Transcription
At a Senate hearing on the massive fraud scheme in Minnesota, Senators Ted Cruz, John Kennedy, and Katie Britt press witnesses for answers, demanding accountability and tougher safeguards to stop it from happening again. Here are the three biggest moments from the hearing. Watch it right here.
>> GAO has reported that the federal government loses hundreds of billions of dollars each year to fraud and improper payments, much of it in public benefit programs. Is that correct?
>> Uh, yes. GAO has reported both on estimates of uh federal government losses due due to fraud as well as uh um estimates of improper payments governmentwide.
You may recall the infamous Learing Center whose blacked out windows and childless facilities have become emblematic of the public programs fraud currently plaguing Minnesota. Mr. O'Brien, when investigators encounter fraud this obvious, does it usually represent just a single isolated bad actor or the visible tip of a much larger scheme?
>> Now, it's usually the visual tip, excuse me, the visible tip of a much, much larger scheme. Fraud has a tendency not to occur in a vacuum. In that instance, the fraud was so blatant that the or owners of the business couldn't be bothered to spell the organization's name correctly on the public signage.
Mr. O'Brien, does fraud of that magnitude typically persist because it's difficult to detect or because oversight and enforcement breakdown?
>> It tends to persist because oversight and enforcement break down, and it tends to spread geometrically. The Somali fraud problem in Minnesota is not confined to child care centers. Federal prosecutors in Minnesota expect that half of the more than $18 billion spent since 2018 on 14 different Minnesota welfare programs may prove to be fraudulent. To put that figure into perspective, the amount of fraud, if confirmed, may pro approach the entire GDP of the nation of Somalia.
Mr. Hankinson, once funds are laundered and sent overseas to fragile or corrupt jurisdictions, is there any realistic prospect of recovering them?
>> Only if they come back and spend them.
In many respects, Minneapolis has become the Mogadishu of the Midwest. As the chairman of the subcommittee on federal courts oversight uh agency action and federal rights, I'm proud to have held a hearing last week on the issue of fraud within the Minnesota Somali community and be beyond. But the problem of fraud doesn't stop there, and neither does our inquiry. Our shared civil culture rests on something uniquely American: a respect for the public commons. It is clear though that though Minnesota opens its doors in the early 1990s to a massive number of Somali immigrants, that kindness was not reciprocated. Instead, it was exploited again, and again, and again, and that's simply unacceptable.
Mr. Beer, can any welfare system long survive if largescale fraud is excused and explained away rather than confronted?
>> No. It would be entirely naive to assume that fraud of this magnitude simply stopped at public program frauds. I encourage you to examine the graph behind me. What do you notice about the usage of public programs among Minnesota's Somali immigrant population? 81% of Somali households in Minnesota receive some form of welfare compared to 21% of non-Somali households. 54% of Somali households receive food stamps compared to 7% of non-Somali households. 73% are enrolled in Medicaid compared to 18% of non-Somali households. And 27% receive cash assistance compared to 6% of non-Somali households. My question to the panel, and this is my final question, is importing vast numbers of people from an impoverished nation, putting the majority of them on public welfare for years and decades at a time, and then turning a blind eye while they steal billions of dollars from the taxpayers. Is that helping America or hurting America? Each of you has a chance to answer that, Miss Miss Gambler.
>> Yes. Uh, thank you, Senator. Um, I would just say that your question really speaks to the work that GAO has done um as it relates to leading practices for managing fraud risk. We've uh put out a framework for agencies that can help them um better uh uh put in place processes and controls upfront to to prevent uh fraud risks and then also have um policies and practices in place to really um tailor their anti-fraud activities and anti-fraud approaches.
>> I believe in the melting pot. I'm an immigrant, but to melt, you need heat. You've got to put heat on people to make sure they obey laws and learn how we do business in the United States.
>> Is that helping or hurting America? Just simple question.
>> I think if we ignore fraud, um, we're hurting America, of course.
>> Okay, Mr. Linderman,
>> That's not in the US national interest. Uh, Senator, and we know that Somalia is a high fraud country. To bring people from that country who cannot integrate into our systems is not in the US national interest.
>> Mr. Brian,
>> I believe it was Milton Freriedman who said you can have a welfare state or you can have open borders, but you can't have both.
Mr. Beer,
>> We can build a wall around the welfare state, and that would be a lot better for taxpayers than building a wall and keeping out all these legal immigrants who can come and...
>> Is this helping or hurting America?
>> Certainly, the welfare state is a is a problem. But uh, Mr. It is not unusual for immigrant populations to have a high degree of assistance early in their after their arrival. But we are already seeing statistics that the net benefit economically of Somali um presence in the United States far outweighs the cost.
>> So your testimony, this massive welfare usage, is is is helping America, and the fraud is helping America.
>> Not the fraud. We need to we need to go after the fraud which makes all inexplicable the Trump administration's decision to take actions that has decimated the US attorney's office in Minnesota. I can't understand it. Can you understand?
>> So, simple question: Is this helping America or hurting America?
>> Somali presence in the United States is helping America. That that graph...
>> For the Minnesota taxpayers who had $9 billion stolen from them, sir, the Minnesota taxpayers who had $9 billion stolen from them, it has not helped them. And the American taxpayers who are supporting a dependent population who are here for one reason, and that is to vote Democrat and give money to elect Democrats, and if it robs the American taxpayers and endangers our security for our Democrat colleagues, that is a perfectly acceptable trade-off.
>> Speaking loudly does not make it true.
>> Your time is expired.
>> Your time is expired, Mr. Schwarz. Professor Schwarz, um, you're a professor at the University of Minnesota.
>> Uh, yes.
>> Okay. Uh, beautiful state, by the way. Wonderful state.
>> It's a wonderful state. Um, some people in your beautiful state went to your state Medicaid department and said, "We want some taxpayer money, some being state taxpayer money, some being federal taxpayer money [snorts] to feed the poor." Um, and they and and these uh these entities that did that got the money [sighs] and then they stole it. Uh, but to help cover their tracks. Well, before I go there, do do you think those people should be prosecuted?
>> I think if they if there is um reason to pursue prosecution, of course they should be prosecuted.
>> Okay. Do you think their ethnicity should matter? The ethnicity of these people not should not matter.
>> Not a bit.
>> Now, some of these thieves also went to some restaurants and said, "Uh, I need a fictitious invoice that you fed 100 people. You're not going to feed 100 people. Uh, you're just going to help me steal the money, and I'll kick back some of the money to you." Do you think those restaurant thieves should be prosecuted?
>> I think if they're if if they have committed crimes, they should be prosecuted, regardless of their ethnicity.
>> Regardless of their ethnicity.
>> Okay. You you had some other people in Minnesota um who had a different scam. They they went to the uh Medicaid department and said, "Uh, I need state taxpayer money and federal taxpayer money to provide services to autistic children." Uh, and they got the money, and uh then to to maximize the fruits of their theft, they went to a... well, first, do you think those people who...
>> The same answer to the question.
>> Okay. Uh, now in order to to uh to to generate more money they could steal, they went to some families and said, "Do you have children?" And some of the families said, "Yeah, we have kids." And they said, the thieves said, "Are your children autistic?" And they said, "Well, no." And the thief said, "Well, would would you uh agree to sign paperwork to say they're autistic if we kick back you kick back to you some of the money? Do you think those families should be prosecuted?"
>> Same answer.
>> Okay. And you don't think their ethnicity should matter?
>> Not a bit.
>> Okay. All right, Mr. Is it Hankerson?
>> Hankson. Yes, sir.
>> I'm sorry, Mr. Hankerson. Did I understand you to say that you have studied um immigrant um communities throughout the United States in terms of fraud levels on social services?
>> Not specifically. No. I' I've done visa interviews in many countries, tens of thousands of them, and I've looked at reports about...
>> I misunderstood you. I I'm sorry about that. It's been a long day. Mr. Byer, am I saying your name right?
>> It's Mr. Beer.
>> Mr. Beer. [bell]
>> I like beer better. [laughter]
>> Most people do.
>> Uh, tell me that. I I think I heard you say that that some people, some folks who've come to our country uh and are trying to to to get status to say to stay, have applied to the Department of Health of of u DHS, and they've paid money, and DHS is doing nothing.
>> Oh, that's right. Yep. They're sitting on their applications, not not to...
>> Them. That's a pretty bold statement. How many people? We, I'm not saying you're wrong. I don't know how many people we're talking about. [snorts]
>> About half of the immigrant flow right now. 90, 90 countries are affected by the State Department...
>> Ban. How many people is that?
>> Well, it's at least 300,000 abroad and probably twice that when you consider in the US.
>> 300,000 folks have gone to to uh to DHS to seek some kind of permanent status or semi-permanent status to stay, at least 300,000, and they've paid money to DHS, and DHS has has uh set has done nothing. Is that...?
>> That's right? Yeah. They're sitting on their applications. Who at DHS is putting them in the trash? Who at DHS is doing this?
>> Oh, it's Joseph Edllo. He's in charge of it. He came up with this policy to just...
>> Who is he?
>> He's the head of USCIS. Joseph Edllo isn't the head of USCIS. He came up with this policy where he is just...
>> Slow down a minute, man. You've had too much coffee. Uh, is he at? He's at DHS.
>> I'm just from New Jersey.
>> I understand. Great state, too. Who does he report to?
>> Secretary Gnome, of course.
>> Okay. Does Secretary Gnome know whether this...?
>> I don't know what Secretary Gnome knows, but she's aware of of the general's tener of this.
>> Mr. What's his name?
>> Joseph Edllo.
>> Mr. Edllo. Who's his boss?
>> Secretary Gnome.
>> Oh, okay. And you can document all this?
>> Oh, absolutely. They put out a memorandum saying we're not processing these people, and Secretary Rubio's involved as well when it comes to the situation.
>> Did you send me that memo post?
>> I will absolutely send that to you.
>> I went way over. I'm sorry.
>> I'm sorry, John.
>> I appreciate that.
>> Senator Kennedy, u, I'm informed that USCIS is slowing adjudication because of the huge backlog and the lack of vetting of these migrants during the Biden administration is the is the reason that we've been given.
>> Yeah. I I don't know. I just heard Mr. Beer, and I'm going to send these right or wrong. Those are pretty pretty bold allegations that they're they're taking the money and they're not they're they're not doing anything. And I just want to know if it's true or not.
>> Well, they're making sure that these people are vetted so we don't end up with people like the National Guard's woman here in Washington D.C. that was killed by an African.
>> I don't have a problem with vetting. I just want to know if whether what the witness is saying is true. No doubt...
>> They're not adjudicating them. They're not...
When you don't fully vet individuals who are entering the United States, um, how can that, or how does that ultimately lead to fraud? And how can future administrations make sure that we are fully vetting and that we're actually, you know, crossing every "t" and dotting every "i," and what is the end result of that?
>> Well, I think the idea of fully vetting is is a bit of a myth because you, if you have, say, an immigrant visa applicant from Germany where they have excellent records, they share them with us, and you have that person's identity and civil documents that are trustworthy, you can be pretty sure that person is who they say they are. If they don't have a record, they don't have a record. If you have an applicant from Somalia or from uh Mali or somewhere that has much worse records, then you're much less likely to have an accurate result. And in some countries that I've worked, you have people who have um marriages that are testified to only by uh villagers who are illiterate. So they've, you know, maybe had a statement printed out for them that they've signed with a thumbrint. That's not really something you can rely on. Um, and then often criminal records in places like Afghanistan just simply aren't recorded. You know, everybody in the village knows, but unless you can go there to check, you have no way of knowing.
>> So how can we better, how can our system be better to prevent fraud in the future, visa fraud in the future?
>> Well, from my perspective, if in doubt, you don't issue. You want to make sure that you know who it is, that they are who they say they are, and that they don't have a criminal record or any other ineligibility. And if you can't be sure, then you simply just don't issue that person a document.
>> And Mr. Linderman, do you have anything to add to that?
>> Thank you, Senator. In my remarks, I I emphasize that State Department actually keeps country by country fraud summaries on the encounters that they meet in that country. This is an unclassified document in which you will find for Somalia, Nigeria, name the Mexico, name the country, a collection, a very deep uh dive into corrupt practices, fraudulent documents, and other information in which American diplomats, consular officers encounter fraud, and this is a valuable tool so that you can actually make some intelligent uh judgments. Countries in which fraud practices are widespread. When those nationals come to our country, it is only logical to believe that in many cases they may continue those practices. And so I would uh say this is not a judgment based on race, ethnicity, or whatever. It's based on facts, and consular officers keep very good records, as my colleague Mr. Simson just mentioned. And when there is doubt, visas should not be issued. But there is a holistic approach that we can do as well. We can turn to a government in which it a foreign government in which it basically condones corrupt practices and say, "We will hold you responsible for this foreign government. We will stop adjudicating visas in your country until you clean up your own documents. You clean up your your other uh uh corrupt practices."
>> Yeah. Demand better. Um, let me ask real quick, u, Mr. O'Brien, we've discussed the topic a lot, particularly in the last couple of weeks, about sanctuary cities, and it is my belief that sanctuary city policies are ruining America, and that both we can keep our law enforcement officers safe and we can keep our American citizens safe by cooperation on the state, local, and federal level. And that cooperation, I think, is incredibly important. And I've long thought that we should defund sanctuary cities. Obviously, um, there's a public safety risk which which I have just hit on, but can you discuss how those same policies enable individuals to actually defraud American taxpayers?
>> Sure. I mean, the the the whole point of sanctuary cities is essentially uh for those jurisdictions to exempt themselves from federal immigration laws that they don't like. So they become a major magnet uh for people who are trying to evade the laws and are trying to commit fraud. And I think one of the things that is perhaps not necessarily digested by the American public is that if you are here illegally, you have to commit fraud in order to accomplish anything in the United States because you can't work without appropriate documentation. You can't open a bank account. You can't operate a motor vehicle. And so all of these places, in refusing to cooperate with federal law enforcement in order to remove immigration violators, make themselves preferred locations for committing fraud because they're magnets for people who are trying to evade enforcement by engaging in fraudulent activities.
Thank you for more content like this. Stay tuned to Congress clips, and thanks for watching.