Question: A defendant is on trial in federal court for bank robbery. Before the police had any suspects, a police officer interviewed an eyewitness at the police station and showed her a "mug book" containing dozens of photographs. The eyewitness identified the defendant's photograph as that of the robber. At trial, the eyewitness surprises the prosecutor by testifying that she is unable to identify the defendant as the robber. The prosecutor calls the officer to testify that the eyewitness identified the defendant from the photograph in the police station. The eyewitness remains present in the courthouse and can be recalled. Is the officer's testimony admissible? 
A: No, because the eyewitness was unable to identify the defendant at trial.
B: No, because the eyewitness's testimony has disappointed the prosecutor but has not affirmatively harmed the prosecution's case.
C: Yes, because the eyewitness's statement of identification as reported by the officer is not excluded by the hearsay rule.
D: Yes, because the hearsay rule does not exclude out-of-court statements if a declarant testifies and is available for cross- examination.
Please eliminate two incorrect options first, then think it step by step and choose the most proper one option.