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

  • Presentation of the Sherman Award to the Honorable Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg
    In Crime News
    Welcome to the Conference Center of the historic Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice Building. It is an honor to present the Sherman award to Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg this afternoon. We’re joined today by Judge Ginsburg’s wife Deecy and many of Judge Ginsburg’s colleagues and admirers. We’re particularly honored by the presence of Justice Gorsuch, a champion of liberty, who in his short time on the Supreme Court has reconfirmed his reputation for brilliance, clarity of thought and expression, and for holding the government to its word, whether in the statutes that it enacts or the treaties that it makes. I also welcome the distinguished guests who are with us virtually.
    [Read More…]
  • Owner of Queens Acupuncture Business Pleads Guilty to Aiding and Assisting the Preparation of a False Tax Return
    In Crime News
    The co-owner of a New York acupuncture business pleaded guilty yesterday to aiding and assisting in the preparation of a false tax return, announced Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Richard E. Zuckerman of the Justice Department’s Tax Division.
    [Read More…]
  • U.S. Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Travel Card Program FAQs
    In Travel
    Content currently [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…]
  • Guild Mortgage Company to Pay $24.9 Million to Resolve Allegations it Knowingly Caused False Claims for Federal Mortgage insurance
    In Crime News
    Guild Mortgage Company has agreed to pay the United States $24.9 million to resolve allegations that it violated the False Claims Act by knowingly breaching material program requirements when it originated and underwrote mortgages insured by the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Federal Housing Administration (FHA), the Department of Justice announced today.  Guild Mortgage Company is headquartered in San Diego, California, with branches across the United States.
    [Read More…]
  • NASA to Hold Mars 2020 Perseverance Rover Launch Briefing
    In Space
    Learn more about the [Read More…]
  • China Travel Advisory
    In Travel
    Reconsider travel to the [Read More…]
  • Algeria Travel Advisory
    In Travel
    Reconsider travel to [Read More…]
  • Minnesota Man Charged with Providing Material Support to ISIS
    In Crime News
    Assistant Attorney General for National Security John C. Demers and U.S. Attorney Erica H. MacDonald for the District of Minnesota today announced that Abdelhamid Al-Madioum, 23, of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, has been charged by indictment with providing material support to the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), a designated foreign terrorist organization.
    [Read More…]
  • On the Occasion of World Refugee Day
    In Human Health, Resources and Services
    Michael R. Pompeo, [Read More…]
  • Briefing With Coordinator for Counterterrorism Ambassador Nathan A. Sales On Terrorist Designations of Al-Shabaab Leaders
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Nathan A. Sales, [Read More…]
  • Attorney General William P. Barr Announces Updates on Operation Legend at Press Conference in Kansas City, Missouri
    In Crime News
    At a press conference in Kansas City, Missouri, today, Attorney General William P. Barr announced updates on Operation Legend.
    [Read More…]
  • Secretary Antony J. Blinken Remarks at the Virtual Kenya-U.S. Interagency Clean Energy Event
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • Assistant Secretary David Schenker’s Travel to Lebanon, Morocco, and the United Kingdom
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Togo Travel Advisory
    In Travel
    Reconsider travel [Read More…]
  • New Bankruptcy Filings Plummet 38.1 Percent
    In U.S Courts
    Bankruptcy filings dropped 38.1 percent for the 12-month period ending March 31, 2021, a dramatic fall that coincided with the coronavirus (COVID-19), which first disrupted the economy in March 2020. 
    [Read More…]
  • United States Hosts Indo-Pacific Virtual Conference on Strengthening Governance of Transboundary Rivers
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Spotlight on Naloxone Co-Prescribing
    In Human Health, Resources and Services
    As we recognize [Read More…]
  • Secretary Michael R. Pompeo And Indonesian Foreign Minister Retno Marsudi
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Michael R. Pompeo, [Read More…]
  • Businessman Sentenced for Foreign Bribery and Money Laundering Scheme Involving PetroEcuador Officials
    In Crime News
    An Ecuadorian businessman living in Miami was sentenced today to 35 months in prison for his role in a $4.4 million bribery and money laundering scheme that funneled bribes to then-public officials of Empresa Pública de Hidrocarburos del Ecuador (PetroEcuador), the state-owned and state-controlled oil company of Ecuador.
    [Read More…]
  • Statement from Assistant Attorney General Eric Dreiband and Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Michael Sherwin on Legal Victory Protecting Religious Worship in the Nation’s Capital
    In Crime News
    Judge enjoins District [Read More…]
  • Briefing with Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs Acting Assistant Secretary Julie J. Chung On Secretary Blinken’s Upcoming Virtual Trip to Canada and Mexico
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Julie J. Chung, Acting [Read More…]
  • Medicaid in Times of Crisis
    In U.S GAO News
    This Capsule—named for its 2-page format—draws from a number of GAO reports to provide examples of how the federal government and states have used Medicaid during pandemics, economic recessions, natural disasters, and other crises. In this Capsule, GAO cites policy considerations and reiterates a recommendation to Congress. For more information, contact Carolyn L. Yocom at (202) 512-7114 or yocomc@gao.gov.
    [Read More…]
  • Pennsylvania Biofuel Company and Owners Sentenced on Environmental and Tax Crime Convictions Arising out of Renewable Fuels Fraud
    In Crime News
    Two biofuel company owners were sentenced to prison for conspiracy and making false statements to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and conspiracy to defraud the IRS and preparing a false tax claim.
    [Read More…]
  • The Departments of Justice and Homeland Security Publish Final Rule on Procedures for Asylum and Withholding of Removal
    In Crime News
    Today, the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security (collectively, the Departments) announced the forthcoming publication of a Final Rule that will streamline and enhance procedures for the adjudication of claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) regulations. 
    [Read More…]
  • DISH Network to Pay $210 Million for Telemarketing Violations
    In Crime News
    The Department of Justice today announced a settlement in which DISH Network LLC (DISH) will pay $126 million in civil penalties to the United States for placing millions of telemarketing calls in violation of the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR). This settlement represents the largest civil penalty ever paid to resolve telemarketing violations under the FTC Act, and exceeds the total penalties paid to the government by all prior violators of the TSR. DISH will also pay a combined $84 million to four states for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, for a total settlement of $210 million.
    [Read More…]
  • Owner of Montana Construction Company Pleads Guilty to Employment Tax Fraud
    In Crime News
    A Great Falls, Montana, businessman pleaded guilty today to employment tax fraud, announced Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Richard E. Zuckerman of the Justice Department’s Tax Division and U.S. Attorney Kurt G. Alme for the District of Montana.
    [Read More…]
  • Financial Stability: Agencies Have Not Found Leveraged Lending to Significantly Threaten Stability but Remain Cautious Amid Pandemic
    In U.S GAO News
    In the years before the economic shock from the COVID-19 pandemic, the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) and others assessed the potential risks to financial stability that leveraged loans and collateralized loan obligation (CLO) securities may pose. Generally, leveraged loans are those made to businesses with poor credit and high debt, and CLO securities are backed by these loans. FSOC and others found that riskier borrower profiles and looser underwriting standards left leveraged lending market participants vulnerable to losses in the event of a downturn. After the COVID-19 shock in March 2020, loans suffered record downgrades and increased defaults, but the highest-rated CLO securities remained resilient. Although regulators monitoring the effects of the pandemic remain cautious, as of September 2020, they had not found that leveraged lending presented significant threats to financial stability. Based on regulators' assessments, leveraged lending activities had not contributed significantly to the distress of any large financial entity whose failure could threaten financial stability. Large banks' strong capital positions have allowed them to manage their leveraged lending exposures, and the exposure of insurers and other investors also appeared manageable. Mutual funds experienced redemptions by investors but were able to meet them in part by selling leveraged loan holdings. While this may have put downward pressure on already-distressed loan prices, based on regulators' assessments, distressed leveraged loan prices did not pose a potential threat to financial stability. Present-day CLO securities appear to pose less of a risk to financial stability than did similar securities during the 2007–2009 financial crisis, according to regulators and market participants. For example, CLO securities have better investor protections, are more insulated from market swings, and are not widely tied to other risky, complex instruments. FSOC monitors leveraged-lending-related risks primarily through its monthly Systemic Risk Committee meetings, but opportunities exist to enhance FSOC's abilities to respond to financial stability threats. FSOC identified leveraged lending activities as a source of potential risk to financial stability before the COVID-19 shock and recommended continued monitoring and analysis. However, FSOC does not conduct tabletop or similar scenario-based exercises where participants discuss roles and responses to hypothetical emergency scenarios. As a result, FSOC is missing an opportunity to enhance preparedness and test members' coordinated response to financial stability risks. Further, as GAO reported in 2016, FSOC does not generally have clear authority to address broader risks that are not specific to a particular financial entity, such as risks from leveraged lending. GAO recommended that Congress consider better aligning FSOC's authorities with its mission to respond to systemic risks, but Congress had not done so as of September 2020. GAO maintains that changes such as broader designation authority would help FSOC respond to risks from activities that involve many regulators, such as leveraged lending. The market for institutional leveraged loans grew from an estimated $0.5 trillion in 2010 to $1.2 trillion in 2019, fueled largely by investor demand for CLO securities. Some observers and regulators have drawn comparisons to the pre-2008 subprime mortgage market, noting that loan origination and securitization may similarly spread risks to the financial system. These fears are being tested by the COVID-19 pandemic, which has significantly affected leveraged businesses. This report examines assessments by regulators, FSOC, and others—both before and after the COVID-19 shock to the economy—of the potential risks to financial stability stemming from leveraged lending activities, and the extent to which FSOC monitors and responds to risks from broad-based activities like leveraged lending, among other objectives. GAO examined agency and private data on market size and investor exposures; reviewed agency, industry, and international reports; and interviewed federal financial regulators and industry participants. GAO recommends that the Secretary of the Treasury, as Chairperson of FSOC, conduct scenario-based exercises intended to evaluate capabilities for responding to crises. GAO also reiterates its 2016 recommendation (GAO-16-175) that Congress consider legislative changes to align FSOC's authorities with its mission. FSOC neither agreed nor disagreed with the recommendation, but said that it would take further actions if it determined necessary. For more information, contact Michael E. Clements at (202) 512-8678 or ClementsM@gao.gov.
    [Read More…]
  • North Carolina Man Sentenced for Violating Fair Housing Act and Threatening a Family Because of Their Race
    In Crime News
    The Justice Department announced today that Douglas Matthew Gurkins, 34,was sentenced to 28 months in prison, followed by three years supervised release, for using threats of force against an African American family because of the family members’ race and because they were renting a dwelling.
    [Read More…]
  • Hypersonic Weapons: DOD Should Clarify Roles and Responsibilities to Ensure Coordination across Development Efforts
    In U.S GAO News
    What GAO Found GAO identified 70 efforts to develop hypersonic weapons and related technologies that are estimated to cost almost $15 billion from fiscal years 2015 through 2024 (see figure). These efforts are widespread across the Department of Defense (DOD) in collaboration with the Department of Energy (DOE) and, in the case of hypersonic technology development, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). DOD accounts for nearly all of this amount. Hypersonic Weapon-related and Technology Development Total Reported Funding by Type of Effort from Fiscal Years 2015 through 2024, in Billions of Then-Year Dollars The majority of this funding is for product development and potential fielding of prototype offensive hypersonic weapons. Additionally, it includes substantial investments in developing technologies for next generation hypersonic weapons and a smaller proportion aimed at countering hypersonic threats. Hypersonic weapon systems are technically complex, and DOD has taken several steps to mitigate some of the challenges to developing them. For example, DOD has attempted to address challenges posed by immature technologies and aggressive schedules by pursuing multiple potential technological solutions so that it has options. Other challenges DOD is addressing relate to industrial base and human capital workforce investments needed to support large-scale production and the availability of wind tunnels and open-air flight test ranges needed to test hypersonic weapons. DOE and NASA have agreements with DOD on supporting roles, but DOD itself has not documented the roles, responsibilities, and authorities of the multitude of its organizations, including the military services, that are working on hypersonic weapon development. Such governing documentation would provide for a level of continuity when leadership and organizational priorities inevitably change, especially as hypersonic weapon development efforts are expected to continue over at least the next decade. Without clear leadership roles, responsibilities, and authorities, DOD is at risk of impeding its progress toward delivering hypersonic weapon capabilities and opening up the potential for conflict and wasted resources as decisions over larger investments are made in the future. Why GAO Did This Study Hypersonic missiles, which are an important part of building hypersonic weapon systems, move at least five times the speed of sound, have unpredictable flight paths, and are expected to be capable of evading today's defensive systems. DOD has begun multiple efforts to develop offensive hypersonic weapons as well as technologies to improve its ability to track and defend against them. NASA and DOE are also conducting research into hypersonic technologies. The investments for these efforts are significant. This report identifies: (1) U.S. government efforts to develop hypersonic systems that are underway and their costs, (2) challenges these efforts face and what is being done to address them, and (3) the extent to which the U.S. government is effectively coordinating these efforts. This is a public version of a sensitive report that GAO issued in January 2021. Information that DOD deemed to be sensitive has been omitted. GAO collected and reviewed information from DOD, DOE, and NASA to identify hypersonic weapons development efforts from fiscal years 2015 through 2024. GAO also analyzed agency documentation and interviewed agency officials.
    [Read More…]
  • Earth-Size, Habitable-Zone Planet Found Hidden in Early NASA Kepler Data
    In Space
    While the star it orbits [Read More…]
  • Remarks of Acting Assistant Attorney General Brian C. Rabbitt at the ACI 37th Annual Conference on the FCPA
    In Crime News
    Good morning and thank you for that kind introduction. It is an honor to be here with you today, even if only virtually. Just a year ago, addressing a conference of this size and importance via video would have seemed unthinkable. Today, it is — unfortunately — normal. I look forward to the time — hopefully, soon — when we can gather again in person. In the meantime, I am grateful for this opportunity to speak with you, and I look forward to my discussion with Kim after my remarks conclude.
    [Read More…]
  • Freedom of Information Act: Actions Needed to Improve Agency Compliance with Proactive Disclosure Requirements
    In U.S GAO News
    What GAO Found The FOIA Improvement Act of 2016 expanded the requirement for agencies to proactively disclose certain records—making the records publicly available without waiting for specific requests. Of the three agencies GAO reviewed—Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Veterans Health Administration (VHA)—only VHA aligned its policies and procedures with applicable Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) proactive disclosure requirements. Although FAA officials stated that the agency has processes to identify and post proactive disclosures, it has not documented these processes. HUD has FOIA regulations, updated in 2017, that address proactive disclosure, but its standard operating procedures have outdated sections that do not reflect statutory requirements. GAO also found that HUD, VHA, and FAA did not fully comply with the statutory reporting requirements and Department of Justice's (DOJ) guidance to accurately report proactive disclosures. The FOIA Improvement Act of 2016 requires agencies to report the number of records the FOIA and program offices proactively disclosed each fiscal year. From fiscal years 2017 through 2019, HUD incorrectly reported zero proactive disclosures, while VHA and FAA did not track and report all required categories of proactive disclosures in fiscal year 2019 (see table). Selected Agencies' Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Offices' Reported Proactive Disclosures Fiscal year Federal Aviation Administration Housing and Urban Development Veterans Health Administration 2019 8 0 16 2018 89,687 0 0 2017 90,486 0 58 2016 68,046 12 0 Source: FOIA.gov. | GAO-21-254 DOJ's Office of Information Policy (OIP) is responsible for encouraging agencies' compliance with FOIA, including overseeing the Annual FOIA Report that agencies submit to OIP. OIP told GAO that it asked agencies that report zero proactive disclosures to confirm that this was accurate, but it did not follow up with these agencies. For example, OIP asked HUD officials to confirm that HUD intentionally reported zero proactive disclosures, but did not ask why HUD had zero proactive disclosures. In addition, GAO's review of annual FOIA data found that 25 of 118 agencies reported zero proactive disclosures in fiscal years 2018 and 2019. OIP said that agencies with a low volume of requests may have fewer records to proactively disclose. However, by not following up with agencies that report zero proactive disclosures, OIP is not using an available tool that may strengthen its efforts to encourage agencies to make required disclosures. OIP and National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)'s Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) officials stated that making proactive disclosures accessible is a challenge for agencies. To assist agencies in addressing such challenges, OGIS periodically reviews agencies' compliance with FOIA and recently issued a report that included strategies for making proactive disclosures accessible. Why GAO Did This Study FOIA, enacted into law more than 50 years ago, requires federal agencies to provide the public with access to government records and information, including through proactive disclosures. FOIA proactive disclosures enhance transparency by ensuring that certain information about the operations and activities of the government is publicly available. GAO was asked to review federal agencies' efforts to implement FOIA requirements regarding proactive disclosures. This report assesses the extent to which selected agencies (1) aligned their policies and procedures with FOIA requirements, and (2) tracked and reported these disclosures. GAO also assessed the effectiveness of the tools, resources, and oversight provided by DOJ and NARA to address known challenges to agencies' FOIA compliance. GAO selected three agencies—FAA, HUD, and VHA—that reflect, among other things, a range in the agency-reported number of FOIA requests received and records proactively disclosed. GAO reviewed DOJ, NARA, FAA, HUD, and VHA documents and interviewed agency officials.
    [Read More…]
  • VA Police: Actions Needed to Improve Data Completeness and Accuracy on Use of Force Incidents at Medical Centers
    In U.S GAO News
    The Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) policy on use of force states that police officers must use the minimal level of force that is reasonably necessary to gain control of a situation and should only utilize physical control methods on an individual when the force is justified by the individual's actions. To guide officers, VA developed a Use of Force Continuum Scale to define and clarify the categories of force that can be used. Categories of Force on the VA’s Use of Force Continuum Scale According to VA policy, all police officers must receive training on the VA's use of force policy when hired and biannually thereafter. Officers are trained—through classroom lectures and scenarios that emphasize effective communication techniques—to use the minimal level of force to deescalate a situation. Officers record use of force incidents electronically and the chief of police decides which, if any, use of force incidents need to be investigated in accordance with VA guidance. Chiefs of Police at the six facilities GAO visited conducted investigations in a similar manner, by reviewing evidence and comparing an officer's action with the VA's use of force policy to determine whether actions were justified. While most investigations are conducted at the local level, VA headquarters may also run investigations for certain incidents, such as when it receives a complaint against an officer. VA police officers record incidents in a database, Report Executive, but GAO's analysis indicates that VA data on use of force incidents are not sufficiently complete and accurate for reporting numbers or trends at medical centers nationwide. For example, GAO found that 176 out of 1,214 use of force incident reports did not include the specific type of force used. Further, Report Executive does not track incidents by individual medical centers. By addressing these limitations, VA can more effectively monitor use of force trends by type of force or medical facility, among other variables, to understand the VA's use of force incidents nationwide. GAO also found that VA does not systematically collect or analyze use of force investigation findings from local medical centers, limiting its ability to provide effective oversight. Specifically, there is no policy requiring Chiefs of Police to submit all investigations on use of force to VA headquarters, and VA does not have a database designed to collect and analyze data on use of force investigations. Collecting and analyzing such data nationwide would allow VA to better assess the impact of its deescalation policies and improve the agency's oversight efforts. About 5,000 VA police officers are responsible for securing and protecting 138 VA medical centers across the country. These officers are authorized to investigate crimes, make arrests, and carry firearms. The Dr. Chris Kirkpatrick Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017 included a provision that GAO assess aspects of the VA police services. This report addresses (1) what the VA's policies are on the use of force by police officers at medical centers, and what training officers receive on the use of force; (2) how VA records and investigates use of force incidents at medical centers; and (3) the extent to which VA sufficiently collects and analyzes use of force data at medical centers. To address these objectives, GAO reviewed VA policies, procedures, and training materials on the use of force and interviewed VA officials at headquarters and six local medical centers, selected to represent varying size and locations. GAO reviewed VA data on use of force incidents recorded from May 10, 2019, through May 10, 2020—the most recent full year data were available. GAO is making five recommendations, including that VA improve the completeness and accuracy of its use of force data; implement a tool to analyze use of force incidents at medical centers nationwide; ensure that medical centers submit all use of force investigations to VA headquarters; and analyze the use of force investigation data. The VA concurred with each of GAO's recommendations. For more information, contact Gretta L. Goodwin at (202) 512-8777 or goodwing@gao.gov.
    [Read More…]
  • Small Business Loans: SBA Generally Incorporated Key Elements for Estimating Subsidy Cost of 7(a) Program
    In U.S GAO News
    The Small Business Administration (SBA) develops its subsidy cost estimates for the 7(a) loan guarantee program—that is, estimates of the program's net long-term cost to the government—using a cash flow model. The model uses historical data, econometric equations, and macroeconomic projections to estimate cash flows—such as guarantee fees, SBA purchases of defaulted loans, and recoveries on those loans—for the loans SBA expects to guarantee in the next fiscal year. The net present value of the cash flows (value in current dollars) is the subsidy cost estimate. SBA generally incorporated key elements of subsidy cost estimation into its estimates for the 7(a) program for the fiscal year 2020 budget. Specifically, GAO found that SBA's estimation process was largely consistent with eight key elements GAO previously identified that help ensure subsidy estimates are supported, reliable, and reasonable. For example, SBA generally validated historical data, documented the cash flow model and key assumptions, analyzed the sensitivity of estimates to alternative assumptions, and had documented policies and procedures. SBA made changes in its estimation process that collectively increased the 7(a) program's subsidy cost to $99 million for fiscal year 2020 (a 0.33 percent subsidy rate when expressed as the cost per dollar of credit assistance) from $0 for fiscal year 2019 (0 percent subsidy rate). Some of these changes were routine updates to data and economic assumptions used in the cash flow model, while others were revisions to the estimation process. Additionally, some individual changes increased the subsidy costs, while others decreased it. Some of the changes that had the largest impact on the subsidy rate included the following: Incorporating the President's economic assumptions for fiscal year 2020 decreased the rate by 0.27 percentage points. Updating the basis for the size and composition of the loan cohort SBA expected to guarantee in fiscal year 2020 increased the rate by 0.21 percentage points. Revising the methodology for estimating purchase amounts for defaulted loans to better reflect the outstanding loan balance at the time of purchase increased the rate by 0.21 percentage points. The 7(a) program is SBA's largest loan guarantee program for small businesses, with about $95 billion in outstanding loan principal as of the end of fiscal year 2019. Federal agencies that provide credit assistance are generally required to estimate the net long-term cost to the government—known as the subsidy cost—for each annual cohort of loans. SBA initially estimated a zero subsidy cost for each cohort from fiscal years 2014 through 2019, but estimated that the fiscal year 2020 cohort would have a positive subsidy cost and require appropriations. GAO was asked to evaluate SBA's subsidy estimation process for the 7(a) program. This report examines (1) how SBA estimates 7(a) subsidy costs, (2) the extent to which SBA incorporated key elements of subsidy cost estimation into its estimation process for the fiscal year 2020 budget, and (3) the changes SBA made in its estimation process for the fiscal year 2020 budget. GAO reviewed SBA documentation on its estimation process, including information on SBA's cash flow model, and compared SBA's process to key elements that GAO previously identified ( GAO-16-269 ). GAO also interviewed officials from SBA, the Office of Management and Budget, and outside auditors and contractors that annually review SBA's process and model. For more information, contact William B. Shear at (202) 512-8678 or shearw@gao.gov.
    [Read More…]
  • Libya Travel Advisory
    In Travel
    Do not travel to Libya [Read More…]
  • Attorney General Merrick B. Garland Announces Investigation of the City of Minneapolis, Minnesota, and the Minneapolis Police Department
    In Crime News
    Attorney General Merrick B. Garland announced today the Justice Department has opened a pattern or practice investigation into the City of Minneapolis (the City) and the Minneapolis Police Department (MPD). The investigation will assess all types of force used by MPD officers, including uses of force involving individuals with behavioral health disabilities and uses of force against individuals engaged in activities protected by the First Amendment. The investigation will also assess whether MPD engages in discriminatory policing. As part of the investigation the Justice Department will conduct a comprehensive review of MPD policies, training and supervision. The department will also examine MPD’s systems of accountability, including complaint intake, investigation, review, disposition and discipline. The Department of Justice will also reach out to community groups and members of the public to learn about their experiences with MPD. “The investigation I am announcing today will assess whether the Minneapolis Police Department engages in a pattern or practice of using excessive force, including during protests,” said Attorney General Garland. “Building trust between community and law enforcement will take time and effort by all of us, but we undertake this task with determination and urgency, knowing that change cannot wait.” This morning, Department of Justice officials informed Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, MPD Chief Medaria Arradondo, City Attorney Jim Rowader, City Coordinator Mark Ruff, and City Council President Lisa Bender of the investigation. The department will continue to work closely with both the City and MPD as the investigation progresses. “One of the Civil Rights Division’s highest priorities is to ensure that every person in this country benefits from public safety systems that are lawful, responsive, transparent and nondiscriminatory,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Pamela S. Karlan for the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. “It is essential that police departments across the country use their law enforcement authority, including the authority to use force, in a manner that respects civil rights and the sanctity of human life.” “People throughout the city of Minneapolis want a public safety system that protects and serves all members of our community,” said Acting U.S. Attorney W. Anders Folk for the District of Minnesota. “This investigation by the Department of Justice provides a vital step to restore and build trust in the Minneapolis Police Department and its officers.” The investigation is being conducted pursuant to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which prohibits state and local governments from engaging in a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers that deprives individuals of rights protected by the Constitution or federal law. The Act allows the Department of Justice to remedy such misconduct through civil litigation. The department will be assessing law enforcement practices under the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, as well as under the Safe Streets Act of 1968, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Special Litigation Section of the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, in Washington, D.C., and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Minnesota, in Minneapolis, are jointly conducting this investigation. Individuals with relevant information are encouraged to contact the Department of Justice via email at Community.Minneapolis@usdoj.gov or by phone at 866-432-0268. Individuals can also report civil rights violations regarding this or other matters using the Civil Rights Division’s new reporting portal, available at civilrights.justice.gov. Additional information about the Civil Rights Division is available on its website at www.justice.gov/crt. Additional information about the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Minnesota is available on its website at https://www.justice.gov/usao-mn.
    [Read More…]
  • Seychelles Travel Advisory
    In Travel
  • Imposing Sanctions Related to the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines and Iranian Shipping Entities
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Michael R. Pompeo, [Read More…]
  • Department of Justice Invests More than $87 Million in Grants to Address School Violence
    In Crime News
    The Department of [Read More…]
  • Secretary Antony J. Blinken With Rosemary Barton of Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • NASA’s TESS, Spitzer Missions Discover a World Orbiting a Unique Young Star
    In Space
    The newly discovered [Read More…]
  • Telecommunications: FCC Has Implemented the Lifeline National Verifier but Should Improve Consumer Awareness and Experience
    In U.S GAO News
    As of June 2020, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) required consumers nationwide to use the Lifeline National Verifier (Verifier), a centralized process and data system, to check their eligibility for Lifeline. Because consumers who participate in certain federal benefits programs qualify for discounted phone and internet service through Lifeline, the Verifier checks state and federal benefits databases to verify consumers' eligibility. The Verifier also includes a manual review process for consumers to submit documents proving their eligibility if they cannot be found in a database. As of November 2020, the Verifier had connections with databases in 20 states and 2 federal agencies. GAO found that although consumers in states without state database connections had the same likelihood of actually meeting eligibility requirements as consumers in states with such connections, they were less likely to be found eligible for Lifeline through the Verifier (see figure). Average Eligibility Determination for New Lifeline Applicants in States with and without State Database Connections to the Lifeline National Verifier, June 2018 through June 2020 FCC coordinated with state and federal stakeholders to implement the Verifier. However, stakeholders told GAO that many eligible consumers are not aware of the Verifier or Lifeline. Consumers may lack this awareness because FCC's consumer education planning did not always align with key practices, such as developing consistent, clear messages and researching target audiences. As a result, eligible consumers may not apply for Lifeline. Moreover, while FCC originally envisioned tribal governments and organizations assisting residents of tribal lands with the Verifier, it has not provided them with quality information to effectively do so. Although FCC reported that the Verifier is meeting its goal of improving the consumer experience, GAO found that the manual review process, which FCC used to determine the eligibility of more than half of applicants in many states, is challenging for consumers. However, FCC does not collect complete information on consumers' experience with this process, and thus is limited in its ability to identify and address the challenges consumers face. Such challenges likely contributed to eligible consumers giving up on their applications. For example, we found that more than two-thirds of applicants who underwent manual review between June 2018 and June 2020 did not complete their applications. FCC's Lifeline program discounts phone and internet service for eligible low-income consumers. In 2019, FCC authorized $982 million in support for 6.9 million eligible consumers. FCC created the Verifier with the stated goals of reducing fraud and costs and improving the consumer experience. The Verifier includes an online application, connections to state and federal benefits databases, and a standardized manual review process. GAO was asked to review FCC's implementation of the Verifier. This report examines: (1) the status of the Verifier; (2) FCC's coordination with stakeholders and efforts to educate consumers and facilitate tribal stakeholders' involvement; and (3) the extent to which the Verifier is meeting its goals. GAO reviewed FCC orders and documentation; analyzed Verifier performance and Lifeline subscriber data; interviewed FCC and other agency officials, and selected industry, state, tribal, and consumer stakeholders; and surveyed state officials. Stakeholders were selected to obtain a variety of non-generalizable viewpoints. GAO is making six recommendations, including that FCC develop a consumer education plan, provide quality information to tribal organizations, and collect information on consumers' experience with the manual review process. FCC agreed to take steps to address all of GAO's recommendations. For more information, contact Andrew Von Ah at (202)-512-2834 or vonaha@gao.gov.
    [Read More…]
  • Defense Health Care: Implementation of Value-Based Initiatives in TRICARE
    In U.S GAO News
    The Defense Health Agency (DHA)—the agency within the Department of Defense (DOD) that administers DOD's health care program, TRICARE—has identified a number of value-based initiatives for potential implementation with civilian providers and hospitals under the TRICARE program. These initiatives aim to help DHA build a value-based health care delivery system, in which providers are rewarded for value of services provided instead of volume of services provided. For these initiatives, value is generally measured in terms of improved health outcomes, enhanced experience of care for the patient, and reduced health care costs over time. GAO found that DHA has identified 20 value-based initiatives, including a program that makes incentive payments for hospitals that meet certain quality metrics for maternity services and a program that promotes adherence to medication regimens by waiving co-payments, among others. According to DHA officials, the 20 initiatives include five that have been implemented (two complete, three underway); three that will be implemented in the future—two with anticipated 2020 start dates are currently on hold due to the department's need to focus on the response to the Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) pandemic and one that is expected to be implemented in January 2021; eight that are still under review, but no decisions have been made about whether and when they might be implemented; and four that were considered but will not be implemented. In fiscal year 2019, DOD offered health care services to approximately 9.6 million eligible beneficiaries worldwide through TRICARE, its regionally structured health care program. Beneficiaries may obtain health care services through DOD's direct care system of military hospitals and clinics or from its purchased care system of civilian providers. DOD contracts with private sector companies—referred to as managed care support contractors—to develop and maintain networks of civilian providers and perform other customer service functions for its purchased care system. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (NDAA 2017) required DOD to develop and implement value-based incentive initiatives in its TRICARE contracts. The NDAA 2017 also included a provision that required GAO to review these initiatives. This correspondence describes the initiatives DHA has developed and the status of each, as of June 2020. To do this work, GAO interviewed knowledgeable DHA officials and analyzed available documentation on each initiative, including decision papers, congressional reports, and Federal Register notices. For more information, contact Debra A. Draper at (202) 512-7114 or draperd@gao.gov.
    [Read More…]
  • Remarks at World Economic Forum, Davos 2021
    In Climate - Environment - Conservation
    John Kerry, Special [Read More…]
  • Secretary Blinken’s Call with Colombian Foreign Minister Blum
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Uruguay Travel Advisory
    In Travel
    Reconsider travel to [Read More…]
  • Veteran Suicide: VA Needs Accurate Data and Comprehensive Analyses to Better Understand On-Campus Suicides
    In U.S GAO News
    The Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) process for identifying on-campus suicides does not include a step for ensuring the accuracy of the number of suicides identified. As a result, its numbers are inaccurate. VA's Veterans Health Administration (VHA) first started tracking on-campus veteran suicides in October 2017, and uses the results to inform VA leadership and Congress. GAO reviewed the data and found errors in the 55 on-campus veteran suicides VHA identified for fiscal years 2018 and 2019, including 10 overcounts (deaths that should not have been reported but were) and four undercounts (deaths that should have been reported but were not).   Examples of Errors on the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) List of 55 On-Campus Veteran Suicides for Fiscal Years 2018 and 2019 (as of September 2019) VA has taken some steps to address on-campus veteran suicides, such as issuing guidance and staff training. However, GAO found that the analyses informing these efforts are limited. Specifically, VHA requires root cause analyses—processes to determine what can be done to prevent recurrences of incidents—for some but not all on-campus veteran suicides. According to VHA officials, only 25 percent of on-campus suicides from October 2017 to April 2019 met the criteria for a root cause analysis. does not make use of all relevant information VA collects about these deaths, such as clinical and demographic data collected through other VA suicide prevention efforts. VHA officials said they could not link the different sources of information, but GAO found that selected medical facilities could do so. Without accurate information on the number of suicides and comprehensive analyses of the underlying causes, VA does not have a full understanding of the prevalence and nature of on-campus suicides, hindering its ability to address them. VA established suicide prevention as its highest clinical priority. In recent years, there have been reports of veterans dying by suicide on VA campuses—in locations such as inpatient settings, parking lots, and on the grounds of cemeteries. GAO was asked to review veteran deaths by suicide on VA campuses. This report examines (1) VA's process to track the number of veterans that died by suicide on VA campuses, and (2) steps VA has taken to address these types of suicides. GAO reviewed the sources of information VHA uses to identify and analyze on-campus veteran suicides, VA and VHA strategic plans and policies related to suicide prevention and reporting, and federal internal control standards. GAO also interviewed VA and VHA central office officials, and officials from three medical facilities that GAO selected because they reportedly had on-campus veteran suicides between fiscal years 2018 and 2019. GAO is making three recommendations, including that VA improve its process to accurately identify all on-campus veteran suicides and conduct more comprehensive analyses of these occurrences. VA did not concur with one of GAO's recommendations related to conducting root cause analyses. GAO continues to believe that this recommendation is valid, as discussed in the report. For more information, contact Debra A. Draper at (202) 512-7114 or draperd@gao.gov.
    [Read More…]
  • Veterans Affairs: Use of Additional Funding for COVID-19 Relief
    In U.S GAO News
    What GAO Found The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) received $19.6 billion in supplemental funding—additional funding above the annual appropriation—in March 2020 to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. GAO's analysis of VA data shows that through March 2021, VA had obligated $9.9 billion and expended $8.1 billion of the supplemental funding. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Reported Obligations and Expenditures of CARES Act and Families First Coronavirus Response Act Funding through March 2021 Note: An obligation is a definite commitment that creates a legal liability to pay, and an expenditure is the actual spending of money. The majority of the obligated supplemental funding ($8.3 billion) was obligated by VA's Veterans Health Administration (VHA) for care provided to veterans by non-VA providers, the additional costs of salaries (such as for overtime) and related expenses of VHA staff, supplies and materials, and support for homeless veterans, due to COVID-19 response. The remaining obligations included costs of VA's transition to telehealth and telework during the COVID-19 pandemic, primarily through the Office of Information Technology (OIT). According to spend plan documents and department officials, VA plans to obligate its remaining $9.7 billion in funding on activities including COVID-19 testing, purchasing supplies and equipment, and distributing COVID-19 vaccines. VA mainly relies on its standard financial management processes to oversee the use of supplemental funds, including establishing new versions of standard financial codes to account for and report on use of funds through VA's financial system. VA also collected details about the use of supplemental funding, such as descriptions of the activities for which funds were obligated, that were not available in its financial system. In addition, the VA components that received the majority of the supplemental funding—VHA and OIT—set up additional processes and issued guidance specific to the use of supplemental funding, such as establishing councils to review funding requests. Why GAO Did This Study As of April 14, 2021, VA reported 224,538 cumulative veteran cases of COVID-19, and 11,366 deaths. The CARES Act and Families First Coronavirus Response Act included supplemental funding for COVID-19 relief, and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, permitted VA additional flexibility to transfer these funds across the department. The CARES Act also included a provision for GAO to report on its ongoing monitoring and oversight efforts related to the COVID-19 pandemic. This report examines 1) VA's obligations and expenditures of COVID-19 supplemental funding, as well as its plans to obligate remaining funds, and 2) how VA oversees the use of COVID-19 supplemental funds. GAO reviewed VA data on obligations, expenditures, and spend plans for COVID-19 supplemental funding, as well as contracting documentation and documentation on the processes and guidance VA developed to oversee the use of funds. GAO interviewed VA officials responsible for oversight of the supplemental funding, including officials from five regional networks, selected based on funding levels and geography, to gather information about their roles in overseeing the use of and accounting for supplemental funding. VA reviewed a draft of this report and provided a technical comment, which was incorporated as appropriate. For more information, contact Sharon M. Silas at (202) 512-7114 or silass@gao.gov.
    [Read More…]
  • Mozambique Travel Advisory
    In Travel
    Reconsider travel to [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…]
  • Financial Assistance: Lessons Learned from CARES Act Loan Program for Aviation and Other Eligible Businesses
    In U.S GAO News
    The CARES Act authorized up to $46 billion for the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) to make loans to aviation and other eligible businesses affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Of the 267 applications submitted to the loan program, 35 loans providing $21.9 billion in assistance were executed. Treasury officials do not expect to make any additional loans before Treasury's authority to make loans expires. Applications and Loans for CARES Act Loan Program for Aviation and Other Eligible Businesses, by Category in Statute Type of business Number of applications submitted Assistance sought/available (billions of dollars) Number of loans executed Assistance provided (billions of dollars) Passenger air carrier, repair station operator, and ticket agent 183 35 / 25 23 21.2 Cargo air carrier 10 0.8 / 4 1 0.002 National security business 74 2.6 / 17 11 0.7 Total 267 38.3 / 46 35 21.9 Source: GAO analysis of Department of the Treasury data | GAO-21-198 Note: Pub. L. No. 116-136, § 4003(b)(1)-(3). Participation in the loan program varied across business types due to timing of decisions and other factors, according to stakeholders. Treasury prioritized applications from the largest passenger air carriers and executed loans with seven of them for nearly $20.8 billion. For other applicants, including smaller passenger air carriers and ticket agents, the amount of time Treasury took to evaluate their applications and other challenges affected the number of loans executed, according to selected industry associations. Treasury's authority to make new loans under this program is set to expire in December 2020, and the loan program offers Congress and Treasury lessons for designing and implementing programs of this type in the future. For example: Multiple programs, or multiple paths within a program, may better accommodate businesses of varied types and sizes. It is difficult to implement a program quickly for a wide range of businesses. In addition, a loan program well suited to large, financially sophisticated applicants will not likely be well suited to smaller businesses. Setting and communicating clear program goals could better align lender and borrower expectations. Treasury viewed itself as a lender of last resort but did not state this view in published documents. This omission led to some applicants being surprised by parts of the process, such as when Treasury encouraged over a third of all applicants to apply to another loan program before continuing to pursue a loan from Treasury. Communicating clear timelines for action can also help align lender and borrower expectations. The lack of a published timeline resulted in frustration among some applicants when loans were not made more quickly. The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in catastrophic loss of life and substantial damage to the global economy, including the aviation sector. U.S. passenger air carriers have lost almost $20 billion and over 47,000 jobs in 2020, with losses forecast to continue into 2021. In March 2020, Congress passed, and the President signed into law, the CARES Act, which provides over $2 trillion in emergency assistance and health care response for individuals, families, and businesses affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, including businesses in the aviation sector. The CARES Act contained a provision for GAO to review the loans provided under the Act. This report examines, among other things, eligible businesses' participation in the loan program and lessons learned from the program for Congress and Treasury. GAO reviewed Treasury documents and data on applications received and loans executed; interviewed Treasury officials on the design and implementation of the program; and interviewed eight industry associations that represent the range of businesses eligible for loans, eight passenger air carriers, and other selected applicants to gather their views on the program. GAO will continue to monitor and report on CARES Act assistance to the aviation industry. This oversight includes the loan program and another Treasury program—the Payroll Support Program—that provided assistance to certain aviation businesses to continue paying employee wages, salaries, and benefits. For more information, contact Heather Krause at (202) 512-2834 or krauseh@gao.gov.
    [Read More…]
  • Three Additional States Ask Court To Join Justice Department Antitrust Suit Against Google
    In Crime News
    Today, the Attorneys General of Michigan and Wisconsin filed for permission to join the antitrust lawsuit filed by the United States and eleven other state Attorneys General against monopolist Google. This follows a similar recent motion by the California Attorney General to join the lawsuit on December 11, 2020.
    [Read More…]
  • Information Technology: Agencies Need to Develop and Implement Modernization Plans for Critical Legacy Systems
    In U.S GAO News
    What GAO Found In June 2019, GAO identified 10 critical federal information technology (IT) legacy systems that were most in need of modernization. These legacy systems provided vital support to agencies' missions. According to the agencies, these legacy systems ranged from about 8 to 51 years old and, collectively, cost about $337 million annually to operate and maintain. Several of the systems used older languages, such as Common Business Oriented Language (COBOL). GAO has previously reported that reliance on such languages has risks, such as a rise in procurement and operating costs, and a decrease in the availability of individuals with the proper skill sets. Further, several of the legacy systems were operating with known security vulnerabilities and unsupported hardware and software. Of the 10 agencies responsible for these legacy systems, GAO reported in June 2019 that seven agencies (the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, the Interior, the Treasury; as well as the Office of Personnel Management; Small Business Administration; and Social Security Administration) had documented plans for modernizing the systems (see table). Of the seven agencies with plans, only the Departments of the Interior's and Defense's modernization plans included all of the key elements identified in best practices (milestones, a description of the work necessary to complete the modernization, and a plan for the disposition of the legacy system). The other five agencies lacked complete modernization plans. The Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, and Transportation did not have documented modernization plans. Table: Extent to Which Agencies' Had Documented Modernization Plans for Legacy Systems That Included Key Elements, as of June 2019 Agency Included milestones to complete the modernization Described work necessary to modernize system Summarized planned disposition of legacy system Department of Defense Yes Yes Yes Department of Education n/a – did not have a documented modernization plan Department of Health and Human Services n/a – did not have a documented modernization plan Department of Homeland Security No Yes No Department of the Interior Yes Yes Yes Department of the Treasury Partial Yes No Department of Transportation n/a – did not have a documented modernization plan Office of Personnel Management Partial Partial No Small Business Administration Yes No Yes Social Security Administration Partial Partial No Source: GAO analysis of agency modernization plans. | GAO-21-524T Agencies received a “partial” if the element was completed for a portion of the modernization. GAO stressed that, until the eight agencies established complete plans, their modernizations would face an increased risk of cost overruns, schedule delays, and project failure. Accordingly, GAO recommended that each of the eight develop such plans. However, to date, seven of the agencies had not done so. It is essential that agencies implement GAO's recommendations and these plans in order to meet mission needs, address security risks, and reduce operating costs. Why GAO Did This Study Each year, the federal government spends more than $100 billion on IT and cyber-related investments. Of this amount, agencies have typically spent about 80 percent on the operations and maintenance of existing IT investments, including legacy systems. However, federal legacy systems are becoming increasingly obsolete. In May 2016, GAO reported instances where agencies were using systems that had components that were at least 50 years old or the vendors were no longer providing support for hardware or software. Similarly, in June 2019 GAO reported that several of the federal government's most critical legacy systems used outdated languages, had unsupported hardware and software, and were operating with known security vulnerabilities. GAO was asked to testify on its June 2019 report on federal agencies' legacy systems. Specifically, GAO summarized (1) the critical federal legacy systems that we identified as most in need of modernization and (2) its evaluation of agencies' plans for modernizing them. GAO also provided updated information regarding agencies' implementation of its related recommendations.
    [Read More…]
  • How NASA’s Perseverance Mars Team Has Adjusted to Work in the Time of Coronavirus
    In Space
    Like much of the rest of [Read More…]
  • Home Depot to Pay $20,750,000 Penalty for Nationwide Failure to Follow Rules for Conducting Renovations Involving Lead Paint
    In Crime News
    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Justice today announced a proposed nationwide settlement with Home Depot U.S.A. Inc. resolving alleged violations of the EPA’s Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule at home renovations performed by Home Depot’s contractors across the country. The States of Utah, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, which have EPA-authorized RRP programs, are joining the United States in this action.
    [Read More…]
  • Department Press Briefing – April 30, 2021
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Jalina Porter, Principal [Read More…]
  • Defense Budget: Opportunities Exist to Improve DOD’s Management of Defense Spending
    In U.S GAO News
    GAO's previous work has shown that a number of opportunities exist for the Department of Defense (DOD) to strengthen management of defense spending, which would help the department address the challenges it faces, especially in a constrained budget environment. These opportunities include: Improving budgeting execution of funds. DOD does not fully obligate the funds appropriated to it and can improve both its budgeting for and its use of the resources that are provided to it. For example, GAO found that DOD has left billions of dollars in appropriated amounts unspent over the past 10 fiscal years. Better estimating annual budget requirements and obligating appropriations provided by Congress within the period of availability established by Congress would help DOD minimize these cases of under-execution. More clearly determining future resource requirements related to overseas contingency operations. DOD and Congress need a clearer determination of DOD's future resource requirements, in particular how and whether to incorporate enduring Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) costs—costs that will endure beyond ongoing contingency operations—into DOD's base budget. These costs could total tens of billions of dollars a year. However, few details exist as to what makes up these enduring costs or how they were derived, raising questions about how much should be included as future requirements. Reducing improper payments. Addressing improper payments—payments that should not have been made or were made in an incorrect amount—is an area where better financial management could save DOD billions of dollars. In its fiscal year 2020 agency financial report, DOD estimated that it paid about $11.4 billion in improper payments, or about 1.7 percent of all payments it made that year. DOD has taken steps to reduce improper payments in some areas, but DOD's estimates of its improper payments in other areas indicate more remains to be done. Sustaining and refining department-wide business reform efforts. DOD must transform its overall business operations so that it can more efficiently and effectively use its resources. In recent years, DOD reported notable achievements from its most recent department-wide business reform efforts, including $37 billion in savings from fiscal years 2017 to 2021 as a result of these efforts. However, GAO previously found that while DOD's reported savings were largely reflected in its budget materials, the analyses underlying these estimates were not always well documented and the savings were not always the result of business reform. Moreover, uncertainty about the leadership structure at DOD for overseeing and reforming business operations, including the recent elimination of the Chief Management Officer position, calls into question whether efforts to fundamentally transform how the department does business can be realized and sustained. GAO has previously highlighted the importance of DOD providing clear department-wide guidance on roles, responsibilities, authorities, and resources for business reform efforts will be necessary for DOD to make progress in these efforts. Decisions by DOD and Congress regarding long-term defense needs will have a meaningful impact on the nation's fiscal future. As the single largest category of discretionary spending, defense spending is likely to play a large role in any discussion of future federal spending. GAO and others have found that DOD faces challenges that are likely to put pressure on its budget moving forward. DOD is the only major federal agency that has been unable to receive a clean audit opinion on its financial statements. This testimony provides information on how DOD can better manage defense spending, specifically related to its ability to (1) accurately estimate its budgetary requirements and execute its appropriated funds, (2) determine resource requirements related to overseas contingency operations, (3) reduce improper payments, and (4) sustain and refine department-wide reform efforts. For this testimony, GAO reviewed and summarized its recent work on DOD budget and financial management issues and departmental reform efforts. In prior work on which this testimony is based, GAO made recommendations that DOD take steps to better estimate its annual budget requirements and future fiscal needs for OCO, reduce improper payments, and refine and formalize its departmental reform efforts. DOD generally concurred with these recommendations and is working toward implementing them. For more information, contact Elizabeth A. Field at (202) 512-2775 or fielde1@gao.gov.
    [Read More…]
  • Panama Travel Advisory
    In Travel
    Do not travel to Panama [Read More…]
  • Justice Department Settles Title VII Lawsuit Against Tallahatchie County, Mississippi, Alleging Intentional Discrimination Based on Race
    In Crime News
    The Department of Justice announced today that it has reached a settlement agreement resolving the United States’ claims that Tallahatchie County, Mississippi, and the Tallahatchie County sheriff in his official capacity (collectively, Tallahatchie County), intentionally discriminated against Black deputy sheriffs based on their race, by paying them less than white deputy sheriffs, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
    [Read More…]