Transcripts For CSPAN Alejandro Mayorkas Testimony On Allega

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 he