captioning performed by vitac >> but one night that was not the case. and josh lederman was standing his post at ap booth, why don't you pick it up from there? >> so i think it was around 8:00 p.m. or so and most of the correspondents at the white house had already left for the evening. but the news day was basically over. and there were a handful of us from the wires and from a few of the television networks who were still in the building. started to hear a commotion outside the doors of the press briefing room and a few of us ran outside to see what was going on. and, you know, it seemed from the flurry of activity the

secret service, there was something going on. now, those of us that are -- spend a lot of time at the white house know that lockdowns at the white house are relatively routine. even fence jumpers happen, you know, three, four times a year. it is an event, but not a particularly remarkable one. but there seem to be -- there seem to be something -- a level of alarm that the secret service was displaying that suggested that this may have been a little bit something out of the ordinary. i headed into -- into the press area of the white house which is sort of at the entrance to the west wing for those of you who haven't spent a lot of time there to try and figure out if i could figure out what was going on. and nobody had any -- they said no, everything's fine we would have gotten an e-mail if something happened.

if something happened. right about that moment secret service agents came -- stormed in from the west wing with these really large, like semi-automatic weapons that, you know, you've seen the secret service carry them around, you know, the counter -- the tactical teams on the grounds of the white house, but it was first time i had seen one of those out and sort of in shooting position inside the actual west wing. and immediately pulled us all -- those of us that were in this press -- in the press offices down into the west wing and into the basement. so it ended up that i was down in the basement with most of the white house officials, you know, obama senior adviser and communications director who were also being evacuated first into the basement and then shortly thereafter inside into this middle ground between the entrance to the west wing and

the eisenhower executive office building. and this is one -- another one of the indications that something was happening that might have been a little bit different than the usual fence jumper who hops over, you know the dogs nab him and it is kind of end of story, you know, game over. was the fact that they had evacuated most of the white house. in my two and a half years at the white house i had not remembered anytime when there had been really an evacuation of the white house. and you could tell from the way that they were -- the secret service was first trying to make sure that any foreign nationals that had been in the building were out and escorted out to the street and just from their general behavior that there was something more to this story than what a usual fence jumper -- >> how were you able -- you posted something or moved something on the wire like before midnight that night.

how were you able to confirm something enough to start the wire reporting? >> the first report that i filed came actually from a uniformed secret service agent who was not really supposed to be talking to the press, but was sort of in this fray of people running around and basically told us there was somebody that hopped the fence and that's what we're dealing with. so we moved you know, from my phone i filed a quick story that hit the wire probably around 8:00 or 8:30 about that situation, but the secret service really went on lockdown. they wouldn't talk to anyone. they told us they were scrambling people to come down to their headquarters to start dealing with this but, you know, they were getting their ducks in a row before they were going to start talking to anyone. around 10:00 p.m. or so, they kicked us out of the white house as they do, you know in the evenings. i relocated to my apartment and we continued to just really try and hammer all of our sources to try and figure out you know, what exactly had gone on and

right around midnight we found out that, yes, there had been a fence jumper, but not only that, but he actually made it inside the white house, which was really an unprecedented security breach that raised all kinds of questions about whether the security protocols that they have to respond to fence jumpers is really adequate. and we knew this was going to be a big story. so we popped out an alert, just around midnight, and from there you know started building, you know, a breaking story, trying to wrap in both the details of what had happened in this one incident and the broader implications for the secret service. >> you did some reporting by twitter that night is that right? >> one of the problems is this was a friday evening very late, and it was -- there was no one around. and the kind of flurry of reaction you would start getting unsolicited on a thursday afternoon or something from members of congress and, you know, 30 interest groups that want quotes in your stories, you know, we're all asleep or drunk

or at parties or doing something else. but i happened to notice a tweet from congressman jason chaffetz of utah who was the incoming chairman of the house oversight panel with jurisdiction over these kinds of issues with the secret service saying something about how alarming it was. i made contact with him through twitter only to find out he was actually on a plane flying home to his district and was not going to be landing until, you know, something like 3:00 a.m. or 4:00 a.m. d.c. time. but was able to get him to agree to do an e-mail interview over his -- using his inflight wireless while he was on the flight. so through that process we were able to learn that there had been a series of other security breaches that he had been investigating for more than a year, and to be able to get that context in his reaction into the story as well.

>> that is reporting in the digital age. i want to pause on that story right now. i just want to make this comment for the young journalists in the room this is -- to me this speaks volumes about the importance of beat reporting at the white house. if the reporters hadn't been there, the statement from the secret service would have been nothing, nothing to see here, don't worry about it. and also if josh hadn't been there on such a regular basis and sort of understood the rhythm of the white house and realized that something really important was happening and sort of being able to pinpoint where it was happening, that's all part of one of the -- part of the beat reporters' tool kit. let's pause there. and go to a beat reporter who did something totally different when the story started to break about the warming of relations between the u.s. and cuba. he reported at the white house, but then he got on the plane. tell us that story. >> this is about the release of alan gross who was a hostage in prison in cuba, for five

years. how it started is it is really a combination of sources at the white house, sources in cuba, i've been covering cuba since the pope went there back in '96, and i had sources there, was there during the elian crisis there too. i had had sources there. and worked them as well as working the white house sources and also some sources in town who represented alan gross as well. i first started getting interested in the story because i wanted to interview alan gross. that was the impetus of it. he was in prison. i thought i wanted to go back to cuba, i thought that would be a good way to do it, to try to get an interview with him. as i started making inquiries about that to the cuban government, they said, well, we don't think that's going to happen. alan says he's going to die at the end of the year by starving himself to death. we're not really going to give

him any interviews. so that was sort of the start. and then i went to his -- we found out who his attorney was, started working him about, can we get in there can we get video of him, can we do something? and we started getting hints from sources that something was in the works, that perhaps he would -- that the united states -- neither cuba nor the united states wanted this man to die in prison. neither side did. but there was the issue was that there were five cubans who were in the united states in prison and three of them were still in prison, two released, and the cubans wanted prisoner exchange. the united states didn't want to do a prisoner exchange. but they were debateing about it. they were talking about it. and so i started working the white house -- my white house sources. and trying to find out what stage they were in. and at first it was just sort of, well the word i remember clearly was very high up source in the national security council

telling me that something was percolating and that was about two months before the release i think it was. and it is interesting where this happened too. i will say that one of the things that we are getting away from, or the networks especially, and i think some magazines and newspapers especially, getting away from is traveling with the president all the time. and but one of the -- we keep pushing back to our bosses about, at least the network level is, yes, there may not be huge stories we're going to break on these trips of the president when he goes places, but we have unusual access during -- my colleagues know that -- we have unusual access to the people who normally may not return your call when you're in washington. but when you're in china or you're in burma or you're in hawaii for two weeks with the president, there is a lot of

time to talk informally with people who are your sources. and it was on one of these trips where a very high up person told me before the end of the year. so we had -- we sort of knew when that was -- we focused on that. and all this time we really weren't doing any stories about it. this was all ground work. we didn't do any stories about what was happening an occasional piece about who alan gross was and what his physical condition was, but in general we weren't doing stories every day. i was going about my other work. and then we actually nailed down the week it was going to happen. when i nailed down the week it was going to happen from a source not at the white house, i went to the white house and i said, look i'm about to report this. is that going to -- this is an interesting question for you guys to talk about us as students, about how, you know, and my colleagues as well, we went to the white house and we -- i said this is what i

have, i know it is going to happen this week before he goes on his vacation. if i report this, is that going to jeopardize alan gross' life because he had threatened to kill himself he doesn't get released. the white house said, well let me get back to you and they did, to their credit they did get back to me and they said, okay, you have it, it is going to happen on that day, here is the deal. if you don't -- if you wait, and we'll -- you can report it first, and then we'll verify with everybody else afterwards immediately afterwards as soon as he's wheels up and out of cuban air space. and therefore he's safe. and so my producer and i who is here flew to miami and waited for a call from josh earnest. and i was on a live camera, i got a call from josh earnest and we went with the story and broke it on "good morning america." and then part of the deal also was that our anchor, david muir,

who did an interview with president obama about the -- this was not just about prisoner exchange, but was in fact the beginning of a new era of relations between our two countries, and david muir was able to set down with president obama and talk to him about that and i went to cuba and reported that evening on the evening news about the reaction from cuba. >> i guess i would highlight one point he made in all of that, which is an incredible story. and that is that he did not get his very solid information from inside the white house and that is most often the case. the best stuff comes not from them and you can -- so often you have something from somewhere else and you go to them and if they want to play ball, which they clearly did with you they will, and if not, then you have a choice to make to do -- to do your own story either way. i guess the question for you is if you -- did they make -- his life is threatened case to you?

or did they say, no but if you wait, we'll do this? >> the case they made was that if we were to -- what they were concerned about -- i have to be careful because some of it is off the record conversations, but i can say this, in general what the white house was concerned about was enflaming miami before it happened, and in some way that would cause some kind of incident that would stop the negotiations. and therefore indirectly put alan gross' life in jeopardy because he had threatened his own life at the end of the year. and this was december 17th. so this was -- he were getwe were getting close to the end of the year. they didn't make that case that strongly, they said you know, this could foul up the negotiations there wasn't any -- they made it clear to me there was nobody right now who

was anywhere near as close to the story as you are. it is not going to break somewhere else. if you're patient, you'll have a much better story. we won't jeopardize the man's life. we decided that we would have -- we had a pretty good clean kill and that might as well just stay with that. >> how do you develop a source like that whom you -- who will tell you at the critical moment it is percolating to -- and have enough knowledge of that person's workings to know you would trust them and read them correctly? >> part of it is who -- who they are. this person was involved in the negotiations. so if you know that -- if you know that somebody has that kind of direct -- this was not a third party, this was not someone in the press office. this was not a press secretary or something like that. this was an individual who was directly involved. so i -- and how do we get to know them we get to know them like i said, being there and

going on the trips and you have to say, too in each one of us works for -- on this panel, works for a distinguished organization, it is not necessarily the reporter in general, not -- it is also because of our audience, our readership. we have to -- we work for an organization that has some influence and that does help. ap -- i don't have to tell everybody what everybody does here, but everyone on this panel have influential viewers. we have massive viewers as opposed to maybe less influential than maybe the new york times and npr, but we have, you know 10 million, 12 million viewers that evening. and so when they want to talk, they want to talk to us. so that's one of the ways. >> i want to go now to scott horsley. everybody listens to npr here, right? i love scott's reports because i

know when i hear his voice, i tune in, because he's chosen something complicated and he's going to explain it to me in a way that makes sense. one of my personal favorites is the pension smoothing his explanation of -- the concept of pension smoothing by comparing it to pension smoothie. and then he -- i think there was a blender in the audio somewhere. anyway, scott, could you talk a little bit about how you approach the story? which stories you choose, what you look for at the white house, what your general approach is? >> the stuff is the same as anybody on the panel does, get good information, good sources. the twist we have with radio is we don't have the advantage of pictures, so we try to bring sound into stories whether it is the blender of the smoothie or anything else. and i have to say sound is the one thing that the white house thinks not at all about. i don't know how many times we have been on the road with the president and they will have

choreographied an absolutely beautiful picture at the golden hour, he's standing in front of, you know colonial building in cartagena and the sun is just sinking to the right angle and just gorgeous and they say, okay, everybody, let's go head for the vans and just then the children's choir comes out as we're walking. well that would have been nice. or on the campaign trail, the president was -- loved to visit factories. they would always shut the factory down assembly line or whatever it was, so he could go through and take a tour and there would be no sound. just industrial hum. and at one point i complained to somebody on the advance team and say, once and a while it would be nice to hear what the factory sounds like. they took us to a spaghetti sauce bottling plant. and maybe this is -- i learned a lesson about why they shut down

the assembly line because all the people on the assembly line crowded around to get their picture taken with the president and it was like lucille ball, you know, the jars started to -- little piece of cardboard got caught in the conveyor belt, the spaghetti jars -- okay. couldn't use that sound anyway. so part of the trick is to try to think about some sound that will make the story come alive. and, you know, the sound might be a blender might be kids singing. i was frustrated on our recent trip, we stopped in jamaica before we went down to panama to meet with the cuban leader and the first thing the president did was go to the bob marley museum. but they didn't let the full press pool into the museum. they only let still photographers. there was great pictures of the president looking at the old marley albums or what not, but it was especially frustrating because from our vantage point outside the door, you could hear ever so faintly strains of "one love" playing on the -- which would have been a nice bed for

our radio story, for arrival in kingston. but we didn't get it. >> actually scott e-mailed me from that because whenever there say problem with access in this way, the board and the members of the pool start lighting up e-mail and communicating to each other about problems. and back starting to advocate with the white house. and he told me the soundtrack to this huge conflagration in kingston was "one love" by bob marley. what mix are you looking for at the white house? you do a lot of explanatory journalism. are you looking for a particular mix in your beat reporting? >> i think we obviously try to report the news of the day. we want to be -- there was a time when npr saw itself as a supplementary news source. we figured all of our readers were getting the breaking news in their local paper and we were going to be something different the next day analysis or old joke in our company was do the news and call it analysis.

but for better or worse, for many people, we're not a secondary news source anymore. we're a primary news source. so we feel compelled to actually just keep up with the same day news. but oftentimes the -- what differentiates us is our sort of explanatory journalism or context and you mention josh's experience, after two and a half years, you can say, okay this is something that is unusual. obviously peter can say, even with greater perspective, this is unprecedented or this is not at all unprecedented, this is exactly what happened in three or four previous administrations. i think one of the things we try to bring to the beat is some sense of context, some sense of history. some sense when the president is being pressed to respond to ferguson, well, this has been something has dogged the president from skip gates. to bring some of that history to

bear. >> that's a great transition to peter baker of the new york times who covered three presidents in three different eras. and, in fact in the past year, has written about the obama white house, the clinton candidacy, and the bush family attempt to build a dynasty. so talk to us about the changes you've seen, how does this, covering this administration compare to the others you've covered? >> yeah, it is a great question. it is -- and scott is right. in some ways there is nothing new under the sun. every white house i think comes in to office thinking you know, we just reinvented the wheel here. we're going to do it differently than everybody else has done it before. we're hot stuff because we just won a national campaign. they are hot stuff. they did something rather extraordinary, which is convince a majority or enough -- to give them their votes, to send them into power. so, you know, they come in and they're really certain they're going to do it in some way never

done before. and particularly the first year first two years of the administration, you hear a lot of first times and never befores and it is just -- and mark knows and a lot of the guys, steve scully and dave jackson george certainly nose, veryknows, very few things have never been done before. it has been done differently. the modalities are different. we're doing twitter and meerkat. >> you look at me. >> i don't know what meerkat is. >> it is a little animal. >> some aspects of it are different, right? that's about modalities and tactics, not about broader themes. and so as you watch the obama white house struggle with its second term, it feels pretty familiar to anybody who watched bill clinton struggle with his second term or george w. bush struggle with his second term. it is not the same. katrina is not the same thing as a broken website. and, you know, syria is not the

same thing as an impeachment, and so each of these are different. but a lot of the broad strokes the larger currents of politics and governance are familiar. and so scott says it is great to keep that in mind when we do our reporting and try to help readers and listeners and viewers understand the perspective of what is going on. and so i think that's -- that's what makes the job fun in a lot of ways. >> so you have the perspective that many of us envy, which is the historical, what other presidents have done perspective. how do you maintain what other people envy, which is fresh eyes and a new take. how do you work that into your reporting? >> great question. in fact, it is -- i do struggle with every once in a while waking up and saying that's not a story, we have done it before, heard it before nothing new, and somebody else manages to take whatever it is and find the

fresh aspect of it. in fact bring the new eyes to it and makes a great story. i kick myself for being too fuddy duddy. but i'm lucky i have, like all of us i think we all have partners. i have two great partners in mike share and julie davis who are both seasoned and veterans and bring a freshness to it. and so that helps to have perspective and to bring different strengths to a team like that. and then i usually read about it in "the wall street journal" and carol has done it. >> can i just say one thing i was thinking about when i knew i was going to do this panel is as radio reporters and tv reporters too, we get the benefit of the print pool reports. where one print pool -- one print reporter is assigned to write up what the president does. when christi or peter or carol

do pool duty they have lots of experience, and could easily phone it in. they never phone it in. their pool reports are so thorough, so detailed. even on a completely throwaway trip and i think one lesson of that is you never know what is going to be throwaway six weeks later. you never know when some seemingly meaningless detail on a nothing venture to cleveland to give a speech that nobody is going to care about two days later will take on an added resonance six months down the road. and because they pay attention every day and don't phone it in six months down the road, when it is meaningful they have that. >> so that's the concept of the pool. you guys know how a pool operates, right? we spent a lot of our time as an association fighting for the access of the pool. when we can't get in, the whole press corps into something, we send in an elect group of usually 13 people when we're traveling, 21 people when we're

in the white house, to gather information and the first responsibility is to share it with the rest of us. and the rest of the people who use the platform, the print poolers share our reporting with everybody else in america, really, before we write our own stories based on it. that's because it is a big responsibility and we feel like the public has a right to know and that's our -- that's a public service that we perform. so i want to ask the panel, peter, i can't help but notice you've got some documentation sitting over there, which may help to answer this question, but what are the big challenges -- what do you think are the biggest challenges for you in covering the white house and how to youdo you overcome them? >> not that i'm hyping up rival publications but i have some interest in this -- they did a survey as they did last year as the white house correspondents to time for this annual event. it is pretty useful. for anybody who hasn't read it, take a look. they get 70 of us to respond

this year, previous number and they ask a lot of questions. and some of them are surprising and some of them aren't. i asked of those of us who covered multiple administrations, which is the most friendly exactly 3% named barack obama being the most friendly. and 65% least friendly. partly because we're in the middle of it. partly because we're currently frustrated for this or that and we have glossed over all the frustrations we had with bush and clinton and so forth. but it tells you that's part of the adversarial relationship that goes to that. the other finding that is interesting, how many times have you asked the president a question yourself at a press conference. 63% of our colleagues said never. how many times have you interviewed the president either by yourself or part of a smaller group from your organization? 80% of our colleagues say never. to me that's a shame. to me the most telling one is how often have you interviewed somebody in the last week from the white house who isn't paid to talk to you, not a

communications or press staffer and 58% of our colleagues said never in the last week. and, you know, okay, we're not all going to get a chance to ask the president a question at a press conference and probably not all going to get a chance to interview him as often as we like, but we ought to be able to talk to people in the white house that goes beyond the press staff and that means three out of five of us haven't gotten past that wall in the last week. and that tells us something about the nature of the white house. i think if you talk to your colleagues here, who have done it longer even than i have, you'll hear stories about how you know under the bush 41 and other administrations they had a lot more contact with a whole lot of senior people beyond the press office. and i've seen in three administrations how that's shrunken slowly and surely with each passing one. what do you do as a white house correspondent? you have to be there all the time to recognize opportunities, to take that knowledge and translate it into big stories at the right moment. you have to use sources outside

the white house to come back to the white house as we did with cuba, as we heard about cube why right here right here and push them for answers when they aren't going to volunteer it. you have to be listening for sound. you have to take the experiences and not count on our white house officials to necessarily hand things over because they're not going to do that. >> sorry, go ahead. >> i wanted to ask a different question. >> go for it. >> one of the things that has come up a lot is with the ability for the white house to now go to twitter and facebook and interviews with youtube stars, and local news anchors at the white house, and whole host of folks who are -- if you looked at the president's interviews, he largely does them with mostly with people who are not in the white house covering him on a day to day basis, are very familiar with his policies and where he's been and where he might be going and all of that.

they're parachuted to do an interview and parachuted out. so it raised the question of does being a white house correspondent matter? i put that question to you guys of does it matter why does it matter and if people can get information from elsewhere what is the difference? >> i think you need it all, you know. i don't think it hurts to have outside people come in and ask questions. we are in a bubble. we are -- we have to recognize that. where we live where we work, i know you do and i know most -- many of us do we try to get out of that. i'm lucky in that i have a partner as well who does most of the -- does most of the day to day. i go in and i try to work outside that box. i don't -- i can't blame the white house for wanting to get outside of that room and to --

because when i do, when i go denver, when i go to seattle, they're not talking about the same things we are talking about. they're not focused. they're not focused on the intricacies that we are. i think when we see that most it is at the white house brief ing ing. the -- too often the quest in my opinion has been to get an argument going, get some kind of questions. the follow-ups have to often be more combative because the information isn't coming. but the original question is frequently not -- not designed to pick a fight, rather than to seek some information. and i think people outside the beltway, when i visit them are

tired of that. it is part of the noise. and they want the kinds of questions that sometimes we hear when the local news people come in from out of town and they're in the white house briefing room, they ask something none of us is ever thinking of. we may chuckle at it. but their viewers back in denver care about it. so i think we need both we do need the inside baseball stuff on occasion, but i think that they're wise and to go outside of us. >> i do -- i think you're right about some of the combativeness. it struck me during the va hospital scandal, the va has been a mess for years, for republican and democratic administrations and i think the american public would like to see the va hospital system work better than it does. and i think there is no reason that has to be a political scandal. i don't know why eric shinseki's scout became the story as opposed to what it is going to

take to fix the va hospital system. once shinseki was out, we in the white house briefing room kind of lost interest in the story. and to that extent maybe the administration lost a little focus on it too. i would -- i do think there is something to say about the combative tone of the washington centric news media. i also think you talk about the challenge of the beat, my colleague alex chadwick used to say, if you get to a story and there is a whole bunch of reporters already there, go find a different story. i think is good advice generally, but not terribly applicable to what we do. it is pretty rare, unless you get a good scoop on cuba, it is pretty rare that you're going to really be in a whole different playing field than your dozens of very talented colleagues on this beat. >> but when you do those are some of the most important moments. i think that we're all intimately and painfully aware that we're no longer the only

game in town. and, you know, there is nobody up here sitting here from, you know, medium or, you know, all of these tumblr or other ways that people are getting their information, that's also created some issues not only with outside media coming in but also the white house just completely bypassing the media and going to the people through their own social media channels. but i think that the -- the aspect that we maintain as beat reporters at the white house is the accountability function. and that's one that is not -- that people that parachute in for a story are not in a good position to really do. it is that one phrase they have been using you know, for a month and suddenly it disappears and you notice it because you've been hearing it every day. and turns out there is a policy change underneath that. or it is the -- you know the issue that you press deeper and, like, jim, you break a major

important story. you know or uncover some type of shenanigans that are not likely to be uncovered by someone who is coming in because the white house is trying to reach a different segment of the population. >> i don't personally object to the white house running an offense. i think they can -- it is up to them to craft their message and try to explain their policies and beliefs in a way that is persuasive and if they want to speak directly to the american public by whatever medium is available to them, i actually don't object to that at all. my concern is that when -- that they not go around the independent free and adversarial press corps, which is at the white house every day and has this kind of situational awareness that you're talking about. i like the diversity of voices. i like vice and medium and, you know, pick your acronym, i like them all. i think more voices is better.

but we need information to work with. and i feel like the beat reporters are a critical part of that mix. so now we have got about 20 minutes left to take some questions. i'm looking out at the scholarship winners and i will start with you. >> so you've mentioned medium that's come up a lot. i notice the clinton camp used that yesterday to respond to the -- do you think -- because i know there has been an uptick with the obama administration using other means of getting information out and we talked about that a lot. is that a precedent you think we're going to see going forward or something specific to this administration? >> i can't imagine that the next administration will do any less. they'll probably have more tools, i would imagine, to sidestep the free and independent adversarial press is that that you said?what you said? >> in alphabet cal order.

that's the challenge of fighting, being vigilant. the thing i need to worry about is probably something i haven't heard of yet. whatever the next invention is. >> josh is press secretary he said, look any administration would do this if they had the tools we had and it is hard to argue with that. >> i think what you hit on, though, it is fine for them to do -- to find all the other things. if they were doing that and not answering questions on a daily briefing or not making the president available, which he has recently been very available, as far as press conferences are concerned a unique rash of press conferences lately, then that would be an issue, i think. as long as -- if they want to put out an unfiltered message, the -- first of all our audiences are smart enough to know that's an unfiltered message. they really are. we have to give the audience some credit.

that's fine. but if they did that and then the president didn't come out or josh didn't come out, and sit in front of us, to me, that would be an issue. it is not -- i don't find it an issue as long as they continue do that. i think there is an issue with peter, that they do not make people outside the press office available. that can be a problem. i have to say, i may be -- i would doubt you have that problem. and i -- i don't really have that problem. but i understand that smaller perhaps smaller -- that's what i was talking about, our organizations we work for. smaller organizations have -- maybe smaller and perhaps fox news and some others that they would deem as combative might have an issue. but i don't. >> i mean, different organizations get different responses, that's true. we have the same problem, i think, actually. i think that, again, mostly how things have changed over time.

i was saying earlier, thinking about his days when he covered the ford -- on the plane talking to the president every day. we don't do that today. when jim baker was chief of staff, every day at the end of his day he called back reporters. i can't remember the last time denis mcdonough made a round of calls to a bunch of reporters. he tries from time to time to engage him. i'm not criticizing him particularly. i'm saying culture has changed. the people who are actually involved in a lot of these decision makings are less available, more removed and more separated from us by a paid staff that is paid to get between us. >> i remember reading a great piece in the new yorker one day and he talked about, i wandered down to the nsc offices. >> with an escort. >> maybe that was -- parenthetical, but i thought wow, imagine that, just wandering around the west wing and -- >> that's something maybe a lot of the younger -- unlike

congress, right you can walk around congress and find 535 sources willing to talk to you for the most part right? >> begging to talk to you. >> begging to talk to you. the white house physically you are not able to go very far. you are restricted to a very tiny space basically, which is why -- >> the vestibule. >> that's why josh and scott, jim, the ones that spend all day there are heroes in my mind because it is inconsiderably cramped and claustrophobic and they cannot wander the halls. you cannot sit there and knock on somebody's door and say hey, guys what's going on? in the dod, the reporters will tell you they have the ability to walk around. i think that's true at state. that's a shame. that means fewer nonscripted spontaneous conversations that will lead to understanding and clarity. >> did you have a question? >> yes i did have a question. earlier in the round table discussion, you spoke about the leverage journalists had, free range journalists had over the

white house where they can possibly produce a story through social media, with their twitter handle and say hey, this is what happened, but we're wondering did this really happen? what leverage were you speaking of that we have to tell our story to the viewers, like you said, we can reach tens of millions of viewers at one time, why not come to us? >> great question. >> what i think i meant was -- i think historically we had more leverage because any administration, which ultimately was going to have to be responsive to voters, even if they didn't like the press, kind of had to deal with us to get their message out. that is still true. i think the public still does distinguish that they read in the new york times or see on abc from what comes out in the west wing week on the white house website website. i hope they do. but that leverage is less than it used to be. because they do have more avenues to distribute their message without us. i think, you know in the old

days, like it or not they kind of had to deal with us. that's less true than it used to be. >> i was in on that conversation you were referring to and i think what scott was saying at the time was the leverage we have is we represent millions of readers, listeners and viewers. and that's hard to turn away. >> and they really do not like having the photos described as you know state run media and so when we do -- when we go public with our complaints, and we do it in the united way which we don't do very often, but occasionally when they really tick us off, they do, that tends to get the president's attention and that trickles down to -- >> even when we're not doing it publicly we're always every day in there pushing at increasing increments of ire and anxiety as we do. and that's often the effect of the leverage we have. >> you mentioned there is now this army of paid staffers that is, you know, there to get between you as correspondents

and the folks actually making policy. i think i read somewhere in washington in the last 30 years there has been like threefold or 300% increase in the number of pr people as the number of journalists has gone down. and i'm wondering they create kind of these pseudo events and try to kind of set the agenda for the day. that's their job. but i'm wondering how do you find something else there, something unique there? >> we pretty much ignore it. i have it say we ignore the staged events when he goes to different places because he once went out to the thing on trade, he goes to a port. i can't remember the last time we did a story about whatever their agenda for the day is. television news doesn't really work that way. we go in case something unusual happens at that event. but we don't cover that event. and what we try to do, you know

what i try to do, i'll speak for myself, is you know focus on things that i'm interested in that i think our viewers are interested in and not worry about their agenda about the white house agenda. and come from the outside in, come with information that they can't ignore because they know that my 10 million viewers at 6:30 are going to see this information, they need to get their spin on it, they need to get their information out about that particular issue. that's -- i rarely report from the inside out. that's what i would say. >> what they're doing is no different. the guy that flew the gyro copt near the copter into the capital, if he

had just delivered the letters -- everybody does stunts. the other thing that is interesting is the staffing in congress. there say political scientist at the university of maryland francis lee, i think lee francis or francis lee, i can never remember but she's tracked the change in how many congressional staffers' primary mission is messaging and communication as opposed to legislating or -- and it is remarkable. it is probably -- i'll bet the change there is even bigger than at the white house. >> i don't have as big of a problem with the press dealing with press folks. i think it depends -- if they're empowered, it really depends particularly on the white house on how the top staff, the senior advisers, the communications director the press secretary depending who it is, decides to empower people who are on their staff, and there is instances where those folks are given a

tremendous amount of leeway to share information, in the meetings, they understand what is going on and it is worth talking to them. and there is times when it is not worth talking to them at all because they know nothing, they -- if they do they're not going to tell you because they're afraid of their own shadow. they're not empowered in any meaningful way and so they're not really useful in that sense. so i think it -- the same goes for the hill you know. there are some press folks who -- in fact, i'll give you an example in the white house ben rhodes, his official title is strategic something communications director for the nsc. well, that belies the fact he's probably the closest foreign policy adviser and longest standing foreign policy adviser that the president has. and if there is something to be known, he probably knows it. >> i don't mean to disparage the press people, got ones are great. they are knowledgeable and in the meetings. >> but i -- >> my point was they shouldn't

shield us from others as well. >> no, not at all. and that's what i mean. increasingly i think there is a sense that they're just there to block people from talking to us as opposed to them having information to talk to us and then being facilitateors to -- a lot of times you'll call a senior official not in the press staff and get a call back from the press staff, which is always, like you know, and that's -- that's a designed system and i'm sure there are stars handed out to whatever senior folks do that. >> the agencies too. >> yeah, the agencies in general. >> there was some -- some chuckles, i think, this week when the president burned a whole lot of jet fuel and generated a lot of carbon to fly down to the everglades to celebrate earth day and talk about it. >> but the fact of the matter is, the backdrop of the everglades got that story a whole -- in every newspaper, with the photograph of him on the walkway over the swamp,

that's how you get your message out. >> also, you can go to the events they put on but you don't have to see what they want you to see. like, i think josh made the point earlier, when they are changing the lexicon in the white house, it is reflective of changing policy or viewpoint and those are things that are hard to hide if you're paying close attention. >> but i think to your question about, you know the tension between letting them set the agenda and setting your own agenda there is a story they want us to write every single day. we all will get an e-mail, you know, six, seven, 8:00 p.m. with some embargoed thing for tomorrow morning and we're all supposed to get super excited and pop out these thousand word stories at 6:00 a.m. about, you know, a progress report on nothing basically. and, you know, i think we're this a unique position as a wire service in that we really do have to kind of cover everything. because even if their progress

report on the auto industry is not that interesting to most of our readers, you know the detroit free press is a member and people in michigan do want to read about that stuff. but i think we have -- we have conversations throughout the day you know, every single day about how much does this merit, you know, this thing they're trying to make a big teal out of, can we just do a little blush on that kind of dispense of it and then focus on what we think is really important today? you know and vice versa. what about that little thing that they kind of mentioned and tried to brush under the rug, that's actually the in us today, we are going to make a big deal out of that and we're going to kind of, you know, briefly dis approximate wednesday this thing that they're trying to focus on. so it's -- we have to do both instead of making a choice between one or the other. >> i typed the word embargo into google translate the other day and it came back no news. >> it's their way of trying to make it out that something really big is happening. if it was big news they would

not give it to anybody on embargo. certainly not to a wide audience of 10,000 people they're e-mailing it to. that's not generally secret stuff. >> there was a story yesterday morning in usa today about the growing use of fact sheets by the white house. i confess i only saw a little summary of the story so maybe -- i'm not entirely sure if the whole story carried this theme but the suggestion seemed to be that they were using fact sheets as a proxy for executive action and our rule the thumb the longer the fact sheet the less they're actually doing. >> progress report on fuel efficiency in the automobile sector might be 14 pages. >> at least. >> there's usually a section in it called building on progress we've already done, which is just a long summary of things they've already done and you're supposed to get real excited about it. >> i think we've got time for one more question i'm going to go to ezra.

>> i think most of you have expressed a support of the increasing diversity of voices in the news world. i guess my question is with that differ sight of voices and with so many cases on the landscape covering the white house and covering d.c. as a whole for those people who maybe don't have the clout of the new york times or abc or -- a bigger known organization, how do you navigate reporting on the white house or reporting in d.c. sp sm on top of that how do you then cultivate these sources that you're saying many of the sources come to you not necessarily because of the quality of their reporting but because of the audience and viewership that you bring with you? >> i started on the beat with "politico," which is not a small news organization, but it's not the new york times and it's not the wall street journal, which is what i -- a news organization that i work for now or abc or np or npr. i was also very low level on their team of -- god, it was

like ten i think, at that time. and i made it my job to be there every single day and do every little scrap of a trip that nobody wanted to do and you know, be trying to stick my head over the pack and just get in the mix as much as i could and talk to as many people as i could. i, you knew didn't have a family or anything so i spent a lot of time not at home and out and meeting people and just getting in step. then you develop relationships in that way and then when you're three or four years into covering it or a year into it or six months you know someone is willing to talk to you not because you work for the splashy news organization that they want to engage with, but because

you've been around and they know you. so they talk to you. i mean, the other way is to find a story that you want to do and -- or a topic that you really like and just get in there and pitch stories and that's how you get in front of people who are behind the press operation and that's how you get into their offices typically if you're not working for a big news organization. and also just sitting back and notices stuff. you know, the president -- when i was on the lower level of the white house team you know, there was obviously the senior people were going to be doing the big story of the day and that was not left to me. and so i would do things like, oh, the president is giving a six-minute speech on abraham lincoln which is his favorite president and it's at the capitol and he had to bring his teleprompter and he took it everywhere he went and so that's -- you know that's something that the folks who were writing the story of the day or necessarily weren't keeping an eye out for and then

you start -- when you start writing stories that get noticed then the white house folks realize they need to deal with you and talk to you and it kind of -- it buildings on interest there. >> also the news world notices who is leading on a story, who is on the cutting edge of a story. i'm looking around this room and i'm seeing a lot of people who work for organizations that aren't as big as my colleagues here, but they're leaders on particular stories they're experts and so the white house eventually decides it has to deal with those people on that subject matter and then it doesn't matter how big they are. if you know what you're talking about, if you really are the person who knows the most people will talk to you. >> i think step one is acknowledging that there are certain limitations when you tone -- i mean, jim talked before about sort of the catch sha that come of the news organizations that we represent have. before i was in this job i worked for the hill, which is at the bottom of the totem pole in terms of news organizations in this town and you know the

only way to really make any headway headway, sh you know, at that level i think is to be smarter than the people who are too rushed with their daily deadlines, covering the beat, to be able to do the -- you mow, connect the dots between, you know, here is three things obama is doing hold on there's some overlap there. so it's enterprise. it's not going to be, you know, an announcement that, you know because frankly, you know a lot of what we do -- a lot of the news that comes out of the white house is choreographed and they are not going to core joe graph it to give it to a small news outlet unless it is a specific negotiate i wish niche issue. you have to show your analytical skills and your ability to provide the context and analysis for your readers, you know, gives you the ability to do a compelling story despite that lack of access that some of the larger news organizations have.

and then as carol was saying from there it kind of builds on itself, you know people start noticing, well gosh, that person at that little outlet is doing this great stuff, we should talk to him about this, he probably would, you know, have a really interesting take on that or she seems to really get the intricacies of this issue. it just starts to build. >> let me just say one more thing about how you get from the small place to a big place. be patient a little bit. it's not bad -- i covered chicago city hall, that's where i learned how to be a political reporter and it was amazing. i covered, you know, jane burn harold washington, rich daily, i covered grab you by the lapels politics. go do that. you know, when you -- the first thing i would recommend just talking to you students is not go to the white house tomorrow and start writing small stories and trying to get in. go, you know, to springfield

illinois go to some big city or even a small city and cover the city council meetings. you know, you will learn when people are lying to you you'll learn who to trust you'll learn how to make sources, you'll learn how to shmooze. those are all tools that are not natural and have to be learned. my biggest advice is to go someplace small. >> i started out that way, too. i think most of us probably did in florida as covering you know, the annual fireworks story or whatever. it's very useful. >> there's something to be said for making a lot of mistakes which you will do on a stage that's a little smaller than the white house. >> i would come back -- i agree with everything everybody said up here and i want to add one more thing. the best stories that you will get, the stories that i feel best about are never the ones the white house gave me. never. and they don't give us nearly as many stories as everybody assumes they give us and particularly new york times.

they give the new york times everything. i wish it were true. >> we'd like an audit of that. >> the wall street swrurnl is the one they gave the story the other day. the stories that are best are not interviews with the president. they're just not. i don't remember any interview with the president that broke big news. i just don't. the stories that are big are the ones you develop yourself the ones that you -- usually coming from are the outside in the ones because you have a good ear, because you are paying attention and working from the ground up, those are the best stories, not the things that we give out. don't worry about stuff like that because it's not important. >> with that i think we've run out of time. i want to say thank you to you guys for your great questions and let's thank our panel. [ applause ]

navy secretary ray mabus discusses the navy's future amid budget challenges and evolving threats overseas today. you can see his remarks from the national press club live at 1:00 p.m. eastern here on cspan 3. next thursday may 7th is

election day in the u.k. today bbc question time hosts a debate with party leaders answering audience questions. that's live at 3:00 p.m. eastern here on cspan 3. this weekend the cspan cities tour has partnered with cox communications to learn about the history and literary life of taupe can a kansas. >> when the kansas nebraska act was signed in 1854 the very act of signing of of just signing that piece of paper was viewed by missourians as an act of war. so when northerners decided that if popular southern tee will decide the fate of kansas we are going to send people to settle. that was viewed as an act of war by many missourians who had just assumed this would all be theirs. there are raids back and forth across the kansas border almost immediately. in may of 1856 john brown, his

sons and a couple of other followers dragged five men from their cabins along the mosquito and pad wad me creeks and they were shot and hacked to death with broad swords. that effectively cleared that area of southern settlers. >> here nin topeka if you looked at the schools you would be hard pressed to determine whether white students or african-american students attended because the school board provided all the same materials that the white schools offered. what is even more interesting for most people when they come to visit is they find out after graduating from elementary school african-american students attended integrated middle and high schools. while they certainly were no supporters of segregation and obviously saw the injustice of having to attend separate elementary schools the african-american community also was very proud of their schools because these were excellent

facilities. so while there was support for the idea of integration, there was also some resistance, especially from the teachers and the local chapter of the naacp, who feared the loss of these institutions and the loss of those jobs. >> watch all of our events from taupe can a on cspan's 2 book tv and american history. it v on can cspan 3. sunday fight on cspan's q and a washington host national security reporterer walter pinkus on the situation in the middle east and his opinion on the 2003 invasion of iraq. >> i think one of the things about the bush administration and paul wolf wits who never claimed to be an expert on the middle east or on iraq and proved it and history has proved it, is that we look at things from our own point of

view and get deceived by it and you can go back to vietnam was a great example of the first time we sort of did it openly but we have a history of trying to think other people are like us or want our standards and the world is different and particularly in the middle east it's a totally different culture. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on krflt span's q and a. we're live on capitol hill now where deputy homeland security secretary alejandro mayorkas is testifying before the house homeland security committee answering questions on political favoritism. those questions arise out of an inspector general's report that alleges that secretary mayorkas while serving as head of the u.s. citizenship and immigration

services gave special access through a visa program known as eb-5. that program allows foreign nationals to get a visa if they invest $500 to a million dollars in a project or business that ends up creating jobs for u.s. citizens. texas congressman michael mccaul is the chairman of the committee, bennie thompson is ranking member we should be getting underway in just a couple of moments here live on cspan 3.

. once again, live picture from capitol hill where we are expecting the arrival of alejandro mayorkas. he is the deputy homeland security secretary. he will be testifying before the house homeland security committee, answering wes on political favoritism. this should get underway in a couple of moments, we will have it live for you here on c-span 3. mr. mayorkas as you can see has arrived so we should get underway in just a couple of moments. in the mean time quickly the house is in session today members offering general speeches right now. they will return at noon eastern for legislative work on the conference budget resolution which was agreed to earlier this week. that was originally expected to come to the floor friday after some tensions over war funds and

democratic resistance encouraged leaders to put off the vote on yesterday's military construction va vote. in the senate, senators gafld in this morning at 9:30 eastern, a senate iran debate is underway right now and is expected to go into next week. you can see live coverage on c-span 2 and the house on c-span.

the committee on homeland security will come to order. the pur o pos of this hearing is to receive testimony regarding the immigrant investor program known as the eb-5 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 eb-5 program. the ig's office conducted more than 50 interviews, reviewed more than 40,000 phone records and obtained more than 1 million documents and e-mails. this investigation was unprecedented in that there were more than a dozen whistle blowers that came forward to the inspector general's 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 secretary's judgment. this was not the first time that the inspector general's 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 nation's immigration laws fairly honestly and properly. in examining the ig's findings it seems that mr. mayorkas has repeatedly violated his own policy through his actions regarding certain eb-5 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 ig's report and hearing the ig's 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 ig's report raise doubts with b. his ability to fulfill the responsibilities of deputy secretary? second specifically, dhs's 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. i'd like to thank deputy secretary mayorkas for appearing

today. last month the department of homeland security's 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 eb-5 program, accounts for less than 1% of all visas issued by the united states citizenship and immigration services however, given the program's 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 general's decision to limit his review to questions regarding deputy secretary mayorkas' involvement in the three eb-5 applications at issue, however i'm 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 eb-5 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 i've 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, i've learned that while serving as uscis director deputy secretary mayorkas was regularly contacted on eb-5 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 general's 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 secretary's

involvement was inappropriate. as i stated last month the picture that emerged from the inspector general's 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 pair's 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 department's 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 agency's performance and address long standing cultural issues. equitable treatment of secret service personnel is still an issue. there's 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. i'd 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 today's 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 general's 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 don't 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 that's 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 lady's 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 general's 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 i'm sure in the department, yet we didn't feel the need or you didn't 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 lady's 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 nation's security as it impacts the entry of foreign nationals into the united states, mad dam, that this morning's swearing am in is perfectly appropriate. and i want to say that it's

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 it's entirely appropriate not only is it appropriate, it is deemed under the house of representatives' rules in this congress and this committee's 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 don't 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 -- >> unless the madam would prefer this committee not to swear in witnesses. >> i'm 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 don't think there's any reason for you to be concerned about ms. watson-coleman's 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 she's within her right as a member of this committee to voice her concern and her observation. it's not taking issue that you as chairman can't do it but she's just saying that it's inconsistent. i think ms. watson-coleman 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. we're 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 doesn't 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 general's report, the witness is here to respond to these allegations. all i'm trying to do by ensuring the swearing in of the witness is that he's telling the truth in response to the allegations made against him. >> i don't think it's in the witness' best interest not to tell the truth and i think the point that's being made is i

don't 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 general's 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 haven't 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 ig's report or deal with it as it is. the fact of the matter is the ig's 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 don't 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 it's illegal to lie or make misrepresentation to congress whether you're 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 he's operated for a long time in a professional capacity and i'm 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 that's being offered here today. without further discussion the chair now recognizes the deputy secretary mayorkas to testify. >> thank you. compare man mic. >> caller: ranking member 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 agency's primary responsibility is to decide immigration cases according to the law in a way that safeguards our nation's 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 eb-5 program the most complex program uscis administers. eb-5 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 eb-5 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 agency's national security and anti-fraud screening needed to be strengthened. there was no comprehensive eb-5 policy document, but rather a series of memos issued over the years that i learned through my review of eb-5 cases had failed to address many critical issues that applied to our every day work. as a result, we were administering the eb-5 program poorly and that was the view

from every quarter. at the very same time the public's 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 eb-5 program for foreign financing. because eb-5 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 uscis's 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 eb-5 case inquiries per year, dwarvg the number of communications about if i other

program uscis administered. add the individual ultimately responsible for uscis's administration of the program, i became increasingly involved in resolving the eb-5 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 eb-5 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 johnson's 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 eb-5 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

eb-5 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 i'd 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 decision-making 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 it's 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 it's a disciplinary penalties up and including to removal from employment is what's stated in the memo. more than 15 civil servants, career employees, came forward in your matter regarding your actions in the three eb-5 cases and according to the ig, quote, there are their allegations were unequivocal, giving special access and treatment to certain individuals and parties. i'd like to ask you about these three cases specifically. first, in the l.a. films case, according to the ig's 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 eb-5 visa petitions that you had already signed off on. is that true? >> mr. chairman, i don't remember the chronology of communications am that particular case. i think there's 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 that's exactly what the ig's report says, they stopped processing the denials that you had already signed off on. i mean i guess you can't answer that question. i'm just going from the ig's

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 don't i don't 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 one-time 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 that's 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 ig's report. not me. if you directed your employees to provide senator reid's staff with weekly briefings. is this correct?

>> i don't recall doing so. >> and that's 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, you've been able to confirm or deny the specific allegations set forth in the ig's 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. you're saying you don't 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 ig's 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 ig's 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 secretary's 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, i'm 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 employee's 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 you're 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. it's 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. i'm 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. i'm 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 that's 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 i'm trying to make is we get an inspector general's report that would lead you to believe that only democrats contacted on behalf of this job creation program. let's go to the l.a. films program. former member of this committee. i'm 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 don't 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 it's 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. i'm trying to say again the report was incomplete. gentleme