Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Brightbill Delivers Remarks at the 2020 Annual Pennsylvania Chamber Environmental Virtual Conference

Thank you, Kevin, for that kind introduction.

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.

It’s a real honor to come and speak to you now as the lead environmental litigator of the United States.  And talk specifically about the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Environment and Natural Resources Division, or “ENRD” as we call it, and its role in enforcing the Nation’s federal environmental and natural resources laws and defending regulatory reform. 

I currently serve as the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General of ENRD.  I joined DOJ in July 2017.  Our Assistant Attorney General (AAG), Jeffrey Bossert Clark, later took office in November 2018.  At the beginning of this September, President Trump appointed AAG Clark to serve as Acting Assistant Attorney General of the DOJ’s Civil Division.

As the Principal Deputy, I, in turn, am now performing the duties of the AAG of ENRD.  It has been an incredible honor to work the last several years with Attorney General Barr, before him Attorney General Sessions, AAG Clark, and the rest of the department’s leadership, as well as the talented career staff of ENRD lawyers, and support staff.

And, as a person who loves the art of litigation, it’s been a pleasure to do so in a role that still lets me get into the courtroom.  I often personally appear to represent the United States and its agencies in appellate and district courts, and have done so over the past few years in courts from Pasadena, California to Boston, Massachusetts.  This has included the defense of the highest priority regulatory reforms of this administration, such as the Affordable Clean Energy or ACE Rule and Navigable Waters Protection Rule (NWPR), which I will talk about. 

Just last Friday, I appeared in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to defend EPA’s authority to establish uniform, national safety and labeling requirements under FIFRA — the pesticide regulation statute — and so help farmers and small businesses keep cost-effective access to pesticides and herbicides they need to protect their crops and investments.

ENRD is a special component of DOJ in which to work, and it has an interesting history.  Though our nation has had an attorney general since the Washington Administration, it was not until 1870, during the presidency of Ulysses S. Grant, that Congress created the Department of Justice. 

ENRD was then established in the first several decades thereafter, in 1909, at the beginning of the Taft Administration.  Originally, we were called the “Public Lands Division.” The focus was on “the Public Land Law,” and also enforcing and protecting Indian rights.  The original staff constituted only six attorneys and three stenographers.  ENRD’s responsibilities grew with the Nation.  Eventually, the name was changed to the Environment and Natural Resources Division to better reflect the Division’s modern responsibilities.

Today, ENRD has a staff of over 600 people.  Approximately 425 of those are lawyers who handle around 6,500 active cases and matters.  ENRD is divided into 10 sections, which are listed here on this slide.  Our primary, overarching responsibility is representing the United States in federal courts in cases relating to the protection of the environment and natural resources.  But we also handle cases in many state courts.  The 10 sections have varying roles and responsibilities, which, to name just a few, include enforcing the pollution control laws, land acquisition, and defending federal regulatory reform.  

The two pie charts on this slide help give you an idea of the work we do.  The pie chart on the left shows the breakdown of the federal agencies we filed new cases on behalf of during the fiscal year 2019.  The pie chart on the right shows a breakdown of what types of cases those new filings represented. 

ENRD represents virtually every federal agency in cases arising in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and in the United States territories.  But, as the pie chart on the left suggests, we have a handful of client agencies — the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of the Interior, and the Department of Defense — that we do most of our work for.  As you can also see, from the pie chart on the right, we do both defensive litigation for the United States, as well as affirmative civil and criminal enforcement.                                                

Now as I mentioned, ENRD is defending the United States and its agencies’ efforts to reform or eliminate burdensome and unnecessary regulations.  These include a number of regulatory reforms that you may have heard about, some of which directly affect the businesses of the participants of this virtual conference. 

I’ve mentioned EPA’s Affordable Clean Energy or “ACE” rule, and its Navigable Waters Protection Rule redefining Waters of the United States (WOTUS) under the CWA.  Other major reforms include the new National Environmental Policy Act or “NEPA” regulations, as well as the Safer Affordable Fuel Efficient Vehicle or “SAFE” rules. 

Administrator Wheeler may discuss a few of these from a policy perspective, but I will discuss the litigation of these rules. 

Our work on the Affordable Clean Energy or “ACE” Rule is a good example of how ENRD defends a change in administrative position.  This concept cuts across much of our defensive work.

During the previous administration, EPA promulgated a Clean Air Act (CAA) regulation entitled the “Clean Power Plan.”  This was, in effect, a nationwide electricity production directive — developed by EPA — whereby Washington outlined how it wanted to see coal-fired and clean burning natural gas-fired electricity generation replaced with new renewable electricity assets in the future, then backed into carbon dioxide emissions caps based on that Washington plan.  These caps were intended to force States, State public utility commissions, and private businesses to either shut down existing assets, spend money to build new generation plants, or subsidize their competitors and neighboring states so as to look something like Washington’s Power Plan in the future. 

The Supreme Court issued an unprecedented stay of an EPA environmental regulation to allow judicial review of this Power Plan before it took effect.  

Then, in March 2017, the President’s Executive Order on “Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth” (E.O. 13783) directed the EPA to review the Clean Power Plan and to conduct any appropriate rulemaking to repeal or revise the rule as soon as practicable.  In July 2019, Administrator Wheeler and EPA took three distinct regulatory actions.  These were to:

  • Repeal Washington’s Power Plan;
     
  • Issue new guidelines for State plans to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from existing coal-fired power plants (the ACE Rule); and
     
  • Updated certain EPA general implementing regulations for emission guidelines. 

All environmental reform is, of course, challenged.  And that’s where ENRD comes in.

We’ve explained to courts that the Clean Power Plan violated and exceeded EPA’s authority under the Clean Air Act.  It took a little-used provision of the CAA intended to cost-effectively improve the emissions technology and techniques of an existing source, and to provide deference to state planning considerations and respect for past investments in existing assets, and it then perverted this to claim the ability to engage in nationwide electricity sector planning, run by EPA in Washington.

I appeared in the D.C. Circuit to defend EPA’s repeal and replacement of this regulation a couple weeks ago.  It was a record breaking — for recent times — nine-hour appellate argument.  Among the dozen advocates, I argued on the record for almost two of those hours.  

Unfortunately, I cannot offer any opinion or prediction about what this panel of judges may do.  But the case is now submitted for decision.  We look forward to the outcome.

Another regulatory issue that has been important to farmers, property owners, and small businesses stretching back to my time at Pennsylvania DEP — and before — is whether the federal Clean Water Act covers depressions and drainages in farmers’ fields, roadside ditches, and when federal permits are needed for property owners and developers to fill and level portions of their land.  You may have heard of this as the debate about the definition of “waters of the United States,” or WOTUS.

In 2005, the United States Supreme Court was asked to settle this long running issue in the case of Rapanos v. United StatesRapanos consolidated two separate cases involving real estate development.  In one case, a landowner was alleged to have filled wetlands without a permit required by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.  This is a permit that allows the dredging and filling of waters of the U.S.  In the other case, the landowner challenged the denial of his Section 404 permit to fill wetlands on his property.  In each case, the developer maintained the United States did not have federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. 

In the Rapanos decision, five Justices did agree that there are statutory limits to the Clean Water Act.  And that Congress did not intend to assert authority over all waters and wetlands in the country that conceivably may touch commerce.  But one of the five Justices disagreed about the test for that limit.  And so confusion continued.

In 2015, EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers issued their first WOTUS definitional rule in almost 30 years.  This rule sought to end the confusion by arbitrarily declaring any water or wetlands within certain distances of scourings of the land reflecting the flow of water to the sea are all federal waters of the United States. 

This 2015 rule attempted to extend federal permitting jurisdiction no matter how far the marks are from the sea, and even if the channels were dry most of the time and flowed only in response to rainfall.  Litigants against the 2015 WOTUS rule, included the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Farm Bureau and many State Farm bureaus, and many states, challenged this 2015 WOTUS rule.  This rule, too, was enjoined across the country.

In February 2017, the President’s Executive Order  “Restoring the Rule of Law, Federalism, and Economic Growth by Reviewing the ‘Waters of the United States’ Rule” (E.O. 13778) directed the EPA and Corps of Engineers to reconsider the 2015 WOTUS rule and whether to rescind or revise the rule.  In October 2019, EPA and the Army Corps first issued a repeal of the Clean Water Rule.  They admitted what courts in the country had been saying: the 2015 WOTUS Rule had been arbitrary and unlawful. 

In April 2020, the EPA and Army Corps then published a new Navigable Waters Protection Rule.  This rule maintains federal Clean Water Act Jurisdiction over navigable waters, their tributaries, and adjacent wetlands.  It is based on scientific principles — not arbitrary numbers — and gives greater clarity and certainty regarding the outer limits of federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act.  It gives greater authority to States to regulate their waters and lands.  And it no longer asserts that ditches in the ground that collect water merely in response to rain — and lands and ponds on private land distant from rivers — are “navigable waters” of the United States.

The 2020 WOTUS rule was immediately challenged, with plaintiffs seeking a nationwide injunction against this regulatory reform.

I also appeared to defend this reform on behalf of the EPA and Army Corps.  After three and half hours of argument, the judge issued an extremely thoughtful and entirely correct legal decision the next day.  The court denied a nationwide injunction and this important policy reform came into effect.

I will similarly appear in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in a few weeks to defend the NWPR.  A district court in Colorado, who did not take oral argument, has delayed implementation of the NWPR in Colorado alone.  But this decision is based on an erroneous reading of the law — as I will explain to the 10th Circuit. 

ENRD is defending another important regulatory reform to allow the United States to upgrade and expand critical infrastructure projects needed to support our economy, our businesses, and workers.

In July 2020, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) — an agency of the Executive Office of the President — issued regulations reforming implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act or “NEPA.”  NEPA requires that federal agencies assess the environmental impacts of their proposed actions prior to making decisions and inform the public.  This can cover a broad range of activities such as permit approvals, infrastructure projects, and federal land management actions.  The purpose of NEPA is to ensure informed decision making by federal agencies. And this Administration fully supports that.

But under NEPA and the CEQ regulations, federal agencies assess the environmental impacts of tens of thousands of federal actions each year.  As many of you have probably experienced, NEPA compliance has resulted in unintended and unexpected consequences for the agriculture sector, small businesses, energy development, and infrastructure projects.  These consequences include – but by no means are limited to – increased delays, costs, and other burdens for project proponents and stakeholders that rely on federal agency approvals.  This results in reduced and deferred public benefit — primarily to the benefit of concentrated special interests. 

For example, environmental impact statements or “EISs” for federal highway projects average over seven years to complete.  Across the federal government, all reviews average four and a half years.

EISs also average over 600 pages.  They are so long as to no longer serve their intended purpose of promoting better decision-making and succinctly informing the public.  These unintended consequences have persisted despite the actions of many Presidents and Congress to address the quagmire of regulatory uncertainty and lawsuits.  

In August 2017, the President’s Executive Order “Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure Projects” (E.O. 13807) directed the CEQ to enhance and modernize the federal environmental review and authorization process.  The newly published regulations provide for greater efficiencies without weakening any substantive environmental requirements. 

These long overdue regulatory reforms will benefit our environment and our economy.  They will accelerate and focus environmental reviews, to modernize the NEPA process for the 21st century.

ENRD is now defending against five separate challenges to the CEQ regulations in the federal district courts of California, D.C., New York and Virginia.  Before moving to the Civil Division, Assistant Attorney General Clark appeared to defend this important regulatory reform.  There again, the motion for a nationwide preliminary injunction was defeated — bringing the new NEPA rules into effect.

A final regulatory reform critical to businesses, farmers, and consumers I would like to discuss relates to the availability of inexpensive, safe, yet fuel-efficient cars. 

Again responding to a Presidential Order, EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) jointly issued a two-part rule focused on reforming fuel economy and greenhouse gas emission standards for passenger cars and light trucks.  These rulemaking efforts are referred to as the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicle (SAFE) rules.  They were issued in two parts.

The first part included a rulemaking by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and administrative action by EPA.  These actions affirm that federal law requires one, national set of standards to prevent the inefficiency and expense of manufacturers and buyers of having multiple jurisdictions, creating multiple fuel economy and emission standards for cars and light trucks across the country.  The SAFE 1 rule (aka. the “One National Program” rule) was finalized in September 2019. 

We are wrapping up briefing of challenges to this first rule in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals now.  It will be set for argument shortly thereafter.  I expect to appear for the United States to argue this case in the next few months. 

A second part then revised federal greenhouse gas emission (GHG) and Corporate Average Fuel Economy (or CAFE) standards for light-duty vehicles.  In this rule published in April, EPA amends its tailpipe GHG standards for model years 2021-2026, while NHTSA amends its CAFE standards for model year 2021, and sets new fuel economy standards for the other years. 

The final rule will continue to improve the fuel economy of our nation’s light duty vehicle fleet, and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, by increasing the stringency of CAFE and CO2 emissions standards by 1.5 percent each year through model year 2026.  But EPA and NHTSA determined that the 5 percent increases that were issued back in 2012 have proven infeasible.  They would have inappropriately raised costs for business, consumers, and really everyone who needs to purchase new cars and light trucks.

Last week, the D.C. Circuit issued a schedule for this portion of the SAFE joint rulemaking.  Briefing to that court will conclude next summer.

Now I would like to turn to our environmental enforcement programs at DOJ and the Environment Division.  A few themes run through our enforcement actions.

The first theme is our commitment to ensuring that America’s environmental laws are complied with.  ENRD enforcement cases send a clear message: the United States will enforce its pollution laws and protect the environment and public health.  And if you break those laws, you will pay. 

A second theme is that whether we are bringing a civil or criminal enforcement case, we seek to adhere to the impartial rule of law.  We are committed to ensuring that our citizens — across the country — are treated justly and fairly, and that like cases and facts result in like enforcement and punishment regardless of who and where you are.  We also strive to ensure that intentionally bad and that harmful violations are treated more harshly than negligent failings of limited environmental or health impact.

At the Department of Justice, we take an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.  So we must be committed to our Constitution’s promise of due process and equal protection.  We therefore strive to exercise appropriate prosecutorial discretion — tailored to the facts of each case.

We do not go into our enforcement cases necessarily trying to obtain the longest possible criminal sentence, or to extract the highest calculable penalty in every case.  We are not trying to win it all at all costs.  We are pursuing twin goals — first, to enforce our nation’s environmental laws and deter their violation, but, second, to ensure that our citizens are treated justly and fairly. 

And as we protect the environment, we strive to ensure an even playing field in the marketplace — thus promoting economic growth, competition, and environmental protection.  Those who violate our environmental laws must not be given a competitive advantage by doing so.  If there are no consequences for violating these laws, honest businesses who spend capital to comply with these laws cannot compete fairly.  Society suffers.

A third key of our enforcement program is that we are committed to working collaboratively with the states and our peers in the federal government.  We work with states to investigate violations of environmental laws, and seek their input and perspective on cases to prioritize.  We also often bring our cases jointly with States.  I will provide some examples of that.

Now one question we are often asked is why we pursue some cases as civil enforcement cases, yet pursue other somewhat similar cases as criminal prosecutions.           It is hard to articulate as a general matter — across all of the environmental statutes — whether a particular case should fall on the “criminal side” or “civil side.”  In fact, many federal environmental statutes authorize administrative, civil, and criminal enforcement. 

So, as I earlier referenced, we at DOJ, in conjunction with our client agencies, must exercise judgment and use our discretion when deciding whether to pursue criminal prosecutions or to leave a matter in the civil enforcement realm.  Generally, we reserve criminal prosecution for what we deem to be the worst offenders.

In recent years, the division’s philosophy has been to bring criminal enforcement actions where the underlying conduct would be criminal in any context, regardless of what the specific environmental statute might allow.  These cases include situations where the defendants’ underlying conduct amounts to lying, cheating, and stealing, as well as those cases in which prior civil enforcement attempts have gone unheeded.

With that context in mind, let’s talk about some recent examples illustrating the types of enforcement work we do at ENRD.

One of our most talked about set of enforcement efforts in recent years has been the division’s efforts to address motor vehicle emissions cheating.  These cases reflect our prioritization of enforcement against those who are not just out of compliance with our environmental laws, but knowingly evading them for profit.  

Air pollutants — like nitrogen oxides — emitted from the operations of motor vehicles are regulated under the Clean Air Act.  These pollutants can have many adverse effects on human health.  These include severe respiratory and cardiovascular impacts, as well as premature death.  They also contribute to acid rain, smog, and haze.

The division and EPA have been committed to identifying motor vehicle manufacturers and affiliated entities that scheme to cheat America’s emissions laws.  The most recent example of these efforts — and one of the most significant environmental enforcement actions of ENRD in the past several years — is our settlement with Daimler AG and its affiliated entity, Mercedes-Benz USA LLC.  Today, I will refer to these entities collectively as “Daimler.”

On Sept. 14th, DOJ and EPA announced a proposed consent decree between the United States, the California Air Resources Board, and Daimler with the federal district court in the District of Columbia.  Our complaint alleged that Daimler violated parts of Section 203 of the Clean Air Act in connection with the sale of approximately 250,000 diesel passenger vehicles and utility vans.  These vehicles contained certain undisclosed software systems that caused them to operate differently when subject to federal emissions tests than in on-road conditions.  The onboard computers were programmed to reduce emissions when the car was in the lab.  But the computer would then reduce the emissions control settings once the car was out being driven on the road.

Under the proposed settlement, Daimler will recall and repair the emissions systems in Mercedes-Benz diesel vehicles sold in the United States between 2009 and 2016.  It will pay $875,000,000 in civil penalties and roughly $70,300,000 in other penalties.  This equates to about a $3,500 penalty for each vehicle that was sold in the United States.  That is the largest per-vehicle civil penalty judgment ever imposed for a mobile source emissions violation under the Clean Air Act.  Taken together with various injunctive and equitable relief, the settlement is valued at about $1.5 billion.

Of course, as I described before, our enforcement efforts are not limited to mobile source emission cases.  Another recent example of our enforcement work relates to protecting the integrity of the Clean Air Act’s Renewable Fuels Program, or RFS program.  The first case is a criminal matter, United States v. David Dunham, et al.

Through the Renewable Fuels Program, Congress mandates the use of biofuels to reduce American dependence on foreign sources of oil and improve the environment.  Under the RFS, renewable fuel producers generate Renewable Identification Numbers, or “RINs,” every time they produce a certain amount of renewable fuel.

In this case, the defendant, his co-defendant Ralph Tommaso, and the companies they operated defrauded the Renewable Fuel Standards program.  In the RFS program, RINs act like a currency—obligated parties under the RFS can buy and sell RINs to satisfy their compliance obligations.  Mr. Dunham ran a multi-million dollar conspiracy to defraud individuals and the United States.

For about two years, Mr. Dunham and Mr. Tommaso operated companies that falsely claimed to have produced and sold renewable fuel for which they misappropriated $50 million in payments, subsidies, and other benefits.  They also claimed RIN credits for renewable fuels that they never actually produced.  By doing so, they defrauded the RFS program and stole tens of millions of dollars from the United States.

A jury convicted Mr. Dunham in May 2019 on 54 counts, including conspiracy, false statements, wire fraud, tax fraud, and obstruction.  In August, Dunham was sentenced in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to 84 months’ incarceration, three years supervised release, and $10,207,000 in restitution.

Another interesting aspect of our enforcement work relevant to Pennsylvanians is our effort to combat illegal logging and the associated trade — or “timber trafficking.” 

The United States is one of the largest producers of timber and timber products in the world, but it is also the largest importer of timber and timber products, only behind China.  As a major consumer, we want to ensure that wood entering our markets is legal.  And as a major producer, we want to promote the legal trade of wood around the world. 

Many people are aware of the negative environmental and ecological impacts of illegal logging.  But illegal logging is also a major source of funding for criminal operations.  A 2017 report identified the trade in illegally logged timber as the third most lucrative form of transnational crime worldwide, following only counterfeiting and illegal drug trafficking.  The international police organization INTERPOL has identified the value of forestry crimes, including illegal logging and related corporate crimes, at $51-152 billion USD annually.  Revenues from illegal logging have been used to fund terrorist and other international criminal syndicates, and are associated with money laundering, drug trafficking, government corruption, and all manner of other traditional criminal enterprises.

So the U.S. has made combatting illegal logging and ensuring our trading partners live up to their commitments a priority in this administration. 

In 2017, the President’s Executive Order “Enforcing Federal Law with Respect to Transnational Criminal Organizations and Preventing International Trafficking” (E.O. 13773) specifically included wildlife trafficking — which includes timber trafficking — as one of the illicit activities by transnational criminal organizations that the United States would work to combat.

The United States also is working to improve legal trade in forestry by the connections we make through trade agreements.  For example, the United States renegotiated the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which was superseded by the agreement between the United States, Mexico, and Canada (USMCA).  The treaty made many improvements over NAFTA, including new environmental provisions that include specific commitments to address illegal logging and associated trade. 

ENRD’s enforcement actions have also had a significant impact on improving legal compliance and garnered global attention.  One of the most well-known is the criminal prosecution of Lumber Liquidators.  This company illegally imported and sold hardwood flooring products manufactured in China from wood that had been illegally logged from far eastern Russia — including the habitat of the last remaining Siberian Tigers and Amur leopards in the world.  In addition to millions of dollars of criminal fines and forfeitures, Lumber Liquidators had to implement a long term environmental compliance plan as part of its conditions of probation. 

One of our goals in this enforcement effort is to help ensure a level playing field for producers of timber and wood products around the globe, including U.S. industry.

A recent enforcement initiative of note has been our part of an interagency effort to stop the illegal smuggling of cancelled, restricted use, or unregistered pesticides in violation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act or “FIFRA.”  This began in response to increased smuggling of unauthorized pesticides that have been linked to illicit marijuana cultivation on public and private land.

For example, one of the common pesticides smuggled into the United States is carbofuran.  Carbofuran is a systemic insecticide and nematicide that was used to control pests in soil and on leaves in a variety of field, fruit, and vegetables crops. 

In 2009, the EPA determined carbofuran was ineligible for reregistration because it posed unreasonable adverse effects on human health due to the dietary risks from ingestion and worker health through skin adsorption.  It also posed unacceptable ecological risks to the environment.  This is just one example, however, of the numerous illegal pesticides that have been the subject of this smuggling.

Currently, 38 individuals face charges related to smuggling pesticides into the United States.  These include conspiracy, smuggling goods into the United States, failure to declare under the customs duties, the unlawful sale and/or distribution of an unregistered pesticide, and the illegal manufacture of marijuana.  

Now earlier, I told you about our three principles of enforcement.  We want to aggressively pursue those who violate our nation’s environmental laws, but also ensure the just and fair administration of the law.

In that vein, this Administration has also been undertaking a number of important enforcement policy reforms.  We recognize our oaths to the Constitution.  And part of that is our recognition that the Legislature writes the laws and limits by which our cases are brought.

In particular, we are conscious that DOJ should not use the awesome enforcement resources of the federal government to pressure defendants into agreeing to special settlements and relief that the government could not otherwise obtain by pursuing cases to judgment.  DOJ must respect the federal government’s separation of powers and recognize that it is Congress that appropriates monies from the Treasury.

In the past year, AAG Clark issued two memoranda addressing and ultimately barring the pursuit and use of Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) in civil enforcement settlements.

Generally, there are two types of relief that the Congress has authorized DOJ to seek in enforcement actions — monetary and equitable.  Monetary relief includes fines and penalties, natural resource damages, and cost recovery.  Equitable relief includes prospective compliance measures, mitigation, and cleanup actions.  Environmental mitigation often takes the form of environmental projects to cleanup or otherwise rectify the harms to the environment specifically caused by prior emissions of polluters.  The Department of Justice continues to pursue environmental mitigation of environmental harms.

So we sometimes get the question: what are SEPs?  And what has changed?  SEPs were “supplemental” environmental projects.  They were defined by an EPA policy as an environmentally beneficial project or activity, agreed to by settlement, that a violator is not otherwise legally required to perform.  So they were additional special projects that—unlike mitigation — were specifically not remedying the particular environmental harm caused by an enforcement violation.  And because the violator was not otherwise legally required to perform such a project or activity, SEPs could only be obtained by settlements.  They could not be obtained by actual prosecution and enforcement of the environmental laws to judgment.

And, most pernicious of all, SEPs were not simply provided out of the goodness of a defendant’s heart.  Defendants agreed to fund these special projects in exchange for reductions in the civil and other monetary penalties that otherwise would have flowed to the Treasury.  So instead of paying fines that deter disregard of our environmental laws, violators were given discounts from those penalties.  They were instead allowed to spend that money on projects that bought them goodwill in local communities — fines and penalties were traded for marketing.  This also put unelected government enforcers and prosecutors in the position of effectively reallocating where federal tax dollars are spent.

Because SEPs are a way of circumventing Congressional appropriations processes and bringing concentrated benefits to special interests, SEPs were undoubtedly popular with regulators, those benefited, and even the regulated community.  But they were also long controversial throughout their use.  Questions about SEPs and concerns about their legality have continued since their inception.

EPA similarly announced that it will no longer permit SEPs in future administrative settlements that are conducted by EPA, without DOJ.  We consider stopping SEPs an important policy reform for ensuring DOJ’s commitment to the rule of law and faithful adherence to the Constitution’s Separation of Powers.

But this SEP reform policy will not impact our ability to have violators remedy the negative environmental consequences of their conduct.  First of all, most settlements of civil penalty cases did not include SEPs.  Second, ENRD will continue to seek equitable relief such as mitigation and other forms of projects and activities that directly remedy the environmental harms that resulted from a violation.

Congress may choose to authorize the executive branch to redirect monies otherwise payable to the treasury.  And in one specific provision and for one specific purpose Congress did.  But beyond that, ENRD will not.

The last topic I’d like to discuss with you today is another enforcement policy reform.  This reform was just issued in July 2020 in a policy memorandum.  It is aimed at stopping the practice of “over-filing” in the context of the Clean Water Act.

The Clean Water Act has an expansive scope, but it also includes restrictions designed to prevent over-enforcement and double recovery.  For example, the statute specifies that EPA can pursue enforcement actions for oil spills under Clean Water Act § 309(d) or § 311(b), but not both.

In addition, the Department of Justice has other internal policies that are meant to prevent over-enforcement.  The most obvious of these is the “Petite Policy,” which precludes successive criminal prosecutions except in a narrow set of cases where the appropriate Assistant Attorney General determines that doing so is necessary to vindicate a substantial federal interest.

There is good reason behind preventing over-enforcement, which is also referred to as “anti-piling on.”  Piling on deprives the regulated community of the benefits of certainty and finality that is ordinarily available through full and final settlement.  It is harder to get defendants to take responsibility for their misconduct if they don’t know where it will end.

The new policy that was issued in July addresses what the United States will do when there is already a state enforcement action for civil penalties pending with underlying facts that could also lead to a federal enforcement action under the Clean Water Act.

Congress was careful to preserve the States’ role as primary regulator of their own water.  Congress had already expressly precluded federal civil penalty actions when a state has (1) started and is diligently prosecuting; or (2) has successfully pursued a state proceeding pursuant to a state law regime “comparable” to the federal administrative penalty regime.  But, oddly, nothing in the statute afforded similar preclusive effect to state civil judicial enforcement actions.

Under the new policy, civil actions seeking penalties under the Clean Water Act will be strongly disfavored if a state has already initiated or concluded its own civil or administrative proceeding for penalties under an analogous state law arising from the same operative facts.  In fact, to bring a federal action in such situations, there will now need to be prior written approval to proceed.

And pre-approval will be granted only in a few limited circumstances, such as:

  • If the prior state enforcement action alone amounts to an unfair windfall for the would-be defendant;
     
  • If the state is not diligently prosecuting an initiated civil enforcement action;
     
  • Or, if the state has requested in writing, citing reasons for doing so, that the United States pursue a separate enforcement action and that request, considering all circumstances, would not amount to unfair piling on.

Like the SEP policy, we believe that this new policy will help promote fairness in the application of our enforcement powers.

So, as you can see, the work of the Environment and Natural Resources Division is broad and complex.  This Administration takes very seriously the enforcement of our nation’s environmental and natural resource laws.  But I am also extremely proud of the work that ENRD has done to defend important regulatory reforms of the past several years.

It has been a privilege to work on behalf of the United States and the American people in these matters.  Thank you once again to the Pennsylvania Chamber for inviting me to share some aspects of our environmental and natural resource enforcement work with you.  I am happy to use the remaining time to answer your questions.

Hits: 5

News Network

  • Imposing Sanctions on Two Burmese State-Owned Enterprises
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • Former Louisiana Police Officer Indicted for Assaulting an Arrestee
    In Crime News
    A federal grand jury in Shreveport, Louisiana, returned an indictment charging a former Shreveport police officer with assaulting an arrestee in Caddo Parish. 
    [Read More…]
  • Deputy Secretary Biegun’s Travel to the Republic of Korea
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Secretary Blinken’s Call with French Foreign Minister Le Drian, German Foreign Minister Maas, and UK Foreign Secretary Raab
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Justice Department Files Civil Action to Shut Down Mississippi Tax Return Preparer
    In Crime News
    The United States has filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi seeking to bar a Senatobia, Mississippi, tax return preparer from preparing federal income tax returns for others.
    [Read More…]
  • Secretary Antony J. Blinken with Andrea Mitchell of MSNBC Andrea Mitchell Reports
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • Justice Department Reaches Settlement with New Hampshire School District to Protect English Learner Students
    In Crime News
    Today the Justice Department announced a settlement agreement with the Nashua School District to resolve the department’s investigation into the school district’s programs for its English Learner students.
    [Read More…]
  • G7 Foreign and Development Ministers’ Meeting
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • U.S. Vote Against the United Nations 2021 Program Budget
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Michael R. Pompeo, [Read More…]
  • New York Business Owner Pleads Guilty to Payroll Tax Fraud
    In Crime News
    The owner of a Brooklyn construction business, AD Custom Interiors Inc., pleaded guilty on July 9 to not paying payroll taxes to the IRS.
    [Read More…]
  • State Department Terrorist Designation of Saraya al-Mukhtar
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Michael R. Pompeo, [Read More…]
  • Tuvalu Travel Advisory
    In Travel
    Reconsider travel to [Read More…]
  • Founder and CEO of Iranian Financial Services Firm Sentenced to Prison for Conspiring to Violate U.S. Sanctions
    In Crime News
    Assistant Attorney General for National Security John C. Demers and U.S. Attorney Erica H. MacDonald today announced the sentencing of Seyed Sajjad Shahidian, 33, to 23 months in prison for his role in conducting financial transactions in violation of U.S. sanctions against Iran. Shahidian, who pleaded guilty on June 18, 2018, was sentenced today before Judge Patrick J. Schiltz in U.S. District Court in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Shahidian, a citizen of Iran, was arrested in London, England on Nov. 11, 2018, and, on May 15, 2020, was extradited to the United States.
    [Read More…]
  • Aviation Safety: Actions Needed to Evaluate Changes to FAA’s Enforcement Policy on Safety Standards
    In U.S GAO News
    The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) directed individual offices to implement the Compliance Program, and FAA has increasingly used compliance actions rather than enforcement actions to address violations of safety standards since starting the Compliance Program. FAA revised agency-wide guidance in September 2015 to emphasize using compliance actions, such as counseling or changes to policies. Compliance actions are to be used when a regulated entity is willing and able to comply and enforcement action is not required or warranted, e.g., for repeated violations, according to FAA guidance. FAA then directed its offices—for example, Flight Standards Service and Drug Abatement Division—to implement the Compliance Program as appropriate, given their different responsibilities and existing processes. Under the Compliance Program, data show that selected FAA offices have made increasing use of compliance actions. Total Number of Federal Aviation Administration Enforcement Actions and Number of Compliance Actions Closed for Selected Program Offices, Fiscal Years 2012-2019 No specific FAA office or entity oversees the Compliance Program. FAA tasked a working group to lead some initial implementation efforts. However, the group no longer regularly discusses the Compliance Program, and no office or entity was then assigned oversight authority. As a result, FAA is not positioned to identify and share best practices or other valuable information across offices. FAA established goals for the Compliance Program—to promote the highest level of safety and compliance with standards and to foster an open, transparent exchange of data. FAA, however, has not taken steps to evaluate if or determine how the program accomplishes these goals. Key considerations for agency enforcement decisions state that an agency should establish an evaluation plan to determine if its enforcement policy achieves desired goals. Three of eight FAA offices have started to evaluate the effects of the Compliance Program, but two offices have not yet started. Three other offices do not plan to do so—in one case, because FAA has not told the office to. FAA officials generally believe the Compliance Program is achieving its safety goals based on examples of its use. However, without an evaluation, FAA will not know if the Compliance Program is improving safety or having other effects—intended or unintended. FAA supports the safety of the U.S. aviation system by ensuring air carriers, pilots, and other regulated entities comply with safety standards. In 2015, FAA announced a new enforcement policy with a more collaborative and problem-solving approach called the Compliance Program. Under the program, FAA emphasizes using compliance actions, for example, counseling or training, to address many violations more efficiently, according to FAA. Enforcement actions such as civil penalties are reserved for more serious violations, such as when a violation is reckless or intentional. The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 included a provision that GAO review FAA's Compliance Program. This report examines (1) how FAA implemented and used the Compliance Program and (2) how FAA evaluates the effectiveness of the program. GAO analyzed FAA data on enforcement actions agency-wide and on compliance actions for three selected offices for fiscal years 2012 to 2019 (4 years before and after program start).GAO also reviewed FAA guidance and interviewed FAA officials, including those from the eight offices that oversee compliance with safety standards. GAO is making three recommendations including that FAA assign authority to oversee the Compliance Program and evaluate the effectiveness of the program in meeting goals. FAA concurred with the recommendations. For more information, contact Heather Krause at (202) 512-2834 or krauseh@gao.gov.
    [Read More…]
  • United States Sanctions Russian Government Research Institution
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Michael R. Pompeo, [Read More…]
  • Former President of Nuclear Transportation Company Sentenced to Prison for Foreign Bribery and Other Offenses
    In Crime News
    The former president of Transport Logistics International Inc. (TLI), a Maryland-based transportation company that provides services for the transportation of nuclear materials to customers in the United States and abroad, was sentenced today to 48 months in prison and three years of supervised release for his role in a scheme to bribe a Russian official in exchange for obtaining contracts for the company.
    [Read More…]
  • Nuclear Weapons: Action Needed to Address the W80-4 Warhead Program’s Schedule Constraints
    In U.S GAO News
    The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a separately organized agency within the Department of Energy (DOE), has identified a range of risks facing the W80-4 nuclear warhead life extension program (LEP)—including risks related to developing new technologies and manufacturing processes as well as reestablishing dormant production capabilities. NNSA is managing these risks using a variety of processes and tools, such as a classified risk database. However, NNSA has introduced potential risk to the program by adopting a date (September 2025) for the delivery of the program's first production unit (FPU) that is more than 1 year earlier than the date projected by the program's own schedule risk analysis process (see figure). NNSA and Department of Defense (DOD) officials said that they adopted the September 2025 date partly because the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2015 specifies that NNSA must deliver the first warhead unit by the end of fiscal year 2025, as well as to free up resources for future LEPs. However, the statute allows DOE to obtain an extension, and, according to best practices identified in GAO's prior work, program schedules should avoid date constraints that do not reflect program realities. Adopting an FPU date more consistent with the date range identified as realistic in the W80-4 program's schedule risk analysis, or justifying an alternative date based on other factors, would allow NNSA to better inform decision makers and improve alignment between schedules for the W80-4 program and DOD's long-range standoff missile (LRSO) program. W80-4 Life Extension Program Phases and Milestone Dates NNSA substantially incorporated best practices in developing the preliminary lifecycle cost estimate for the W80-4 LEP, as reflected in the LEP's weapon design and cost report. GAO assessed the W80-4 program's cost estimate of $11.2 billion against the four characteristics of a high quality, reliable cost estimate: comprehensive, well-documented, accurate, and credible. To develop a comprehensive cost estimate, NNSA instituted processes to help ensure consistency across the program. The program also provided detailed documentation to substantiate its estimate and assumptions. To help ensure accuracy, the cost estimate drew on historic data from prior LEPs. Finally, to support a credible estimate, NNSA reconciled the program estimate with an independent cost estimate. GAO considers a cost estimate to be reliable if the overall assessment ratings for each of the four characteristics are substantially or fully met—as was the case with the W80-4 program's cost estimate in its weapon design and cost report, which substantially met each characteristic. To maintain and modernize the U.S. nuclear arsenal, NNSA and DOD conduct LEPs. In 2014, they began an LEP to produce a warhead, the W80-4, to be carried on the LRSO missile. In February 2019, NNSA adopted an FPU delivery date of fiscal year 2025 for the W80-4 LEP, at an estimated cost of about $11.2 billion over the life of the program. The explanatory statement accompanying the 2018 appropriation included a provision for GAO to review the W80-4 LEP. This report examines, among other objectives, (1) the risks NNSA has identified for the W80-4 LEP, and processes it has established to manage them, and (2) the extent to which NNSA's lifecycle cost estimate for the LEP aligned with best practices. GAO reviewed NNSA's risk management database and other program information; visited four NNSA sites; interviewed NNSA and DOD officials; and assessed the program's cost estimate using best practices established in prior GAO work. GAO is making two recommendations, including that NNSA adopt a W80-4 program FPU delivery date based on the program's schedule risk analysis, or document its justification for not doing so. NNSA generally disagreed with GAO's recommendations. GAO continues to believe that its recommendations are valid, as discussed in the report. For more information, contact Allison B. Bawden at (202) 512-3841 or bawdena@gao.gov.
    [Read More…]
  • JPL Mission Breaks Record for Smallest Satellite to Detect an Exoplanet
    In Space
    About the size of a [Read More…]
  • Prime Healthcare Services and Two Doctors Agree to Pay $37.5 Million to Settle Allegations of Kickbacks, Billing for a Suspended Doctor, and False Claims for Implantable Medical Hardware
    In Crime News
    One of the largest hospital systems in the nation and two of its doctors will pay $37.5 million to resolve violations of the False Claims Act and the California False Claims Act. The settlement is a joint resolution with the U.S. Department of Justice and the California Department of Justice.
    [Read More…]
  • ‘Disk Detective’ Needs Your Help Finding Disks Where Planets Form
    In Space
    Members of the public [Read More…]
  • Bastille Day
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • Aviation Cybersecurity: FAA Should Fully Implement Key Practices to Strengthen Its Oversight of Avionics Risks
    In U.S GAO News
    Modern airplanes are equipped with networks and systems that share data with the pilots, passengers, maintenance crews, other aircraft, and air-traffic controllers in ways that were not previously feasible (see fig. 1). As a result, if avionics systems are not properly protected, they could be at risk of a variety of potential cyberattacks. Vulnerabilities could occur due to (1) not applying modifications (patches) to commercial software, (2) insecure supply chains, (3) malicious software uploads, (4) outdated systems on legacy airplanes, and (5) flight data spoofing. To date, extensive cybersecurity controls have been implemented and there have not been any reports of successful cyberattacks on an airplane's avionics systems. However, the increasing connections between airplanes and other systems, combined with the evolving cyber threat landscape, could lead to increasing risks for future flight safety. Figure 1: Key Systems Connections to Commercial Airplanes The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has established a process for the certification and oversight of all US commercial airplanes, including the operation of commercial air carriers (see fig. 2). While FAA recognizes avionics cybersecurity as a potential safety issue for modern commercial airplanes, it has not fully implemented key practices that are necessary to carry out a risk-based cybersecurity oversight program. Specifically, FAA has not (1) assessed its oversight program to determine the priority of avionics cybersecurity risks, (2) developed an avionics cybersecurity training program, (3) issued guidance for independent cybersecurity testing, or (4) included periodic testing as part of its monitoring process. Until FAA strengthens its oversight program, based on assessed risks, it may not be able to ensure it is providing sufficient oversight to guard against evolving cybersecurity risks facing avionics systems in commercial airplanes. Figure 2: Federal Aviation Administration's Certification Process for Commercial Transport Airplanes GAO has previously identified key practices for interagency collaboration that can be used to assess interagency coordination. FAA coordinates with other federal agencies, such as the Departments of Defense (DOD) and Homeland Security (DHS), and with industry to address aviation cybersecurity issues. For example, FAA co-chairs the Aviation Cyber Initiative, a tri-agency forum with DOD and DHS to address cyber risks across the aviation ecosystem. However, FAA's internal coordination activities do not fully reflect GAO's key collaboration practices. FAA has not established a tracking mechanism for monitoring progress on cybersecurity issues that are raised in coordination meetings, and its oversight coordination activities are not supported by dedicated resources within the agency's budget. Until FAA establishes a tracking mechanism for cybersecurity issues, it may be unable to ensure that all issues are appropriately addressed and resolved. Further, until it conducts an avionics cybersecurity risk assessment, it will not be able to effectively prioritize and dedicate resources to ensure that avionics cybersecurity risks are addressed in its oversight program. Avionics systems, which provide weather information, positioning data, and communications, are critical to the safe operation of an airplane. FAA is responsible for overseeing the safety of commercial aviation, including avionics systems. The growing connectivity between airplanes and these systems may present increasing opportunities for cyberattacks on commercial airplanes. GAO was asked to review the FAA's oversight of avionics cybersecurity issues. The objectives of this review were to (1) describe key cybersecurity risks to avionics systems and their potential effects, (2) determine the extent to which FAA oversees the implementation of cybersecurity controls that address identified risks in avionics systems, and (3) assess the extent to which FAA coordinates internally and with other government and industry entities to identify and address cybersecurity risks to avionics systems. To do so, GAO reviewed information on key cybersecurity risks to avionics systems, as reported by major industry representatives as well as key elements of an effective oversight program, and compared FAA's process for overseeing the implementation of cybersecurity controls in avionics systems with these program elements. GAO also reviewed agency documentation and interviewed agency and industry representatives to assess FAA's coordination efforts to address the identified risks. GAO is making six recommendations to FAA to strengthen its avionics cybersecurity oversight program: GAO recommends that FAA conduct a cybersecurity risk assessment of avionics systems cybersecurity within its oversight program to identify the relative priority of avionics cybersecurity risks compared to other safety concerns and develop a plan to address those risks. Based on the assessment of avionics cybersecurity risks, GAO recommends that FAA identify staffing and training needs for agency inspectors specific to avionics cybersecurity, and develop and implement appropriate training to address identified needs. develop and implement guidance for avionics cybersecurity testing of new airplane designs that includes independent testing. review and consider revising its policies and procedures for monitoring the effectiveness of avionics cybersecurity controls in the deployed fleet to include developing procedures for safely conducting independent testing. ensure that avionics cybersecurity issues are appropriately tracked and resolved when coordinating among internal stakeholders. review and consider the extent to which oversight resources should be committed to avionics cybersecurity. FAA concurred with five out of six GAO recommendations. FAA did not concur with the recommendation to consider revising its policies and procedures for periodic independent testing. GAO clarified this recommendation to emphasize that FAA safely conduct such testing as part of its ongoing monitoring of airplane safety. For more information, contact Nick Marinos at (202) 512-9342 or MarinosN@gao.gov, or Heather Krause at (202) 512-2834 or KrauseH@gao.gov.
    [Read More…]
  • DRL FY2020: Guaranteeing Constitutional Rights in Tunisia
    In Human Health, Resources and Services
    Bureau of Democracy, [Read More…]
  • Electricity Grid Cybersecurity: DOE Needs to Ensure Its Plans Fully Address Risks to Distribution Systems
    In U.S GAO News
    What GAO Found The U.S. grid's distribution systems—which carry electricity from transmission systems to consumers and are regulated primarily by states—are increasingly at risk from cyberattacks. Distribution systems are growing more vulnerable, in part because their industrial control systems increasingly allow remote access and connect to business networks. As a result, threat actors can use multiple techniques to access those systems and potentially disrupt operations. (See fig.) However, the scale of potential impacts from such attacks is not well understood. Examples of Techniques for Gaining Initial Access to Industrial Control Systems Distribution utilities included in GAO's review are generally not subject to mandatory federal cybersecurity standards, but they, and selected states, had taken actions intended to improve distribution systems' cybersecurity. These actions included incorporating cybersecurity into routine oversight processes and hiring dedicated cybersecurity personnel. Federal agencies have supported these actions by, for example, providing cybersecurity training and guidance. As the lead federal agency for the energy sector, the Department of Energy (DOE) has developed plans to implement the national cybersecurity strategy for the grid, but these plans do not fully address risks to the grid's distribution systems. For example, DOE's plans do not address distribution systems' vulnerabilities related to supply chains. According to officials, DOE has not fully addressed such risks in its plans because it has prioritized addressing risks to the grid's generation and transmission systems. Without doing so, however, DOE's plans will likely be of limited use in prioritizing federal support to states and industry to improve grid distribution systems' cybersecurity. Why GAO Did This Study Protecting the reliability of the U.S. electricity grid, which delivers electricity essential for modern life, is a long-standing national interest. The grid comprises three functions: generation, transmission, and distribution. In August 2019, GAO reported that the generation and transmission systems—which are federally regulated for reliability—are increasingly vulnerable to cyberattacks. GAO was asked to review grid distribution systems' cybersecurity. This report (1) describes the extent to which grid distribution systems are at risk from cyberattacks and the scale of potential impacts from such attacks, (2) describes selected state and industry actions to improve distribution systems' cybersecurity and federal efforts to support those actions, and (3) examines the extent to which DOE has addressed risks to distribution systems in its plans for implementing the national cybersecurity strategy. To do so, GAO reviewed relevant federal and industry reports on grid cybersecurity risks and analyzed relevant DOE documents. GAO also interviewed a nongeneralizable sample of federal, state, and industry officials with a role in grid distribution systems' cybersecurity.
    [Read More…]
  • Leader of Armed Home Invasion Robbery Crew Sentenced for RICO Conspiracy and Other Violent Crimes
    In Crime News
    A Texas man was sentenced to 40 years in prison for his leadership role in an armed home invasion robbery crew that traveled the United States targeting families of South Asian and East Asian descent.
    [Read More…]
  • Secretary Antony J. Blinken at the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • Saint Vincent and The Grenadines Travel Advisory
    In Travel
    Reconsider travel to [Read More…]
  • Lesotho Travel Advisory
    In Travel
    Reconsider travel [Read More…]
  • The Department of State Breaks Ground for New U.S. Consulate General in Casablanca
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Appointment of António Guterres as UN Secretary-General for a Second Term
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • Three Individuals Charged with Arranging Adoptions from Uganda and Poland Through Bribery and Fraud
    In Crime News
    Three women were charged in a 13-count indictment filed on Aug. 14 in the Northern District of Ohio for their alleged roles in schemes to corruptly and fraudulently procure adoptions of Ugandan and Polish children through bribing Ugandan officials and defrauding U.S. adoptive parents, U.S. authorities, and a Polish regulatory authority.
    [Read More…]
  • Chicago Tech Executive Charged with Illegally Exporting Computer Equipment to Pakistan
    In Crime News
    A Chicago-area resident who owns a Pakistani technology company has been indicted for allegedly illegally exporting computer equipment from the United States to a nuclear research agency of the Pakistani government.
    [Read More…]
  • Second Member Of “Boogaloo Bois” Pleads Guilty to Conspiracy to Provide Material Support to Hamas
    In Crime News
    A Minnesota man pleaded guilty today to conspiracy to provide material support and resources, namely property, services and weapons, to what he believed was Hamas, a designated foreign terrorist organization, for use against Israeli and U.S. military personnel overseas.
    [Read More…]
  • NASA Extends Deep Space Atomic Clock Mission
    In Space
    Smart phone apps provide [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…]
  • Former Florida Resident Indicted for Tax Evasion and Failing to Report Foreign Bank Accounts
    In Crime News
    A federal grand jury returned an indictment today charging Lucia Andrea Gatta, a former resident of Palm Beach County, Florida, with tax evasion and failing to file Reports of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBARs), among other offenses, announced Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General Stuart M. Goldberg of the Justice Department’s Tax Division and U.S. Attorney Ariana Fajardo Orshan for the Southern District of Florida.
    [Read More…]
  • The United States Partners with Australia and Japan to Expand Reliable and Secure Digital Connectivity in Palau
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • United States Announces New Humanitarian Assistance for Displaced Rohingya and Members of Other Affected Communities in Bangladesh and Burma
    In Human Health, Resources and Services
    Morgan Ortagus, [Read More…]
  • U.S. Sanctions International Network Enriching Houthis in Yemen
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • Kenyan National Indicted for Conspiring to Hijack Aircraft on Behalf of the Al Qaeda-Affiliated Terrorist Organization Al Shabaab
    In Crime News
    The Department of Justice announced the unsealing of an indictment charging Cholo Abdi Abdullah with six counts of terrorism-related offenses arising from his activities as an operative of the foreign terrorist organization al Shabaab, including conspiring to hijack aircraft in order to conduct a 9/11-style attack in the United States.  Abdullah was arrested in July 2019 in the Philippines on local charges, and was subsequently transferred on Dec. 15, 2020 in connection with his deportation from the Philippines to the custody of U.S. law enforcement for prosecution on the charges in the indictment.  Abdullah was transported from the Phillippines to the United States yesterday, and is expected to be presented today before Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger in Manhattan federal court.  The case is assigned to United States District Judge Analisa Torres.
    [Read More…]
  • Status of UN Arms Embargo on Iran
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Michael R. Pompeo, [Read More…]
  • Upholding Research Integrity at HHS
    In Human Health, Resources and Services
    February 17, 2021 By: [Read More…]
  • Four California Residents Found Guilty of Scheming to Fraudulently Obtain Millions of Dollars in COVID-19 Relief Programs
    In Crime News
    A federal jury convicted four California residents on June 25, for scheming to submit fraudulent loan applications seeking millions of dollars in Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) COVID-19 relief funds.  
    [Read More…]
  • Maryland Tax Preparer Indicted for Preparing False Returns
    In Crime News
    A federal grand jury in Greenbelt, Maryland, returned an indictment today charging an Upper Marlboro tax return preparer with conspiracy to defraud the United States and aiding and assisting in the preparation of false tax returns, announced Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Richard E. Zuckerman of the Justice Department’s Tax Division and U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland Robert K. Hur.
    [Read More…]
  • Bloods Gang Members Sentenced to Life in Prison for Racketeering Conspiracy Involving Murder and Other Crimes
    In Crime News
    Five members of the United Blood Nation (UBN or Bloods) street gang were sentenced in Charlotte, North Carolina, after standing trial on federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) conspiracy and other charges. These defendants’ sentences are the culmination of a prosecution that charged 83 UBN gang members in the Western District of North Carolina with RICO conspiracy and other crimes.
    [Read More…]
  • Secretary Pompeo’s Meeting with Ecuadoran Foreign Minister Gallegos
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Remarks at the 7th Berlin Energy Transition Dialogue
    In Climate - Environment - Conservation
    John Kerry, Special [Read More…]
  • On the Political Persecution of Hong Kong Democracy Advocates
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Michael R. Pompeo, [Read More…]
  • Mongolia Travel Advisory
    In Travel
    Reconsider travel to [Read More…]
  • Goldman Sachs Charged in Foreign Bribery Case and Agrees to Pay Over $2.9 Billion
    In Crime News
    The Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (Goldman Sachs or the Company), a global financial institution headquartered in New York, New York, and Goldman Sachs (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd. (GS Malaysia), its Malaysian subsidiary, have admitted to conspiring to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) in connection with a scheme to pay over $1 billion in bribes to Malaysian and Abu Dhabi officials to obtain lucrative business for Goldman Sachs, including its role in underwriting approximately $6.5 billion in three bond deals for 1Malaysia Development Bhd. (1MDB), for which the bank earned hundreds of millions in fees.  Goldman Sachs will pay more than $2.9 billion as part of a coordinated resolution with criminal and civil authorities in the United States, the United Kingdom, Singapore, and elsewhere. 
    [Read More…]
  • Secretary Blinken’s Call with Tajikistan Foreign Minister Muhriddin
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Department Press Briefing – April 23, 2021
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Jalina Porter, Principal [Read More…]
  • Atrocities in Ethiopia’s Tigray Region
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • Operation Legend: Case of the Day
    In Crime News
    Each weekday, the Department of Justice will highlight a case that has resulted from Operation Legend.  Today’s case is out of the District of New Mexico.  Operation Legend launched in Albuquerque on July 22, 2020, in response to the city facing increased homicide and non-fatal shooting rates.
    [Read More…]
  • Secretary Blinken’s Meeting with Kenyan Cabinet Secretary for Foreign Affairs Omamo
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Patient Recruiter Convicted in $2.8 Million Telemedicine Scheme Against Medicare
    In Crime News
    The owner of an Orlando-area telemarketing call center was convicted for his role in a kickback scheme involving expensive genetic tests and fraudulent telemedicine services that resulted in the payment of approximately $2.8 million in false and fraudulent claims to Medicare.
    [Read More…]
  • Secretary Antony J. Blinken With Jake Tapper of CNN’s The Lead with Jake Tapper
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • Smoke Tests Protect Courtroom Air From COVID-19
    In U.S Courts
    Even as vaccines begin to protect the public from the coronavirus (COVID-19), one of the Judiciary’s biggest priorities is ensuring that the air inside courtrooms and hallways remains safe as courts schedule more in-person legal proceedings.   A new U.S. Courts video highlights a simple technique used to protect court users: a smoke test, which makes air currents inside buildings visible.
    [Read More…]
  • United States Takes Action Against Violators of Religious Freedom
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Michael R. Pompeo, [Read More…]
  • Secretary Antony J. Blinken at a Press Availability
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]