This brings me to the topic of todays proceedings. I would like to recap my recollection of the timeline in which these events played out. I testified about all of this at length in my deposition. In july, i became aware of a hold being placed on obligation of the State Departments military financing or fmf and dods usai fund. In meetings i heard the president directed the Office Of Management And Budget to hold the funds because of his concern for corruption in ukraine. Let me say at the outset i have never discussed this or any other matter with the president and never heard directly from him about this matter. At a senior level meeting i attended july 26th chaired by National CouncilSecurity Leadership as in all other interagency meetings on this topic of which i was wear, the
national Security Community expressed unanimous support for resuming funding in the u. S. National security interests. At the July 26th Meeting there was also a discussion how ukrainian anticorruption efforts were making progress. Dod reiterated what we had said in our earlier certification to congress stating sufficient reform including anticorruption to justify the usai spending. I and others at the interagency meetings felt that the matter was particularly urgent because it takes time to obligate that amount of money. My understanding was the money was legally required to be obligated by September 30th, the end of the fiscal year. The ensuing weeks until the hold was released on september 11th. I pursued three tracks, first starting july 21st at an interagency meeting i made clear to the interagency leadership my understanding that once dod
reaches the point at which it does not have sufficient time to obligate all the funding by the end of the fiscal year, there were only two ways to discontinue obligation of usai, a president Directed Recision or dod directed reprogramming action, either of which would need to be notified to congress. I never heard either was being pursued. Second wine was in communication with the Dod Assistance Implementing Community to try to understand exactly when they would reach the point at which they would be unable to obligate all the funds by the end of the fiscal year. I received a series of updates. In a Serptember 5th update i an other Senior Leaders were informed over 100 million could not be obligated by September 30th and, third, i was advocating with levels with the president to explain why
assistance should go forward. Although i heard of attempts to discuss the issue with the president i never received details other than a Status Update that the hole had not been lifted. Other than the decision to release the funds on september 11 of this year my colleagues at the Dod Assistant Enterprise worked tirelessly to ultimately obligate 86 of the funding by the end of the fiscal year, more than they originally estimated they would be able to. Due to a provision in septembers continuing resolution appropriating and amount equal to Unoperating Funds in fiscal twnt 19 we ultimately will be able to obligate all of the usai funds. Given how critical these funds are for bolstering ukraines security and deterring russia i appreciate this congressional action. That concludes my opening statement. But before answering your
questions, there is one other matter i would like to address. I testified in a deposition before this committee and other committees on october 23rd, 2019. At that time, i was asked questions about what i knew about when the Ukrainian Government may have learned about any hold on Security Assistance funds. I answered those questions based on my knowledge at that time. Since my deposition, i have again reviewed my calendar and the only meeting where i recall a ukrainian official raising the issue with me is on September 5th, at the ukrainian Independence Day celebration. I have, however, since learned some Additional Information on this subject from my staff. Prior to my Deposition Testimony i avoided discussing my testimony with members of my staff or anyone other than my attorney, to insure my Deposition Testimony was based only on my personal knowledge. My Deposition Testimony was publicly released november 11th, 2019. Members of my staff read the testimony and have come to me since then and provided Additional Information. Specifically, on the issue of ukraines knowledge of the hold or ukraine asking questions about possible issues with the flow of assistance, my staff showed me two unclassified emails that they received from the State Department. One was received on july 25th, at 2 31 p. M. That email said that the Ukrainian Embassy and House Foreign Affairs committee are asking about Security Assistance. The second email was received july 25th at 4 25 p. M. That email said the hill knows about the fmf situation to an extent and so does the Ukrainian Embassy. I did not receive either of these emails, my staff does not recall informing me about them and i do not recall being made
aware of their content at the time. I do not have any Additional Information about precisely what the ukrainians may have said, what may have been their source of information about a hold or possible issues with a flow of assistance or what the state Department Officials may have told them. My staff also advised me in the last few days of the following additional fact that may be relevant. To this inquiry. Again, my staff does not recall informing me about them and i do not recall being made aware of this. July 3rd, 4 23 p. M. , they received an email from the State Department saying the cm is currently being blocked by omb, currently referring to the state investigation the state would send for mff. On november 25th, a member of my staff got a question about what was going on with ukraine Security Assistance. At that time, we did not know what the guidance was on usai. The apportionment arrived that day but this staff member did not find out about it until later. I was informed the staff member told the ukrainian official we were moving forward on usai but recommended that the Ukraine Embassy check in with state regarding the fms. Sometime during the week actuate 610, a ukraine officer told a member of my staff a ukrainian official might raise concerns about Security Assistance in an upcoming meeting. My understanding was that the issue was in fact not raised. Again, i have no further information about what concerns about the Security Assistance ukraine may have had at that time. M staff also recalls Thinking Ukrainians were aware of the hold on Security Assistance during august but they cannot pinpoint any specific conversations where it came up. My staff told me theyre aware of additional meetings where
they saw officials from the Ukrainian Embassy in august and they believe the question of the hold came up at some point but tai told me they did not find any correspondence or record of those meetings, consequently neither they nor i know precisely when what additional Discussion Mays have occurred with ukrainians in the month of august. If i had more details on these matters, i would offer them to the committee. This is the extent of Additional Information i have received since my deposition. Mr. Chairman, i welcome your questions, i will answer them to the best of my ability. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. For this hearing we will forego the questions by Member Counsel and go immediately to member questions. I want to respond that this was a surprise to the minority. We informed the minority last
night after our hearing that we would, because of the nature of testimony today we did not believe a Staff Member Round was necessary and the message we got back from the minority, okay, got it, thanks for the headsup. The minority was on notice and raised no objection to going directly to member rounds. I also want to point out that the minority has represented we have not called any minority witnesses. That is not accurate. Mr. Hale appears tonight as a minority witness. I know thats not how you characterize yourself, mr. Hale but your testimony was kresd by the minority, ambassador wilson and mr. Volker were minority witnesses. Ambassador volker testified he didnt believe any allegations against joe biden and in retrospect he should have
understood an investigation into burisma should have been known to be an investigation into biden which was inappropriate. And conversations with ambassador sondland about conversations we layed to the ukrainians about the hold on the Security Assistance being a result of the failure to secure the investigation. I can understand why the minority does not want to now characterize them as minority requested witnesses and nonetheless they are minority requested witnesses. I now recognize myself for five minutes. I want to begin by asking you, miss cooper, about what you just informed us of so i understand the import of what youre saying. As early as july 25th, the same day President Trump spoke with president zelensky on the phone and asked for this favor, the same day that president zelensky
thanked the United States for its Military Support and signaled it was ready to purchase more javelins on that date, you got inquiries, your staff got inquiries from someone at the Ukrainian Embassy, who was concerned about the status of the Military Assistance, is that correct . Sir, thats correct. I would say specifically the Ukrainian Embassy staff asked what is going on with ukrainian Security Assistance. Did that connote to you something was in fact going on with it . Yes, sir. I guess your staff received more than one inquiry on that date . What was the nature of Theory Inquiry on july 25th . Sir, that was the one inquiry to my staff, but the other points that i had raised were emails reflecting outreach to the State Department. So the Ukrainian Embassy was also contacting the State Department to find out about its portion of Military Assistance . Yes, sir. And was that similarly a concern about whats going on with our military aid . It was similarly a question about whats going on with Security Assistance. And your staff or one of the other Department Staff also heard in august additional inquiries from the Ukraine Embassy about a Potential Holdup in the Military Assistance . Sir, i want to be careful about how i phrase this. My staff recall having had meetings with Ukrainian Embassy representatives during the month of august, and they believe that the topic came up at some point during those meetings but they dont recall the precise date or specifically what the nature of the discussion was. But your staff at least
gleaned from those conversations the Ukrainian Embassy learned there was some kind of hold on the assistance . The way i would phrase it is there was some kind of an issue. Yes. You are now, miss cooper, the third witness before our committee, who has testified that the ukrainians found out about the problem or hold on the Security Assistance prior to it becoming public but youre the first to indicate that may go back as early as the date of the president s call to president zelensky. Let me move to a related issue. In august, you testified at your deposition you met with kurt volker, i believe, it was on august 21th. The hold on Security Assistance was still in place. You testified ambassador volker told you if he could get president zelensky to make a Public Statement that would disallow the elections and
politics involved in Election Interference it might lift the old on Security Assistance, is that correct . Sir, i believe i testified it was my interference that would lift the hold on ukraines Security Assistance. That was your in fir reince because at the time youre talking about the hold on Security Assistance . Thats right. The first part of our conversation was about the hold on Security Assistance. It was during that part of the conversation he brought up the effort to get this Public Statement . It was during that conversation. Im not sure i would say its during that part of the conversation. What else did you discuss in the conversation . The only two topics that i recall are the urgency of lifting the hold on Security Assistance and him relaying this separate diplomatic evident i had previously been aware of. You didnt have any
discussion about any white house meeting . Sir, i dont recall specifically talking about the white house meeting but i had many conversations about the desire for the white house meeting. Its likely that was part of the conversation. The two things you do recall are that you talked about hold on Security Assistance and he brought up this Public Statement they wanted president zelensky to get he thought might be useful . That is correct, sir. Mr. Nunes. Thank you for yielding. Mr. Hale and miss cooper, thank you both for being here. In is opening, mr. Nunes referenced the skepticism of foreign aid being provided to
Foreign Countries, would you agree with that characterization, ambassador hale . We often heard at the State Department the president of the United States wants to make sure foreign assistance is reviewed scrupulously to make sure its truly in u. S. National interests and we evaluate it to make sure it meets certain criteria the president established. Since his election is it fair to say he has looked to overhaul how aid was distributed . Yes. There was a Review Process august or september 2018. Throughout his campaign his administration sought to refrain American Foreign policy in economic terms, as he described, America First policy, and well before there was whistleblower were talking a pause on aid to the ukraine, the president expressed genuine concern about
providing foreign assistance. Is it fair to say the president wanted to make sure the american taxpayer money was being fairly and efficiently spent outside the United States. That is the broad intent of the foreign assistance along with other goals. And he suspects our allies to give their share of aid as he referenced during the july phone call with president zelensky. The burden of sharing for allies and other likeminded states is an important part of the assistance. Is it true to say the foreign assistance aid is withheld from Foreign Countries for a number of factors . Correct. You testified in your prior testimony it is normal to have delays on aid . I may have said it that way, but its certainly an occurrence and does occur. In the past year ukraine was not the only country to have aid withheld from it, correct. Correct. In the past year, was aid
withheld from pakistan . Yes, sir. Why was aid withheld from pakistan . Because of unhappiness over the policies and behavior of the pakistani government toward certain proxy groups that were involved in conflicts with the United States. In the past year was aid also withheld from honduras . Aid was withheld from the three states in the northern central america, yes. In the past year, was aid withheld from lebanon . Yes, sir. When aid was first withheld from lebanon, were you given a reason why it was withheld . No. So, having no explanation for why aid is being withheld is not uncommon . I would say it is not the normal way that we function. But does happen . It does happen. Is it true that when aid was being withheld from lebanon that was the same time aid was being held from ukraine . Correct, sir. You testified that the aid to
lebanon still hasnt been released, is that right . That is correct. But the aid to ukraine was released on september 11th, correct . I read that, yes. Fair to say aid has been withheld from several countries across the globe for various reasons and some reasons still unknown just in the past year . Correct, sir. So the assertion has been made President Trumps ukraine policy changed when there was a pause in the aid or the aid was withheld. Is that an accurate statement . That was not the way i understood things to be happening at the time. We were not given an explanation. And in terms of our policy, in terms of aid to ukraine, you described it as very robust. Our aid to ukraine . Yes. Yes. As evidenced by President Trumps Policy Decision to provide lethal defensive weapons, javelin missiles . It was very robust, yes, sir. That was a decision President Trump made that the prior administration, obama, had not done, lethal weapons had not been sent to ukraine in the Obama Administration . I was not involved in Ukraine Affairs in the Obama Administration so i dont feel confident to address that. There may have been concern when the money was on pause, you expressed there may have been stated that it was potentially a negative effect on ukraine elations. Do you agree with that . The state Department Position was to advocate for the continuation of that assistance as an important element, in fact, a key element of our strategy to support ukraine against russia. My times expired. I yield back. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Im delight to follow mr. Ratcliffe because he just perfectly summarized the defense my republican colleagues are mounting of this behavior. The defense goes like this. The president is acting on some deep historical concern apparently invisible concern about corruption, and that because hes so concerned about corruption in ukraine hes Holding Up Aid and being prudent and judicious. The first part of that is pretty easy to dispose of because President Trump wasnt worried about corruption in ukraine. In the two conversations he had with the president On Ukraine April 21st and july 25th, not once does the president of the United States use the word or mention corruption to the president. The second part of that is a little bit more interesting hes just being prudent Holding Up Aid. Thats not just wrong, its
illegal. Miss cooper, i want you to help wang through this, since the impound act of 1974, the president has not had the authority on a whim or out of prudence or general skepticism of foreign aid to stop foreign aid. Under our constitution its the congress, not the president that controls the pow over the purse, correct . Yes, sir. The Security Assistance the assistance authorized to ukraine was authorized and appropriate rated by the congress, correct . So congress is also concerned about corruption. It wants to insure American Foreign assistance is spent wisely and does not worsen corruption. So, when congress authorized this money, it built and conditioned, just as mr. Ratcliffe suggested. By law, ukraine wouldnt get all the money until it demonstrated it had undertaken substantial anticorruption reforms. Under the law the department of
defense works with the State Department and other agencies to establish anticorruption benchmarks and determine whether ukraine has efficiently met those bench marks, correct . Thats correct. That provision pertains to the ukraine Security Assistance initiative. Thats a legally specified process. Thats not the president in the oval office manifesting general skepticism of foreign aid, is that right . It is a congressionally mandated process, yes, sir. Did that process take place for the dod funding held up in july . The process that took place for the certification took place prior to The May Certification to the u. S. Congress. So, right. Not only did it take place before, as required by law, months before President Trump froze the money, the department of testifies, in consultation with state, sent a letter to congress certifying, you said
this in your opening statement, the government of ukraine has taken substantial actions to make defense Institutional Reforms for the purposes of decreasing corruption, increasing accountability and sustaining improvements of Combat Capability enabled by u. S. Assistance. So, by the time President Trump froze the aid, the department of defense had spent weeks, if not months, determining that the Ukrainian Government met every requirement in the law, and made significant strides in combatting corruption, is that correct . That is correct. We made that determination in may. This wasnt about corruption. The timeline proves it. In fact, if there was any doubt about what was going on here, the chairman referred to your inference from your conversation with ambassador volker if they made a statement about investigations the aid would be
lifted and you covered that with the chairman. You had the Press Conference of october 17th, when Mick Mulvaney let the foley out of the bag and said the president talked about, quoting the corruption related to the dnc server and admitted, quote, thats why we held up the money. Any other explanation for the hold is a farce. In my remaining 30 seconds, just so people understand what i referred to. In the 1970s, Richard Nixon just arbitrarily decided, i dont know because he had a general skip skepticism of foreign aid or his motives, Richard Nixon decided to hold up congressionally mandated aid and Congress Passed the control act of 1974 which prohibits the president from holding congressionally appropriate funds without the approval of congress for any reason. Is that correct, miss cooper . Sir, i am not a lawyer, but
that approximates my understanding of the provision. Okay. I will go with that approximate. Thank you very much. I yield back the balance of my time. As paul harvey said, the rest of the story. My colleague failed to put certain issues with respect to certification. Dod certification was not for corruption throughout the entire country of ukraine, it was Institutional Reforms and Combat Capability, is that correct . Yes, sir. First, thank you for being here this afternoon. I appreciate that. My colleague seemed to leave that out. He read your statement but the corrective emphasis. The certification in may didnt really speak to the broader concept of corruption throughout the rest of ukraine the president would be familiar with the rest of us would be familiar with. Sir, The May Certification was specific to the defense sector, Defense Industry, and it
did reference the importance of civilian control of the military which relates more broadly to none of us would argue that fixes the corruption throughout the rest of the country. Miss cooper maybe you can shed light on specific details, we talk the Security Assistance program, 250 million. Some would argue that because the pause, people died in account because of the pause. Can you help us understand exactly what obligated and was there things about to be delivered to ukraine . Was ukraine out of ammunition . Were they out of javelins or all of this stuff, because of this pause they didnt get certain lethal equipment they needed in order to protect their folks during the month of august . Sir, we will deliver all of the i understand. Im trying to get a time. There was no shortfall in Equipment Deliveries expected within that time frame. Obligate means youre putting
the funding on contract. That contract starting the process. Those contracts will be fulfilled Fourth Quarter perhaps or whatever it was . Sir, i have to say, im a policy official, i am not a contracting expert. But my understanding is we will be able to make up for lost time in the contracting process. Fantastic. You go through three or four steps you went through because you disagreed with the hold being placed on the assistance and i certainly agree with that. Did you get any kind of criticism with the folks you dealt with because you were going against ombs direction for putting a hold on that . Did you get criticized for that . Absolutely not. My entire Chain Of Command was supportive of advocating for removing the hold on the funds . You werent restricted on full throating advocating getting this hold lifted, were you . No, sir. I faced no restrictions. Thank you for that. I thought you might be more in touch with the actual specifics of the accounting process. Ill defer any questions and thanks for being here tonight. I yield back. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Ambassador hill. When did you actually find out about the hold on the ukraine assistance . Was it july 21st . Yes. I in a deposition i did, the closed hearing i misspoke. I was confused and confused june 21st, and up to the congressional notification to omb for clearance. Only after july 18th and the 21st is when i heard there was a potential hold. Thank you for that clarification. Did you attend the July 26th Deputies meeting, Deputies Committee meeting that occurred . Yes, i did. Was it your understanding that the president directed the hold . We were told in that meeting
by the omb representative, that they were objecting to proceeding with the assistance because the president had so directed through acting chief of staff. What was the State Departments position regarding the hold . The State Department advocated as i did in that meeting for all of the assistance consistent with our policies in ukraine. You believed what you said . You believed in the release of the hold . Yes, i did. Did anyone at the interagency meeting at the end of july, support the hold . Did anybody want the hold to remain, and if so, who . Whats . The only agency represented in the meeting that indicated they supported the hold was omb. Miss cooper, did you understand similarly, there was an overwhelming interagency consensus to lift the hold and omb, at the direction of threat, was the only roadblock . Yes, maam. How is the Security Assistance in the National Security interests of the United States . What is our interests . Explain that to my constituents in alabama who are wondering why we should care about the security, the hold thats on the Security Assistance. Yes, maam. This specific assistance helps build the capacity of the Ukrainian Armed forces. Its important to understand these are forces that are fighting to defend themselves against russian aggression everyday. Its an ongoing war. So they do need this equipment to support their ability to defend themselves. And i would say theres a larger issue here that relates to u. S. Policy on russia. We believe its very important to strengthen the capacity of ukraine in order to deter russia aggression elsewhere around the world. Exactly. Were you ever able to get a reason why that hold was on . Did you ever get a reason . No, maam. The only thing i ever heard about it, this is again second, third hand, was that the president was concerned about corruption. But that was all i ever heard. So would you were you ever provided any Additional Information about the reason for the hold . No, maam. I thank you and yield the balls of my time to the chairman. I thank the gentle woman. My authorities, mr. Hale, isnt it common to hold aid and you said its not unusual. Would you agree its unusual to lever va leverage a foreign country to get them to investigate a political opponent . Yes. I take it you would agree that would be completely inappropriate. That would be inconsistent with our Foreign Policy in general. It would also be wrong, wouldnt it . Certainly not what i would do. Mr. Turner. It would be interesting if any witness ever testified that was the case. I yield my time to mr. Jordan. I thank the gentleman for yielding. First, i wanted to go where the chairman started. He said ambassador hale was one of our witnesses. Theyre all your witnesses, you called 15 witnesses and theyre all your witnesses, we didnt even call anyone. You gave us an opportunity to get a list to you a couple weeks ago where we made suggestions who you might allow us to have. We put three people of those 17 on that list so they could provide at least some semblance of context and framework of that entire thing. Once again, misleading the folks watching this hearing is not not
helpful. Thank you both for being here and for your service to our country. Ambassador, to pakistan, lebanon, Special Envoy to the middle east, ambassador to jordan, jordan, bahrain, youve been to about every hot spot. We appreciate your service. Earlier today, mr. Sondland, ambassador sondland, excuse me, said he was denied access to some of his records. The State Department put out a statement. They aid ambassador sondland, like every Current State Department employee called before congress in this matter retain at all times and continue to retain full access to State Department documentary records and state Department Email account he has always been fully free to access at will. Thats an accurate statement from the State Department, isnt it, ambassador hale . I had not seen it until
shortly before entering this hearing room but it sounds accurate, yes. Appreciate that. Ambassador, youre aware of no connection between the pause of aid in exchange for any kind of investigation, is that correct . Im sorry. I missed a key word. Could you repeat the question. Youre not aware of any connection between the pause in aid and exchange for some kind of investigation being announced or done by ukraine, is that right . Correct. Youre not aware of Secretary Pompeo having any knowledge of direct investigation and security aid, is that correct . Im not aware of that and he did not speak to me about that. Not aware of any nefarious motive to withhold aid to ukraine, is that correct . Correct, sir. In fact, you testified what you knew was President Trump was, one, skeptical of foreign assistance generally, mr. Ratcliffe highlighted that in his round of questioning, and, two, skeptical of Corruption Environment in ukraine, is that accurate. We had heard that, the general
impression at the State Department. The aid was eventually released to ukraine, is that correct, as well . I read that, sir. It was just a 55 day or less than two month pause in the actual hold on the aid, is that right, ambassador . Seems so, yes, correct. To your knowledge, as a Top Principal at the State Department, an investigation into the bidens, burisma, of the 2016 election never happened by the ukrainians, is that correct . I dont know that i have the ability to answer that question, having taken this job in august of 2018. Well, since youve take then job, how about that . To my knowledge, thats correct. Thank you. I yield back. Mr. Carson. Thank you, chairman. Mr. Cooper, ukraine is the first line of defense against russias aggression and expansion into
europe. Numerous witnesses testified that ukraine is in fact vulnerable to russian influence and control. At your deposition, sir, you testified providing Security Assistance is Quote Vital To Helping Ukrainians be able to defend themselves end quote. What do you mean by that, sir . That we have long Standing Policy Helping Ukraine become a resilient state to be able to defend itself. We want a reliable resilient economic partner who can stand up to russian intimidation and aggression. You testified at the time of russias 2014 attack russians were significantly less capable than it is today end quote. Would you say ukraine was outmatched by russias military in the port . I did not so testify. Miss cooper may miss cooper, would you like to comment . Im sorry. I do believe that was my deposition. Could you repeat the question briefly. During the time of russias 2014 attack the Ukrainian Armed forces were quote significantly less capable than it is today. Would you say the Ukrainian Forces were outmatched by russias military in critical ways . Absolutely. Are the Ukrainian Forces now selfsufficient in your mind, in their ability to deter russian aggression . No, sir. They have long way to go. Would you say the Ukrainian Armed forces are now completely selfsufficient, or how much of an impact does the u. S. Need to have in terms of that deterrence, and how critical is the relationship between both ukraine and the u. S. . Sir, the ukrainians are on the right path to be able to provide for their own security,
but they will still need u. S. And allied support for quite some time. They need that support in the form of no tangible assistance as well as political and diplomatic support. This question is to the both of you. Why was russias illegal Annexation Of Crimea so significant in your mind . Madam cooper . Russia violated the sovereignty of ukraines territory. Russia lilly annexed territory that belonged to ukraine. They also denied ukraine access to its naval fleet at the time, and to this day, rb russia is building capability in crimea to expand Russia Power Projection far beyond the immediate region. In 2014, were there concerns in washington, Here In Washington And European capitals russia might not stop in ukraine . I was not in my current position in 2014, but it is my understanding that there was significant fear about where russian aggression would stop. So, what about today . If the u. S. Were to withdraw its Military Support of ukraine, what would effectively happen . It is my belief that if we were to withdraw our support, it would embolden russia, it would also validate russias violation of international law. And which country stands to benefit the most . Would stand to benefit the most from such a withdrawal. Russia. Ambassador taylor testified about the importance of the u. S. Upholing the international
system. And it has underwritten peace in europe since the end of world war ii. A critical aspect of defending that system is ensuring russia cannot change its borders by military force. That is why there is strong bipartisan support providing ukraine with Security Assistance. That is why it is so incredibly destructive of the president of the United States to withhold this assistance as part of a scheme to pressure ukraine into investigating a debunked Conspiracy Theory and attack former Vice President biden. Mr. Chairman, i yield back. Thank you mr. Chairman and you both for being here. As an army surgeon i served proudly for two democratic president s myself. I want to go, miss cooper to page 3, i heard the president
directed the omb to withhold for concerns of ukraine. I served a year in iraq. It was important and i think its something the army always does, as i have seen, we dont want to deliver aid or assistance if its going to some corrupt or being delivered in some corrupt way, in other words, if were going to build a medical Treatment Facility for the iraqis, we want to make sure were not getting charged 10 times as much. We are concerned in general when were delivering funds through the dod, is that correct . Yes, sir. I think thats a normal thing to want to be concerned about. We would do that in iraq and especially if were providing payment for something. I just want to go through a few things with you because multiple witnesses have testified that the action to provide javelins
to ukraine by the Trump Administration demonstrate strong u. S. Support to ukraine. Ambassador yovanovitch in her deposition said President Trumps decision to provide lethal weapons to ukraine, our policy actually got stronger over the last three years. She also said in materials of lethal assistance, we all felt it was very significant that this Administration Made the decision to provide lethal weapons to ukraine. Ambassador taylor said its a substantial improvement in that this administration provided javin antitank weapons and the americans are willing to provide more than blankets. Ambassador volker testified providing lethal defensive arms to ukraine has been extremely helpful. Mr. Volker stated mres and blankets is fine but if youre being attacked with mortars and artilleries and tanks you need to be able to fight back. Secretary george kent stated javelins are incredibly advanced weapons to stop the russians advanced and russians are scared of them. And ambassador stated the decision to provide javelins we believe is counter to russian interests. Do you dispute what these witnesses have testified to, including ambassador yovanovitch, taylor, volker and others . Sir, i absolutely agree the Javelin System is an important capability and this was a very important decision to support ukraine with this capability. Thank you. You already testified youre personally proud of the Trump Administrations decision to arm ukraine with javelins, correct. That is correct, sir. One of the things on page 3 tonight, talking about a meeting july 26th. After that, you said, i was aware, the national Security Community expressed unanimous
support for resuming the funding in the u. S. National security interests, is that right . Thats correct, sir. I guess i take a little question with resuming because we dont want to resume as is, would that be correct . Because as is would not include javelin . Sir, im not sure im following. Im just saying, the Previous Administration, javelins were not provided, even though they could have been, president obama stopped the javelins. He could have delivered javelins, lets put it that way. I think i should clarify what i meant by that statement. Resuming was just referring to the fact omb had placed a hold on the assistance so we werent spending and i wanted to resume the spending so that we could maintain this policy, maintain the strength. Maintain the policy, but i guess what im asking, there is a difference, i think under
secretary hale you might i thought i saw you nodding, the difference being that as its resumed in this case, now, it included javelins, which the Obama Administration denied, is that correct . It is true the Trump Administration approved the release of defensive lethal assistance to include javelins, whereas the Previous Administration did not support that policy. Mr. Hale, do you have a comment on that . That seems correct. I defer to miss cooper. I think we canclude more than blankets and mres has been helping the ukrainians and lethal defensive weapons are something the Trump Administration has approved and its a benefit to all of us. Thank you. Miss speer. Thank you mr. Chairman and for being here this evening. The mystery surrounding the hold
on the aid in july, it appears, back in may, miss cooper, i believe you said there was aid that was conditioned, but you certified in may that the conditions had been met, and they included progress on command and control reform, commitment to pursue Defense Industry reform and past laws to enable government to procurement. Is that correct . Thats correct. Then, when you find out in july theyre concerned about corruption, youre scratching your head, were you not . Yes, maam. Do you know of any effort that was undertaken then to assess the corruption in ukraine, in june, july, august . Maam, as i believe i said in my deposition, the only specific
discussions that i am aware of related to that series of interagency meetings. The subpcc, we called it, the pcc, policy coordination committee, and deputy small group. In those meetings, participants did discuss the degree to which corruption was a concern, and the degree to which there was progress. My recollection of what the participants said in these meetings was that there was a very positive sense that progress was being made. So you have these meetings, progress is being made, nothing really changes from may until september that would then trigger the release of the money, except a whistleblower came forward. Maam, i do not know what triggered the release of the funding. All right. The fact that there was reference made to money being withheld for other countries was made by some of our colleagues, but in those situations, in countries like pakistan, lebanon, they are multiyear funding streams, correct . Maam, those accounts fall outside my purview and i cannot answer that question. Ive been told that that indeed this is case. Theres not the immediate angst or hit financially that would potentially accrue. The difference, as i see it, in ukraine, as compared to these other countries, is that ukraine is engaged in a hot war with russia right now. It seems that withholding that money was irresponsible, considering that they had made taken steps to meet all
the conditions we had requested of them, and congress had appropriate the funds, is that not the case . Maam, i and my dod colleagues advocated strenuously for the lease of these funds because of their National Security importance. Basically, the entire interests of the department of defense and State Department were consistently supportive of releasing the funds. Everyone was mystified as to why the funds had been withheld and everyones running around trying to get an answer and youre getting kind of obtuse responses, saying, it now what we see is that president zelensky gets elected in april. The expectation is that Vice President pence is going to attend the inauguration in september and then the president pulls the carpet out from under him in terms of him going and then he proceeds in june or july
to withhold the funds. There is a concerted effort by the president of the United States to to act in a manner that is not consistent with our interest in wanting to protect ukraine and help them deal with the russian aggression at its border. Would you agree with that . Maam, i have, you know, adhave kated for the Security Assistance, and i have advocated for highlevel engagement with the government of ukraine because i think both are in the National Security interest. I yield back. Mr. Stewart . Thank you, chairman. Under assistant secretary, thank you both for being here. You are both recognized as experts, dedicated Public Servants and i have to tell you, being the president of the
United States is perhaps the most complicated endeavor and no one could do it without you, to provide the backbone and thank you for that. I dont mean to repeat the same questions ad nauseam, but i think weve reached a point of nauseam some time yesterday. I do have questions based on some things you said previously and i want to add for clarification, theres a question about these emails that i think they claim describing withholding the aid comes from someone on capitol hill. Is that true . Sir, are you preferring to my Statement Today . I believe this is previou, a question weve had previous. Im sorry. I dont think i have enough information to make an assessment. Is it from a particular page in
deposition . There was communications with you by someone by the Foreign Affairs that there may have been communications with me . Emails with you. Sir, i am not aware. Okay. Thank you. For clarification, as well, someone may have asked you or from the Ukrainian Embassy about the withholding of aid. Is that true . Did you hear from them . Sir, i testified earlier that the communication from the Ukrainian Embassy was to my staff and my staff mentioned this to me after my deposition. The only specific communication that i recollect with the ukrainians about this specific issue was on, i believe, it was September 5th at a reception at the Ukrainian Embassy. Just to bore down on that, was that a query generally about the forthcoming aid or was it specific about them becoming
aware that the aid was being withheld . Sir, just to be clear, the September 5th conversation that i had was specific to the hold. There was an awareness of that, and there was a question of concern. Okay. Thank you. You know, miss cooper, to both of you, undersecretary hill, as well. At the end of the day, it really does, and ive done this before, and it does come down to this. The transcript im holding up is the transcript of the phone call between president zelensky and President Trump that i would hope every american would take the opportunity to read and its only a few pages long, and much more information beyond that is maybe helpful to inform, but it really comes down to those conversations and those few sentences. Mr. Hill, going quickly through a series of questions and i have your answers here so this wont take long, and youve answered them generally, you should evaluate whether the country is worthy of our aid, is that fair
to say . Yes, sir. You understand that President Trump has been skeptical of foreign aid and some of the money as well, is that so . I think so. Thats been fairly consistent. Hes done that since before he was elected. Ukraine has a long history, and weve talked about that about a thousand times. Do you think President Trump, i think that was the word, that he would test President Trump zelensky prior to providing some of the Security Assistance. President zelensky was new. Yes. Id met him in february. I was impressed by him, but it was understandable for the administration as a new president of ukraine was coming to office to understand better what that president s policies were and the attitude toward the United States. Weve had it referred to and the dod completed their review about the same time. This was someone that was elected and we knew nothing
about him. He didnt have a history of governance, and he came in like President Trump himself. He did not come from a public background that we would have much information on him, and it seems prudent, as you said to kind of test him and see if he was serious about ukraine. At some point im going to conclude, i believe it was about labor day the secretary was able to engage the president about Security Assistance, about the same time that you had some others, Vice President pence and bolton as well, as well as the Burden Sharing Review was completed and shortly after the aid was released. Is that your understanding . I was never informed as to why the assistance was released. I did read about it. Well, those events did happen and it seemed like they were the reason why the aid was released and thank you both, and i yield back. Thank you both for being here, and thank you for your service. Youve both been asked about the importance of this military
assistance as it affects ukrainian sovereignty and its important because of potential, greater ambitions by the russians. Let me try to put it in context and get your reactions from both of you from someone who had been there before and a Renowned InternationalPolicy Expert on such things bryzinski. Russia can be an empire or democracy, but it cannot be both. Without Ukraine Russia ceases to be an empire, but with ukraine subordinated russia automatically becomes an empire. Your thoughts of how this puts this into context today, please . Sir, i think that is a very powerful and accurate quote. I would agree. Miss cooper, you talked about emails that were drawn to your attention. They were sent to your staff, is that correct . The emails that i discussed this evening were emails sent to my staff, that is correct. Okay. I think first of all, its important to point things out and its not something that you were aware of and it points to a larger issue that the Defense Department and the State Department have refused to comply with a duly issued subpoena to provide with documents that would precisely shed light on the ukrainians as a whole and this isnt something that youre aware of and theres untold information out there being blocked that would draw Greater Light and help us understand. Is there anything else out there that youre aware of or the possibilities that are out there with dod or the State Department
which could help us shed light on what the ukrainians knew and when they knew it . Sir, i have shared with the committee all that i recollect and i have not done an exhaustive investigation so i cant speculate on what else might be available by combing through all of the Defense Department records which are substantial. Did the State Department or department of defense ask you for information or did they coordinate with you to get information you had . Sir, i was told not to destroy anything, and our i. T. Personnel have been collecting documents, is my understanding. So that that occurs without the individual having to they were collecting it and passing it on to state or dod, is that correct . Im sorry, sir, can you repeat that