Visa Overstays are a Bigger Issue then the Border Wall

Posted on March 21, 2017March 21, 2017 by Denise Simon

Primer: If you overstay your visa for 180 days or more (but less than one year), when you depart the U.S. you will be barred from reentering the U.S. for three years. If you overstay your visa for one year or more, when you depart the U.S. you will be barred from reentering the U.S. for ten years.

Image result for visa overstay

Related reading: Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX), reports on 30 countries that refuse to take back their criminals. He appeared on CSpan and Full Measure explaining the issue. The Washington Times reports under federal law, the U.S. government can refuse to issue visas to nationals of countries that refuse to take back their citizens who have been ordered deported from the United States. But according to Cuellar, the government is not enforcing the law.
***

TruthRevolt reports in part: The Center for Migration Studies reports that “two-thirds of those who arrived in 2014 did not illegally cross a border, but were admitted (after screening) on non-immigrant (temporary) visas, and then overstayed their period of admission or otherwise violated the terms of their visas.” This is a trend, far above illegal crossings, which is anticipated to continue climbing from now on.

“That’s because, incredibly, the U.S. doesn’t have an adequate system to assure the foreigners leave when they’re supposed to,” Judical Watch reports. “This has been a serious problem for years and in fact some of the 9/11 hijackers overstayed their visa to plan the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil. More than a decade and a half later little has changed. Securing the famously porous southern border is essential to national security but so is a reliable system that cracks down on visa overstays.”

According to the CMS study, there have been 600,000 more overstays than illegal border crossings since 2007. Mexico leads in both overstays and EWIs, or entries without inspection. Here are the breakdowns:

California has the largest number of overstays (890,000), followed by New York (520,000), Texas (475,000), and Florida (435,000).
Two states had 47 percent of the 6.4 million EWIs in 2014: California (1.7 million) and Texas (1.3 million).
The percentage of overstays varies widely by state: more than two-thirds of the undocumented who live in Hawaii, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania are overstays. By contrast, the undocumented population in Kansas, Arkansas, and New Mexico consists of fewer than 25 percent overstays. More here.

*** So who is responsible for control of this? ICE holds all accountability, which reports to the Department of Homeland Security. What about Congress you ask?

Check this out…

Well, there was a bill introduced in 2013, 2015 and again in January of 2017. Yup. The current bill was only introduced and has a 1% chance of passing. It is only a 2 page bill to amend current law noted as H.R. 643. This bill would make it a crime for visa overstays with defined penalties. It is the U.S. State Department, Bureau of Consular Affairs that is responsible for issuing visas and waivers in the case of denials. If you can stand reading the steps and caveats to this process, go here.

For context on how DHS under Secretary Jeh Johnson at the time packaged the report, here is a sample:

DHS conducts the overstay identification process by examining arrival, departure and immigration status information, which is consolidated to generate a complete picture of an individual’s travel to the United States. The Department identifies two types of overstays – those individuals for whom no departure has been recorded (Suspected In-Country Overstay) and those individuals whose departure was recorded after their lawful admission period expired (Out-of-Country Overstay).

This report focuses on foreign nationals who entered the United States as nonimmigrant visitors for business (i.e., B1 and WB visas) or pleasure (i.e., B2 and WT visas) through an air or sea port of entry, which represents the vast majority of annual nonimmigrant admissions. In FY 2015, of the nearly 45 million nonimmigrant visitor admissions through air or sea ports of entry that were expected to depart in FY 2015, DHS determined that 527,127 individuals overstayed their admission, for a total overstay rate of 1.17 percent. In other words, 98.83 percent had left the United States on time and abided by the terms of their admission.

The report breaks the overstay rates down further to provide a better picture of those overstays that remain in the United States beyond their period of admission and for whom CBP has no evidence of a departure or transition to another immigration status. At the end of FY 2015, the overall Suspected In-Country Overstay number was 482,781 individuals, or 1.07 percent.

Due to further continuing departures by individuals in this population, by January 4, 2016, the number of Suspected In-Country overstays for FY 2015 had dropped to 416,500, rendering the Suspected In-Country Overstay rate as 0.9 percent. In other words, as of January 4, DHS was able to confirm the departures of over 99 percent of nonimmigrant visitors scheduled to depart in FY 2015 via air and sea POEs, and that number continues to grow.

This report separates Visa Waiver Program (VWP) country overstay numbers from non-VWP country numbers. For VWP countries, the FY 2015 Suspected In-Country overstay rate is 0.65 percent of the 20,974,390 expected departures. For non-VWP countries, the FY 2015 Suspected In-Country Overstay rate is 1.60 percent of the 13,182,807 expected departures. DHS is in the process of evaluating whether and to what extent the data presented in this report will be used to make decisions on the VWP country designations.

Overall, CBP has improved the collection of data on all admissions to the United States by foreign nationals, biometric data on most foreign travelers to the United States, and processes to check data against criminal and terrorist watchlists. CBP has also made tremendous progress in accurately reporting data on overstays to better centralize the overall mission in identifying overstays. CBP will continue to roll out additional pilot programs during FY 2016 that will further improve the ability of CBP to accurately report this data.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Counterterrorism and Criminal Exploitation Unit (CTCEU) is the program dedicated to the enforcement of nonimmigrant visa violations. Each year, ICE analyzes records of hundreds of thousands of potential status violators from various investigative databases and DHS entry/exit registration systems. The goal is to identify, locate, prosecute when appropriate, and remove overstays consistent with DHS’s immigration enforcement priorities, which prioritize those who pose a risk to national security or public safety.

Read more here.

The Counterterrorism and Criminal Exploitation Unit prevents terrorists and other criminals from exploiting the nation’s immigration system. Really? Yup, that is what the website reads. In a hearing from 2012, you may be interested in reading the testimony on the matter of visa overstays delivered by DHS Deputy Counterterrorism Coordinator John Cohen and ICE Homeland Security Investigations Deputy Executive Associate Director Peter Edge.

510,000 calls, 25% Go to Untrained Backups, VA

Posted on March 20, 2017March 20, 2017 by Denise Simon

On November 28, 2016, President Obama signed into law the No Veterans Crisis Line Should Go Unanswered Act. ^{This law requires VA to develop a quality assurance document to improve VCL functions. The document will outline clearly defined and measurable performance indicators and quantifiable timeframes. It is to be submitted to the Committees on Veterans’ Affairs of the House of Representatives and the Senate no later than 180 days after the date of enactment of the Act. The Act is also intended to ensure that all incoming communications received by the VCL and backup centers be answered in a timely manner by a person.}

For the full Inspector General report on issues, context and solutions, go here.

Image result for Veterans Crisis Line CNN

Report: More than one-fourth of veterans’ suicide hotline calls to go to backup lines

WASHINGTON — More than one-fourth of calls to the Veterans Crisis Line end up being redirected to other emergency response services because of ongoing problems with the services’ operations, according to a new report released Monday.
Those problems persist despite leadership changes and promised reforms at the crisis hotline in the last year, and a years-long emphasis on suicide prevention efforts from Department of Veterans Affairs officials.
“Staff did not respond adequately to a veteran’s urgent needs during multiple calls to the (crisis line) and its backup call centers,” officials from the VA Inspector General’s office said in the report. “Supervisory staff did not identify the deficiencies in their internal review of the matter.”
Last spring, a similar report by the office found at least 23 callers to the crisis line were transferred to voicemail systems instead of reaching emergency help. That revelation prompted harsh criticism from lawmakers, who said the mistakes literally could kill unstable veterans trying to get help.
The new analysis of crisis line operations for the last six months of 2016 found that more than 28 percent of calls to the hotline were redirected to backup centers that might not have the same training and resources to help veterans in crisis.
VA has set a goal of no more than 10 percent for “rollover” calls to the crisis line.

The report also found “deficiencies in governance and oversight” of the program’s operations, including poor record keeping to detect and correct problems with missed calls.

In a statement, VA’s acting Under Secretary for Health Poonam Alaigh said the crisis line “is the strongest it’s ever been since its inception in 2007” but acknowledged that further improvements are needed in the system.

The department opened a new Atlanta satellite office for the New York-based crisis line in October — midway through the inspector general’s review — and “has implemented a comprehensive workforce management system and optimized staffing patterns” to “provide callers with immediate service” in the future.
But officials critiquing the system say that’s not enough. The Inspector General’s office has recommended better staff education, technology support, performance reviews and call monitoring to better the system.
Calls which go unanswered by the line are mandated to be directed to backup crisis centers, so veterans seeking help aren’t left without help. But the inspector general notes that those backups may not have the same training in military-specific issues and services, limiting some of the assistance they can provide.
In a statement, House Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chairman Phil Roe, R-Tenn., called the ongoing problems “unacceptable” and asked for immediate fixes.
“The Veterans Crisis Line is intended to be the first line of defense against veteran suicide, and we must ensure calls are being answered by a trained professional in a timely manner,” he said. “I am extremely frustrated by the findings and will continue to conduct oversight so the men and women who answered the call to serve have their calls answered when they need help the most.”

The Veterans Crisis Line, launched in 2007, has fielded 2.5 million calls in the last decade and dispatched emergency services more than 66,000 times to callers in need of emergency help.

In fiscal 2016 alone, staffers answered more than 510,000 calls, 53,000 chat requests and 15,000 texts.

VA statistics show roughly 20 veterans a day nationwide commit suicide. Of those, only six are active users of VA services.

To contact the Veteran Crisis Line, callers can dial 1-800-273-8255 and select option 1 for a VA staffer. Veterans, troops or their families members can also text 838255 or visit VeteransCrisisLine.net for assistance.

Government ‘Dark’ Regulations Mapped Out

Posted on March 20, 2017March 20, 2017 by Denise Simon

Read the report in .pdf form here.

One of the first Executive Orders signed by President Trump was on Regulations. Read that text here from the White House.

2015

Mapping Washington’s Lawlessness: CEI Releases Updated Inventory of “Regulatory Dark Matter”

The Competitive Enterprise (CEI) released the 2017 update to its comprehensive report Mapping Washington’s Lawlessness: An Inventory of “Regulatory Dark Matter.” This analysis covers how, in addition to Congress’s own laws and the many thousands of rules issued by unelected regulators, regulatory dark matter exists in the form of thousands of additional issuances from executive and independent agencies. This dark matter goes around Congress, the Administrative Procedure Act’s (APA) public notice and comment requirements, and the American people themselves.

Examples include presidential and agency memoranda, guidance documents, bulletins, and public notices. These directives interject the federal government into our businesses, our communities, and our personal lives on matters such as healthcare, retirement, labor policy, education policy, and more.

President Trump is already taking certain steps to “deconstruct” the administrative state’s excesses, starting with a temporary regulatory freeze that includes agency guidance documents and rules. His executive orders concerning deregulation are helping, but a regulatory hangover from the Obama administration still lingers.

CEI’s Vice President for Policy Clyde Wayne Crews, Jr., the author of the report, calls on Congress to remedy the problem:

“Congress needs to take back its authority over federal agencies. The problem with regulatory dark matter is that it allows the executive branch of our government to rule sectors of our economy through mere announcements, rather than actual lawmaking or even proper rulemaking. This allows the government to interfere in many aspects of Americans’ lives without our input or that of Congress.

“We’ve been pleased to see the president’s aggressive out-of-the-gate actions to free up the economy, but agencies under President Trump could still create new dark matter behind the scenes. That is why Congress must tackle regulatory reform legislation to ensure an end to this problem.”

Some quick takeaways on regulatory dark matter:

Regulatory dark matter has accompanied the rollout of programs ranging from Obamacare to Dodd Frank to drone regulations from the Federal Aviation Administration.

Recent major Labor Department mandates like the franchising and independent contracting rules were dark matter, not formal regulations as they should have been.

No one really knows for certain how many federal regulatory agencies there are:

The Unified Agenda lists 61 agencies

The Administrative Conference of the United States lists 115

The Federal Register office 440 agencies

The Obama administration issued 3853 rules in 2016, while Congress passed and the president signed 214 bills into law – a ratio of 18 rules for every enacted law.

The report’s conclusion lists specific ways the Trump administration, either alone or with Congress, can tackle regulatory dark matter so that agencies are not incentivized to use it.

APA “notice and comment” provisions should apply to any proposed rule

Each piece of regulatory reform legislation passed in the 115^th Congress and beyond needs to incorporate language to address dark matter, not just rules

*** A weekday never passes without new regulations being issued or proposed. Yet beyond those rules, Congress lacks a clear grasp of the amount and cost of the thousands of executive branch and federal agency proclamations and issuances, including guidance documents, memoranda, bulletins, circulars, and letters that carry practical (if not always technically legally) binding regulatory effect. There are hundreds of “significant” agency guidance documents now in effect, plus many thousands of other such documents that are subject to little scrutiny or democratic accountability.

It has long been the case that there are far more regulations than laws. That is troublesome enough. But with tens of thousands of agency proclamations annually, agencies may articulate interpretations and pressure regulated parties to comply without an actual formal regulation or understanding of costs, generally with judicial deference to what agencies contend, an issue of increasing concern to Congress. The result is that no one knows how much the regulatory state “weighs,” or even the number of agencies. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) of 1946 established the process of public notice for proposed rulemakings, providing the opportunity for public input and comment before a final rule is published in the Federal Register, and a 30-day period before the rule becomes effective. But the APA’s requirement of publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking and allowing public comment does not apply to “interpretative rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice.”

North Korea’s Weapons Program Includes More Countries

Posted on March 20, 2017March 20, 2017 by Denise Simon

We can go back to 1968 when North Korea hijacked our naval intelligence ship USS Pueblo as a reminder for the basis on how to address North Korea today.

Image result for uss puelbo

Then as today, Russia collaborated with North Korea as does Iran. North Korea dispatched 2 MiG fighter jets along with several attack submarines in the capture of the Pueblo. At the time was also the Vietnam war of which Russia provided unmeasured military support to North Vietnam and did not want to add another theater of conflict with the United States, as noted by the Blue House raid. noted by the In fact, China cannot be overlooked either for many reasons.

Newly placed U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is traveling the region meeting with Asian leaders on the matter of stopping North Korea. The question is how far and wide are these talks with regard to additional countries cooperation with North Korea.

As for Iran and North Korea, The Telegraph reported the following:

The Shahab-3 is a modified version of North Korea’s Nodong missile which itself is based on the old Soviet-made Scud.

The Nodong, which Iran secretly acquired from North Korea in the mid-1990s, is designed to carry a conventional warhead. But Iranian engineers have been working for several years to adapt the Shahab-3 to carry nuclear weapons.

“This is a major breakthrough for the Iranians,” said a senior US official. “They have been trying to do this for years and now they have succeeded. It is a very disturbing development.”

The Shahab 3 has a range of 800 miles, enabling it to hit a wide range of targets throughout the Middle East – including Israel.

Image result for north korea high thrust engine UPI

Further in 2015, Forbes reported collaboration between Iran and North Korea where the exchange of engineers and scientists between the two countries is common:

North Korea and Iran are believed to be exchanging critical stuff – North Korean experts and workers remaining in place while Iran sends observers to check out intermittent North Korean missile launches and see what North Korea is doing about staging a fourth underground nuclear explosion.

The nuclear exchange revolves around North Korea’s program for developing warheads with highly enriched uranium – with centrifuges and centrifuge technology in part acquired from Iran. At the same time, North Korea is able to assist Iran in miniaturizing warheads to fit on missiles – a goal the North has long been pursuing – and also can supply uranium and other metals mined in its remote mountain regions.

“North Korea continues to supply technology, components, and even raw materials for Iran’s HEU weaponization program,” says Bruce Bechtol, author of numerous books and studies on North Korea’s military and political ambitions. Moreover, he says, “They are even helping Iran to pursue a second track by helping them to build a plutonium reactor.”

That assessment supports the view of analysts that Iran is counting on North Korean expertise in constructing a reactor that produces warheads with plutonium. The reactor would be a more powerful version of the aging five-megawatt “experimental” reactor with which the North has built perhaps a dozen warheads at its nuclear complex at Yongbyon, including three that it’s tested underground — in October 2006, May 2009 and February 2013, two years ago this month.

Then comes China, where the entire North Korea internet platform used by North Korea is hosted by China. Beyond managing cyber systems for North Korea, China is also collaborating with North Korea on nuclear weapons at key production sites producing lithium for thermonuclear and boosted fission research and development.

Sanctions have been placed on North Korea due to violations of UN resolutions due to the weapons of mass destruction operations which does include missiles and the nuclear program. However, North Korea has not been affected with regard to the research/development and production due to out of country front operations where China and Malaysia are involved.

Forbes also reported:

Although the UN resolutions have highly restricted North Korea’s access to the financial system on paper, the report suggests that these sanctions have not affected the ability of North Korean networks such as Pan Systems Pyongyang to finance its operations, asserting that the network maintains bank accounts in China, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, and the Middle East. By conducting financial transactions under the names of its affiliates such as Pan Systems Singapore, the company has been able to maintain sufficient financial access to the international financial system that it was able to transfer funds to a supply chain of more than twenty companies in China, and has also used front companies to conduct transactions via Hong Kong-registered companies that were cleared through U.S. correspondent banks in New York. The Panel of Experts report also provides details on the interception in the Suez Canal of the Cambodian-flagged and North Korean-crew piloted Jie Shun in what it categorizes as the “largest interdicted ammunition consignment in DPRK sanctions history,” superseding the 2013 interdiction of the North Korean flagged Chong Chon Gang ship that was loaded with vintage Cuban munitions and airplane parts. The interdiction of the Jie Shun by Egypt revealed a cargo from North Korea through the Suez Canal containing 30,000 PG-7 rocket propelled grenades (RPG) and related sub-components shipped in wooden crates concealed under 2,300 tons of limonite (iron ore). The Jie Shun evaded detection by cutting off GPS during most of its journey, with the exception of transit through heavily trafficked straits and ports. The shipment from Haeju in North Korea to an undisclosed Middle Eastern destination were falsely labeled as “assembly parts for an underwater pump,” and the bill of lading showed the address of the “Dalian Haoda Petroleum Chemical Company, Ltd.”

Rex Tillerson stated that ‘strategic patience’ has run out with regard to North Korea and all options remain on the table including preemptive strikes. North Korea has launched 46 missiles since 2011 and the most recent launch was to test a super high thrust rocket steering engine which was designed by Russian blueprints and engineers.

Tillerson at the DMZ lexpress.fr

The addition of a four-chamber steering engine further points toward a design rooted in Soviet missile technology as RD-250 and its descendants – when used on the R-36 missile and Tsiklon-2/3 orbital launchers – were coupled with a four-chamber RD-68M steering engine.

Photo: KCNA

This engine adaptation in all likelihood uses Unsymmetrical Dimethylhydrazine and Nitrogen Tetroxide propellants – a more powerful combination in terms of specific impulse compared to the Nitric Acid / UDMH propellant used by North Korea’s Unha booster

September 2016 Test Setup vs- March 2017 Test Setup – Images: KCTV/KCNA

Obama Hid Climate Change Money in all Agencies

Posted on March 16, 2017March 16, 2017 by Denise Simon

Primer: Even the Pentagon and General Mattis are part of the Climate Change supporters.

Secretary of Defense James Mattis has asserted that climate change is real, and a threat to American interests abroad and the Pentagon’s assets everywhere, a position that appears at odds with the views of the president who appointed him and many in the administration in which he serves.

In unpublished written testimony provided to the Senate Armed Services Committee after his confirmation hearing in January, Mattis said it was incumbent on the U.S. military to consider how changes like open-water routes in the thawing Arctic and drought in global trouble spots can pose challenges for troops and defense planners. He also stressed this is a real-time issue, not some distant what-if.

“Climate change is impacting stability in areas of the world where our troops are operating today,” Mattis said in written answers to questions posed after the public hearing by Democratic members of the committee. “It is appropriate for the Combatant Commands to incorporate drivers of instability that impact the security environment in their areas into their planning.” More here from ProPublica.

*** Obama’s Climate Change policy is here.

In November 2014, President Obama announced the United States’ intention to contribute $3 billion to the Green Climate Fund (GCF) to reduce carbon pollution and strengthen resilience in developing countries. The U.S. contribution builds on a bipartisan history of U.S. leadership to support climate action and will leverage public and private finance to avoid some of the most catastrophic risks of climate change. The strong U.S. pledge helped increase the number and ambition of other countries’ contributions and our leadership helped propel initial capitalization of the fund to over $10 billion, a threshold seen by stakeholders as demonstrating serious donor commitment.

*** Image result for obama white house climate change

To Protect Climate Money, Obama Stashed It Where It’s Hard to Find

Bloomberg: President Donald Trump will find the job of reining in spending on climate initiatives made harder by an Obama-era policy of dispersing billions of dollars in programs across dozens of agencies — in part so they couldn’t easily be cut.

There is no single list of those programs or their cost, because President Barack Obama sought to integrate climate programs into everything the federal government did. The goal was to get all agencies to take climate into account, and also make those programs hard to disentangle, according to former members of the administration. In some cases, the idea was to make climate programs hard for Republicans in Congress to even find.

“Much of the effort in the Obama administration was to mainstream climate change,” said Jesse Keenan, who worked on climate issues with the Department of Housing and Urban Development and now teaches at Harvard University. He said all federal agencies were required to incorporate climate-change plans into their operations.

The Obama administration’s approach will be tested by Trump’s first budget request to Congress, an outline of which is due to be released Thursday. Trump has called climate change a hoax; last November he promised to save $100 billion over eight years by cutting all federal climate spending. His budget will offer an early indication of the seriousness of that pledge — and whether his administration is able to identify programs that may have intentionally been called anything but climate-related.

Read more: Trump Said to Drop Climate Change From Environmental Reviews

The last time the Congressional Research Service estimated total federal spending on climate was in 2013. It concluded 18 agencies had climate-related activities, and calculated $77 billion in spending from fiscal 2008 through 2013 alone.

But that figure could well be too low. The Obama administration didn’t always include “climate” in program names, said Alice Hill, director for resilience policy on Obama’s National Security Council.

“Given the relationship that existed with Congress on the issue of climate change, you will not readily find many programs that are entitled ‘climate change,’” Hill, who is now a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, said in an interview. At the Department of Defense, for example, anything with the word climate would have been “a target in the budget process,” she said.

The range of climate programs is vast, stretching across the entire government.

The Department of Agriculture created “climate hubs” to help farmers and ranchers cope with extreme weather. The Department of Health and Human Services began analyzing the effects of climate change on occupational safety. The Bureau of Reclamation started a program called “West-Wide Climate Risk Assessments,” measuring changes to water supply and demand. The Bureau of Indian Affairs created the Tribal Climate Resilience Program. The Agency for International Development created a program to help “glacier-dependent mountain areas” deal with the risk of those glaciers melting.

In other cases, agencies expanded existing programs to account for global warming. In 2012, the Federal Highway Administration made climate-adaptation projects eligible for federal aid. Last year, the Department of Housing and Urban Development awarded $1 billion through its Community Development Block Grant program to projects protecting against climate change-related natural disasters.

Meanwhile, a handful of lesser-known offices saw their funding increase while Obama was in office. The budget for NASA’s Earth Science program increased 50 percent, to $1.8 billion. Funding for the U.S. Global Change Research Program, which is mandated by Congress to report every four years on the state of climate change, rose 45 percent to $2.6 billion. At the National Science Foundation, the geosciences program almost doubled to $1.3 billion.

Republican Demands

Republicans noticed, and tried to force the administration to offer a tally of climate funding. Last December, senior House Republicans sent a letter to Obama’s budget director, demanding that his office report how much federal money had gone toward climate programs in fiscal years 2015 and 2016.

Any cuts may face opposition in Congress, as Democrats and some Republicans support the spending, especially that to help communities withstand floods, hurricanes or droughts associated with climate change. Wednesday, a group of 17 Republicans announced their support for climate science — and policy measures to address it.

“Budget cuts to programs — or elimination of entire agencies — designed to help stem the costs of climate change will only hurt ranchers, agriculture producers, and coastal communities already experiencing the impacts of this global challenge,” Christy Goldfuss, managing director of the Council on Environmental Quality in Obama’s White House, said by email.

‘Gravy Train’

Some in Trump’s party now urge him to use his authority to find those programs, and take them apart.

“The Trump Administration needs to defund the entire apparatus of the climate change federal funding gravy train,” said Marc Morano, a former Republican staffer for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. “In order to dismantle the climate establishment, agencies and programs throughout the federal government need to be targeted.”

“The climate funding has spread to almost every aspect of the federal government with sometimes wacky results,” said Morano, who doubts global warming and runs the website climatedepot.com. He cited one example of a Department of Transportation query about the link between climate change and fatal car crashes.

Others argue that the spread of climate programs throughout the federal government simply reflects the evolving nature of the risk.

“It is irresponsible not to examine the possibilities and understand our sensitivity to them,” said Ed Link, a former director of research and development for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers who led the forensic analysis of Hurricane Katrina’s effect on New Orleans. If federal agencies stop doing that work, he said by email, “shame on them.”