Security will come to order. The pur o pos of this hearing is to receive testimony regarding the immigrant Investor Program known as the eb5 program. I now recognize myself for an Opening Statement. On march 24th the department of Homeland Security Inspector General released a report detailing allegations against deputy secretary mayorkas that relate to his time as director of uscis and his oversight of the eb5 program. The igs Office Conducted more than 50 interviews, reviewed more than 40,000 phone records and obtained more than 1 million documents and emails. This investigation was unprecedented in that there were more than a dozen whistle blowers that came forward to the Inspector Generals office. The findings are troubling as the ig made some very serious charges against mr. Mayorkas. Leave among them were that he used his position to influence outcomes in select cases for the benefit of politically connected and powerful individuals. In general, these allegations fall under four categories, special access there are allegations were unequivocal, mr. Mayorkas gave special access and treatment to certain individuals and parties. Political favoritism, quote, we received complaints from u. S. Ris employees that the application for politically connected Regional Center Gulf Coast Funds Management received extraordinary treatment skult of mr. Mayorkas intervention. Additionally uscis staff understood that these applicants were prominent or politically connected. Created or went around established process and career staff decisions. Mr. Mayorkas was in contact outside of the normal adjudication process, either directly or through senior dhs leadership with a number of stakeholders having business before uscis. According to the employees but for mr. Mayorkas actions the staff would have decided these matters differently. Misplaced priorities. Mr. Mayorkas focused on a few applicants and stakeholders was particularly troubling to employees given the massive scope of his responsibilities as director of uscis. Two days after the release of the report this Committee Held a hearing and heard testimony directly from dhs iflt g john roth. From the report and gaen in his testimony before us the ig found that mr. Mayorkas appeared to play favorites with Democratic Political operatives and insert himself improperly this ways that influenced the outcome of cases. These are very serious allegations and ones that if true should not be ignored. Although the ig did not allege that these acts were criminal in nature they without a doubt raised questions about the deputy secretarys judgment. This was not the first time that the Inspector Generals office reviewed allegations of impropriety at uscis. In a separate report the ig found that in late 2009 the former u. S. Cis chief counsel also placed pressure on career staff to reverse the outcome for a petition filed by a university that the chief counsel was connected to. Therefore, in april of 2010 in response to that mr. Mayorkas himself put out a policy memo to uscis employees that stated quote, each uscis employee has the duty to act impartial alley in the performance of his or her official duties. Any occurrence of actual or perceived preferential treatment, treating similarly situated applicants differently can call into question our ability to implement our nations immigration laws fairly, honestly and properly. In examining the igs findings it seems that mr. Mayorkas has repeatedly violated his own policy through his actions regarding certain eb5 cases as the director. As chairman of this committee, as a former federal prosecutor in the Public Integrity section of the department of justice i take the oversight responsibilities of this committee under the constitution very seriously. After looking at the igs report and hearing the igs testimony last month i felt obligated to examine the accusations paid in this report in greater detail. Our Committee Staff has analyzed over 500 pages of documents from the ig and dhs. The committee expects to receive additional documentation from the department and if the coming days, but since our first hearing and after reviewing the report and associated documents, i have more questions. For instance did mr. Mayorkas knowingly or unknowingly violate uscis policy to grant special access and treatment to applicants who were prominent and politically connected and overrule uscis career staff decisions in these cases . Secondly, does the lack of judgment shown by mr. Mayorkas in the igs report raise doubts with b. His ability to fulfill the responsibilities of deputy secretary . Second specifically dhss morale is ranked the lowest of any large federal agency. Mr. Mayorkas is charged with fixing this morale problem, yet the morale of certain uscis staff deteriorated under his watch. Third, why has mr. Mayorkas not been held accountable for his actions . According to the 2010 policy that mr. Mayorkas signed, quote, failure to adhere to the standards or guidance set forth in this memorandum may subject the employee to disciplinary penalties up to and including removal from employment. Political appointees at dhs should not be immune from accountability when warranted. We as a peoples representatives deserve to hear the truth in these cases. However, there is no place for presumed guilt before innocence. Mr. Mayorkas is allowed the opportunity here today to explain and defend his actions as alleged in the ig report. At the conclusion of our hearing on match the 26th i stated that i looked forward to giving mr. Mayorkas the opportunity to respond today and today is that opportunity, sir. At the heart of this case really is the issue of trust and credibility. In order for government to function our leaders must have the trust of the American People and those who work for them. We can never forget that Public Office is a approximate public trust and with that i look forward to hearing from mr. Mayorkas. With that i yield or i recognize the Ranking Member of the committee, mr. Thompson. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Id like to thank deputy secretary mayorkas for appearing today. Last month the department of Homeland Securitys office of Inspector General released the results of an investigation into the employee complaints about the management of the investor visa program. This program, better known as the eb5 program, accounts for less than 1 of all visas issued by the United States citizenship and Immigration Services however, given the programs potential as a job creator, it has great visibility to congressional leaders from across the political spectrum. I do not take issue with the Inspector Generals decision to limit his review to questions regarding deputy secretary mayorkas involvement in the three eb5 applications at issue, however, im disappointed that after expending months of resources to investigate these cases the Inspector General produced an incomplete report. It only addressed the allegations made by uscis personnel about contact with prominent democratic figures, thereby giving the false impression that there were no republican inquiries or outreach on these three cases. At the time that Inspector General roth testified, i was skeptical that deputy secretary mayorkas only heard from democrats on these cases, given the potential economic benefit of the eb5 program. When i asked Inspector General about other outreach on these three cases the Inspector General was nonresponsive. Subsequently through further engagement with the department ive learned that prominent republicans contacted deputy secretary mayorkas and asked him to give his personal attention to these three cases. Given that this review has implications for a deputy secretary mayorkas are reputation, it was incumbent on the Inspector General to to present a complete picture of mr. Mayorkas contacts and involvement in these cases. More broadly, ive learned that while serving as uscis director deputy secretary mayorkas was regularly contacted on eb5 cases and other visa matters but not only by democrats, but also republicans, including members of this committee. Not only had am i disappointed about the incompleteness of the Inspector Generals review, i find it appalling that Inspector General would not provide testimony to lay to rest questions of actual wrongdoing or impropriety, despite the fact that the report did not find that deputy secretarys involvement was inappropriate. As i stated last month, the picture that emerged from the Inspector Generals report was that of an activist manager that demanded reform and responsiveness from his agency. If we want to have a comprehensive examination of deputy secretary mare pairs leadership style we should look at his actions as a whole, including in his current capacity as deputy secretary. Under deputy secretary mayorkas leadership the department has made Great Strides in some areas and remain stagnant in others. There have been progress on key areas identified on a government accountabilities offices high risk list and as a result of these efforts gao recently acknowledged improvement, stating that dhs has demonstrated exemptlary commitment and support for addressing the departments management challenges. The deputy secretary is also working closely with the secret Service Director on reform efforts. There is quite a bit of work to be done to improve the agencys performance and address long standing cultural issues. Equitable treatment of secret Service Personnel is still an issue. Theres also the matter of a Racial Discrimination Class Action Lawsuit that has dragged on for 15 years. Also, we have not seen many of the recommendations issued by departments independent panel implemented, including bringing someone from outside the agency into its leadership. These outstanding issues undermine morale and performance within this vital agency and certainly demand timely and thoughtful attention. More broadly, dhs has well documented morale challenges of its own, according to the 2014 best places to work in the federal government, the department comes in last with dismal scores in the areas of support for diversity, fairness and effective leadership. Department has spent millions of dollars on studying the work force, but a plan that yields results has yet to be implemented. Id like to hear from the deputy secretary mayorkas on how through his leadership substantial improvements can be achieved at the department. Mr. Chairman while i understand that much of todays discussion is looking backwards, i hope that we will seize this opportunity and also look ahead. Deputy secretary mayorkas is the high wres ranking dhs official to appear before this committee this congress. We should seize this opportunity to have a meaningful discussion about dhs and how it is addressing its operational, administrative and mission challenges. This Committee Works well when we can work in a bipartisan manner to achieve the shared goals of advancing the department of Homeland Security. And with that, mr. Chairman, i yield yield back. I thank the Ranking Member. Let me make it clear, i did not create or generate the Inspector Generals report, but it is has been completed and i have a role under the constitution to provide oversight responsibility in this matter and that is what we are doing here today. We have heard mr. Mayorkas, from the Inspector General and now today is your opportunity for us to hear your side of the story. With that i want to thank you for being here. Given the nature of this case today i would like to swear in the witness. If you would please now stand and raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you god . Let the record reflect that the witness has taken the oath. Mr. Chairman mr. Watson coleman is recognized. I just want to state for the record that i really dont understand the necessity of swearing in the under secretary when we had the Inspector General who generated this the reason for our being here in the first place that we never once asked him to be sworn in. I just find thats unusual and unnecessary given this high elected this high appointed official who has such tremendous credentials on his behalf and i just want it stated or the record. Thank you. And i appreciate the general ladys point of order, i suppose. The let me say the committee and house rules provide for the swearing in of any witness that the chair deem appropriate. I think given the serious allegations generated by the Inspector Generals report warrant the swearing in of this witness in particular and i, again, am giving the witness an opportunity to explain his side of the story. Thank you, mr. Chairman, but may i just say that the reason that we are here is we are relying so heavily or you are relying so heavily on the limited and very my op pick findings of the Inspector General and his report has caused tremendous consternation here and im sure in the department, yet we didnt feel the need or you didnt feel the need to swear him in and i just wanted to state that for the record. I think that this is an unusual situation. Well, the general ladys point is well taken and but the fact of the matter is that this is the witness today that is responding to these serious accusations. I think they are very serious. I think when you talk about potential breach of ethics and integrity policy that have an impact on our nations security as it impacts the entry of foreign nationals into the United States, mad dam, that this mornings swearing am in is perfectly appropriate. And i want to say that its important this committee exercise its oversight responsibilities and let the witness know how serious these accusations are by the Inspector General. And, therefore, i think its entirely appropriate not only is it appropriate, it is deemed under the house of representatives rules in this congress and this committees rules to have a swearing in process. Unless the general lady would prefer this this committee not exercise its oversight responsibilities under the rules of the United States house of representatives and this committee. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I appreciate your consideration of my concerns and i most assuredly want us to exercise our responsibilities under the constitution and under the organization of this committee to exercise our oversight rights. I do believe, however, i look for fairness and justice and equality as we undertake those important decisions and issues, but i thank you for your consideration. You were very generous with me. Thank you. I stated the purpose of had this hearing is to hear mr. Mayorkas side of the story. I think given the serious allegations and nature of misconduct at the highest levels of the department involving foreign nationals that the wearing in of this witness is entirely appropriate and it is the responsibility of this committee to do so. As we go forward with our investigations on this committee into foreign fighters and homegrown violent extremists, those investigations may require the swearing in of witnesses as well. Most other committees, madam, actually swear in their witnesses. I dont see any reason why this committee, the Homeland Security committee, should and kate its responsibility and not swear in witnesses to basically just give an oath to say tell the truth. It is inappropriate for me to get engage in this discussion with you in this manner, so i shall yield any further discussion a unless the madam would prefer this committee not to swear in witnesses. Im just interested in consistency. Thank you. I think telling the truth is the number one goal that this committee should have for witnesses that appear before this committee. I dont think theres any reason for you to be concerned about ms. Watsoncolemans drawing the distinction between an assertion that the Inspector General made from an incomplete report and now we bring the number two person in the department, we swear him in and that obviously is a rule, but she was just saying that in her view it was inconsistent. It has nothing to do with terrorists or foreign fighters. She only spoke to the procedure of swearing in the witness. Obviously we can do a lot of other things, but i think shes within her right as a member of this committee to voice her concern and her observation. Its not taking issue that you as chairman cant do it, but shes just saying that its inconsistent. I think ms. Watsoncoleman as a member of the committee is within her right to do so. You know, i most likely will have the Inspector General back and i think this committee actually should exercise its right under the rules to have witnesses being sworn in beforehand. This committee has not done that and i think it should. I think that is a responsibility. Mr. Chairman. I yield to mr. Perry. I just have a point of clarification for me and maybe anybody else. Is it common practice in hearings and courts to swear in the prosecutor or swear in the judge . The Inspector General is not the person under scrutiny here. The Inspector General is the one that offered the report. Were trying to get to the facts and it seems to me it would be inappropriate to swear in the Inspector General in this case and juxtapose that with this witness as a layman. It just doesnt seem like that has been the normal course of events in any other similar circumstances, notwithstanding. So i just want to make that point from my view from my view. I think the gentleman raises a very good point and it is the allegations are there and the Inspector Generals report, the witness is here to respond to these allegations. All im trying to do by ensuring the swearing in of the witness is that hes telling the truth in response to the allegations made against him. I dont think its in the witness best interest not to tell the truth and i think the point thats being made is i dont have any doubt that our witness if asked a question will answer it and i think you elevate this situation by swearing in. Sure, the rules provide for it, but we had at the Inspector Generals own admission a report that was incomplete and that report it makes serious allegations but it was an incomplete report and you bring someone before the committee to respond to an incomplete report. This is an extraordinary case. We do not swear in witnesses and if the ranking had he been wants to do that in every hearing i would be happy to do so. This presents a very extraordinary case of the number two man in the department of Homeland Security under allegations that are very, very serious. We havent had a case like this in quite some time before this committee in our oversight responsibilities and therefore i thought it was appropriate if in this case to have him sworn in because of the allegations being so serious. We can we can attack the igs report or deal with it as it is. The fact of the matter is the igs report has raised serious accusations about mr. Mayorkas ethical policy and his potential violations thereof. And, therefore, because of the extraordinary nature of this hearing and the issues at hand as i stated at the beginning, i believe that swearing the witness in was entirely appropriate in this case. I dont think the American People would think it was not. I think the American People expect this from our government officials at the highest levels to be sworn in to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. And i actually believe, mr. Mayorkas himself agrees with that assertion. I believe that he will tell the truth at this hearing today. Well, let me just for the record indicate that under title 18 its illegal to lie or make misrepresentation to congress whether youre sworn in or not. So mr. Mayorkas is a witness and, as i said, i have not known witnesses to come before this committee and do anything but tell the truth in their opinion. So hes operated for a long time in a professional capacity and im convinced that he understands it. I look forward to his sworn testimony. And the gentleman is correct that under the federal law it is a crime to lie to congress, and no one knows that better than a Public Integrity prosecutor in washington like myself, but the formality of this practice, as done by most other committees and this one has an investigative role, i think we have not done it enough. The formality of this practice reminds all a of us that both Committee Members and our distinguished witnesses of the importance of the testimony thats being offered here today. Without further discussion the chair now recognizes the deputy secretary mayorkas to testify. Thank you. Compare man mic. Thompson, distinguished members of the Homeland Security committee, thank you for providing me with the opportunity to address you today and to answer questions you might have. I have looked forward to this opportunity. The work of u. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services or uscis is casework. The agencys primary responsibility is to decide immigration cases according to the law in a way that safeguards our nations security and the integrity of our immigration system. The agency decides millions of cases each year. We are fortunate to have a great work force at uscis, dedicated and hard working Public Servants. After i became the director and led a top to bottom review of the agency i learned that the agency did not always provide its work force with the support and resources it needed to meet its obligations to the american public. Among the most significant challenges were gaps and inconsistencies in the critical legal and policy guidance that governed adjudicators in their review of cases. The consequences were serious. The agency was too often misapplying the law and issuing unsound policies. Us is cis is an a jude can a testify body and i learned of these legal and policy challenges when individual cases were brought to my attention. The cases, cases involving the rich and the poor alike, business and cultural interests as well as profound humanitarian concerns, came to me from a variety of sources, including Agency Employees who brought cases to me for resolution media reports, members of congress, other government officials and members of the public. The extent of my involvement depended on the nature and complexity of the issues presented and what was necessary to resolve them. I became involved in many cases of all types throughout my tenure because it was ultimately my responsibility as the director to ensure cases were decided correctly under the law. Congress is only too familiar with the severe consequences to an applicant when a case is wrongly decided. The legal and policy cal lengths we faced were greatest in the it the eb5 program, the most complex program uscis administers. Eb5 cases require complicated business and economic analysis, such as whether the required amount of Investment Capital is at risk and whether the he can no metric models used to predict future job creation are reasonable. Unlike traditional immigration adjudications at that involve an application that is several pages in length, echl b 5 cases require different stages of Agency Review and often involve thousands of pages of legal and business documents. The eb5 program was underdeveloped when i arrived at uscis in august 2009. At that time the program only had had approximately nine adjudicators, the agency did not provide them with the needed economic, business or Corporate Law expertise to support them. Applicants did not have to tile a form as required in other visa categories, but instead would submit an informal letter. The agencys National Security and antifraud screening needed to be strengthened. There was no comprehensive eb5 policy document, but rather a series of memos issued over the years that i learned through my review of eb5 cases had failed to address many Critical Issues that applied to our every day work. As a result, we were administering the eb5 program poorly and that was the view from every quarter. At the very same time the publics interest in and use of the program was growing dramatically. In the challenging economy at that time when it was difficult to obtain commercial loans domestically more Business Developers were turning to the eb5 program for foreign financing. Because eb5 developments can lead to the significant infusion of money and new jobs into a community, the public was interested in the outcome of these cases. The growing importance of the program in communities suffering high unemployment combined with usciss Poor Administration of the program led to rising complaints, which i took seriously. Congress appealed to me repeatedly to fix our administration of the program and to fix errors in specific cases. Members of congress from both sides directed to uscis more than 1,500 eb5 case inquiries per year, dwarvg the number of communications about if i other program uscis administered. Add the individual ultimately responsible for usciss administration of the program, i became increasingly involved in resolving the eb5 legal and policy issues that we as an agency confronted. The issues often came to me through cases the very work for which the agency is responsible. I became involved in many eb5 cases, three of which became the focus of the office of Inspector General, and i became involved in the very same way that i became involved this other cases, at the behest of my own employees, members of Congress Government officials and other stakeholders. As to the three cases, the office of Inspector General found that through my involvement i allowed some agency colleagues to develop the perception that i was favoring individuals with an interest in these cases. I thought i had taken steps to guard against this very possibility, even an appearance of impropriety is not acceptable to me, yet as i have reflected on this important matter i understand that these colleagues would not necessarily have known what i did do to adhere to amicable guidelines in these three cases, nor would they necessarily have been aware of my involvement in many other cases, many of which were responsive to concerns and inquiries of members of congress from both parties. This context would better have guarded against the possibility of such perception. I support and embrace secretary johnsons protocols developed to more ably ensure that employees understand the involvement of their supervisors in specific cases. The protocols will benefit future Agency Directors who become involved and provide guidance in certain cases. I regret the perception my own involvement created. In the three cases at issue, cases that were the subject of bipartisan support, i did what i did in the many other cases that were brought to my attention, i did my job and fulfilled my responsibility. I did not let errors go unchecked, but instead helped ensure that those cases were decided correctly, nothing more and nothing less. I sought the advice of colleagues, including agency counsel, took steps i thought would guard against the chance of misperception, raised concerns of fraud or National Security and followed the facts and applied the law. I became involved in more cases eb5 and other types, than i can count all applicants are entitled to and deserve the fair and correct application of the law. In the cases this which i became involved, whether it was the case of the ga watt mall land orphan seeking to be united with her a date of birth testify american family, the pregnant mother seeking urgent humanitarian parole to escaped a forced abortion in china, the performing arts Group Lending cultural influences and seeking a performing arts visa or the eb5 petitioner forming a business enterprise, this basic principle was my guide and my responsibility to fulfill. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you. I think deputy secretary now recognize i will recognize myself for five minutes. Let me say first again i did not treat this report, had nothing to do with it. It raises serious allegations and you, i know, sir, of all people know that i have an oversight responsibility under the constitution. I wanted to go through some of the issues that have been raised by the report to give you the opportunity to respond to that. First, i know in april of 2010 you issued an ethics policy to all of your employees and id like to clerk to provide the policy memorandum to the witness. I just want to ask you, first, why did you issue this ethics policy and what was the purpose pos behind it . Mr. Chairman, i issued this ethics policy because the principles articulated in this policy are very important and are amicable to everyone in the agency. You correctly noted that Public Confidence in the decisionmaking of a Government Agency is critical to the Public Interest and to our responsibility as government officials. In the service of that principle i issued this important ethics memorandum. And i think its a good memorandum. I know you coming from the Justice Department like myself, you say the purpose is to prevent situations that could be or appear to be preferential treatment. What are the penalty outlined in this policy if an employee fails to meet the standards set forth . Mr. Chairman, the penalties depend upon the facts of a particular case. The memorandum does spell out that the penalties can cover a wide range of possibilities anywhere from a counseling to a termination, depending upon what principle is specifically violated and the facts of that violation. So its a disciplinary penalties up and including to removal from employment is whats stated in the memo. More than 15 civil servants, career employees, came forward in your matter regarding your actions in the three eb5 cases and according to the ig, quote, there are their allegations were unequivocal, giving special access and treatment to certain individuals and parties. Id like to ask you about these three cases specifically. First, in the l. A. Films case, according to the igs report within an hour of speaking to ed rent dell, former governor and chair of the Democratic National committee, you directed usc icht s staff to stop processing the denials of eb5 visa petitions that you had already signed off on. Is that true . Mr. Chairman, i dont remember the chronology of communications am that particular case. I think theres a very important principle at stake, though, and tas the following, that it if a concern with respect to our adherence of the law is raised it is our obligation to address that concern and have confidence that the ultimate decision that we are making if a case adheres to the law and the facts in every case. And that is what i did in that case. On page 18 thats exactly what the igs report says, they stopped processing the denials that you had already signed off on. I mean, i guess you cant answer that question. Im just going from the igs report. Mr. Chairman, i am not questioning the facts that the Inspector General lays out at that particular point in the report. What i am sharing with you is that i dont i dont recall the chronology of communications in that case. But the principle is vitally important that when we issue an adjudication in a case, it is our obligation to adjudicate the case in adherence of the law based on the facts in that particular case. I respect that. According to the report, you also directed the staff to create a onetime review board that resulted in approval of 249 petitions that in the opinion of the career staff would have otherwise been denied. Do you know if thats true . That is not precisely true, if i may. And if i can please share. I have very limited time. Yes, mr. Chairman. In 2011,ed a aamong many complaints we developed reforms. One of those reforms we discussed in the agency and announced publicly and to which the public responded was the creation of a decision board in eb5 cases to address complex issues that were unresolved between the agency and the parties. And i appreciate it. But if i can say, the board is only useded once in this specific case. It creates the appearance that you may have created a special process to accommodate special parties which i argue, arguably were in violation of your own policy. If i can go to the Las Vegas Hotel case. According to the igs report. Not me. If you directed your employees to provide senator reids staff with weekly briefings. Is this correct . I dont recall doing so. And thats on page 36 of the ig report. Is it Standard Practice to provide weekly updates to the status of the eb5 visa applications to outside parties . Mr. Chairman, we prided ourselves in responsiveness to congress, and how frequently our office of legislative affairs respondeded to the innumerable questions and inquiries and concerns from members of congress, i could not speak to. I know the dialogue between our agency and members of congress from both parties was constant and consistent throughout our administration of the eb5 program. And for reasons that were quite understandable, quite frankly. Well, i mean, in all three of these, youve been able to confirm or deny the specific allegations set forth in the igs report. I believe that it seems clear that your actions to address certain requests expedite this case, provided staff have weekly updates. If true. I understand the ig is making the accusation. Youre saying you dont remember. That would, in my judgment, create a perception of preferential treatment in of your own policy, your ethical policy na you set forth, sir. Let me get o the last one. My time is limited. The gulf coast case. According to the igs report not my words, following communications with current Virginia Governor and former chair of the Democratic National committee, terry mcauliffe, you subsequently intervened in the gulf coast appeal, even saying to staff that you would rewrite the decision itself, and that set forth in the igs report. Can you respond to that . This is your day to respond to these accusations, sir . Thank you very much, mr. Chairman, for that opportunity. I was asked by the then secretarys office to look into this eb5 case because it was the subject of considerable concern. Not only by stake holders outside of the government, but by members of congress of both parties as well. And it was at that direction that i looked into the case and learneded that there were serious legal issues at play in that case. Legal issues, the seriousness of which my own colleagues recognized. Zbr i was a prosecutor in the Campaign Finance reform when Chinese Government influenced an election. And i have to tell you, im going to pursue this investigation into the eb5 applicants and what was behind bhooind behind, with respect to the foreign nationals. There may be nothing there. In your 2010 ethics policy, you state in your policy, you quote, often the paren shl treatment can be as damaging the to our reputation. Therefore an employee should avoid matters if his or her participation may cause a reasonable person to question the employees impartiality. Sir, i believe in my judgment, reviewing this matter, and the responses you have given today, not really been able to respond specifically, that your actions in these cases create at least at a moneyinimum, the perception of special access and favoritism. I think you also violated your own ethics policy. At the end of the day, you know, you enaare both career employees. Now youre a political appointee. But political appointees should be held to the same ethical standards as members at the department. And with that, the chair now recognizes the Ranking Member. Thank you very much. Deputy secretary mayorkas, Inspector General was before us several weeks ago. I asked him questions about the normal process by which he reviewed this eb5 program. All of the members of congress, our constituents ask us all the time to contact the agency on our behalf, do what you can, and for the most part, we do. Its not unusual for a member of congress to contact a federal agency about interest in a program. Eb5 is a job creator. That was one of the the reasons it was put together. Im going specifically to the three eb5 cases mentioned in the inspector jones report. The gulf coast case. The Inspector General talked act contacts from democrats. Are you aware of any contact from republicans in this same case . Yes, congressman. I am. That eb5 case was the subject of bipartisan support, and we received communications from members of congress of both parties. I think, if i may arcticticulate a very important principle here, that the individual who brings an issue to our attention does not decide the disposition of that issue. The disposition of the issue is neutral to the messenger, but loyal scrupulously loyal to the law and the facts in the case. Thank you. You know, this is only not impugning the individuals, but my former governor, Haley Barbour is known. He headed the Republican National committee. Very active person in the community, and somebody who is interested in jobs. Im told he contacted your office on behalf of gulf coast, is that correct . Yes, congressman. And i just want people to understand that the perception is here you have a republican governor contacting a Democratic Administration on behalf of a job creator, but an ig report gives you the impression that only democrats contact the agency. Now i understand that both my senators, wicker and cochran contacted your office on behalf of this very same project, am i correct . I believe thats correct. Former member of this committee who just left two weeks ago contacted your office on behalf of this very same project. Am i correct . I believe so. And the point im trying to make is we get an Inspector Generals report that would lead you to believe that only democrats contacted on behalf of this job creation program. Lets go to the l. A. Films program. Former member of this committee. Im told that a former member of this committee contacted you, a republican contacted you on behalf of this program. Are you aware of that . I dont recall. I know that that case was the subject of communications from both hearts of congress, congressman, the sls program. Are you aware of bipartisan contact in support of this program . I am. So its safe to assume that three cases presented to us by the ig did not include any republican members support for those projects, as you saw them . As best i can recall the report. I asked the ig in this hearing, and he did not answer the question. Im trying to say again, the report was incomplete. Gentlemen, ladies we all get asked by our constituents all the time to support very projects. Deputy secretary, theres been some question about this review board that you allegedly created to review the l. A. Films case. Are you aware of that . Yes, but that was not created for that case. That was created for all cases. The concept of the decision board was generated in 2011. I discussed with career employees the application of that decision board to the issue of difference, which was of tremendous concern in the community, in the eb5 program. I discussed its application with a number of career employees in 2012 and ongoing. So it was not limited to that one case. Zblf the decision board or deference board, as it was termed subsequently was a reform applicable to the eb5 program writ large, and it was needed, and especially with respect to the the issue of difference, which caused so much consternation in the community wh u when uscis would make a decision. Investors would invest. Capital would be infused. Business prokts would begin, and then the agency would change its interpretation, reverse course and prokts would collapse and jobs would be lost. Thank you and my last question goes to this. Was it unusual for you as the director of the agency to refer items to counsel for their review and opinion . Oo. I did that, congressman with some frequency, depending on the issue. And with respect to the eb5 cases, with outside stakeholders, you sought advice of counsel in these cases . I did. And quite frektly we would discussf the league issues and other issues involved in these cases. Thank you, i yield back. Now recognize the gentleman from new york. Mr. Mayorkas, thank you for appearing before us today. To reit date the chairmans comments, we didnt write the report. Were duty bound to follow up on it. I want to ask you a series of questions. If you can keep the answers as brief as possible, i would appreciate it. With respect to the l. A. Film Regional Center issue, did you in fact speak to governor rendell about that issue . I believe i did in a conference call, i believe i did. To the best of my recollection. To the best of your recollection, do you recall what was said during that conference . I apologize. Im sorry . Do you recall what was said . I do not. But you do recall that you spoke to him about the issue. I know i spoke with him about an eb5 case, and i believe it involved the the l. A. Films case. Im not certain, congressman. Now the deference review board that was referenced as part of the l. A. Film Regional Center issue, did that, in fact, exist after this l. A. Film Regional Center issue . I learned from the Inspector Generals report that it was not convened since the l. A. Films case. My hope is that, number one, the agency was not issuing incorrect decisions. I understand. I just want to know if the the board is ever used. Your answer is it was not. Based on my reading, it appears it was not. Well, you were working there. I left some time after. And so i did not keep track of the conduct of the deference review board, especially because of the changes that i made in our administration of the program, the knew leadership that i brought, the new office that i created, and the new processes that we put in place. Thank you, now with respect to the deference review board, was it ever used before the l. A. Films Regional Center case . To the best of my recollection, congressman, we discussed using it in 2012 with respect to another eb5 case, and we decided that a different process could be used to resolve the very same issue of deference in that eb5 case. Im sorry to cut you off again. It just requires a yes or no annals. Was it used with before that case or not . To the best of my knowledge no. And it wasnt used since . To the best of my knowledge no. Thank you. Now, um, with respect to the las vegas Regional Center issue, do you recall specifically speaking with senator reid about this . I do. Okay, and also with respect to do you remember speaking with steve olsen, the executive director of select usa . I do not remember speaking with him about the case. That doesnt mean i did or did not. I just dont recall. Now with respect to the buff coast case that was mentioned in the report, do you recall having contacts directly with governor mcauliffe . I do. And how much such contacts did you have with him about this case . I remember, to the best of my recollection, less than a handful. But thats to the best of my recollection now, as i sit here, congressman, i remember a meeting i atented at which mr. Mcauliffe was present in the department of Homeland Security headquarters, at the direction of the then secretarys office. I remember him calling to plain over the ensuing couple of years, i believe. A few times. And the general discussions were about gulf coast and trying to get that approved, is that correct . They were. Mr. Mcauliffe complaining about our adjudication in the cases. Thank you, now you mentioned during your Opening Statements and i think in your testimony as well, you got involved to ensure that cases were decided correctly, end quote. Do you recall saying that . Absolutely . Werent there procedures in place to handle the cases at your agency . There were, but there were times when cases were brought to my attention by my own employees to resolve complex legal or policy issues. That was with respect to the eb5 cases and many other cases outside of the eb5 program. With respect to the eb5 cases, those, were there established procedures for handling the eb5 cases . Wre. I believe that they contemplated supervisorial review. And so when that was warranted, supervisors engaged. And i viewed myself as the ultimate supervisor responsible for the agent cease fair and correct administration of the law. So it was appropriate for you to interject yourself in the process as you saw fit . It was my responsibility to ensure that were adhering to the law, congressman. And if that warranted my involvement in a case, then i became involved. I was a very handson leader, and i believe for the benefit of the agency and all of its workforce. Its hard to do, i know, and i have to do this once in a while in my years as a prosecutor to take a step back and look at it from a laymans perspective. You have instances in which individuals are trying to influence the eb5 process for their own benefit. Enyou are taking their input and then in turn interjecting yourself into those cases and trying to affect the outcome of those cases, to the benefit of the individuals who ask for your support. Its fair to say that may give you a perception of something less than impartiality. Isnt that fair to say . Congressman, i would not characterize it that way. What you said is i would interject myself to drive to a decision that would benefit those individual ls, and that is not true. Whau i did do is get involved in cases to ensure we were adhering to the law. Whether that led to a denial of a case or the approval of a case. Well, its fair to say, if these allegations are true youve interjected yourself into these cases in an attempt to influence the outcome. And i point specifically to the allegation that you wanted the case file in the mcauliffe instance, because you wanted to rewrite the the decision yourself. Is that fair to say . No, congressman respectfully, that is not accurate. I interjected myself to use your terminology. In many, many cases in the agency. Im not talking about that case. I sat around the table and discussed the legal issued that were involved in the green deck case that our own agency designated as complex, that our own agency referred to its own Appellate Review Office because of the complexity of the issues. And when we resolve a particular issue, i offer to write the legal analysis, just as i had offered to attend in person a settlement conference in a particular case because i thought i could add value to the correct position of the case, just as i offered, and chairman will appreciate this, just as i offered to try a case that involved National Security interests because our agency felt that we were compelled to great citizenship to an individual that i believe did not deserve citizenship and posed a danger to our community. And i offered to try that case myself. For the benefit of the agency, for the benefit of the interests that our agency was the guardian of. Chairman will indulge me for just one moment. Thank you. The perception, even if there was no wrong doing here. The perception is people are calling, at least in the gulf coast case, for example, someone who has a very strong interest in seeing commodities certain actions were taken by you, and looking back on it, wouldnt it be fair to say that you said yourself you regret the perceptions caused by your actions. T isnt it fair to say that perception is part of the problem and kinds of flies in the face of your ethical guidelines, the perception is almost as bad as doing something wrong. And looking back, sh wouldnt you say at a minimum it was not a good idea to have such access from the outside and just deal the cases based on the facts. If i can congressman, and mr. Chairman, if i could also have your indulgence, because this is a very important point and it speaks to the value and importance of the Inspector Generals report, which i have tremendous respect for. I took actions in these cases to guard against a perception issue. I was aware of it. I consulted with counsel. I consulted with many i colleagues. I have thought a great deal about this issue because as the chairman noted, the ethics and integrity memorandum that i issueded is extremely important, and the principles articulateded therein are extremely important, and principles i have adhered throughout my 18 years of government service. 12 as a federal prosecutor and four as the director of u. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. And approaching as the deputy secretary of Homeland Security. I have thought a great deal about the report. I have thought about the allegations. And i have reviewed them with great care and reflected upon them and my activities and the concerns expressed by my colleagues. And i do regret the perceptions that my activities created, and i take responsibility for those perceptions, and i thought about what else could i have done to better guard against those perceptions, and that is one reason i value so much the report that the Inspector General prepared. And why i have endorsed and embraceded the protocols that secretary johnson reported and the office of counsel for the department of Homeland Security have promulgated. Those protocols would have better equipped me to guard against the perception of some employees who did not necessarily have complete context with respected to my involvement in these three cases. Nor my involvement in so many other cases. And i appreciate the opportunity to address your important questions. Yes mans time is expired. And the gentle lady is recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Mayorkas, i have a lot of questions, so i too would like to have expedient answers. You started in 2009 in this program over the eb5 program, right . Yes, i became the director in august of 2009. And when did you leave . I left in december of 2013. And when were these three cases in particular the subject of consideration and supposedly your involvement . 2011 on, and i apologize. I cant provide a more discreet time frame. Do you know when the Inspector General started his investigation . I dont. I believe it was in 2012 or 2013. Some of this happened while you were there and some of it happened while you were gone . I learned of tp investigation in july of 2013. During his investigation, how many times did he interview you . I was interviewed once. During that interview, did he raise the issues that preferential treatment and preferential access was alleged and decisions based upon that access on your part was alleged with regard to these three cases . Yes. That subject was raised in the interview. And i should say the Inspector General himself did not interview me. But investigators did. Did the investigators tell you the the individuals that you supposedly gave access to . I believe the allegation was that i gave access to some individuals with interest in the outcome of the cases. But did they identify them for you . My question is basically this. The Inspector General only reported to us that there was access by people who are of one political persuasion. The information that we had been briefed on consistently is that there was bipartisan interest in each of these instances. So i want to know at what time did you ever inform the Inspector General that in addition to the people that he was concerned about in his office, that there were equally as many other either nonpartisan or partisan individuals from either side of the aisle who expressed consistent interest in the outcome of these cases. Hon. Mayorkas i believe i informed the Inspector Generals office that these cases with the subject of bipartisan support i dont believe i identified particular individuals and i did articulate the overarching and critical principle that our obligation is to decide a case not by who is interested in it but by the law and the facts in the particular case. Rep. Watson coleman one of the things that i heard you say or that i read was that passed individuals who had made these allegations who were lower in the hierarchy did not know what was going on because you were discussing these issues with counsel and with members above you in the hierarchy. And so they didnt know that you were, in fact, checking with Legal Counsel and others as you were proceeding to work your way through these particular issues as you might on other issues too. Is that correct . Hon. Mayorkas i think there were individuals with whom i worked at those levels of the agency with whom i interacted about these cases, but i have thought about this. Perhaps i couldve done a better job of providing full context of those for whom i worked and that could do better guarded against the perception. Rep. Watson coleman those of the ones that are below you in the system and below you in the organizational chart or would you be communicating down to them on behalf of these cases or in the interest of resolving these issues . Hon. Mayorkas those were individuals who reported to me either directly or through chains. Rep. Watson coleman you did have interaction with people you are seeking counsel from at the Council Level or at your level or above . Hon. Mayorkas with respect to my involvement, i was very open with my colleagues. Rep. Watson coleman this is the only discussion that we have had. Two of them have an outcome which is not favorable to the individuals who are seeking the applications. Is that right . Hon. Mayorkas i know that in the green tech case after my involvement concluded because once the complex legal issues were addressed, i would true my involvement in the case. My involvement was no longer warranted. I know that complaints regarding the case continued for quite some time. In the sls case, my involvement was very discreet with respect to whether we were applying our expedite criteria correctly. I concurred in that case with the career employee who led the ed five Program Office at the time. With l. A. Films, i was not involved in the decision of what has been turned term the deference board. I was not involved in the decisionmaking. Rep. Watson coleman so in your opinion, why are these three issues before you, these allegations, raised by these employees that were beneath t you . Was there something going on at your agency . Hon. Mayorkas i will say this if i may, and then i will answer your question directly. I was very active. We are at a minute 30 overtime. Rep. Watson coleman with all due respect, mr. Chairman, we just had an 11 and a half minute interaction between my esteemed colleague mr. Cap co. I give the witness a long opportunity for a very long time to respond to his benefit. Rep. Watson coleman i can wait for another round. Im going to have to keep a little more discipline, but go ahead. It will be last question. Rep. Watson coleman i will come back for a second time because theres only two of us here. I just ask for consistency. Im not going to allow 10 minutes for every member. The last one, the response from the witness was a little bit on alongside and i love that to go forward, but i need to discipline as chairman of this committee. Your last question. I think what the gentlelady is asking for is a balance. At no point did anybody get time called on them. Rep. Thompson the gentlelady was only a minute over. We will have a balance and it will be more discipline. Will not be done by the time votes occur. Having said that, gentlelady, please ask your last question. Rep. Watson coleman i believe that he was in the process of answering a question, mr. Chairman. Hon. Mayorkas if i may, i will answer it very briefly. It is my responsibility to ensure that my employees understand my actions as a leader of the agency. It is my responsibility to ensure that they understand entirely and completely the refusals reasons for my involvement in the consequences of my involvement. At this time, i was making extraordinary changes in the ed five program and our administration of it. Rep. Watson coleman thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, i dont know if we were planning to come back afterwards. I have a series of questions. I also have a series of questions that i would like to bring before the Inspector General as to why we really given a little bit of information regarding these three issues in particular and why it was all associated with some sort of partisan. I dont know what the plans are, but i think we are done here. I thank mr. Mayor kiss. Mayorkas. I think that we should applaud that instead of excruciatingly, but maybe next time. Let me just say that im very lenient with time as a chairman, but i am china keep this within some bounds of reason. Trying to keep this within some bounds of reason. I try to keep that on both sides of the aisle. With that, the chernow recognizes mr. Walker. Chair now recognizes mr. Walker. Rep. Walker i think it wasnt to interrupt the member, but to mr. Mayorkas. The section of the policy states for Oral Communication that takes place between u. S. Staff and cia stakeholders in between specific cases, the conversation must be recorded or details minute detailed minutes of the session may be taken in the recording of the proceeding. The eb five program maintains an email account for external stakeholders to use one seeking general eb five program information, inquiring about the status of pending cases or requesting to expedite a pending case. The policy continues with this u. S. Personnel are dedicated to send this information through this and we all count. Email count. Or through other channels like the office of public engagement. During your tenure as director would you be considered u. S. Personnel and as such, would it be applicable to you, yes or no . Hon. Mayorkas i was a uscis personnel. Those guidelines apply to me. However, they should not be at the detriment of ensuring that we get to the right result in a case. And so i would become involved in a case. If my involvement was warned to to a here to the law that congress had passed. Rep. Walker are you saying that you unilaterally made that decision where you should kind of abide by the policy . Is that my understanding or are you saying Something Different . Hon. Mayorkas im saying Something Different, mr. Congressman, and i apologize if i am included i was a called salida. If i engaged in a case, sometimes at the bat has to my employees, and sometimes because it was an inquiry raised by a member of congress or stakeholder. I did not do so in the dark of night, but did that openly in collaboration with my colleagues to ensure that we were resolving legal and policy issues correctly and bringing force to the laws that Congress Passed in the eb five program. Rep. Walker you also had contact over email, telephone, and a person with stakeholders including but not limited to anthony rodda. What are the stabbings status of the pending cases . Hon. Mayorkas yes. Rep. Walker these email can do your u. S. Csi uscis email and not to through established channels. Is that correct . Hon. Mayorkas i would share my emails to my colleagues for the Record Keeping that you would prefer. Rep. Walker how would you share those . Hon. Mayorkas in the green tech case, when my involvement was needed to address the issues with which the agency was grappling, i would forward my emails to counsel. Rep. Walker would you say that was in line with the policy or not . Hon. Mayorkas i would have to take a look that policy, but it was in line with our ultimate obligation to adhere to the law. I became involved when my involvement was necessary. When the complexity of the legal or policy issues warranted it. When my involvement was not necessary, i did not engage. In fact, if one takes a look at the chronology of these cases one will see that i was involved when the issues warranted and when the were resolved, i withdrew from my involvement. Rep. Walker i have a couple more i want to squeeze in here but there seems to be a pattern of overriding the policy when your interpretation of the overall law was more important. My question is that your telephone calls and in person meetings were not recorded or detailed minutes were not taken and submitted into the record of proceedings. True or false . Hon. Mayorkas hon. Mayorkas i could not speak to that. I communicated the info with my colleagues. I will say this. Rep. Walker before you move on, at this point, there are 14 to 15 times where you say i believe so or to the best my recollection. Let me go back to the question. Did you fall in line with the policy or do you need to reread the policy or in your interpretation that you are testifying that you felt there was a larger scope to go by instead of the policy itself . Hon. Mayorkas congressman, i sought rep. Walker thats my last question i will yield back. Hon. Mayorkas i sought to adhere to the highest legal and ethical standards that guide a public servant. The protocols that secretary johnson directed and the office of General Council are obligated will bring improvements to the very issue about which you inquire. Rep. Walker thank you. I yield back. Rep. Mccaul i think the member. The chernow recognizes ms. Kathleen rice from new york. Rep. Rice thank you, mr. Chairman. You have made reference to in your testimony, and in your written statements that you support and embrace secretary johnsons protocols to an blade and sure the involvement of supervisors in the cases. Forgive me if i missed this, but did you tell us what those protocol changes were . Hon. Mayorkas no i have it and i believe that they were issued formally this fast past monday. They set forth protocols that speak to a clearance process before certain leaders become involved in particular cases. They defined many jerry only very generally the circumstances with which that involvement is warranted or, i should say alton will hear optimal. The speak to congressman walkers issue in questions. They speak to the recording involvement. There is clarity in understanding i all employees with respect to the reasons for the fact of that involvement. And i clearly would have benefited from those protocols. Rep. Rice what about whether or not in order to address mr. Katkos line of questioning about perception and i know that youre not in charge of cif are they able to accept own calls from officials phone calls from officials . Hon. Mayorkas under the protocol, i believe so and i believe the protocol speaks to that and that those communication should be recorded. Rep. Rice ok. Hon. Mayorkas by recording, i mean memorialized and not necessarily audibly recorded. Rep. Rice i will agree with mr. Katko that perception often becomes reality and perception is an issue will have to deal with. You have been question very much about the actions that you took in the perceptions that they gave other people whether accurate or not, but i think the more relevant question that we have to ask on this committee is and maybe we need to do this in a closed session, do these phone calls that all of us make to very does various federal agencies inquiring about specific issues, is that a negative perception right there and should we not do that . What can we figure out a way to serve our constituents, because that is what the phone calls calls do, in a nonpartisan way because republicans and democrats both do it and do it in a way that makes sure the perception is not misconstrued . And there is chance fancy. I throw that out there and i thank you for your consideration, mr. Chairman. Rep. Mccaul the chernow recognizes the chair now recognizes mr. Perry. Rep. Perry americans pride themselves on a government where any person from any background has a chance of success where success or failure is blind to motivation and that success is based on merit on criteria established for ensuring fairness while denying individuals in positions of power and influence the latitude to use that power to unethically benefit for themselves or for those who with which they curry favor. A format premise, under what circumstances do you consider preferential treatment by government officials separable . Acceptable . Hon. Mayorkas the visible that you espouse rep. Perry that is mine. What is that acceptable . There arent any. Hon. Mayorkas preferential treatment is not acceptable. Rep. Perry with that understanding. You would attempt to revise the process and as a former United States attorney, is it accurate to state that you are aware that the adjudicative process was governed by statute regulations and uscis policy . Hon. Mayorkas absolutely so. Rep. Perry thats a yes. Is also accurate that you violent a policy for handling increase in the program . Hon. Mayorkas i do not believe i did, mr. Congressman. Rep. Perry you are saying the office of oig is wrong. Hon. Mayorkas im not. This is very important. The process of the office of Inspector General is one that i have profound respect for and i understand its export and. Importance. It sound that employees found that employees had a perception that i granted preferential treatment to individuals with interest in these cases. Im responsible for the perception that my employees have of the work that i do. And i bear that responsibility and i regret the perceptions that my work created. Rep. Perry but you disagree that you violated the policy. That is fine. You can. Do you consider the eb five visa valuable . What is the cost, generally speaking within the parameters of the program . Hon. Mayorkas the costs . Rep. Perry the fees . Thats the kind of money we are talking about here. Hon. Mayorkas we are talking about a Million Dollars unless the investment is in an area of high unemployment or a rural area. Rep. Perry it is significant money, i dont know about anyone else. I dont need to rush, but as of july 15, 2011, did you have a previously existing relationship with former dnc chairman every Dell Ed Rendell . Hon. Mayorkas not to my recollection. Rep. Perry the answer is no there. Is it sure that as of july 13, 2011, u. S. Educators would deny visas for a firm known as l. A. Films . Hon. Mayorkas i believe that that is the case. Rep. Perry you believe so. Is it also true that on july 15, two days later, getting a phone call from someone you did not know, he received a phone call from ed rendell and within our of this call, you directed your staff to reopen the denied application for l. A. Films true or false . Hon. Mayorkas i want to clarify something in your question, congressman, because i believe that governor rendell reached out to me about an eb five case earlier. As i mentioned and i believe it was in response to the chairmans query, i dont remember the chronology of l. A. Films. Rep. Perry you just told me you didnt have a previous relationship with the government and now you told me that he reached out to you previously. That is a little cloudy for me. So youre telling us it is a coincidence that former dnc chairman and pennsylvania governor ed rendell was a paid consultant representing l. A. Films and he just happened to call you two days after it was known that the l. A. Films eb five request was going to be denied and within hours of receiving the governors call you, directed your staff to reopen the denied application for l. A. Films is that a coincidence . Hon. Mayorkas i take issue with your characterization. Rep. Perry you are an attorney and it doesnt seem like you are prepared for the meeting. One final question, mr. Chairman. What is the policy for the use of personal emails and the context of april 7, 2015, i sent a letter to the secretary requesting to see a copy of your email usage policy. Why is it takes a long . I know you cant answer that question. What is the policy for the flow use of personal emails . Hon. Mayorkas as far as i know, personal business could be conducted on official government email. I will follow up to your comment with a a request of a copy of our official email usage policy. Rep. Mccaul the chair recognizes mr. Loudermilk from georgia. Rep. Loudermilk thank you for being here today. I subcommittee chairman as subcommittee chairman on another committee on oversight, it is amazing how i guess being in the Committee Room and oversight causes selective memory with some people. Im understand the process a little bit more basking multiple questions over and over. I appreciate you being here and willing to share with us. For someone to ask you about the deference first, i want to ask you about the deference review board. When they first met, where their policies and procedures in place when they had an convene their first meeting . Hon. Mayorkas congressman, the board was first considered and formulated in concept about two years earlier in 2011. It was discussed when First Published as a proposal and involves since then evolve since then. The board convened in the l. A. Films case and im not aware of what procedures it did or did not have in place of that time. Rep. Loudermilk according to the igs report, indicates that they have no policies or procedures in place when they first convene. How many times did the drv convene . Hon. Mayorkas from my understanding, it may convened once. Rep. Loudermilk it was regarding the l. A. Films case . Hon. Mayorkas hon. Mayorkas that is my understanding. I hope is twofold. With the issuance of a governing eb five policy memorandum, approximately two months after the board convened, and gave better guidance to our adjudicators. Were no longer making decisions that we deem to be incorrect and had to reverse of the great expense and consternation of stakeholders as well as members of congress and that we were adhering to our deference policy with greater orthodoxy that had previously been the case because the concern was that we were failing to honor our own substitute eb five policies. Rep. Loudermilk the drv was formulated to as an appeals board for someone who is denied. Was used once and then it was disbanded because you now have a policy and a way that an appeal could be done. Is that correct . Hon. Mayorkas i would say that the decision board was contemplated as an issue resolution board when an eb five case reached a certain point. Rep. Loudermilk once the drv was dismantled, what was the process when someone was denied the application what was the appeal process then . Hon. Mayorkas i do not know if the drb was ever disbanded or not utilized, but if an issue was not resolved yet, the uscis adjudicators could, for example pose inquiries to the Party Interest and they could request evidence and there could be a lot of human case and of written questions in written responses. They were usually factbased and trying to obtain evidence one of the elements of the particular visa county glories at issue categories at issue. The decision was complicated in 2011 to bring greater efficiency to that process so that the party in interest could convene with the appropriate uscis representatives to seek to resolve the legal and policy or factual issues that had not yet been resolved. Rep. Loudermilk a somewhat you are telling me from the oig report, the dirdrb that one time and they had an appeal and they overturned it. And then they since disbanded. How many denials have been approved appealed and then approved . Hon. Mayorkas how many denials of eb five cases . Rep. Loudermilk eb five cases. My concern with this program and it looks like the staff has done a pretty good job of this. My concern is that this is an avenue that could be abused or someone who has money to buy citizenship in the United States. Hon. Mayorkas congressman, if i can, two things. One, the program contemplates not only the investment of capital, but importantly the investment of capital that leads to the creation of a certain number of jobs for u. S. Workers. That is the one. Number two, what i think you might be hinting at which is a subject that mr. Chairman referenced is a concern of an avenue for people to come into the United States and the importance of ensuring that our National Security interests are well protected in this program. I actually made significant reforms in our administration of the eb five program to bring that National Security vetting rigor to the program. I brought in our fraud detection and National Security director to get involved and engage with the eb five cases. I should also say that it was i who created the fraud detection and National Security directorate to bring greater fraud detection and National Security rigor to all of our educations across the agency. Rep. Loudermilk mr. Chairman, one more question. Regarding gulf coast, mr. Mccall had contacted you beginning in 2008. From questions we had, and continued until 2011. It continued until 2011. I assume that mr. Mccall had several roles as ceo green Tech Automotive and chairman of holy Clintons Hillary clintons campaign. I assume that the content that he made was regarding the ceo of green Tech Automotive. During that time period, we read the igs report and goalpost was denied gulf coast was denied the investment for green tech for three different reasons. All of them when you read those reasons was to prevent against someone just being able to buy citizenship into United States. One was Investment Funds would not be at risk. The investor did not have a managerial role in the proposal did not pass a single region. With several emails and phone calls, it seems that you decided to then engage, and according to the igs report, you were willing to rewrite the decision. Hon. Mayorkas if ihon. Mayorkas if i may, congressman, first, just a point of clarification, the time frame was not 2008 to 2011. I became the director of the agency in august of 2009. I think it was a well subsequent to that. These very legal issues that were involved in the green tech case, our own Agency Certified for internal administrative appellate review because of their complexity. And my involvement was to ensure that we were resolving those issues in adherence to the laws that Congress Passed, and the regulations that we as an agency promulgated in the service of those laws. But isnt that what the drb would have done had it stayed in place, to avoid your direct involvement . H i dont recall the timing of the drb. But we did not launch the drb, to the best of my recollection congressman, at the time that these legal issues rose to my attention. I would have to look at the timing. But we were not ready for the decision review board at that time. Whether we had published the concept of it by that time, i just dont i dont rulecall. I dont recall. I will say this, that the resolution of those three issues was reached in adherence to the law. The issue of at risk and the correct reading of in the matter of assuming was decided correctly. So youre inferring that the staff did not correctly interpret the law, but once your engagement came in, then there was a direct interpretation of the law. Hon. Mayorkas i think that our collaborative review of these issues led to the correct result in these cases. Because i did not decide them alone. So does the law need to be clarify clarified . It sounds like the law must be pretty subjective then . Hon. Mayorkas i think that at that time, the agency, and as i referenced in my Opening Statement, the agency did not have adequate guidance to its adjudicators, and we fixed that. Two months after the deference review board met, approximately two months after, we promulgated for the first time a comprehensive policy memorandum that better guided adjudicators in the administration of this program. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman . Chair now recognizes ms. Sheila jackson williams. I thank the Ranking Member. As i indicated, i had to marking up the usa freedom act, an opportunity to protect the Civil Liberties and the privacy rights of americans while we protect domestic security, another aspect of responsibility that i know that you take very dear as the deputy secretary for Homeland Security. Let me just indicate that i missed the discussion on the swearingin or not swearingin and i draw support from my colleagues who raise the point and i support them that although you willingly were sworn in, i do think its appropriate that if the answerer of the report is sworn in, then the presenter of the report should be, as well, with no in any way denigrating of the Inspector General. I want to go through some points. First, that you came to the deputy secretary to improve infrastructure aspects of one of the largest departments in this government, department of Homeland Security. Many of us on this committee were there when this department and this committee ultimately was founded, if you will, after the select committee on Homeland Security. We are well aware of the monumental responsibility of security and many other very important duties that this agency has including the oversight of the secret service and our border security. So i believe that this is a matter that we should put to rest so you can get back to the office and do the work that adheres to the securing of this nation. What i would say and you can listen as i say it, my understanding is that the i. G. s report found no wrongdoing found no unlawful act committed for an unlawful purpose, and found no lawful act for an unlawful purpose. My understanding is that there was nothing attributed to you that you did unlawfully. Is that accurate . Hon. Mayorkas i believe the Inspector General did not make a finding that i violated any laws. I do believe the Inspector General found that i did not adhere i will get to that. Ill let you answer that in a moment. I want to answer the unlawful at this point. Is that what the to your understanding that the Inspector General found that you did not do anything unlawful . Hon. Mayorkas that is my understanding. Thats my understanding, so i will not ask you to do yourself in. I will ask i will indicate that that is my understanding of the beginning parts of the report. The report found that there were three unusual acts, but none determined to be unlawful. Well get to the unusual acts. I think you answered the question as i was listening to the inquiry made by my colleague, is that there are adjudicatorad adjudicateors on the eg5, and you sign off on their work that is does. Am i clear on that . Hon. Mayorkas congresswoman, i dont sign off on their work. What i meant to articulate if i did not do so clearly is that i as the leader of the agency bear ultimate responsibility for the correctness of our decisions our administration of the law. And so they do the work there is not a signature that you have on it. But you are taking responsibility for making sure whatever comes out of the department of Homeland Security that may have been under your jurisdiction as director or new deputy secretary is accurate. Is that what youre saying . Yes. We thank you for that. But there was work done by other persons on the eb5 applications. Is that correct . Hon. Mayorkas yes. And are you now saying that that work is now being directed with better criteria and guidelines that can be checked and double checked by others to make sure that the work is correct. Hon. Mayorkas i think we made a tremendous number of improvements, very significant improvements that better kwiched our personnel equipped or personnel to administer the decision in adherence to the law. And the unusual acts did it play into, in your interpretation, as poor guidelines or structure for the eb5 . Hon. Mayorkas congresswoman, i did my involvement in these cases was as my involvement in many, many other cases, whether eb5 or otherwise. When a case presented issues that warranted my involvement, i became involved in. My own employees brought cases to me because of issues involved. Members of congress brought cases to my attention. Stakeholders brought cases to my attention. I learned from the media of certain cases. And if the issue warranted my involvement, i engaged in it if the issue didnt, i did not. These cases were the subject of the Inspector Generals review. When an issue, for example, in the green tech case warranted my involvement, i worked with my colleagues to resolve the issue. When the case no longer warranted my involvement, i withdrew. So lets me let me, if i can interpret what youre saying, you have a commitment to this country, and you have a commitment to the better workings of the u. S. Department of Homeland Security. Is that correct . To make this an Effective Department . Hon. Mayorkas i do. So your intervention came about through newspapers stakeholders or other, to make a department or be to make the Department Better and be a Problem Solver when it was brought to your attention. Would you interpret your intervention in that category . Hon. Mayorkas absolutely, congresswoman. I would say i have an additional calling, and that is an abiding duty to the law. Let me just be clear. I am a strong supporter of eb5 for the poor and minority communities across america. And i would really hope that as the department looks to that process that those communities may be the ultimate benefactors in instances and that there are structures in place. I will tell you if theres anyone that i believe that can put those structures in place would be you and secretary johnson because i do have a sense that you both want to be Problem Solvers. So heres my question would you comment on the value of investment in some of these poor communities where jobs can be created and two, in any of the decisions that you have been noted for, cited for, if you will, did you have any personal stake was there any selfinterest, and did you benefit financially from any involvement in those particular instances . Hon. Mayorkas congresswoman, i did not have any personal interest or benefit in any way from the disposition of any case pending before u. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. And the dramatic increase and interest in the eb5 cases during my tenure was a reflection of the great interest in seeing an infusion of capital and the creation of jobs in communities that were suffering high unemployment at the time. I think the final point of my inquiry and i thank the chair and ranking for their indulgence is first to get on the record that eb5 done right can infuse Economic Opportunity and jobs to struggling Community Across america. So let me ask this question as you are the deputy secretary are those some of the elements that you look at in directing or the procedures of your now person that do the initial review or decisionmaking have those kinds of framework in their mind, in their eyesights of creation of jobs and helping underserved communities across america . Hon. Mayorkas those are some of the specified elements of an eb5 adjudication that a certain amount of capital must be invested if its an area of high unemployment, and that is defined specifically, then that impacts the amount of Investment Capital that must be made. And also, there are one of the elements is the likely i hope i have my legal terminology correct but the creation of jobs in the United States for the amount of capital ten jobs must be created or are reasonably likely to be created. Well, ill work with you to increase that number. But ill end on the note of saying mr. Deputy secretary, you did not benefit from any of these decisions personally . I did not. Let me thank you for your service. I think that we have gotten a thorough review of your service, your commitment to this country, and the fact that we are better off, that you are serving the department of Homeland Security, but more importantly, that eb5 will be an investment in the American People and job creation where it is needed. With that, mr. Chairman, i yield back. I thank the gentlelady. The chair recognizes the Ranking Member for purposes of entering a document into the record. Thank you, mr. Chairman, for purposes of entering into the record. I have a statement from the International Brotherhood of teamsters. Without objection, so ordered. Let me close sort of by saying thank you for coming here today to give your side of the story im sorry, we have ms. Torres just arrived. Youre recognized. I apologize, mr. Chairman for the late arrival. We were marking up another bill. Understood. Deputy secretary, thank you very much for being here. I know that this was not quite an easy task for you today. Im new to the committee and new to this issue, and i really would like for you to outline the steps that you took as a director of a u. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. And now as deputy secretary to improve the transparency of the eb5 program. Hon. Mayorkas thank you very much, congresswoman. I made a number of reforms to the eb5 program, culminating i think in the ultimate Public Development and publication of a governing policy memorandum that set forth clear resolutions to issues in the eb5 program with which the agency was grappling for quite a number of years. I created a new eb5 Program Office and created a Senior Executive Service Leadership position for that office. We created it in washington, d. C. , because of, in part, because of the amount of interchange we had with other Government Agencies and stakeholders here in our nations capitol. We selected an individual in the new leadership position that came from a financial regulatory background. We brought, strengthened fraud detection and National Security protocols and safeguards to the program. There were a series of reforms that we made to the program to address the loud chorus of concerns and complaints that we received, not only from members of congress, from both parties but especially from the public at large. Moving forward. You have already identified some dhanchlgs. Some changes. What else would you say that you and the department can work on Lessons Learned, and how can we improve transparency . Hon. Mayorkas two things come nold mind. One to which i referred earlier in my testimony, congresswoman. One is the very important protocols with respect to leadership involve investment certain cases that were promulgated this monday at the direction of the secretary, jay johnson, promulgated by the office of general counsel. I think that will bring Greater Transparency to leadership involvement in particular cases. We also welcomed the opportunity as secretary johnson wrote earlier this week, we welcomed the opportunity to provide Technical Advice to members of congress as they review the eb5 program as it approaches its sunset period of time. There are programatic changes that can buttress the National Security and fraud antifraud regime that is currently in place. Thank you very much. Thank you for your patience. The chair recognizes its a Closing Argument but may be a question. Im going to open up to one last round of questions, and then well close. Sir, can you i have some interest in the case of the gulf coast state with the dnc former chair terry mcauliffe, it involved eb5 visas for Chinese Foreign nationals. Do you know who these foreign nationals are . I do not. Okay. Yet you did intervene in this case and said that you would rewrite the decision yourself. Hon. Mayorkas what i did do mr. Chairman, is i offered to write a legal analysis of one of the issues that we resolved around the table. It was the matter of whether the requisite amount of Investment Capital was at risk. Thats my best recollection of that discussion. Which is it is a risk or not, correct. I understand that standard. Were these Chinese Foreign nationals properly vetted for National Security reasons . Hon. Mayorkas i would hope so. It is our responsibility, of course, to ensure that individuals who are granted visas do not pose a National Security risk to our nation. One of the critical improvements that i made, mr. Chairman, to our administration or the eb5 program was to bring our fraud detection and National Security expertise to bear in the vetting of eb5 petitioners. I commend you. Do you know in this case if they were vetted for National Security reasons . Hon. Mayorkas i had no involvement to the best of my recollection would you have intervened in a case like this and rewrite the discussion if you knew there was any National Security concern . Hon. Mayorkas mr. Chairman, let me say two things. One, i was brought i became involved in the case to address discreet issues, number one. And not all of the issues involved in a case. But i this does draw an issue and concern. If i may, mr. Chairman properly voteding applicants . If i may because this is important and goes to a number of issues. I read a report that raised concerns of National Security or fraud in this case, and i referred this case immediately myself to our fraud detection and National Security directorate. When an issue arose in the green tape cape and i believe it was subsequent to our resolution of the atrisk management and issues involving the case, i learned of a concern, i believed it was a public concern, not one that percolated within our own agency. I brought in our fraud detection and National Security personnel to look at it. In this case . In this case. Okay. And thats im glad to hear that. At first you said i hope so. Now you have a more definitive response to that. I would like to know because i dont know who they are. I would like for the department to produce to me the names of these individuals who applied and their background and the National Security vetting of these individuals. Of course, i make that request if you will agree to that. Of course, we can. Lastly, just you know, miss Sheila Jackson lee testified, asked you questions earlier previously, and you said were always focused on the fact there should be no communication that provides an avenue for undue influence on the ad jude indication. And it should be independently based on the laws and facts which you stated previously. I think if you created a policy, which you did, i think you need to follow it. Maybe if you dont follow it, create a new policy. When you say there should be preferential treatment as a policy and its one thing as ms. Rice points out. Members of congress do contact all the time and just ask that you look at the case. These cases are different. These cases you set up a separate board to deal specifically with 249 petitions and and then another case you overruled cases youve already approved. And in one case decided to rewrite the decision yourself. It seems to me its more than just a phone call from a member which miss right point outs out were entitled to do and you acted on that. In this case, you went out of your way, very much an exception to the rule, that has the appearance as you stated in your Opening Statement of preferential treatment. And i just you say thats the purpose. And then of course you do have penalties here even if the appearance is violated that there should be disciplinary penalties including removal from office. What do you thinks appropriate in your case . Hon. Mayorkas mr. Chairman, i was involved in these cases as i was involved in many, many cases both in the eb5 program and outside the eb5 program. The level of my involvement depended on the need for my involvement to help resolve difficult issues. My level of involvement in these cases is mirrored in other cases, as well. And it wasnt a question of who brought the case to my attention but rather what the case needed to resolve it in adherence to the law and the policy. Well so im clear because i want you on the record in your opinion, you did not violate your own ethics policy . Hon. Mayorkas if i may, mr. Chairman, the Inspector General found that by virtue of my involvement in these three cases, employees perceived that i exercised undue influence in these cases. I thought i had taken steps to guard against that. I bear responsibility for the perception of my employees. That is my responsibility i acknowledge that, and i have profound respect for the office of Inspector General. In this investigation and throughout their work. We appreciate your honesty and candor. Do you believe that there should be any disciplinary action in your case . Hon. Mayorkas mr. Chairman, secretary johnson has spoke weekend me about this matter. He has spoken with me, and we discussed not only my involvement in this case but we discussed Lessons Learned and discussed the protocols that he time he directed and since promulgated which i support and embrace. I thank the witness for your candor, as always, and honesty. The chair recognizes the ranking. Thank you very much. Deputy secretary, the eb5 program, can you for the committee indicate whether or not those individuals who invest in the programs, can you describe the vetting of that noftor or investor for the committee . Hon. Mayorkas there are two issues as best as i recall congressman, that are issue. One is the need to ensure that the funds that are invested are from a lawful source. Then there is the vetting of the individual him or herself to determine whether they to ensure that they do not pose a National Security risk or otherwise pose a Public Safety danger such that their admission to the United States should be denied. More specific than that, i cannot at this moment during your ten year at the department, were you involved in either of those two processes within the eb5 program . Hon. Mayorkas i did not conduct the vetting or forensic work myself. Is it commonplace for members of congress to contact usis on behalf of the eb5 program . Hon. Mayorkas congressman, as i mentioned, we received more than 1,500 communications from members of congress per year about the eb5 program. The number of communications we received from congress about this program dwarfed the number of communications we received about any other program we administered. Is it not uncommon for governors or other Interested Individuals to contact usis on behalf of the eb5 program . The eb5 program was the subject of communications from all corners and all quarters by virtue two of distinct forces at play. Number one, the increasing importance of the program because of the challenges our economy faced at that time. And number two, the Poor Administration of the program by our agency, which i should underscore was not the fault of adjudicators but the fault of the institution for not providing hardworking and dedicated Public Servants with the support they needed. These are very complicated legal business, economic cases. And that contact either by members of congress or governors or state other state and local officials has been by both democrats and republicans . Hon. Mayorkas yes, sir. And so did you have your or your staff thought this kind of contact should not take place . Hon. Mayorkas we were proud of our responsiveness to members of congress. Its our responsibility. So if anybody contacted you on behalf of the eb5 program under your direction, you did not feel that that contact was improper or would have changed your decisionmaking on that particular project . The fact of the contact would not influence our decision decisionmaking. The question is what would the law require based on the facts at issue in the particular case. I yield back. Let me thank the witness for being here today. One additional question, i apologize. You do not. Thank you. I want to thank the witness for being here today. Members of the committee may have additional questions for the witness. Well ask you to respond to these in writing pursuant to Committee Role seven7c. Without objection, the committee stands adjourned. [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] [inaudible conversations] todays edition of washington journal starts in just a moment. At 10 00, it is newsmaker with House Armed Services committee chairman. And it can 30, the first of two recent oral arguments for the Supreme Court on samesex marriage. Washington journal is about to start to todays guests include the coal austan hillary to discuss the 1994 crime bill. Then Charles Stinson on the situation where the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and later merit of mcgehee joins us to talk about Campaign Finance and the 2016 elections. Washington journal live right now on cspan. Host good morning. The houses in recess for the week. The senate will be in session. Expect to hear more on that housesenate are jet rental resolution. And continue debate on any possible Nuclear Agreement with iran. It is sunday, may 3. Three republicans entering the race. Tomorrow, dr. Ben carson will do so in detroit. And then on tuesday in hope, arkansas, fo
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.