Department Press Briefing – March 9, 2021

Ned Price, Department Spokesperson

Washington, D.C.

2:17 p.m. EST

MR PRICE: Good afternoon. A few things at the top.

First, today marks 14 years since beloved husband, father, grandfather, and former FBI agent Robert “Bob” Levinson was abducted in Iran. Since that time, Bob has missed graduations, marriages, and the birth of all but one of his grandchildren.

Yesterday, Secretary Blinken spoke with the Levinson family and promised to press the Iranian Government to provide credible answers to what happened to Bob Levinson.

We call on Iran to immediately and safely release all U.S. citizens who are unjustly held captive in Iran. The abhorrent act of unjust detentions for political gain must cease immediately – whether it’s in Iran or anywhere else around the world.

Next, yesterday, the Department of the Treasury, in consultation with the Department of State, revoked a license issued to Specially Designated National Dan Gertler, which was issued on January 15 of 2021.

The license previously granted to Mr. Gertler is inconsistent with America’s strong foreign policy interest in combatting corruption around the world, and it undermined the integrity and effectiveness of the Global Magnitsky sanctions program.

Mr. Gertler engaged in extensive public corruption in connection with the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Yesterday’s action further demonstrates our strong support for efforts to counter corruption and to promote stability in the DRC. Under our Privileged Partnership for Peace and Prosperity, the United States stands firmly with the people of the DRC in their efforts to advance democracy, bolster public institutions, and promote accountability for corrupt actors who seek to undermine them.

The United States will continue to confront corruption around the world, to uphold international norms, and impose in – tangible costs on those who seek to upend them.

And finally, looking ahead —

QUESTION: Wait. Impose —

MR PRICE: Tangible. Tangible costs.

QUESTION: Tangible. Not intangible costs.

MR PRICE: Tangible costs.

Later today, Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas will announce Venezuela’s designation for Temporary Protected Status, also known as TPS. This designation demonstrates the continuing support of the United States for the people of Venezuela.

To date, nearly 5.5 million Venezuelans have fled their homeland, while another seven million remain in chronic need of humanitarian aid. Nicolas Maduro’s repression, his corruption, and economic mismanagement have victimized these Venezuelans and produced this political and humanitarian crisis. Maduro’s willful neglect of his people, in a bid to remain in power, has created one of the hemisphere’s worst refugee and migration crises.

With this designation, we proudly join Colombia in their recent announcement to provide a similar status for vulnerable Venezuelans. The United States continues our leadership in the international effort to alleviate the suffering of the Venezuelan people. We provided nearly $529 million in regional humanitarian assistance in Fiscal Year 2020 in crisis response, and we welcome Spain’s recent financial commitment for the same. We encourage others to contribute.

We are proud to stand with these partners in both our commitment to democracy and the rule of law in Venezuela, as well as concrete action to help Venezuelans in need.

With that, Matt.

QUESTION: Great. Okay. All right. No travel to announce or anything?

MR PRICE: No travel to announce.

QUESTION: Okay. All right. Well, then barring that, and that was what I was going to start with, but since we don’t have that, just on the Levinson thing, on the anniversary – he was taken during the Bush administration. And every Secretary of State since Condoleezza Rice has been demanding that the Iranians release him or provide information about what – what exactly is new or different about your approach with the Iranians? Because the Obama administration, right – we had the nuclear deal. We had people released; he was not one of them. The Trump administration tried a harder approach, lots of sanctions. Why exactly do you think that your approach – well, first of all, what is your approach? And then secondly, why do you think that that approach is going to work any better than the previous three administrations have on this case?

MR PRICE: Well, let me start by reiterating what I said a moment ago, and yesterday the Secretary did have an opportunity to speak to the Levinson family. Last year, of course, the family shared with the world their belief that Bob is deceased. In December of 2020, late last year, the United States designated two Iranian ministry of internal security officials for their role in Bob’s abduction, disappearance, and probable death. We also, Matt, I would remind you, have a Rewards for Justice out for $20 million for information leading to the location, recovery, and return of Robert Levinson.

As we said in the topper, the Secretary committed to the Levinson family that finding answers – long overdue answers, as you alluded to – will be an absolute priority for us. We will press the Iranian Government for those answers, as we have said, in the context of Americans who are being unjustly detained in Iran today. We have made no bones about the fact that we have no higher priority than the safe return of Americans who are being unjustly detained in Iran. We have made that clear to the Iranians. National Security Adviser Sullivan made note of that a couple weeks ago now.

When it comes to Mr. Levinson’s case and the fact that he has now been missing for 14 years, separated from his family for all of that time, we will absolutely continue to press the Iranian Government for these answers that I said before are long, long overdue.

QUESTION: Yeah, but they haven’t given you any answers, and they haven’t given any answers for 14 years. And I just wrote down a list of the – just off the top of my head, starting a long time – anyway, I’m just curious as to what – what is this administration going to do differently, if anything, than the previous three administrations have done to try and find out what happened to him or get him back?

MR PRICE: Well, I think it goes without saying that our approach to Iran differs in pretty profound ways, and we’ve talked about that broadly when it comes to Iran’s nuclear program. We’ve always made the point that unless you have a strategy that is accompanied by diplomacy, that is accompanied by an ability to exchange ideas, to exchange proposals, to exchange initiatives, any – just about any effort to contain Iran in the nuclear arena will be fruitless and feckless.

Now, the fact that we intend or at least seek to have lines of communication with Tehran allows us, of course, to press the Iranians for information about cases of missing or detained Americans. We absolutely plan to leverage those channels. I would – I don’t need to remind you, Matt; you were there – but I believe it was January 20th of 2016 when several Americans were released and were reunited with their families, and that was the result of concerted engagement with the Iranian Government. So we are going to absolutely make it a priority. We are going to make it a priority to secure the release of Americans. We are going to make it a priority to find answers, long overdue answers about Bob Levinson.

QUESTION: You’re right, there were Americans released back then, but it – but not Levinson. And the Iranians have consistently said that they don’t have any information about it. Now, whether they’re telling the truth or not, I don’t know.

MR PRICE: Well, that’s exactly the point. That’s exactly the point. We are going to press the Iranians for answers. We are going to press them for what they have to say. We will continue to use every tool in our disposal, every tool in our toolkit to find out all we can about what happened to Mr. Levinson and to try and provide those answers to the family.

QUESTION: Okay. But the critics of all this – and I have to do – the Obama administration had opened up a big line of communication with Iran and got nothing in terms of Levinson. Nothing. The Trump administration took a hard line; they got nothing in terms of Levinson. The Bush administration prior to the Obama administration got nothing in terms of Levinson. And when you talk about the release in 2016, critics will say that they were released because you paid the Iranians.

MR PRICE: That’s what critics might say, Matt.

QUESTION: That’s what they say, but —

MR PRICE: I assume you’re not saying that because you know that is absolutely not true. I don’t need to go into that. You presumably know just how false that is.

QUESTION: I know – well, but I’m just saying that that’s what they’re going to say. So what – I just don’t understand what it is that you think that you can do differently that the previous three administrations haven’t in this case. That’s all.

MR PRICE: Matt, you are not wrong that the last two administrations have not been able to provide satisfactory answers either to the family, to the broader American public, about what happened to Bob Levinson. I can speak to the Obama administration; it wasn’t for a lack of trying. This case was absolutely a priority back then. Obviously, wouldn’t want to characterize the Trump administration’s approach beyond what we’ve all seen and what you, in fact, alluded to.

And so, again, our approach to Iran is one that recognizes the necessity of diplomacy. And diplomacy in this case requires that we have channels for communication. We will use every single one of those channels as appropriate to press the case for those Americans who are unjustly detained in Iran today and for answers when it comes to Bob Levinson.

Now, those channels of communication are one important tool. We also have other tools and means at our disposal to try and find those answers. We will use every single one of them.

QUESTION: Thanks.

QUESTION: Staying on Iran?

MR PRICE: Sure, staying on Iran.

QUESTION: One hundred forty members of Congress have sent a letter to the Secretary saying that as it tries to re-engage with Tehran on the nuclear deal, that they should go bigger, deal with other security issues, deal with foreign policy issues, deal with Tehran’s regional influence. What has been the Secretary’s reaction to this bipartisan letter, and does this building read the letter as a kind of a leeway to go big and to be willing to negotiate everything, and perhaps offer things that otherwise might not get political support on the Hill?

MR PRICE: I’m sorry, do we read it as a – what was the word?

QUESTION: As a way – a sort of leeway.

MR PRICE: Oh, leeway, leeway.

QUESTION: Yeah, yeah.

MR PRICE: Look, so this letter and the ideas put forward in the letter are in important ways very consistent with the approach that we have laid out. And let me just remind you of that approach. At its core, the first step is what we have short-termed – or what we have shorthanded “compliance for compliance,” the idea that if Iran resumes its full compliance with the JCPOA, resumes its commitments with the JCPOA, the United States would do the same. We would seek to lengthen and strengthen the deal.

And the important point we have made that is consistent with the point that is made in that letter is that the JCPOA and compliance for compliance – it is necessary, but it’s not sufficient. And we say it’s not sufficient because we have also spoken to the need to: number one, lengthen and strengthen the terms of that deal; but two, importantly, to use the JCPOA as a platform to negotiate follow-on agreements, agreements that would cover other areas of concern – concern for the United States, concern for our allies, concern for our partners in the region. Two of those concerns certainly are ballistic missiles and Iran’s support for terrorism, two issues that I believe were mentioned in that very letter.

So it sure sounds like we are on the same page in broad terms. That is precisely the work that we have set out for ourselves. It’s precisely the work that we are engaging in. And these are still early days. We have started the process of engaging with allies, with partners, with members of Congress as well. And we will continue to engage with members of Congress. Of course, Secretary Blinken will be up on the Hill tomorrow before the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

And so we will continue that in an effort in the first instance to arrive at that arrangement for compliance for compliance, but then also recognize and operationalize the fact that it is necessary but not sufficient, and not sufficient for the reasons I set out.

QUESTION: Should the JCPOA be converted from an agreement to an actual treaty? That was a criticism that some in Congress lobbed at the measure back in 2015.

MR PRICE: Well, as you know, the deal was enshrined in the 2015 INARA legislation. Of course, we intend to follow the law. INARA remains the law of the land.

Yes.

QUESTION: First of all, this is a different topic.

MR PRICE: Sure.

QUESTION: Honduras. Federal prosecutors today implicated President Hernandez in alleged drug trafficking. Does the United States have any read of this, any implications in terms of policy? Can the United States still deal with the president in the same way?

MR PRICE: Well, as in other countries, Shaun, we strongly support the rule of law and the fight against impunity. That is true in Honduras. It is true at all levels in Honduras. We are working with Honduran Government officials, civil society, and private sector to build a better future for the Honduran people. That’s our goal; that’s what we seek to do. It’s also what we spoke to yesterday when a similar question was raised.

QUESTION: Sure, but can we – can you actually deal with the president the same way as, considering there might be some sort of a – some criminal liability allegedly in this?

MR PRICE: Well, when it comes to criminal liability, I would say that we are working across all branches of the Honduran Government, we’re working with civil society, we are working with the private sector – again, to build a better future for the people of Honduras.

In many ways, we have a shared future, and what happens in Honduras is not consequence-free for the United States. It’s one of the many reasons why we have spoken about the need to partner with the Honduran people, with civil society, with elements of the Honduran Government. We are committed to that partnership, we are committed to fighting corruption in Honduras, and we will support and work with leaders who are committed to fighting corruption. Any leader, I think it is fair to say, not prepared to combat the corruption won’t be in a position to enjoy a close partnership with the United States.

QUESTION: So you’re saying what happens in Honduras doesn’t stay in Honduras? Was that what you were trying to —

MR PRICE: What I am saying is that, of course, corruption, poverty, impunity, lack of rule of law – all of those have profound implications for the people of Honduras, of course, but they are also important drivers of irregular migration and migratory patterns in the Western Hemisphere that ultimately do redound on the United States. And so if we are to address the challenge of irregular migration within our own hemisphere, we have to take these on, these challenges on. We have to partner with and invest in the region. It’s one of the many reasons why President Biden’s plan includes significant funding for partnership with the Northern Triangle. And it is one of the many reasons why President Biden has made clear that we will partner with the region to address these underlying causes. Until and unless we address these underlying causes, the challenge of irregular migration for us will remain acute.

QUESTION: Maybe I missed – maybe I missed some of the administration-wide nomenclature change. When did it become irregular migration? Was that something that happened on the 20th of January?

MR PRICE: I don’t know when that came into being. It’s a term that I’ve long been familiar with. I couldn’t say.

QUESTION: All right, okay. Fine.

QUESTION: Could I ask you something else in Latin America? I wondered if you want to weigh in on Brazil, the overturning of the sentence against Lula. Do you have anything to say about this? Do you agree with his contention that this is politically motivated to begin with?

MR PRICE: Well, we’re, of course, aware of recent news regarding the Brazilian court decision annulling former President Lula’s conviction. For details, for reaction, we’d refer you to the Government of Brazil as well as for information about the court’s decision. What is fair to say – and this is consistent with what I was saying about a – in a very different context in our own hemisphere – we note our support for Brazil’s, in this case, its democratic institutions. And we continue to underline and underscore that support.

Yes.

QUESTION: On China. The South China Morning Post has a report saying there’s a discussion about a meeting possibly in Anchorage involving Secretary Blinken. Is that something you’re able to confirm? And the reporting says this is a bid to reset the relationship with China, so I wonder if you – are you seeking a reset in your talks with China?

MR PRICE: Well, to your first question, we don’t have any future travel or meetings to announce at this time. When we think about our relationship with China, I would go back to what Secretary Blinken said just under a week ago now. As you recall, he outlined eight priorities in his address to the American people outlining a foreign policy for the American people, and China, of course, was one of those priorities. And he said at the time that our relationship with China, it will have aspects are – that are competitive. It will be competitive when it should be, it will be collaborative when it can be, and it will be adversarial when it must be.

The common denominator in all of this and what we have consistently talked about when we note our approach vis-a-vis China is that we will engage China from a position of strength. And we have spoken to any number of those strengths. And to do so, it requires us to work with allies and partners. Again, our system of alliances and partnerships around the world are a core source of strength. That’s precisely why they are the envy of competitors and adversaries the world over.

It requires that we engage in diplomacy and in international organizations, leveraging them and recognizing them as a core source of strength, knowing that when the United States has pulled back over the course of history, including recent history, China has filled in that vacuum. And it requires standing up for our values. And we have talked about our values as a core source of strength, whether that is when it comes to human rights abuses in Xinjiang or the way in which Beijing is trampling democracy in Hong Kong, because if we don’t do this – and if we don’t do it in concert and in tandem with our allies and partners around the world – China will act with even greater impunity.

And then we’ve also talked about our domestic strength and the strengths that we bring to the table as a country and the prudent investments we need to make in American workers, companies, technologies, insisting on that level playing field. Because when we are competing on a level playing field, the United States can out-compete anyone, including the Chinese. So that is a long-winded way of saying we don’t have any meetings to announce at this time, but we know what we have to do to engage China. We know what we will do to engage China. And we’ve started some of that important work.

QUESTION: Is this kind of meeting something that the administration would like to set up?

MR PRICE: Look, we would like and we will engage China from a position of strength. We have already laid some of that important groundwork, and you can go through those priorities I listed and you can look at concrete actions on many, if not all of those. But I’m not going to characterize any forthcoming efforts, meetings, travel. We know what we will do, and that is precisely what we have set about preparing for since day one.

Yes.

QUESTION: Can we stay in the region?

MR PRICE: Sure.

QUESTION: Yes. So how much adversary relationship between U.S. and China are going to be discussed in Friday’s virtual – President Biden’s virtual meeting with the Quad?

And separately, if I may, would you like to comment on reports like South Korea may be considering rejoining the Quad in an effort to weigh in North Korea policy? Is there such discussion? Thank you.

MR PRICE: Well, as the White House I believe – I hope – announced today, on Friday President Biden will meet virtually with his fellow heads of state in the Quad. Of course, that’s Prime Minister Suga of Japan, Prime Minister Modi of India, and Prime Minister Morrison of Australia. The Quad grouping was essentially established – I believe it was in 2007 in the first iteration – to showcase what democracies can deliver together for both our own populations and also the broader international public. Quad members are uniquely positioned to help lead the world out of the deep crises that we’ve spoken about recently – and, of course, that includes COVID-19 – and towards the more positive vision that we all seek. And it’s a vision that we in large part share with our fellow Quad counterparts.

And so the summit meeting – the leader-level summit meeting – will be the first of its kind, the first leader-level summit of the Quad. It will showcase the Quad’s ability to pool our capabilities and build habits of cooperation to address some of those urgent challenges we face.

Now, at the same time, I would just note that the Quad is not about any single challenge. It’s not about any single competitor. This is an entity forged and formed because we share common interests. They’re – maritime security is, of course, an important one, but our shared interests go well beyond that. And I think you will see reflected in the agenda the breadth of those shared interests in the aftermath of the Quad meeting.

QUESTION: Could you please give us update on the North Korea policy review? Do you envision a summit between President Biden and North Korea leader Kim, or should we expect a return to the Six-Party Talk, or a whole new format? Thank you.

MR PRICE: Well, when it comes to North Korea broadly, what I would say is that – and we have spoken about this before – is that we will adopt a new approach, an approach that fundamentally seeks to keep the American people and our allies safe. And that begins, as you mentioned, with a thorough review of the state of play with North Korea – the state of play of affairs in North Korea, I should say – in close coordination with our treaty allies – the ROK and Japan and other allies and partners – on ongoing pressure options and the future for potential diplomacy. We will focus in the first instance on reducing the threat to the United States and our allies, as well, of course, on improving the lives of citizens both in North Korea and in South Korea on the peninsula. All the while, we’ll remain committed to the objective of denuclearization.

When it comes to the issue of a summit – and President Biden and his team made this clear, I believe, even before President Biden was inaugurated into this current high office – that our approach will probably look very different. Our approach will be principled. Our approach will be clear-eyed. Our approach will be conducted in close coordination with our treaty allies, including the Japanese and the South Koreans. And I would expect that it will be led by individuals who are deeply steeped in the subject, people who are experienced with the challenges – the unique challenges – we face when it comes to North Korea.

So I’m not going to announce or, on the other hand, rule out any sort of meetings or any specific diplomatic efforts, but I think those will be the principles that guide our approach to North Korea going forward.

QUESTION: Can I – Ned, I’m sorry, just – this goes back to my questions about Levinson and Iran. What do you mean, a fundamentally new approach to North Korea? Just for me personally, right – so I started covering North Korea diplomacy in the Clinton administration. That would be Bill Clinton administration, right? Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump, Biden – every single one of them has said exactly the same thing as you just did: We’re going – we want to help the North Korean people; we want to – we want them to – to have a better life; we want to preserve our U.S. security and the security of our allies, North Korea, Japan. What exactly does – what exactly is different?

MR PRICE: Matt, I would say I think what I just outlined, it is at least self-evident to me and I imagine it’s self-evident to you that there are key differences from what we witnessed in the last administration. Now —

QUESTION: Ned, this goes back well before just the last administration, okay?

MR PRICE: The other point —

QUESTION: Are you saying that, like – are you taking about, oh, we’re going to have new people in there?

MR PRICE: The other point is that 2021 is not 2016. It’s not 2009. It’s not 1994. There are changed circumstances and conditions and changed leadership, of course, not only in this country but in North Korea, with our treaty allies. This is a challenge that has evolved over time. The circumstances that we face today are very different from what the last Democratic administration faced.

QUESTION: Are you suggesting that somehow previous administrations, the people that they had as point people on this, were not —

MR PRICE: Of course not.

QUESTION: — were not competent?

MR PRICE: Matt, no such words came out of my mouth.

QUESTION: I mean, one of them is still – one of them is your acting assistant secretary for East Asia and the Pacific right now.

MR PRICE: Of – Matt, I – that’s why I didn’t say that, so okay.

Yes, please.

QUESTION: Yes. I have a follow-up question on South Korea’s participation in Quad. And so South Korea – so, according to some South Korean officials, South Korea has never been officially invited to join the Quad, and it is sort of weird because South Korea is a treaty ally of the U.S. in the region and it also has deep ties with the United States, not only diplomatically but also militarily. And so do you think the United States will eventually invite South Korea to Quad, whether it will be a Quad plus or quintet? And more broadly, do you think South Korea should invest more for peace and security and for the entire Indo-Pacific region, rather than focusing only on the Korean Peninsula?

MR PRICE: Well, let me leave aside the question of the Quad for a moment. I don’t have any projections or any announcements, certainly. But of course, the South Koreans – the ROK – they are an important treaty ally, an indispensable treaty ally. We share any number of interests, including the challenge of North Korea that we have talked about, including a free and open Indo-Pacific. And we have underlined and underscored our commitment to the region.

We spoke yesterday, I believe it was, to an agreement in principle on the Special Measures Agreement when it comes to the ROK, something that had been negotiated and negotiated carefully and – at least in principle – successfully at this point. So I think you will see, just as you did in the first trilateral meeting between the acting assistant secretary and our South Korean and Japanese allies, that we will engage with the South Koreans bilaterally, we will engage with them multilaterally, we will engage with them as the treaty ally that they are and the important friend to the United States that they are.

QUESTION: Actually, I have one more question about the Special Measures Agreement, because, of course, the two countries announced the agreement in principle, and I think it is unprecedented because for the last two previous negotiations completed in 2019 and 2014 – so basically at that time two countries announced the conclusion of a negotiation and provided details about the proposed text. And so this is the first time I’ve ever seen that two countries just announced agreement in principle without giving any details. And I – but probably it is related to the like flexibility concept of the DOD, because current – recently, I’ve seen the commander of INDOPACOM Phil Davidson, he – last week he said something about the shift of historic focus from the Northeast Asia and Guam to the broader region. And also Dr. Colin Kahl, the nominee for under secretary for defense —

MR PRICE: Under secretary of defense for policy.

QUESTION: He just said that the United – the alliance between the United States and South Korea is not committed to the matching number of forces. So it just indicates the possible change or reduction of troops in South Korea and logical issue just related to the Special Measures Agreement, which will cover until 2025. So is that the reason why you just cannot provide the details?

MR PRICE: No. And in fact, I would urge you just to be patient. You don’t have to be patient for too much longer. As you mentioned, this is an agreement in principle. I certainly expect we’ll be in a position to speak to additional details of the Special Measures Agreement before too long.

When it comes to global force posture review, the administration did announce that Secretary Austin at the Pentagon would be undertaking a global force posture review. I’d refer you there for questions about specific deployments around the world. But when it comes to our alliance with South Korea, it’s rock solid. You’ll be hearing additional details on the special measure agreement consistent with what you have heard when it comes to previous negotiations in the past.

Joel.

QUESTION: Hi. Thanks. I have questions on China and Iran, so maybe I’ll stay in the region and decide if you – how you want to follow up.

MR PRICE: Sure. Sure.

QUESTION: Just on China and the Uyghurs, this was discussed a little bit yesterday, but Secretary Pompeo, before leaving office, in his genocide declaration said that, quote, “this genocide is ongoing.” And Secretary Blinken, then Secretary-designate at the Foreign Relations Committee replied – affirmed – “that would be my judgment as well” was his language in the hearing.

You’ve seen since used this language that genocide was committed. So I want to just – sort of a process question. What’s at stake in terms of U.S. policy in the difference between the statement “this genocide is ongoing” and “genocide was committed”? Are there —

MR PRICE: No, there’s —

QUESTION: Are there different authorities or obligations related to that?

MR PRICE: No, and I’m glad you – no, thank you for asking, because I think it’s an important point. There’s no difference. The question that was asked yesterday was about Secretary Blinken’s statement in his confirmation hearings. I was referring to that.

What I can say is that we have seen – we are unaware of – we are unaware that these atrocities have ceased. So of course, Secretary Blinken noted his judgment on January 19th of this year, I believe it was. He has since repeated that. And from the vantage point of the State Department, we’re unaware that the atrocities that we have spoken to have ceased. And we have spoken to crimes against humanity, the department has, has reached that judgment. And as you noted, both Secretary Pompeo and his successor Secretary Blinken have arrived at the judgment that genocide has taken place in Xinjiang. We absolutely stand by that. In fact, there have been additional reports even today detailing allegations that – of what has transpired in Xinjiang.

QUESTION: If – my – admittedly, not an expert on this. But if – my understanding is that the genocide piece of this question in particular depends on – legally on the reports about suppressed birth rates and forced sterilization. If you were to learn that maybe that specific component of the abuse underway in Xinjiang were no longer ongoing, would that change the U.S. – would that alter the set of tools available to the U.S. response?

MR PRICE: Well, it wouldn’t change Secretary Blinken’s determination that genocide has occurred in Xinjiang. That is what is important in this case. It is – it underscores what’s at stake. It underscores what’s at stake as we seek to galvanize the international community, our likeminded partners and allies around the world, to make clear to Beijing that there will be consequences for these atrocities, for this genocide, for these intolerable actions. And that is precisely the activity we’ve been engaged in as we consult closely with these partners and allies, and making clear to Beijing that its actions, including in Xinjiang, will have consequences.

QUESTION: Ned, I’m sorry. Can you – it seems to me there’s a very simple way to answer this question. If you think —

MR PRICE: Do you want to come up here?

QUESTION: Well, no. I want to ask – it seem – I mean, you seem to be kind of convoluting the whole thing. When you say that we are unaware that atrocities have ceased and then you keep – but then you keep saying that genocide has taken place in Xinjiang – so the question that I asked you yesterday about the tense I think is still relevant, because I don’t think you really answered your own question. Is – does the administration believe that a genocide is ongoing, is continuing in Xinjiang right now? You’re just – yes or no.

MR PRICE: Matt, Secretary Blinken has made clear that in his judgment, genocide occurred in Xinjiang. The department —

QUESTION: Yeah, “occurred.” I’m looking for something in the present tense, okay? Or not if you don’t think that it’s still ongoing. I mean, I don’t really have an —

MR PRICE: Matt, it – but I don’t think I’m the one complicating this. As I said just a moment ago, we are not aware that these atrocities have ceased.

QUESTION: Yeah, okay. So is genocide ongoing right now in Xinjiang?

MR PRICE: Matt, we have seen nothing that would change our assessment. I am not – look, it is – it is —

QUESTION: Can I just ask if – then on a different – on a different subject?

MR PRICE: But let’s – but let’s – before we come back to you, let’s make sure we have equity.

QUESTION: I just want to get a —

MR PRICE: Let’s make sure we have equity in the room. So —

QUESTION: All right. I just want to make sure we get a Myanmar question in before —

MR PRICE: Please, go ahead.

QUESTION: It doesn’t have to be me, could be anyone.

QUESTION: Me?

MR PRICE: Please.

QUESTION: Thank you. I have a follow-up question on Quad. As was mentioned earlier, it has been in the making for about a decade now. And what was the hurry for having this Quad first summit in the first – 50th day of the administration?

MR PRICE: Well, I think the fact that we are – that the White House will be taking part in this summit, the fact that Secretary Blinken met at the ministerial level with his Quad counterparts, it was important for us to underline in the early days of this administration our commitment to the Indo-Pacific. As we have said from this podium, it’s a region that holds tremendous promise for the United States, also tremendous challenge. We see ourselves as a Pacific nation. We see ourselves as engaged in this region. We want to deepen that engagement, and this is an important forum with important partners with whom we share a good deal of interest, so it was important for us to demonstrate that early on.

QUESTION: And secondly, what is Secretary’s vision of a Quad? Is it heading towards military kind of a dimension or economic or political? What kind of vision?

MR PRICE: No. As I mentioned before, the Quad is a grouping with important friends and allies of the United States, and it’s a grouping that is predicated on shared interests. There are any number of shared interests. Some of them involve maritime security, global health, climate. So I would hesitate to point to one animating challenge that the Quad is set to address today. We are engaging with the Quad to take on those collective shared interests that will be relevant in that setting.

QUESTION: Staying in the region, China had recently announced increase in its defense budget. How do you say, given the context that China has been bullying its neighborhood, approaching their territories?

MR PRICE: Well, when it comes to China’s defense budget, I understand Admiral Davidson was on the Hill today, in fact, testifying. So I’d refer you to his testimony and to DOD for details of that.

QUESTION: One quick one on China. What is this administration’s position on the issue of Dalai Lama’s reincarnation? The previous administration had taken a stand on it.

MR PRICE: Well, we believe that the Chinese Government should have no role in the succession process of the Dalai Lama. Beijing’s interference in the succession of the Panchen Lama more than 25 years ago, including by, quote/un-quote, “disappearing” the Panchen Lama as a child and attempting to replace him with a PRC Government-chosen successor, it remains an outrageous abuse of religious freedom.

QUESTION: I have one more on Afghanistan, if I can. Do you have any update on Ambassador Khalilzad’s travel or meetings in the region? Where is he now? Is he coming back?

MR PRICE: So today, he is in Doha meeting with negotiating parties to encourage progress in the Afghan peace negotiations. As we spoke about at some length yesterday, we’re working closely with Afghan parties to encourage progress on a political settlement and a comprehensive ceasefire. We’re also working diplomatically to mobilize regional and international support for peace.

And the broader point I would make, and to underscore what I said yesterday, is that Ambassador Khalilzad’s trip, it’s really a continuation of American diplomacy in the region. There is a broad and longstanding consensus that there is no military solution to this conflict, and that the political solution and the political solution that Ambassador Khalilzad is there to support, it must, of course, be Afghan-led and Afghan-owned. We know this will be a difficult road, but that’s precisely why we’re there, to support this Afghan-led, Afghan-owned process.

QUESTION: As Ambassador Khalilzad continues with his peace talks, is Secretary Blinken okay with Mullah – Taliban leaders like Mullah Baradar or other senior leaders being in the government as part of the peace deal?

MR PRICE: Well, I would point you precisely to what I just said. Any agreement, any outcome that is to be durable has to be Afghan-led and Afghan-owned. It’s not for us to dictate the deals. It’s not for us to preordain outcomes. It has to be an Afghan-led, Afghan-owned process.

Abbie.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: I just wanted to follow up on that and some questions asked yesterday. You keep saying “negotiating parties,” but has Ambassador Khalilzad met with any representatives of the Taliban in the course of his trip to the region?

MR PRICE: That’s why he’s in Doha, in part to meet with Taliban negotiators. I would expect we’ll have additional details of those engagements in the coming days.

QUESTION: Can I please follow up? Did Secretary Blinken recently have a phone call with – 54 minutes talk with Pakistan army chief, General Bajwa? And did the U.S. play any role in the recent Kashmir ceasefire that was jointly announced by Pakistan and India? The reason I ask is because it was aired in the major TV network in that region that such phone call took place, very specifically 54 minutes.

MR PRICE: Well, as we have said, we continue to support direct dialogue between India and Kashmir – between India and Pakistan, excuse me, on Kashmir and other issues of concern. We’ve read out the Secretary’s key calls with his counterparts in the region, so I don’t have any details to share beyond that.

Yes.

QUESTION: Quick question. I wanted to ask about the two IRGC officials blacklisted today for human rights violations. I believe this is a first for the administration, so what message are you trying to send with these designations, and should we expect further actions like this targeting Iran over violations unrelated to its nuclear program?

MR PRICE: Well, I think the message we’re trying to send is clear. The United States is committed to promoting accountability for those responsible for human rights violations and abuses. That includes in Iran, as well as any other country around the world. It’s precisely why today Secretary Blinken announced the public designation of these two Iranians under Section 7031(c) of the Department of State Foreign Operations and Related Programs Appropriation Act. And it’s an act that allows us to take these actions in response to gross violations of human rights.

The broader point we have made is showcased by today’s example. We can pursue what is in our interests, and an Iran that is permanently and verifiably barred from ever obtaining a nuclear weapon is in our interests, just as we uphold and act in accordance with our values. And it is consistent with our values to make clear that there will be consequences for the sort of gross violations of human rights that these individuals engaged in. We can absolutely do both, and that’s what we did today.

QUESTION: Back on Iran?

MR PRICE: Did you have a – sorry, quick —

QUESTION: Sorry, just a quick follow-up.

MR PRICE: Sure.

QUESTION: Can you clarify Jake Sullivan’s comments last month that the U.S. has begun to communicate with the Iranians on the hostage issue which you mentioned today? Is that communication being conducted via the Swiss embassy or a third party, and are you seeing any progress on that front?

MR PRICE: Well, I wouldn’t want to extrapolate. I think the underlying point is important, though. Number one, the cases of Americans who are unjustly detained, unjustly held in Iran are an absolute priority to us. As I mentioned previously in this briefing, we have – there is no higher priority than the safe return of Americans unjustly detained overseas, including in Iran.

Number two, we have made this known to the Iranians. There should be no doubt in their minds about the priority we attach to these cases. But of course, we’re not going to detail any specific channels.

QUESTION: Thanks. Just a look back at the – some of the news out of the IAEA last week. The – Director General Grossi told the Board of Governors on March 1st, I think it was, in his appearance there, he said that they had come across clear indications of nuclear material at a particular undeclared site. And he also mentioned that there were three other undeclared sites that they – that Iran was not providing information about. So bearing in mind that the implementation of the JCPOA, the implementation phase included this final assessment from the IAEA, do the Iranians need to provide full – declare those sites and answer all of the IAEA’s questions in order for the Iranians to be considered back in compliance as part of your compliance-for-compliance rubric to – or for us rehabilitating this deal?

MR PRICE: Well, fortunately, we have full faith and full confidence in the IAEA, in this director general, Director Grossi, in his efforts to ensure full implementation of IAEA verification in Iran. We can’t comment on a report, the details of which haven’t been released. But as we have said before, we know that Iran continues to take steps in excess of the JCPOA. Iran also recently has taken steps towards reducing cooperation with the IAEA, including under the Additional Protocol. This all undergirds our concern that Iran is moving in the wrong direction.

It’s important to us that we, once again, have those permanent and verifiable limits on Iran’s nuclear program, and verifiable in the sense that the IAEA is able to ensure that verification and monitoring regime is working and fully operational. So it’s precisely why we put this offer on the table, to meet with the Iranians in the context of the P5+1, to try and get back to that point of joint full compliance with the JCPOA.

QUESTION: I should be more clear. The statement from the director general that I’m referring to, that’s on his website. That’s not a report that hasn’t been released. And so that – that’s the predicate then for a process question. In order to be – not about the – what their competencies – and I’m sure there were – but in order to be considered in compliance on their side of the table, do they have to provide transparency about these four undeclared sites and answer those questions?

MR PRICE: We are fortunate to have a global nuclear watchdog in the form of the IAEA. Compliance is up to the IAEA to decide. Of course, we’ll be working closely with the IAEA, closely with our partners and allies, but the – what the JCPOA afforded us was this robust – the most robust verification and monitoring regime ever peacefully implemented. And so the IAEA will be the judge as to whether Iran is or is not in full compliance. And – yep.

QUESTION: Very briefly, just on Burma. Do you have anything – is there anything new to say about your position as – in terms of what the situation there is today as opposed to yesterday? And if there isn’t, I mean, if it’s just the same, then that’s fine.

And then secondly, you mentioned that the Secretary is going to be on the Hill tomorrow. He’s going to be asked by Republicans in particular about Nord Stream 2. Is he – and sanctions and why the administration has not imposed additional sanctions. Is he going to be prepared to answer those questions, and if so, what’s he going to say?

MR PRICE: Well, let me just say a word on Burma, Matt, because I think it’s obviously important. And we are repulsed by the military regime’s continued use of lethal force against the people of Burma. We strongly condemn the use of violence by Burmese security forces against the Burmese people, including peaceful protesters, journalists, and other elements of civil society. We urge – and we continue to urge – the Burmese military to exercise maximum restraint. The latest escalations that we’ve seen in recent days of violence, it’s just another indication of the military’s complete disregard for the people of Burma. It’s unacceptable. The United States will continue to hold to account those responsible. Many of our partners and allies around the world have enacted measures of their own.

We continue to work with partners and allies to speak with one voice and to act consistently with one another. Tens of thousands of people have taken to the streets to show the strength of their will and the power of their collective voice. And again, we call on security forces to respond peacefully with respect for human rights, including the freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.

QUESTION: And on Nord Stream 2 tomorrow? I mean, he’s going to get hammered on this, as you are probably aware, so is he going to able to give a further explanation beyond the report that was sent last month?

MR PRICE: Well, Matt, as you know, the report that we submitted last month is a regular status report to the Hill. The next status report is due to the Hill in May.

QUESTION: They want it – they want something – you’ve seen the letters, right, and public statements.

MR PRICE: So I would say —

QUESTION: They want it before May.

MR PRICE: I would say as a general matter, we don’t comment on communications with the Hill. What we can say is that the administration’s focus and our efforts remain the same, and that is preventing the completion of Nord Stream 2 pipeline. President Biden has, of course, called it a bad deal, a bad deal that divides Europe. The Secretary has had and I’m sure will have an opportunity to continue discussions with members on the Hill tomorrow. He appreciates the insight and communication from them on this and every other issue we confront.

Thank you very much, everyone.

(The briefing was concluded at 3:12 p.m.)

 

More from: Ned Price, Department Spokesperson

Hits: 2

News Network

  • Secretary Michael R. Pompeo With Mark Belling of the Mark Belling Show
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Michael R. Pompeo, [Read More…]
  • Technology Assessment Design Handbook
    In U.S GAO News
    The Technology Assessment (TA) Design Handbook identifies tools and approaches GAO staff and others can consider in the design of robust and rigorous technology assessments. The handbook underscores the importance of TA design (Chapter 1), outlines the process of designing TAs (Chapter 2), and describes approaches for mitigating select TA design and implementation challenges (Chapter 3). While the primary audience of this handbook is GAO staff, other organizations may also find portions of this handbook useful as they consider or conduct TAs. This is an update to the handbook published in December 2019, based on the experiences of GAO teams and a review of relevant literature and comments submitted by external experts and the public between December 2019 and December 2020. The handbook identifies three general design stages, as shown in the figure below. The handbook also highlights seven cross-cutting considerations for designing TAs: the iterative nature of TA design, congressional and policymakers' interests, resources, independence, engaging internal and external stakeholders, potential challenges, and communication strategy. In addition, the handbook provides a high-level process for developing policy options, as a tool for analyzing and articulating a range of possible actions a policymaker could consider that may enhance the benefits or mitigate the challenges of a technology. Steps in developing policy options include, as applicable: determining the potential policy objective; gathering evidence; identifying possible policy options and the relevant dimensions along which to analyze them; analyzing policy options; and presenting the results of the analysis. Summary of Key Stages of Technology Assessment Design We found that GAO TAs can use a variety of design approaches and methods. The handbook includes TA design and methodology examples, along with example objectives commonly found in GAO TAs, such as: describe a technology, assess opportunities and challenges of a technology, and assess policy implications or options. For example, some GAO TAs include an objective related to describing the status and feasibility of a technology, which GAO teams have addressed by using methodologies such as expert panels, interviews, literature and document reviews, site visits, and determining the technology readiness level. Also included in the handbook are examples of TA design and implementation challenges, along with possible mitigation strategies. We identified four general categories of challenges: (1) ensuring that the design and implementation of TAs result in useful products for Congress and other policymakers; (2) determining the policy objective and measuring potential effects; (3) researching and communicating complicated issues; and (4) engaging relevant stakeholders. For example, allowing sufficient time for writing, review, and any needed revisions is one potential mitigation strategy that could help teams write simply and clearly about technical subjects and ensure that the design and implementation of TAs result in useful products for Congress and other policymakers. In 2019, GAO created the Science, Technology Assessment, and Analytics team to expand its work on cutting-edge science and technology issues, and to provide oversight, insight, and foresight for science and technology. TAs can be used to strengthen decision-making, enhance knowledge and awareness, and provide early insights into the potential effects of technology. Systematically designing a TA can enhance its quality, credibility, and usefulness; ensure independence of the analysis; and ensure effective use of resources. Under Comptroller General Authority, we developed this handbook by generally following the format of the 2012 GAO methodology transfer paper, Designing Evaluations. Below is a summary of the approach we used to affirm and document TA design steps and considerations for this handbook. Reviewed select GAO documents, including Designing Evaluations (GAO-12-208G), published GAO TAs, select GAO products using policy analysis approaches to present policy options, and other GAO reports Reviewed select Office of Technology Assessment reports Reviewed select Congressional Research Service reports Reviewed select English-language literature regarding TAs and related to development and analysis of policy options Consulted with external experts and performed outreach, including holding an expert meeting to gather input on TA design, soliciting comments from external experts who contributed to GAO TAs published since 2015, and soliciting comments from the public Reviewed experiences of GAO teams that have successfully assessed and incorporated policy options into GAO products and TA design, including challenges to TA design and implementation and possible solutions GAO is not making any recommendations. For more information, contact Timothy M. Persons or Karen L. Howard at (202) 512-6888 or personst@gao.gov or howardk@gao.gov.
    [Read More…]
  • Saint Vincent and The Grenadines Travel Advisory
    In Travel
    Reconsider travel to [Read More…]
  • Justice Department Settles Race Discrimination Case Against a Florida City Securing $195,000 in Lost Wages and Damages
    In Crime News
    The Justice Department today announced that it has reached a settlement with the City of Venice, Florida, resolving its race discrimination lawsuit against the city. 
    [Read More…]
  • Justice Department Announces Closing of Investigation into 2014 Officer Involved Shooting in Cleveland, Ohio
    In Crime News
    The Justice Department announced today that the career prosecutors reviewing the independent federal investigation into the fatal shooting of Tamir Rice on Nov. 22, 2014, in Cleveland, Ohio, found insufficient evidence to support federal criminal charges against Cleveland Division of Police (CDP) Officers Timothy Loehmann and Frank Garmback.  Yesterday the department notified counsel for Mr. Rice’s family of the decision and today sent a letter to Mr. Rice’s family explaining the findings of the investigation and reasons for the decision.
    [Read More…]
  • Secretary Antony J. Blinken and UK Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab at a Joint Press Availability
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • Five Peruvians Extradited For Overseeing Call Centers That Threatened And Defrauded Spanish-Speaking U.S. Consumers
    In Crime News
    Five residents of Lima, Peru, were extradited to the United States and made their initial appearances in Miami federal court, where they stand accused of operating a large fraud and extortion scheme targeting Spanish-speaking consumers in the United States, the Department of Justice and U.S. Postal Inspection Service announced today.
    [Read More…]
  • At the Virtual Launch of the Inaugural U.S.-UAE Strategic Dialogue
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Michael R. Pompeo, [Read More…]
  • Texas Man Charged In $24 Million COVID-Relief Fraud
    In Crime News
    A Dallas-area man was charged in an indictment filed Thursday for his alleged participation in a scheme to file fraudulent loan applications seeking approximately $24.8 million in forgivable Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans guaranteed by the Small Business Administration (SBA) under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act.
    [Read More…]
  • Drug Pricing Program: HHS Uses Multiple Mechanisms to Help Ensure Compliance with 340B Requirements
    In U.S GAO News
    The 340B Drug Pricing Program (340B Program) requires drug manufacturers to sell outpatient drugs at a discount to covered entities—eligible hospitals and other entities participating in the program—in order for their drugs to be covered by Medicaid. Participation in the 340B Program has grown from nearly 9,700 covered entities in 2010 to 12,700 in 2020. The Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) administers the program and oversees covered entities' compliance with 340B Program requirements through annual audits, among other efforts. If audits identify noncompliance with program requirements, HRSA issues findings to covered entities and requires them to take corrective action to continue participating in the 340B Program (see table). Audit Findings Issued to Covered Entities by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) for Fiscal Years 2012-2019, as of September 2020 340B Program findings of noncompliance Number Eligibility of covered entities. Failure to maintain eligibility-related requirements (e.g., covered entities' oversight of their contract pharmacies). 561 Diversion of 340B drugs to ineligible patients. 340B drugs distributed to individuals who are not eligible patients of a covered entity (e.g., patients' health records are not maintained by the covered entity). 546 Duplicate discounts. Prescribed drugs that may have been subject to both the 340B price and a Medicaid rebate. 429 Total 1,536 Source: GAO analysis of information received from HRSA. | GAO-21-107 HRSA officials told GAO that, beginning in fall 2019, the agency started issuing findings only when audit information presents a clear and direct violation of the requirements outlined in the 340B Program statute. HRSA officials explained that guidance, which is used to interpret provisions of the 340B statute for the purposes of promoting program compliance among covered entities, does not provide the agency with appropriate enforcement capability. For example, HRSA officials reported that there were instances among fiscal year 2019 audits in which the agency did not issue findings for a failure to comply with guidance related to contract pharmacies in part because the 340B statute does not address contract pharmacy use and, therefore, there may not have been a clear statutory violation. In addition to audits, HRSA provides education to covered entities about 340B Program requirements and has implemented other efforts to identify noncompliance. For example, HRSA requires all covered entities to recertify their eligibility to participate in the 340B Program annually (e.g., self-attesting to compliance); and uses a self-disclosure process through which covered entities can disclose and correct self-identified instances of noncompliance. Covered entities can realize substantial savings through 340B Program price discounts, enabling them to stretch federal resources to reach more eligible patients and provide more comprehensive services. GAO was asked to provide information on HRSA's efforts to oversee covered entities' compliance with 340B Program requirements. This report describes (1) the audit findings that HRSA issued to address covered entity noncompliance with 340B Program requirements; and (2) other efforts HRSA uses to help ensure that covered entities comply with 340B Program requirements. GAO reviewed documentation, including relevant federal laws and regulations and HRSA's policies, procedures, and guidance, related to 340B Program oversight. GAO also reviewed HRSA data on the number and type of audit findings made from audits finalized during fiscal years 2012 through 2019 as of September 2020—the latest data available at the time of the audit. GAO also interviewed officials from HRSA, agency contractors, and 340B Program stakeholders. GAO provided a draft of this report to HHS for review. The agency provided written and technical comments on the draft, both of which were incorporated as appropriate. For more information, contact Debra A. Draper at (202) 512-7114 or draperd@gao.gov.
    [Read More…]
  • Federal Prison Industries: Actions Needed to Evaluate Program Effectiveness
    In U.S GAO News
    The First Step Act of 2018 made new, nonfederal markets and potential buyers available to Federal Prison Industries (FPI), a government corporation organized within the Bureau of Prisons (BOP); however, various challenges could limit FPI's ability to sell to customers in these markets. FPI makes apparel, personal protective equipment, and furniture, among other products. FPI may now sell to the District of Columbia government, including, for example, to its firefighters; nonfederal, governmental entities for use in correctional settings or in response to a disaster or emergency, such as local jails and first responders; and nonprofit organizations, such as universities. However, a lack of information makes it difficult to estimate the dollar value of these new markets. The following figure depicts the new markets made available to FPI. New Markets for Federal Prison Industries' Products under the First Step Act Data on the size of most of the new markets are very limited. For example, GAO found no existing national information to help estimate the size and scope of relevant spending by nonfederal entities on disaster relief and emergencies. Also, challenges related to state and local government operations, for example, could limit FPI's ability to sell products in the new markets made available under the First Step Act. Specifically, state-level prison industries and in-state vendors often have preferential access to many of the procurement markets now available to FPI. FPI and the private sector share some similar operating requirements, such as those related to keeping workers safe. They also face different requirements and business practices, such as those related to the legal framework, security, and costs. Available data indicate that buyers are generally satisfied with the delivery and quality of FPI products. GAO analyzed 231 performance reports on FPI in the federal government's database for contractor performance, as of August 2019. Customers rated FPI's performance in the delivery schedule and quality categories as exceptional, very good, or satisfactory on about 80 and 90 percent, respectively, of performance reports. There were too few ratings on cost to analyze them. FPI aims to assist inmates in their reentry into society by providing marketable job skills, but BOP has not reviewed FPI's impact on recidivism in over 2 decades. BOP relies on outdated studies that assessed the impact of FPI on inmates released in the 1980s. In January 2020, BOP cited a 1992 study as the basis for the Attorney General's designation of FPI as an Evidence-Based Recidivism Reduction Program under the First Step Act 0f 2018 . BOP made a plan to evaluate FPI but the plan's timeline passed and the BOP has not set a new one. Without an updated plan for evaluating FPI, BOP continues to rely on outdated evaluations of FPI and has limited information about FPI's effectiveness amidst changes to its inmate population Additionally, while BOP has reported some descriptive statistics on recidivism rates, it has not developed a goal. Without a timeline for evaluation and a goal for reducing recidivism, BOP's ability to assess the effectiveness of FPI will be limited. FPI is a government owned corporation that, as a national reentry program, manages, trains, and rehabilitates inmates through employment. FPI sells inmate-produced goods and services primarily to federal government agencies. The First Step Act of 2018 authorized FPI to sell its products to new markets. A provision in the First Step Act of 2018 required GAO to review various aspects of FPI. This report addresses (1) the potential size and scope of the additional markets made available to FPI under the First Step Act; (2) the similarities and differences in selected requirements and business practices of FPI and private sector sellers of products and services; (3) customers' satisfaction with FPI regarding quality, price, and timely delivery of its products and services; and (4) the extent to which BOP has evaluated the effectiveness of FPI and other vocational programs in reducing recidivism and the results. GAO examined recidivism studies and data, analyzed performance data, conducted fieldwork at four FPI facilities selected based on security level and type of products produced, met with industry associations, and interviewed agency officials and employed inmates. GAO is making two recommendations: (1) BOP should update its evaluation plan for FPI by setting a new timeline for evaluation and (2) BOP should set a goal to reduce recidivism. DOJ concurred with the recommendations. For more information, contact Gretta L. Goodwin at (202) 512-8777 or goodwing@gao.gov or William T. Woods at (202) 512-4841 or woodsw@gao.gov.
    [Read More…]
  • Federal Grand Jury Returns a Superseding Indictment Adding New Charges in the Conspiracy to Kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer
    In Crime News
    A federal grand jury in Michigan returned a superseding indictment that adds new charges of conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction against three defendants and adds federal firearms violations against two defendants in the case alleging a conspiracy to kidnap the governor of Michigan, Gretchen Whitmer.
    [Read More…]
  • Ecuador Travel Advisory
    In Travel
    Reconsider travel to [Read More…]
  • Japanese CEO and Employees Charged in Scheme to Defraud U.S. Navy and Dump Wastewater in Ocean
    In Crime News
    Three Japanese nationals, including the president and chief executive officer of Yokohama, Japan-based Kanto Kosan Co. Ltd. (Kanto Kosan) were indicted by a federal grand jury Tuesday in connection with an alleged long-running scheme to defraud the U.S. Navy and pollute Japanese waters by dumping contaminated water removed from U.S. Navy ships into the ocean.
    [Read More…]
  • Former CEO Charged in Schemes to Defraud U.S. Government Related to the Conflict in Afghanistan
    In Crime News
    The former chief executive officer of a U.S. government contractor was charged today in connection with schemes to defraud the U.S. Department of Defense regarding contracts related to Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan.
    [Read More…]
  • New York City Man Charged with Nearly $4 Million COVID-19 Relief Fraud Scheme and Money Laundering
    In Crime News
    A criminal complaint was filed in the District of New Jersey today charging a dual-resident of New York and Florida with fraudulently obtaining and laundering nearly $4 million in funds from the COVID-19 relief Paycheck Protection Program (PPP).
    [Read More…]
  • Owner of Seafood Processor Sentenced to Prison for Tax Evasion
    In Crime News
    A Rhode Island man was sentenced to three years in prison today for tax evasion, announced Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Richard E. Zuckerman of the Justice Department’s Tax Division, U.S. Attorney Aaron L. Weisman for the District of Rhode Island, and Special Agent in Charge Kristina O’Connell of IRS Criminal Investigation.
    [Read More…]
  • Guyana Travel Advisory
    In Travel
    Do not travel to Guyana [Read More…]
  • Statement of Acting Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen on the Death of U.S. Capitol Police Officer Brian D. Sicknick
    In Crime News
    Acting Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen issued the following statement:
    [Read More…]
  • Military Health Care: Defense Health Agency Processes for Responding to Provider Quality and Safety Concerns
    In U.S GAO News
    The Defense Health Agency (DHA) within the Department of Defense (DOD) has established processes for preventing and responding to quality and safety concerns about individual providers delivering health care in military treatment facilities (MTF). Specifically, DHA's August 2019 policy standardized processes for managing health care quality in the Military Health System, which superseded the policies of each of the military services (Air Force, Army, and Navy). These processes include 1) initial and ongoing monitoring of providers; 2) taking action to deny, limit, or remove individual providers' ability to practice, known as adverse privileging action; and 3) reviewing the care delivered by individual providers involved in certain patient safety events, known as potentially compensable event reviews. For example, DHA policy establishes requirements for taking adverse privileging actions against a provider that either limit the care a provider is allowed to deliver at a facility or prevent the provider from delivering care altogether, when warranted. In particular, DHA policy specifies that the provider's privileges should be placed in summary suspension—a temporary removal of all or a portion of the provider's privileges—while a peer conducts an investigation of the concerns. DHA policy also specifies that summary suspensions lasting greater than 30 days, as well as any final adverse privileging actions, must be reported to the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB). The NPDB is an electronic repository that collects and releases information on certain adverse actions and medical malpractice payments related to providers. According to DOD officials, 27 DOD providers were reported to the NPDB for a summary suspension lasting greater than 30 days between February 1, 2020—when this requirement was implemented—and September 30, 2020. DHA supports the delivery of health care to servicemembers and their families throughout the Military Health System. As in all health care delivery settings, concerns may arise about the quality and safety of care delivered by individual health care providers at MTFs. For example, patient safety events—incidents that could have resulted or did result in harm to a patient—may occur during the course of providing health care services and may raise questions about the quality and safety of care delivered. DHA is responsible for ensuring the quality and safety of health care delivered by military and civilian health care providers, including contractors, through its clinical quality management program. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 included a provision for GAO to review aspects of DOD's clinical quality management program, including its processes for reviewing the quality and safety of providers' care. This report describes DHA's processes for preventing and responding to quality and safety concerns about individual health care providers at MTFs. In future work, GAO will examine the implementation of these processes at MTFs. GAO reviewed documentation that contains policy and guidance for these processes, including DHA's August 2019 procedure manual for managing clinical quality management in the Military Health System. GAO also interviewed officials from DHA and each of the military services. We provided a draft of this report to DOD for review and comment. DOD concurred with our report and provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. For more information, contact Sharon M. Silas at(202)512-7114 or Silass@gao.gov.
    [Read More…]
  • Consumer Privacy: Better Disclosures Needed on Information Sharing by Banks and Credit Unions
    In U.S GAO News
    Banks and credit unions collect, use, and share consumers' personal information—such as income level and credit card transactions—to conduct everyday business and market products and services. They share this information with a variety of third parties, such as service providers and retailers. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) requires financial institutions to provide consumers with a privacy notice describing their information-sharing practices. Many banks and credit unions elect to use a model form—issued by regulators in 2009—which provides a safe harbor for complying with the law (see figure). GAO found the form gives a limited view of what information is collected and with whom it is shared. Consumer and privacy groups GAO interviewed cited similar limitations. The model form was issued over 10 years ago. The proliferation of data-sharing since then suggests a reassessment of the form is warranted. Federal guidance states that notices about information collection and usage are central to providing privacy protections and transparency. Since Congress transferred authority to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) for implementing GLBA privacy provisions, the agency has not reassessed if the form meets consumer expectations for disclosures of information-sharing. CFPB officials said they had not considered a reevaluation because they had not heard concerns from industry or consumer groups about privacy notices. Improvements to the model form could help ensure that consumers are better informed about all the ways banks and credit unions collect and share personal information. Excerpts of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act Model Privacy Form Showing Reasons Institutions Share Personal Information Federal regulators examine institutions for compliance with GLBA privacy requirements, but did not do so routinely in 2014–2018 because they found most institutions did not have an elevated privacy risk. Before examinations, regulators assess noncompliance risks in areas such as relationships with third parties and sharing practices to help determine if compliance with privacy requirements needs to be examined. The violations of privacy provisions that the examinations identified were mostly minor, such as technical errors, and regulators reported relatively few consumer complaints. Banks and credit unions maintain a large amount of personal information about consumers. Federal law requires that they have processes to protect this information, including data shared with certain third parties. GAO was asked to review how banks and credit unions collect, use, and share such information and federal oversight of these activities. This report examines, among other things, (1) what personal information banks and credit unions collect, and how they use and share the information; (2) the extent to which they make consumers aware of the personal information they collect and share; and (3) how regulatory agencies oversee such collection, use, and sharing. GAO reviewed privacy notices from a nongeneralizable sample of 60 banks and credit unions with a mix of institutions with asset sizes above and below $10 billion. GAO also reviewed federal privacy laws and regulations, regulators' examinations in 2014–2018 (the last 5 years available), procedures for assessing compliance with federal privacy requirements, and data on violations. GAO interviewed officials from banks, industry and consumer groups, academia, and federal regulators. GAO recommends that CFPB update the model privacy form and consider including more information about third-party sharing. CFPB did not agree or disagree with the recommendation but said they would consider it, noting that it would require a joint rulemaking with other agencies. For more information, contact Alicia Puente Cackley at (202) 512-8678 or CackleyA@gao.gov or Nick Marinos at (202) 512-9342 or MarinosN@gao.gov.
    [Read More…]
  • Former Indiana State Senator and Gaming Executive Indicted for Violations of Federal Campaign Finance Laws
    In Crime News
    A federal grand jury sitting in the Southern District of Indiana returned an indictment charging a former Indiana state senator and a gaming executive with violations of federal campaign finance laws, false statements, and falsification of Federal Election Campaign (FEC) records in connection with a series of illegal corporate contributions and conduit contributions they made to fund the congressional campaign of the former state politician.
    [Read More…]
  • Ohio Man Pleads Guilty to Paying Co-Conspirator to Illegally Dump Drums of Hazardous Waste
    In Crime News
    An Ohio man pleaded guilty in the Southern District of Ohio before U.S. District Judge Edmund A. Sargus Jr. to conspiring to illegally transport and dispose of hazardous waste at several area apartment complexes.
    [Read More…]
  • Southwest Border Security: Actions Are Needed to Address the Cost and Readiness Implications of Continued DOD Support to U.S. Customs and Border Protection
    In U.S GAO News
    Since April 2018, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has submitted 33 requests for assistance (RFA) to the Department of Defense (DOD) for support to U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (CBP) mission at the southwest border. DOD established six criteria for evaluating RFAs, which it documents in decision packages. When reviewing four selected decision packages, GAO found that DOD fully evaluated four of these six criteria. GAO found that DOD developed rough cost estimates that were not reliable. In addition, DOD did not fully evaluate the effect on military readiness of providing support at the time the Secretary of Defense considered DHS's requests. Without reliable cost estimates and a timely readiness analysis, DOD is limited in its ability to evaluate the effect of supporting DHS on its budget and readiness rebuilding efforts. DOD's Detection and Monitoring Support Mission DOD has not provided Congress with timely information on the full costs it has incurred since 2018 in supporting DHS. Specifically, during this review, DOD did not submit its statutory report to Congress for fiscal year 2019, which was due March 31, 2020. Additionally, GAO found that DOD's internal tracking of obligations excludes potentially significant costs of border support activities, such as installation support costs and the cost of benefits retroactively provided to members of the National Guard. By providing more timely and complete information to Congress, DOD would enhance Congress's ability to conduct oversight and make funding decisions for DOD and DHS. DOD and DHS employed several key interagency collaboration practices for DOD's support on the southwest border, but they have not agreed on a common outcome for DOD's support in fiscal year 2021 and beyond. DHS anticipates needing at least the current amount of DOD support for the next 3 to 5 years, possibly more, and officials stated that the desired outcome is for DOD to provide the capabilities requested in the RFAs. This differs from DOD's desired outcome, which is to provide temporary assistance until DHS can independently execute its border security mission. Defining and articulating a common outcome for DOD's support could enable DOD to more effectively plan for the resources it will need to support DHS and enable DHS to plan to manage its border security mission more effectively with its own assets. This is a public version of a sensitive report that GAO issued in February 2021. Information on force protection that DOD deemed sensitive has been omitted. For decades, the U.S. southwest border has been vulnerable to cross-border illegal activity such as illegal entries, smuggling of drugs and contraband, and terrorist activities. Since 2002, DOD has supported DHS's mission to secure the nation's borders and episodically supported its efforts to manage surges in foreign nationals without valid travel documents who are seeking entry—most recently since April 2018, when the President directed the Secretary of Defense to support DHS in securing the southwest border. GAO was asked to examine this support. This report assesses the extent to which (1) DOD has evaluated DHS's RFAs, (2) DOD has reported to Congress the full costs of its support, and (3) DOD and DHS have collaborated on border security operations. GAO reviewed RFAs that DHS submitted to DOD between April 2018 and March 2020 and a non-generalizable sample of decision packages that DOD prepared in response, and conducted four site visits to border locations where military personnel were stationed. GAO makes seven recommendations, five to DOD to improve its analysis and reporting of cost and unit-level readiness impacts of supporting southwest border operations and one each to DOD and DHS to define a common outcome for DOD's future support. DOD agreed with one recommendation and disagreed with five. GAO continues to believe the recommendations are warranted as discussed in the report. DHS agreed with the recommendation to it. For more information, contact Elizabeth A. Field at (202) 512-2775 or fielde1@gao.gov.
    [Read More…]
  • Public Designation of Oligarch and Former Ukrainian Public Official Ihor Kolomoyskyy Due to Involvement in Significant Corruption
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • On the UN Human Rights Council’s Embrace of Authoritarian Regimes
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Michael R. Pompeo, [Read More…]
  • Secretary Antony J. Blinken with Izumi Oguri of Nippon TV
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • Condolences on the Passing of Prime Minister Ambrose Dlamini of the Kingdom of Eswatini 
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Michael R. Pompeo, [Read More…]
  • Aircraft Carriers: Homeport Changes Are Primarily Determined by Maintenance Requirements
    In U.S GAO News
    What GAO Found The Navy has a process for proposing and implementing homeport changes that considers a range of factors. The first key step in this process involves the Navy developing and updating an annual plan, known as the Strategic Laydown and Dispersal Plan, that guides the Navy's positioning of operating forces worldwide. Based on the plan, fleet commanders then identify requirements for any changes to homeports and submit requests to schedule a homeport change. Throughout the process, Navy leadership and a working group of stakeholders from across the Navy provide input and analysis. Among other things , the working group develops and assesses proposed changes among the possible aircraft carrier homeports based on their expertise and evaluates various homeport installation factors, such as maintenance dry docks (see figure) or ship power and maintenance facilities. The Navy also considers local factors including crew support and quality of life, such as schools and morale, and possible impacts to the natural and physical environment. The Navy has strengthened its process by implementing prior GAO recommendations, and has other planned actions underway to further improve and update its guidance. Recent Navy Aircraft Carrier Homeport Locations and Dry Dock at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard The Navy made 15 aircraft carrier homeport changes in fiscal years 2011 through 2020 among the five available homeports. The driving factor for all 15 changes was maintenance. For example, 10 of the 15 changes involved ships moving to or returning from shipyards in Bremerton or Norfolk for planned dry-dock maintenance or midlife refueling. In 2015 and 2019, the Navy decided to homeport aircraft carriers in Bremerton and San Diego because Everett lacked nuclear maintenance facilities, which were available at the Navy's other aircraft carrier homeport locations. Previously, carriers homeported in Everett received regularly scheduled maintenance at the shipyard in Bremerton but did not conduct an official homeport change. The Navy reported that during these maintenance periods that lasted 6 months or more, the crew commuted 3 to 4 hours daily, which negatively affected maintenance and crew morale. As a result, the Navy decided not to return an aircraft carrier to Everett. According to Navy officials, factors in addition to maintenance needs also informed the changes, including a long-held plan to homeport three aircraft carriers in San Diego. Why GAO Did This Study The Navy relies on 11 aircraft carriers homeported on the East and West Coasts and in Japan to support U.S. defense strategic objectives and operations. These nuclear-powered ships require complex infrastructure, technology, and maintenance, some of which may not be available near their homeport. Changing an aircraft carrier's homeport means moving the ship's approximately 3,200 sailors, a fluctuation of 5,000 or more people depending on the number of family members involved. In House Report 116-120, accompanying a bill for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, the House Armed Services Committee noted that the Navy reversed previous plans to homeport an aircraft carrier at Naval Station Everett, Washington. The House Report also included a provision for GAO to review the Navy's process to assign aircraft carriers' homeports. This report examines, for Navy aircraft carriers, (1) the extent to which the Navy has a process for making homeport changes, and considers local installation and other factors in the homeporting process, and (2) homeport changes from fiscal years 2011 through 2020 and the reasons for them. GAO analyzed Navy instructions and related policies, laws, and regulations; homeport plans and maintenance schedules; and fiscal years 2011–2020 documentation of homeport changes. GAO also interviewed Navy officials, including from relevant commands and homeports. For more information, contact Diana Maurer at (202) 512-9627 or MaurerD@gao.gov.
    [Read More…]
  • Tiny Asteroid Buzzes by Earth – the Closest Flyby on Record
    In Space
    An SUV-size space rock [Read More…]
  • Justice Department And Indian Authorities Announce Enforcement Actions Against Technical-Support Fraud Scheme Targeting Seniors
    In Crime News
    A federal court has ordered an individual and 5 companies to stop engaging in a technical-support fraud scheme that is alleged to have defrauded hundreds of elderly and vulnerable U.S. victims, the Department of Justice announced today. 
    [Read More…]
  •  Acting UN Special Representative of the Secretary-General Stephanie Turco Williams 
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • [Protest of GSA Contract Award for Office Space]
    In U.S GAO News
    A firm protested the General Services Administration (GSA) decision to increase its required office space under an existing contract, contending that since GSA failed to afford it an opportunity to bid on the additional space, GSA should: (1) resolicit its requirements; and (2) allow it an opportunity to bid on the current requirements. GAO held that it would not consider the protest, since there was a pending appeal concerning the initial award of the lease, which could ultimately render any GAO decision academic. Accordingly, the protest was dismissed.
    [Read More…]
  • Former Union Official Sentenced for Violent Extortion
    In Crime News
    An Indiana man and former business agent of Iron Workers Local 395 was sentenced today to more than four years in prison for conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act extortion.
    [Read More…]
  • On the Death of Colombian Defense Minister Trujillo
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • Remarks by Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim on the Future of ASCAP and BMI Consent Decrees
    In Crime News
    Good afternoon. Thank you very much to Vanderbilt Law School and in particular to the Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law for hosting this event. I love Vanderbilt and I love Nashville, and I’m sorry not to be there in person with you today. Someday when COVID-19 is a memory and social distancing is something you do only with people you don’t like, I look forward to returning to Nashville and reconnecting with many of my old friends there. More importantly, I look forward to returning to some of my favorite honky-tonks and showing off my famous dance moves. I’ve been practicing at home in my free time, to make sure I’m ready.
    [Read More…]
  • Sexual Harassment: NNSA Could Improve Prevention and Response Efforts in Its Nuclear Security Forces
    In U.S GAO News
    What GAO Found The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)—within the Department of Energy (DOE)—and its contractors may have limited information on the prevalence of sexual harassment within the nuclear security forces. NNSA's nuclear security forces include federal agents in NNSA's Office of Secure Transportation (OST), which is responsible for transporting nuclear materials, and contracted guard forces at four of its sites. Federal officials at NNSA and contractor representatives at four NNSA sites that process weapons-usable nuclear material reported very few cases of sexual harassment from fiscal years 2015 through 2020. Research shows that the least common response to harassment is to report it or file a complaint. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)—which enforces federal laws prohibiting harassment—suggests organizations survey employees to assess the extent to which harassment is a problem in their organization. NNSA does not survey employees on this topic, nor does NNSA call for such surveys in its contracts for security forces. Because NNSA relies solely on reported incidents, it may not have full knowledge into the nature or extent of sexual harassment in OST or by its contractors at its sites. Surveying employees would better position them to identify actions to effectively prevent and respond to harassment. To varying degrees, NNSA and its contractors follow EEOC's recommended practices to prevent and respond to sexual harassment in their nuclear security forces. For example, with respect to recommended training practices, NNSA and its contractors provide antiharassment training to all employees, but only one force offers workplace-specific training that addresses sexual harassment risk factors relevant to the security forces. Because NNSA has not formally reviewed EEOC's practices and considered which to adopt for its nuclear security forces, or made similar considerations for its security force contractors, the agency may be missing opportunities to prevent and respond to sexual harassment. Selected EEOC Practices for Effective Training to Prevent and Respond to Sexual Harassment and Number of NNSA's Nuclear Security Forces That Reflect Those Practices in Training EEOC Promising Practice Number of forces that reflect the practice Provided to employees at every level and location of the organization 5 of 5 Tailored to the specific workplace and workforce 1 of 5 Explains the complaint process, as well as any voluntary alternative dispute resolution processes 2 of 5 Explains the range of possible consequences for engaging in prohibited conduct 1 of 5 Source: GAO comparison of National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and protective force contractor information with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) November 2017 Promising Practices for Preventing Harassment . | GAO-21-307 EEOC has found that NNSA and DOE do not meet all EEOC requirements relevant to preventing and responding to sexual harassment. For example, NNSA does not have an antiharassment program or a compliant antiharassment policy. According to EEOC officials, NNSA and DOE efforts to date have improved some aspects of their EEO programs, but because the agencies have not fully implemented their plans to address deficiencies identified by EEOC, DOE and NNSA may be missing opportunities to establish and maintain effective programs that include protection from and response to sexual harassment. Why GAO Did This Study Federal law prohibits sexual harassment in the workplace. Besides being harmful to those harassed, sexual harassment can decrease organizational performance and increase turnover. In January 2019, public allegations of sexual harassment in NNSA's nuclear security forces drew attention to this issue. House Report 116-120 provided that GAO review sexual harassment in NNSA's nuclear security force. This report examines (1) what NNSA and its contractors know about the prevalence of sexual harassment in their nuclear security forces, (2) the extent to which NNSA and its contractors implement EEOC recommendations to prevent and respond to sexual harassment, and (3) the extent to which EEOC found that NNSA and DOE meet its requirements relevant to sexual harassment. GAO reviewed information on sexual harassment and programs to address such harassment at DOE and NNSA from fiscal years 2015 through 2020. GAO analyzed documents and data, conducted a literature review, interviewed NNSA officials, and compared NNSA and contractor actions with EEOC-recommended practices for preventing harassment.
    [Read More…]
  • The Houthis Must Cease the Assault on Marib
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Ned Price, Department [Read More…]
  • Former Venezuelan National Treasurer and Her Spouse Charged in Connection with International Bribery and Money Laundering Scheme
    In Crime News
    A former Venezuelan National Treasurer and her spouse were charged in a superseding indictment filed Tuesday for their alleged participation in a previously indicted billion-dollar currency exchange and money laundering scheme. An alleged co-conspirator was previously charged in the original indictment.
    [Read More…]
  • Imposing Sanctions on Iranian Entities for Activities Related to Conventional Arms Proliferation
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Michael R. Pompeo, [Read More…]
  • Countering Violent Extremism: DHS Needs to Improve Grants Management and Data Collection
    In U.S GAO News
    While the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) followed the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance for announcing the 2016 Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Grant Program and reviewing applications, DHS did not document the basis for its final award decisions. In June 2017, DHS awarded a total of $10 million in CVE grants to 26 grantees for a 2-year performance period (2017 to 2019). Consistent with OMB guidance, DHS included program priorities and eligibility requirements in its grant announcement and described the process for reviewing and selecting grant applications for award. However, after DHS announced its selection of 31 applications for awards, it ran a new process resulting in revised selections, which was based on additional selection criteria not expressly listed in the grant announcement. While DHS officials explained to GAO how these additional criteria aligned with the grant announcement, these explanations do not appear in DHS's award documentation. Without such documentation, DHS cannot clearly demonstrate that its award decisions were based on the process described in the grant announcement. Figure: Location and Number of Deaths Associated with Domestic Extremist Attacks, 2010-2019 DHS did not obtain the necessary data from grantees to evaluate the overall CVE grant program. DHS required grant organizations to develop, collect, and submit their own output and outcome-related information to help enable the department to evaluate individual grantees and the overall grant program. However, a DHS review of four grant projects concluded that the grantees did not collect the type of performance information DHS needed to determine the grants' effectiveness, such as data at various time intervals to assess change in attitudinal behavior. Taking steps to ensure grantees collect and submit appropriate performance data would enable DHS to evaluate the extent that individual grant projects and the overall grant program are achieving results. Such information would help DHS manage the program and make adjustments as warranted. From 2010 through 2019, data collected through the Extremist Crime Database show that 205 deaths resulted from 59 violent extremist attacks in the United States. DHS received funding in 2016 to establish a new CVE Grant Program to support efforts by state and local governments and nongovernmental organizations to reduce risk factors associated with violent extremism. GAO was asked to review management of the CVE Grant Program. This report examines, among other things, the extent to which DHS (1) announced, reviewed, and awarded CVE grants in accordance with OMB guidance and (2) evaluated the performance of CVE grantees and the overall program. GAO reviewed documentation of DHS's actions in announcing, reviewing and awarding CVE grants; and documentation on steps taken to assess the performance of grantees and the overall program; as compared to requirements in key documents, including the CVE grant announcement, elements of internal control, and a DHS 2017 report to Congress. GAO recommends that DHS, for future CVE-related grant programs: (1) develop policy to document the rationale for award decisions, and (2) take steps to ensure that grantees collect and submit data on project performance that enable evaluation of individual grants and the overall grant program toward intended outcomes. DHS concurred with both recommendations. For more information, contact Triana McNeil at (202) 512-8777 or mcneilt@gao.gov.
    [Read More…]
  • Congratulatory Message on the 30th Anniversary of the Visegrád Group (V4)
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Ned Price, Department [Read More…]
  • CEO Sentenced to Prison in $150 Million Health Care Fraud, Opioid Distribution, and Money Laundering Scheme
    In Crime News
    The chief executive officer of a Michigan and Ohio-based group of pain clinics and other medical providers was sentenced today to 15 years in prison for developing and approving a corporate policy to administer unnecessary back injections to patients in exchange for prescriptions of over 6.6 million doses of medically unnecessary opioids.
    [Read More…]
  • Four Additional Members of Los Angeles-Based Fraud Ring Indicted for Exploiting COVID-Relief Programs
    In Crime News
    A federal grand jury in Los Angeles returned a superseding indictment, which was unsealed Thursday, charging four additional individuals for their alleged participation in a scheme to submit over 150 fraudulent loan applications seeking over $21.9 million in COVID-19 relief funds guaranteed by the Small Business Administration (SBA) under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act.
    [Read More…]
  • Cameroonian Operator Charged in Fraudulent Online “Puppy Scam” that Exploited the COVID-19 Pandemic
    In Crime News
    A criminal complaint unsealed Friday in federal court in Pittsburgh charges Desmond Fodje Bobga for his alleged involvement in a puppy fraud scheme perpetrated against American consumers.  Fodje Bobga, 27, is a citizen of Cameroon who is in Romania on a visa to attend a university there. 
    [Read More…]
  • North Carolina Restaurant Owner and Son Charged with COVID-Relief Fraud
    In Crime News
    Two individuals were charged in an indictment that was unsealed today for their alleged participation in a scheme to obtain, through multiple fraudulent loan applications, more than $1.7 million in COVID-19 relief guaranteed by the Small Business Administration through the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act.
    [Read More…]
  • Former NGO Procurement Official Pleads Guilty to Bribery
    In Crime News
    A former non-governmental organization (NGO) procurement official pleaded guilty today to paying bribes to NGO procurement officers in exchange for sensitive procurement information related to NGO contracts funded in part by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). These contracts were for the procurement of food and supplies that would ultimately be provided to those affected by various humanitarian crises, including refugees displaced by the conflict in Syria.
    [Read More…]
  • The 10th Anniversary of the Great East Japan Earthquake
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • United States Places Global Magnitsky Sanctions on the Cuban Ministry of Interior and Its Minister
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Michael R. Pompeo, [Read More…]
  • Secretary Antony J. Blinken And Canadian Foreign Minister Marc Garneau Before Their Meeting
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • Federal Justice Statistics, 2017-2018
    In Justice News
    (Publication)
    This report is the 32nd in an annual series based on data from BJS's Federal Justice Statistics Program, which began in 1979.
    4/6/2021, NCJ 254598, Mark Motivans [Read More…]
  • Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Brightbill Delivers Remarks at the 2020 Annual Pennsylvania Chamber Environmental Virtual Conference
    In Crime News
    I am happy to be back home in Pennsylvania — in a sense — and have the opportunity to speak with the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry. Since this organization’s founding in 1916, this Chamber has advocated for job creation and greater prosperity for all Pennsylvanians. It represents almost 50 percent of Pennsylvania’s private workforce with a membership of 10,000 businesses ranging from sole proprietors to Fortune 100 companies.
    [Read More…]
  • Justice Department Reaches Proposed Consent Decree to Resolve Hampton Roads Regional Jail Investigation
    In Crime News
    Today, the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia filed a complaint and a proposed consent decree with the Hampton Roads Regional Jail Authority.
    [Read More…]
  • Remarks by Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen on the 19th Anniversary of the September 11th Terrorist Attacks
    In Crime News
    Thank you, Lee.  The [Read More…]
  • Barbados Travel Advisory
    In Travel
    Reconsider travel [Read More…]
  • Judges Share 50 Years as Colleagues and Friends
    In U.S Courts
    On the same afternoon in October 1970, the Senate confirmed four new federal judges from Florida. This month, three are celebrating a half-century on the bench, as well as a strong, continuing friendship.
    [Read More…]
  • Briefing with European and Eurasian Affairs Acting Assistant Secretary Philip T. Reeker on the Secretary’s Upcoming Travel to Belgium
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Philip T. Reeker, Acting [Read More…]
  • Elliott Broidy Pleads Guilty for Back-Channel Lobbying Campaign to Drop 1MDB Investigation and Remove a Chinese Foreign National
    In Crime News
    Elliott Broidy, 63, of Beverly Hills, California, pleaded guilty today before U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly to one count of conspiracy to violate the Foreign Agents Registration Act.
    [Read More…]
  • Virginia Attorneys Sentenced for Attempting to Extort a Multinational Chemicals Company
    In Crime News
    Two Virginia attorneys were sentenced today on federal extortion charges for their roles in a scheme to extort a multinational chemicals company by threatening to inflict substantial financial and reputational harm on the company if their demands for a $200 million payment disguised as a purported “consulting agreement” were not met.
    [Read More…]
  • Border Security: CBP Has Taken Actions to Help Ensure Timely and Accurate Field Testing of Suspected Illicit Drugs
    In U.S GAO News
    What GAO Found U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has policies and procedures for its officers and agents to test substances that they suspect are illicit drugs—referred to as a presumptive field test. Field officials that GAO spoke with said these policies and procedures provide sufficient guidance for conducting presumptive field testing. The policies and procedures address various topics, such as approved and recommended types of test equipment, use of the equipment, training, and requirements for documenting illicit drug seizures. They also address laboratory confirmation of field test results (confirmatory testing), which U.S. Attorney's Offices require for federal prosecution. GAO found that CBP's Office of Field Operations and U.S. Border Patrol conducted at least 90,000 presumptive field tests associated with an arrest from fiscal year 2015 through 2020. The average time for CBP to complete confirmatory testing across its labs decreased from 100 days in calendar year 2015 to 53 days in calendar year 2020, as of September 2020. This occurred while the total number of requests for confirmatory testing increased from about 4,600 in calendar year 2015 to about 5,600 in calendar year 2020, as of September 2020. With regard to accuracy, CBP officials have taken initial steps to upgrade the software system used to document confirmatory test results. This should provide CBP with information on the extent to which presumptive field test results align with confirmatory test results. Average Time to Complete Confirmatory Testing and Number of Requests for Confirmatory Testing Processed Across all U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Laboratories, Calendar Year 2015 through September 24, 2020 CBP has taken a number of actions to help ensure timely and accurate field drug testing, including: Identifying, testing, and deploying test equipment. For example, CBP tested multiple types of chemical screening devices to determine their performance and capabilities to detect fentanyl at low purity levels. Enhancing presumptive and confirmatory field testing capabilities by building permanent onsite labs and deploying mobile labs in certain field locations. Providing round-the-clock access to chemists who help interpret presumptive field test results. Why GAO Did This Study Within the Department of Homeland Security, CBP reported seizing approximately 830,000 pounds of drugs in fiscal year 2020. When CBP officers and agents encounter suspected illicit drugs, they conduct a presumptive field test. A positive test result is one factor CBP uses to establish probable cause for an arrest or seizure. GAO was asked to review issues related to CBP's field drug testing. This report examines (1) CBP's policies and procedures for testing suspected illicit drugs in the field; (2) available data on CBP's field drug testing; and (3) CBP's efforts to help ensure timely and accurate test results. GAO analyzed CBP data on presumptive field testing and laboratory confirmation of results from fiscal year 2015 through 2020; reviewed related policies and procedures; and interviewed CBP officials in five states at land, air, and sea ports of entry, Border Patrol stations and checkpoints, and CBP labs. GAO selected these locations to include varying levels of drug seizures, among other factors. For more information, contact Rebecca Gambler at (202) 512-8777 or gamblerr@gao.gov.
    [Read More…]