Page:20191203 - full report hpsci impeachment inquiry - 20191203.pdf/74

 Mr. Morrison also testified that there was a discussion at the July 23 meeting about the legality of the hold, and specifically whether it is “actually legally permissible for the President to not allow for the disbursement of the funding.”$349$ Mr. Morrison recalled that DOD raised concerns about possible violations of the Impoundment Control Act.$350$ The Impoundment Control Act gives the President the authority to delay spending, or not spend, funds only if Congress is notified of those intentions and approves the proposed action (see below for further discussion of the act).$351$

With the exception of OMB, all agencies present at the July 23rd meeting advocated for the lifting of the hold.$352$ Ambassador Taylor explained that the State Department “made a strong statement about the importance of this assistance” and that Ms. Cooper, on behalf of DOD, “made a very strong case and continued to make a very strong case for the effectiveness” of the security assistance.$353$ Lt. Col. Vindman, who also attended the meeting, testified that there was agreement that the issue should be elevated to the Agency deputies “as quickly as possible to recommend a release of security assistance.”$354$

The third interagency meeting, a Deputies Small Group meeting at the Cabinet Deputies level, was held on July 26, 2019. Mr. Duffey was the OMB representative, and Mr. Sandy prepared Mr. Duffey for the meeting.$355$ Mr. Sandy explained that he prepared Mr. Duffey to get policy guidance on six critical issues: (1) the reason for the hold; (2) the extent of the hold; (3) the duration of the hold; (4) the Congressional affairs approach; (5) the public affairs approach; and (6) and the diplomatic approach.$356$ Mr. Sandy testified that on July 26, OMB still did not have an understanding of the reason for the hold.$357$ According to Mr. Sandy, at that time, there was no discussion within OMB about the amount of money that was being contributed to Ukraine by other countries, or whether that topic was the reason for the President’s hold.$358$

Mr. Morrison, Lt. Col. Vindman, Ms. Cooper, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs David Hale, and Mr. Duffey attended the July 26 meeting. At the meeting, OMB stated that “they had guidance from the President and from Acting Chief of Staff Mulvaney to freeze the assistance.”$359$ It also was “stated very clearly” that the hold applied to both the State Department and Defense Department security assistance funds.$360$ Ambassador Hale, as the representative for the Department of State, “advocated strongly for resuming the assistance,” as did representatives from all agencies other than OMB.$361$

Mr. Morrison testified that, at the meeting, “OMB represented thatand the Chief of Staff’s Office was presentthat the President was concerned about corruption in Ukraine, and he wanted to make sure that Ukraine was doing enough to manage that corruption.”$362$ Ms. Cooper had a similar recollection but received no further understanding of what OMB meant by “corruption.”$363$ Ms. Cooper recalled that the deputies did not consider corruption to be a legitimate reason for the hold because they unanimously agreed that Ukraine was making sufficient progress on anti-corruption reforms, as had been certified by DOD on May 23.$364$

Prior to the passage of the Impoundment Control Act, presidents had frequently impoundedi.e., refused to spendCongressionally-appropriated funds to enforce their policy