December 4, 2021


News Network

Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim Delivers Remarks on the Future of Antitrust

22 min read
<div>Good afternoon, I am pleased to join you today at the ABA Antitrust Fall Forum, my fourth as Assistant Attorney General. I’d like to thank the Chair of the ABA Antitrust Law Section, Gary Zanfagna and the Conference Co-Chairs, Melanie Aitken and Anant Raut for their efforts in organizing this event.</div>

Remarks as Prepared for Delivery 

“Here I Go Again”*: New Developments for the Future of the Antitrust Division

Good afternoon, I am pleased to join you today at the ABA Antitrust Fall Forum, my fourth as Assistant Attorney General.  I’d like to thank the Chair of the ABA Antitrust Law Section, Gary Zanfagna and the Conference Co-Chairs, Melanie Aitken and Anant Raut for their efforts in organizing this event.

The theme of this conference, “The Future of Antitrust,” raises the important question of where antitrust is headed.  Today, I am announcing three new developments that will continue to improve transparency and future enforcement efforts. As ever, we are looking back at what we’ve learned to forge a better path forward.  First, the Division today will issue new guidance on the use of arbitration to resolve Division matters.  Second, we are launching a Small Business portal to improve accessibility for these businesses which may be interacting with the antitrust laws for the first time. Third, we are expanding Procurement Collusion Strike Force (PCSF) to better safeguard important areas where the government and the American taxpayers are the victim.

  1. Merger Enforcement, Arbitration, and Small Business

To set the stage, I will touch first on our recent learnings and accomplishments in merger enforcement.  About two years ago, we began to modernize the merger review process. As part of those reforms, we published a new model timing agreement, which significantly improved how the Division approached Second Request investigations. Other improvements such as increased dialogue with the parties, pull-and-refile accountability, and CID enforcement have resulted in more effective and transparent merger review process. Our recent modernization of the Merger Remedies Manual reaffirms the Division’s commitment to effective structural relief, which has been a hallmark of my tenure as AAG, and it also incorporates important changes in the merger landscape over the past decade. 

American consumers have benefited recently from these principles.  For instance, the structural remedy in T-Mobile’s acquisition of Sprint required significant divestitures to Dish to expand output significantly by ensuring that large amounts of currently unused and underused spectrum are made available to American consumers in the form of high-quality 5G networks. 

This year, the Division also has crystallized and made more transparent the analytical principles to apply when assessing vertical mergers.  Most recently, the Vertical Merger Guidelines and our closing statement in London Stock Exchange/Refinitiv reflect our approach to identifying likely harms from a change in incentive or ability to harm rivals.  The new Guidelines ensure greater predictability, efficiency, and clarity. 

Another recent win for efficiency was the Division’s use of arbitration to streamline the adjudication of a dispositive issue in United States v. Novelis. Arbitration saved resources for both taxpayers and the merging parties and ensured that competition was preserved.

I am excited to announce today that we will issue new guidance on the use of arbitration to resolve Division matters.  The guidance reflects the Division’s experience using arbitration for the first time in Novelis case.  It outlines case selection criteria that will help identify Antitrust Division cases that would benefit from the application of arbitration and provides guidance on specific practices that may be employed in a future arbitration.  

Additionally, on the subject of transparency and our commitment to the business community, I want to mention briefly that our efforts are not limited to addressing the needs of high-priced antitrust lawyers advising their Fortune 500 clients about how to navigate the merger process. 

Today, we also are launching a Small Business Portal on our website.  The portal will improve accessibility and transparency for folks who are interacting with the antitrust laws for the first time, on a do-it-yourself basis.  Consider it our effort to lower entry barriers.

Fintech and Data

Speaking of entry barriers, earlier this month, the Division filed suit to enjoin Visa’s proposed acquisition of Plaid, the leading financial data aggregation company in the United States.  The Division has filed this lawsuit to enjoin Visa’s proposed acquisition of Plaid because the transaction would eliminate the nascent but significant competitive threat Plaid poses to Visa in the online debit market and unlawfully maintain Visa’s monopoly in online debit.  Today, I would like to focus on another aspect of our challenge: Visa’s acquisition of Plaid’s vast trove of consumer data. 

Plaid powers some of today’s most innovative fintech apps such as Venmo, Acorns, and Betterment.  The data Plaid retrieves allows these fintech apps to offer personal financial management tools, manage bill payments or other expenses, support loan underwriting, and transfer funds, among other uses. Plaid’s services can also be used to reduce fraud by verifying the consumer’s identity and account balance, examining the consumer’s bank account history, assuring that a transaction is bona fide, and confirming that there are sufficient funds to cover a transaction at the time of payment.

The fintech world is just one area where large troves of data are being used in cutting-edge business applications.  Indeed, it is increasingly important that as antitrust lawyers we remain up to speed on the latest technologies and the roles they play in markets today.

 In the last year, the Division launched a novel program to build our expertise by training a handful of our attorneys and economists in blockchain, machine learning, and artificial intelligence.  That program has been a success and is growing.

The foundation of this initiative is academic coursework offered by the MIT Sloan School of Management.  These courses, like other online learning programs, can provide valuable foundational insights into these technologies, while focusing on practical concerns about how they may apply to new and existing business models.  Our goal is for the Division’s attorneys and economists to develop a basic but critical understanding of how businesses implement these technologies and what effect they might have on competition.

Machine Learning and Antitrust

Today, I would like to say a few words about machine learning, a form of data analysis that uses sophisticated algorithms that continuously learn as they are exposed to new data.  Machine learning is used in many applications that we all recognize.  Machine learning can be used to refine natural language search results.  It can provide personalized, contextualized recommendations based on previous purchases or activity.  Financial institutions can use its power to detect anomalies or outliers to detect fraudulent or suspicious transactions in real time.  Machine learning can also analyze continuous streams of data from machinery, and be used to predict outages before they occur. 

This technology could have significant implications for many industries and issues the Division analyzes.  Increasingly, many transactions involve the acquisition of large troves of data.  Understanding how that data may be used – and the potential competitive implications – is becoming more and more important in merger analysis. 

There may be potential efficiencies stemming from machine learning applied to data that is merged in an acquisition.  The technology can power better recommendations, or increase manufacturers’ productivity, or reduce losses through more accurate fraud detection.

There also may be anticompetitive effects to consider.  For example, companies that have amassed large troves of data may be able to use it to exclude competitors or to make it more difficult for customers to switch providers. 

We also must be attuned to those situations where access to and the permissioned use of customer data constitutes a unique competitive advantage that forms a barrier to entry. One could envision this being true in a variety of cases where the customer data enables its holder to offer a unique service to the consumer. Examples of these unique types of data include: taxpayer information, medical health care records, or customer bank account information. In cases where incumbents with a dominant market share use their market power to block or otherwise stymie new competitors – particularly new competitors that are able to overcome these data barriers to entry, and are thus uniquely situated to enter, compete, or facilitate another company’s entry – we must be willing to take action to preserve competition. 

Even if the “data competitor” does not currently offer the relevant product or service for sale, antitrust enforcers must act to preserve the opportunity for entry in those markets that are concentrated because of the impact data accumulation has on competition today.

It is vital that we as antitrust enforcers understand both the potential value of the technology and the potential for its misuse.  To this end, the Division’s new training initiative helps ensure that we are well-equipped to assess the competitive implications of the next transaction or course of conduct where these cutting-edge business technologies may be pivotal.

  1. Criminal Enforcement and the Procurement Collusion Strike Force

Finally, I want to turn to our criminal program: over the past three years, we have obtained convictions in significant trials against high-level executives, the second- and third-ever extraditions on Sherman Act charges, significant prison sentences, and the four highest fines or penalties ever imposed for domestic cartels.  Under my leadership, the Division secured $529 million in criminal fines and penalties in FY2020—the highest total in the last five years, announced a significant policy change to incentivize and potentially reward corporate compliance efforts, and launched a first-of-its-kind Strike Force to bolster our efforts to protect the public purse from collusion. 

It is that Strike Force I want to focus on with you today. The Procurement Collusion Strike Force, or the PCSF, celebrated its first anniversary week ago today, and as it continues to grow and expand, it’s worth reflecting on its activities over the last year. 

The PCSF is an interagency partnership among the Antitrust Division, 13 United States Attorneys’ Offices, the FBI, and four federal Offices of Inspectors General.  Leveraging the combined capacity and expertise of the partners, the PCSF has two core objectives.  The first is to deter and prevent antitrust and related crimes on the front end of the procurement process through outreach and training.  This includes providing training to the “buy side” of the procurement, i.e., federal, state, and local procurement officials, on spotting the “red flags” of collusion and fraud, as well as to the “sell side,” i.e., general contractors, trade associations, and the procurement bar, on antitrust criminal violations and potential penalties.  The second objective is to effectively detect, investigate, and prosecute procurement collusion and fraud through better coordination and partnership in the law enforcement and inspector general communities.

As I mentioned when I announced the Department initiative alongside Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen last year, by forming the PCSF, we are looking to use all the enforcement tools in our arsenal to protect taxpayers’ funds.  The premise and promise of the PCSF was to increase collaboration among federal prosecutors and law enforcement agencies to protect the public purse and hold accountable those who corrupt the competitive process to rob taxpayers of the benefits of free competition. 

The Past Year of the PCSF

Since launching, our dedicated PCSF members have been hard at work.  The PCSF’s prosecutors, including those in the Antitrust Division and AUSAs across the country, and federal agents from various law enforcement agencies, have made incredible strides.  The pandemic—which I’ll discuss in more detail in a moment—didn’t shut down our efforts.  Indeed, the PCSF didn’t miss a beat. 

The first year was about proving the concept, and about standing up the in-district teams, building relationships, and getting the word out. Our initial in-district teams had six to eight members each—and our in-district teams now include over 360 federal, state, and local in-district working partners spread all across the country and actively participating in the 13 PCSF districts.

We have processed more than 50 requests from a diverse mix of federal, state, and local government agencies for training, assistance with safeguarding their procurement processes, and seeking opportunities to work with the PCSF on investigations.  We’ve trained thousands of criminal investigators, certified fraud examiners, auditors, data scientists, and procurement officials from nearly 500 federal, state, and local government agencies on recognizing collusion risks in the procurement process, including more than five dozen local and state inspectors general. 

We have been nimble and able to adapt our tactics to better respond to the global COVID-19 pandemic.  During any crisis, be it a hurricane or market crash or a pandemic, public spending skyrockets to meet the moment, and too often guardrails go down during the peak of emergency response.  We know that as the government responds to moments of crisis with increased spending to protect lives and livelihoods, bad actors far too often respond with new schemes to secure a bigger piece of the pie for themselves. 

Established as a virtual Strike Force, the PCSF was uniquely well-positioned to deploy interactive technology, and we have trained more than 8,000 agents, investigators, and auditors over the last 8 months on the heightened risks of collusion and fraud due to the COVID-19 pandemic.  We’ve gone to where the need is greatest, including training customized to the unique needs of the contract management and procurement professionals responsible for CARES Act spending at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 

The PCSF also supported the Department’s COVID-19 response by creating a dedicated reporting portal for procurement collusion tips and referring hundreds of price gouging and hoarding tips to the COVID-19 task force.  And we’re working with the Pandemic Response Accountability Committee (PRAC) to ensure that tax dollars spent to respond to this crisis are used appropriately.

The PCSF has opened over two dozen grand jury investigations across the United States.  These active and ongoing investigations span the range of procurement collusion and fraud matters from defense and national security to public works projects, and from domestic investigations into conduct occurring primarily within a single PCSF district to international investigations into conduct affecting U.S. government procurement overseas. 

I should also note that our investigations are not limited to only those districts that have stood up PCSF teams.  In fact, about one fourth of our investigations are located outside of PCSF districts, which demonstrates the breadth of our investigative efforts and that this is truly a nationwide Strike Force. 

Finally, in the past year, the PCSF established its Data Analytics Project.  This is something I’m really focused on, because data is an asset—it is something to be used, not just collected.  We in the enforcement space can use data to advance the goal of maximizing taxpayer value and detecting wrongdoing. 

To do this, the PCSF has supported OIG data teams focused on developing Collusion Analytics models that proactively identify red flags of antitrust crimes and related fraud schemes in bid and award data.  We’ve hosted data analytics events for data scientists, and we’re working to build out this important toolkit.  This data will be used not only to provide evidence of conspiracies we already know about (which is something prosecutors and agents already do, to great effect), but to develop leads proactively for further inquiry. 

The Future of the PCSF

We’ve accomplished a lot in the last year, and I’d like to turn now to our announcement today and our plans for the next year of the PCSF. 

First, we’re adding new partners.  Today, two new national law enforcement partners are joining the PCSF: The Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General and the Air Force Office of Special Investigations.  Both agencies are already deeply invested in, and have been working with, our in-district teams.  Adding these agencies to the roster of national partners is a natural next step. 

Second, I am also announcing today that nine U.S. Attorneys will joining our effort.  These U.S. Attorneys’ Offices are located in areas of strategic importance with critical spending.  The new PCSF U.S. Attorney partners are:

  • David L. Anderson, Northern District of California
  • Robert K. Hur, District of Maryland
  • Erica H. MacDonald, District of Minnesota
  • D. Michael Hurst, Jr., Southern District of Mississippi
  • Seth D. DuCharme, Eastern District of New York
  • Matthew G.T. Martin, Middle District of North Carolina
  • W. Stephen Muldrow, District of Puerto Rico
  • Stephen J. Cox, Eastern District of Texas
  • Ryan Patrick, Southern District of Texas

Our existing national law enforcement partners are also contributing to this expansion by assigning agents to these new squads. 

  • FBI (by its International Corruption Unit and its field offices)
  • Department of Defense Office of Inspector General
  • Defense Criminal Investigative Service,
  • General Services Administration, Office of Inspector General
  • Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General
  • U.S. Postal Service, Office of Inspector General

Third, I’m happy to announce that I’ve appointed Daniel Glad to be the Director of the PCSF.  Dan is the first permanent director the PCSF, and by making this a permanent position, I am ensuring that the PCSF is woven into the fabric and structure of the Antitrust Division.  Dan was an Assistant Chief in our Chicago Office, and he’s worked as a line prosecutor in that office and at USAO-N.D. Ill., and in the City of Chicago’s OIG.  Suffice it to say he has experience combatting collusion and fraud.

Relatedly, and as a reflection of the PCSF’s growing footprint, I’ve appointed the first-ever Assistant Director of the PCSF, Sandra Talbott.  Like Dan, Sandra has worked in our Chicago Office, and she has experience as a prosecutor at the local, state, and federal levels, as well as in the compliance space at a large financial institution. 

Fourth, our efforts to deter and detect are not limited to the shores of United States.  Indeed, the PCSF has several partners with oversight responsibility for U.S. government spending abroad that represent a diverse mix of federal agencies.  These partners play a critical role in deterring, detecting, investigating, and prosecuting those who undermine competition for U.S. government contracts and grants abroad.  As evident in past investigations, such as the South Korea Fuel Supply investigation contracts in South Korea, and from current pandemic spending patterns, U.S. government procurement is not limited by borders, and neither can the PCSF’s efforts to deter, detect, and prosecute misconduct.  In the coming year, the PCSF expects to continue its focus on protecting U.S. funds spent beyond our borders and coordinating with international counterparts.

I had very high expectations for the PCSF, but I have been blown away by what the district teams were able to accomplish over the last twelve months.  They were not satisfied with merely sustaining the early momentum generated for the Strike Force, and despite the challenges posed by the pandemic, they have managed to generate even more momentum by conducting virtual outreach and training, and opening new investigations at a steady clip. 

As the PCSF enters its second year, it will continue to investigate aggressively cases of price fixing, bid rigging, and market allocation that target American taxpayer dollars, using the full range of criminal and civil tools available to the federal government, including the Clayton Act’s Section 4A authority to pursue treble damages, to recover damages for the taxpayer.

I look forward to seeing the Strike Force continue to succeed as it pursues its mission. 

  1. Conclusion

In conclusion, the Antitrust Division is committed to enforcement that occurs in a transparent manner that fosters innovation.  These hallmarks are essential for our mission of serving the American people in the pursuit of justice.  Over the past three plus years, I am very proud of all we have achieved in support of this goal.

As many of you may know, I have great admiration for former Antirust AAG and Supreme Court Justice, Robert H. Jackson, naming a lecture series and a conference room in his honor.  When addressing the future of antitrust whether the laws should be revised, he stated that the solution “must be in terms of our ideals—the ideals of political and economic democracy” and that “we must keep our economic system under the control of the people who live by and under it.”  It is impossible to guarantee what the future of antitrust holds, but I know the Antitrust Division will continue to be unwavering as it enforces the law for the benefit of the American consumer.


*Whitesnake, Saints & Sinners (Geffen, 1982).

News Network

  • Owner of Japanese Fishing Vessel Pleads Guilty to Unlawful Trafficking of Shark Fins
    In Crime News
    Hamada Suisan Co. Ltd., the owner of the Japanese-flagged fishing vessel, M.V. Kyoshin Maru No. 20, pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to aiding and abetting the attempted export of shark fins out of Hawaii in violation of the Lacey Act, the Department of Justice announced.
    [Read More…]
  • United States Reaches Agreement with Midwest Can for Clean Air Act Violations
    In Crime News
    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Justice announced a settlement today that will require Midwest Can Company, one of the largest manufacturers of portable fuel containers in the United States, to pay a $1.7 million civil penalty to resolve Clean Air Act violations.
    [Read More…]
  • Man Sentenced for COVID-19 Relief Fraud
    In Crime News
    A Florida man was sentenced today to 33 months in prison for fraudulently seeking over $7,263,564 in Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans guaranteed by the Small Business Administration (SBA) under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act.
    [Read More…]
  • Secretary Antony J. Blinken on Release of the 2020 International Religious Freedom Report
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • Three Florida Men Charged in $46 Million Health Care Fraud, Kickback, and Money Laundering Conspiracy
    In Crime News
    Three telemarketing company owners were charged for their alleged participation in a $47 million health care fraud, kickback, and money laundering scheme involving the referral of medically unnecessary cancer genetic tests to labs in exchange for kickbacks.
    [Read More…]
  • Chemical Security: Overlapping Programs Could Better Collaborate to Share Information and Identify Potential Security Gaps
    In U.S GAO News
    Eight federal programs addressing chemical safety or security from four departments or agencies that GAO reviewed contain requirements or guidance that generally align with at least half of the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) 18 Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) program standards. At least 550 of 3,300 (16 percent) facilities subject to the CFATS program are also subject to other federal programs. Analyses of CFATS and these eight programs indicate that some overlap, duplication, and fragmentation exists, depending on the program or programs to which a facility is subject. For example, six federal programs' requirements or guidance indicate some duplication with CFATS. CFATS program officials acknowledge similarities among these programs' requirements or guidance, some of which are duplicative, and said that the CFATS program allows facilities to meet CFATS program standards by providing information they prepared for other programs. more than 1,600 public water systems or wastewater treatment facilities are excluded under the CFATS statute, leading to fragmentation. While such facilities are subject to other programs, those programs collectively do not contain requirements or guidance that align with four CFATS standards. According to DHS, public water systems and wastewater treatment facilities are frequently subject to safety regulations that may have some security value, but in most cases, these facilities are not required to implement security measures commensurate to their level of security risk, which may lead to potential security gaps. The departments and agencies responsible for all nine of these chemical safety and security programs—four of which are managed by DHS, three by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and one each managed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and the Department of Transportation (DOT)—have previously worked together to enhance information collection and sharing in response to Executive Order 13650, issued in 2013. This Executive Order directed these programs to take actions related to improving federal agency coordination and information sharing. However, these programs have not identified which facilities are subject to multiple programs, such that facilities may be unnecessarily developing duplicative information to comply with multiple programs. Although CFATS allows facilities to use information they prepared for other programs, CFATS program guidance does not specify what information facilities can reuse. Finally, DHS and EPA leaders acknowledged that there are differences between CFATS requirements and the security requirements for public water systems and wastewater treatment facilities, but they have not assessed the extent to which potential security gaps may exist. By leveraging collaboration established through the existing Executive Order working group, the CFATS program and chemical safety and security partners would be better positioned to minimize unnecessary duplication between CFATS and other programs and better ensure the security of facilities currently subject to fragmented requirements. Facilities with hazardous chemicals could be targeted by terrorists to inflict mass casualties or damage. Federal regulations applicable to chemical safety and security have evolved over time as authorizing statutes and regulations established programs for different purposes, such as safety versus security, and with different enforcement authorities. GAO has reported that such programs may be able to achieve greater efficiency where overlap exists by reducing duplication and better managing fragmentation. GAO was asked to review issues related to the effects that overlap, duplication, and fragmentation among the multiple federal programs may have on the security of the chemical sector. This report addresses the extent to which (1) such issues may exist between CFATS and other federal programs, and (2) the CFATS program collaborates with other federal programs. GAO analyzed the most recent available data on facilities subject to nine programs from DHS, EPA, ATF, and DOT; reviewed and analyzed statutes, regulations, and program guidance; and interviewed agency officials. GAO is making seven recommendations, including that DHS, EPA, ATF, and DOT identify facilities subject to multiple programs; DHS clarify guidance; and DHS and EPA assess security gaps. Agencies generally agreed with six; EPA did not agree with the recommendation on gaps. GAO continues to believe it is valid, as discussed in the report. For more information, contact Nathan Anderson at (206) 287-4804 or
    [Read More…]
  • DOD Critical Technologies: Plans for Communicating, Assessing, and Overseeing Protection Efforts Should Be Completed
    In U.S GAO News
    Critical technologies—such as elements of artificial intelligence and biotechnology—are those necessary to maintain U.S. technological superiority. As such, they are frequently the target of theft, espionage, and illegal export by adversaries. The Department of Defense (DOD) has outlined a revised process (see figure) to better identify and protect its critical technologies including those associated with acquisition programs throughout their lifecycle or those early in development. Prior DOD efforts to identify these technologies were considered by some military officials to be too broad to adequately guide protection. The revised process is expected to address this by offering more specificity about what elements of an acquisition program or technology need to be protected and the protection measures DOD is expected to implement. It is also expected to support DOD's annual input to the National Strategy for Critical and Emerging Technologies, which was first published in October 2020. Overview of DOD's Revised Process to Identify and Protect Critical Acquisition Programs and Technologies DOD began implementing this process in February 2020, and officials expect to complete all steps for the first time by September 2021. DOD has focused on identifying critical acquisition programs and technologies that need to be protected and how they should be protected. It has not yet determined how it will communicate the list internally and to other agencies, which metrics it will use to assess protection measures, and which organization will oversee future protection efforts. By determining the approach for completing these tasks, DOD can better ensure its revised process will support the protection of critical acquisition programs and technologies consistently across the department. Once completed, the revised process should also inform DOD and other federal agencies' protection efforts. Military officials stated they could use the list of critical acquisition programs and technologies to better direct resources. Officials from the Departments of State, Commerce, and the Treasury stated that they could use the list, if it is effectively communicated, to better understand what is important to DOD to help ensure protection through their respective programs. The federal government spends billions annually to develop and acquire advanced technologies. It permits the sale and transfer of some of these technologies to allies to promote U.S. national security, foreign policy, and economic interests. However, the technologies can be targets for adversaries. The John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 requires the Secretary of Defense to develop and maintain a list of acquisition programs, technologies, manufacturing capabilities, and research areas that are critical for preserving U.S. national security advantages. Ensuring effective protection of critical technologies has been included on GAO's high-risk list since 2007. This report examines (1) DOD's efforts to identify and protect its critical technologies, and (2) opportunities for these efforts to inform government protection activities. GAO analyzed DOD critical acquisition program and technologies documentation, and held interviews with senior officials at DOD and other federal agencies responsible for protecting critical technologies. GAO is recommending that DOD specify how it will communicate its critical programs and technologies list, develop metrics to assess protection measures, and select the DOD organization that will oversee protection efforts beyond 2020. DOD concurred with the first recommendation and partially concurred with the second and third. GAO maintains the importance of all recommendations in this report. For more information, contact William Russell at (202) 512-4841 or
    [Read More…]
  • Statement from Attorney General Merrick B. Garland
    In Crime News
    U.S. Attorney General Merrick B. Garland today made the following statement:
    [Read More…]
  • The United States Designates Al Qa’ida Financial Facilitator
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Michael R. Pompeo, [Read More…]
  • Opening Remarks by Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken Before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • Secretary Antony J. Blinken with U.S. Ambassador to Senegal and Guinea-Bissau Tulinabo S. Mushingi and Senegalese Economy Minister Amadou Hott at an MOU Signing with U.S. Companies
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • Global War on Terrorism: Observations on Funding, Costs, and Future Commitments
    In U.S GAO News
    After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the President announced a Global War on Terrorism (GWOT), requiring the collective instruments of the entire federal government to counter the threat of terrorism. Ongoing military and diplomatic operations overseas, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan, constitute a key part of GWOT. These operations involve a wide variety of activities such as combating insurgents, civil affairs, capacity building, infrastructure reconstruction, and training military forces of other nations. The U.S. has reported substantial costs to date for GWOT related activities and can expect to incur significant costs for an unspecified time in the future, requiring decision makers to consider difficult trade-offs as the nation faces increasing long-range fiscal challenges. GAO has issued several reports on current and future financial commitments required to support GWOT military operations, as well as diplomatic efforts to stabilize and rebuild Iraq. This testimony discusses (1) the funding Congress has appropriated to the Department of Defense (DOD) and other U.S. government agencies for GWOT-related military operations and reconstruction activities since 2001; (2) costs reported for these operations and activities and the reliability of DOD's reported costs, and (3) issues with estimating future U.S. financial commitments associated with continued involvement in GWOT.Since 2001, Congress has appropriated about $430 billion to DOD and other government agencies for military and diplomatic efforts in support of GWOT. This funding has been provided through regular appropriations as well as supplemental appropriations, which are provided outside of the normal budget process. Since September 2001, DOD has received about $386 billion for GWOT military operations. In addition, agencies including the Department of State, DOD, and the Agency for International Development have received since 2001 about $44 billion to fund reconstruction and stabilization programs in Iraq ($34.5 billion) and Afghanistan ($9 billion) and an additional $400 million to be used in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Since 2001, U.S. government agencies have reported significant costs associated with GWOT, but GAO has concerns with the reliability of DOD's reported cost data. Through April 2006, DOD has reported about $273 billion in incremental costs for GWOT-related operations overseas--costs that would not otherwise have been incurred. DOD's reported GWOT costs and appropriated amounts differ generally because DOD's cost reporting does not capture some items such as intelligence and Army modular force transformation. Also, DOD has not yet used funding made available for multiple years, such as procurement and military construction. GAO's prior work found numerous problems with DOD's processes for recording and reporting GWOT costs, including long-standing deficiencies in DOD's financial management systems and business processes, the use of estimates instead of actual cost data, and the lack of adequate supporting documentation. As a result, neither DOD nor the Congress reliably know how much the war is costing and how appropriated funds are being used or have historical data useful in considering future funding needs. GAO made several recommendations to improve the reliability and reporting of GWOT costs. In addition to reported costs for military operations, U.S. agencies have obligated about $23 billion of $30 billion received for Iraqi reconstruction and stabilization, as of January 2006. U.S commitments to GWOT will likely involve the continued investment of significant resources, requiring decision makers to consider difficult trade-offs as the nation faces increasing fiscal challenges in the years ahead; however, predicting future costs is difficult as they depend on several direct and indirect cost variables. For DOD, these include the extent and duration of military operations, force redeployment plans, and the amount of damaged or destroyed equipment needed to be repaired or replaced. Future cost variables for other U.S. government agencies include efforts to help form governments and build capable and loyal security forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, and meet the healthcare needs of veterans, including providing future disability payments and medical services.
    [Read More…]
  • Force Structure: Better Management Controls Are Needed to Oversee the Army’s Modular Force and Expansion Initiatives and Improve Accountability for Results
    In U.S GAO News
    The Army's modular force restructuring is a multiyear $52.5 billion initiative to redesign operational Army units. The Army also plans to spend $70 billion through fiscal year 2013 to expand the force by 74,200 military personnel. Congress mandated that GAO report annually through fiscal year 2012 on the Army's modular force. For this report, GAO assessed to what extent the Army has (1) implemented and established management controls for its modular force and force expansion initiatives, and (2) assessed its modular unit designs. GAO assessed Army plans and funding requests; visited brigades that were reorganizing; and examined key Army planning documents, performance metrics, and testing plans. Both brigade combat teams and support brigades were visited, including units from the active component Army, Army National Guard, and Army Reserve.The Army is making progress in establishing modular units but has not established sufficient management controls to provide accountability for results and facilitate transparency of the Army's overall funding needs for modular units and force expansion. By the end of fiscal year 2007, the Army established 138 of 190 planned modular units; however, all 10 units GAO visited that had converted to modular designs continue to have some equipment and personnel challenges, including shortfalls in key equipment, and mismatches in skill levels and specialties of assigned personnel. Although the Army originally estimated it could largely equip and staff modular units by spending $52.5 billion through fiscal year 2011, the Army now believes it will require additional funding to equip modular units through fiscal year 2017. However, the Army has not identified how much additional funding it may need to fully equip units, nor has it provided sufficient information on progress to date. In addition, the Army is seeking multiple sources of funding for modular unit and force expansion equipment purchases without linking the funding to its modular unit design requirements, thus complicating decision makers' ability to assess the Army's progress in fully equipping the modular force. GAO's work has shown that major transformation initiatives have greater chance of success when their funding plans are transparent, analytically based, executable, and link to the initiative's implementation plans. Effective management controls are needed to establish these links. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance explains that it is management's responsibility to take systematic and proactive measures to develop and implement management controls that ensure accountability for results. Without better controls, decision makers will have difficulty assessing the Army's progress in meeting its goals, knowing what resources will be required to equip and staff modular units, and balancing funding requests for these initiatives with other competing priorities. The Army is evaluating and applying lessons learned from its ongoing counterinsurgency operations, but it lacks (1) a comprehensive assessment plan to determine whether fielded modular unit designs meet the Army's original goals for modular units across the full spectrum of low- and high- intensity warfare, and (2) outcome-oriented metrics that help to measure progress in achieving the goals of the modular force. The Army evaluated the experiences of modular units deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan and has made some changes in unit designs based on these lessons; however, the Army continues to lack a plan for assessing modular units in high-intensity combat operations. Further, the Army has not yet defined outcome-oriented metrics against which it could assess progress, although GAO previously made this recommendation and OMB also notes this in its performance assessment reporting. As a result, the Army does not have a clear way to measure the extent to which it is achieving the benefits it initially envisioned when it designed the modular force and that it is doing so in a manner that supports DOD joint warfighting capabilities.
    [Read More…]
  • Justice Department Settles with New Jersey-Based Staffing Company to Resolve Immigration-Related Discrimination Claims
    In Crime News
    The Justice Department announced today that it reached a settlement with Collabera, Inc., a Basking Ridge, New Jersey-based information technology (IT) staffing agency.  The settlement resolves the department’s claims that Collabera violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) when it discriminated against work-authorized non-U.S. citizens.
    [Read More…]
  • Real Estate Investor Pleads Guilty to Rigging Bids at Foreclosure Auctions
    In Crime News
    A California man pleaded guilty yesterday to rigging bids at public foreclosure auctions.
    [Read More…]
  • Agile Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Agile Adoption and Implementation
    In U.S GAO News
    From September 28, 2020 through September 27, 2021, GAO is seeking input and feedback on this Exposure Draft from all interested parties. Please click on this link to provide us with comment on the Guide. The U.S. Government Accountability Office is responsible for, among other things, assisting Congress in its oversight of the executive branch, including assessing federal agencies' management of information technology (IT) systems. The federal government annually spends more than $90 billion on IT. However, federal agencies face challenges in developing, implementing, and maintaining their IT investments. All too frequently, agency IT programs have incurred cost overruns and schedule slippages while contributing little to mission-related outcomes. Accordingly, GAO has included management of IT acquisitions and operations on its High Risk List. Recognizing the severity related to government-wide management of IT, in 2014, the Congress passed and the President signed federal IT acquisition reform legislation commonly referred to as the Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act, or FITARA. This legislation was enacted to improve agencies' acquisition of IT and enable Congress to monitor agencies' progress and hold them accountable for reducing duplication and achieving cost savings. Among its specific provisions is a requirement for Chief Information Officers (CIOs) at covered agencies to certify that certain IT investments are adequately implementing incremental development as defined in the Office of Management and Budget's capital planning guidance. One such framework for incremental development is Agile software development, which has been adopted by many federal agencies. The Agile Assessment Guide discusses best practices that can be used across the federal government for Agile adoption, execution, and program monitoring and control. Use of these best practices should enable government programs to better transition to and manage their Agile programs. GAO has developed this guide to serve multiple audiences: The primary audience for this guide is federal auditors. Specifically, the guide presents best practices that can be used to assess the extent to which an agency has adopted and implemented Agile methods. Organizations and programs that have already established policies and protocols for Agile adoption and execution can use this guide to evaluate their existing approach to Agile software development. Organizations and programs that are in the midst of adopting Agile software development practices and programs that are planning to adopt such practices can also use this guide to inform their transitions. For more information, contact Carol Harris at (202) 512-4456 or
    [Read More…]
  • Justice Department Defends Health Care Workers from Being Forced to Perform Abortions with Vermont Lawsuit
    In Crime News
    The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division today filed a civil lawsuit in Vermont federal court against the University of Vermont Medical Center (UVMMC) for violating the federal anti-discrimination statute known as the “Church Amendments.” That statute prohibits health care entities like UVMMC from discriminating against health care workers who follow their conscience and refuse to perform or assist with abortions.
    [Read More…]
  • Chad Travel Advisory
    In Travel
    Reconsider travel to [Read More…]
  • Gree Appliance Companies Charged with Failure to Report Dangerous Dehumidifiers and Agree to $91 Million Resolution
    In Crime News
    A Chinese appliance manufacturer and two of its subsidiaries have agreed to resolve criminal charges for failing to notify the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) that millions of dehumidifiers they sold to U.S. consumers were defective and could catch fire.
    [Read More…]
  • Four Additional Members of Los Angeles-Based Fraud Ring Indicted for Exploiting COVID-Relief Programs
    In Crime News
    A federal grand jury in Los Angeles returned a superseding indictment, which was unsealed Thursday, charging four additional individuals for their alleged participation in a scheme to submit over 150 fraudulent loan applications seeking over $21.9 million in COVID-19 relief funds guaranteed by the Small Business Administration (SBA) under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act.
    [Read More…]


Network News © 2005 Area.Control.Network™ All rights reserved.