Page:20191203 - full report hpsci impeachment inquiry - 20191203.pdf/78

 :Well, that gets to the heart of that issue about ensuring that we don’t run afoul of the Impoundment Control Act, which means that you have to allow for the timely execution. And this reflects my conversation withconversations plural with Elaine McCusker that they can confirm that, during this brief period, they would not foresee any problem fully executing the program by the end of the fiscal year.$395$

The sentence, in effect, affirmed that if the hold remained in place only until August 5, DOD would still have sufficient time to spend all security assistance funds by September 30, 2019. President Trump, however, would continue the hold long past August 5.

Since becoming Deputy Associate Director for National Security in 2013, Mr. Sandy was responsible for approving release of the funding for programs within his portfolio, including the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative.$396$ Mr. Sandy approved and signed the July 25 funding document.$397$ On July 29, however, Mr. Duffeya political appointee of President Trump whose prior position had been as Executive Director of the Republican Party of Wisconsintold Mr. Sandya career civil servant with decades of experience in this areathat he would no longer be responsible for approving the release of funding for Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative.$398$ Mr. Duffey also revoked the authority for approving the release of funding for Foreign Military Financing from Mr. Sandy’s colleague at OMB.$399$ Instead, Mr. Duffey would himself assume authority for the $250 million in DOD-administered Ukraine security assistance and authority for approving the release of funding for the $141 million in State Department-administered Foreign Military Financing to Ukraine.$400$

Mr. Duffey did not tell Mr. Sandy whether he requested this change in authority but did say that “it was in essence a joint decision reflecting both guidance from the Acting Director and also his support.”$401$ Over the course of several days, Mr. Duffey explained to Mr. Sandy and others in the National Security Division that “there was interest among the leadership in tracking the uses of moneys [sic] closely.”$402$ Mr. Duffey expressed an “interest in being more involved in daily operations” and “regarded this responsibility as a way for him to learn more about specific accounts within his area.”$403$

Mr. Sandy testified that prior to July 29, he had never heard Mr. Duffey state any interest in approving the release of funding.$404$ Furthermore, when they learned that Mr. Duffey was taking on this new responsibility, Mr. Sandy and other staff relayed their concerns to Mr. Duffey that it was a substantial workload.$405$ Mr. Sandy also testified that “people were curious what he thought he would learn from apportionments about the accounts as opposed to the other, you know, sources of information.”$406$ Mr. Sandy agreed that there are more efficient ways of learning about accounts and programs, and that “I can think of other waysother materials that I personally would find more informative.”$407$

Mr. Sandy was not aware of any prior instance when a political appointee assumed this kind of funding approval authority.$408$