1 UNCLASSIFIED 1 2 3 4 5 6 PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, 7 joint with the 8 COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM 9 and the 10 COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, 11 U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 12 WASHINGTON, D.C. 13 14 15 DEPOSITION OF: MARK SANDY 16 17 18 19 Saturday, November 16, 2019 20 Washington, D.C. 21 22 23 24 25 The deposition in the above matter was held in Room HVC-304, Capitol Visitor Center, commencing at 10:08 a.m. Present: Representatives Swalwell, Heck, and Wenstrup. UNCLASSIFIED 2 UNCLASSIFIED 1 2 Also Present: Representatives Costa, DeSaulnier, Maloney, Norton, Raskin, Jordan, Meadows, and Zeldin. UNCLASSIFIED 3 UNCLASSIFIED 1 Appearances: 2 3 4 For the PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE: 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 For the COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM: 20 21 22 23 UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED 1 For the COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 For MARK SANDY: 11 12 BARBARA VAN GELDER 13 ALLEGRA KAUFFMAN 14 KAREN D. WILLIAMS 15 COZEN O'CONNOR 16 1200 Nineteenth Street NW 17 Washington, D.C. 20036 UNCLASSIFIED 4 5 UNCLASSIFIED 1 MR. SWALWELL: Good morning, Mr. Sandy, counsel, and colleagues, 2 and welcome to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, 3 which, along with the Foreign Affairs and Oversight Committees, is 4 conducting this investigation as a part of the official impeachment 5 inquiry of the House of Representatives. 6 Today' s deposition is being conducted as a part of the impeachment 7 inquiry. In light of attempts by the Office of Management and Budget 8 and the administration to direct you to not cooperate with the inquiry, 9 the committee had no choice but to compel your appearance. We thank 10 you for complying with the duly authorized congressional subpoena, as 11 other current and former officials from across the Federal Government 12 have done. 13 Mr. Sandy is currently the Deputy Associate Director for National 14 Security Programs at the Office of Management and Budget, a position 15 that he has held since 2013. 16 in 2017 until a new OMB Director was confirmed. 17 He was also the Acting Director of OMB His over two decades of public service have included roles as the 18 managing director of the Millennium Challenge Corporation, an 19 independent U.S foreign assistance agency established by Congress in 20 2004 with strong bipartisan support, and staffing three White Houses 21 of both Democratic and Republican Presidents. 22 over 21 years in the Navy Reserve, under 11 Secretaries and Acting 23 Secretaries of Defense. 24 25 Mr. Sandy also served Mr. Sandy, thank you again for your service. We look forward to your testimony today, including your knowledge of and involvement in UNCLASSIFIED 6 UNCLASSIFIED 1 key policy discussions, meetings, and decisions on Ukraine that relate 2 directly to areas under investigation by the committees . 3 Today, we will be primarily focusing on the administration's 4 placement of a hold on Ukrainian security assistance in the summer of 5 this year through the lifting of the hold on September 11. 6 also have question about OMB's response to the impeachment inquiry, 7 including the committee's subpoena which OMB continues to defy despite 8 the fact that we know that it has already collected significant 9 documentary evidence that goes to the heart of our inquiry. We will 10 Finally, to restate what our chairman and others have emphasized 11 in these interviews, Congress will not tolerate any reprisal, threat 12 of reprisal, or any attempt to retaliate against any U.S. Government 13 official for testifying before Congress, including you or any of your 14 colleagues. 15 It is disturbing that the Office of Management and Budget, in 16 coordination with the White House, has sought to prohibit its employees 17 from cooperating with the inquiry and with Congress and have tried to 18 limit what they can say. 19 We find this unacceptable. Thankfully, consummate public servants like you have 20 demonstrated remarkable courage in coming forward to testify and to 21 tell the truth. 22 Before I turn to committee counsel to begin the interview, I 23 invite the ranking member or, in the absence of a ranking member, any 24 member of the Foreign Affairs or Oversight Committee to make an opening 25 remark. UNCLASSIFIED 7 UNCLASSIFIED 1 Mr. Jordan? 2 MR. JORDAN: 3 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to welcome Mr. Sandy. 4 And, again, thank you for your service to the country. 5 MR. SWALWELL: 6 MS. VAN GELDER: 7 MR. MITCHELL: 8 9 10 Mr. Mitchell? He would just like to say two sentences. Well, I am going to go over the preamble first, and then he can have any opening remarks he wishes. MS. VAN GELDER: MR . MITCHELL: Thank you. This is the deposition of Mark Sandy conducted by 11 the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, or HPSCI, 12 pursuant to the impeachment inquiry announced by the Speaker of the 13 House on September 24th. 14 Mr. Sandy, please state your full name and spell your last name 15 for the record. 16 MR. SANDY: 17 MR. MITCHELL: Mark Steven Sandy, S-a-n-d-y. Along with other proceedings in furtherance of the 18 inquiry to date, this deposition is part of a joint investigation led 19 by the Intelligence Committee in coordination with the Committees on 20 Foreign Affairs and Oversight and Reform. 21 In the room today are majority staff and minority staff from all 22 three committees, and this will be a staff-led deposition. 23 of course may ask questions during their allotted time, as has been 24 the case in every deposition since the inception of this investigation. 25 My name is Nicolas Mitchell, senior investigative counsel for UNCLASSIFIED Members 8 UNCLASSIFIED 1 HPSCI. I want to thank you for coming in today to this deposition. I'd like to do brief introductions. 2 To my right is Daniel 3 Goldman} director of investigations for the HPSCI majority staff. 4 Mr. Goldman and I will be conducting most of the interview for the s majority. 6 7 I will let my counterparts from the minority introduce themselves. MR. CASTOR: 8 9 Good morning. Steve Castor with the Republican staff of the Oversight Committee and HPSCI. 10 11 12 13 14 - MR. MITCHELL: This deposition will be conducted entirely at the 15 unclassified level. 16 HPSCI's secure spaces and in the presence of staff with appropriate 17 security clearances. 18 security clearances? 19 MS. VAN GELDER: 20 MR. MITCHELL: 21 Nevertheless, it's the committees' expectation that neither 22 questions asked of you nor answers provided by you will require a 23 discussion of any information that is currently or at any point could 24 be properly classified under Executive Order 13526. 25 However, the deposition is being conducted in We understand that your attorneys also have No. No. You're reminded that E.O. 13526 states that in no case shall UNCLASSIFIED 9 UNCLASSIFIED 1 information be classified, continue to be maintained as classified, 2 or fail to be declassified for the purpose of concealing any violations 3 of law or preventing embarrassment of any person or entity. 4 If any of our questions can only be answered with classified 5 information, please inform us of that and we will adjust accordingly. 6 Today's deposition is not being taken in executive session, but 7 because of the sensitive and confidential nature of some of the topics 8 and materials that will be discussed, access to the transcript of the 9 deposition will be limited to the three committees in attendance. 10 Under the House deposition rules, no Member of Congress nor any 11 staff member can discuss the substance of the testimony you provide 12 today. 13 14 15 You and your attorney will have an opportunity to review the transcript. Before we begin, I would like to go over the ground rules for this 16 deposition. 17 depositions, which we have previously provided to your counsel. 18 We will be following the House regulations for The deposition will proceed as follows. The majority will be 19 given 1 hour to ask questions; then the minority will be given 1 hour 20 to ask questions. 21 majority and minority in 45-minute rounds until questioning is 22 complete. 23 any time, do let us know. 24 25 Thereafter, we will alternate back and forth between We will take periodic breaks, but if you need a break at Under the House deposition rules, counsel for other persons or government agencies may not attend. You are permitted to have an UNCLASSIFIED 10 UNCLASSIFIED 1 attorney present during the deposition, and I see you have brought some. 2 At this time, if counsel could please state their appearance for 3 the record. 4 MS. VAN GELDER: 5 MS. WILLIAMS: Karen Williams, Cozen O'Connor. 6 MS . KAUFFMAN: Allegra Kauffman, Cozen O'Connor . 7 MS . VAN GELDER: 8 MR . MITCHELL: 9 Barbara Van Gelder, Cozen O'Connor. Training session. There is a stenographer taking down everything that is said here today in order to make a written record of the 10 deposition. 11 question is completed before you begin your answer and we will wait 12 until you finish your response before asking the next question. 13 For the record to be clear, please wait until each The stenographer cannot record nonverbal answers such as shaking 14 your head, so it's important that you answer each question with an 15 audible verbal answer. 16 We ask that you give complete replies to questions based on your 17 best recollection . 18 your response, please let us know. 19 to a question or cannot remember, simply say so. 20 If a question is unclear or you are uncertain in And if you do not know the answer You may only refuse to answer a question to preserve a privilege 21 recognized by the committee. If you refuse to answer a question on 22 the basis on privilege, staff may either proceed with the deposition 23 or seek a ruling from the chairman on the objection. 24 overrules any such objection, you're required to answer the question. 25 Finally, you're reminded that it is under lawful to deliberately UNCLASSIFIED If the chair 11 UNCLASSIFIED 1 provide false information to Members of Congress or staff. 2 imperative that you not only answer our questions truthfully but that 3 you give full and complete answers to all questions asked of you. 4 Omissions may also be considered as false statements. 5 6 As this deposition is under oath, Mr. Sandy, would you please stand and raise your right hand to be sworn? 7 8 9 10 11 It is Do you swear that your testimony provided here today will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth? MR . SANDY: I do. MR. MITCHELL: Let the record reflect that the witness has been sworn. 12 You may be seated. 13 Mr. Sandy, if you have an opening statement or your attorney has 14 any matters to discuss, now would be the time. 15 MR. SANDY : Thank you. 16 Ladies and gentleman, I am here today as a fact witness and as 17 a nonpartisan civil servant and military veteran who proudly serves 18 the Executive Office of the President across administrations. 19 not here to advocate for any outcome but simply to honor the oath we 20 all share. I am 21 Thank you. 22 MR. SWALWELL: All right. Mr. Mitchell? 23 MR. MITCHELL: Thank you. We will now begin our 1-hour first 24 25 round. BY MR. MITCHELL: UNCLASSIFIED 12 UNCLASSIFIED 1 Q SoJ Mr. SandyJ what's your current title? 2 A Deputy Associate Director for National Security at the 3 Office of Management and Budget. 4 Q Okay. 5 A Since December of 2013. 6 Q And when did you start working for OMB? 7 A Initially) I began in 1993. 8 9 10 And how long have you had that title? then returned in 2011. Q So I take it that you are a career civil servantJ not a political appointee) in your current post. 11 A YesJ sir. 12 Q Okay. 13 14 I worked there until 1997 and Is that correct? Can you just generally describe the organizational structure of your particular division or group at OMB? A Certainly. I lead the National Security Division) which 15 includes four branches. And we have responsibility for overseeing the 16 budget and programs of the Department of DefenseJ the National Nuclear 17 Security Administration) the Intelligence Community) and the 18 Department of Veterans Affairs principally) as well as a few small 19 agencies. 20 Q Okay. 21 A The Associate Director) who leads the so-called Resource 22 And what is above the National Security Division? Management Organization) or RMO. 23 Q And who is that? 24 A Mr. Michael Duffey. 25 Q And is that your immediate supervisor? UNCLASSIFIED 13 UNCLASSIFIED 1 A Yes. 2 Q Okay. 3 4 5 6 And how many people do you have working below you in the National Security Division? A Approximately 35 when we are fully staffed, give or take a few detailees. Q Okay. And just generally, without going into too much 7 detail, can you just describe your duties and responsibilities in your 8 current position? 9 A In my position, I lead the division. The division, overall, 10 is responsible for overseeing the agencies and departments that I 11 mentioned, in terms of their budgets and programs and policy priorities 12 of the administration. 13 14 Q Okay. And before I forget, Mr. Duffey, who's your supervisor, is he a career civil servant or is he a political appointee? 15 A Political. 16 Q Okay. 17 In your current role, have you ever had any responsibilities with regard to apportionments? 18 A Yes. 19 Q And are you familiar with the term II apportionment official II? 20 A We don't use that term very often, but -- if you mean the 21 22 individual who is responsible for approving apportionments? Q Yes, okay. Were you an apportionment -- did you have the 23 responsibility of approving apportionments at any given time during 24 this current role? 25 A Yes, I did. UNCLASSIFIED 14 UNCLASSIFIED 1 Q Okay. Generally, what is an apportionment? 2 A An apportionment is a legal document, consistent with 3 provisions in Title XXXI of U.S. Code, which basically sets parameters 4 on agencies' use of appropriated funds. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Q So, once funds are appropriated by Congress, is an apportionment required for those funds to be spent? A Yes . With very few exceptions, for nearly all accounts, an apportionment is required. Q And, just generally, what does an apportionment look like? It's a physical document, presumably? A Well, when printed -- most of our work is now electronic, 12 of course, but when printed, it would have basically columns of 13 information about budgetary sources and then the application or uses 14 of those sources, as well as a number of accompanying -- if you look 15 at it as a spreadsheet, you would have accompanying tabs with footnotes, 16 for example, a signature block, et cetera. 17 Q Okay. And, again, during this current role, there was a time 18 where you were responsible for signing apportionments. 19 correct? Is that 20 A For approving them, yes. 21 Q Approving them and physically signing them? 22 A The signature is automatically loaded into the system, so 23 24 25 it will appear on any apportionment that I approved. Q Okay. Can you just generally describe the process for reviewing and approving apportionments? UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED 1 A The agency typically submits a request, which comes into us 2 electronically. 3 will have a separate column for OMB action. 4 15 It would have an agency request column, and then it The examiner-- and that's the staff level at OMB --would first 5 review that apportionment request, go back to the agency with any 6 questions, and then, when he or she had completed their review, would 7 route that forward to a branch chief, who would conduct a review and 8 then route it forward to the approving official. 9 10 Q Okay. And the examiner and branch chief, are those among the 35 individuals that you oversee? 11 A Correct. 12 Q And when you said the approving official, here we're talking 13 about you, correct? 14 A Previously, yes. 15 Q Okay. 16 And you indicated that the examiner, he or she, might consult with the agencies that are submitting the request? 17 A Certainly. 18 Q Okay. 19 20 Can you just generally describe the nature of those conversations, how that back-and-forth would work? A Well, the examiners have contacts at their respective 21 agencies. And so, if they had questions or concerns about the 22 requested allocation of funds -- so, for example, a common allocation 23 would be an allocation across the four quarters of the fiscal year. 24 And if an examiner was concerned about ensuring that enough resources 25 were left for, say, the fourth quarter, the examiner may ask how the UNCLASSIFIED r------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------UNCLASSIFIED 1 agency came up with the allocations that it's requesting. Q 2 3 A And would those communications between the examiner It really depends. There could be email que stions and answers, or it could simply be a phone call. Q 6 7 Okay. and the agency typically be documented in one form or another? 4 5 16 Okay. And then you indicated that the examiner would then provide some sort of report or recommendation to the branch chief? 8 A Correct. 9 Q And what form would that take? 10 A That would be an electronic note with whateve r information 11 the examiner deemed relevant that would be routed forward in our online 12 system. 13 Q What's the name of your online system? 14 A MAX. 15 Q Do the examiners communicate with branch chief s about their 16 review solely through MAX, or could it also be done through email as 17 well? 18 19 20 21 22 23 A It could also be done via email, but MAX auto-generates emails to alert people that information is awaiting their action. Q Okay. So if an examiner had any concerns about a particular request by an agency, would those be reflected in the MAX system? A They could be. It depends on how the exami ner chooses to communicate that information. 24 Q Well, where else could it be? 25 A It could also be in an email or in a conver sation. UNCLASSIFIED 17 UNCLASSIFIED 1 Q Okay. Once the branch chief receives, either through email, 2 the MAX system, or some sort of oral communication, an examiner's report 3 or concerns, what does the branch chief do next? 4 A The branch chief has responsibility for reviewing the 5 apportionment, a second review and, again, if the branch chief has 6 questions, going back to the examiner, or if he or she supports the 7 apportionment, routing it forward. 8 9 10 11 12 13 Q Okay. So it's an iterative process between a branch chief and the examiner, or it can be? A It can be. The branch chief has authority, for example, to basically send an apportionment back to an examiner or route it forward . Q Okay. And then, once the branch chief -- or how does the branch chief go about routing it forward? 14 A That, again, would be within the electronic MAX system. 15 Q Okay. 16 A Again, if the branch chief wanted to communicate additional Also through email as well, possibly? 17 information, email is an option, but the system auto-generates emails 18 to the approving 19 Q 20 that role -- 21 A Yes. 22 Q -- would you see the recommendations of the branch chief as 23 Okay. official~ So you, as the approving official, when you did have well as the comments or recommendations of the lower-level examiners? 24 A Yes. 25 Q Okay. Did you typically accept the recommendations of your UNCLASSIFIED 18 UNCLASSIFIED 1 2 3 4 5 staff with regard to whether to approve an apportionment or not? A Generally. The vast majority of apportionments are quite routine. Q Okay. Can you recall an instance when you disagreed with your staff's recommendations? 6 A Yes. 7 Q Okay. Without getting into specifics, necessarily, can you 8 just generally describe the circumstances under which you would 9 disagree or have questions about what was presented to you? 10 A Well, one key example is, if you have an apportionment, you 11 cannot change the allocations for a previous quarter. 12 in the second quarter of a fiscal year and the agency s ubmits a request 13 and it changes the allocation for the first quarter, you can't do that. 14 So if the examiner or the branch chief didn't catch tha t error, I would 15 just catch the error and have it corrected. 16 17 18 19 20 Q Okay. All right. So if you're And was that sort of thing a frequent occurrence? A No. Generally, by the time it reached the third level of review, those sorts of issues have been resolved. Q It sounds like what you're describing is kind of more of a 21 technical issue that was mere oversight, not a larger issue that 22 required further consultation with any other entity within OMB. 23 that generally accurate? 24 A Generally, that's the case, yes. 25 Q Okay. UNCLASSIFIED Is 19 UNCLASSIFIED 1 What is OMS's Budget Review Division? 2 A The Budget Review Division coordinates exercises across the 3 entire agency, particularly with respect to the development of the 4 annual President's budget, but it also runs number of drills to collect 5 information, often at the behest of policy officials. 6 experts in many of our circulars 7 Q Okay. It also has for example, Circular A-11. To your knowledge, have you or branch chiefs or any 8 examiners ever consulted with OMS's Budget Review Division about 9 particular apportionments just to seek advice? 10 A Absolutely. 11 Q Okay. And when you were responsible for reviewing and 12 approving apportionments, how often would you receive an apportionment 13 to approve? 14 A I received hundreds every year. And they came in large 15 tranches, depending upon, for example, when we had a new appropriation. 16 You could always expect heavy volume at the end of the fiscal year and 17 at the beginning of a fiscal year or around key events such as the 18 enactment of appropriations or a continuing resolution. 19 Q Okay. And when you received these apportionments, is it 20 fair to say that -- well, tell me. 21 you would simply sign them? 22 and potentially have discussions with branch chief, examiners, and 23 others about the apportionments, if appropriate? 24 25 A Was it a matter of routine that Or would you carefully scrutinize them I'd certainly have discussions if I had questions or they had flagged anything we needed to discuss. UNCLASSIFIED But the vast majority of 20 UNCLASSIFIED 1 these are quite routine, particularly if you've done this -- you've 2 seen them before. Okay. 3 Q 4 All right. So today we ' re going to focus on two different types 5 of security assistance, specifically to Ukraine. The first is the DOD 6 Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, USAI, and then the second is 7 the State - administered foreign military financing. 8 Can you just generally describe and compare USAI versus FMF? 9 I'm also going to ask you what your experience is with respect to both. 10 A Okay. Let me say at the start that FMF is not within the 11 purview of my division. 12 handled by our counterpart division, the International Affairs 13 Division. 14 And So I will not speak to that, because that is But I'm glad to speak to USAI. USAI, as appropriated in the defense appropriations bill and as 15 authorized in the National Defense Authorization Act, broadly is 16 designed to provide training, equipment, and other forms of assistance 17 to Ukraine. 18 $250 million. 19 Q I know in fiscal year 2019 there was an appropriation for Okay . I understand that your current role does not involve 20 FMF, but at any point during your career did you have any exposure to 21 FMF issues? 22 23 A I previously worked in the International Affairs Division, but FMF was not handled by my branch. 24 Q 25 So you mentioned the $250 million in USAI funds for 2019. Okay. All right. UNCLASSIFIED Are 21 UNCLASSIFIED 1 you generally aware of the congressional notifications that went out 2 with regard to this $250 million in 2019? 3 A Yes. 4 Q So the first notification was around March 5th. 5 6 Is that correct? A I recall the month of March. 7 [Majority Exhibit No. 1 8 was marked for identification.] BY MR. MITCHELL: 9 I'm going to hand you exhibit No. 1. Do you recognize what 10 Q 11 this is, sir? 12 A Yes. 13 Q And what is it? 14 A It looks to be a congressional notification consistent with 15 the statutory requirements vis-a-vis USA!. 16 Q 17 that correct? 18 A Correct. 19 Q Were you all 20 MS. VAN GELDER: 21 Have you ever seen this before? 22 MR. SANDY: 23 Is Excuse me. I have not seen the actual document. I'm just recognizing it based upon doing a quick scan. 24 25 And this was for the first tranche of USA! aid in 2019. BY MR. MITCHELL: Q Okay, but you're familiar with the fact that there was a UNCLASSIFIED 22 UNCLASSIFIED 1 congressional notification for two different tranches of aid in 2019 2 related to USA!? 3 A Yes. 4 Q Okay. 5 And exhibit No. 1 is the first tranche. understanding? 6 A Yes, that's my understanding. 7 Q Okay. 8 9 Have you seen the congressional notification for the second tranche? A I have not. 10 [Majority Exhibit No. 2 11 was marked for identification.] 12 13 14 Is that your BY MR. MITCHELL: Q Okay. Well, just so the record is complete, I'm handing you exhibit No. 2. 15 A Thank you. 16 Q And what's the date of this particular document? 17 There should be two dates up at the top. 18 A I see the dates stamped as May 23rd and May 28th. 19 Q Okay. And it's your understanding that there was a second 20 congressional notification, which was in the May time period, for the 21 second tranche of USA! funds. 22 A Yes. 23 Q Okay. 24 25 Is that right? Are you aware of, generally, the interagency process that led up to these two CNs? A I don't participate in the interagency process, so I don't UNCLASSIFIED 23 UNCLASSIFIED 1 have detailed knowledge. Q 2 Okay. But are you aware of any concerns that were raised 3 either during the interagency process or during your time at OMB during 4 the spring of 2819 that led up to either of these congressional 5 notifications regarding the CNs for the first and second tranche of 6 USA!? 7 A I was not aware of anything prior to the notifications. 8 Q To the best of your recollection, did OMB issue any 9 10 apportionments for USA! funds between March, which was the first CN, and mid-June of 2819? A 11 The USA! funds are actually included in a larger account. 12 That account is the Defense-wide operation and maintenance account. 13 So we would have issued apportionments for that account earlier in the 14 fiscal year. 15 Q Okay. And do you know -- so can you distinguish between USA! 16 funds that would ve been included in an apportionment versus the larger 17 funds that were in that account, or are they all commingled? I 18 A . They were commingled. 19 Q 20 When did you first learn that security assistance funds related 21 Okay. to Ukraine were being withheld or might be withheld? 22 A I m just consulting my calendar . I I was on leave through July 23 17th. I returned to the office on July 18th . 24 shortly after my return, so I would say it was either July 18th or July 25 19th. UNCLASSIFIED And I learned of that UNCLASSIFIED 1 MS. VAN GELDER: 24 And I'd just like the record to reflect, this 2 is a blank calendar, just for his -- when he says "my calendar," it's 3 not his actual office calendar. BY MR. MITCHELL: 4 5 Q Okay. When did you go on leave? 6 A I was out of the office starting on Monday, July 8th. 7 Q So you did not hear anything about Ukraine security 8 assistance possibly being on hold at any time during the month of June 9 or during that first week of July? 10 A No. 11 Q Did you hear of any questions that were being raised by OMB 12 about Ukraine security assistance at the end of June or the beginning 13 of July? 14 A Yes. 15 Q Can you describe what you heard? 16 A I heard that the President had seen a media report and he 17 18 had questions about the assistance. [Discussion off the record.] BY MR. MITCHELL: 19 20 21 Q When did you hear that the President had seen a media report and had questions about the assistance? 22 A On June 19th. 23 Q Do you know what media report that was? 24 A I don't recall the specific article. 25 Q Who told you that the President had these concerns or these UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED 1 25 questions? 2 A Mike Duffey. 3 Q And that was the conversation that you had with Mr . Duffey 4 on June 19th? 5 A I believe it was an email. 6 Q Okay. 7 A The email expressed an interest in getting more information 8 Can you describe what that email said? from the Department of Defense. 9 Q And what kind of additional information? 10 A A description of the program. 11 Q What exactly did Mr. Duffey sayJ to the best of your 12 13 14 recollectionJ in that email? A That the President had questions about the press report and that he was seeking additional information. 15 Q Anything else in that email? 16 A Not that I recall. 17 Q Did you have a conversation with Mr. Duffey about this 18 request? 19 A I only recall the email. 20 Q Okay. 21 22 23 Did you have a conversation with anyone else following this email from Mr. Duffey? A The email was directed to the Department of DefenseJ and I received information the following day. 24 Q Okay. So you were copied on this email? 25 A Correct. UNCLASSIFIED 26 UNCLASSIFIED 1 Q Okay. 2 A As I recall) Ms. Elaine McCusker. 3 Q And who was she? 4 MS. VAN GELDER: 5 6 And who did Mr. Duffey send the email to at DOD? Do you want to spell that last name for the reporter? MR. SANDY: Sure. M-c-c-u-s-k-e-r. BY MR. MITCHELL: 7 8 Q And who was she? 9 A Deputy Comptroller. 10 Q Okay. 11 Is that someone that you communicate with as part of your normal course of business? 12 A Yes. 13 Q Did you have any conversations with Ms. McCusker following 14 this request by Mike Duffey? 15 A She provided me with a hard-copy summary the following day. 16 Q And when you say she provided you with a hard copyJ she 17 physically gave you a hard copy? 18 A She didJ because she was attending a meeting at OMB. 19 Q Okay. 20 Did she ever send you any electronic communication as well in response to Mike Duffey's email? 21 A I only recall the hard copy. 22 Q Okay. 23 A It was an overview of USAI. 24 Q Had you seen this overview before? 25 And what was that hard copy? document? UNCLASSIFIED Was it a precooked 27 UNCLASSIFIED 1 A I hadn't seen it before, so I can't speak to its origin. 2 Q Okay. 3 And what did you do with this hard-copy document that Ms. McCusker gave you? 4 A We shared it with Mike Duffey. 5 Q Who's "we"? 6 A Sorry. 7 Q Okay. 8 9 10 11 12 When I say "we," I generally refer to NSD staff. And how did you share it with him? Did you physically give it to him, or did you scan it and email it to him? A I recall he was out of the office that day, so I don't recall exactly how it was shared. Q Okay. Did you eventually have a conversation with Mr. Duffey about the information that Ms. McCusker gave you? 13 A I don't recall a specific conversation on that. 14 Q What about email exchanges? 15 A Not that I recall. 16 Q Did Mr. Duffey come back to you with any additional 17 questions? 18 A He came back to members of my staff. 19 Q Okay. 20 A He had a number of followup questions related to the program . 21 Q And what were those? 22 A And I don't recall all the specifics, but more information 23 Can you describe what you know about that? on the financial resources associated with the program, in particular. 24 Q I don't -- what does that mean? 25 A Oh, sorry. It would be in terms of the history of the UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED 1 appropriations, any more details about the intent of the program. 2 Q And was that information provided to Mr. Duffey? 3 A Yes. 4 Q And how? 5 A So one of my staff members provided that information 6 28 electronically. 7 Q Were you copied on those emails? 8 A Yes. 9 Q Okay. 10 Are you aware that OMB has received a subpoena from Congress for 11 documents related to some of the topics that you've already discussed 12 here today? 13 A Yes. 14 Q Have you undertaken any sort of efforts to gather documents 15 16 17 18 19 that might be relevant to the subpoena? A Those efforts within OMB are led by our Office of the General Counsel. Q Have you personally gone through any of your emails or other records to find documents that might be responsive to the subpoena? 20 A 21 [Discussion off the record.] 22 MR. SANDY: 23 My understanding from counsel is that they -- I have not undertaken that in response to such a request. 24 [Discussion off the record.] 25 MR. SANDY: Sorry. I just want to explain that when OMB decides UNCLASSIFIED 29 UNCLASSIFIED 1 to collect information electronicallyJ it is done centrally. 2 3 4 BY MR. MITCHELL: Q Okay. Is it possible that you also -- wellJ have you seen the subpoena that was issued? 5 A I have seen the subpoena 6 Q Okay. 7 A -- yes. 8 Q And so you're generally aware of the information that the 9 committees are seeking. 10 A Yes. 11 Q Okay. 12 A Some notes. 13 information. 14 Q 15 Okay. Is that correct? Do you generally keep hard-copy notes in your office? And we were advised to retain all that Do you know whether those notes -- did you provide copies of those notes to anyone? 16 A I have not been requested to do so. 17 Q Okay. 18 A Correct. 19 Q Okay. 20 So they've been preserved. Is that correct? But no one has actually collected themJ to your knowledge. 21 A Correct. 22 Q All right. 23 NowJ you indicated that Mr. Duffey had some additional questions 24 and members of your staff provided additional information to him 25 electronically. Is that correct? UNCLASSIFIED 30 UNCLASSIFIED 1 A Correct. 2 Q Okay. 3 A Well, I was copied on them, yes . 4 Q Okay. 5 Were you copied on those communications as well? And did you have any conversation with Mr. Duffey about any of the additional information that was provided to him? 6 A Not that I recall. 7 Q Do you know what Mr. Duffey did with that information? 8 A I do not know. 9 Q Do you know whether he provided that information back to the 10 White House? 11 A 12 13 14 I was not copied on any sharing of that information, so the short answer is I don ' t know. Q Okay. Well, have you had any conversations with anyone about whether Mr. Duffey shared that information with the White House? 15 A I do not recall. 16 Q Okay. 17 So Mr. Duffey has these questions on June 19th, and there is a 18 back-and-forth between Mr. Duffey --a request from Mr. Duffey to DOD. 19 Is that correct? All right. 20 A The initial request was to DOD, yes. 21 Q And DOD responds through you with this hard-copy document, 22 correct? 23 A Correct. 24 Q And then Mr. Duffey asks for additional information, which 25 your staff then gathers and submits to Mr. Duffey. UNCLASSIFIED Is that right? 31 UNCLASSIFIED 1 A Correct. 2 Q And you don't have any conversations with Mr. Duffey about 3 any of these requests 1 either on email or in person or over the phone} 4 during this time period? 5 A I don't recall the specifics. 6 Q Okay. 7 So Mr. Duffey never provided any more color on what the President had concerns about or questions about with regard to USA!? 8 A Later he did. 9 Q Okay. 10 A When I returned from leave July 18th 1 I was informed of the 11 When was that? President's direction to hold military support funding for Ukraine. 12 Q Who communicated that to you? 13 A Mike Duffey. 14 Q How? 15 A I recall a conversation. 16 Q Can you describe that conversation? 17 A He communicated that that was the direction he had received. 18 Q Okay. I want to know everything that you can possibly recall 19 about that conversation with Mr. Duffey on or about July 18th or 19th 20 in which he told you that the President had decided to put a hold on 21 Ukraine security assistance. 22 23 A Okay. On the 19th 1 he shared that he had communicated this direction to the Department of Defense. 24 Q "He" being Mr. Duffey? 25 A I'm sorry. Yes. Mr. Duffey. UNCLASSIFIED 32 UNCLASSIFIED 1 Q Okay. 2 A He also expressed a desire to create an apportionment that 3 would implement the hold. 4 Q What else? 5 A And he -- 6 MS. VAN GELDER: 7 Are you ready? 8 MR. GOLDMAN: 9 MS. VAN GELDER: MR. SANDY: 10 11 Go ahead. Are you done? I am. Any more dentist jokes over there? And we had a conversation about that request on Friday the 19th. 12 MR . SWALWELL: 13 MR. SANDY: I recall a conversation in the Eisenhower Executive 14 Office Building. And then he also followed up with me by phone later 15 that dayJ on the 19th. 16 17 18 MR. SWALWELL: EEOB. Mr. SandyJ where was the conversation? So the first conversation was on July 19 in the Is that right? MR. SANDY: I returned on the 18thJ and so I don't recall exactly 19 what happened on the 18th versus the 19th in terms of getting caught 20 up after having been on leave for nearly 2 weeks. 21 specifically the nature of that request. 22 MR. SWALWELL: 23 a common space? 24 conversation? 25 MR. SANDY: But I do recall And could you set the scene for us? Your office? His office? Is this in Where was the As I recallJ it was in a hallway after a meeting where UNCLASSIFIED 33 UNCLASSIFIED 1 we had an initial conversation, but the specific request was 2 communicated to me via phone later on the 19th. 3 and I presume he was in his. 4 5 MR. SWALWELL: Okay. MR. SANDY: 7 probably called him. 9 He sent me an email saying we needed to connect. MR. SWALWELL: to connect about, or did he just say he wanted to connect? MR. SANDY: 11 MR. SWALWELL: 12 Mr. Mitchell? 16 17 18 As I recall, it was about Ukraine. Okay. BY MR. MITCHELL: 13 15 I And, in the email, did he reference what you needed 10 14 And you received a phone call from Mr. Duffey to you in your office. 6 8 So I was in my office, Q But it sounds like you had a subsequent conversation with him on the 19th. A Is that right? So that was the conversation I was describing with the specific request. Q All right. And you indicated that Mr. Duffey said he wanted 19 to create an apportionment that would implement the hold. 20 describe the conversation surrounding how to create this apportionment 21 or what that apportionment might look like with Mr. Duffey on that day? 22 A Right. Can you So, on that day, I emphasized that that would raise 23 a number of questions that we would need to address. 24 that we would want to consult with our Office of the General Counsel 25 on those questions first. UNCLASSIFIED And so I advised .---------------- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---- ---------·· UNCLASSIFIED Q 1 ·· - 34 When you were speaking with Mr. Duffey, putting aside any 2 subsequent conversation you might have had with legal counsel, what 3 were those questions that you raised with him? A I just made a general reference to the Impoundment Control 6 Q Okay. 7 A -- and said that we would have to assess that with the advice 4 5 8 Act of counsel before proceeding. 9 Q Okay. 10 A That is correct. 11 Q What is your training with -- your professional training 12 13 And you're not an attorney, correct? with regard to accounting, for example? A Well, I would say, all career staff who work in these resource 14 management offices generally have general awareness of, for example, 15 in this case, the Impoundment Control Act -- 16 Q Okay. 17 A -- enough knowledge to know when to ask for advice. 18 Q Okay. 19 A Yes. 20 Q -- when you raised the Impoundment Control Act with So, in these specific circumstances -- 21 Mr. Duffey during this conversation on July 19th, why did you think 22 that a modification to the apportionment to account for the hold might 23 implicate the Impoundment Control Act? 24 25 A Ah. Because these moneys are what we call 1-year funds, which means that their period of availability was expiring on September UNCLASSIFIED " UNCLASSIFIED 35 1 30th. 2 Control Act, we need to ensure that agencies are able to obligate funds 3 before they expire. Q 4 5 And consistent with a layman Is understanding of the Impoundment And what is your understanding of, if those funds cannot be obligated before they expire, what happens? 6 A Then they basically expire and they return to the Treasury. 7 Q And there could be a violation of the Impoundment Control 8 Act if they expire in that way? 9 A Potentially. 10 Q Okay. 11 And that was your concern July 19th when you had this conversation with Mr. Duffey? 12 A My concern was that there was -- I asked about the duration 13 of the hold and was told there was not clear guidance on that. 14 what prompted my concern. Q Okay. 17 A That is correct. 18 Q Okay. 15 16 19 20 So that Is So you asked Mr. Duffey about the duration of the hold. What was Mr. Duffey Is reaction when you mentioned the Impoundment Control Act? A I think he appreciated my concern and acknowledged that I 21 offered to take the lead in terms of following up with the Office of 22 General Counsel. 23 Q Okay. So did he direct you to consult with General Counsel? 24 A I was doing that in my own initiative, but he certainly didn It 25 object. UNCLASSIFIED 36 UNCLASSIFIED Okay. 1 Q 2 Now, Mr. Duffey, you indicated, was a political appointee . 3 that correct? 4 A Yes, he is. 5 Q Do you have general understanding of Mr. Duffey's Is 6 familiarity with apportionments and the Impoundment Control Act at the 7 time that you had this conversation on July 19th? 8 A I was not aware of any previous experience of his. 9 Q All right. Just to be clear, are you saying that you don't 10 believe that he had any prior experience on July 19th regarding the 11 Impoundment Control Act or apportionments generally? 12 A I was not aware of any prior experience that he had. 13 Q Okay. 14 This conversation that you had with Mr. Duffey, did you document 15 it in any way? 16 A No. 17 Q Okay . Did you have any followup emails or any sort of 18 memoranda that would reflect the fact of the conversation on July 19th 19 with Mr. Duffey? 20 21 22 23 A No. I followed up by phone with the Office of General Counsel. Q Okay. What about in a calendar? Is there any sort of calendar record of this meeting on July 19th? No. 24 A 25 MR. SWALWELL: What day did you follow up by phone with General UNCLASSIFIED 37 UNCLASSIFIED 1 Counsel? MR. SANDY: 2 I followed up with an initial conversation that 3 evening and then scheduled a subsequent call for Monday morning, the 4 22nd. MR. SWALWELL: 5 6 So July 19, in the evening, by phone, you contact General Counsel. 7 MR. SANDY: Correct. 8 MR. SWALWELL: Okay. BY MR. MITCHELL: 9 10 Q You indicated, when you got back from leave, I think you said 11 you received an email from Mr. Duffey saying, "Call me." 12 right? 13 A Yes. 14 Q Okay. 15 Do you know whether anyone told Mr. Duffey to talk to you about the hold? A 16 17 Is that So he shared with me an email that described the desire -- the President's ~irection with respect to the hold. Q How did he share this email with you? 20 A Yes, he did. 21 Q What was the date of that email? 22 A As I recall, the date of the email was July 12th. 23 Q While you were on leave? 24 A Correct. 25 Q And who was that email from? 18 19 Did he forward it to you? UNCLASSIFIED 38 UNCLASSIFIED 1 A Office of the Chief of Staff. 2 Q Which Chief of Staff? 3 A Oh. 4 Q So Mick Mulvaney's office? 5 A Correct. 6 Q And who from the Office of Chief of Staff sent this email? 7 A Mr. Robert Blair. 8 Q Who is Robert Blair? 9 A He is a senior advisor to the Acting Chief of Staff. 10 Q Have you ever had any interactions with Mr. Blair during the 11 12 13 14 15 Chief of Staff of the White House, that office. course of your duties? A Yes. Previously, he was the Associate Director for National Security Programs -- in essence, Mike Duffey's predecessor. Q Okay. So he was your immediate supervisor for some period of time at OMB? 16 A Correct. 17 Q And then did Mr. Blair go to the Office of Chief of Staff 18 more or less when Mr. Mulvaney went from OMB to Office of Chief of Staff? 19 A Shortly thereafter, as I recall. 20 Q And Mr. Mulvaney was also, during this time period, the 21 Acting Director of OMB, correct? 22 precise about my time period. 23 24 25 A He was dual-hatted? In mid-July of 2019. So he retains the title of Director of OMB, but he does not perform those functions. Q Let me be Okay. UNCLASSIFIED 39 UNCLASSIFIED 1 So this July 12th email from Mr. Blair, what did it say? 2 A 3 To the best of my recollection, that the President is directing a hold on military support funding for Ukraine. 4 Q What else was in that email? 5 A Nothing that I recall. 6 Q Was any other country mentioned? 7 A No. 8 Q Any other security assistance package? 9 A No. 10 Q Any other aid of any sort? 11 A Not to my recollection. 12 Q Any other topic at all in this email? 13 A No. 14 Q Who did Mr. Blair send this email to? 15 A Mr. Duffey. 16 Q Who else was on the email? 17 A I don't recall anybody else being copied. 18 Q And you indicated that Mr. Duffey forwarded this email to 20 A Correct. 21 Q To the best of your knowledge, has that email been retained 22 by OMB? 23 A Yes. 24 Q Was there anything else in this email string, or was it just 19 25 you? that one communication that you've already described? UNCLASSIFIED 40 UNCLASSIFIED 1 A The only -- that was just the one communication. 2 Q Okay . 3 A I retained it. 4 Q Anything else? 5 A I am pretty confident that I would have forwarded that to 6 Q A All right. And remind me again when you received So he had made a reference to that direction, but, as I recall, I didn't actually receive it until Monday the 22nd. Q 11 12 Okay. this July 12th email. 9 10 Did you forward it to anyone? members of my staff. 7 8 And what did you do with that email? Monday the 22nd. Okay. So between -- well, let's take back the clock a couple of days. 13 A Uh-huh. 14 Q You had this communication with Mr. Duffey on July 19th at 15 EOB. You indicated that there might be -- you had concerns about the 16 Impoundment Control Act. 17 A I did. 18 Q Okay. I don ' t want to - - I'm not going to get into what they 19 might' ve told you. 20 OMB counsel. 21 A 22 23 24 25 Yes. And did you then consult with OMB counsel? But did you -- I think you indicated that you called Is that correct? I spoke to OMB counsel Friday evening and arranged for a conference call Monday morning. Q All right. I don't have the calendar in front of me. the date of that Friday? A Friday the 19th. UNCLASSIFIED What's 41 UNCLASSIFIED 1 Q Okay. 2 A Yes, for Monday morning. 3 Q The 22nd. 4 A Correct. 5 Q Okay. 6 At the time that you spoke with OMB counsel, did you have copy of this July 12th email from Rob Blair? 7 A No. 8 Q Okay. 9 A I 10 And you arranged for a conference call? As I recall, I received the actual email on the 22nd. After your conference call with legal counsel? don't recall the specific time of day that I received the email. Okay. 11 Q 12 Between July 19th and July 22nd, including July 22nd, did 13 Mr. Duffey provide you any explanation as to why the President wanted 14 to place a hold on Ukraine security assistance? 15 A No. 16 Q Did you ask? 17 A Yes. 18 Q And what was the response? 19 A He was not aware of the reason. 20 Q To the best of your recollection, what precisely did he say 21 to you when you asked for the reason for the President's decision to 22 place a hold on security assistance? 23 A That he was not aware. 24 Q He simply said, "I don't know"? 25 A Yes. UNCLASSIFIED 42 UNCLASSIFIED 1 Q Did he indicate that he was going to try to get more 2 information as to why the President was placing a hold on security 3 assistance? 4 5 A I am pausing because I -- there was certainly a desire to learn more about the rationale. 6 Q Whose desire? 7 A A desire on the part of Mike Duffey J myself J and other people 8 working on this issue. 9 in terms of sayingJ that desire was acknowledged. 10 11 12 13 14 Q All right. So I want to answer your question accurately Did Mr. Duffey say that he was going to try to get additional information as to the reason for the hold? A Yes. He certainly said that if he got additional information he would share it with us. Q Okay. At any point in timeJ from the moment that you walked 15 into the SCIF to anytime in history) has Mr. Duffey ever provided to 16 you a reason why the President wanted to place a hold on security 17 assistance? 18 A I recall in early September an email that attributed the hold 19 to the President's concern about other countries not contributing more 20 to Ukraine. 21 Q What was the date of this email? 22 A I don't recall the specific date. 23 Q Who was the email from? 24 A Mike Duffey. 25 Q To who? UNCLASSIFIED You said early September. 43 UNCLASSIFIED 1 A To me. 2 Q Was anyone else on the email? 3 A I don't recall. 4 Q Do you recall whether this email was before September 9th 5 or after September 9th? 6 A Before. 7 Q How do you know that? 8 A I recall early September, but not the precise date. 9 Q Was there anything else in this email? 10 A Not that I recall. 11 Q Was it in response to an email that you had sent? 12 A No, not that I recall. 13 Q Do you know what prompted this email from Mr. Duffey to you? 14 If you know. 15 A I don't know. We have had multiple conversations 16 throughout -- starting in July and continuing about what the reason 17 for the hold was. 18 19 20 Q Well, do you know whether -- did you have any followup conversations with Mr. Duffey A ~bout this email? No. UNCLASSIFIED 44 UNCLASSIFIED 1 [11:07 a.m.] 2 BY MR. MITCHELL: Q 3 Was this the first time that you heard that the hold might 4 be about some sort of concern that other countries are not providing 5 sufficient support to Ukraine? A 6 We had received information requesting -- sorry. We had 7 received requests for additional information on what other countries 8 were contributing to Ukraine. 9 Q Okay. Did you have any other conversations with Mr. Duffey 10 following this email in early September about this email or about the 11 fact 12 A May I consult with counsel? 13 Q Sure. Let me finish the question, though. Or about the 14 substance of the email, the fact of the other countries not providing 15 sufficient assistance? 16 [Discussion off the record?] 17 MR. SANDY: I just want to clarify, I do recall in early September 18 that we got requests for information on what additional countries were 19 contributing to Ukraine. 20 the precise date of the email, so I'd like to amend my previous comment 21 and say, I just don't want to provide something false, because I don't 22 remember the specific date. 23 BY MR. MITCHELL: 24 25 Q Okay. I would want to be accurate in recollecting So it may have been before or it may have been after the 9th of September. You just recall that it was the beginning of UNCLASSIFIED 45 UNCLASSIFIED 1 September. 2 A That's correct) yes. 3 Q Okay. And you indicated that there were some communications 4 or requests at the beginning of September J generally J about what other 5 countries were contributing to Ukraine? 6 A Yes. 7 Q Can you describe how those came about? 8 A I don't recall all the details. We often -- and when I say 9 "we J " sorry J I mean the National Security Division staff and I -- will 10 often receive requests) and I do recall those requests for information. 11 Q From whom? 12 A The requests were from Mike Duffey. 13 Q Did he indicate who the requests were coming from? 14 A As I recall) the information was going to be shared with Rob 15 16 Blair. Q Okay. Do you recall seeing any emails from Mr. Blair about 17 this topic at the beginning of September? 18 who was the messenger? 19 A Mr. Duffey was the messenger. 20 Q Okay. 21 And were these email communications) or were they in some other form? 22 A Email communications. 23 Q Okay. 24 25 Or was Mr. Duffey the one Did you or your staff diligently respond to Mr. Duffey's requests? A Yes. UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED 46 Q Okay. And what were those responses? A Data on other countries' contributions to Ukraine. Q Okay. A Yes. Q And what did Mr. Duffey do with that information) to the best And) again) was that an email? of your knowledge? 12 13 A I presume he shared it with Rob Blair. Q Okay. A I do not recall whether I was copied on that email. Q Okay. But you don't know that for a fact? contributions) can you just put a little bit more color on that? A Well) multiple countries are providing various types of 14 assistance to Ukraine. So it would've been data on the magnitude and 15 types of assistance that other countries are providing. 16 Q Okay. And what's your understanding of that? 17 A I don't recall all the specific numbers. 18 Q Okay. Do you generally recall how the assistance from other 19 countries compared to the assistance provided by the United States) 20 both in magnitude and type? 21 A I do not recall the details. 22 Q Okay. 23 Were you the one who was responsible for gathering this information) or was it one of your staff members? 24 A One of my staff members. 25 Q And that information was provided to you) but you weren't UNCLASSIFIED 47 UNCLASSIFIED 1 the one who was actually compiling the data or researching it or 2 necessarily reviewing it in a great amount of detail. 3 to say? 4 A That's correct. And that's common at OMB, where we are a 5 very flat organization. 6 responding to what are purely information requests. 7 8 Q Okay. Is that fair So, often, examiners will take the lead in Did you have any conversations with Mr. Duffey about why this request was coming from Mr. Blair? 9 A Not that I recall. 10 Q Does Mr. Duffey work in the same building as you? 11 A No. 12 Q So where does he work, physically, in respect to where your 13 14 office is located? A So my staff and I work in the New Executive Office Building, 15 and he works in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, which is 16 across Pennsylvania Avenue. 17 Q Okay. So, as far as personal interactions are concerned, 18 is it fair to say that you see your staff far more frequently than you 19 see Mr. Duffey? 20 A Correct. 21 Q And, presumably, you interact with your staff far more 22 frequently than you interact with Mr. Duffey as well. 23 A Yes. 24 Q Okay. 25 MR. SWALWELL: Is that correct? Mr. Sandy, how many times did you follow up with UNCLASSIFIED 48 UNCLASSIFIED 1 Mr. Duffey to ask for a rationale on why the security assistance was 2 being held? MR. SANDY: 3 4 and pretty much all of August, as I recall. 5 6 MR. SWALWELL: raising? 8 July. 9 we would receive. 11 So it wasn't as though it came up every day. MR. SWALWELL: a rationale? And why were you asking Mr. Duffey so often for Why were you in need of a rationale? 13 MR. SWALWELL: 16 Or all of the above? And then I think we were more just awaiting any updates that MR. SANDY: 15 Email? Typically, the discussions were in person in late 12 14 And were these in-person questions you were On the phone? MR. SANDY: 7 10 It was an open question over the course of late July I think we just wanted to understand and But was it for your curiosity, or was it for concerns that you had about why and legal justification? MR. SANDY: And when you say "so often," i t came up mostly in early July, and then we were awaiting updates. 17 I think, in order to execute policy, we often -- it's helpful for 18 us to understand what the underlying goal is, but we execute based upon 19 direction, even if it's not always explained to us. 20 MR. SWALWELL: 21 [Discussion off the record.] 22 MR. SWALWELL: 23 19 when you first -- 24 MR. SANDY: 25 You said "early July"-- sorry. Go ahead. When you said "early July," did you mean July 18, I'm sorry. Yes. I meant earlier in this period, meaning when I returned from leave in late July. UNCLASSIFIED 49 UNCLASSIFIED 1 MR. SWALWELL: Can you recall another time in your duties at the 2 Office of Management and Budget where a significant amount of 3 assistance was being held up and you didn't have a rationale for as 4 long as you didn't have a rationale in this case? 5 MR. SANDY: Not that I recall. 6 MR. SWALWELL: 7 We're going to kick it over to the minority. All right. If you want to take 8 a brief break to go to the bathroom) you're welcome to) get a drink) 9 but I'm inclined to keep going if you want to keep going. 10 MR. SANDY: That's fine. 11 MR. SWALWELL: 12 MR. SANDY: One hour to the minority. Yes) sir. BY MR. CASTOR: 13 Good morning) sir. 14 Q 15 Could you just pick up the story from -- on Monday) July 22ndJ 16 you had a --was it an in-person meeting with OGC? 17 to ask you about what OGC told you. 18 to privilege. And I'm not going I understand those are subject I'm just trying to understand the mechanics here. 19 So) on Monday) July 22ndJ you had a conference call with OGC? 20 A Correct. 21 Q And you didn't meet with them in person; it was just over 22 the telephone? 23 A Correct. 24 Q And you were seeking legal advice) presumably) on 25 whether -- or how to implement the next step? UNCLASSIFIED so UNCLASSIFIED 1 A Correct. 2 Q And did you get that advice? 3 Not asking you what the advice was, but did OGC provide you with guidance? 4 A [Nonverbal response.] 5 Q And when did they do that? 6 A So those conversations lasted over several days. 7 Q Okay. 8 A And the answer to your question is yes. 9 Q Okay. And was the guidance -- not asking about the content 10 of the guidance, but did it come over email? 11 And when did it arrive, finally? A 12 13 There were email exchanges, and I recall an email that concluded those exchanges on Wednesday, July 24th. Q 14 15 Okay. And I believe you indicated the question was relating to the Impoundment Control Act. 16 A My questions, yes. 17 Q Right. 18 24th. 19 implemented. 20 A 21 Was it an official letter? Okay. And the issue is resolved on Wednesday, July And, obviously, because of what happened, the hold was Is that correct? The issues addressed questions that I had vis-a-vis an apportionment. 22 Q Right. 23 A And so 24 Q Uh-huh. 25 A So that apportionment was finalized on July 25th. I just want to answer your question precisely. UNCLASSIFIED 51 UNCLASSIFIED 1 Q 2 MS. VAN GELDER: 3 MR. CASTOR: 4 [Discussion off the record.] s MR. SANDY: 6 period as well. 7 Okay. And -Can I talk to him for a second? Of course. So I also had conversations with DOD during this BY MR. CASTOR: 8 Q Okay. 9 A I wanted to get their insights on these same questions 10 And what can you tell us about those conversations? vis-a-vis the Impoundment Control Act. 11 Q Okay. 12 A Ms. Elaine McCusker. 13 Q Okay. And who were you speaking with at DOD? And did you ask her to seek -- did you seek 14 information from her, or did you ask her to get a legal opinion from 15 her lawyers? 16 What was the nature of the communication? 17 A Or what did you ask her? Or what was she asking you? The nature of the communication was that -- how could we 18 institute a temporary hold consistent with the Impoundment Control Act. 19 AndJ yes, to your question, we also discussed including DOD counsel 20 in those conversations. 21 22 Q Okay. And these communications with Ms. McCusker were occurring when? 23 A I initially called her Monday evening, July 22nd. 24 Q So the same timeframe? 25 A Same timeframe. And they also extended over the course of UNCLASSIFIED 52 UNCLASSIFIED 1 those 4 days. 2 Q Okay. And were there any other conversations going on at 3 any other agency or any other -- you Ire talking to DOD J you Ire talking 4 to OMB OGC. Any other communications of this sort with other entities? s A I 6 Q Okay. 7 A Those were the only. 8 Q And OMB issued its first written apportionment with the USA! 9 was notJ no. footnote restricting the obligations on July 25thJ correct? 10 A Correct. 11 Q AndJ in effect) that is the technical terminology for 12 implementing the holdJ correct? 13 A Correct. 14 Q Okay. 15 And then what can you tell us as the next step in this issue? 16 A And when you say "this issueJ" I just 17 Q WellJ the funds are held. 18 A Correct. 19 Q And so what is the next event involved here? Are you just 20 waiting for the authorization to lift the holdJ or are you continuing 21 to do work on the program? 22 23 24 25 A So we are continuing to work with our policy officials to get additional guidance. Q Okay. And policy officials inside of OMB or policy officials at DOD? UNCLASSIFIED 53 UNCLASSIFIED 1 A Chiefly through Mike Duffey -- 2 Q Okay. 3 A -- but also in the interagency processes of the National 4 Security Council. s Q 6 And just to be clear, the footnote restricting the obligations, 7 Okay. And did you get additional guidance? how long is that in effect for? Is that a 2-week hold? 8 A It was through August 5th, as I recall. 9 Q Okay. 10 [Discussion off the record.] BY MR. CASTOR: 11 12 13 Q So the first written apportionment with the footnote restricting the funds goes out on July 25th. 14 A Yes, sir. 15 Q And that's holding the funds, in effect, until August 5th; 16 that's the next date? 17 A Correct. 18 Q Okay. And during that time period, you said you were seeking 19 guidance from policy officials, and you mentioned DOD and the National 20 Security Council? 21 A Through the National Security Council process. 22 Q Okay. 23 A Yes. 24 Q And what can you tell us about those communications? 25 who were you dealing with at the NSC? UNCLASSIFIED Like, 54 UNCLASSIFIED A 1 2 So we were -- we prepared Mike Duffey for a meeting that was scheduled on Friday, July 26th . 3 Q At the PCC? 4 A No. 5 Q Okay. 6 He represented OMB. That would've been at a deputies level. And so there was a meeting on Friday, July 26th? Mike Duffey represented OMB? 7 A Correct. 8 Q And what can you tell us about that meeting? 9 A We prepared Mike by raising a number of questions that we 10 thought it would be useful to discuss. 11 Q Okay. 12 A Our principal questions were: 13 14 hold? What were those questions? The extent? What was the reason for the The duration? And, depending upon the ultimate policy decision, we also said 15 that at the appropriate time the policy process should address a 16 congressional affairs approach, a diplomatic approach, and potentially 17 a public affairs -- again, depending upon when there was a policy 18 decision. 19 Q Okay. So if the policy decision was to permanently withhold 20 the money, then you'd have to interact with Congress, you'd have to 21 interact with the Ukrainians, and you'd have to interact with the 22 public. 23 A 24 25 Is that right? These would be general points that we would make for any significant policy. Q Okay. UNCLASSIFIED 55 UNCLASSIFIED 1 2 3 4 5 6 A And, finally, we also raised legal questions that would need to be addressed by attorneys. Q Okay. And the legal questions relate to whether the money would have to go through the rescission process or reprogramming? A Correct. Depending upon the policy decision, it would raise legal questions about implementation. 7 Q Okay. 8 A Then those questions would become moot. 9 Q Okay. 10 But if the hold was lifted, then So those were the four areas you prepared Mike Duffey? Reason 11 for the hold, extent of the hold, duration of the hold, and, depending 12 on the outcome, what would come next. 13 A Those were what we saw were the key questions. To my 14 knowledge, going into that meeting, he only had knowledge of the 15 President's guidance. 16 Q Okay. 17 A I did not. 18 Q Okay. 19 20 21 22 And did you attend that meeting? Did you get a readout from Mr. Duffey about the meeting? A Yes. He expressed the support of other agencies for providing the assistance. Q Okay. So everybody was -- as we understand it from talking 23 to other witnesses, everyone was of the same mind, that they were hoping 24 the hold would be lifted? 25 A Correct. UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED 56 Okay. 1 Q 2 Did any other decision or information come out of the July 26th 3 meeting, or was it just a gathering to take stock of the situation? 4 s 6 A I think it was a gathering at that level, but there was no resolution. Q Okay. And did you ever get answers to the first three 7 questions -- the reason for the hold, the extent of the hold, and the 8 duration of the hold? 9 A Well, I' 11 go back to my previous response about information 10 that I received vis-a-vis the rationale for the hold, but that wasn't 11 until September. We did not get immediate responses on the duration . 12 Q Okay. 13 A With regard to the extent, in my area, it only affected USAI. 14 Q Okay. 15 A Yes. 16 Q Okay. 17 A That's not my area, so I'm 18 Q So you can ' t provide testimony. 19 A Correct. 20 Q Okay. 21 After the July 26th meeting, what's the next meeting or decision 22 23 24 25 Was FMF involved too, to your knowledge? But that just isn't your area. Correct. point? A So, after that, we were awaiting what we presumed would be a, what I'll call principals-level discussion. Q Okay. And was that scheduled ever? UNCLASSIFIED 57 UNCLASSIFIED A 1 2 I don't recall. There were multiple instances in which we heard the topic may come up -- 3 Q 4 A s meeting 6 Q Of the principals? 7 A Correct. 8 Q Are you aware if there was a meeting on July 31st with any 9 Okay. but I don't recall there ever being a definitive of the relevant components here? 10 A I'm not aware of that meeting. 11 Q Okay. Any other meetings you're aware of, other 12 than -- obviously, there's the 7/18 and then the 7/26 meeting that you 13 just described. A 14 Again, we often heard that there was a possibility that this 15 topic would come up as part of another meeting, but we did not get a 16 definitive guidance. Q 17 18 So you prepared Mike Duffey for the 7/26 meeting, and that's the last PCC type of meeting that you prepared him for? A 19 20 Okay. For an NSC meeting, yes, but we also provided information for our Acting Director. 21 Q Okay. And what information was that, and what date was that? 22 A I recall information that we initially drafted on August 2nd 23 and then information that we drafted for the Acting Director on August 24 7th. 25 Q And you say "drafted." Was it also transmitted to Mr. UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED 58 1 Vought? 2 A My understanding is the information on August 7th wasJ yes. 3 Q But not August 2nd? 4 A I don't recall whether that went beyond Mike Duffey. 5 Q Okay. 6 communication? And what was included in the August 7th Was it by email? 7 A It was a memorandum. 8 Q Okay. 9 A It was a joint effort by National Security Divisionj And who was the drafter of the memorandum? 10 International Affairs Division) which oversees State and USA!Dj and 11 Office of Legal Counsel. 12 Q 13 MS. VAN GELDER: 14 MR. CASTOR: 15 MS. VAN GELDER: What was the content of the memo? With respect to what he provided. The ultimate memo. Right) but it contains sections from OGC and what 16 he provided. And so I'm saying) as long as we go with what he provided 17 as opposed to what he knows OGC provided. 18 MR. CASTOR: 19 MS. VAN GELDER: 20 MR. SANDY: 21 Within our area) it was a description of the current state of play 22 Okay. Yes. You got that? Yes. vis-a-vis USA!. 23 BY MR. CASTOR: 24 Q And what was the current state of play? 25 A The funds were still on hold at that point) but -- because UNCLASSIFIED 59 UNCLASSIFIED 1 2 3 4 s there had been a subsequent apportionment. Q When was the subsequent apportionment? That was on August 5th, you said? A It would've come shortly after the first one, which expired on August 5th. So I believe it was on August 5th. 6 Q How long was the memo? 7 A Oh, maybe three or four pages with content from those 8 9 10 different contributing components. Q Okay. Three or four pages, and each of the three components had a piece to the memo? 11 A That's correct. 12 Q Okay. 13 Do you remember? And for your piece, do you remember anything more about it? 14 A I do remember that we provided our recommendation. 15 Q Okay. 16 A The recommendation was to 17 [Discussion off the record.] 18 MR. SANDY: 19 MR. CASTOR: 20 MR. SANDY: And what was the recommendation? The recommendation was to remove the hold -Okay. -- on certain policy arguments. BY MR. CASTOR: 21 22 Q Okay. 23 A One was that the assistance to Ukraine is consistent with 24 25 Do you remember what the policy arguments were? the national security strategy -Q Okay. UNCLASSIFIED 60 UNCLASSIFIED 1 A -- in terms of supporting a stable, peaceful Europe. Second 2 was the benefit from the program in terms of opposing Russian 3 aggression. 4 the program. 5 Q Another argument pertained to the bipartisan support for At this point in time, everyone -- and by "everyone," I mean . 6 the National Security Council, DOD, OMB -- were hopeful that the hold 7 would be lifted? 8 9 10 A I don ' t want to speak for my policy officials . again, staff-level recommendation. That was, And so I will not speak for my policy officials in terms of their position. 11 Q Your policy officials being Mr. Duffey and his - - 12 A And the Acting Director. 13 Q Okay. 14 A At that time -- well, he reports to the Acting Director. 15 Who does Mr. Duffey report to? We did not have an Acting Deputy at that point. Okay. 16 Q 17 And the memo that went on August 7th to Acting Director Vought, 18 19 20 21 did he have an action item, or was it informational? A It was informational in anticipation of a principals-level discussion to address this topic. Q Okay. Now, at that point in time, did Mr . Duffey have a 22 different view than you? 23 Mr. Duffey or Mr. Vought . 24 through Mr. Duffey? 25 A It You said you didn't want to speak for You prepared the memo . did. UNCLASSIFIED Did the memo go UNCLASSIFIED 1 Q And did he okay it, approve it? 2 A Yes. 3 Q Okay. 4 61 So you shared the same views as Mr. Duffey on this issue at this time? 5 A In terms of 6 Q In terms of policy recommendation? 7 A In terms of that recommendation. 8 Q Okay. 9 And then what happened next, after the memo was transmitted to 10 Mr. Vought? 11 A I don't recall getting clarity. 12 Q And was there a meeting that Mr. Vought was preparing for, 13 to represent OMB at the -- 14 MS. VAN GELDER: 15 [Discussion off the record.] 16 MS. VAN GELDER: My apology. Again, not trying to take sides here, but I think 17 we've jumped from the 25th of July to the 7th of August, and you might 18 want to ask if anything intervened vis-a-vis my client between those 19 two dates. 20 MR. CASTOR: All right. 21 MR. GOLDMAN: 22 MS. VAN GELDER: You don't want to stay here all day? I just lost my 2 o'clock Pilates. BY MR. CASTOR: 23 24 Q Yeah. I'm trying to hit the relevant -- 25 A I understand. UNCLASSIFIED 62 UNCLASSIFIED 1 2 -- you knowJ the relevant events that happened. Q The hold is issued on the 25thJ or the footnote restricting the obligations. 3 A Correct. 4 Q And then July 26thJ you walked us through preparing for the 5 meeting. 6 A Correct. 7 Q No real clarity came out of the meetingJ as I understood your 8 9 10 testimony. A Correct. My understanding was that the President's guidance 11 Q Right. 12 A -- remained the same. 13 Q Okay. And thenJ from July 26thJ my next understanding of 14 facts relevant here was you began drafting a memo J and a draft was sent 15 on August 2ndJ presumably to Mr. Duffey? 16 17 18 19 20 A I know that there was information that was shared with him on August 2ndJ but more prominent in my recollection is the August 7th. Q Okay. And have we missed anything between the July 26th and August 2nd? A WellJ in terms of the apportionment processJ you mentioned 21 the subsequent apportionmentJ but that was not -- I did not sign that 22 apportionment -- 23 Q Okay. 24 A -- because there had been a change in the delegation. 25 Q Okay. So up to August 2ndJ thoughJ we're still goodJ right? UNCLASSIFIED 63 UNCLASSIFIED 1 We Ive covered all the relevant facts? 2 which was a Friday, right? 3 A Correct. 4 Q Okay. 5 6 7 We had the meeting on July 26th, So any relevant facts between Friday, July 26th, and the August 2nd? A Yes. So, on Tuesday, July 30th, the delegation for approving apportionments made Mike Duffey the approver. 8 Q Okay. 9 A The delegation is from the President to the Acting Director, 10 And what can you tell us about that? and then the Acting Director issued a change in delegation. 11 Q Okay. 12 A We met with Mike Duffey -- sorry And do you know why? "we" is my 13 division -- met with Mike Duffey on the 31st, in which he explained 14 that there was interest among the leadership in tracking the uses of 15 moneys closely. 16 an interest in being more involved in daily operations. He had an interest -- sorry -- "he," Mike Duffey, had 17 Q Okay. 18 A And he regarded this responsibility as a way for him to learn 19 20 more about the specific accounts within his area. Q And you are the Deputy Associate Director. And, as I 21 understand it, there Is another Deputy Associate Director that reports 22 to Mr. Duffey? 23 A Yes. 24 Q And was he taking that authority from both or just your -- 25 A Yes, the change applied to both National Security Division UNCLASSIFIED 64 UNCLASSIFIED 1 and International Affairs 2 Duffey. 3 Q 4 Okay. Division~ both of which report to Mike And was this change -- did it have anything to do with the Ukraine funds? 5 A I'm not aware of a connection. 6 Q Okay. So this decision of Mr. Duffey was just an 7 organizational 8 of your knowledge? decision~ unrelated to this particular hold~ 9 A I shared with you the reasons that he provided. 10 Q Okay. 11 A And~ also~ 12 13 14 15 16 17 just to be clear~ the memorandum is signed by the Acting Director to make that change. Q Okay. And did you have any meetings with him where he explained the rationale to you? A Just those three reasons that he shared with my entire division when we discussed this on the 31st . Q Okay. But~ prior to the meeting with the entire 18 did he have a personal communication with 19 or on the phone? 20 21 to the best A you ~ division~ whether it's in-person He had alerted me in person earlier that week~ but basically had explained it in the same terms. 22 Q Okay. And did you express any concern to him? 23 A Yes. 24 Q And what were those concerns? 25 A The concerns that staff and I expressed included that it's UNCLASSIFIED . - - - - - - - - - - - - --- -- - - - - ------·- 65 UNCLASSIFIED 1 a substantial workload 1 and we usually are very protective of the 2 Associate Director's time 1 so we were concerned about how much time 3 this would consume. 4 Q Okay. 5 A I think people were curious what he thought he would learn 6 from apportionments about the accounts as opposed to the other} you 7 know 1 sources of information. 8 did not reflect any sort of loss of trust. Q 9 Okay. And staff wanted to ensure that this And did he communicate to the group that it did not 1 10 in fact 1 constitute a loss of trust 1 that he was just trying to learn 11 more about his job? 12 A Yes 1 he did. 13 Q Okay. 15 A Correct. 16 Q Okay. 17 A Yes 1 I took him at his word. 18 Q Okay. 14 19 So it had nothing to do with the competence of your team. He said it had nothing to do with that. And did you feel like he was being straight with you? And so he became the approving official through this delegation? 20 A Correct 1 as of July 30th. 21 Q Okay. 22 And the approving official is the third level of review 1 I think you mentioned? 23 A Yes. 24 Q There's the examiner 1 the branch chief 1 and the approving 25 official? UNCLASSIFIED 66 UNCLASSIFIED 1 A Correct. 2 Q Did this add, in effect, a fourth level? 3 A No, it did not. 4 basically replaced me as the third level. 5 6 The way it was implemented was that he Q Okay. And did that loss of job responsibilities -- was that okay with you? A It removed an administrative -- largely administrative 9 Q Okay. 10 A -- so I was not upset about the -- I mean, I shared the same 7 8 task 11 concerns about the burden it would place on him. 12 the timeliness of our responses to agencies, so we wanted to ensure 13 that we could continue to support that. 14 Q Okay. We also prioritized And after the branch chief completes his or her 15 assessment work, it went straight to Mr. Duffey, then, under the new 16 arrangement? 17 A Correct, once that was implemented. 18 Q So you didn't review it at all? 19 A Correct. 20 Q Okay. 21 Apportionments no longer flow to me. Okay. Unless, of course, a particular branch chief had questions and wanted to lean on your expertise? 22 A Correct. 23 Q Okay. 24 And, as you sit here today, it's, you know, been a number of 25 months. Do you genuinely believe that Mr. Duffey's stated reasons UNCLASSIFIED 67 UNCLASSIFIED 1 2 were, in fact, what he said they were? A Again, I took him at his word. He also has the option to 3 delegate further, and we simply said, particularly if the workload 4 becomes overwhelming, that he always has that option, which can be the 5 case at the end of the fiscal year and the beginning of the fiscal year. 6 Q Okay. 7 A To date, he has not. 8 Q Okay. 9 And has he? So has the arrangement worked out okay, in your opinion, or is it problematic? 10 A I mean, we are -- we continue to process apportionments. 11 Q Okay. 12 13 14 It hasn't created a problem in the organization in terms of delay? A There was a slight delay because we had to get him set up in the system. 15 Q Okay. 16 A But it seems to be working smoothly now. 17 Q Okay. 18 So he communicates that to the group on Wednesday, July 31st. 19 A Correct. 20 Q So, back to the calendar -- 21 A Okay. 22 Q -- did anything relevant happen between Wednesday, July 23 31st, and --you mentioned the memo, drafts of the memo, were occurring 24 on Friday, August 2nd. 25 A Any other relevant -- Nothing comes to mind, other than that there was another UNCLASSIFIED 68 UNCLASSIFIED 1 apportionment in that period. 2 Q Okay. So Friday, August 2nd, you started working on the 3 memo, or at least a draft of the memo, to the Acting Director, which 4 was ultimately transmitted on August 7th? 5 A Just to clarify, I recall some information went to Mike 6 Duffey on the 2nd. 7 prepared on the 7th for the Acting Director. Q 8 9 Okay . I recall more clearly the information that was And, on August 5th, the second hold occurred, and Mr. Duffey signed that one? 10 A That's correct. 11 Q Okay. 12 [Discussion off the record.] 13 BY MR. CASTOR: Q 14 15 What's the next key event in this matter? And maybe I should do a regular check- in. Have I missed any key events? 16 MS. VAN GELDER: 17 MR. CASTOR: 18 MS. VAN GELDER: I am sorry. I just -- You wanted to walk through the No. I'm just saying that, since he's now 19 removed from the process, you would have to define what a "key event" 20 is. You're assuming he knows what a key event is. BY MR. CASTOR: 21 22 23 Q Do you have any firsthand knowledge of other facts related to this matter after Mr. Duffey takes the authority? 24 A So I was aware of the series of apportionments. 25 Q Okay. UNCLASSIFIED 69 UNCLASSIFIED 1 A I don't have all the dates memorized. 2 Q Okay. 3 subsequent -- 4 A Yes. 5 Q -- apportionments? 6 A Correct. 7 Q How many, approximately? A The time periods varied, but I recall at least another 8 9 10 So we go from August 5th, and then there's Every week? Every 2 weeks or 10 days? half-dozen apportionments 11 Q Okay. 12 A -- from the period of early August until September 12th. 13 Q Okay. 14 MR. MEADOWS: 15 half-dozen? Another half-dozen? 16 MR. SANDY: 17 MR. MEADOWS: 18 MR. SANDY: 19 MR. MEADOWS: 20 21 Mr. Sandy, I want to make sure I -- you said a Another half-dozen. As it relates to Ukraine? Yes, sir, with the footnote. Okay. BY MR. CASTOR: Q And did you have any communications during this timeframe 22 with Mr. Duffey about that decision, or was it just the same set of 23 information, the money is on hold and -- 24 A That was kind of the status quo, as I recall, through much 25 of August -UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED 1 Q Okay. 2 A -- in terms of) there was processing of the subsequent 70 3 apportionments; we were waiting to hear of a policy decision; andJ of 4 course) the subsequent apportionments continued the hold on USAI funds) 5 obligations. 6 Q Okay. 7 A I mean) we meet frequently on a range of different topics. 8 Q About the Ukraine -- 9 A I don't recall a significant meeting specifically on this 10 11 And did you have any meetings during that timeframe? topic. Q But did you ever get any feedback from the 12 Associate Director -- I'm sorry J the Acting Director J Mr. Vought) from 13 the memo on August 7th? 14 15 A No. Our understanding was that both Mike Duffey and Russ Vought would alert us if there were any updates. 16 Q Okay. 17 A But we were awaiting information. 18 Q And just to go back to the change in delegation -- 19 A Yes. 20 Q -- you stated Mr. Duffey told you that he just wanted to learn 21 more about the process. And it was never) in your mind) some sort 22 of -- his reasoning had nothing to do with political considerations) 23 did it? 24 A Again) I took Mike at his word. 25 Q Okay. UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED 1 [Minority Exhibit No. 3 2 was marked for identification.] BY MR. CASTOR: 3 4 71 Q I'm going to mark as exhibit 3 -- this is a three-page 5 document. 6 chairman and the Appropriations chairwoman in the House, and then the 7 third page is an attachment. 8 9 10 The first two pages are identical letters to the Budget And I'll just read the cover letter portion to identify this. It's dated October 3rd. And this is a letter from the Leg Affairs department at OMB? 11 A Yes. 12 Q "Mr. Chairman" -- reading the Yarmuth letter dated October 13 3rd -- "The Office of Management and Budget received your September 14 27, 2019, letter requesting information and documents about OMB's 15 apportionment actions. Per your request, please find enclosed a 16 preliminary response. We will be in contact about the remaining 17 requests in your letter." 18 And there's an attachment that walks through a two-paragraph 19 explanation. And I'm going to identify -- or read the sentence about 20 halfway down the first paragraph beginning with "in its apportionment." 21 And it comes right after the cite to the DOD account TAFS 97-0100/2019. 22 A Yes. 23 Q I'm going to read this sentence. 24 A Yes. 25 Q "In its apportionment, OMB noted that it 'understands from UNCLASSIFIED 72 UNCLASSIFIED 1 the Department that this brief pause in obligations will not preclude 2 DOD's timely execution of the final policy direction. 3 its planning and casework for the Initiative during this period.' 4 remaining unobligated USAI funds were made available for use by DOD 5 for FY 2019 on September 12} 2019." DOD may continue 6 A Yes. 7 Q Have you seen this letter or explanation before? 8 A Yes} I have. 9 Q Okay. 10 And is this consistent with your understanding of what had happened} that -- 11 A Yes. 12 Q Okay. 13 The So the pause in funds didn't preclude DOD from continuing its planning and casework? 14 A Correct. 15 Q Okay. And soJ during this time period} if the hold was 16 lifted} then the work that needed to be performed would have} in fact} 17 been performed? 18 A So the hold pertained explicitly to obligations . 19 Q Uh-huh. So do you interpret this that the hold would 20 ultimately J hopefully J be lifted? 21 a rescission or a reprogramming effort} the planning and casework 22 probably would not continue. 23 A I mean} i f it was going to go through Is that fair? So let me answer -- the footnotes} again} only restricted 24 obligation} and the footnotes all allowed for the continued work on 25 planning and casework} and the footnotes all had distinct periods of UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED 1 2 3 73 time. Q Okay. Did you consult with the Leg Affairs office before they sent this letter out? 4 A Yes. 5 Q Okay. 6 A Yes. 7 Q -- or just review it? 8 A I reviewed it and provided edits. 9 Q Okay. 10 A Yes. 11 Q Okay. And this is accurateJ to the best of your knowledge? 12 A Yes. I'm speaking to the first paragraph because the second 13 14 15 16 17 And did you help prepare this -- And were your edits reflected in the final outcome? is not within my purview. Q Okay. Is there any other information that I haven't asked you about this letter and the attachment that you want to tell us about? A AgainJ as I saidJ this is a summary of multiple apportionments -- 18 Q Right. 19 A -- so -- and I believe you've received the apportionments. 20 Is that correct? 21 Q Yes. 22 A Okay. 23 Q Were there any briefings with the Hill on this? 24 A Not to my knowledge. 25 Q Okay. Was there any other information transmitted to the UNCLASSIFIED 74 UNCLASSIFIED 1 Hill? 2 A Transmitted when? 3 Q Subsequent to this. 4 A Not to my knowledge. 5 Q Okay. 6 7 Is it fair to say that holds of this type do happen from time to time for any number of reasons? A I guess it depends on when you say "of this type." SoJ 8 consistent with title 31 of U.S. CodeJ apportionments can restrict 9 funds based upon a time periodJ a purposeJ or a combination of the two. 10 Q Uh-huh. 11 A SoJ in many of the routine apportionmentsJ we wouldJ for 12 exampleJ apportion the moneys by quarter. 13 apportioning by specific purpose. 14 subject toJ for exampleJ an agency providing a spend plan. Uh-huh. And another would be apportioning Okay. 15 Q 16 MS. VAN GELDER: 17 MR. SANDY: SpendJ s-p-e-n-d? Spend. BY MR. CASTOR: 18 19 Another example would be Q Did your communications with Elaine McCusker -- did you have 20 subsequent communications after the apportionment that you were 21 responsible for? 22 A I was copied on communications that she had with Mike Duffey. 23 Q Okay . 24 25 And what do you remember about those communications? How oftenJ and what were the content? A SoJ againJ setting aside -- I had several communications UNCLASSIFIED 75 UNCLASSIFIED 1 prior to the apportionment that I signed. 2 Q Correct. 3 A So setting that aside? 4 Q Yes. 5 A Okay. I know that she and Mike Duffey were in communication 6 surrounding the subsequent apportionments, and there was a concern 7 about -- she expressed a concern about the impact of the continued 8 periods restricting obligation. 9 10 Q Okay. And what were her concerns? be able to be spent if the hold was lifted? 11 A Yes, that was the concern. 12 Q Okay. 13 A That it fully -- fully obligated. 14 Q Okay. 15 That the money wouldn't concerns? And what do you recall from the nature of those Like, what did she say? Correct. And this is on email? Well, I'm aware of the emails, obviously, on which 16 A 17 I was copied. 18 Q Right. 19 A I'm also aware that they had phone conversations of which 20 21 22 I was not a part. Q Okay. And did you receive readouts of those phone conversations or no? 23 A No. 24 Q Did you ever, for the apportionment that you were responsible 25 for, did you object? Did you object to implementing it? UNCLASSIFIED 76 UNCLASSIFIED 1 A No. I worked very carefully on the footnote to address the 2 questions that I had and then was confident in signing it with that 3 footnote. 4 5 Q Okay. And your decisions were also based in part on consultations with the lawyers, right? 6 A Absolutely. 7 Q Okay . 8 MR. CASTOR: 9 I want to make sure that there are some Member opportunities here . 10 Mr. Meadows? 11 MR. MEADOWS: Thank you, Mr. Sandy, for your testimony. And so 12 I'm going to try to understand this process that is so foreign to me, 13 and I appreciate that it's not foreign to you. 14 So what you're saying is, the first apportionment -- and for 15 layman terms, the first hold that was put on Ukraine 16 accurate to say a hold instead of apportionment? 17 was put on sometime in July. 18 MR. SANDY: 19 MR. MEADOWS: would it be Or the first hold Is that correct? That is correct. I signed that on July 25th. And the word "hold," is that, for a layman's 20 term --I know you're more sophisticated on this, but from a layman's 21 term, is that an accurate reflection of -- 22 MR. SANDY: 23 MR. MEADOWS: 24 MR. SANDY: 25 Yes. an administrative hold? Yes. I would say that the apportionment held the funding insofar as DOD could not obligate the funds, but it was very UNCLASSIFIED 77 UNCLASSIFIED 1 2 explicit about allowing the planning and casework to continue. MR. MEADOWS: So the holds that were placed on there said: Go 3 ahead and plan on as if you're going to obligate these funds. 4 not going to stop you from doing your planning process to obligate. 5 We're just going to put a hold on you making that final declaration 6 to obligate. Is that correct? 7 MR. SANDY: 8 MR. MEADOWS: 9 We're Yes, sir. Okay. And you mentioned a half-dozen holds that were put on in the months of August and September. 10 MR. SANDY: 11 MR. MEADOWS: Is that correct? At least a half-dozen, yes. Okay. So I guess the -- and, again, from a 12 layman's term, the first holds were longer than that, were they not? 13 Because if we had a half-dozen that happened in a 34-day period, it's 14 almost like they were saying, well, we're going to hold it for a few 15 more days to see if we get a resolution, a few more days. 16 happened? 17 MR. SANDY: Yes, sir. 18 MR. MEADOWS: Okay. Is that what They were of varying lengths. So these varying lengths that they're 19 putting these holds on, they're saying, well, we're hopeful that not 20 only can we continue to plan, but we want to obligate, and so we were 21 doing these in a few days or a week or smaller time periods than the 22 original hold. 23 MR. SANDY: Is that correct? Sir, I don't recall all the speci fie timeframes. I 24 would have to check records to know the exact dates, but they were of 25 varying lengths and -UNCLASSIFIED 78 UNCLASSIFIED 1 MR. MEADOWS: But you're a math guy. So let's take 35 days or 2 so from the time period that we're looking at until ultimately the funds 3 were allowed to be obligated on September the 11th. 4 MR. SANDY: 5 MR. MEADOWS: 6 Right. And you divide that by six. had to have been just a few days in duration. 7 MR. SANDY: 8 MR. MEADOWS: The average would've Is that correct? Yes. Okay. And so, if we have a few days in duration 9 and we're going with this process and you're having all of these -- then 10 all of a sudden, sometime in September, you get a request for additional 11 information that says, "By the way, what are other countries 12 contributing to Ukraine in terms of aid?" 13 reflected in your previous testimony. 14 MR. SANDY: 15 MR. MEADOWS: 16 these short-term holds. 17 obligate these funds. 18 Is that correct? 19 MR. SANDY: 20 MR. MEADOWS: Is that correct? That was Is that correct? That is correct. All right. And so, all of a sudden, we're having The whole time, the DOD is planning to You're not working on any rescission packages. I was not. Okay. So would you normally work on a rescission 21 package if the administration had made a final determination that these 22 funds were never going to be obligated? 23 MR. SANDY: 24 MR. MEADOWS: 25 There was no decision to propose a rescission. Right. But I guess, previously, throughout your entire career, have you ever worked on a rescission package? UNCLASSIFIED 79 UNCLASSIFIED 1 2 3 MR. SANDY : with them. MR. MEADOWS: 4 responsibility? 5 MR. SANDY: 6 I'm not sure that I've worked on one, but I'm familiar But would that be under your area of Oh, certainly. No, if there had been a request to rescind -- 7 MR. MEADOWS: 8 MR. SANDY: 9 MR. MEADOWS: All right. -- the fund, we would've worked on it. So I'm just, again, trying to get the context of 10 all of this. What we have is, we have a period of time where these 11 short-term holds are being placed on. 12 that allows them to continue to work on their due diligence, is what 13 a real estate guy would say. 14 diligence. There's the planning process They can still work on their due Is that correct? UNCLASSIFIED 80 UNCLASSIFIED 1 [12:08 p.m.] 2 MR. SANDY: 3 MR. MEADOWS: YesJ the planning and casework. Okay. And so they are working on their due 4 diligence. They just can't make that final obligation. 5 short-term holds on it with the anticipation that one day that hold 6 will get pulled off because everybody was in agreement that that was 7 in the United States' best interest to do that. 8 MR. SANDY: 9 MR. MEADOWS: 10 MR. SANDY: 12 MR. MEADOWS: Is that correct? Just I want to clarify -Were you in agreement that that was what you were hopeful that the hold would be removed? 11 You're making Was that your personal view? Yes. I thought that was a softball question so -- and 13 soJ as we look at this) I guess what I'm trying to take all of this) 14 the last 2 hours) and boil it down into just one area for meJ and that 15 is that we had the short-term holds. 16 additional information that's provided in terms of what other countries 17 contribute to Ukraine aidJ and then the aid was released. 18 fair characterization? AndJ all of a sudden) we get some 19 MR. SANDY: . In terms of the sequencing) yes. 20 MR. MEADOWS: Okay. Is that a And soJ as we look at the other countries) 21 would you say that the United States has a disproportionate role in 22 Ukrainian aid or aid to the Ukraine Government) a disproportionate role 23 based on the research that was provided. 24 our European counterparts? 25 MR. SANDY: Do we provide more aid than SirJ I'm sorry I probably should have studied those UNCLASSIFIED 81 UNCLASSIFIED 1 data before coming. 2 to other departments and agencies. 3 MR. MEADOWS: I don't recall the specifics, and I would defer All right. Would it surprise you that we've had 4 other witnesses that have told us under sworn testimony that, indeed, 5 the United States plays a larger role in Ukraine aid than our European 6 counterparts? Would that surprise you? 7 MR. SANDY: 8 MR. MEADOWS: 9 A larger role individually or collectively? Well, financially. Would we provide more than say Germany or France? 10 MR. GOLDMAN: Are you talking about the military aid or all aid? 11 MR. MEADOWS: What we're talking about is -- well he is only able 12 to talk to this particular DOD aid. 13 in terms of what he's there -- I would place it in a -- since 14 Mr. Goldman's the attorney and I'm not, why don't we look at it as 15 security assistance. 16 personal belief that the United States provides more security 17 assistance to Ukraine than say Germany or France? 18 MR. SANDY: 19 of aid. 20 don't have the -- 21 MR. MEADOWS: 22 How about that? Do you believe -- is it your I am aware that other countries provide other types Sir, I'm reluctant to ask, just as a data person, because I Well, I only want your informed opinions. So we'll go on to one other final question, and then I will yield back. 23 MR. SANDY: 24 MR. MEADOWS: 25 So let's just keep it specifically Okay. When we look at the key events in September and that information and by that information, the information that would say UNCLASSIFIED 82 UNCLASSIFIED 1 that the administration made a request for additional information from 2 OMB in terms of what other countries provided to the Ukraine, you 3 followed up on that request. 4 MR. SANDY: 5 MR. MEADOWS: Is that correct? My staff did, yes. And your staff provided that information. And you 6 would say that that information was provided some -- sometime in the 7 first week of September. 8 MR. SANDY: 9 MR. MEADOWS: 10 MR. CASTOR: 11 Mr. Zeldin. 12 MR. ZELDIN: 13 MR. SANDY: 14 MR. ZELDIN: As I recall, yes. All right. I would yield back. Any other member questions? Mr. Sandy, thank you for being here. Yes. Can you speak to what other countries there 15 have -- and programs -- there have been holds placed on aid during your 16 time at OMB? 17 18 MR. SANDY: None that I'm aware of within my purview. So, again, I'm not speaking for anything in the State USAID. 19 MR. ZELDIN: But you're not aware -- I mean, open source, 20 publicly reported of many different countries and programs getting 21 holds placed on aid since the President's been there, correct? 22 23 MR. SANDY: again I don't oversee those programs. 24 25 Oh, in State and AID I'm aware of that reporting, but MR. ZELDIN: Well, it would just be in a different department of OMB. UNCLASSIFIED 83 UNCLASSIFIED 1 MR. SANDY: 2 MR. ZELDIN: 3 Yes, it would be in a different division. Okay. But you are aware of all -- what reporting are you aware of? MR. SANDY: 4 I'm aware of -- again internal conversations but I'm 5 not -- this is not within my purview with respect to other countries. 6 But I can't speak to the speci fie nature of how those -- how funds were 7 restricted. So -- 8 MR. ZELDIN: 9 MR. SANDY: In December 2013. 10 MR. ZELDIN: You've been serving the same position since October 12 MR. SANDY: December. 13 MR. ZELDIN: 14 MR. SANDY: 15 MR. ZELDIN: 11 And you got to your current position what year? 2013? December 2013. Yes. Can you fill me in on, towards the end of the Obama 16 administration, fiscal year 2016, there was an appropriation for this 17 pot of money that we're discussing today, correct? 18 MR. SANDY: 19 MR. ZELDIN: 20 MR. SANDY: 21 22 For USA!? Yes. Yes. There's been an appropriation for multiple years. MR. ZELDIN: Were you involved at all in the decisionmaking 23 process? Are you familiar with the decisionmaking process with 24 regards to not providing lethal aid towards the end of the Obama 25 administration? UNCLASSIFIED 84 UNCLASSIFIED 1 2 MR. SANDY: I do not have a recollection of that. I think that was principally -- well, I do not have a recollection. 3 MR. ZELDIN: Those conversations just didn't take place with you? 4 MR. SANDY: That is correct. 5 MR. ZELDIN: After the hold was lifted, are you involved at all 6 with the process of obligating funds by September 30th, or is that done 7 outside of your department? 8 9 MR. SANDY: Involved with the process of obligation so the Department of Defense takes the lead on the actual implementation of 10 the program in terms of obligation. 11 of the apportionments. 12 the restriction, which enabled DOD to proceed with obligations. 13 MR. ZELDIN: Our role was principally in terms So the apportionment on September 12th removed And the funds had to be obligated by September 30th, 14 but the hold was lifted almost 3 weeks beforehand in order to obligate 15 by September 30th. 16 MR. SANDY: 17 MR. CASTOR: 18 That is correct. Our hour is complete. MR. SWALWELL: 20 [Recess.] 21 MR. SWALWELL: 22 majority, Mr. Mitchell. 23 25 was an exciting hour, and we'll turn it back to you. 19 24 It So, actually, we will return at 12:25. Back on the record. It is 45-minute block with BY MR. MITCHELL: Q We're going to cover much of the same ground as Mr. Castor with regard to the time period. UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED 1 A Yes. 2 Q But I am going to try to ask some followup questions. 85 So 3 I do apologize that it might sound a little bit repetitive, but we are 4 going to try to see if we can get a little bit more information about 5 some of these key events. 6 So my understanding is that mid-June you learn of these questions 7 from the President about Ukraine security assistance through an email 8 that Mr. Duffey sent to DOD. Is that correct? 9 A That's correct. 10 Q And you and your staff gather information in response to 11 Mr. Duffey, and you provide it to him. 12 A That is correct. 13 Q And then you go on leave? 14 A Correct. 15 Q At the beginning of July through July 17th? 16 A I returned on the 18th, yes to the office. 17 Q And then, on July 18th and 19th, you have several 18 conversations with Mr. Duffey regarding specifically Ukraine security 19 assistance. Is that right? 20 A That is correct. 21 Q Okay. And you have this one conversation where you suggest 22 that you have concerns about the Impoundment Control Act and that you 23 wanted to confer with legal counsel and specifically OMB General 24 Counsel's Office. 25 A Is that correct? That is correct. UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED 1 Q 86 Did you also consult with OMB' s Budget Review Division about 2 any of your concerns about any of your concerns about the Impoundment 3 Control Act at the end of July? 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 A Yes. My staff was in contact with the Budget Review Division the week of July 22nd. Q Okay. And what was the nature of those conversations with the Budget Review Division? A It was similar to the conversations with Office of General Counsel. Q I don't want to know anything about your conversation with 11 the Office of General Counsel} but I do want to hear everything you 12 have to say about the communications with OMB' s Budget Review Division? 13 A Okay. Well} and I appreciate your respecting of 14 attorney-client privilege . 15 crafting a footnote. 16 17 Q Let me focus in terms of questions about Well} let me interrupt you. Were these conversations solely to do with crafting the footnote? 18 A Yes} they were. 19 Q Okay. 20 footnote was? 21 A And} again} can you explain what the purpose of the So the purpose of the footnote was to preclude obligation 22 for a limited period of time but enable planning and casework to 23 continue . 24 the Department of Defense that this would not impinge upon their ability 25 to fully obligate by the end of the year. And the footnote explicitly referenced the concurrence of UNCLASSIFIED 87 UNCLASSIFIED Q 1 Okay. And the effect of the 2 apportionment is to 3 the allow~ apportionment~ in this case DOD~ to actually put money on correct? contract~ 4 A You mean a normal apportionment? 5 Q Correct. 6 A Okay~ 7 Q Correct. 8 A Correct. 9 an approved without this type of -- Normally apportionments enable departments and agencies to obligate their funding. Okay. When you first learned of this hold in 10 Q 11 to that 12 apportionment to implement a hold of this sort? mid-July~ had you ever had to deal with adding a footnote to an date~ 13 A I don't recall an example just like this. 14 Q Have you ever worked on any holds that came after a 15 prior congressional notification? 16 A Not to my recollection. 17 Q And you've been dealing with apportionments for how long in 18 your career? 19 A 20 At this level since -- well~ since I took this position in terms of approving apportionments since December 2013. 21 Q What about in any position? 22 A Any position~ well~ also in my prior experience as a branch 23 chief and as an 24 my 12 years -- roughly 12 years of OMB experience. 25 Q examiner~ I also worked on apportionments. So~ across So is it fair to say that this was an unusual event for you? UNCLASSIFIED 88 UNCLASSIFIED 1 A Yes. 2 Q A unique event? 3 A I do not recall another event like it. 4 Q In mid-June, as we've discussed, there were questions coming 5 from the White House about the hold -- excuse me -- about the Ukraine 6 security assistance, but at that time period, you weren't aware of any 7 hold, correct? 8 9 10 A That is correct. And you asked a question before, and I want to be clear because, again, I'm not speaking for the State component of this assistance. 11 Q All right. 12 A I do recall there were questions about our is there 13 guidance forthcoming related to this. So I do recall questions, but 14 I don ' t -- I know I did not see anything that was definitive guidance 15 until I returned from leave on the 18th and 19th. 16 Q Questions from whom? 17 A Questions from staff within NSD to Mike Duffey. 18 Q And what did he respond? 19 A I don't have any recollection of guidance on a hold until 20 21 I returned on the 18th. Q And when you returned on the 18th and you learned 22 definitively there was a hold in place for Mr. Duffey, you said you 23 expressed concerns about the implications of that hold on the 24 Impoundment Control Act, but was the fact of the hold unexpected at 25 that point to you, or did you see this coming? UNCLASSIFIED 89 UNCLASSIFIED A 1 Let me just also clarify your remarks. My concern was about 2 implementing it via an apportionment, that's the speci fie concern that 3 came to mind on the 19th. Q 4 But your concern was not just a technical one on how to 5 implement an apportionment, but was it also with regard to the whether 6 the funds would be able to be obligated prior to the close of the fiscal 7 year? 8 A Yes, it raises those legal questions. 9 Q Okay. So, again, was the fact of the hold when you came back 10 from vacation was that a complete surprise to you, or did you have a 11 sense that this was coming? 12 A Well, we're well aware that the President is not a fan of 13 foreign assistance. So, to the extent that we were getting questions 14 about a foreign assistance program, again, this administration has not 15 been a fan of foreign assistance in some ways so. 16 Q Okay, but the circumstances of this particular hold -- 17 A Right. 18 Q -- were unique in so far as this is was after a congressional 19 notification. 20 a way to actually implement this hold and deal with the apportionments 21 issue and how that might affect the Impoundment Control Act. And, therefore, you needed -- OMB needed to figure out Correct? 22 A That is correct. 23 Q And is it your understanding that the President also signed 24 25 the law that appropriated these funds previously, prior to the CN? A That is correct. These funds were appropriated as part of UNCLASSIFIED 90 UNCLASSIFIED 1 the defense appropriations for fiscal year 2019. 2 Q Which was signed by President Trump? 3 A Yes, enacted legislation . 4 Q Now, you returned from vacation on July 18th. 5 Are you aware of a sub PCC that occurred that same day? 6 A Yes, I am. 7 Q Did you attend that sub-PCC? 8 A I 9 Q Did you get a readout of that sub-PCC? 10 A Yes. 11 Q And what was in that readout? 12 A The readout was that two colleagues had attended and that did not. 13 they had shared the President's direction to hold military support 14 funding for Ukraine. 15 16 Q Now you were on vacation. Did you help prepare your colleagues for that sub PCC? 17 A I did not. 18 Q There was a PCC on July 23rd. 19 A Yes. 20 Q Are you 21 A I 22 Q Did you prepare anyone for it? 23 A I 24 Q Did you help prepare that person? 25 A No. did you attend that PCC? did not. was aware of a member of my staff who was attending. UNCLASSIFIED 91 UNCLASSIFIED 1 Q Did you get a readout of the PCC that occurred on July 23rd? 2 A Yes, I did. 3 Q What was the readout? 4 A The readout was quite similar to the previous, which was that 5 he had simply indicated that remained the guidance as we understood 6 it from it the President, that we did not know the reason for the hold, 7 and that other agencies had expressed concerns. 8 Q And what was your understanding of those concerns? 9 A Concerns about understanding why -- what the rationale for 10 the hold was. 11 overall policy toward Ukraine and concerns about how similar legal 12 questions vis-a-vis a hold on appropriated funds. 13 Q Concerns about the implications for our assistance and And during the same time period around July 23rd is when you 14 were having -- you and your staff were having communications with the 15 DOD comptroller Ms. McCusker about these very same issues. 16 right? Is that 17 A Yes. I was having those conversations. 18 Q And what sorts of concerns was Ms. McCusker raising? 19 A Similar to those that I had raised, which was, how would we 20 implement a hold consistent with the Impoundment Control Act, number 21 one, but also the need for policy clarity during that timeframe. 22 Q And you had those communications with Ms. McCusker between 23 July 22nd and July 24th, as well as with Office of General Counsel. 24 And the result of those communications was a July 25th apportionment? 25 A That's correct. And the communications with DOD extended UNCLASSIFIED 92 UNCLASSIFIED 1 through the 25th. MR. MITCHELL: 2 Handing you exhibit No. 4. 3 [Majority Exhibit No. 4 4 was marked for identification.] MR. MITCHELL: 5 This is a three-page document I'll represent to 6 you it asJ if not the entire apportionment} it consists of the first 7 page is a signature page and the following two pages are footnotes. 8 I'll direct your attention to the first page here -- ohJ I'm sorry. 9 I think I may have handed you the wrong one. 10 5. 11 Let's go off the record. 12 [Discussion off the record.] BY MR. MITCHELL: 13 14 15 Let's mark this as No. Q So you have in front of you exhibit No. 4} it is dated July 25th on the first page. Do you see that} sir? 16 A Yes. 17 Q Do you recognize this document? 18 A Absolutely. 19 Q And what is it? 20 A This is the apportionment I signed on July 21 sorry -- that I approved} and so it reflects my signature. 25th 22 Q And that's your signature here on the first page? 23 A Yes. 24 Q And below that it says: 25 Sent by that? UNCLASSIFIED Who is 93 UNCLASSIFIED 1 A She is an examiner in my division. 2 Q And what's her job? 3 A She is not. 4 branch chief. 5 leave) so it is also the case that sometimes people are in acting 6 positions. 7 Q She is not the branch chief? Though) I don't recall if she was acting as a During summer) it is a common time for people to take talk to you any concerns that she might have Did 8 had about this particular apportionment in the application of the hold 9 to the best of your recollection? 10 A NoJ I don't -- no) I don't recall that. Among the staff 11 working on this issue) we had talked about the issues associated with 12 the apportionment through the course of the week. 13 14 15 Q All right. Were concerns expressed by your staff over the course of the week generally? A So I think they had the same questions that I had in terms 16 of developing an apportionment that would not run into issues with the 17 Impoundment Control Act. 18 Q And these were career staffers with long-time experience? 19 A YesJ they are. 20 Q Turning to the footnote on page 21 to footnote A4. 2 of exhibit No. 4J turning Do you see thatJ sir? 22 A Yes. 23 Q Is this the footnote that you were describing earlier in your 24 25 testimony today? A Yes) it is. UNCLASSIFIED 94 UNCLASSIFIED Q 1 Okay. And it reads: Amounts apportioned but not obligated 2 as of the date of this reapportionment for the Ukraine Security 3 Assistance Initiative are not available for obligation until August 4 5th, 2019, to allow for an interagency process to determine the best 5 use of such funds. I will stop there, August 5th, 2019. 6 7 8 9 Where did that date come from? A That date reflected consultations with both Mike Duffey and Elaine McCusker about what was a reasonable timeframe for an 10 interagency process in hopes of getting clear guidance, number one. 11 And, also, that date helped inform the very next sentence. 12 13 Q So the interagency process is the second part of that sentence. 14 A Right. 15 Q And the interagency process, is that the July 18th, sub-PCC, 16 the July 23rd PCC that we were just discussing, as well as the July 17 26 deputies committee meeting that you were talking about earlier with 18 minority counsel? 19 20 21 22 A Yes. I think our understanding of that is that it would be an NSC-led process. Q Okay. But that's what this footnote means by an interagency process. 23 A That is correct. 24 Q And then the next sentence says, based on OMB' s communication 25 with DOD on July 25th, 2019, OMB understands from the Department that UNCLASSIFIED 95 UNCLASSIFIED 1 this brief pause in obligations will not preclude DOD's timely 2 execution of the final policy direction. 3 sentence. A 4 Explain what is meant by that Well, that gets to the heart of that issue about ensuring 5 that we don't run afoul of the Impoundment Control Act, which means 6 that you have to allow for the timely execution. 7 my conversation with -- conversations plural with Elaine McCusker that 8 they can confirm that, during this brief period, they would not foresee 9 any problem fully executing the program by the end of the fiscal year. 10 Q And this reflects When you say "fully executing the program" or you say "allow 11 for timely execution," what you mean is to allow time for DOD to put 12 funds under contract --in other words, to obligate those funds-- prior 13 to the end of the fiscal year, which is September 30th of 2019? 14 A That is correct. 15 Q So this sentence and this date of August 5th was based on 16 feedback provided by DOD as to how much time DOD required in order to 17 put funds under contract, in other words to put -- to obligate those 18 funds. 19 A Is that right? Well, let me put it this way, she said that basically she 20 didn't foresee any issue with, and I'm going to say 2 weeks because 21 we had started these conversations at the beginning of this week. 22 we were always talking about a 2-week timeframe. 23 assessment was there certainly shouldn't be any issues for that brief 24 period of time. 25 Q Okay. And "she" being? UNCLASSIFIED So And as I recall, her UNCLASSIFIED 1 A Elaine McCusker. 2 Q The comptroller for DOD? 3 A Deputy comptroller. 4 Q So the next sentence says: 5 6 DOD may continue its planning and casework for the initiative during this period. I think you have mentioned a couple of times during your testimony 7 planning and casework. 8 by that? 9 96 A What is your understanding of what is meant So I am not an expert on the implementation of USAIJ but I 10 am aware that it is -- it represents a number of different so-called 11 cases that pertain to different types of assistance and equipmentJ for 12 exampleJ and that multiple military services are involved in those 13 components. 14 materiel it would be envisioned to provide and the casework in terms 15 of the actual contracting process for example. 16 17 Q So that would be the planning in terms of what sort of But it does not include actually spending those funds or obligating those fundsJ correct? 18 A That is correctJ up to the point of obligation. 19 Q Okay. 20 The day after you signed this apportionment was the deputies committee meeting on July 26thJ correct? 21 A Correct. 22 Q And you indicated earlier during testimony that you helped 23 prepare Mr. Duffey for that DC? 24 A Correct. 25 Q And you indicated that there were at least six different UNCLASSIFIED 97 UNCLASSIFIED 1 areas that you helped Mr. Duffey prepare on. 2 for the holdJ correct? 3 A The first was the reason When you say "prepareJ" these were what we envisioned as six 4 critical questions in which we would -- it would be helpful to get 5 policy guidance. Q 6 Okay. So these were questions to be raised at the meeting. 7 But did OMB have an understanding of the reason for the hold on July 8 26th? 9 10 11 A No. Q Was there any discussion about the amount of money that was being contributed by other countries on July 26th? 12 A Not within OMB. 13 Q You said that duration was another question. 14 what the duration of the hold was on July 26th? 15 A No. 16 Q You said extent of the hold was also a question. 17 18 Did you know Do you know what the extent of the hold was on July 26th? A Within DODJ our understanding -- I'm sorryJ within DOD 19 programsJ our understanding was just USAIJ but that question pertained 20 perhaps more to State programs. 21 Q And was it -- now you did not have responsibility for the 22 apportionments regarding FMF. 23 That fell under the International Affairs Division of OMB. 24 right? 25 A That fell under a different division. Correct. UNCLASSIFIED Is that 98 UNCLASSIFIED 1 Q But Mr. Duffey oversaw that division as well, correct? 2 A Yes. 3 Q Was it your understanding on July 26th that this hold applied 4 to FMF funds as well? A 5 6 Yes, that is how I would have interpreted military support funding. 7 Q For Ukraine? 8 A For Ukraine, yes. 9 Q There was also a public affairs question. A So these are just general questions that we would flag for 10 11 What did that mean? 12 the policy level to say, depending on or once we have policy guidance, 13 people should also think through those components of implementing any 14 policy. 15 Q On July 26th, the hold was not public yet, as far as you know. 16 A As far as I know, correct. 17 Q You said congressional affairs was also a consideration. 18 19 Could you explain what you mean by that? A So we, again, depending upon what the policy was, would 20 always ask the question of what is the strategy for updating 21 congressional stakeholders. 22 Q And what was the strategy? 23 A We were not aware of one. 24 Q So was Congress notified? 25 A Not to my knowledge. UNCLASSIFIED 99 UNCLASSIFIED Q 1 2 Was there any discussion that you recall about whether to notify Congress? 3 A No, I didn't attend the DC so -- 4 Q In preparation for the DC? 5 A No, because it was all predicated on getting clarity on the 6 policy first. 7 Q Well, did you get a readout of the July 26th DC? 8 A I got readout that it was not conclusive. 9 Q Well, not conclusive, but is it your understanding that OMB 10 was the only agency who attended that meeting that was insisting that 11 the hold continue? 12 A Yes, that's my understanding. 13 Q And that was the case for the July 23rd PCC and the July 18th 14 sub-PCC as well, correct? A 15 16 In those PCCs, yes, OMB was communicating the guidance that we had received. Q Had all the other agencies there wanted the lifting of the 19 A That's my understanding. 20 Q And OMB is not a policymaking entity, correct? 21 A We do weigh in on policy matters so we are part of the 17 18 22 23 hold? interagency policy process led by NSC. Q But here OMB wasn't expressing its policy views, rather they 24 were relaying the President's decision to withhold security assistance 25 for Ukraine, correct? UNCLASSIFIED 100 UNCLASSIFIED 1 A That is correct. 2 Q And in fact I think you testified at least as of early August, 3 Mr. Duffey and you, as well as your staff, all believed that the hold 4 should be lifted. Is that correct? 5 A Yes, we supported the continuation of a USA! program. 6 Q And lifting of the hold? 7 A Yes, yes. 8 Q You indicated there was -- you recall an email on August 2nd 9 to Mr. Duffey related to, I believe, some guidance or a memo that 10 would -- whose purpose was to be transmitted to Acting Director Vought. 11 Do I have is that right? 12 A For August 2nd? 13 Q Yes. 14 A I recall that that information went to Mike Duffey. 15 I do not recall whether it was intended to go beyond him. 16 Q Okay. 17 A It was just an update on the state of play. 18 Q And what was the state of play? 19 A Well, for USA!, it was that the funds were currently on hold 20 What is that information? pending a policy decision or, you know, direction from the President. 21 Q Was this in the form of a memo this August 2nd communication? 22 A No, it was written so, yes. 23 Q Well, was it an email or 24 A No, it was not; it was a written document. 25 Q And you describe in some detail the August 7th memo that was UNCLASSIFIED Excuse me. 101 UNCLASSIFIED 1 transmitted to Vought with certain policy recommendations. 2 policy recommendations in the August 2nd memo as well? Were there 3 A Not that I recall. 4 Q So it simply described the state of play? 5 A Correct. 6 Q Did anything happen between July -- well} you indicated that 7 I think you said at the end of July your duties as approver of 8 apportionments was removed from you and that was delegated to 9 Mr. Duffey. Is that right? 10 A That's correct} effective July 30th. 11 Q And you had some conversation with Mr. Duffey by telephone 12 prior to July 30th or in person? 13 A About that? 14 Q Yes. 15 A I recall his alerting me the day before on July 29th in 16 person. 17 Q In person. 18 A Yes. 19 Q Can you describe that conversation? 20 A He relayed to me that there was going to be a change in the What did he say to you? 21 apportionment approval delegation. And he relayed basically the 22 justification that I shared earlier in testimony. 23 Q Did he tell you -- 24 A -- or the explanation} excuse me. 25 Q Did he tell you that he petitioned for this change} i.e.J UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED 1 2 102 Mr. Duffey petitioned for this change? A No, he did not say that. And let me just answer what I 3 anticipate your next question to be, which is, when asked about that, 4 he said it was in essence a joint decision reflecting both guidance 5 from the Acting Director and also his support. 6 7 Q Prior to July 29th, had you -- had Mr. Duffey ever expressed an interest to you in being the approver of apportionments? 8 A No. 9 Q Had he ever taken an interest generally in apportionments, 10 11 in the process of reviewing and approving apportionments? A I think he had gotten involved on some issues related to 12 apportionments with my counterparts in the International Affairs 13 Division. But again, I don't know the specifics there . 14 Q Were those related to FMF for Ukraine? 15 A They pertained to congressional notifications, but that's 16 17 the extent of my knowledge. Q Okay. Are you aware that there was a congressional 18 notification that was held up by OMB on or about June 21st regarding 19 FMF funds to Ukraine? 20 A I do not have knowledge -- 21 Q Is it possible that that's the --what you're referring to 22 23 with regard to Mr. Duffey's interest in apportionments on the A He had knowledge of apportionments based upon the 24 congressional notification. 25 those conversations. But, again, I'm not --I was not part of UNCLASSIFIED r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- ·- ----·--- 103 UNCLASSIFIED 1 Q And prior to the change in delegation of the approval process 2 for apportionments regarding USAI, which took that responsibility away 3 from you, a career official, to Mr. Duffey, a political official, you 4 had raised concerns about the hold on Ukraine security assistance with 5 Mr. Duffey, correct? Prior to July 29th? 6 A Yes. 7 Q And specifically how to implement it in light of the 8 I had raised concerns about the implementation. Impoundment Control Act? 9 A That's correct. 10 Q The August 7th memo that was transmitted to Mr. Vought, you 11 described your portion of it, which had this recommendation to remove 12 the hold, and that was for several different reasons which you described 13 earlier, all of which were shared by Mr. Duffey. 14 parts of this memo as well? 15 16 17 18 A Were there other So there were also sections drafted by the International Affairs Division and by Office of Legal Counsel. Q Okay. I'm not interested in the Office of Legal Counsel section. 19 A Understood. 20 Q What was in the Office of International Affairs Division 21 section? 22 A I do not recall the specifics. 23 Q After this memo was transmitted to Mr. Vought, I believe you 24 indicated that you -- well, what did you hear happened after this memo 25 was transmitted to Mr. Vought? UNCLASSIFIED 104 UNCLASSIFIED 1 A We didn't hear any specific readout other than that there 2 was a desire on the part of principals to find an occasion to receive 3 guidance. 4 5 Q And when you say the principals to receive guidance} you mean guidance from the President} correct? 6 A That is correct. 7 Q Did you ever have any conversations with anyone other than 8 Mr. Duffey about the fact that this apportionment approval authority 9 was being taken away from you? 10 A Certainly with my staff. 11 Q And what was their reaction? 12 A They were surprised} and they were concerned for the reasons 13 14 15 16 17 18 I mentioned before. Q Did you talk to anyone at Mr. Duffey's level or above about this issue} other than Mr. Duffey? A Not that I recall. It was certainly talked to other deputy associate directors about this. Q · In your career at OMB or otherwise J are you aware of any other 19 political appointee being given the responsibility to authorize 20 apportionments as happened here with Mr. Duffey? 21 A The short answer isJ noJ I am not aware. I would just note 22 for the record that because the apportionment authority comes through 23 the Acting Director} the Acting Director always has retained that 24 authority to exercise it if he so chooses. 25 Q Are you aware of any situations in which the Acting Director UNCLASSIFIED 105 UNCLASSIFIED 1 2 3 has exercised an authority? A I understand that there was one case in another division in which he signed an apportionment. 4 Q Do you know the circumstances related to that? 5 A I'm not familiar with the details. 6 Q Do you know generally what it was about? 7 A I think it pertained to a deficiency apportionment, but again 8 that's a very technical matter in another division that I do not have 9 expertise on. MR. GOLDMAN: 10 11 question to follow up? 12 MR. SWALWELL: 13 MR. GOLDMAN: 14 MR. SWALWELL: 15 MS. VAN GELDER: 16 MR. SWALWELL: You have 10 more minutes But technically one counsel per hour. Okay. I -Please, save us. BY MR. GOLDMAN: 17 18 Mr. Jordan, do you mind if I ask a quick Q Mr. Sandy, without getting into legal advice that you may 19 have received, in that August 7th memo, were you aware of any concerns 20 expressed to Mr. Vought about the legality of doing this -- sorry, of 21 continuing the hold? 22 A I think the best way to characterize this is that we said 23 if there was a desire to continue the hold, that the Office of Legal 24 Counsel would have to opine on any such options. 25 Q And are you aware of whether the Office of Legal Counsel ever UNCLASSIFIED 106 UNCLASSIFIED 1 did opine on this topic? 2 A I'm aware that they contributed to this memo. 3 Q The Office of Legal Counsel) the Department of Justice 4 contributed to -- 5 A I'm sorryJ sorry. 6 Q You ' re talking about the Office of Legal Counsel at OMB? 7 A Yeah. 8 Q I'm sorry. 9 A I'm sorry. I used the wrong term. 10 Counsel) my apologies. 11 the lead on those questions. Office of General Counsel would have to take 12 Q As of August 7th? 13 A Sorry as 14 Q I right. 15 It is Office of General they contributed to that memo. I guess I'm -- they would have to opine on whatJ the continuation of the hold? 16 A They -- it would pertain to the duration. 17 Q So what exactly would the Office of General Counsel need to 18 19 do pertaining to the duration after August 7th? A SoJ if the policy guidance or the Presidential guidance was 20 to haveJ for example) an indefinite holdJ then the Office of Legal 21 Counsel would have to opine on any options to implement that. 22 Q What options would there beJ to your knowledge? 23 A That is a legal question. 24 Q But you were not aware -- you did not learn at that time that 25 there were other options? UNCLASSIFIED 107 UNCLASSIFIED 1 MS. VAN GELDER: -- is that what he learned was through the memo 2 what the options are, so to say what he learned would be divulging 3 attorney-client information. BY MR. GOLDMAN: 4 5 6 7 I think it is sufficient to say that -- Q Well, let me ask you this: Did you hear any concerns from the Budget Review Division about the ongoing legality of this hold? A I did not. We consulted with the Budget Review Division on 8 the first footnote so just to set the record straight. 9 subsequent apportionments, I do not recall -- I do not recall specific 10 11 In terms of conversations about that. Q All right. I want to just try to whiz through --I'm going 12 to ask to sort of whiz through -- that same footnote that was in the 13 July 25th call -- apportionment, also it was included on the August Is that right? 14 15 Correct, with a different date. 16 Obviously, with a different date. 17 Correct. 18 And that August 6th one was signed by Mr. Duffey? 19 That is correct. 21 Correct. 22 Thereafter, you mentioned there were a number of different 23 apportionments? 24 A Correct. 25 Q Was that same footnote -- sorry. UNCLASSIFIED Okay, so -- all right, . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -----·---···· 108 UNCLASSIFIED 1 2 3 we'll get to this in a second. I want to go back before we go through this; the apportionment process you said is an administrative process? 4 A Largely) yes. 5 Q And one of the concerns that you raised to Mr. Duffey when 6 he told you that he was taking over the approval of that is that) if 7 he really wanted to learn more about this process) there were other 8 better ways of doing that? 9 A OhJ noJ it was really more if he wanted to learn more about 10 the accounts. 11 Q 12 the accounts? 13 A The accounts and the programs. 14 Q The accounts and the programs. 15 A Correct. 16 Q And what was your reaction to -- did you think that by taking So his explanation was that he wanted to learn more about 17 over the approval of the apportionments that he would be able to learn 18 more about the accounts and the programs in the most efficient way? 19 A It would not be my choice) but 20 Q Why not? 21 A Well) the associate director operates at a very -- at a high 22 level with a very broad purview. So I can think of other ways -- other 23 materials that I personally would find more informative. 24 his preference) that was his prerogative. 25 well) we'll wait and see. If this was I think we also thought) If he finds this useful) then okay. UNCLASSIFIED And 109 UNCLASSIFIED 1 2 3 if he doesn't, then he had the ability to delegate it. Q What -- you said that it takes a fair amount of time. Is that right? 4 A Particularly in certain times of year, yes. 5 Q So, certainly, if you wanted to learn more about the 6 programs, there would be other ways that would be much more efficient 7 and effective than doing that in your estimation. Is that right? 8 A Again, it would not be my choice. 9 Q It would not be your choice because there are other more 10 efficient ways of doing it? 11 A For me, yes. 12 Q So that explanation of his really did not make sense to you 13 at that time. 14 A 15 Is that right? Let me just say people have different ways of learning and different interests. So, again, I took him at his word. 16 Q 17 MR. SWALWELL: 18 objectives may have been No, I understood you took him at -- 19 MR. SANDY: 20 MR. SWALWELL: 21 MR. SANDY: 22 Mr. Sandy, would it be fair to say that his ~ifferent than your objectives? His objectives with respect to? Why he wanted to put himself in this role. To the extent that he was looking to learn about accounts, that would not be my focus of the apportionment process. 23 MR. SWALWELL: Mr. Goldman. 24 MR. MITCHELL: We have 1 minute. 25 MR. SANDY: I'm sorry. I'm going to ask one question. Could I come back to this just for the UNCLASSIFIED 110 UNCLASSIFIED 1 2 3 record? So I am aware of one member within the Budget Review Division who expressed some general concerns so I just want to -BY MR. GOLDMAN: 4 What 5 Q What general concerns? 6 A Concerns about questions vis-a-vis the Impoundment Control 7 8 9 Act and the withholding of funds. Q Meaning concerns that withholding the funds would violate the Impoundment Control Act? Yes, that was her opinion. 10 A 11 MR. SWALWELL: 12 MR. SANDY: It Time -may -- let me just say "may." I just want to make 13 the point that neither my division nor the Budget Review Division are 14 attorneys, and we're just very respectful of the role of attorneys in 15 terms of providing legal advice so -- 16 MR. GOLDMAN: True, and we can discuss with your attorney some 17 of the limits here. But, obviously, the whether or not this was deemed 18 by OMB to be legally deficient is of course of concern to the committees. 19 And while we are trying to respect attorney-client privilege as much 20 as we can, even though Congress does not recognize it, we do need to 21 understand the answers to internal concerns about the legality of 22 pursuing this hold. 23 So, with that, I yield to the minority. 24 MR. SWALWELL: 25 Mr. Castor. MR. CASTOR: Mr. Anderson UNCLASSIFIED 111 UNCLASSIFIED BY MR. ANDERSON: 1 2 Mr. SandyJ I am Doug Anderson with the Foreign Affairs Q 3 Committee. Let me make sure I've understood your testimony today 4 correctly. You testified that the apportionment approval authority 5 transferred to Mr. Duffey on July 30th and that are not aware of a 6 Ukraine specific reason for that transfer. Is that correct? 7 A Correct. 8 Q Is it true thatJ at the beginning of AugustJ OMB placed a 9 I was not aware of that. broad hold on unobligated U.S. foreign assistanceJ that the 10 administration was contemplating compiling a rescissions package at 11 that time? 12 A SirJ that is my understandingJ and I think materials have 13 probably been shared. 14 not my areaJ my area of responsibilityJ I don't feel comfortable 15 speaking to the specifics. 16 Q Understood. I just want to be quick to note because that's And I'm glad to deal with your general 17 awareness. In factJ The Washington Post reportedJ I believeJ around 18 August 5th on an August 3rd OMB letter detailing that broader hold thatJ 19 againJ was not Ukraine specific . 20 that timeframe? Are you aware of a decision around 21 A I am aware of that memo being signed. 22 Q And I'm glad to submit it or provide copies if people want 23 to seeJ although I can hardly read the small type or I'm glad to read 24 into the record. 25 MR. MITCHELL: We would like a copyJ please. UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED 1 This is number 6. 2 [Minority Exhibit No. 6 3 was marked for identification.] BY MR. ARMSTRONG: 4 5 112 Q And I just want to read the portion beneath the first break 6 that apparently an advertisement was supposed to be printed in, that, 7 according to this, it said the OMB letter listed eight areas that cover 8 a variety of assistance: 9 operations and activities; international narcotics control and law international organizations; peacekeeping 10 enforcement; development aid; assistance for Europe, Eurasia and 11 Central Asia; economic support funding; foreign military financing 12 programs; and global health programs. 13 So, in so far as you're aware of this discussion of a rescissions 14 package, were you aware that those discussions were going on and related 15 holds? 16 17 18 A I was aware that my counterparts in the International Affairs Division were involved in those discussions. Q And were the discussions that were ongoing, were they country 19 specific? 20 global approach reflecting, as I think you said previously, the 21 skepticism of the administration towards foreign assistance generally? 22 23 24 25 A In other words, this is broader than Ukraine; this is a My understanding is it was broader, but again I am not knowledgeable about the details. Q Okay. Are you aware of whether this was the first attempted broad-based foreign assistance rescissions package by this UNCLASSIFIED 113 UNCLASSIFIED 1 administration? Are you aware of an effort in 2 August of last year also? I think approximately 3 A Again, I have awareness of that effort. 4 Q And do you know, was that rescissions package attempt s consummated or successful? 6 submit -- did they finalize and submit a rescissions package? 7 A At that point in time, did they Not to my knowledge. UNCLASSIFIED 114 UNCLASSIFIED 1 [1: 15 p.m.] 2 MR. ANDERSON: And so this was the second time around. And 3 roughly the same timeframe that they are contemplating this global 4 rescissions package based on holds on these multiple foreign assistance 5 accounts was roughly the same timeframe that the decisional authority 6 for approving apportionments was transferred to Mr. Duffey? 7 MR. SANDY: Yes, roughly the same timeframe. 8 MR. ANDERSON: 9 MR. MEADOWS: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Sandy, let me just come back, because in the 10 previous 45 minutes, you know, I see my colleagues opposite trying to 11 make some kind of nefarious purpose over the fact that what you've 12 already testified to was just a transition between you and Mr. Duffey 13 in terms of who approves the apportionment. 14 I believe I heard this correct, and I want to make sure it is 15 correct. The Acting Director of OMB has the ability to approve 16 apportionments now. Is that correct? 17 MR. SANDY: 18 MR. MEADOWS: 19 approve apportionments? 20 MR. SANDY: 21 MR. MEADOWS: Yes, sir. Has the Director of OMB always had the ability to That is my understanding, yes. And that's my understanding too. And I 22 guess here's -- you know, because they're trying to make this 23 transition, and they've asked you about 10 different ways for you to 24 opine on this ability to approve apportionments being removed from you 25 and going to Mr. Duffey, as to suggest that there is some kind of UNCLASSIFIED 115 UNCLASSIFIED 1 2 connection. But, indeed, if someone wanted to overrule you in terms of 3 approving an apportionment, that has been there in the process the 4 entire time you've been at OMS, has it not? 5 MR. SANDY: 6 MR. MEADOWS: Yes. And so, when we start to look at this -- Mr. Sandy, 7 I want to thank you for your service. You know, I was trying to figure 8 out who this Mark Sandy -- you know, unfortunately, everybody is going 9 to know who Mark Sandy is pretty soon. But, you know, what came back 10 to me from OMS was a dedicated, career public servant that called balls 11 and strikes. 12 questions and my questions equally without a partisan tinge, and I want 13 to thank you for that. 14 I've seen that here today, trying to answer their I also wanted to go a little bit further, though, into one area. 15 Majority counsel indicated that OMS typically doesn't have any 16 responsibility in the policy side of things. 17 from your testimony. 18 MR. SANDY: You disagree with that, Is that correct? We are certainly involved in the policy process, 19 number one. 20 but we do have a responsibility, as part of the Executive Office of 21 the President, to ensure that executive branch actions are consistent 22 with the President's direction. 23 We are mindful that we are not an implementing agency, MR. MEADOWS: In fact, it's been characterized to me that OMS and 24 this area that most Americans have never heard of, the Office of 25 Management and Budget, indeed is one of the most powerful groups in UNCLASSIFIED r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - -- ---·-· · ·· UNCLASSIFIED 116 1 the executive branch because they indeed control the purse strings over 2 and over again on almost everything that gets spent in one way or 3 another. MR. SANDY: 4 5 Would you agree with that? the entire executive branch. 6 MR. MEADOWS: 7 MR. SANDY: 8 And then, finally, let me -I'm sorry, sir. Just a point of clarification: over the departments and agencies. MR. MEADOWS: 9 MR. SANDY: 10 11 So, as an agency, we do have oversight over basically Obviously not -- Right. -- our colleagues within the Executive Office of the President. 12 MR. MEADOWS: Right. 13 You've never acted in a nefarious purpose as it relates to any 14 of the decisions that are the subject of this particular inquiry, have 15 you? MR. SANDY: 17 MR. MEADOWS: You've always acted as a professional? MR. SANDY: 19 MR. MEADOWS: 20 MR. SANDY: 21 MR. MEADOWS: Again, another softball question. I appreciate that. Are you aware of anyone acting in a nefarious 22 purpose? 23 that's where everybody is trying to --are you aware of anyone within 24 OMB acting in a nefarious way? 25 You know, we've asked these questions today, and I think MR. SANDY: No, sir. UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED 1 MR. MEADOWS: I'll yield back. BY MR. CASTOR: 2 3 All right. 117 Q Just to be clear, this decision to take control of the 4 apportionments by Mr. Duffey, you're not aware of any political 5 purpose, you're not aware of any reason other than the stated reason, 6 which was that he wanted to learn more about how to do this? 7 A I, again, take him at his word, in terms of his explanation. 8 Q Okay. 9 And you have no reason to think that there's a different reason, correct? 10 A I do not have a reason, no. 11 Q Okay. 12 And following up on Mr. Meadows's question, the further 13 apportionments that were implemented after Mr. Duffey took over that 14 responsibility, to the extent you have firsthand information about 15 them, do you have any concerns? 16 way that the one that you signed was? Or were they implemented in the same 17 A So my staff and I did have concerns. 18 Q Okay. 19 A Yes. 20 Q -- were those concerns? 21 A So the concerns were basically that the longer you go into And what 22 the fiscal year with a hold on obligations, the greater risk that you 23 create in terms of the ability to ensure that all the funds can be 24 obligated in a proper fashion before the end of the fiscal year. 25 Q Okay. That decision was being made over Mr. Duffey's UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED 1 responsibility level, right? 118 That was coming from his superiors. 2 A I'm sorry. Which decision? 3 Q The decision for the apportionment. 4 A Oh. I do not know who was providing -- we received from 5 Mike Duffey each time the request for the speci fie timeframes for the 6 apportionments. 7 Q Okay. 8 A He did not provide the explicit explanation of where the 9 10 timeframes were coming from. Q Okay. Was it your understanding that they were coming from 11 Mr. Duffey personally or coming from Mr. Blair or some other higher 12 authority? 13 14 15 16 A So our presumption was it was informed by projections of when we might get final clarity on the overall policy. Q Okay. But the initial implementation of a hold came from higher than Mr. Duffey's authority. 17 A You mean the initial direction? 18 Q Yeah. 19 A It came from the President, as it was communicated to us. 20 Q Okay. 21 A Oh, on the hold? 22 Q Okay. 23 A Again, our understanding was those all reflected the So it wasn't a Mr. Duffey decision? No. And the subsequent holds. 24 direction of the President, which, our presumption was, had not changed 25 because we weren't lifting the hold. UNCLASSIFIED 119 UNCLASSIFIED 1 Q 2 MR. CASTOR: 3 MR. SWALWELL: Okay. Yield back. Mr. Sandy, whether or not you have any knowledge 4 of nefarious activities at OMB, you are aware that both Mr. Duffey and 5 Mr. Vought were asked to come in and have refused to do so. 6 right? 7 MR. SANDY: 8 MR. SWALWELL: 9 Is that I'm aware of that. Mr. Meadows, my colleague, referenced that prior to your appearance today he reached out to OMB about who you are. I 10 can assure you that we have not had any conversations with OMB, but 11 I do want you to also know that we will not tolerate, as I said at the 12 beginning, any reprisals for your testimony here today. 13 I'm going to yield, actually, to Mr. Goldman. 14 MR. GOLDMAN: Just to follow up a little bit on what Mr. Meadows 15 was asking you about, whatever the reason that you were provided for 16 why your approval over the apportionment process was changed to the 17 political appointee, Mr. Duffey, am I correct that never in your career 18 at OMB has that precise situation occurred? 19 MR. SANDY: 20 MR. GOLDMAN: 21 That's correct. I am going to turn it over to Mr. Mitchell to go through some of the -- oh, Mr. Heck has a followup. 22 MR. HECK: Thank you. 23 I just want to make sure, Mr. Sandy, that Mr. Goldman's asking 24 of that question is what you understood it to mean. 25 meant in your career at OMB have you ever seen or experienced either UNCLASSIFIED I don't think he 120 UNCLASSIFIED 1 National Security or International Affairs having their apportionment 2 authority removed) but have you ever seen any division's apportionment 3 authority ever removed by a political appointee. 4 MR. SANDY: 5 MR. HECK: 6 MR. SWALWELL: 7 8 9 10 Not to my knowledge. Thank you. Mr. Mitchell. BY MR. MITCHELL: Q There was one final interagency meeting that I did not ask you any questions about) which was a July 31st PCC. of -- or sub-PCC. Are you aware Are you aware of that interagency meeting? 11 A Actually) I do not have a recollection of that. 12 Q Okay. 13 So you don't recall getting a readout from that meeting? 14 A I do not. 15 Q And fair to say you didn't prepare anybody -- 16 A Right. 17 Q -- for that meeting either? 18 A Right. 19 Q Okay. 20 (Majority Exhibit No. 5 21 was marked for identification.] BY MR. MITCHELL: 22 23 24 25 Q All right. Back to apportionments. August 6th apportionment. I think you have copies already. UNCLASSIFIED So exhibit No. 5 is the 121 UNCLASSIFIED MR. CASTOR: 1 2 Just need one more for the court reporter. BY MR. MITCHELL: Q 3 So this is, again, a three-page document. 4 is a signature page. 5 August 6th, and it's signed by Michael Duffey. The first page The next two pages are footnotes. It's dated Is that correct? 6 A Yes. 7 Q And this is the first one that was signed by Mr. Duffey. 8 that right? 9 A That's correct. 10 Q All right. 11 Is is And below, it says "Sent By: II Who ? 12 A She is a branch chief within my division. 13 Q Okay. And this apportionment, on the second page, footnote 14 A4 has a very similar footnote to the one that I read you earlier on 15 the July 25th apportionment. Is that right? 16 A Yes. Similar. 17 Q It's almost identical except the dates are slightly 18 different. In the first sentence it says August 12th, 2019, and then 19 in the second sentence it references an OMB communication with DOD on 20 August 6th of 2019. 21 A Yes. 22 Q Okay. 23 24 25 Do you see that? What do you know about OMB's communication with DOD on or about August 6th, 2019? A The communications regarding subsequent apportionments were almost exclusively with Mike Duffey. UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED 1 Q 122 So you were not involved in any communications with DOD 2 regarding apportionments after July 30th when this authority was taken 3 away from you? 4 A Correct. I was copied on emails that pertained to 5 apportionments, but I was not involved in the process for selecting 6 the dates, nor -- so, in the first apportionment, for example, when 7 it references OMB's communication with DOD on July 25th, that was my 8 communication. 9 Q Okay. 10 A This communication would not have been mine with DOD on 11 August 6th. 12 Q Okay. 13 A Not that I recall. 14 Q So you were completely out of the loop on this communication 15 Were you copied on the August 6th communication? with DOD? 16 A Again, 17 Q But, from OMB's side, it's your understanding that it 18 I have no recollection of being looped in. would've been Mr. Duffey? 19 A Yes. 20 Q And from DOD's side, would that be Ms. McCusker? 21 A I presume. 22 23 24 25 Because I wasn't included in this, I can't say that for certain. Q But based on past practice, she would be the natural person to be on this communication? A She -- on the communications on which I was copied, she was UNCLASSIFIED 123 UNCLASSIFIED 1 2 the primary contact within DOD Comptroller. Q And on those communications in which you were copied, you 3 said they were about apportionments. What with respect to 4 apportionments did those communications discuss? 5 A You mean throughout the month of August? 6 Q Yeah . . Well, let's start at the beginning of August. 7 A Okay. 8 Q On or around the date of this particular apportionment. 9 A I don't recall any communications on or around this one. 10 Q All right. 11 A Okay. 12 Q And the first sentence also says August 12th, 2019. 13 Well, we'll step through them then. You were not involved in setting that date either then? 14 A No. In the subsequent apportionments, the dates came from 15 Mike Duffey. 16 Q How do you know that? 17 A Because we -- OMB and specifically my staff -- would generate 18 these apportionments for his signature. 19 direction on the periods of the holds. So he would provide the 20 Q Where did he get those dates? 21 A I do not know. 22 Q Did you ever talk to Mr. Duffey about those dates? 23 A Not explicitly. Our understanding was that there were 24 ongoing efforts to get policy clarity. And so our presumption was that 25 each period reflected another short period of time in which we hoped UNCLASSIFIED 124 UNCLASSIFIED 1 to have clarity. 2 [Majority Exhibit No. 7 3 was marked for identification.] BY MR. MITCHELL: 4 5 Q I'm handing you exhibit No. 7. And this is an August 15th 6 apportionment also signed by Mr. Duffey. 7 2 has the footnote A4. 8 the prior two except the dates are different. 9 10 A This footnote, again, is almost identical to Is that right? previous exhibit you gave me. Okay. So it's -- and the Q 12 MS. VAN GELDER : 13 15 Page Actually, this footnote is, I believe, identical to the 11 14 It's also three pages. You might've given him the wrong copy. BY MR. MITCHELL: Q I think it's actually a typographical error, perhaps, in the footnote itself? 16 A No, actually, it's not. 17 Q Okay. Can you explain to us what's going on? 18 A Sure. So keep in mind that USAI is just one piece of a much 19 larger account. There was, I believe, on this occasion, a need for 20 us to do a reapportionment that pertained to something totally 21 unrelated to USAI. 22 distinction in this apportionment was for another program funded out 23 of operations and maintenance Defense-wide. 24 25 Q Right. So I think this just was retained. And the key But this particular apportionment is dated August 15th, correct? UNCLASSIFIED r----------------------------------------- -- ~ -~--- 125 UNCLASSIFIED 1 A Yes, it is. 2 Q And the footnote allows for obligation until August 12th. 3 So isn't there a period of time between the 12th and the 15th for which 4 there was no footnote actually implementing the hold? 5 A That is correct. 6 Q Okay. 7 So this footnote had not been updated to have a date after August 15th to implement the hold. 8 A That's correct. 9 Q All right. 10 A Yep. 11 Q Were you involved in this particular apportionment in any A I was not. 12 13 14 15 way? I'm aware that it was for an internal reprogramming. Q Okay. But were you involved in any discussion about this 16 footnote, A4, which has a date that's prior to the date of the 17 apportionment itself? 18 19 A No. I anticipate that was just a leftover from the previous apportionment. 20 Q A typographical error? 21 A No, it's just that the apportionment no longer would've 22 constrained anything, and it was probably just left in. 23 point of this apportionment wasn't to update that footnote. 24 25 Q Because the So, in fact, for this period that we're looking at here on August 15th, there was no hold. UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED 126 1 A That's correct. 2 Q Okay. 3 A Right. 4 Q So, for at least a short period of time, from August 12th 5 through the next apportionment, which I'll show you momentarily, 6 August - - 7 A Twentieth. 8 Q -- 20th, there actually was no hold in place. 9 A That is correct. 10 Q Do you know whether DOD was obligating funds during that 11 period? 12 A Not to my knowledge. 13 Q Do you know whether there was a change in position with regard 14 to the hold from the President? 15 A No, not to my knowledge. 16 Q So it was your understanding that the hold was still in place 17 during this August-12th-through-August-20th time period, despite the 18 fact that the footnote didn't reflect that. 19 20 21 A So my understanding was that the direction remained but it was not an explicit part of the apportionment. Q Okay. Thank you. 22 [Majority Exhibit No. 8 23 was marked for identification.] 24 25 BY MR. MITCHELL: Q Okay. I'm going to hand you exhibit 8, which is going to UNCLASSIFIED 127 UNCLASSIFIED 1 be a series of apportionments from August 20th through September 10th. 2 It's going to be apportionments for August 20thJ 27thJ 31st; September 3 SthJ 6thJ and 10th. 4 5 All of these apportionments were signed by Mr. Duffey as well. Is that right? 6 A That's correct. 7 Q And the first oneJ the August 20th oneJ has a different nameJ J on the "Sent By." 8 9 10 A Sorry. Who is that? That's J a branch chief in my division. 11 Q Okay. Also a career employee of OMB? 12 A Yes. 13 Q How long has she been at OMB? 14 A Oh. 15 Q Okay. 16 All of these apportionments in exhibit No. 8 contain a footnoteJ Over a decade. 17 footnote A4. 18 A Yes. 19 Q And the language of these footnotes J however J are different 20 Is that right? than the last three that we've looked at. 21 A That's correct. 22 Q How are they different? 23 A They do not include the previously included sentence that 24 stated: "Based on OMB's communication with DOD on"-- date-- "OMB 25 understands from the Department that this brief pause in obligations UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED 1 will not preclude DOD's timely execution of the final policy 2 direction," end quote. 128 3 Q Why was that portion of the footnote omitted? 4 A DOD stated it could no longer support that sentence. 5 Q When did DOD state that? 6 A Middle of August, at some point prior to the August 20th 7 apportionment. 8 Q And did DOD explain why? 9 A They were concerned about execution risk associated with an 10 ongoing hold and how it might affect their ability to fully obligate 11 by the end of the fiscal year. 12 Q 13 Control Act? 14 A Which raises concerns, yes. 15 Q So DOD, at some point prior to August -- or between August 16 Which raised a potential violation of the Impoundment 6th and August 20th, presumably -- 17 A Yes. 18 Q -- took the position that there might be insufficient time 19 for DOD to obligate the funds prior to the end of the fiscal year, which 20 could result in a violation of the Impoundment Control Act if there 21 were unobligated funds remaining on the table? 22 23 24 25 A So DOD expressed concerns about its potential ability to fully execute. Q All of these footnotes in exhibit 8, this series of apportionments, also continue to have the language saying, "DOD may UNCLASSIFIED 129 UNCLASSIFIED 1 continue its planning and casework for the Initiative during this 2 period." 3 Do you know what DOD was doing? 4 A I'm sorry. 5 Q In their planning and casework? 6 A So I am not familiar with the -- I know there is a lot of When you say do I know what they were doing -- 7 preparatory work that goes into this program before they hit the point 8 of obligation} but I'm not an expert on all those individual steps. 9 Q But the DOD was expressing a concern that they still would 10 not have sufficient time to conduct all of those steps and put these 11 moneys on the contract despite the fact that they were allowed to 12 continue with their planning and casework? 13 A That they may not. 14 Q Okay. 15 These footnotes also talk about an interagency process. It says 16 that the hold is being put in place "to allow for an interagency process 17 to determine the best use of such funds." 18 Now} we discussed earlier that the interagency process -- that 19 it was occurring in July of 2019. 20 meetings that occurred between August 20th and September 10th} during 21 the time of these apportionments? 22 23 24 25 A Are you aware of any interagency I'm not aware} but I wouldn't necessarily be aware of every consultation} obviously} at a high policy level. Q But it's your understanding that} at least during this time period that we've just been discussing} the President had not made the UNCLASSIFIED 130 UNCLASSIFIED 1 decision to lift the hold. Or, at least, that had not been communicated 2 to you. 3 A Correct. 4 Q And then, finally, on August 12th -- excuse me. During this 5 August-to-beginning-of-September timeframe, August 20th to September 6 10th, did you have any discussions with anyone about this footnote and 7 specifically the removal of that sentence that we just described? 8 9 A Yes. I had a conversation with division. 10 Q And who is that? 11 A She is a branch chief. 12 Q Oh, the individual who actually sent that first 13 in my apportionment that we looked at on August 20th? 14 A That's correct. 15 Q Okay. 16 A We were aware of the concern as expressed by DOD, and we What was that conversation? 17 flagged that -- Mike Duffey was also aware of the concern, but we 18 flagged that as an issue in terms of the change that would be required 19 for the footnote. 20 Q Okay. What were her concerns? 21 A Sorry. 22 Q Yes. 23 A Well, her concern was that the footnote was going to be -? 24 changing, and we wanted to make sure that -- two things. 25 this would be a good opportunity for me to make a general statement UNCLASSIFIED And maybe 131 UNCLASSIFIED 1 about these apportionments. 2 As the hold was extended, we continued to express concerns about 3 the potential implications vis-a-vis the Impoundment Control Act. 4 expressed those concerns to Mike Duffey, and, on every occasion, we 5 advised him to speak to the general counsel. 6 approach that, as I've mentioned before, we are not attorneys in my 7 division, but we were flagging these concerns for Mike Duffey as the 8 apportionment approval official. 9 Q Okay. We We take the general And you indicated earlier that, as part of the review 10 process and approval process of apportionments, concerns and 11 recommendations are communicated through the -- I think you said the 12 EMAX system? 13 A MAX. 14 Q MAX system. Were the concerns that you just described, as 15 well as your recommendation that Mr. Duffey should seek an opinion from 16 the General Counsel's Office, were those made through the MAX system? A 17 I know at least some were. Because I was no longer in the 18 chain of approval in MAX, I did not see those. But I advised staff, 19 if they had concerns, that they could use that avenue for expressing 20 them. 21 Q And did they? 22 A Again, because I wasn't in the chain, I didn't see them, but 23 24 25 my understanding is that people did, yes. Q Well, you worked, I think you testified earlier, right next to your staff -UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED 1 A Yes. 2 Q -- geographically, correct? 3 A Right. 4 Q Were they on the same hall as you? 5 A The same floor. 6 Q The same floor? 7 A Yeah. 8 Q And you had conversations -- you had an opportunity, 9 132 certainly, to have conversations with your staff members who were 10 actually responsible for preparing and reviewing these apportionments. 11 Is that right? 12 A Correct. 13 Q Okay. And you had relationships with them, presumably, for 14 a significant period of time, even outside the context of these 15 particular apportionments. 16 A Yes. 17 Q And even if you were outside of the loop with regard to the 18 approval authority, is it fair to say that they -- or is it fair to 19 assume that they came and talked to you on occasion about these 20 particular apportionments? 21 A Yes. 22 Q Like 23 A Yes. 24 Q And did others? 25 A Yes. did? UNCLASSIFIED 133 UNCLASSIFIED 1 Q 2 MR. SWALWELL: 3 MS. NORTON: Okay. Ms. Holmes Norton. I'd just like to clarify the concerns you expressed 4 because of the impoundment statute, because time was running out. 5 you ever given any reason for those holds or any reason when the holds 6 were lifted? 7 MR. SWALWELL: 8 MR. SANDY: 9 Were Did you hear the question? I believe I heard two questions, so, ma'am, confirm if I answer both of them. 10 The first was, were we ever given any reason for the hold? 11 I would say only in September did we receive an explanation that the 12 hold -- that the President's direction reflected his concerns about 13 the contributions from other countries for Ukraine. 14 MS. NORTON: That was going to be my next question. And That was the 15 one and only reason you gave, that other countries -- I think Mr. 16 Meadows raised this notion, tried to link it -- that other countries 17 may not have given their own contributions to Ukraine, and that was 18 the only reason ever given to you as a reason for the hold. 19 20 MR. SANDY: That was the one definitive reason that I recall seeing during this period. 21 MS. NORTON: 22 MR. SWALWELL: 23 Mr . Mitchell. Thank you, Ms. Holmes Norton. BY MR. MITCHELL: 24 25 Thank you very much. Q So you indicated that you had a conversation with UNCLASSIFIED 134 UNCLASSIFIED 1 A Yes. 2 Q Was that in the context of this August 20th apportionment? 3 A Yes, it was. 4 Q Was it also throughout the course of the month of August that ·5 6 7 you were having these conversations with A ? There were multiple conversations, starting at this point, through the lifting of the hold in September. 8 Q With 9 A Yes. 10 Q What about with 11 A So the other individuals who are responsible for this work 12 all report to 13 as well. 14 Q Okay. ? ? , and s o . would relay their concerns So she was expressing not only her own concerns but was expressing concerns of other staff? 15 16 A That's correct. 17 Q And what were those concerns? 18 A The concerns were vis-a-vis the Impoundment Control Act and 19 the ability of DOD to fully execute the appropriated funds before they 20 expire. 21 Q 22 23 24 25 Did have any communications with the Budget Review Division about these concerns? A She may have. I was not a part of that if she did, so I can't know definitively. Q What about any other members of your staff? UNCLASSIFIED Did they have 135 UNCLASSIFIED 1 2 3 any communications with DOD about these same issues? A They very well may have. And, as I said, I'm aware of one individual in BRD who expressed similar concerns. 4 Q Okay. 5 A On one occasion that I definitely recall, yes. 6 Q Okay. 7 A 8 Q What did 9 A I think she just -- it was more of a -- it was not, like, Were those expressed to you? And who was that individual at BRD? tell you? 10 a meeting in my office, as I recall. 11 and she just made a general comment that reflected a concern about the 12 apportionments. It was a -- we ran into each other, 13 Q What was her concern about apportionments? 14 A Her concern was vis-a-vis the Impoundment Control Act. 15 Q And when was this conversation with 16 A I don't remember that precise date. 17 Q Do you recall whether it was in July or August? 18 A It was definitely not in July. 19 Q Was it August or September? 20 A I think it was September. 21 Q Okay. 22 ? So it was after July. So it was during this time period where the footnote did not include this language from DOD. Is that right? 23 A That's correct. 24 Q Did you talk about the change in this footnote with 25 ? UNCLASSIFIED 136 UNCLASSIFIED 1 A No. 2 Q Do you recall ever hearing any concerns from OMB Legal about 3 4 I talked about it with my own staff. the footnote post-August-20th? A Directly from OMB Legal. As I mentioned, our advice to Mike 5 Duffey was to consult with the Office of the General Counsel on every 6 single footnote. 7 direct communication with the General Counsel's Office at DOD on these 8 topics. 9 Q How are you aware of that? 10 A Because I was copied on emails. And I am well aware that the general counsel was in I cannot know if I was copied 11 on -- I certainly wasn't included in telephone conversations, but I 12 was copied on emails. 13 Q In August as well? 14 A I recall emails from late August and early September. 15 Q Okay. 16 MS. VAN GELDER: And what was the topic of discussion in those emails? I'm not going to-- it's between counsel. He's 17 aware of OMB counsel and DOD counsel. 18 a result of those, did anything change, but I am not having him answer 19 those questions. 20 21 And so I think you can ask, as BY MR. MITCHELL: Q As a result of the communications between counsels from OMB 22 and DOD, did anything change with regard to the processing of 23 apportionments with regard to the footnote or with anything else 24 related to this particular issue of Ukraine security assistance? 25 A Part of the communications between OMB and DOD focused on UNCLASSIFIED 137 UNCLASSIFIED 1 maximizing the extent to which DOD could lay the groundwork for 2 obligations in advance of obligating. 3 focus. 4 to continue planning and casework so that you are prepared to make the 5 obligations as soon as the restriction is lifted. 6 part of the communication. 7 So I think that was part of the In other words, how do you make the most out of the permission So that was a big And those communications, as well as the broader concerns -- you 8 know, I'm aware of those communications with DOD Comptroller. 9 I'm aware that our general counsel was in direct communication with 10 11 Again, DOD general counsel. Q Okay. So, as I understand it in layman's terms, one of the 12 issues was what DOD could be doing during this time period in which 13 the communications were being had between counsel in spite of the hold. 14 A Right. 15 Q Okay. 16 [Discussion off the record.] 17 Q 18 19 To your knowledge, did OMB General Counsel's Office bless the manner in which these apportionments were issued? A With every single apportionment that we sent forward to Mike 20 Duffey, at his request, we advised him to seek general counsel guidance. 21 To my recollection, he confirmed that he did that, consistent with our 22 recommendation. 23 24 25 Q So your understanding is that Mr. Duffey -- you recommended that Mr. Duffey seek OGC guidance, correct? A Correct. UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED 138 And he confirmed for you that heJ in factJ did consult with 1 Q 2 OGCJ correct? 3 A Correct. 4 Q But you don't know whether he followed OGC's advice or not. 5 A Let me put it this way. 6 for 7 [Discussion off the record.] 8 MR. SANDY: 9 I'm not aware of any -- it's hard Okay. My understanding from Mr. Duffey was that he had general counsel support with these apportionments. BY MR. MITCHELL: 10 Okay. 11 Q 12 NowJ the hold was lifted on September -- it's been reported 13 roughly September llthJ and the first apportionment was September 12th? 14 Is 15 A Correct. 16 Q -- that correct? 17 A Yes. 18 [Majority Exhibit No. 9 19 was marked for identification.] 20 21 BY MR. MITCHELL: Q I'm going to give you exhibit No. 9 J which is an apportionment 22 signed by Mr. Duffey) dated September 12thJ whichJ if you'll look at 23 page 2J does not contain this footnote that we've been spending the 24 last several hours on. 25 Were you involved in this particular apportionment? UNCLASSIFIED 139 UNCLASSIFIED 1 2 A I was aware of the instruction from Mike Duffey to the team to lift the hold. 3 Q How did you learn that the hold was being lifted? 4 A Via email. 5 Q From whom? 6 A From Mike Duffey. 7 Q When? 8 A It 9 Q Okay. 10 A I think probably 11 12 13 would've been either on the 11th or the 12th of September. Who else was in the email? Certainly, if it pertained to the apportionment specifically, it would've been Q IIIII Did Mr. Duffey forward an email to you, or was this his own email? 14 A As I recall, it was his own email. 15 Q And that was the first time that you heard that the hold was 16 being lifted, was through that email? 17 A That's correct. 18 Q Did you have any conversations or communications of any sort 19 with Mr. Duffey following this email on September 11th -- or 12th, I 20 think you said? 21 A And this is where -- apologies -- I probably need to go back 22 and confirm the date of the email that attributed the hold to the 23 President's concerns about other countries' contributions. 24 was in early September that we were asked to pull together the data. 25 I would like to confirm whether this was the point at which he shared UNCLASSIFIED I know it 140 UNCLASSIFIED 1 that that was the rationale for the hold. 2 Q So you need to confirm) it sounds like -- 3 A Yeah. 4 Q -- but it's possible that you learned for the first time that 5 the reason for the hold was the fact that other countries were not 6 providing sufficient assistance to Ukraine at the same time that the 7 hold was lifted? 8 A On or about the same time. 9 Q Did you have any conversations with Mr. Duffey after you 10 received this email about the lifting of the hold? A 11 No. I think we were just relieved) in terms of we had clear 12 direction nowJ and the presumption was that this was clear guidance 13 going forward. 14 Q But you had no conversations with Mr. Duffey seeking further 15 clarification about why the hold was in placeJ what precipitated the 16 lifting of the holdJ how Mr. Duffey found out about the lifting of the 17 hold? 18 19 20 21 22 You didn't have any of those conversations with Mr. Duffey? A I don't recall receiving any other information along those lines. Q Okay. Did you speak with anyone elseJ other than Mr. Duffey or your counsel) about the lifting of the hold? A Yes. Rob Blair stopped by my office one dayJ and we asked 23 him this question. And we received -- I'm sorry. 24 question about why there had been a holdJ and we received a similar 25 verbal response) meaning pertaining to the President's concern about UNCLASSIFIED We asked him the . - - - -- - - - - - - UNCLASSIFIED 1 141 the contributions of other countries. 2 Q When did you have this conversation with Mr. Blair? 3 A That I do not recall, but I'm sure it was in September after 4 the lifting of the hold. Q 5 6 Had you spoken with Mr. Blair at any point prior to that time about the hold on Ukrainian security assistance? 7 A No. I don't regularly interact with him in his new position. 8 Q How did Mr. Blair come to stop by the office one day? 9 A Well, he used to lead our resource management organization . 10 So I don't know -- and I think he was in the building and he stopped 11 by. 12 This was not his purpose. Q We were just catching up with him. Are you aware of any -- I believe you testified earlier about 13 at least one communication between Mr. Blair and Mr. Duffey during the 14 period of the hold. 15 A Correct. 16 Q Are you aware of any other communications, conversations, 17 email, any discussions between Mr. Blair and anyone else at OMB during 18 the pendency of the holds? 19 June through September 11th. 20 21 A Yes. So, in other words, from anytime in I'm aware of one other email exchange between Mike Duffey and Rob Blair. 22 Q When was that email exchange? 23 A As I recall, it was on or about July 17, 18. 24 Q So right before you returned back from leave? 25 A Correct. UNCLASSIFIED . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - -- -- - --· --·· 142 UNCLASSIFIED 1 Q And this was an email exchange? 2 A Yes. 3 Q Was it forwarded to you? 4 A It was forwarded} yes. 5 Q By Mr. Duffey? 6 A Yes. 7 Q And was anyone else on this email exchange? 8 A Another examiner in my division named 9 Q And what did this email say? 10 A Mike was asking about the reason for the hold. 11 Q So Mr. Duffey was asking Mr. Blair? 12 A That's correct. 13 Yeah. Sorry. Mike Duffey was asking Rob Blair about the reason for the hold. 14 Q And what did Mr. Blair say? 15 A He said -- he didn't provide an explicit response on the 16 reason. 17 paraphrasing here -- and then revisit this issue with the President. 18 19 Q He simply said} we need to let the hold take place -- and I'm Did you have any conversations with anyone about what Mr. Blair said in this email? yes} because he'd also received it. 20 A With 21 Q And was that conversation with 22 23 J right around the same time as this email} so mid-July? A I think it -- I remember the dates of the conversation. 24 don't remember exactly when it was forwarded. 25 around the time that we received the email} yes. UNCLASSIFIED I So it would've been 143 UNCLASSIFIED 1 Q Okay. 2 A With 3 Q Yes. 4 A I think it was just acknowledging that we didn't have a clear 5 6 7 8 And what was that conversation? ? reason for the hold. Q I meanJ we didn't know the reason for the hold. This email that you saw dated July 17th from Mr. Duffey to Mr. BlairJ when was the last time you saw that email? MS. VAN GELDER: 9 Other than with preparation with counsel? BY MR. MITCHELL: 10 Q WellJ no. 11 A Have I seen it recently? 12 Have you seen it recently? You mean in terms of going back and looking at it electronically or -- 13 Q Have you read this email within the last week? 14 A YesJ I have. 15 Q Okay. 16 And you indicated that Mr. Blair did not provide an explanation for the hold in this email. 17 A That is correct. 18 Q Did he say that he did not have an explanation for the hold? 19 20 21 Did he attempt to answer that question? A As I recallJ he did not provide an answer and simply acknowledged the need to let the hold take effect and then revisit. 22 Q 23 was in place? 24 25 Okay. Did he say he did not have a reason for why the hold MS. VAN GELDER: I'm sorry. He has answered it the best he can. He said what the email saidJ and that's what he recalls the email saying. UNCLASSIFIED 144 UNCLASSIFIED BY MR. MITCHELL: 1 2 Q Well} okay} so the email said} "We need to let the hold take 3 place and then we can revisit this issue with the President" is} in 4 sum and substance} what Mr. Blair said. 5 A Correct. 6 Q Do you recall whether in this email Mr. Blair said} "I don't 7 8 9 10 11 12 know why the hold is in place"? A I don't recall anything explicit along those lines. I just remember that there was no explanation for the hold. Q This email from July 17th} was it only pertaining to Ukraine security assistance? A No. There was another -- and} honestly} it -- there was 13 another question that was not in my purview} so I didn't focus on the 14 other part. 15 Q Did it have to do with a hold? 16 A Not that I recall. 17 a hold. 18 Q Okay. No} it wasn't pertaining to Ukraine or But with regard to the hold that Mr. Blair was 19 discussing in this email} that hold applied only to Ukraine security 20 assistance. Is that right? 21 A That is correct. 22 Q Okay. 23 MR. MITCHELL: 24 25 I think my time is up . We can yield to the minority. MR. CASTOR: Can we go off the record for a second? UNCLASSIFIED 145 UNCLASSIFIED [Recess.] UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED 1 [2:24p.m.] 2 3 146 BY MR. MITCHELL: Q We were talking about communications between Mr. Blair and 4 individuals at OMB. Do you have any knowledge of Mr. Bolton 5 communicating with Mr. Vought on or around September 9th or 18th 6 regarding the hold and lifting the hold on Ukraine security assistance? 7 A I do not have any knowledge. 8 Q Do you have any knowledge of any communications between 9 10 11 Mr. Vought and anyone at the White House about Ukraine security assistance at any time? A No. I mean, I was -- we anticipated that he would be 12 involved in meetings, but I never got a specific readout about a 13 specific meeting. 14 15 Q Okay. Doesn't mean he didn't have those communications; you're -- 16 A Exactly. 17 Q -- just not aware of it. 18 A Correct. 19 Q Okay. 20 Do you know whether DOD was able to put all the -- or was able 21 to obligate all the USAI funds between September 12th and the end of 22 the fiscal year, September 38th? Correct. 23 A No. No, they were not able to do so. 24 Q Okay . 25 A According to the data we received from DOD, approximately How much was left unspent or unobligated? UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED 1 2 3 4 147 36 million -- sorry, 35. Q And is it your understanding that that 35 -- well, do you have an understanding as to why that 35 million was left unobligated? A I do not, no. And, in fact, I'd like to clarify my previous 5 comment to say, I know that they did not fully obligate the full amount 6 of the appropriations and that 35, roughly 35 million, was left 7 unobligated at the end of the year. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Q Okay. And are you aware that Congress had to pass a law as part of the 2019 continuing resolution to extend the deadline so that the $35 million could be obligated past September 30th? A I'm aware that that was a provision within the continuing resolution. Q Well, what would have happened if this provision had not been included in the continuing resolution with the $35 million? A Had that provision not been included, then any unobligated funds as of September 30th would have expired. 17 Q In violation of the Impoundment Control Act? 18 A Expired funds, in and of themselves, I would not presume 19 represent a violation, but I'm also very mindful of not providing a 20 legal opinion. 21 Q Okay. But you're also not aware of any sort of rescission 22 or reprogramming of these funds at any time prior to September 30th. 23 Is that right? 24 assistance funds. 25 A Let me be precise: Correct. the USAI, Ukraine security There was no proposed rescission and no UNCLASSIFIED 148 UNCLASSIFIED 1 2 reprogramming. Q Have you calculated, before coming in today, what the 3 percentage of unobligated funds was? In other words, 250 million 4 versus 35 million, what that percentage is? 5 A I think it's approximately 14 percent. 6 Q I have the same math as you . 7 Is that correct? Based on your experience, is 14 percent higher than what you've seen in the past? 8 A In terms of amounts that would not be fully obligated? 9 Q Correct, at the end of the fiscal year. 10 A That would vary by program. I know it is DOD's intent to 11 obligate for many programs not quite at 100 percent insofar as they 12 don't want to run afoul of the Antideficiency Act. 13 precise data on their averages, so I guess what I can say is 14 percent 14 is an accurate characterization of that. I do not have 15 Q I'm sorry. Is an accurate characterization of what? 16 A Well, of the amount that was not fully obligated. 17 Q Okay. But because you don't have any data in front of, you 18 can't compare that to historical averages for this particular account 19 or any other accounts that might relate to similar funds for security 20 assistance? 21 A Again, I don't have precise data, so I feel like I need to 22 answer this question consistently with how I answered a previous 23 question about precise data. 24 25 Q So I understand that you're a data guy and you don't have any data in front of you. But based on your experience and your UNCLASSIFIED 149 UNCLASSIFIED 1 understanding, funds left unobligated at the end of the fiscal year 2 for programs involving security assistance of the type that we're 3 discussing here today, would they be in the realm of somewhere between 4 perhaps 2, 5, 6 percent, as opposed to twice that amount, more than 5 twice that amount, 14 percent? 6 [Discussion off the record.] 7 MR. SANDY: So, again, I know that they aspired -- sorry, DOD 8 would aspire to use as high a percentage as possible without running 9 a risk of violating the Antideficiency, but I just don't have a precise 10 point of comparison. 11 12 BY MR. MITCHELL: Q All right. Are you aware of anyone resigning or leaving OMB 13 under any circumstances at least in part because of the manner in which 14 OMB was handling Ukraine security assistance? 15 16 17 18 A I'm aware of one colleague who left in September. I'm always reluctant to speak to someone else's motivations. Q Well, did you speak with this person who left in September about their departure from OMB? 19 A Yes, I did. 20 Q And did that person express to you, either in that 21 conversation or in any other prior conversations, their position with 22 regard to Ukraine's security assistance? 23 A Yes, this individual did express frustrations. 24 Q And what were those frustrations that that individual 25 expressed to you? UNCLASSIFIED 150 UNCLASSIFIED 1 2 MS. VAN GELDER: Are you going after the whistleblower? I just want to know whether we can just cut this off now. 3 MR. MITCHELL: 4 MR. MEADOWS: No. I don't know that they know who the whistleblower 5 isJ according to previous testimony. 6 know whether they're going after them or not. 7 MR. MITCHELL: 8 MR. SANDY: So I don't know how they would WellJ this is an OMB employeeJ not in the IC. I think the frustrations related more to 9 apportionment issues on the IAD side. 10 BY MR. MITCHELL: 11 Q So when you say -- 12 A International Affairs 13 Q -- "apportionment issues on the IAD sideJ" do you 14 specifically mean the Department-of-State-sponsored FMF program for 15 Ukraine assistance? 16 A No. 17 Q Okay. 18 19 He did not oversee that program. So did this person have any concerns regarding Ukraine security assistance that this person expressed to you? A Yes. So this person had also received -- and I don't recall 20 the specifics of the request. 21 similar to the one that I received on FridayJ July 19thJ in terms of 22 executing apportionments. 23 He was also concerned about requests And I don't know the specifics in his area. SoJ againJ I can speak to how I responded to the request that I 24 received on Friday the 19thJ and I can say that he expressed some 25 frustrations -UNCLASSIFIED .------------------- ------- --- - -~ -. -~ ... 151 UNCLASSIFIED 1 2 3 4 5 6 Q But my question was, did this individual express any concerns about Ukraine security assistance? A I'm honestly just trying to recall. I'm not trying to parse my words. As I recall, he expressed some frustrations about not understanding the reason for the hold. That's my recollection. 7 Q Was this individual within the Legal Division? 8 A No. 9 Q Are you aware of any individual in the Legal Division 10 resigning or leaving OMB -- 11 A Oh. 12 Q -- at least in part because of Ukraine security assistance? 13 A Oh. 14 Q And what do you know about that? 15 [Discussion off the record.] 16 MS. VAN GELDER: 17 MR. MITCHELL: 18 MS. VAN GELDER: 19 Yes, I am. I'm assuming, just so we make it clear -Would you mind just speaking into the microphone? -- the question is, what did the departing person tell him about why they were departing? 20 MR. MITCHELL: 21 MS. VAN GELDER: 22 MR. SANDY: Why don't we start with that. Okay. This person expressed to me concerns about actions 23 vis-a-vis the Impoundment Control Act. 24 BY MR. MITCHELL: 25 Q In the context of Ukraine security assistance and the hold? UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED A 1 Yes. I never want to attribute that as the, you know, sole 2 purpose for an individual's actions, but I am aware of their 3 frustrations in that area, yes. Q 4 Okay. 152 So this person who worked at OMB Legal expressed 5 concerns about the hold on Ukraine security assistance and resigned 6 from OMB. 7 OMB at least in part because of concerns with security assistance? And did that person tell you that he or she resigned from 8 [Discussion off the record.] 9 MR. SANDY: 10 I'm sorry. Can you repeat the question? BY MR. MITCHELL: Q 11 Sure. Did this person at OMB Legal tell you that they were 12 leaving or resigning from OMB at least in part because of their concerns 13 or frustrations about the hold on Ukraine security assistance? A Yes, in terms of how -- yes, in terms of that process, in 16 Q Okay. 17 MS. VAN GELDER: 14 15 part. What were the concerns about the process? If he can explain that process without 18 explaining what would've been something that was privileged, he can 19 explain it. 20 to allow him to answer a question that a lawyer at OMB is explaining 21 to them. 22 "Unhappy with the process," whatever, but I'm not going MR. SWALWELL: And, Counsel, the way I interpret this, with your 23 concerns, if he's going to talk about counsel to Mr. Sandy, 24 conversations during the process, that you would deem that as 25 privileged. But I think our concern is that, if this is a conversation UNCLASSIFIED 153 UNCLASSIFIED 1 post-process but around why this individual is leavingJ that that was 2 not fall under attorney-client. 3 MS. VAN GELDER: 4 MR. SWALWELL: 5 6 I Not that we acknowledge that as a Congress-recognized privilege. MS. VAN GELDER: Right. And I understand that. But I stillJ to 7 leave just a wide berth hereJ if the person is saying -- and I don't 8 know what the person is going to say J because this is news to me -- "I 9 disagree with counsel's interpretation of thatJ" I'm going to instruct 10 him not to answer that. 11 If you want to say J "I have a generalized disagreement on how they 12 are doing something)" I'm fineJ but we're not going to get granular 13 with this. 14 15 And -- MR. GOLDMAN: But the fact of the disagreement is not privileged. 16 MS. VAN GELDER: 17 MR. GOLDMAN: The fact of the disagreement is not privileged. Okay. BY MR. MITCHELL: 18 19 Okay. Q Okay. So let me ask it this way. So did this individual 20 who resigned from OMB disagree with OMB general counsel's advice or 21 other individuals from the General Counsel's Office about how to handle 22 the hold on Ukraine security assistance? 23 MS. VAN GELDER: YeahJ if we say J did he explain to him. You're 24 giving the reason whyJ but did the person tell you that was the reason? 25 Do you understand that you just didn't start it off with a preface. UNCLASSIFIED 154 UNCLASSIFIED 1 Do you understand the question? 2 [Discussion off the record.] 3 MR. SANDY: I'll note the disagreement. BY MR. MITCHELL: 4 5 Q Okay. So the person who resigned did have a disagreement. 6 A If I'm not violating privilege 7 [Discussion off the record.] 8 MR. SANDY: So the individual did note a disagreement -- BY MR. MITCHELL: 9 10 Q I'm sorry? 11 A So the individual did note a disagreement on this topic. 12 Q And "this topic" being the hold on Ukraine security 13 assistance? 14 A Correct. 15 Q Okay. 16 MR. GOLDMAN: Just one more thing, just to be clear. The 17 disagreement was with -- what was the disagreement with? 18 specific details of it, but was the disagreement with the fact that 19 OMB was putting the -- implementing the hold? 20 with how the General Counsel's Office was handling it? 21 disagreement? [Discussion off the record.] 23 MR. SANDY: 25 Was the disagreement What was the What was the topic of the disagreement? 22 24 Not the I think the best way to characterize it would be a dissenting opinion vis-a-vis the Impoundment Control Act provisions. MR. GOLDMAN: And whether or not they apply to the Ukraine UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED 1 security assistance hold? 2 MS. VAN GELDER: 3 155 That goes back to -- I think all he -- he can say that he disagreed with the way the Counsel 4 MR. SWALWELL: Please use the microphone. 5 MS. VAN GELDER: 6 -- Thank you. I apologize. he disagreed with how the Counsel's Office may have interpreted 7 the Impoundment Control Act, but I don't think he can go into specifics 8 as to -- 9 10 11 MR. GOLDMAN: That's fine. MS. VAN GELDER : I thought he said dissenting opinion over how the act was -- 12 MR. GOLDMAN: 13 Impoundment Control Act. 14 15 16 He didn't say that. He just said a dissenting opinion about the BY MR. GOLDMAN: Q So I would just like to understand what the dissenting opinion more specifically related to. 17 A In the context of the hold on Ukrainian assistance. 18 Q Okay. 19 And just while we're on this topic, can I -- you indicated that 20 you recommended at every step of the way in the apportionment process 21 at the end of August and early September that Mr. Duffey speak to the 22 General Counsel's Office prior to signing off on the apportionments. 23 Is that right? 24 A That's correct. 25 Q Did you ever determine whether he did speak to the General UNCLASSIFIED 156 UNCLASSIFIED 1 Counsel's Office? 2 A Yes. 3 Q And he did? 4 A He confirmed that on more than one occasion. 5 Q And did you ever confirm that he was acting in accordance 6 with the recommendation from the General Counsel's Office? 7 [Discussion off the record.] 8 MR. SANDY: BY MR. GOLDMAN: 9 10 11 12 Q Okay. And he was acting in accordance with the guidance from the General Counsel's Office? A That's correct. BY MR. MITCHELL: 13 14 Yes. Q After you learned of these committees' interest in speaking 15 to you, did you have any communications with anyone at OMB about the 16 possibility that you were testifying before Congress? 17 A Yes. 18 Q And you're laughing and 19 A It was a matter of great interest within OMB, particularly 20 smiling~ And why is that? among career staff. 21 Q Okay. 22 A Sorry. Are you talking about just the fact that I was 23 requested and then anticipated receiving a subpoena, or are you talking 24 about something else? 25 Q Well, did anyone at OMB tell you that you should not appear UNCLASSIFIED 157 UNCLASSIFIED 1 voluntarily? 2 A 3 MS. VAN GELDER: 4 MR. SANDY: 5 My Office of the General Counsel provided an email response to So, as I recall, my counsel sent Not this counsel. Sorry. Yes. I'm sorry. 6 the committee on the -- sorry. 7 received the request letter. 8 OMB Office of General Counsel position. 9 to your question. 10 11 It was the Thursday evening after I So I think that email best describes the So that's the first answer BY MR. MITCHELL: Q And their position was that you should not testify 12 voluntarily absent the presence or the ability for agency counsel to 13 be present for that interview? 14 A That is correct. 15 Q Okay. And subsequent to that exchange that you just 16 described, did you -- I'm not asking about your counsel, but did you 17 have any communications or conversations with anyone at OMB about 18 testifying before Congress? 19 A Well, I did when I informed my general -- so I had a 20 conversation with my general counsel in advance of that email response. 21 I also alerted my general counsel when I had retained private counsel. 22 And I also alerted general counsel to my intent to appear if subpoenaed. 23 Q Okay. 24 A Their reaction has been consistent in terms of, I understand 25 And what was their reaction? that their preference would be for me not to appear in the absence of UNCLASSIFIED 158 UNCLASSIFIED 1 agency counsel. So that has been their preference. 2 the reasons that I specifically requested that agency counsel be able 3 to accompany me. 4 was their guidance. And, obviously, that request was declined. 5 [Discussion off the record.] 6 MR. SANDY: 7 That is one of So that Subsequent to that, I have heard that agency leadership respects my decision. 8 BY MR. MITCHELL: 9 Q But it appears that that may have been in doubt? 10 A Well, again, the initial position of agency counsel, as 11 reflected in that email, was that I should only appear if accompanied 12 by agency counsel. 13 Q But that is still their position today, is it not? 14 A To my understanding, yes, that is still their position. 15 Q So they don't necessarily -- haven't changed their 16 17 18 19 20 preference. A That is correct, consistent with the Office of Legal Counsel opinion. Q Okay. When you say "the Office of Legal Counsel opinion," do you mean -- well, what do you mean by that? 21 MS. VAN GELDER: If you're aware. 22 MR. SANDY: 23 So I am aware -- and I hope I'm using the correct legal 24 terminology -- about an Office of Legal Counsel opinion that suggests 25 that executive branch officials should be accompanied by agency counsel Okay. UNCLASSIFIED 159 UNCLASSIFIED 1 in order to protect the prerogatives or executive -- sorry -- in order 2 to represent agency interests at the hearing. 3 4 BY MR. MITCHELL: Q What was OMB general counsel's reaction -- and when I say 5 "general counsel," I mean General Counsel's Office-- reaction when 6 you told them that you were going to be appearing today pursuant to 7 a subpoena? 8 You're smiling again. 9 A Well, I'm smiling because I want to portray this accurately, 10 and it wasn't one reaction. 11 appearing and that not support for my decision. 12 finished my conversations, I appreciated -- my statement was, I realize 13 people may not agree with my decision, but I appreciate that they have 14 expressed respect for it. 15 Q It started with a concern about my And by the time I You testified earlier that you're aware that Mr. Duffey has 16 not taken the same path as you and has refused to appear, despite having 17 received a subpoena. 18 A Have you had a conversation with him? Since he is my supervisor, I alerted him when I received the 19 letter, and I alerted him of my retention of private counsel and my 20 plan to appear if subpoenaed . 21 22 23 Q And what was Mr. Duffey's reaction when you told him that you were going to appear if subpoenaed? A He was -- I would say, as a supervisor, he was gracious in 24 acknowledging the difficult situation that this put me in and, I think, 25 gracious in understanding that I needed to make a decision in UNCLASSIFIED 160 UNCLASSIFIED 1 consultation with my private counsel. 2 Q Did he try to convince you to change your decision? 3 A Mr. Duffey? 4 Q Did he at any time advise you not to come in voluntarily? 5 A No. 6 Q Have you had any conversations with Mr. Vought about 7 8 9 10 11 12 No. appearing before Congress? A Yes. He called me yesterday morning. And while I don't remember his precise words, again, I had the sense that he respected my decision and wished me well. Q At any point during that conversation did he try to encourage you to change your decision? 13 A No. 14 Q Have you received any correspondence from anyone at OMB 15 16 17 regarding your appearance before Congress? A Any correspondence -- do you mean in terms of official correspondence? 18 Q Official correspondence. 19 A No. 20 The only official correspondence that I'm aware of was addressed to my private counsel. 21 Q Have you seen that official correspondence? 22 A I have seen it, yes. 23 Q Was that official correspondence received prior to the 24 25 issuance of the subpoena, which was this morning? A Yes. UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED 1 Q Okay. 161 And did that official correspondence express what you 2 described as OMB's preference that you not appear voluntarily for a 3 deposition? 4 5 6 7 A It expressed, yes, the preference that I --well, let me put it this way -- that I only appear if accompanied by agency counsel . Q Okay. Did it direct you not to appear if agency counsel could not be present, voluntarily? 8 MS. VAN GELDER: 9 MR. SANDY: 12 13 14 I did not read it as a direction. BY MR. MITCHELL: 10 11 If you recall. Q And did it say anything about what to do if you were subpoenaed? A No. Again, it just -- I think, consistent that -- their preference for me to appear with agency counsel. 15 MR. GOLDMAN: All right, Mr. Duffey -- or, Mr. Sandy, you can 16 speak with your lawyer. 17 [Discussion off the record.] 18 MR. SANDY: 19 It did direct me to have my personal counsel ask for a postponement until agency counsel could accompany me. 20 21 Sorry. BY MR. GOLDMAN: Q Mr. Sandy, we're almost done, but we've been jumping around 22 a lot over the past several hours, so I just want to run through the 23 timeline quickly to make sure that we understand everything from your 24 perspective as it relates to Ukraine security assistance, all right? 25 So, in June, you received a request from Mr. Duffey to gather some UNCLASSIFIED 162 UNCLASSIFIED 1 information about Ukraine security assistance. 2 A Correct. 3 Q RightJ but you received the request. 4 A Yes. 5 Q Okay. 6 copied on it. 7 A As I recallJ yes. 8 Q All right. 9 TechnicallyJ my staff did. Is that accurate? Yes. I was copied on it. OhJ so he -- Mr. · Duffey asked your staff J and you were And you provided some information to Mr. Duffey about Ukraine security assistance. Is that right? 10 A My staff didJ yes. 11 Q And then you were asked for more informationJ or your staff 12 13 14 was asked for more information? A WellJ as I recallJ there may have been two or three emails withJ likeJ followup questions along the same lines. 15 Q Okay. 16 You go on vacation for most of the first half of July. 17 you get backJ you are forwarded two emails from Rob BlairJ Mr. 18 Mulvaney's deputyJ to Mr. DuffeyJ related to the hold on Ukraine 19 security assistance. And when Is that right? 20 A That is correct. 21 Q Okay. AndJ in both of those emailsJ it says to the effect 22 of that this hold is being requested from the White House for OMB to 23 implement. 24 25 A It Is that correct? explains that -- yesJ that their direction is coming from the President and it applies to military support funding for Ukraine UNCLASSIFIED 163 UNCLASSIFIED 1 2 3 and -- yes. Q And, just to be clear, there was no reason provided for that decision. 4 A That is correct. 5 Q Okay. And, to your knowledge, this is the very first time 6 in your career where a hold has been placed on security assistance after 7 the CN has been sent. 8 A I don't recall a precedent like this. 9 Q Subsequent to learning about this hold, you and your staff 10 took a number of actions to implement the hold, including the drafting 11 of a footnote as part of an apportionment sent over to Congress. 12 that right? 13 A To DOD. 14 Q I mean, sorry, to DOD. 15 A Yes. 16 Q In consultation with DOD, but prior to sending that 17 18 19 20 apportionment. A Is Is that right? Correct. In consultation with OMB Office of General Counsel with DOD and with DOD general counsel. Q And you also expressed concern to your supervisor, 21 Mr. Duffey, related to whether this hold could be legally implemented 22 under the Impoundment Control Act -- is that correct? -- around that 23 time in mid- to late July. 24 25 A The way I would characterize it is, it raised questions that we needed to work through, and only after working through those UNCLASSIFIED 164 UNCLASSIFIED 1 questions and developing the footnote could we be confident in terms 2 of executing that apportionment. Q 3 And one aspect of the footnote that was particularly 4 important to you was that DOD would still have sufficient time to 5 obligate all of the funds by the end of the fiscal year. 6 accurate? Is that 7 A Correct. 8 Q And that was included in a footnote on the July 25th 9 apportionment. 10 A Correct. 11 Q Following the July 25th apportionment, you were removed as 12 the approver for the apportionments for Ukraine security assistance. 13 Is that correct? A 14 I was removed as the approver for all apportionments in my 15 area. So, yes, it's correct, but I want to make sure it's clear that 16 it's for all apportionments. 17 Q It was for everything. 18 A That's correct. 19 Q And Mr. Duffey then became the approver. 20 A Correct. 21 Q Okay. 22 23 24 25 And one of the reasons that Mr. Duffey gave to you for why he wanted to -- why he was going -- well, withdrawn. Mr. Duffey indicated to you that this was a decision from the Acting Director that he concurred with. A Yes. Is that right? It was a decision that was jointly supported. UNCLASSIFIED 165 UNCLASSIFIED 1 Q And understanding, of course, that the Acting Director, as 2 the Acting Director, has ultimate authority for who approves 3 apportionments, to your knowledge, this was the first time in your 4 career at OMB where a political appointee was delegated the approval 5 authority over the apportionments in your area. Is that right? 6 A That's correct. 7 Q Following that change in delegation of approval authority, 8 Mr. Duffey approved another apportionment on August 6 that also 9 included that same footnote. Is that right? 10 A With changes to two dates. 11 Q Understood. 12 So without regard to the dates. Obviously, the dates then move out. 13 A Right. 14 Q On August 7th, you contributed to a memo to the Acting 15 Director related to the hold on Ukraine security assistance. 16 right? Is that 17 A Correct. 18 Q And it was the recommendation of you and your team to lift 19 the hold for policy reasons that were uniformly supported by the entire 20 interagency. 21 A Is that correct? When you say "the entire interagency," I would just say, I 22 was not aware of another agency that had a different opinion and that 23 that was a staff-level recommendation on policy grounds, yes. 24 25 Q Right. And you agreed with that staff-level recommendation. UNCLASSIFIED 166 UNCLASSIFIED 1 A Yes. 2 Q And you were not aware of anyone in the staff level at OMB 3 that disagreed with that recommendation. 4 A Correct. 5 Q Okay. 6 Then, subsequently, on August 15th, another apportionment was 7 signed by Mr. Duffey that also included the same footnote, although 8 the dates did not match up. 9 A Is that right? I think, technically, the one on the 15th was for another 10 purpose, and so it kind of had the -- the old footnote was just sort 11 of left over. 12 Q Understood. 13 A Right. 14 Q Well, on that, were you aware that DOD supported that 15 footnote as of August 15th, or was that an error? 16 17 A me. So, as I recall --I'm sorry, I don't have them in front of As I recall, there was a gap in there. And so I think -- 18 Q Okay. We don't need to get back into it. 19 A Okay. 20 Q This just is more of summary. 21 But then on August 20th, August 27th, August 31st, September 5th, 22 September 6th, and September 10th, Mr. Duffey approved apportionments 23 that did not contain that language that DOD would still be able to 24 obligate all of the funds by the end of the fiscal year. 25 recollection? UNCLASSIFIED Is that your 167 UNCLASSIFIED 1 And if you're not certain of the datesJ just let us know. 2 A I just want to check one other piece of that. 3 Q Yeah. 4 A SoJ just to be very precise) it did not include the sentence It's exhibit 8. 5 thatJ quoteJ "OMB understands from the Department that this brief pause 6 in obligations will not preclude DOD's timely execution of the final 7 policy direction)" end quote. Q 8 9 10 11 And that was because DOD could not certify to OMB that they would be able to obligate all of the USA! funds by the end of the fiscal year. Was that your understanding? A It was my understanding that DOD could not support that 12 sentence. 13 to make that clarification. 14 Q It didn't mean that it would be impossible. WellJ the language I used is they could not certify that they 15 would be able to use all the funds. 16 be impossible. 17 18 19 A That does not imply that it would That DOD was no longer comfortable with that footnote and -- with that sentence in the footnote. Q I just want Right. Understood. But you also had conversations with DODJ and I'm 20 trying to understand that the reason that they were not comfortable 21 with that is that they could not guarantee that they would be able to 22 obligate all of the funds by the end of the fiscal yearJ and that's 23 why that sentence in the footnote was taken out. 24 A YesJ that was my understanding from DOD. UNCLASSIFIED 168 UNCLASSIFIED 1 [ 3 : 06 p . m• ] 2 3 BY MR. GOLDMAN: Q And you had conversations during this period from August 20th 4 until September 10th with other people in your office, within the Office 5 of General Counsel, within BRD, and with DOD where people expressed 6 concerns about whether or not this hold was consistent with the 7 Impoundment Control Act. 8 9 A Yes. Is that an accurate assessment, summary? They expressed concerns about the ability of DOD to fully obligate the funds before they expired. And, therefore, they 10 expressed concerns vis-a-vis the Impoundment Control Act. 11 correct. 12 13 14 Q That's And, Mr. Sandy, were you relieved that you didn't have to put your name on these apportionments? A I will just note this factually that my role changed and that 15 Mike Duffey took the lead on the interactions with DOD and the 16 interactions with OMB's general counsel to inform him vis-a-vis his 17 responsibilities in approving apportionments. 18 Q But that had been your role as of the end of July? 19 A It had been my role, yes. 20 Q And so were you relieved that that was now his role and not 21 22 your role? A I did not recommend the change in apportionment 23 responsibilities more broadly. So you're asking a question, but I want 24 to say that I did not recommend that change in apportionment 25 responsibility so it wasn't as though I was seeking that change in UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED 1 2 3 169 apportionment responsibilities. Q Understood. But with respect to these specific apportionments, which fell within your -- 4 A Right. 5 Q -- previous purview. Now you are -- you do not have to put 6 your name on them, and you had expressed concerns about the hold. 7 the question for you is, did at any point you feel any relief that you 8 no longer had this responsibility as it related to these specific 9 apportionments? 10 A So Perhaps in the sense that I spent less time working on this 11 issue. But let me just -- I will just be quick to note that I obviously 12 would have continued to work on it just as I had done at the last week 13 of July so -- 14 Q Did any of your staff members whose names did appear on them 15 express concerns to you about the fact that their name was included 16 on these apportionments? 17 A They expressed concerns about their roles insofar as they 18 were receiving direction from Mike Duffey about the apportionments to 19 route forward. 20 and continue to advise Mike Duffey to consult with general counsel and 21 to consult with the Department of Defense. And my advice to them was that we register the concerns During this period -- 22 Q 23 Do you want to jump in, Mr. Swalwell? 24 MR. SWALWELL: 25 MR. GOLDMAN: No. Let's kick it to the minority. Oh, sorry. UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED 1 2 170 BY MR. CASTOR: Q Just in summary J the reason for the change in delegation for 3 apportionment authority was communicated to you by Mr . Duffey as a 4 vehicle for him to gain more experience with the process} correct? 5 A That was one of reasons} yes. 6 Q Okay. 7 A Just reiterating the ones I stated before in terms of being Were there any other reasons? 8 more involved in day-to-day operations and senior leadership interest 9 in more insights on amounts that are going to specific purposes. 10 11 Q Okay. Did any of that} to your knowledge} have to do with the President's concern for spending} specifically foreign aid? 12 A That could have played a factor on the State USAID side. 13 Q Okay. 14 NowJ Mr. Duffey is the -- he's a PAD -- he's the program associate director} correct? 15 A Correct. 16 Q How many PADs are there? 17 A There are five. 18 Q Okay. 19 Did any of the other four PADs take this apportionment authority? 20 A No. 21 Q Okay. 22 A And I'm sorry. 23 organizations. There are five who lead resource management So there are four other comparable positions. 24 Q So this decision was a Duffey-specific change? 25 A That is correct. UNCLASSIFIED 171 UNCLASSIFIED 1 2 Q So nobody at the leadership of OMB wanted the PADs generally, all the politically appointed folks, to take this authority on? 3 A I was not aware that that was under consideration. 4 Q Okay. 5 A You mean in terms of making the change more widespread? 6 Q Yes. 7 A Again, I just know it was only implemented for our resource 8 9 You understand my question, though? management organization. Q Okay. And to your knowledge, this decision wasn't made by 10 Mr. Vought or any senior person at OMB to bring more political control 11 of the situation? 12 A It was not characterized as such. 13 Q Okay. 14 You indicated Mr. Vought called you yesterday when he learned that you were appearing here today? 15 A Yes. 16 Q And you also said that OMB leadership respects your decision 17 to testify? 18 A That was my takeaway from the conversation. 19 Q Okay. Meaning that they are not mad at you, they are not 20 going to retaliate against you. 21 to the extent you are coming in with your lawyer instead of agency 22 counsel? 23 24 25 A They want you to come in and cooperate Again, I did -- there was a letter to counsel. So I think the official position of OMB has remained the same. Q Okay. But that official position, if I may, involves a UNCLASSIFIED 172 UNCLASSIFIED 1 policy concern with having agency officials appearing before Congress 2 without agency counsel to protect the interest of the agency? 3 A That is the position, as I understand it, yes. 4 Q To your knowledge, OMB and the lawyers at OMB, they weren't 5 concerned about Mr. Sandy's specific testimony. 6 widespread policy consideration? It was more a 7 A Correct. 8 Q Okay. So they didn't have any speci fie fear of the testimony you would offer. They were concerned about having their lawyers locked 9 10 11 out of the room when, in their mind, agency equities are at play? A Correct. I would also just, in the spirit of a complete 12 answer, say that there was also a concern about a precedent of having 13 a career staff person testify. 14 15 Q Okay. But, again, it had nothing to do with your specific testimony here today. 16 A Well, I did not discuss my testimony of course in advance. 17 Q But you were called here to testify today about specifically 18 identified matters? 19 A Right. 20 Q This is an impeachment initiative about these Ukraine 21 issues. 22 concern about the specific testimony you were going to offer. 23 consistently a policy concern about having their lawyers locked out 24 of the room. 25 A So nobody at OMB leadership or the lawyers expressed any Correct. It was I think they would have taken a similar position UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED 1 2 173 with other staff as well. Q Okay. And is it your understanding that if agency counsel 3 had been able to participate in these proceedings, that other OMB 4 witnesses would have been able to come in as well. 5 6 7 MS. VAN GELDER: 10 MR. CASTOR: Okay. BY MR. CASTOR: Q And nobody at OMB, correct me if I am wrong, tried to influence your testimony here today, correct? 11 A No. 12 Q Okay. 13 That would be a discussion that would be with his -- 8 9 I'm not going to have him answer that. They didn't tell you what not to discuss, other than privilege issues? 14 A And those communications went through my personal attorney. 15 Q Okay. 16 So nobody at OMB told you, "please do not give facts about X, Y or Z"? 17 A No. 18 Q The only instruction you were given were through your lawyer 19 about privilege considerations? 20 A Correct. 21 Q Okay. 22 Whether it be executive privilege or attorney-client privilege? 23 A Correct. 24 Q And, again, given the communication you had with Mr. Vought, 25 you're going to go back to work on Monday and you feel like you don't UNCLASSIFIED 174 UNCLASSIFIED 1 expect to be retaliated against for participating in this process, 2 correct? 3 4 5 A I have received no indication at this point that that ' s a concern. Q Okay. And you feel like you're -- I mean, you're a highly 6 valued member of the OMB team, correct? 7 acting -- you were the acting director for a stint? 8 A Correct. 9 Q Okay. I mean, you used to be the So no one's given you any indication that you've 10 fallen out of favor because you've decided to potentially testify here 11 today? 12 A No. I've gotten no indication of that thus far . 13 MR. CASTOR: 14 MR. MEADOWS: Mr. Meadows. Mr . Sandy, I want to come back to OMB broadly 15 because I think a lot of questioning today is trying to figure out what's 16 unique and what's different. 17 Are you aware of other efforts within OMB outside of your direct 18 responsibility where OMB has looked at reorganizing the way that 19 they're structured, the way that they interact with other agencies, 20 specifically Ms. Weichert and other areas? 21 are other organizational changes that are happening or contemplated 22 in OMB? 23 MR. SANDY : 24 MR. MEADOWS: 25 Are you aware that there I am somewhat familiar, but yes. So, as you talk to some of your OMB career professionals that have been there a long time, would you agree that UNCLASSIFIED 175 UNCLASSIFIED 1 or has there been discussions among some of your colleagues that things 2 have changed in other areas other than just your specific 3 responsibility that we discussed here today? 4 communicated to you at all, Mr. Sandy? 5 MR. SANDY: 6 MR. MEADOWS: I'm sorry. Has that been ever Changed in what way? Just organizationally, the roles of the OMB 7 Management and Budget Director, some of those responsibilities, as we 8 look at the responsibilities within OMB -- you've been there a long 9 time, and some of those I have knowledge of just because we have 10 oversight over OPM and other areas. 11 organizational changes or directions that have happened in other areas 12 of OMB? 13 MR. SANDY: Are you aware of any contemplated Again, I'm most knowledgeable about the resource 14 management organization so I'm not aware of any organizational change. 15 You referred to the reorganizational plan that Deputy Director Weichert 16 is championing, so I think that's the biggest. 17 of a, of course, OPM-GSA related 18 MR. MEADOWS: But that's much more Have you read about or are you aware of in any other 19 way that the President of the United States has a general concern about 20 the amount of money that we are spending on foreign aid broadly, not 21 specifically, just with Ukraine but just broadly? 22 23 24 25 MR. SANDY: So I'm aware of the proposed reductions in the President's budget. MR. MEADOWS: And do you help prepare part of that budget, or do you provide input on an annual basis for the Presidential budget that UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED 1 2 3 4 176 is published? MR. SANDY: Certainly, not in the foreign assistance realm, other than for programs under DOD. MR. MEADOWS: All right. So, as you look at those programs 5 broadly, is it a fair characterization of the budget that generally 6 moneys for foreign assistance and other State Department related 7 activities get reduced in the annual budget and those annual priorities 8 for the President are not necessarily aligned with what gets 9 appropriated? 10 11 12 MR. SANDY: Yes. My understanding is congressional action has been different from the President's request in foreign assistance. MR. MEADOWS: And wouldn't you say that Congress generally spends 13 a lot more time and effort and makes a priority of foreign aid a lot 14 more than the President's budget? 15 16 MR. SANDY: Certainly by virtue of the relative request in appropriations, it is a lower priority for the President. UNCLASSIFIED 177 UNCLASSIFIED 1 2 [3:22 p.m.] MR. MEADOWS: And so, as we look at foreign aid generally and your 3 portfolio -- I know the question has been asked in different formats, 4 but we've had other witnesses that would suggest that there have been 5 holds on other aid to foreign nations, i.e., Lebanon. 6 was some foreign assistance holds on other countries, maybe in the 7 Balkans. Are you aware of those? 8 MR. SANDY: 9 MR. MEADOWS: 10 Lebanon? Yes. MR. SANDY: 12 affect my area. Are you aware that there's still a hold on aid to I'm not aware of the specifics because that doesn't MR. MEADOWS: 14 Again, not my lead area, but I'm aware of them. We've had another witness testify to that. 11 13 I think there Mr. Castor, I'll yield back. BY MR. GOLDMAN: We're almost done here. 15 Q 16 You're obviously aware that Mr. Vought defied the subpoena to come 17 testify here. Is that right? 18 A I'm aware of his response. 19 Q And Mr. Duffey as well? 20 A Yes, I'm aware. 21 Q And so, when you had any conversations with them, did they 22 express any concerns related to the -- oh, and you're also aware that 23 we have no documents, right, from OMB? 24 A That's -- I'm aware of that. 25 Q Even though we subpoenaed the documents? UNCLASSIFIED 178 UNCLASSIFIED 1 A I'm aware of that. 2 Q So J did they express any concerns that you were breaking the 3 4 5 6 widespread policy at OMB to obstruct this investigation? A I would stick by my previous answers about -- in terms of their preferences. Q Just following up on Mr. Meadows' questions) that whatever 7 review the President may be undertaking to look into foreign aid) that's 8 all looking ahead to the future) right? 9 the Ukraine security assistance that we've been discussing here today 10 11 12 That has nothing to do with J which is already a part of the law) correct? A So) if you're talking about) obviously) budget requests pertaining to future appropriations -- 13 Q Right. 14 A -- advice) this was an FY19 issue. 15 Q In early September J you testified that you received a request 16 for information about other -- the aid provided by other countries to 17 Ukraine. Is that right? 18 A Correct. 19 Q And you don't remember the specific date; you just know it 20 was in September. 21 A As I recall) early September. 22 Q And prior to that request) you were unaware of any reason 23 for the hold. 24 A I was unaware of a definitive reason. 25 Q And did you provide information about what other countries Is that right? UNCLASSIFIED 179 UNCLASSIFIED 1 have the aid that other countries have given to Ukraine? 2 A Again, the staff did, yes. 3 Q Your staff did. 4 A Yes. 5 Q And do you know if that aid included both security assistance 6 or military aid as well as other economic aid? 7 A I believe so, but, again, I don't recall the specifics. 8 Q So it wasn't necessarily specific to military aid. 9 A I don't believe so. 10 Q So are you aware, actually, that the European countries 11 provide a lot more broad economic aid to Ukraine than the United States 12 does? 13 A Again, I don't have specific data. To be consistent with 14 my previous responses, I am aware of -- I am aware of having read 15 something along those lines in press reporting. 16 Q And then, at some point in early September, Mr. Blair stopped 17 by your office and told you that the reason for the hold was out of 18 concern that the United States gives more aid to Ukraine than other 19 countries? Or, rather, that other countries should give more as well? 20 A That's correct. 21 Q And do you know when that conversation was? 22 A I'm sorry. 23 Q Do you know if it was before or after the hold was lifted? 24 A It was after. 25 Q It was after. I don't recall the -- And that that was the first time that you had UNCLASSIFIED 180 UNCLASSIFIED 1 2 received a definitive answer. A No. Is that right? As I referred --as I mentioned earlier in my testimony, 3 I also received an email along those lines, and I apologize that I don't 4 recall the specific date. 5 Q I guess the confusion I have is, was that email the same email 6 as asking for information about other countries' aid, or was it a 7 different email? 8 9 10 11 A It was a different email. It I would need to go back and confirm. Q was subsequent, and that's why I know it was in September. But what is relevant here is that that email was after the request for information about other countries' aid? 12 A That's correct. 13 Q And you just don't remember it, but it may have been right 14 15 around September 11 when the aid was lifted? A It very well may have been. I think I was thinking early 16 September for the request, and I know the other email came later. 17 I apologize that I don't recall the specific date . 18 Q So And between the date that you got the email request for more 19 information and the day that the aid was lifted on September 11th, are 20 you aware of whether any other countries had agreed to provide more 21 aid to Ukraine in that period of time? I'm not aware of anything. 22 A 23 MR. SWALWELL: Do you guys have anything else? 24 conclude if you don't. 25 MR. CASTOR: I was going to We had one matter we wanted to bring up after the UNCLASSIFIED 181 UNCLASSIFIED 1 witness leaves. 2 MS. CASULLI: Stick around for that. 3 MR. SWALWELL: Mr. Sandy, I want to thank you for coming in. Your 4 testimony today as was unique, I would say, in three ways: 5 you described that you had not seen, other than in this instance, such 6 a significant amount of aid held up for no apparent reasonj two, in 7 your experience, you've never seen a political appointee assume the 8 role of apportionments as was done in your casej but, I think, most 9 importantly to us today, three, you are the first OMB witness to be 10 willing to come forward and honor our request to provide information 11 for this inquiry. So, for the third one, we are very grateful, and thank you for 12 13 One in that doing that. 14 Again, as I mentioned in the beginning, we will not tolerate any 15 reprisal, and if there is anything like that, we hope that you let us 16 know. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED 1 2 3 MR. SWALWELL: We are adjourned. 4 [Whereupon, at 3:29p.m., the deposition was concluded.] UNCLASSIFIED 182