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 s

mr. mayorkas involvement in these cases. i learned that secretary mayorkas was directly contacted in these cases but not only by democrats but also republicans including members of this committee. not committee. not only am i disappointed about the incompleteness of about the inspector general's review, i found it appalling that he would not provide testimony too late to rest questions of actual wrongdoing or impropriety despite the fact that the report did not find that deputy secretary mayorkas involvement was inappropriate. the report was that of an activist management that demanded reform and responsiveness from his agency. if we want to have a comprehensive examination of mayorkas leadership style, we should look at his actions as a whole including in his current capacity as deputy secretary. under deputy secretary mayorkas leadership, we have made great strides in some areas and remain stagnant and others. as a result a result of these efforts they recently acknowledged improvement stating that dhs has demonstrated exem

mr. mayorkas. i really wanted to talk to you about all the improvements that you've made to the management of this office and the department in general and how we should be applauding that instead of sort of excoriating you. but maybe next time. thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> thank you. and let me just say i i'm very lenient with time normally as the chairman, but i am trying to keep this within some bounds of reason. i'll let members go over the five minutes, but within bounds of reason on both sides of the aisle. with that now the chair recognizes mr. walker. >> thank you, mr. chairman. may take just a point of privilege there, the chairman did not interrupt the member, but i think was directly to mr. mayorkas. the 2009 2009 eb adjudication policy contains a section quote eb5 external stakeholders. the section of the policy states: oral communication takes place between uscis staff regarding specific eb5 cases the conversation must be recorded or detailed minutes of the session must be tak

mr. mayorkas's contacts and involvement in these cases. broadly i have 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 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 mayorkas's leadership style we should look at his actions as a whole including in his current capacity as deputy secretary. under deputy secretary mayorkas's leadership the department made great strides in so

mr. mayorkas. them were that he used his position to influence outcomes in select cases for the benefit of clinically connected and powerful individuals. in general these allegations fall under four categories. special access. allegations were unequivocal. mr. mayorkas gave special access and treatment to certain individuals and parties. clinical favoritism. quote we receive complaints from uscis employees that the application for politically connected regional center gulf coast funds management received extraordinary treatment as a result of mr. mayorkas' intervention. additional uscis staff understood that these applicants were prominent or politically connected. blished processes. he was in contact outside the normal adjudication process either directly or through senior dhs leadership with a number of stakeholders. according to the employees

mr. mayorkas and the eb-5 program. the inspector general clearly laid out the evidence against mayorkas. the report explains how he intervened on three political cases each had high profile connections. despite the outrage, it seems to me you have no intention of doing anything and planning to stick by mr. mayorkas even though he provided preferential treatment and violated the very rules he wrote about ethical conduct. it's no n wonder that there is a morale -- it's no wonder that there is a morale problem. employees see leadership getting away with violating the rules. employees are given clear rules on preferential treatment and how do you adjudicate eb-5. yet when the director himself breaks those rules, there is no recourse and then what are employees to think about that? the only defense that i have seen so far on the preferential treatment is the agency gets pressure from members of congress and from both sides of the aisle. i think that that's comparing apples and oranges. it is no excuse. members in congress a