Commitment to Law Enforcement, your commitment and support by people you worked with, which means the world to me that cops like you. You are willing to do the tough work of taking tough cases to trial and representing the u. S. In cases that maybe other people avoid. I appreciated hearing that history about you. I appreciate having the chance to meet with you. Hopefully, if everything comes to fruition the way we think it will, i look forward to the opportunity of bringing you to north dakota and introducing you to the unique challenges we have in the northern border. I dont think i guess i have to decide this morning whether we will have the discussion i thought we were going to have. I think it will hopefully help clear some things up and give you a chance to respond. It is hard, from a witnesss standpoint, from your standpoint, to have an opportunity to respond to what can be a frustrating situation for you and your family. Im going to jump right in. In this situation with Funds Management where you had multiple requests to intervene in the process, what structures, rules, or practices did you put in place to make sure that no ethics were violated . Thank you, senator. It was a pleasure to meet you as well. It will be an honor to be confirmed and have the opportunity to travel with you to your state and explore the challenges of the northern border. Senator, if i can, the issues the difficult, complex issues of law and policy that challenge the agency and present opportunities for resolution percolate up through the supervisory chain, when they need resolution and when they have broad application, the manner in which those cases reach me is through cases. We are an operation. We are a large agency. We protect our nations security. We combat fraud and assess the applications that come before us through the cases that they present to us. I have become involved in those complex, difficult, legal policy issues when they are raised to my attention by my colleagues, which very often occurs. By members of congress, which very often occurs. By members of the public or applications themselves. We deferred to adjudicators on the frontline to adjudicate cases. I do not adjudicate cases. I address legal policy issues that are brought to my attention through the channels that i have outlined. What types of verbal orders or requests did you make to your staff on this issue that would not be captured by email or in any other written record . Are you speaking with respect to the matter . Yes. I sat around a table with my colleagues, which is my practice when difficult issues rise to my level. I sat around with my colleagues and we resolved the issues. So there would have been some verbal communications beyond e mails and written correspondence . Most certainly. We have set up structures with response to this question to resolve difficult legal issues. Sometimes we are able to resolve the issues with colleagues who are handling the matter directly. Sometimes different people have to be involved in the discussion and bring their expertise. We have set up senior policy committees. We have set up leadership meetings. We have set up open and collaborative forums to resolve the issues. I do not resolve those issues alone. Would there have been a scheduling note of who wouldve attended the meetings . There very well might be. Certainly, there were a number of people around the table when we discussed the issues. I believe it is safe to say that the visa program has challenges attached to it through its nature. What added responsibility does an Agency Leader have when dealing with the program that may be considered controversial as a result of the way the program is structured . What responsibility do they have to make sure that the orders are clear and the staff understands the potential pitfalls . I appreciate the question. Let me speak to my responsibility. Then let me speak about the program about which you have inquired. It is my responsibility to assure that we administer our responsibilities, abilities to safeguard the nations security and to protect the integrity of the system. We do it in strict accordance with the law. Based on the law and the facts oma and nothing else. We adhere to the highest ideals of Public Service, and they are correct. That is how i carry out my responsibilities. The program is controversial. It is comples. It is like no other program we have administered. Frankly, it is a program that is primarily a business and economic program, and not an immigration program. What is involved in the case is an assessment, whether foreign capital is invested properly in a new commercial enterprise, whether the amount of capital is at risk throughout the term of the investment, whether the Business Enterprise proposed is specifically detailed and viable, and whether the models submitted to us to estimate future jobs are sound and reasonable. Those are some of the issues involved in the adjudication of the ev5 program. As a director of this agency, i observed that the program was a staffed with nine adjudicators, no economists, no business analysts, and no specialists in National Security or fraud detection. Throughout my tenure, we have built the program. We have bright individuals dedicated to ensuring the integrity of the program as it has grown throughout the years. I have a second round of questions if youre able. Senator mccaskill . From your record, i see that youre a prosecutor. I like to call what you are, a 911 prosecutor. I did not have the luxury like my colleagues did. As you well know, we thought we were the real prosecutors, and youre not. Having said that, i know that you moved up to u. S. Attorney, which is extraordinarily unusual and speaks to your capabilities. As a prosecutor, i will be candid with you. These things floating out there, prosecutor, i will be candid with you. Why dont you take a few minutes here, and you have five, and say what you would want us to know about the accusations being made about you, that you tried to use inappropriately, your position, to influence a matter because of who was interested in the outcome. Thank you for the opportunity. Let me share with you if i may i felt like a 911 prosecutor. It was monday evening when i was forwarded a copy of the email that was published to this committee about an apparent Inspector General investigation of which i reportedly am the subject. I had no idea. Frankly, i do not understand it. I will say this, and i say it firmly, and i say it unequivocally, and i say it after 16 years of service to this country, 12 of which were as a Law Enforcement official, i have never in my career exercised undue influence to influence the outcome of a case. I have never based my decisions on who brings a case, but rather upon the facts and the law. I have taken my oaths of office, and i live my life by those oaths. I refer to this on a personal level in my Opening Statement. My entire life, i have tried to live in a way that brings honor to my parents. There has never been an instance in which i have failed to do so in terms of the integrity with which i have brought my efforts to bear on everything i have done, whether in the private sector or the public sector. I look forward to learning about the obligations. I do not quite understand them, but i will tell you that the allegations are unequivocally false. The gulf coast matter is a matter about which we received complaints in 2011. Issues in that case rose to my attention because the ev5 program is complex. A few issues were brought to my attention, and i addressed them with my colleagues around the table. Normally i dont jump in. I think it might be helpful for us to have a basic understanding of the program. My understanding is that you did not create the program. It was not created in this administration. It was created in 1992, and we are struggling to come out of a recession. You mean this decade, not this century. It was created in 1992. What they were trying to do was figure out how to get the economy moving. One way to do that is have access to capital. Take a few minutes and give us what i will call ev5101. I will be eager to continue my response. The program has its creation. It is premised on the belief that individuals in Foreign Countries that are willing to invest in the u. S. , and those investments yield jobs. They have an opportunity then to gain lawful status in the United States. That is the top level of the issue. Is it a green card . They first get a conditional green card. Then after two years, if the jobs had been created, 10 jobs specifically have been created or are likely to be created within a reasonable period of time. This gives you an idea of the issues we wrestle with. But if they are created, the conditions of permanent resident status are removed, and the foreign individual is a lawful permanent resident. Therefore, they are eligible for citizenship after a number of years, provided that they qualify. Continue please. The allegation is that i somehow by somehow sitting around the table and resolving a couple of difficult issues that were unsettled in our agency in the administration of the program. It was nothing that i have not done hundreds of times when difficult issues reached my attention. The agency needs resolution of them. It is interesting to note that i summarize the allegations to be a favored treatment was afforded the gulf coast. Noteworthy is the fact that the complaints persisted in 2012, and they continue to this day. Also noteworthy what complaints are you referencing specifically . Delays, layer of the agency to adjudicate the case. On this particular case, the complaints exist. So it has not been resolved . I dont know the status of the cases. The people that you allegedly tried to help . I dont know the status of the cases. With respect to this matter from that perspective, i referred the case to the fraud detection and National Security directorate. My time is up. I appreciate your many years. And i was teasing you about not being a nice prosecutor. I want to make sure you knew that. Like you were teasing about your brothers not being as beautiful as your wife grade may that be the only time we disagree. I have a feeling there will be many other times we disagree, but it will be on finance contracting and audits. Thank you very much. If i can give you the one i recall specifically and why i recall it specifically, when i get involved in policy issues or novel questions before us, what we seek to do is resolve them for the benefit of the agency as a whole. The one complex issue ire members so clearly is we actually remote memorial i the resolution of that difficult issue in a new policy memorandum we published publicly and throughout the agency as guidance to our adjudicators of may of this year. The resolution of that case, of course, showed up in prior drafts of the final policy memorandum we just published. The issue is this there is an administrative appeal decision published by our agency called in the matter of izummi. That must be an acronym. It is not. One of the requirements in the eb5 program is that the ford Investors Capital must be at risk throughout the term of the investment. The matter of izumi stands for the proposition that a redemption agreement in the transaction documents against foreign Investors Capital being at risk. In other words, if you could redeem your investment to ring the duration of the relative time, your not at risk and satisfy the legal requirement. The case that was presented to my attention was the following is it the mere existence of a redemption agreement that disqualifies the individual from satisfying the legal requirement that the b at risk or is it the question of looking at the terms and whether the terms militate against the requirement that b at risk . To the best of my recollection, the individual investor according to the deal documents could convert his or her Common Shares to preferred shares or vice versa. I dont recall. The deal documents provided, the redemption provided there was not at the time a market for either for the Common Shares or preferred shares. Nor may there ever be a market for those shares. The conclusion was reached around the table that quite frankly and as a matter of law in the interpretation of the deal document, the capital remained at risk because there may not ever be a market for that capital and the redemption may never be realized. Thats an example of a difficult issue that could rise to my attention. When we resolve it, we can provide guidance to our adjudicators so they can adjudicate cases in strict adherence of the lot more ably. The absolute core principle is that we adjudicate cases based on the facts of a law. When i first heard about it, i didnt know much about it until this month. I learned a bit and im still learning, but it seems to me this is a strange program to be located you meet people with skills and they have entrepreneurship and this is actually an idea, we have to have somebody to look at this and say does this actually make any sense . Would you respond to that. And make sure you have the kind of people in your agency make sure you have the kind of talent and your agency to help make the right judgment calls. Thank you very much. I would like to answer that in a couple of parts if i may. We received more complaints about our administration of the eb5 program than we do any other area in our work. We receive complaints from the public, applicants and petitioners and we receive complaints from members of congress in both parties. And this is bipartisan . It is absolutely bipartisan and theres probably not a week that goes by that i dont receive complaints from members of congress with respect to our administration of the program. Quite frankly, there have been a number of eb5 program issues that have been raised to my attention that i have addressed with my colleagues and i recall the members concerns were actually valid and we were able to resolve those. Were there any interested where they were not valid . Most certainly. We respond to the concerns not by who is the author of the concern but rather by what the facts and law demand. That is our principal. Eb5 cases have been brought to my attention within the agency. The administration brought a case to my attention because we were terminating a Regional Center for the first time and we wanted to make sure our decision was correct because the stakes are high and the decision was well reasoned and well written. My office became involved then. As i mentioned, the Program Requires expert Economic Analysis and clear and sophisticated understanding of business proposals and the myriad of legal issues that those arenas raise. When i first came to the agency, i reach out to partners in the federal government when i learned about the program and posited to them they needed to become involved as partners with us because they had the expertise to bring to bear. The department of commerce would be one example and our discussions with other Government Agencies in sharing responsibility for the administration of the program are ongoing. In the interim, i do not ban still. I do not stand still in progress is needed. Progress is an obligation of hours to achieve. What i did was i introduced to the program economists. We expanded the pool of adjudicators. I dont think we did right for many years in support of our adjudicators because we put them in charge of cases and did not equip them with the tools to address those cases as i think they would most want because they strive for excellence. I brought economic expertise and business expertise. I brought fraud detection to National Security expertise. Those efforts have been evolving and most recently, we decided to create a new program. Embedded in it will be National Security personnel and a greater level of expertise. Just to followup, there is reference to several employees that you retaliated against them. I think they are in a california office. This was not viewed to be a matter of retaliation. Do you have any recollection of that . Could you put a little light on that . The office of special counsel determined were no facts to support the allegations. Her smell decisions are very difficult to make grade they are singularly the most taxing aspects of jobs when one has supervisor will responsibilities. One has to act in the best interest of the agency. Personnel moves are not necessarily disparagement. Or anything critical. As a supervisor, as a manager and leader, one has to fit the needs of the agencies with the talent of the people most ably. My commitment is to the talent of the agency as a whole and my commitment is to the laws we are sworn to uphold. Mr. Chairman, i would like to just for a moment talk about becoming director of Homeland Security, if that is possible. I have one question. We are deeply concerned about morale of the department of Homeland Security. I know we have had these discussions before and if you are confirmed as the deputy, what will you do to improve morel within the agency and what steps would you take to bring more cohesion to the group . Thank you very much. I have been honored and continue to be honored to work with the men and women of u. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in the department of Homeland Security of which are agency is a part erie it we have an incredibly talented and dedicated workforce. A workforce that is deeply committed to the mission of the department and that loves its mission. It would be my honor if i am confirmed to be sure our workforce has the tools they require to work at the very highest levels of excellence to which they aspire and that they feel fully supported and that they are trained and provided with open and fair processes. I will engage with the workforce and i will engage with this committee in focusing to ensure that the morale is as high as it should be when one considers the talent of the people and the nobility of the mission. When you talk about the tools, because we all know that what can affect morale is the lack of ability to do your job. Knowing your job but not having the tools. What additional tools do you work of sential to the the department of Homeland Security . Senator, thank you. Let me draw upon my experience at the u.