September 28, 2021

News

News Network

Remarks at World Economic Forum, Davos 2021

15 min read

John Kerry, Special Presidential Envoy for Climate

World Economic Forum, Davos 2021

Mobilizing Action on Climate Change

Host BørgeBrende, President World Economic Forum Geneva: I am so delighted to welcome former secretary of state and special presidential envoy for climate, my dear friend John Kerry. John has been a leader on climate change for decades. One of the crowning achievements that I saw myself was of course was his role as one of the key architects of the Paris Climate Accord. President Biden signed an executive order to rejoin the accord on his first day in office. A testament to this administration’s commitment to prioritize climate action. Secretary Kerry knows that tackling the climate crisis will require allegiances across political divides and will need to include both the public and private sector. Which is why, as we all remember in 2019, he co-founded World War Zero together with Republican Governor John Kasich to work in a bipartisan and multi-stakeholder way to tackle climate change. Secretary Kerry, John, he will serve in the President’s cabinet and on the National Security Council, showing really that the administration considers climate change as a national security concern and the need of global cooperation to turn the tide. So happy to see you. John, the floor is yours. Go ahead.

Secretary Kerry: Well Børge thank you, very, very much. First of all, thank you for the invitation. Thank you for a very generous introduction. May I say you have become a great friend and as Norway’s foreign minister, you are always an extraordinary partner to all of us. You’re a great collaborator and in your own right, a great renowned leader on climate change and ocean conservation which I personally benefited from enormously the impact of your advocacy when you came to Washington for your first ocean’s conference so thank you for that. You were literally a great tag team partner then and you brought the same determination and vision to your work at the helm of the World Economic Forum and we thank you. Congratulations on making the conference a success even during a global pandemic. The scenery has kind of changed, but I think everyone would agree that the focus is the same and you are busy breaking down the silos and bringing sectors and stakeholders together to find the synergies on critical issues.

Obviously, I think nothing fits the bill for doing that more than global climate change. It’s been at the top of your global risks report for a number of years now. Three years ago, scientists starkly warned us that we had twelve years in which to make decisions to avoid the worst consequences of the climate crisis. Now, already, we are down to nine years left.  And we are into the decisive decade for action and the evidence of urgency is literally all around us.

I know it’s easy to get a little bit barraged by it all and almost numb to the warnings. But over Christmas, I read an article by Michael Benson that ought to stop every single one of us in our tracks. He examined photographs from geostationary satellites and piecing- you could see huge plumes of smoke when you saw these pictures from Australia’s fires with I quote him “flame vortexes spiraling two hundred feet into the year passing New Zealand and stretching thousands of miles into the cobalt Pacific.” And there in plain sight was the result of a disaster so vast that it had already consumed fifteen million acres, a figure that then would rise to 46 million, and in the end Australia’s fires killed dozens of people, destroyed 5,900 buildings, and quite likely according to the best science, rendered some of the country’s endangered species extinct. Benson summed it up, “With shocking iconographic precision, that unfurling banner of smoke said, ‘The war has started, we’re losing.’”

So, in the United States, three storms two years ago – Irma, Harvey, and Maria – cost us 265 billion dollars just to clean up after them. Last year, one storm, $55 billion dollars. Yet in stark contrast, we don’t fully fund our Paris commitment of $100 billion a year mobilized for poor nation adaptation and mitigation. So, we are here now in this moment, not just because we understand the urgency, or because we understand the moral imperative, we are here because we know we can’t afford to lose any longer. And action is the one moral, economic, and scientific imperative worth contemplating.

Let me just say to you, President Biden is totally committed to this fight. He understands what we are up against. And that’s why he ran on the most ambitious and comprehensive climate platform of any presidential candidate in U.S. history. It’s why he made “Building Back Better – and investing in clean energy and clean transportation to create millions of jobs – he made it a pillar of his campaign and now a centerpiece of his presidency.

It’s the reason today, one week into the job, the president, President Biden, will sign another series of executive orders that continue to advance his climate agenda. First, making climate central to foreign policy planning and national security preparedness by creating platforms to coordinate climate action across all federal agencies and departments, by directing his administration to develop a U.S. climate finance plan, as well as a plan for ending international financing of fossil fuel projects with public money, and moving to ratify the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, and by hosting a leaders summit less than three months from now on Earth Day, April 22nd. It is also obviously why we rejoined the Paris Agreement just hours after being sworn in as President.

It’s fair to say that he knows we don’t have a single moment to waste. I think all the member of this panel understand that. He also knows that Paris alone is not enough. Not when almost 90% of global emissions comes from outside of U.S. borders as it does for most countries in the world. So domestic action cannot possibly be enough if we don’t together forge an international strategy to galvanize the world to drive greater ambition from every country, every sector and ensure that the clean energy future we need is global in scope and scale. The whole world has to come to this table to solve the problem.

So, we rejoin the international climate effort with humility – and I mean that – and ambition. Humility because we know we wasted four years in which we were inexcusably absent. Humility knowing that today almost no country, and for certain, no continent is getting the job done. But we reenter with ambition knowing that the COP in Glasgow in November all nations have to raise our sights together or we all fail together. Our goal in Glasgow is to see all major emitting countries together raise ambition – to not be content with goals thirty years from now but to lay out roadmaps with benchmarks starting this year to acknowledge gaps where they exist, but to show how we get there. Because we need technology breakthroughs and critically, we need to put forward real finance plans to bring the whole world along. Failure is obviously not an option.

That is why ambition is so important because success will actually bring enormous reward in countless measures. We have to get away from this argument that deniers and procrastinators have made that this is a choice between a quality of life or taking care of this challenge. Success means tapping into the best of global ingenuity, creativity, and diplomacy. From brain power to alternative energy power, using every tool we have to get where we need to go. A zero emissions future offers remarkable opportunity for business, for clean, green jobs, for economic growth. To use the President’s words, to ‘build back better’ from the global economic crisis.

Just a few quick examples to demonstrate what this opportunity really is. The highest-valued auto company in the world today is Tesla, and it only makes electric vehicles. Mitsubishi is building the world’s largest zero emissions steel plant in Austria. Heidelberg Cement is working on a plant in Norway that anticipates capturing all of its CO2 from concrete by 2030. Globally, the cheapest new electric power plant you can install is based on renewables which explains why it now makes up more than 70% of all new capacity. And green economies are going to generate a remarkable number of new jobs. The EU anticipates 2 million new jobs. Here in the U.S. until COVID we had 5 years of steady growth in clean energy employment with over 3.3 million workers put into jobs across our country. India has seen a fivefold increase in clean energy jobs over the same period. And that’s just a taste of the marketplace without limits that awaits us if we get serious.

The bottom line, my friends, is, I don’t think anyone can say- I mean individual countries have been serious, individual companies have been serious, but as a world we have yet to be really serious and do what we need to do. And according to most of the recent statistics, emissions globally rose over the years since Paris. And while 2020 obviously saw a small dip because of COVID, they are now again on the rise, and everybody expects a quick rebound unless much more stringent policies are put in place.

To be on track and accomplish this, even with a 66% probability of keeping global temperatures from rising more than 1.5 degrees, we need to cut global emissions in half by 2030. What does that mean? It means we have to phase out coal five times faster than we have been. It means we have to increase tree cover five times faster. It means we have to ramp up renewable energy six times faster. It means we have to transition to electric vehicles at a rate 22 times faster. All of that is achievable if we plan, if we invest, and if we tap the forces of the marketplace. Can we do it? We actually can. But not unless we summon greater political will, not unless we harness the full energy of the marketplace, not unless we ask the private sector to help our financial institutions mobilize essential trillions in the innovation and the finance that we need.

I believe that’s achievable and like all of you, I cannot wait to bring us all together, get us together at whatever fora it is, anywhere in the world. There are many of them that are going to take place. We all have to work together, this is a matter of multilateral leadership, not any one country or any one group of people. We all are committed to working with Alok and the British and Italian presidencies and making Glasgow exactly what it needs to be where we have portfolios that add up to net zero emissions, and I can’t wait to be at it with everybody. Thank you.

More from: John Kerry, Special Presidential Envoy for Climate

News Network

  • The United States Targets Foundations Controlled by Iran’s Supreme Leader
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Michael R. Pompeo, [Read More…]
  • Securing, Stabilizing, and Rebuilding Iraq: Progress Report: Some Gains Made, Updated Strategy Needed
    In U.S GAO News
    In January 2007, the President announced a new U.S. strategy to stem the violence in Iraq and help the Iraqi government foster conditions for national reconciliation. In The New Way Forward, the Administration articulated near-term goals to achieve over a 12- to 18-month period and reasserted the end state for Iraq: a unified, democratic, federal Iraq that can govern, defend, and sustain itself and is an ally in the war on terror. To support this strategy, the United States increased its military presence and financial commitments for Iraq operations. This testimony discusses (1) progress in meeting key security, legislative, and economic goals of The New Way Forward; and (2) past and current U.S. strategies for Iraq and the need for an updated strategy. GAO reviewed documents and interviewed officials from U.S. agencies, MNF-I, the UN, and the Iraqi government. GAO also had staff stationed in Baghdad. Since 2003, GAO has issued about 140 Iraq-related products, which provided baseline information for this assessment.The United States has made some progress in achieving key goals stated in The New Way Forward. Looking forward, many challenges remain, and an updated strategy is essential. In the security area, violence--as measured by the number of enemy-initiated attacks--decreased about 80 percent from June 2007 to June 2008, trained Iraqi security forces have increased substantially, and many units are leading counterinsurgency operations. However, as of July 2008, 8 of 18 provincial governments do not yet have lead responsibility for security in their provinces, and DOD reported that, in June 2008, less than 10 percent of Iraqi security forces were at the highest readiness level and therefore considered capable of performing operations without coalition support. The security environment remains volatile and dangerous. In the legislative area, Iraq has enacted key legislation to return some Ba'athists to government, grant amnesty to detained Iraqis, and define provincial powers. The unfinished Iraqi legislative agenda includes enacting laws that will provide the legal framework for sharing oil revenues, disarming militias, and holding provincial elections. On economic and infrastructure issues, Iraq spent only 24 percent of the $27 billion it budgeted for its reconstruction efforts between 2005 and 2007. Although crude oil production improved for short periods, the early July 2008 average production capacity of about 2.5 million barrels per day was below the U.S. goal of 3 million barrels per day. In addition, while State reports that U.S. goals for Iraq's water sector are close to being reached, the daily supply of electricity in Iraq met only slightly more than half of demand in early July 2008. Since 2003, the United States has developed and revised multiple strategies to address security and reconstruction needs in Iraq. The New Way Forward responded to failures in prior U.S. plans and the escalating violence that occurred in 2006. However, this strategy and the military surge that was central to it end in July 2008, and many agree that the situation remains fragile. GAO recommends an updated strategy for Iraq for several reasons. First, much has changed in Iraq since The New Way Forward began in January 2007. Violence is down, U.S. surge forces are leaving, and the United States is negotiating a security agreement with Iraq to replace the expiring UN mandate. Second, The New Way Forward only articulates U.S. goals and objectives for the phase that ends in July 2008. Third, the goals and objectives of The New Way Forward are contained in disparate documents rather than a single strategic plan. Furthermore, the classified MNF-I/U.S. Embassy Joint Campaign Plan is not a strategic plan; it is an operational plan with limitations that GAO will discuss during the closed portion of the hearing.
    [Read More…]
  • Macau Travel Advisory
    In Travel
    Exercise normal [Read More…]
  • Secretary Antony J. Blinken at Bastille Day Celebration
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • Democracy Assistance: U.S. Agencies Take Steps to Coordinate International Programs but Lack Information on Some U.S.-funded Activities
    In U.S GAO News
    In fiscal years 2006- 2008, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which has primary responsibility for promoting democracy abroad, implemented democracy assistance projects in about 90 countries. The Department of State's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (State DRL) and the private, nonprofit National Endowment for Democracy (NED) also fund democracy programs in many of these countries. Partly to lessen the risk of duplicative programs, State recently initiated efforts to reform and consolidate State and USAID foreign assistance processes. GAO reviewed (1) democracy assistance funding provided by USAID, State DRL, and NED in fiscal year 2008; (2) USAID, State DRL, and NED efforts to coordinate their democracy assistance; and (3) USAID efforts to assess results and evaluate the impact of its democracy assistance. GAO analyzed U.S. funding and evaluation documents, interviewed USAID, State, and NED officials in the United States and abroad, and reviewed specific democracy projects in 10 countries.Data available from State show total democracy assistance allocations of about $2.25 billion for fiscal year 2008. More than $1.95 billion, or about 85 percent of the total allocation, was provided to field-based operating units, primarily country missions. Although complete data on USAID funding per country were not available, USAID mission data, compiled by State and USAID at GAO's request, show that in a sample of 10 countries, most democracy funds are programmed by USAID. In the 10 countries, annual funding per project averaged more than $2 million for USAID, $350,000 for State DRL, and $100,000 for NED. In fiscal year 2008, more than half of State funding for democracy assistance went to Iraq, followed by China, Cuba, Iran, and North Korea, and NED funding for democracy programs was highest for China, Iraq, Russia, Burma, and Pakistan. USAID and State DRL coordinate to help ensure complementary assistance but are often not aware of NED grants. To prevent duplicative programs, State DRL obtains feedback from USAID missions and embassies on project proposals before awarding democracy assistance grants. State DRL officials generally do not participate in USAID missions' planning efforts; some State and USAID officials told GAO that geographic distances between State DRL's centrally managed program and USAID's country mission-based programs would make such participation difficult. Several USAID and State DRL officials responsible for planning and managing democracy assistance told GAO that they lacked information on NED's current projects, which they believed would help inform their own programming decisions. Although NED is not required to report on all of its democracy assistance efforts to State and there currently is no mechanism for regular information sharing, NED told GAO that it has shared information with State and USAID and would routinely provide them with information on current projects if asked. USAID uses standard and custom indicators to assess and report on immediate program results; USAID also conducts some, but relatively infrequent, independent evaluations of longer-term programs. The standard indicators, developed by State, generally focus on numbers of activities or immediate results of a program, while custom indicators measure additional program results. USAID commissions a limited number of independent evaluations of program impact. USAID mission officials told GAO that they did not conduct many independent evaluations of democracy assistance because of the resources involved in the undertaking and the difficulty of measuring impact in the area of democracy assistance. In response to a 2008 National Research Council report on USAID's democracy evaluation capacity, USAID has reported initiating several steps--for example, designing impact evaluations for six missions as part of a pilot program.
    [Read More…]
  • U.S.-ROK Director General/Deputy-Level Consultation Meeting
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Montserrat Travel Advisory
    In Travel
    Reconsider travel to [Read More…]
  • Malta Travel Advisory
    In Travel
    Reconsider travel to [Read More…]
  • Secretary Blinken to Participate in Christchurch Call to Action Leaders’ Summit
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Rebuilding Iraq: More Comprehensive National Strategy Needed to Help Achieve U.S. Goals
    In U.S GAO News
    According to the National Strategy for Victory in Iraq (NSVI) issued by the National Security Council (NSC), prevailing in Iraq is a vital U.S. interest because it will help win the war on terror and make America safer, stronger, and more certain of its future. This report (1) assesses the evolving U.S. national strategy for Iraq and (2) evaluates whether the NSVI and its supporting documents address the desirable characteristics of an effective national strategy developed by GAO in previous work. In this report, the NSVI and supporting documents are collectively referred to as the U.S. strategy for Iraq.The November 2005 National Strategy for Victory in Iraq and supporting documents incorporate the same desired end-state for U.S. stabilization and reconstruction operations that were first established by the coalition in 2003: a peaceful, united, stable, and secure Iraq, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism. However, it is unclear how the United States will achieve its desired end-state in Iraq given the significant changes in the assumptions underlying the U.S. strategy. The original plan assumed a permissive security environment. However, an increasingly lethal insurgency undermined the development of effective Iraqi government institutions and delayed plans for an early transfer of security responsibilities to the Iraqis. The plan also assumed that U.S. reconstruction funds would help restore Iraq's essential services to prewar levels, but Iraq's capacity to maintain, sustain, and manage its rebuilt infrastructure is still being developed. Finally, the plan assumed that the Iraqi government and the international community would help finance Iraq's development needs, but Iraq has limited resources to contribute to its own reconstruction, and Iraq's estimated future needs vastly exceed what has been offered by the international community to date. The NSVI is an improvement over previous planning efforts. However, the NSVI and its supporting documents are incomplete because they do not fully address all the desirable characteristics of an effective national strategy. On one hand, the strategy's purpose and scope is clear because it identifies U.S. involvement in Iraq as a vital national interest and central front in the war on terror. The strategy also generally addresses the threats and risks facing the coalition forces and provides a comprehensive description of the desired U.S. political, security, and economic objectives in Iraq. On the other hand, the strategy falls short in three key areas. First, it only partially identifies the current and future costs of U.S. involvement in Iraq, including the costs of maintaining U.S. military operations, building Iraqi government capacity at the provincial and national level, and rebuilding critical infrastructure. Second, it only partially identifies which U.S. agencies implement key aspects of the strategy or resolve conflicts among the many implementing agencies. Third, it neither fully addresses how U.S. goals and objectives will be integrated with those of the Iraqi government and the international community, nor does it detail the Iraqi government's anticipated contribution to its future security and reconstruction needs. In addition, the elements of the strategy are dispersed among the NSVI and seven supporting documents, further limiting its usefulness as a planning and oversight tool.
    [Read More…]
  • County Medical Center and County Agree to Pay $11.4 Million to Resolve False Claims Act Allegations Relating to Medically Unnecessary Inpatient Admissions
    In Crime News
    San Mateo County Medical Center and San Mateo County (collectively SMMC), located in California, have agreed to pay approximately  $11.4 million to resolve alleged violations of the False Claims Act for submitting or causing the submission of claims to Medicare for non-covered inpatient admissions.
    [Read More…]
  • South Padre Island man sentenced for child pornography convictions
    In Justice News
    A 25-year-old local man [Read More…]
  • Andorra’s National Day
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • Department Press Briefing – March 17, 2021
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Jalina Porter, Principal [Read More…]
  • Statement by Attorney General William P. Barr on Senate Resolution
    In Crime News
    Online child sexual exploitation is a global crime that demands a continued global response. 
    [Read More…]
  • Veterans Affairs: VA Needs to Address Persistent IT Modernization and Cybersecurity Challenges
    In U.S GAO News
    The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has faced challenges in its efforts to accomplish three critical information technology (IT) modernization initiatives: the department's health information system, known as the Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture (VistA); a system for the Family Caregiver Program, which is to support family caregivers of seriously injured post-9/11 veterans; and the Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS) that collects and stores information and is used for processing disability benefit claims. Specifically, GAO has reported on the challenges in the department's three previous unsuccessful attempts to modernize VistA over the past 20 years. However, VA has recently deployed a new scheduling system as part of its fourth effort to modernize VistA and the next deployment of the system, including additional capabilities, is planned in October 2020. VA had taken steps to address GAO's recommendations from its 2014 report to implement a replacement system for the Family Caregiver Program. However, in September 2019, GAO reported that VA had yet to implement a new IT system that fully supports the Family Caregiver Program and that it had not yet fully committed to a date by which it will certify that the new IT system fully supports the program. In September 2015, GAO reported that VA had made progress in developing and implementing VBMS, but also noted that additional actions could improve efforts to develop and use the system. For example, VBMS was not able to fully support disability and pension claims, as well as appeals processing. GAO made five recommendations aimed at improving VA's efforts to effectively complete the development and implementation of VBMS; however, as of September 2020, VA implemented only one recommendation. VA's progress in implementing key provisions of the Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act (commonly referred to as FITARA) has been uneven. Specifically, VA has made progress toward improving its licensing of software and achieving its goals for closing unneeded data centers. However, the department has made limited progress toward addressing requirements related to IT investment risk management and Chief Information Officer authority enhancement. Until the department implements the act's provisions, Congress' ability to effectively monitor VA's progress and hold it fully accountable for reducing duplication and achieving cost savings will be hindered. In addition, since fiscal year 2016, GAO has reported that VA faces challenges related to effectively implementing the federal approach to, and strategy for, securing information systems; effectively implementing information security controls and mitigating known security deficiencies; and establishing elements of its cybersecurity risk management program. GAO's work stressed the need for VA to address these challenges as well as manage IT supply chain risks. As VA continues to pursue modernization efforts, it is critical that the department take steps to adequately secure its systems. The use of IT is crucial to helping VA effectively serve the nation's veterans. The department annually spends billions of dollars on its information systems and assets—VA's budget for IT now exceeds $4 billion annually. However, over many years, VA has experienced challenges in managing its IT projects and programs, which could jeopardize its ability to effectively support key programs such as the Forever GI Bill. GAO has previously reported on these IT management challenges at VA. GAO was asked to testify on its prior IT work at VA. Specifically, this testimony summarizes results and recommendations from GAO's issued reports that examined VA's efforts in (1) modernizing VistA, a system for the Family Caregiver Program, and VBMS; (2) implementing FITARA; and (3) addressing cybersecurity issues. In developing this testimony, GAO reviewed its recently issued reports that addressed IT management issues at VA and GAO's biannual high-risk series. GAO also incorporated information on the department's actions in response to recommendations. GAO has made numerous recommendations in recent years aimed at improving VA's IT system modernization efforts, implementation of key FITARA provisions, and cybersecurity program. VA has generally agreed with the recommendations and has begun to address them. For more information, contact Carol C. Harris at (202) 512-4456 or harriscc@gao.gov.
    [Read More…]
  • Statement by Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen on the 20th Anniversary of the Enactment of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000
    In Crime News
    Deputy Attorney General [Read More…]
  • Secretary Blinken’s Call with EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Borrell
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Sheriff of Franklin County, Arkansas Found Guilty of Assaulting Two Individuals in Custody
    In Crime News
    A federal jury convicted the Sheriff of Franklin County, Arkansas today on two counts of deprivation of rights under color of law.
    [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…]
Network News © 2005 Area.Control.Network™ All rights reserved.