Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch Testifies In Impeachment Hearing. Aired 1:30-2p ET

Aired November 15, 2019 - 13:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[13:30:00]

YOVANOVITCH: -- very, very difficult time because the president does have the right to have his own, her own ambassador in every country in the world.

SEWELL: But does the president actually have the right to actually malign people's character? I mean, I may not be against any law, but I would think it would be against decorum and decency.

YOVANOVITCH: I mean, there's a question as to why the kind of campaign to get me out of Ukraine happened. Because all the president has to do is say he wants a different ambassador. And in my line of work, perhaps your line of work as well, all we have is our reputation, and this has been a is been a very painful.

SEWELL: How has it affected your family?

YOVANOVITCH: I really don't want to get into that, but thank you for asking.

SEWELL: Because I do care. I also want to know how you think it affected your fellow colleagues in the Foreign Service. My Republican colleagues have said that since you receive such adulation from -- and embracing from your own fellow colleagues, that what occurred, the incident that occurred with the president and his cronies, you know, maligning your reputation, how -- has that had a chilling effect on the ability and the morale within the foreign service? Can you speak to that?

YOVANOVITCH: Yes. I think that -- I think that it has had exactly that, a chilling effect. Not only in Embassy Kyiv, but throughout the State Department. Because people don't know, kind of whether their efforts to pursue our (ph) stated (ph) policy are going to be supported. And that is a -- that is a dangerous place to be.

SEWELL: Now for the record, my Republican colleagues would probably try to paint you as a never-Trumper. Are you a never-Trumper?

YOVANOVITCH: No.

SEWELL: As a Foreign Service officer, you took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States without regard for who is in office. Is that correct?

YOVANOVITCH: Yes, that's true.

SEWELL: have you also served your near 33 years for not just democratic presidents, but also Republican presidents?

YOVANOVITCH: For (ph) Republican presidents.

SEWELL: For (ph) Republican presidents. In fact you joined the Foreign Service under Reagan, is that right?

YOVANOVITCH: Yes, that's true.

SEWELL: Now, why do you think it's really important that they Foreign Service officers are nonpartisan? Can you talk to us about why it's important for you to do your job and your fellow Foreign Service officers to do your job, that you're nonpartisan.

YOVANOVITCH: Because our work is essentially nonpartisan. And Senator Vandenberg, a Republican senator who partnered with President Truman coined a phrase that politics should stop at the water's edge. And I think that that's exactly right because while obviously the competition of ideas in a democracy, different parties, different individuals, is hugely important. But at the end of the day, when we are dealing with other countries, it needs to be about what is right with the United States. But those are our national security interests, and whether an individual works for the CIA or the military or the State Department, we've got a be nonpartisan and thinking about what is right for the United States.

SEWELL: Well, on behalf of a grateful nation, I want to say thank you for your service. I yield back my time.

YOVANOVITCH: Thank you.

SCHIFF: Mr. Turner.

TURNER: Ambassador, I want to say, I have a great deal of respect for what you do. I serve on the Armed Services Committee, the Intelligence Committee, I've worked with NATO Parliamentary Assembly, including being its president I know the complexity of what you do. I know you have little access directly to decision-makers, little resources, but have still a great deal of responsibility. It is a complex task and I want to take us from just the concept of one dimensional Ukraine to being corrupt to the other issues that you had to deal with as the Ukraine ambassador. You had to deal with more than just our bilateral relationship with Ukraine. For example, and I'd like confirmation that, I mean obviously I know that you know these, but these were on your portfolio. You had to deal with the issue of the OSCE and Budapest agreement and denuclearization of Ukraine and the issues of integrity of the signatories. Correct?

YOVANOVITCH: Could you run that by me again?

TURNER: The OSCE, the Organization for Security and Cooperation for Europe and the Budapest agreement under which Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons and believed they had its territorial integrity guaranteed by the United States and Russia. You would have had that in your portfolio.

YOVANOVITCH: Well that...

TURNER: It was an issue you would have had to deal with Ukrainians on.

YOVANOVITCH: Yes, when the Ukrainians would ask about our policy and whether it was in keeping with the Budapest agreement.

TURNER: Excellent. NATO, Ukraine is an aspiring NATO country and of course, you know the Bucharest summit where the U.S. and the NATO allies made a statement that they would get membership; that would have been on your portfolio. They would have been discussing with you there...

YOVANOVITCH: Yes, certainly aspirations to NATO membership...

[13:35:00] TURNER: Right. And it's also consistent with U.S. policy that the U.S. supports Ukraine joining the E.U. and they have a great deal of interest and desire for joining the E.U., correct?

YOVANOVITCH: Yes.

TURNER: And they just had a summit in Ukraine in July where they talked about the associated agreement on economic integration between the Ukraine's and the E.U. and they also had a discussion about the illegal annexation of Crimea and the blocking by Russia of the Ukrainian sailors that came out of the Assab sea that were captures. Those would have all been issues that would have been in your portfolio that were consistent with what the E.U.'s issues are, correct?

YOVANOVITCH: Yes. We work closely with our E.U. partners.

TURNER: In addition to Ukraine, you'd have to work with France and U.K. and Germany, all of which you have different ideas of those? The ambassadors to Ukraine, of French, Germany, correct?

YOVANOVITCH: Yes. Did you they all have different ideas about these issues?

TURNER: Some of them, yes.

YOVANOVITCH: But mostly there's a consensus.

TURNER: You'd have to work with NGOs, non-governmental organizations, on issues that we heard about: legal aid, human trafficking, building democratic institutions and even HIV-AIDS, right?

YOVANOVITCH: Yes.

TURNER: You've spoken at several NGOs while you were the ambassador to Ukraine?

YOVANOVITCH: Yes.

TURNER: Now, the U.S. ambassador to the E.U., they would have under their portfolio aspiring nations to the E.U., would the not?

YOVANOVITCH: Yeah.

TURNER: OK. So E.U. Ambassador Sondland, then, would have had Ukraine in his portfolio because they're an aspiring nation and he's our U.S. ambassador to the E.U., correct?

YOVANOVITCH: I think he testified that one of his first...

(CROSSTALK)

TURNER: But you agree...

YOVANOVITCH: ... discussions was...

TURNER: ... that it's...

YOVANOVITCH: ... with Ukrainians.

TURNER: ... within his portfolio, correct?

(UNKNOWN): She was answering the question.

TURNER: You would agree that it's in his portfolio, would you not? Yes?

YOVANOVITCH: I would agree that...

(CROSSTALK)

TURNER: Yes, thank you. Now, I want to go to the next...

(CROSSTALK)

(UNKNOWN): I'm sorry...

YOVANOVITCH: I'd like to finish my...

(UNKNOWN): ... could she finish her answer, please?

TURNER: Richard Holbrooke is...

SCHIFF: The gentleman...

TURNER: ... is a person (ph) who...

SCHIFF: The gentleman -- gentleman will suspend.

TURNER: ... which (ph) I have a great deal of -- of...

SCHIFF: The gentleman will suspend.

TURNER: ... reverence for.

I'm not going to suspend.

SCHIFF: Ms. Yovanovitch had not finished her answer.

You may finish your answer, Ambassador.

TURNER: Not on my time. Your dime (ph)...

SCHIFF: Nope.

TURNER: ... right?

SCHIFF: Ambassador?

Ambassador will be recognized.

YOVANOVITCH: I would say that all E.U. ambassadors deal with other countries including aspiring countries, but the -- it is unusual to name the U.S. ambassador to the E.U. to be responsible for all aspects of Ukraine.

TURNER: I'll take your initial answer. It's still in his portfolio, which was my question.

You knew Ambassador Holbrooke probably. I did. He's a man of great integrity, one of our most successful ambassadors. You knew him probably by his reputation. You would agree that he was a man of great reputation, right?

YOVANOVITCH: Yes.

TURNER: Yes. Madam Ambassador, would it surprise you if, in 2004, John Kerry had a member of his campaign who was a foreign policy advisor who traveled to the Ukraine in July and met with Ukrainian officials and the U.S. ambassador? Would that surprise you? A member of John Kerry's campaign team for president of the United States in 2004 traveled to Ukraine, met with the U.S. ambassador in July.

YOVANOVITCH: Not necessarily. What was the context?

TURNER: Would you have taken that meeting if -- if a member of John Kerry's campaign traveled to the...

(CROSSTALK)

TURNER: ... Ukraine, would you have taken that meeting?

YOVANOVITCH: I guess it would depend on what the purpose of the meeting was.

TURNER: Well, that meeting actually occurred and it was with John Holbrooke. John Holbrooke was a private citizen, traveled to Ukraine, met with the U.S. ambassadors, met with Ukrainian officials. He was also there about HIV-AIDS, which was in addition something that the Clinton Foundation was working on.

So we have an official of the John Kerry campaign in 2004, is a private citizen, meeting with our ambassador in Ukraine...

SCHIFF: Time of the gentleman has expired.

TURNER: Is that unusual?

YOVANOVITCH: We meet with private individuals all the time.

TURNER: It probably wasn't unusual for Giuliani either.

SCHIFF: The gentleman's time has expired.

Mr. Carson, you are recognized.

CARSON: Thank you, Chairman.

Thank you, Madam Ambassador. Madam Ambassador, returning to the topic of corruption, we heard evidence that you were successful at promoting efforts to address corruption.

On Wednesday, in testifying about your very sterling career as a champion of anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine, Deputy Assistant Secretary George Kent said, quote, "You can't promote principled anti- corruption action without pissing off corrupt people," end quote. It seems that your efforts as ambassador to essentially reform the powerful prosecutor general's office in Ukraine, did exactly that.

Madam Ambassador, what concerned you about the prosecutor general's office when you were the ambassador in Ukraine?

YOVANOVITCH: What concerned us was that there didn't seem to be any progress in the three overall objectives that Mr. Lutsenko had laid out. Most importantly for the Ukrainian people, but also the international community.

So the first thing was reforming the prosecutor general's office. It's a tremendously powerful office where they had authority not only to conduct investigations, so an FBI-like function, but also to do the actual prosecution. So very, very wide powers, which is part of that Soviet legacy.

[13:40:00] And there just wasn't a lot of progress in that. There wasn't a lot of progress in handling personnel issues, and how the structure should be organized and who should have the important jobs. Because some of the people in those jobs were -- were known to -- were considered to be corrupt themselves.

Secondly, the issue that was tremendously important to the Ukrainian people of bringing justice to the over 100 people who died on the Maidan during the Revolution of Dignity in 2014. Nobody has been held accountable for that. And that is, you know, kind of an open wound for the Ukrainian people.

And, thirdly, Ukraine needs all the money that it has. And it is -- there is a strong belief that former President Yanukovych and those around him made off with over $40 billion. $40 billion, that's a lot in the U.S.; it's a huge amount of money in Ukraine. And so again, nobody has -- none of that money has really been -- I think -- I think maybe $1 billion was repatriated. But the rest of it is still missing. CARSON: Madam Ambassador, was the head of that office corrupt?

YOVANOVITCH: We believe so.

CARSON: And you got the sense, did you not, that he was a driving force behind some of the attacks against you?

YOVANOVITCH: I did.

CARSON: Which ultimately led to your removal, correct?

YOVANOVITCH: Yes.

CARSON: But it wasn't just him. His allegations were picked up and spread by Mr. Giuliani and Donald Trump Jr., were they not?

YOVANOVITCH: Yes.

CARSON: So let me get this straight. You were effective at fighting corruption in the Ukraine. Fighting that corruption was important to the national security of the United States. And you were punished for that, ultimately being removed from your post by the president of the United States.

So in our opinion, Madam Ambassador, why is it important to have a nonpartisan career in the Foreign Services?

YOVANOVITCH: I -- I think it's important to have a nonpartisan career Foreign Service office -- or Service, I should say...

CARSON: Sure.

YOVANOVITCH: ... because what we do is inherently nonpartisan. It is about our national security interests. It's not about what is good for a particular party at a particular time. It has to be about the greater interests of our security in, frankly, what is an increasingly dangerous world.

CARSON: And could you briefly describe for us what broad U.S. policies you have sought to advance in your 33 years of service? And specifically in post-Soviet states like Ukraine?

YOVANOVITCH: Well, that's a broad question. But I think that certainly in my time in Russia, Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, all of these countries are very different as is Ukraine and -- but I think that establishing positive constructive relations to the extent that we can with -- with those countries is -- is really important.

And that -- you know, I mean, there are three basic areas. One is security, the second is economic and the third is political. And so working all the sub-issues -- your colleague mentioned many of them -- you know, we certainly did that in Ukraine as well.

CARSON: Thank you for your service.

I yield to the chairman. YOVANOVITCH: Thanks.

SCHIFF: Dr. Wenstrup?

WENSTRUP: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And, Madam Ambassador, thank you very much for being here. And I just want to start by saying I appreciate your years of service and enduring years of moving around the world to dangerous places. And hearing from you today, I realize that we share some of the same feelings and experiences.

As an Army Reserve surgeon, I received a call on a Monday afternoon in March of 2005 that told me I was being deployed to Iraq, and I had to be out the door in the next two to three days. I -- I had patients scheduled for months. I had surgeries scheduled, and had to go. So I understand that shocking feeling that -- that can come with some abrupt change like that. And I was at processing a few days later. and I was told my orders would say you're going for 18 months, but it may be a little shorter than that.

But I served a year in Iraq, 2005/2006, one of the bloodiest times of the war, and this is where I have another personal relationship with what you were talking about. I saw a nation in Iraq of people that craved a non-corrupt government. And sadly today, even though it -- it helped to remove Saddam Hussein, they still have corruption concerns in Iraq, and I can relate to what you said just a few moments ago; that it feels like an -- an open wound when it hasn't been resolved.

[13:45:00] But you might imagine, with that military experience and background, I take an interest in military strategy and capabilities, and the thoughts of those with boots on the ground like you and Mr. Volker and Mr. Taylor.

In your deposition on page 144, you're quoted as saying, "In terms of lethal assistance, we all felt it was very significant that this administration made the decision to provide lethal weapons to Ukraine." Just real quick, who in general makes up "we all"? Would that be the team I mentioned?

YOVANOVITCH: Yeah, can I just -- just one sec. What -- what line is that?

WENSTRUP: Well, I -- I have to move on. I only -- so you said, "We all felt it was very significant that this administration made the decision to provide lethal weapons to Ukraine." I assume that is those that have boots on the ground. And then "this administration", I assume you meant the Trump administration.

YOVANOVITCH: Yes.

WENSTRUP: Yeah, OK. In your deposition, also on page 144, you spoke about the generosity of Congress -- you've mentioned it today -- increasing aid to Ukraine. And part of your deposition after that statement that I quoted before you were asked, "Did you advocate for that?" You responded, "Yes". Then you were asked, "Did you advocate for that prior to the new administration in 2016?" and you responded, "Well, yeah." On page 148, you were -- the question was you were -- "Were you satisfied that the administration was doing what was necessary to support Ukraine?" You said, "In what respect?" then they said, "In, you know, helping them deter Russian aggression, helping them with foreign aid and foreign assistance," and you said, "Yeah". And I agree that that lethal assistance was very significant, as you said, and I thank you for that, and I thank Mr. Volker and I thank Mr. Taylor.

You know, the -- you know, acting Ambassador Taylor was here Wednesday. He testified about the president's decision to withhold lethal aid, and he said the president felt it -- it might provoke Russia. And Mr. Taylor contested, then, that Russia has already been provoked and they have invaded the Ukraine.

You know, President Obama had the right to make his own foreign policy and make his own decisions as president of the United States, correct?

YOVANOVITCH: Yeah. I mean, there's an interagency process, and obviously, Congress (inaudible), as well.

WESTRUP: But he -- he has the right as president. I respect the interagency process. I'm getting to that, actually. But he has the right to make his own foreign policy and make his own decisions as president of the United States, as do all presidents, correct?

YOVANOVITCH: Yes.

WENSTRUP: So we have one president, Obama, who denied lethal aid altogether, in spite of ambassadors and other boots on the ground recommending -- making that recommendation, such as you did. We have another president, Trump, who vetted those that were going to receive the aid and provided it consistent with your intra-agency recommendations, and that of your -- your colleagues.

Let me just ask you from a military standpoint, without Javelins, would -- would you agree the Russians had much greater military offensive options and flexibility in their effort to attack the Ukraine, with -- without the Ukraine having Javelins?

YOVANOVITCH: Yeah. I mean, they had another option. Although the tank war has -- is no longer the war that is being fought in Ukraine.

WESTRUP: Yeah, but I'm just saying with the Javelins.

YOVANOVITCH: Yeah, it's another option.

WESTRUP: And there's a reason for that: because the Javelins are there.

YOVANOVITCH: (inaudible)

WENSTRUP: And so I think that that changes the scenario. But I -- I just wanted to -- to make that point: that the president has a right to have their own foreign policy and to make their own decisions.

And with that, I yield back.

YOVANOVITCH: Yeah. If I could just supplement one of my answers...

WENSTRUP: Of course.

YOVANOVITCH: So I want to thank you for your service, as well. But what I'd like to say is while I -- I obviously don't dispute that the president has the right to -- to withdraw an ambassador at -- at -- at any time for any reason, but what I do wonder is why it was necessary to smear my reputation.

WESTRUP: Well, I wasn't asking about that -- that, but thank you very much, ma'am.

SCHIFF: Representative Speier?

SPEIER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Ambassador, so very much. You were confirmed by the Senate on a voice vote, weren't you?

YOVANOVITCH: Yes.

SPEIER: So unanimous, Republicans and Democrats, correct?

YOVANOVITCH: Yes.

SPEIER: No dispute. You said that in summer of 2018, the smear campaign began in your testimony earlier today. Did Secretary Pompeo at any time come to your aid?

[13:50:00] YOVANOVITCH: Well, my understanding from Assistant Secretary Phil Reeker and Deputy Secretary Sullivan is that, you know, this -- sort of the rumors about me, if -- for lack of a better word, the smear campaign, which was behind closed doors at that point, that there were a number of discussions between the president and Secretary Pompeo, and that he actually did -- did keep me in place for as long as he could. That's what I was told.

SPEIER: So it appears that back in 2018, the president was already making noises that he wanted you out of there. It appears that as early as April of 2018, Mr. Parnas was at a fundraiser for the president and recommended that you be removed, and then subsequently, in May of 2018, was pictured at a White House dinner with the president, and then later in May, made a contribution of over $325,000 illegally to the president's reelection campaign. Are you aware of that?

YOVANOVITCH: I -- I'm aware of the -- the -- the press about those things.

SPEIER: Does that help you understand a little bit more why this smear campaign was underway?

YOVANOVITCH: Yes. I mean... SPEIER: All right. You made some very riveting comments in your statement this aft -- this morning that I just want to repeat, because I think we should have you expand on it. You said, "I've always understood that I served at the pleasure of the president. I still find it difficult to comprehend that foreign and private interests were able to undermine U.S. interests in this way. Individuals who apparently felt stymied by our efforts to promote stated U.S. policy against corruption -- that is, to do our mission -- were able to successfully conduct a campaign of disinformation against a sitting Ambassador using unofficial backchannels.

Now, as I listened to you make that statement, I was thinking of all the other persons in the foreign service who now have to be concerned that it's not good enough to follow the stated U.S. foreign policy, but also to be aware that maybe the president has a backchannel of interests that he is promoting that is diametrically opposed to our stated foreign policy. Can you expand on that, please?

YOVANOVITCH: Well I think that it's important that whoever is representing the president, an ambassador, speaks with the full authority of the president and our foreign policy establishment, and if there are others who are also helping with -- with the responsibilities in that country, for example, Ambassador Kurt Volker, with his important mission to bring peace to the Donbass, that we all speak with one voice, that it's all about our common security interests, and that it's not about, you know, personal gain or commercial gain or anything else, that it's about our national security.

SPEIER: But in this case, the tres amigos appeared to be more interested in getting an investigation than into promoting an anti- corruption effort in Ukraine. Is that correct?

YOVANOVITCH: That appears to be the case.

SPEIER: You were told at one point in 2019, in February of -- early (ph) this year, you spoke to a minister in Ukraine who warned that, when it came to Rudy Giuliani, you needed to, quote, watch your back. What did you understand him to mean?

YOVANOVITCH: I -- I didn't exactly know, but you know, the -- the rumor was out there at that time, and in fact I think this minister also shared that information with me, that the mayor was working to have me removed.

SPEIER: Let me just say, to conclude, that you have endured an orchestrated character assassination. That it was hatched over a year and a half ago, and that it's laced with enormous campaign contributions to the president's reelection campaign. And you deserve more from the American people, and you deserve more from Congress in supporting you.

I yield back.

(CROSSTALK)

SCHIFF: Mr. Stewart...

TURNER (ph): I have (ph) unanimous consent...

SCHIFF: Mr. Stewart, you're recognized.

TURNER (ph): I have unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman.

SCHIFF: We'll take (ph) that up later. Mr. Stewart, you're recognized.

STEWART: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and others (ph). And Ambassador, thank you for being with us here today. Welcome, as I said last -- a couple days ago to the witnesses, welcome to year four of the impeachment proceedings. I'm sorry that you have gotten dragged (ph) into this.

[13:55:00] For 3 years we've heard these outrageous and frankly unbelievable accusations regarding Russian collusion; accusations that we now are -- know are absolutely nonsense, that there was no basis at all, despite promises from some members of this committee that they had secret proof that would prove this collusion, and granted (ph), we know that it was nonsense, but now in year four we apparently move on to Ukraine and quid pro quo, culminating yesterday when the speaker announced that the president would indeed be impeached and removed for office for bribery.

And with that statement, I would now feel compelled to ask you, Madam Ambassador, as -- as you sit (ph) here before us, very simply and directly, do you have any information regarding the President of the United States accepting any bribes?

YOVANOVITCH: No.

STEWART: Do you have any information regarding any criminal activity that the President of the United States has been involved with at all?

YOVANOVITCH: No.

STEWART: Thank you. Thank you for answering that directly. The American people know this is nonsense. The American people know this is unfair. And I have a prediction regarding this. I think that public support for impeachment is actually going to be less when these hearings are over than it is when the hearings began, because finally the American people are going to be able to see the evidence, and they're going to be able to make their own determination regarding that.

Now I want to ask you one thing very quickly, and you've been asked this again and again, but my question is slightly different. You've been asked, as you recognize (ph), that the president -- any president has the ability to ask his ambassadors to serve at will. I'm curious, do you think that's the right policy?

YOVANOVITCH: Yes, I probably think it is.

STEWART: I -- I -- I do as well. It may be imperfect, there may be times when it's not used perfectly, but I agree with you. It is the right policy. I don't think that we should change that.

Now I'd like to read from some previous statements, including one of your own, as -- as well as others, regarding the appropriateness of investigating corrupting in the UK (ph). From Ms. Fiona Hill -- so again, the fact that there are investigations into corruption in the energy sector in Ukraine, as well as Russia and many other countries, is not a surprise.

From yourself, your previous testimony, question, was it the general understanding that Burisma was a company that suffered from allegations of corruption? Your answer was yes. From Ambassador Sondland, I am -- I just am generally aware that Burisma is considered a potentially corrupt company.

Would you agree then that it's appropriate to investigate corruption?

YOVANOVITCH: I think it's appropriate if it's -- if it's part of our national strategy. What I would say is that we have a process for doing that. It's called the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty. We have one with Ukraine. And generally it goes to (ph) -- from our Department of Justice to the Ministry of Justice in the country of interest. And that's the usual path.

STEWART: OK, and I -- and I appreciate that. Regardless of the process, though, it's appropriate for us to investigate in -- in -- potential corruption, and especially, look, we're -- we are vowed (ph) to give these -- some of these countries hundreds of millions of dollars. The U.S. taxpayer said here's a dollar of mine, go ahead and give it to this other country, but please only do it if you know it's not going to be used for corrupt purposes or against our national interests.

And -- and I'll -- I'll conclude with this, because I've promised my friend, Mr. Jordan, I would save him a little bit of time. We mentioned earlier that the vice president, when he was -- went to the Ukraine and called the specific firing of a specific prosecutor, that he was, as they say, completing (ph) official U.S. policy.

But the interesting thing is this: the vice president had exactly two countries that were his responsibility at that time, China and the Ukraine. And he has bragged and been very proud of his influence in the previous administration. He says again and again that the Obama administration listened to him, so it doesn't surprise me that they would be fulfilling a policy that this vice president certainly helped to formulate.

Mr. Jordan, I leave you...

(OFF MIKE)

STEWART: In Cyprus, I'm sorry -- thank you. Clarification. And I will yield to -- for unanimous consent.

TURNER: I have unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, that doesn't involve you this time. It's three articles, the New York Times article 2004 campaign, the advisors carry foreign policy crew (ph) has a Clintonian look to it (ph)...

(CROSSTALK)

SCHIFF: The time of the gentleman has expired.

TURNER: ...Kyiv Post, Holbrooke to visit Kiev (ph) July 2004, and then (inaudible)...

SCHIFF: (inaudible) I may recognize you later...

TURNER: ...Holbrooke meets with one Ukrainian American (ph)...

SCHIFF: The gentleman's time has expired.

TURNER: ...Organization (ph). I'd like to have that unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman (ph)...

SCHIFF: Mr. Quigley, you're recognized. Mr. Quigley, you're recognized.

QUIGLEY: Thank you. Madam Ambassador, it's like a Hallmark movie. You ended up at Georgetown, this is all OK --

[14:00:00]