Page:20191203 - full report hpsci impeachment inquiry - 20191203.pdf/79

 After the July 31 interagency meeting at which Ms. Cooper announced that DOD would have to start obligating the funds on or about August 6, Mr. Duffey sought clarification.$409$ Ms. Cooper explained to Mr. Duffey that at a certain point DOD would not have sufficient time to fully obligate the funds before they expired at the end of the fiscal year. In response, Mr. Duffey “wanted more information on the precise nature of how long does it take to obligate, and how many cases, and that sort of thing.”$410$ Ms. Cooper referred Mr. Duffey to the DOD comptroller and to the Defense Security Cooperation Agency.$411$ During the month of August, Mr. Duffey and Ms. McCusker communicated about the implementation of the hold on the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative funds.$412$

On August 6 and August 15, Mr. Duffey approved two more funding documents that contained footnotes with language nearly identical to the footnote in the July 25 funding document that initiated the hold; the only difference was that the date funds would become available for spending was changed from August 5 to August 12.$413$

The August 6 and 15 footnotes, and all subsequent footnotes through September 10, continued to state that the hold was in place “to allow for an interagency process to determine the best use of such funds,” even though the final interagency meeting regarding Ukraine security assistance occurred on July 31.$414$ Not only was there no active interagency process after July, but Ms. Cooper also was not aware of any review of the funding conducted by DOD in July, August, or September.$415$ In fact, Ms. Cooper noted that months before, DOD had completed its review of whether Ukraine “had made sufficient progress in meeting defense reform and anticorruption goals consistent with the NDAA,” and certified to Congress in May 2019 that Ukraine had met the requirements to receive funding.$416$ Similarly, Mr. Kent testified that the State Department did not conduct, and was never asked to conduct, a review of the security assistance funding administered by the State Department.$417$

At the same time that OMB was implementing the President’s hold through the funding footnotes, officials inside OMB were advocating for release of the funds. On August 7, the National Security Division, International Affairs Division, and Office of Legal Counsel of OMB drafted and transmitted a memo on Ukraine security assistance to OMB Acting Director Vought “in anticipation of a principals-level discussion to address the topic.”$418$ The National Security Division’s portion of the memorandum recommended to remove the hold because (1) the assistance was consistent with the national security strategy in terms of supporting a stable, peaceful Europe; (2) the aid countered Russian aggression; and (3) there was bipartisan support for the program.$419$ Mr. Duffey approved the memorandum and agreed with the policy recommendation.$420$

Sometime in mid-August, DOD raised concerns that it might not be able to fully obligate the Defense Department administered funds before the end of the fiscal year.$421$ Ms. Cooper testified that the Defense Security Cooperation Agency estimated that $100 million of aid might not be obligated in time and was at risk.$422$

Because of this, DOD concluded that it could no longer support OMB’s claim in the footnote that “this brief pause in obligations will not preclude DOD’s timely execution of the