was a normal thing i did during our biweek. What he responded to me was yes, there is. We are complete. We have completed our investigation of the saudi arms sales except for interviewing the secretary. And did he did he give you any information on the topics that he wanted . My question to him was im just asking you the question, did he give you topics that he wanted to discuss with the secretary . Not at that time. Ever . I dont need the whole story. I just wanted to know what the topics were. He wanted to discuss the policy decisions that went into that decision. Right. Did he did he want to ask about conflict of interest in the Emergency Declaration process . Was that did he tell you that . What we ended up doing im just asking i dont want to know what you ended up doing. Did he ask you about questions of interest. The question was written down and i understand. I want you to respond specifically. Did he want to respond about conflicts of interest . I was not involved in those conversations with the Inspector General. Im trying to tell you. Did he want to ask about the involvement in the arms sale . Was that clear at any point . I was not involved with conversations with the ig. You have no idea what he wanted to speak to the secretary about . I just told you what he wanted to speak about . There was Nothing Specific . Thats what we were asking, trying to understand that in order to schedule the time. What i committed was help us understand what youre trying to ask, well try to get a time to meet im not asking about specific questions. Im asking did he raise with you the topics in any more specificity than youre telling us now. Not with me . With whom then sf. I was not involved the buck stops with the secretary. Youre going to make the determination about whether this interview take place. So, not with you. Is there anyone that youre aware of that the Inspector General detailed the subject matter that he wanted to discuss with the secretary . He provided a list of written questions that we then subsequently answered upon getting those answers. Mr. Stringer, are you aware of any of the topics he wanted to discuss . Congressman, as under secretary are you aware im just are you aware of any topics the Inspector General wanted to discuss . He was focusing on the policy decisions i understand. With specificity. Was there any specificity. Did he have any knowledge that the u. S. Sold them to commit possible war crimes . Was that something specific that he might have explained . Congressman thats just a yes or no. Youre getting into some internal im just asking about the topics. Im not asking about deliberations. Im asking did the Inspector General tell you or anyone that youre aware of at the state department that he wanted to discuss with the secretary of state whether secretary pompeo had knowledge that the saudis had previously used weapons to commit possible war crimes, or did he want to ask about Jared Kushners involvement in the arm sales . Im not worried about deliberations. I want to know whether you were aware of what he wanted to discuss with the secretary . Its just a yes or no question. Its just a yes or no question. Thank you, congressman. So, youre getting into questions posed by no, im not. Im not getting into questions. Im not. Im asking about topics. Theres nothing classified. There is nothing about im not asking about internal deliberations. None of that has anything to do with the Inspector General simply telling you that these are the topics he wanted to discuss with the secretary of state. And im asking you whether he gave you those topics. Congressman, again, he was looking at the policy decisions at the time was there the kind of specificity that id asked about. Thats all im asking. Its a yes or no question. Congressman, the question presented by the ig were focused on the policy deliberations i understand. I understand. Im asking when he came to you youre the gate keeper. When he wanted to meet with the secretary of state, did he provide to you or to mr. String or to anyone at the state department a list of topics that he wanted to discuss with the secretary . I dont want general policies. I want to know did he give you any of those specifics . Yes or no . Congressman, my role isnt the gate keeper yes or no . Is there anyone on this panel who can answer this question . It doesnt seem that difficult. And when all you want to do, mr. Chairman, when all you want to do is tell me that he wants to talk about policies, guess what. We know that thats what he wanted to talk about and were trying to figure out why he wasnt allowed to do it and why he was fired. And you cant even tell us whether these were the issues he wanted to talk about. If youre aware he wanted to talk about policy, then it certainly sounds youre aware of exactly what those policies were and secretary pompeo deserves to give the American People some answers to these questions and some accountable. I yield back. Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you, mr. Chairman, all that time cutting them off, maybe would have gotten the answer you were looking for. He said i was asking a yes or no question. Im not going to argue with you about it. Im just making the point that that was about a threeminute thing. If they would have been able to develop, maybe you would have gotten the answer you were looking for. In terms of why we want to get to why he was fired. I think, sir, you put out a really good reason. And quite honestly, i think had you not fired him, we may be here at this very moment attacking you for not firing him for not having everything done on time. Its the season were in. I appreciate you all being here. Thank you, mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. You know, oversight is the executive branch is something we do. Its core to what we do. And i believe we should be using this precious platform not for politics but for advancing Foreign Policy priorities. We had the russians meddling, and yet more european elections, potentially even in ours. Belarus we have going on, peace deals being signed, communist chinese continue to grossly violate the human rights, yet were using this time to debate something that past administrations have done, which is to fire an Inspector General for failing to do their job. We need this committee, hopefully maybe after the election, to get back to focusing on big important things going on around the world. Assistant secretary cooper, i want to first start off with the Important Role that the political of military Affairs Bureau plays in american Foreign Policy. How do arms sales support our foreign policies and why is it important that the state department maintains the authority over arms sales . Thank you, congressman. And its not just the authority over arms sales. Its also the authority on title 22 and title 10 Security Assistance, so its the whole package. If one looks at arms transfers, arms sales, Security Assistance. This would be including of military education, training. All of those things are implements to actually achieve our Foreign Policy objectives. Essentially our chiefs moving forward, our embassies moving forward have a host of tool kits for them. These implements are some of the most significant and some of the most tangible implements of Foreign Policy that we provide. They are often there to make sure a partner is able to from a security standpoint not only provide for their security, their sovereignty. In many cases theres a shared burden or shared adversity that theyre facing on our behalf. And in some cases, we have partners that actually are prosecuting on our behalf. If one looks at the whole total of the package of whats available, its to enable partners, bring them closer together. Its also essential the grandest level of burden sharing. But i would go back to all Security Assistance, even the Security Assistance that resides under department of defense authority. At the end of the day, theres state department and premature inconcurrence on that because we want to make sure regardless of if its an excess defense article, something new, we want to make sure that it actually does contribute to those ways and means of a strategic end. Let me ask you something. Do we have nonfriendly competitors out there that could fill this void if we dont . Like who . Were looking at adversaries and competitors in moscow and beijing. You menged them early letter. Its why we tailored some of our Foreign Military assistance and financing to encourage partners to come closer to the United States to be interoperable with our forces, to be interoperable with nato allies. Its why we have some specialized programs like the Counter Russian Influence Fund and the counterchinese influence fund. All these are part of the broader tool kit that we make available. In many cases, theres a suite of these tools that also were tied to arms transfers. Let me ask you real quickly, when we talk about yemen real quick, its been over 200,000 deaths. You estimated nearly 18,000 were combat related civilian casualties. How have the houthis or how has iran attempted to address noncombat related death. In an open floor, i can tell you there is, as i mention in my testimony, there is no compunction. There is no rule of law arm conflict thats being followed by tehran. Theres none of that by the houthi rebels. If anything, weve seen a direct threat to civilian populous. And thats, again, something im happy to talk to in more detail in the classified space. But do know that when we talk about the risk to si vaciviliane risk to civilian infrastructure, the houthis have no parameters. Excellent. Thank you. I yield back. Thank you, mr. Keating. Mr. Chairman, can you hear me . Yes. We can hear you fine. Thank you. Thank you. Since the beginning of the conflict in march 2015 in yemen, its clearly risen to a worldwide humanitarian crisis. 24 million people, 12 million children, all in humanitarian need. 127,000 dead, 13,500 children targeted. So, im about to ask some questions to you about documents, about transparency, about information. I want people to focus on two things, two images. 44 children targeted and killed in a school bus. Another image, just within the last three months, almost a dozen other children killed. One strieke occurred during the celebration of a newborn boy. He did not survive. He did not live to be one week old. So, with that in mind, id like to ask questions of mr. Bulatao. Is that correct . Yes, thats correct. I just want to get it as correct as i could. You oversee the state departments bah row of administration, correct . Correct. And that n part, oversees information provided to congress in our requests, correct . That is part of the scope of responsibilities. Indeed it includes the congressional document production unit, correct . Correct. And this was started under the Obama Administration after requests and concerns with ben gou benghazi. Congressman pompeo, part of the Benghazi Committee saw thousands and thousands of documents produced. Does that congressional document unit still exist today . Theres an element within the bureau that, again, has responsibility for document production okay. Indeed the state department told us that it has spent 8. 1 million on this Department Since it was established. So, lets talk a second to see what the American People are getting for their money. How many documents has the state department produced in response to this committees questions into the president S Communications with Vladimir Putin . Congressman, i dont know what the actual numbers are. Im happy to take that question for the record and respond back. If you dont know, thats fine. How about our request into the intelligence surrounding nuclear biological and chemical weapons. How many documents were produced at our request . Congressman, again, for specific topics you want, im happy to take those questions for the record. All right. How many documents did the department produce pursuant to a subpoena issued around a delay in arms for ukraine suffered under russian aggression. How many . Let me speak more broadly, congressman let me just finish this, because i think ill help you out. Whats the total number of documents at our request related to security threats against ambassad ambassad ambassador yovanovitch. How many . We produce thousands of documents every year. This should be an easy one. Ill get to it at the end. Our request for diplomatic cables regarding the covid19. What about those documents . How about our request for documents on the decision to withdraw for the World Health Organization . Again, mr. Congressman, if youll allow me to answer, again, our team produces thousands and thousands of documents every year ill tell you again that this is the answer from the committee. Tell me if im wrong. How many pages has the department produced about the firing of this Inspector General, the request a month skpi ahaand a half ago. Now i want to tell you why im surprised you dont know the answer to the question. Your team doesnt have to do much research. The answer is zero documents produced to this committee. Zero. That shouldnt take a teambacked approach to calculate that. The state has spent 8 million on a unit you oversee, and the purpose is to produce documents to congress, yet you produce zero documents on key oversight investigations by the House Committee with the primary jurisdicti jurisdiction over the state department operations. And yet secretary pompeo got to work rushing documents immediately, actually the day the impeachment trial ended, to a senate investigation, blatantly political, President Trumps political opponent. This was even raising bipartisan concerns in the senate, a smear built on russian disinformation, a scheme which russian agents were involved with, friends with Rudy Giuliani were trying to assess. How many pages for that investigation. I dont think youll know the answer to this one, so ill give it to you. The answer is now up to over 16,000 pages for that. Zero for all our requests as a committee. And this committee has made it clear were not going to stand for nonpartisan professionals to be used for come pain purposes. Gentleman, your time is expired. All right, mr. Chairman, ill ask unanimous consent to place the rest of my statement in order and ask how the irony occurs that you failed you fired mr. Linick for not providing information, yet youre not providing core information, and indeed, sir, under that criterion you established, you should be fired yourself. I yield back. The gentlemans time has expired. Mr. Zeldin. Thank you. It would have been nice if he would have been able to give any of his answers just now as we were listening to my colleagues working our way down the 2020 resistance bingo cards of words, ukraine, yovanovitch, russia, putin. I think it would be nice if the witness was able to speak. This committee is obsessed with irresponsible and reckless and hyperpartisan attempts to take down this administration. Now with this charade trying to score cheap dishonest political points at the expense of secretary pompeo. Its sad this once Great Committee has been embarrassing itself with the tactics and rhetoric during the probe dividing this committee, dividing congress, and dividing our country. I have participated in almost all the transcribed interviews that your colleagues have agreed to have with the committee from the beginning of the investigation. The committee reveals no one who testified spoke to secretary pompeo about the investigation to armed sales, and the travel. Secretary pompeo has said he was not aware of ongoing invs. Interrogations in his correspondence with this committee. There is zero evidence supporting the Conspiracy Theory that the secretary was aware or influenced the investigations. The poor job ig linick had done in investigating the brian hook leak. The daily beast published an article titled state ig set to recommend discipline for trumps top hand. This article was leaked from political retaliation against career employees at the state department. Leaks have been a major issue in this administration and ig linick clearly didnt take it seriously enough. Mr. Linick exhibited inappropriate behavior under his own rules when he purposely withheld the ig report investigating a leak into his office from the department for inconsistent reasons. First he said he didnt share with the department because no one followed up. Then he said he didnt share with the department because he wanted to tell the deputy secretary in person. Then he cited covid19. As laid out in his Opening Statement, mr. Linick failed to carry out the core mission of the ig. He had asked the former dod Inspector General to conduct an internal investigation after being told by the council on Inspector General on integrity and efficiency and two other ig offices that they could not conduct the investigation. It seems to me if theres an investigation into an igs office, that ig shouldnt be the one shopping around for someone to investigate their office. When the report was finalized, did mr. Linick send you a copy of it as you requested . No, he did not. Did you ever speak to secretary pompeo about the igs ongoing investigations . No, i did not. Bottom line, it was not possible for secretary pompeo to fire mr. Linick because of the ongoing investigation, since he had no knowledge of this work by the ig. As you lay out in your testimony, there are numerous reasons you recommended firing mr. Linick. Its appropriate to reiterate that the president hads the authority to hire and fire personnel. This is nothing more than a fishing expedition and the democrats are still sitting here today with nothing at the end of their hook. I appreciate all the witnesses for being here to testify today. I hope after today the issue is closed. As far as calling on secretary pompeo to resign, i think it would be fantastic to sit here and say thank you, secretary pompeo, for all of the progress. It was yesterdays announcement killing qassem soleimani, killing al baghdad di, eliminating isis caliphate, recognizing, Taylor Force Act signed into law. Thats just the middle east. I do not want to see secretary pompeo fired. I want to say thank you to secretary pompeo. I wish you could go back doing your jobs to make america better than ever. I yield back. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Bera. Thank you, mr. Chairman. You know, it is pretty rich to hear my republican colleagues talk about this, but, you know, i appreciate the fact that, you know, i heard mr. Kinzinger to say our main job is to do oversight, and that is our main job. The reason why i love the United States is our founding on the rule of law shelled out in the constitution which talks about the checks and balances. Im not a lawyer, but, you know, i would like to ask mr. String a couple of questions since he is a lawyer. And its accurate, i believe, for me as the lead Legal Counsel for the bureau. So, i know the rules that are in congress that suggest we have to keep all our documents, emails, et cetera that pertain to policy decisions that we make and how we arrive at those decisions. And you know, even if theres communication that happens on gmail, weve got to make sure those are also catalyzed, especially around policy decisions and how we make those decisions. And i know my republican colleagues certainly know that even after a secretary of state leaves office, its still our responsibility to conduct oversight because thats what they did with former secretary of state clinton. They even set up a special committee to do investigation and correspondence, et cetera. Mr. String, as lead Legal Counsel, and this is for all the state Department Employees, whether its five months from now or five years from now, there will be an administration that will want to look back and identify documents, correspondents, et cetera that led to policy decisions. Mr. String, your recommendation that every state Department Employee up to the secretary of state keep those documents tharks dont destroy those documents, they keep the correspondents and emails and that would be the letter of law . Mr. String . Thank you, congressman. Yes, as you know, document preservation is something we take very cleeseriously under t federal records act. So, we take significant steps to ensure compliance with that. So, if theres transition to a new administration five months from now, any employee destroying legal records, documentation, correspondence as it pertains to policy decisions and deliberations, whether thats on the gmail server or elsewhere, that would be illegal. Is that correct . Mr. Stringer . Thank you for the question, congressman. So, destruction of documents would not be something that would be consistent with the federal records act. I guess i should clarify. Would it be illegal to destroy documents . To destroy federal records that were required to be preserved under the federal records act, that would be inconsistent with the law. So, just a message to any state Department Employee, oversight doesnt stop with an administration leaves. We will continue to conduct oversight. We will continue to look into how decision were arrived to better understand those decisions. Hopefully theres nothing there. But the fact that we havent been able to get the administration to work with us to talk about, you know, the rationale behind going around congress for the saudi arms sales, who approved and wrote those decisions to clear those decisions, thats something legitimately if we have an administration thats willing to cooperate with us, we can go back and look at. And, again, for every state Department Employee, we just heard from lead Legal Counsel that says any destruction of documents, any destruction of correspondence, even if its on your personal gmail server or gmail account, would be considered illegal. And well certainly be looking into that. And that is of concern. I am out of time, so again, i will yield back to the chairman. The gentleman yields back. Ms. Titus. Chairman. Gentleman yields back. Miss titus. Miss titus . I just lost you for a second thank you. We dont want to lose you. Thank you very much, i appreciate that. I listened with interest to all of the discussion Inspector General. I just want to return to the Madison Dinners, for a little while there. Theyre making the news again, i think many of you have probably saw this article that was in the paper. These are dinners, so called Madison Dinners in the madison room, secretary and his wife. Theyre restarting this week, and theyre using taxpayer money. Id like to present some statistics that have been reported and press accounts. 29 came from the corporate world. Another 25 came from the media, which is mostly the conservative media. Just 14 word diplomats or foreign officials, and those seem to be interchangeable. Every Single Member of the house or senate has been invited, is the republican. Roughly two dozen of these dinners have been held since april 2018, when mr. Pompeo took office as secretary of state. And at least three more are planned not to be held at the madison room, but at the breyer house. Does that sound accurate to you . I would ask our witnesses. Congresswoman, i dont have access nor am i involved in any of the invitations of the execution of the medicine dinners. And i believe that maybe the point. We dont have any indication democratic members have ever attended these, or how Foreign Policy is not supposed to be political. Politics, partisan politics, stop at the countrys border, at the waters edge. Weve heard our republicans criticize us this morning for making this political. And yet no democratic members have attended these, or been invited as far as we know. Is that correct . Let me make this comment on it. I think american Foreign Policy deeply a reflection of the bard struck spectrum of american society. It recognizes the strong yes or no im sorry. Theyre supposed to be about Foreign Policy. Congressman i dont have that answer because im not involved in those dinners. Is there any one there at the table involved in these dinners . Apparently not. Okay well. We have tony porter before this committee, and she was involved in the dinners. She was the former person who planned fundraisers for mr. Pompeos campaign. And now she plans these Madison Dinners. Her recollection is that aside from mr. Pompeo and staff, there were no state Department Diplomats or foreign experts at any of these dinners. She said just herself in a Protocol Officer, and they set up the dinner but they didnt go behind closed doors. However, it did take a lot of state Department Staff, because you had a caterer, security officers, that facilities meant management just set these up. So it took a lot of time and effort, we can talk about morale, many of the people of the state department didnt think it was appropriate use of their tine. Who did attend these dinners however, was mrs. Pompeo. I believe you know the answer to this, even though you werent involved. Shes not a state Department Employee. Miss pompeo was not a state employment. As the spouse of the state secretary she is involved and many official functions representational. I couldnt hear your question can you please repeat. I said even though she is not a member of the state department, not an employee of the state department she had all of the information from the people who attended these dinners. Set to her personal email. Maybe that was for a Christmas Card list or something i dont know, is that correct . Congresswoman, it would not be as the host team for a representational event for mrs. Pompeo, attending that event with the secretary. To know who was going to be at any of that. So all events in terms of representational. Whether theyre domestic or overseas, a list of attendees there. Even though she is not an employee, and we dont know what information was included that was sent to her. Besides addresses the put in her personal role index, perhaps a Major Political campaign for mr. Pompeo. Dont you think we also heard that no information was prepared for mr. Pompeo no figures no backs nothing to use to explain to explain state departments worker what we were doing in a public peculiar country. Which was allegedly the question of these dinners. They didnt really care about talking about any of that . Congresswoman dont you think thats a little odd . Secretary is well versed on the multitude of Foreign Policy issues. Thats his job as our lead diplomat. I believe these events are valuable opportunity to educate, despite elements of our society about Foreign Policy use, and to introduce foreign diplomats to americans. I think the server useful function. Gentlemans time has expired. Movie stars, and press and all of that. Ive also remembered all will yield back just a second. These dinners are paid for by taxpayers. They pay for these dinners, and yet i wonder what taxpayers benefit is from these dinners hosted for mr. Pompeo. And mrs. Pompeo. To make political contacts for the future. When they were looked into shortly thereafter, thats when the firing of this Inspector General occurred. I yield back thank you. Mrs. Sicilian. Thank you mister chairman, the chairmans Opening Statement a pattern of corruption, nepotism, at the state department. As i was listening it seem more like examples from dictatorships around the world, that our country has a history of condemning. In the face of today already misconduct and lost its, important we take a look at the apply the men and women at the state department, who continue to serve as this administration roads are standing in the world. Working around active legislation, investigate the wrongdoing. I want to ask you some statements about secretary calm pompeo made the. Secretary was asked whether he knew the fire Inspector General was investigating him he claimed he had no knowledge of this. Heres what he told the Washington Post. Its not possible my recommendation to the president any investigation that was going on or quarterly going on because we simply dont know. Im not briefed on it, so it simply not possible to be an active retard relation. And the story end of quote. That was untrue was it . There was two investigations one involved his role saudi arabia and as the New York Times revealed secretary pompeo knew the Inspector General was investigating this issue. Because the Inspector General asked to interview him, and secretary pompeo refused and answer chose to answer written questions. Its indisputable that secretary pompeo knew about this investigation. The other investigation, was examining whether secretary pompeo and his abuse their office by state employees to ask personal favors for them. Told the committee that he spoke to you, and deputy secretary bigger, and they 2019 about the fact that his staff would be requesting documents from the office of the secretary. Related to the alleged misuse of government use of funds by secretary pompeo and his wife. He told you this so you and the secretary would not be surprised, and would understand ride they were requesting those documents. Mr. Linux testified under oath under, the penalty a false statement, when he told the committee. This so my first question, is mr. Linux lying when he told the committee that he spoke to you about this investigation in 2000 line teen, months before he was fired. Yes or no . No. Okay so let me clarify, mr. Mr. Linick never talked to me about that in 2019. I find this very hard to believe, secretary pompeo is one of your oldest and closest friends, youve known him since your days in school. You are business partners, and youre asking this committee to accept that you didnt in fact have a conversation with the Inspector General, where you were told that he was conducting an investigation of a person when your closest friends for abusing office. I find a very hard to believe. Mr. Linick also requested i dont believe. You mr. Linick never requested documents for his investigation for secretary pompeo misuse of staff. You are aware . No. You werent aware that document requests were made of the secretary . No, what i was aware of was that the Inspector General was conducting eight preliminary inquiry okay so and preliminary inquiry, which is another word for investigation of the secretary . Know the topic i was informed of when i received the email from the ig office, was that they were conducting a preliminary inquiry on travel. Did you tell mr. Pompeo that him in his way for under investigation for allegedly misusing state department stuff . No sir. Again i find that difficult to believe sir, mr. Pompeo is when your closest friends. Did you secretary pompeo has said he recommended that President Trump that mr. Linick be removed from office. This is a big step for the secretary to take. I presume he discussed it with you . I am, the secretary mentioned that he was going to make a recommendation to the president sometime in the early april. And i presume that when he made when you had that conversation with secretary pompeo u. S. Does not to yourself oh my goodness, this will look bad. If you fire an Inspector General whose investigating you and your wife, or misconduct. It will look bad. And you must are given him some advice or at least told him about that . Again congressman you keep alluding that i knew about some kind of investigation. But you just said you knew about a preliminary inquiry. About tribal about travel. An investigation and i welcome an investigation about travel its good, we have to make sure we have to get trouble right there was no issue, there was no issue about the ig investigating travel. None whatsoever. Although i was surprised that the secretary mentioned that he was going to do that, because i was surprised to come that long. So what youre saying. What youre saying doesnt add up. We know that mr. Pompeo was and telling the truth when he denied knowing about the ig arm sales investigation, and hes also misleading the public when he denies knowing about the investigation about the misuse of funds. Just as you try to lie. About mr. Linick firing, everyone except his best friend from coming forward. Coming to congress to tell us what happened. And with that mister chairman i yield back. Gentleman yields back, mr. Castro. Thank you chairman, and thank you gentlemen for being here for your testimony since the beginning of this presidencys term, many of us have been very concerned about President Trumps undermining of the rule of law. Including his use of the state department, and the secretary of state to do it. And also, his disregard for the oversight function of the legislative branch, and thats why believed you see a lot of questions since you have been fielded today. You all made the point that one of your chief complaints with Inspector General linick was that he was not providing you the information that you needed to do your jobs. I am saying that you also the information that we need to do our jobs. And in so doing, our probably permanently changing the balance of power, between the executive branch and the legislative branch. By bearing everything either disregard, or forcing everything to go to court. So, i sent a letter to the department on august 25th raising a number of questions regarding the use of Department Resources, to facilitate the secretary speech at rnc. Including on issues that are directly under your purview, mr. Bullock tell. Such as the use of staff time, such as the use of tests staff on official time for that purpose. And i have yet to get answers from the department, i want to ask you today, whether you will commit to this committee that youll provide answers to those questions, and provide a full accounting of the expenses incurred during the secretaries traveled to israel . Before you answer, i want to say this. If you have nothing to hide, why dont you all provide us the information were looking for. If its clear that nothing was done wrong, why not send over the documents we request . Again, this is consistent with a string of what i would consider, an abuse of ignoring legislative branch. The temptation then, is that the next time you get either a republican or democratic president , that the executive branch is going to issue the same abuses. Also before you answer the question, please know that im requesting two things. Number one, that whatever documents pertaining that inquiry exist, that they be protected and not destroyed. At any time. Secondly, if we dont wrapped this investigation up, because i am chair of the subcommittee oversight investigation through this committee, i am going to ask this committee to make sure that those investigations continue past november. And past january. With that please. Congressman we take it very serious role oversight for this committee, i will work with our legislative affairs team to understand where the status of that document request is. I will also note, that the secretary of state himself, known that his remarks were in no way, used any resources from the department. It was personal capacity, and no resources from the department were used, and him making those remarks. I will follow up and understand where the document requests theirs and we will continue to abide by our requirement. I respect that statement, but as you know, this is not just about one persons word. We are entitled to engage in an oversight function. We have not been provided the documents and resources that we need to do our jobs. Im asking you, please give us what we need. All right . I want to ask it remain stunning to me, mr. Pompeo recorded a speech for the rnc while in official traveling in jerusalem. This raised such concerns the chairman, have raised questions about the abuse. As the secretary to speak at one of his campaign rallies. Especially the secretary wanted to but ultimately backed down in light of the insisting guidance. Is this correct . Congressman thank you for the question, ill echo what we said about our commitment to responding to the committees requests. As i recall, there was a period in 2019 where that issue that you raised came up, and it was reviewed. So the issue did arise the request is made by the president of the secretary of state. I dont know the details of a congressman. My recollection is that it was an issue. With that amount of time i yield back. Thank you gentlemen. Thank you mr. Lieu. The thank you mister chair. Ive criticize both the obama and Trump Administration for supporting a Saudi Led Coalition that supports were crimes. This is not a partisan issue. Its a moral issue and a criminality issue. I previously served an active duty in the military, one of my responsibilities was to get a vise commanders on armed conflict. Its clear to me that officials in the state department and department of defense a potential legal liability for aiding and abetting war crimes. Thats one reason why in 2016 the Obama Administration halted a shipment to saudi arabia. It was found out that theyre using these weapons to specifically target civilians. At funerals, hospitals and recently a school bus filled with children. Unfortunately these are the kinds of weapons used in war crimes, that mr. Cooper and mr. String what so hard that what pompeo trump we heard from the New York Times to confirm, they wrote a memo that concluded quote, american officials could be charged with war crimes unquote. Mr. String, ive been asking for a copy of this memo for years. Let me ask you have you read the 2016 memo . Join me to repeat my question . No thank you for the question. The best of my recollection, the first time i read about a 2016 memo was in the press a few days ago. So you are not aware that the Inspector General got a copy of this 2016 memo . Congressman in 2016, it is under the Previous Administration i was not in the state department at that point. To the best of my recollection again, i dont recall hearing about a 2016 memo until i read it in the press. Okay. Mr. Bullock towel you aware of this memo . I am not aware of this 2016 memo. Mr. Cooper the New York Times reported that some of the folks that had already seen this memo. Have you seen this memo . Now mr. Lieu. When i go back to the beginning of the hearing today, where i cited the Trump Administration reaffirming a previous executive order commit to enable and training to prevent civilian casualties and citing going back to spring of 2018, for the updated transfer arms policy. That specifically reduces the risk of civilian casualties. As far as addressing the issue, yes im familiar with it. That is why we have developed the advanced targeting initiative for the direction of President Trump. The issue is not new. As you have noted. It is one that is vexed, several administrations and the work continues. Thank you, thank you so i know that school bus filled with children was very precisely struck by guided munition. They found the state department failed to fully assess the risk and implement measures to reduce civilian casualties. Do you agree with the oigs findings and if you dont why not . What i said we agree to is that more could be done. There certainly had been assessment to that point. We remind the committee, we for the emergency certification process and decision point, the work on all these cases on the applicability and requirements that were needed for partners in saudi arabia, in the united emirates and in jordan had been addressed. And they had been notified to congress. There is additional work to be done. If you please read the 2016 memo. And the secretary please give us a copy of that memo. I yield back. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Phillips. Thank you mister chairman and to our witnesses thank you for being with us today. I like to speak about secretary pompeo Senior Adviser tony porter answered our questions about the secretaries misuse of official resources. A topic which he spoke to the ig about. Mr. Bullock towel, how long have you known miss porter and what are her official duties . Ive known miss porter for roughly five years. And her official duties . She serves as a special adviser to the secretary, in that role her role is to help maximize the productivity, and the impact of the secretary as lead Foreign Policy expert on behalf of the American People. She works for the state department not to pompeos correct . Shes an employee of the state department. Tax players pay her salary over 140,000 dollars a year right thats correct. I im sure you know as a government employee, she has a legal obligation to use her official time in an honest effort to perform official duties. Which to all of us means, when the government is paying you, you have to be working for the government. My question is, mrs. Pompeo the secretarys wife is not a government employee. So running errands for her could not be considered an official duties that a fair statement . Mrs. Pompeo is not a government employee. Any public ploy running errands is that official . If its not violating their work matters or near the guidelines that will be up to them. But running errands for officials is not considered an official duty . Mr. String it would not be considered legal for the secretary or anyone at the state department to direct my supporter to do work for mr. Pompeo is that correct . Would be legal for the secretary any one else in the state department to direct misreported to do work for miss pompeo . Youre asking a hypothetical question . No its a yes or no question. I have not reviewed the transcript. The only the transcript is it legal for anyone that at the state department to direct my supporter to do work for susan pompeo plain and simple. Theres not a hard question. Again. We all know the answer. Im not asking about the transcript. Its a yes or no question or unwilling to answer. You know the law provides an employee should not encourage or request to support it on official time to perform activities other than the duties that are authorized in accordance with law and regulation. Thats how the law reads. Miss reporter testified she arranges private dinners for the pompeo and their families. Mr. String another question. If that is true is that inappropriate use of miss porters time when she is on the clock . Arranging private dinners . Congressman again he referring to items in the transcript. Im asking a yes or no question of making it so easy. Is that illegal in that hypothetical is that legal . And soundtracking. Were asking for a legal conclusion. Im asking a simple answer. Every one of us in this entire city knows the answer to that city apparently other than you. Its been reported for an exchange for her salary, that she walks heard miss pompeos dog and drives the dog the dog eat daycare. One more question are these appropriate activities or state Department Official to be doing on the clock of the taxpayer . Again, i havent reviewed the transcript. What a state Department Employee chooses to do on their time is up to them. She and the diplomats that work for her only assist mrs. Pompeo when she is formally invited to official events or travels for official work. She essentially spent some time sending out mrs. Pompeos Christmas Cards. Gentleman again with times like this light covid, with people trying to make ends meet and we have to go to them and explained them that arctic secretary of state can do what everyone else is doing. Which is either find the time to do themselves, but certainly not on the taxpayers dime. I yield back. Thank you miss omar. And thank you chairman. In 2016, the saudi targeted a funeral in yemen killing hundreds of civilians. The saudi government and knitted to this in a statement which they said they did this without taking any precautionary measures to ensure that it was not a civilian one. Mister string were you aware of this . The timeframe was that . 2016. I was not in the government at that period of time. That wasnt the question sir. I asked if you are aware of it. I have a vague recollection of it although i was not in Government House in private Legal Practice at the time. How about mr. Cooper . Thank you congresswoman. I could say in my previous capacity and the National Security enterprise before going over to the department of state i was acutely aware of the saudi actions in yemen dating back tears. Were you aware of this yes or no . I was aware of the houthi threat. And what caused the civil war. The answer to your question as we could do better on mitigating civilian casualties. Full stop loans are going. That but about a specificity of a particular entity i cant. The obama ministration suspended cells of certain weapons including guided missiles. Because they were afraid that this hardware would be used to kill civilians. In 2017, the Trump Administration decided to to resume these arms sales resume their arm sells. Its sought unique insurance from saudis, that they would comply with law of war. Mister string are you familiar with this . Congresswoman again yes or no. Congresswoman, i believe this viewers and potentially classified material. Im not comfortable talking further about that item. Okay. So we can assume, that the Trump Administration was also concerned that saudi arabia might use weapons we sell to them, to target civilians. Would you consider targeting civilians, as a crime of war mr. String . Congresswoman, the specific targeting, and intentional targeting of civilians would be very concerning. Concerning . Or a crime of war, im confused . If there was a specific intent to target non combatants, that would be inconsistent with a variety of laws. So it seems odd, that we should seek those kinds of assertions and making sure that they werent targeting civilians. We are still selling weapons to them. That they are confessing, to have used to commit such crimes. Mr. String, can you give me another specific example where we sought such assurances . As a general matter of congresswoman. We seek assurances from partners forever idea of reasons around the world. I can say that we are aware of the issues that you have raised, you we take these issues very seriously. Not just at the state department, its an inter agency issue. I can assure you that the u. S. Government is focused on continuously and comprehensively addressing these issues. Throughout variety of training measures that assistant secretary cooper mentioned, including training and other forms of assistance. With all of that, on june 11th 2018, the Saudi Coalition targeted and destroyed doctors without borders. Treatment facility and yemen. On august 9th, 2018, using weapons from the United States. That we sold to them. The saudis targeted a school bus and northern yemen, killing of dozens of children. In 2018, june of 2018, senator menendez had put a hold on certain future arm solstice audi arabia, because of these concerns of targeting civilians casualties. Angle did the same thing, are you aware of this mister string . And do you think these were legitimate concerns . Just so i understand congresswoman, are you asking whether i was aware of the concerns expressed by some members of congress . Yes, and the fact that the saudis targeted and destroyed doctors without borders, and targeted the school bus. Congresswoman, yes in my recollection i was aware of concerns at that time. Her time has expired. Mister chairman, would be possible to take a five Minute Health break. Weve been at this for about three hours, quick five minute restroom break. Certainly, a quick five minutes. I think we have votes coming lets beat it up, we want to try to get through the whole thing before the vote. Five minute recess
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.