Category Archives: government fraud spending collusion

What Should you Know About Wilson Fish….

Posted on by

The Wilson-Fish (WF) program is an alternative to traditional state administered refugee resettlement programs for providing assistance (cash and medical) and social services to refugees.

  Minneapolis

  Vermont

  Twin Falls, Idaho

The full government program description is here, from the Health and Human Services website which manages the Refugee Resettlement Program.

The purposes of the WF program are to:

  • Increase refugee prospects for early employment and self-sufficiency
  • Promote coordination among voluntary resettlement agencies and service providers
  • Ensure that refugee assistance programs exist in every state where refugees are resettled

http://app.na.readspeaker.com/cgi-bin/rsent?customerid=7596&lang=en_us&readid=main&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.acf.hhs.gov%2Fprograms%2Forr%2Fprograms%2Fwilson-fish

I. INTRODUCTION

II. ELIGIBLITY

III. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

IV. PROGRAM SERVICES
A. Refugee Cash Assistance
B. Refugee Medical Assistance/Refugee Medical Screening
C. Intensive Case Management
D. Employment/Employability Services
E. English Language Training
F. Translation and Interpretation Services
G. Refugee Social Services – Key Requirements

V. PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
A. Statewide Coordination
B. RCA/RMA Administration

VI. PROCEDURES AND DEFINITIONS
A. Procurement of Services
B. Sanctioning and Fair Hearing Process
C. Definition of Terms
D. Procedure for a WF Program to Revert to a State Administered RCA or PPP Model

VII. REPORTING

VIII. Application
A. Substantial Involvement Under the Cooperative Agreement
B. Contents of the WF Application

I. INTRODUCTION

These guidelines are provided to grantees under the Wilson/Fish (WF) alternative program to assist them in their delivery of services and assistance to eligible populations. The purpose of the WF program is to establish an alternative to the traditional state administered refugee assistance program through the provision of integrated assistance (cash and medical) and services (employment, case-management, English as a Second Language (ESL) and other social services) to refugees in order to increase early employment and self-sufficiency prospects. In addition, the WF program enables refugee assistance programs to exist in every State where refugees are resettled.

The statutory authority for the WF program was granted in October, 1984, when Congress amended the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to provide authority for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to implement alternative projects for refugees. This provision, known as the Wilson/Fish Amendment, Pub.L. 98-473, 8 U.S.C. 1522(e)(7), provided:

“(7)(A) The Secretary shall develop and implement alternative projects for refugees who have been in the United States less than thirty-six months, under which refugees are provided interim support, medical services,1 support services, and case management, as needed, in a manner that encourages self-sufficiency, reduces welfare dependency, and fosters greater coordination among the resettlement agencies and service providers…

(B) Refugees covered under such alternative projects shall be precluded from receiving cash or medical assistance under any other paragraph of this subsection or under title XIX or part A of Title IV of the Social Security Act.

(C) “…”

(D) To the extent that the use of such funds is consistent with the purposes of such provisions, funds appropriated under section 414(a) of this Act, part A of Title IV of the Social Security Act, or Title XIX of such Act, may be used for the purpose of implementing and evaluating alternative projects under this paragraph.”

The WF Program is also referenced in the Office of  Refugee Resettlement (ORR)  regulations under the heading Alternative RCA Programs at 45 C.F.R. § 400.69:

“A state that determines that a public/private RCA program or publicly-administered program modeled after its TANF program is not the best approach for the State, may choose instead to establish an alternative approach under the Wilson/Fish program, authorized by INA section 412(e)(7).”

The ORR regulations at 45 C.F.R. §400.301 also provide authority to the ORR Director to select a replacement to respond to the needs of the state’s refugee population if a state withdraws from the refugee program:”…when a State withdraws from all or part of the refugee program, the Director may authorize a replacement designee or designees to administer the provision of assistance and services, as appropriate, to refugees in that State” (see page 14 – “Statewide Coordination”).

Neither the statute nor regulations mandate a competitive review process for determining a WF grantee.  However, the statute does require as follows:

No grant or contract may be awarded under this section unless an appropriate proposal and application (including a description of the agency’s ability to perform the services specified in the proposal) are submitted to, and approved by, the appropriate administering official. Grants and contracts under this section shall be made to those agencies which the appropriate administering official determines can best perform the services 8 U.S.C. § 1522(a)(4)(A).

ORR with the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) concurrence has concluded a competitive review process is not cost effective, not in the best interest of the government, and not a practical fit for the WF program.   ORR also, in accordance with the law cited above, will require that appropriate proposals and applications are submitted and that a determination is made that the grantees are the ones that can “best perform” the services.  Therefore funding under this program is open only to those agencies that currently administer a WF program. The WF program has the regulatory authority as cited above to expand sites in the future as necessary if a state withdraws from the refugee program or if a state proposes to switch its current RCA model to the WF model.

WF grantees which include States, voluntary resettlement agencies (local and national), and a private non-profit agency that oversees a local voluntary resettlement agency administer 12 state-wide WF programs in the following States: Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee and Vermont, plus one county-wide program in San Diego County, California. The WF programs in these locations are currently administered by the following agencies:

Alabama: USCCB – Catholic Social Services
Alaska: USCCB – Catholic Social Services
Colorado: Colorado Department of Human Services
Idaho: Janus Inc. (formerly Mountain States Group), Idaho Office for Refugees
Kentucky: USCCB – Catholic Charities of Louisville, Kentucky Office for Refugees
Louisiana: USCCB – Catholic Charities Diocese of Baton Rouge, Louisiana Office for Refugees
Massachusetts: Office for Refugees and Immigrants
Nevada: USCCB – Catholic Charities of Southern Nevada
North Dakota: LIRS – Lutheran Social Services of North Dakota
San Diego County, CA: USCCB – Catholic Charities Diocese of San Diego
South Dakota: LIRS – Lutheran Social Services of South Dakota
Tennessee: USCCB – Catholic Charities of Tennessee, Tennessee Office for Refugees
Vermont: USCRI – Vermont Refugee Resettlement Program

II. ELIGIBILITY

ORR Eligible Client Population

To be eligible for WF funded programs and services, grantees must ensure refugees2 meet all requirements of 45 C.F.R. 400.43, “Requirements for documentation of refugee status”. Eligibility for refugee program services and assistance also includes: Asylees3, Cuban Haitian Entrants4; Certain Amerasians5 from Vietnam; Victims of Severe Forms of Trafficking6; Special Immigrant Visa Holders7.

All eligible individuals will be referred to as “refugees” or “clients” in these guidelines, unless the context indicates otherwise. For more details on documentary proof of the above statuses and all other ORR eligible populations, including statutory and regulatory authorities, visit the ORR website.

III. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Under the WF program guidelines, the grantee will provide interim financial assistance, medical assistance (if applicable), employment services, case management and other social services to refugees in a manner that encourages self-sufficiency, and fosters greater coordination among voluntary agencies and other community-based service providers. An integrated system of assistance and services is an essential characteristic of a WF program. Services and assistance under this program are intended to help refugees attain self-sufficiency within the period of support defined by 45 CFR 400.211.8 This period is currently eight months from date of arrival in the U.S. (for refugees and SIVs); the date of adjustment of status if applying for Special Immigrant Status within the U.S (SIVs); the date of final grant of asylum (for asylees); the date a Cuban/Haitian becomes an entrant9; the date of certification or eligibility letter for Victims of Severe Forms of Trafficking.

WF programs provide assistance and services to refugees for the purpose of enhancing refugee self-sufficiency. Some examples include: (1) where assistance and services for refugees receiving RCA and those receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families  (TANF) could be provided in a better coordinated, effective, and efficient manner;  (2) where the  payment rate for RCA and TANF is well below the ORR payment rates listed in the ORR regulations at 45 C.F.R. section 400.60;  (3) where TANF-eligible refugees may not have access to timely, culturally and linguistically compatible services in the provision of employment and training programs; (4) where existing options for delivery of services and assistance to refugees do not present the most effective resettlement in that location, and where resettlement could be made more effective through the implementation of an alternative project; (5) where the continuity of services from the time of arrival until the attainment of self-sufficiency needs to be strengthened; or (6) where it is in the best interest of refugees to receive assistance and services outside the traditional TANF system.

WF programs have the flexibility to design programs tailored to the refugees’ needs, assets, and environment of the resettlement community.

There are seven main elements of WF programs that allow them to be distinguished from the traditional10 state -administered refugee resettlement programs:

a. They may serve TANF eligible clients in addition to RCA clients.
b. The provision of cash assistance, case management and employment services are integrated and administered generally under a single agency employing a “one stop shop “ model  that is culturally and linguistically equipped to work with refugees.
c. The cash assistance element may be administered and/or delivered by the state or a private entity.
d. Monthly RCA payment levels may exceed state TANF payment levels (up to the PPP levels outlined under 45 C.F.R. §400.60).
e. WF programs utilize innovative strategies for the provision of cash assistance, through incentives, bonuses and income disregards which are tied directly to the achievement of employment goals outlined in the client self-sufficiency plan.
f. Refugee Medical Assistance (RMA) may be administered by a private entity.
g. WF programs provide intensive case management to refugees who are determined to have special needs.

Funding for the WF program is made available under the Transitional Assistance and Medical Services (TAMS) and Social Services line items.  Under TAMS, WF grantees receive WF-Cash and Medical Assistance (WF-CMA) discretionary funds which are awarded through cooperative agreements to cover RCA, RMA (if privately administered), intensive case management, statewide coordination and RCA/RMA administration costs. WF-CMA discretionary grants are awarded based on a budget of estimated costs for providing up to eight months of RCA and RMA (if applicable) to eligible refugees and up to one year of intensive case management, as well as for the identifiable and reasonable administrative costs associated with providing RCA and RMA and statewide coordination. WF-CMA is a cost reimbursement grant. Any unobligated balances will be used as an offset to the following year’s award for this grant.

Back at the Border(s), Bigger Issues ~ Chilling Report

Posted on by

Breitbart: MATAMOROS, Tamaulipas— The lack of security conditions in this border city fuel the terror that its citizens live under and led to the U.S. Consulate in Matamoros being the latest target for a bomb threat.

According to information released by the Tamaulipas Command Control and Computing Center (C-4 similar to a police communication center), authorities received a call about an explosive device at the consular office on Thursday afternoon. The alert raised the security levels in the Jardin neighborhood, which is just yards away from two international bridges that connect this border city with Brownsville, Texas.

Mexican soldiers and federal police officers rushed to the neighborhood and sealed off the area for several hours. One of the security blockades was placed near the intersection of First and Azaleas streets in Jardin neighborhood.

As part of the security protocol, the U.S. Consulate was fortified by Mexican troops who surrounded the building while special teams went into the building to search for the explosive devices. Mexican authorities used police dogs to search the area and after a careful search of the building were able to determine that the threat was false.

The threat to the U.S. Consulate Office in Matamoros is just one of many daily occurrences in this city. Earlier this week, the HEB shopping center had to be evacuated after a similar bomb threat was called in.

As Breitbart Texas previously reported, two congressmen wrote a letter to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry demanding answers for the lack of security in the consular offices in Mexico.

The U.S. Consulate Office in this border city has previously been the victim of other bomb threats and also the theft of thousands of U.S. crossing cards that were stolen by the Gulf Cartel out of a delivery truck, Breitbart Texas previously reported.

So, what does the Congress know and have to say? They got the report:

Massive Senate report: Mexican AND Canadian borders are ‘significant’ terrorist pathways

The U.S.-Canada border is the likely path for terrorists to invade the country, according to top national security experts and Congress’ most comprehensive review of America’s 19,000 miles of coasts and land borders.

“The nexus between known or suspected terrorists in eastern Canada and the northern parts of the U.S. represent [sic] a significant national security threat,” said a new report from the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, a conclusion reached as Canada decided to settle 25,000 Syrian refugees by March.

“The border is not secure,” Sen. Ron Johnson, the Wisconsin Republican who is chairman of the committee, told Secrets. He included the southern border, where he said that drug cartels are teaming with “potentially Islamic terror organizations.”

He raised concerns about the rushed refugee plans of new Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. “It is a concern with the new prime minister, Trudeau, opening up his border to refugees. They can come into America, so I would say that increases our risk,” Johnson said.

His panel’s new 100-page report, show in pdf form at the end of this story, is based on dozens of hearings, interviews and trips, cites terror arrests in Canada and U.S. border states of Islamic State threats and quotes several experts raising concerns about how easy it is for illegal immigrants and terrorists to cross in from Canada.

“Security observers have argued that Canada represents a substantial vulnerability, because it provides immigrant visas to individuals who pose a significant threat,” said the report, “The State of America’s Border Security.”

“Witnesses testified before the committee that if someone gets into Canada, they will most likely be able to enter the U.S.”

And for thousands of miles of border, for most there is only a shallow ditch and forestlands to stop them. “There is currently no fencing on the northern border. Instead, the demarcation line between the two countries is often marked by a ditch, approximately six inches deep,” says the report.

It offers several details of terrorist attempts and also charts how the U.S. and Canada are working to fight it. Consider this entry about terrorism from page 42:

The nexus between known or suspected terrorists in eastern Canada and the northern parts of the U.S. represent a significant national security threat. Communities in Minnesota and New York, which are adjacent to Ontario and Quebec, have recently experienced apprehensions of individuals on terrorist charges. For example, on November 26, 2014, two men in Minneapolis, Minnesota were charged with recruiting and conspiring to provide support to ISIL. Similarly, on September 17, 2014, a man in Rochester, New York was arrested on similar charges after the FBI provided evidence showing that he attempted to recruit fighters and funds for ISIL.

And it’s not just a northern border problem. Johnson said the highly trafficked U.S. border with Mexico is also a pathway for Islamic terrorists, especially as they team up with drug cartels that have carte blanche on their side of the line.

Those cartels “are also combining with transnational criminal organizations, potentially Islamic terror organizations,” he said.

Johnson in his report steers clear of the heated presidential campaign rhetoric on how to handle the border and notes that “it’s not a war zone.”

Solutions for the southern border include development of a guest worker system, a new campaign against drugs, and more efforts to secure the border. He also talked favorably of a recent Bush-era campaign to send those caught at the border home immediately, an effort that led to a drop in illegal border crossings.

Up north, he wants a “threat analysis” to see what more can be done to stop terrorists from slipping in. “Start now,” he said.

THE STATE OF AMERICA’S BORDER SECURITY

Senator Ron Johnson, Chairman

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

More Hillary Emails, Benghazi and Bob Bergdahl

Posted on by

Judicial Watch: New State Department Emails Reveal Hillary Clinton Slept Past Staff Efforts to Set Up Intelligence Briefing

Clinton Advisor Sidney Blumenthal Attacks Mitt Romney as “Contemptible,” a “Mixture of Greedy Ambition and Hollowness” 

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released a new batch of emails of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton connected to the Benghazi attack. Included is an email chain showing that Clinton slept late the Saturday after the Benghazi attack and missed a meeting that her staff had been trying to set up about sensitive intelligence issues, including the Presidential Daily Brief, on a day she was to make a slew of phone calls to foreign leaders.

Also included in the documents is an email from Clinton advisor Sidney Blumenthal, sent three days after the attack, describing then-Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney as “contemptible on a level not seen in past contemptible political figures” and a “mixture of greedy ambition and hollowness.”

The documents contain an email passed to Clinton in the days following the Benghazi attack in which the father of alleged Army deserter Bowe Bergdahl anguishes over the “‘Crusade’ paradigm” which he says “will never be forgotten in this part of the world.”

An email from former Ambassador Joe Wilson to Clinton expresses his concern about “Christian Dominionists who seek to turn [the military] into an instrument of their religious zealotry.”

Other emails show approval of an effort to blame an Internet video on the Benghazi attack that aired on the Al Jazeera network.

The new emails were obtained by Judicial Watch as a result of several court orders in two separate Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits for Clinton Benghazi material.  (The court orders are dated July 31, 2015, October 9, 2015, and October 20, 2015.)  The documents have been made public only because Judicial Watch’s litigation has forced the State Department to conduct additional searches.

The new Benghazi documents include email traffic showing that on the Saturday two days after the Benghazi terrorist attack Hillary Clinton slept past staff efforts to set up an intelligence briefing:

From: Hanley, Monica
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2012 09:17 AM
To: ‘[email protected]’ <[email protected]>
Cc: ‘[email protected]’ <[email protected]>
Subject: PDB

Dan will be at Whitehaven with the PDB at 9:30am this morning.

He has some sensitive items that he would like to personally show you when he arrives.

***

From: H [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2012 10:43 AM
To: Hanley, Monica R
Subject: Re: PDB

I just woke up so I missed Dan. Could he come back after I finish my calls? But I don’t have the call schedule yet so I don’t know when that would be. Do you?

From: Hanley, Monica R [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2012 10:51 AM
To: H
Subject: Re: PDB

A pouch with all of your call sheets and the schedule in en route to you. Here it is below as well.

Also in the pouch are a few read items, and an action memo authorizing the War Powers resolution for Tunisia that the office would like you to approve today. Ops can send a courier over to pick up the action memo later today.

12:00 UK FM Hague
12:15 Egyptian FM Amr
12:30 Israeli PM Netanyahu
1:15 French FM Fabius
1:30 Saudi FM Saud al-Faisal
2:00 Somali Former Transitional President Sharif
2:15 Libyan PM-elect Abu-Shakour
2:30 Turkish FM Davutoglu
3:00 Somali President Mohamoud (T)

-Moroccan King is still pending.

-NEW CALL: King Juan Carlos of Spain called today and offered anytime today or tomorrow. His office relayed that it is a personal call inquiring after the status of the Embassies in the Middle East. We are working on a call sheet.

The State Department’s records include a September 14, 2012, email from Clinton advisor Sidney Blumenthal to Clinton in which Blumenthal passes along a controversial article by his son Max and attacks then-Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney:

From: Sidney Blumenthal
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 10:48 AM
To: H
Subject: Re: m.guardian.co.uk

Max knows how to do this and fearless. Hope it’s useful and gets around, especially in the Middle East.

Keep speaking and clarifying. Your statements have been strong. Once through this phase, you might clarify history of US policy on Arab Spring, what has been accomplished, US interests at stake, varying relations with Libya & Egypt, etc.

Romney, of course, is contemptible, but contemptible on a level not seen in past contemptible political figures. His menace comes from his emptiness. His greed is not limited simply to mere filthy lucre. The mixture of greedy ambition and hollowness is combustible. He will do and say anything to get ahead, and while usually self-immolating he is also destructive. Behind his blandness lies boundless ignorance, ignited by consistently wretched judgment. His recent statements are of a piece with everything he has done from naming Ryan to his welfare ads, etc.

Keep speaking…

xo

Sid

The Blumenthal email includes a link to an article by his son Max Blumenthal that suggests that American conservatives, Zionists and the Israel government were behind the Internet video that was falsely linked by Clinton and Barack Obama to the Benghazi attack.  Clinton responded with an approving, “Your Max is a Mitzvah.” Another email shows that Mrs. Clinton wanted three copies of the Max Blumenthal Benghazi video article printed out.  (Max Blumenthal is a leftist journalist known for his attacks on Israel and American foreign policy.  In January, 2015, he is quoted calling American Sniper hero Chris Kyle an “unrepentant, sadistic killer.”)

In addition to Blumenthal’s attack on Romney, the newly released documents also include an email chain forwarded to Clinton from her former State Department deputy chief of staff Jacob Sullivan in which Robert Bergdahl, the father of alleged Army deserter Bowe Bergdahl, relates the death of U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens to what the senior Bergdahl calls the “‘Crusade’ paradigm:”

Please convey our abiding condolences to everyone in the Foreign Service. Your service is most notable and almost invisible. Our Nation is stumbling through a very volatile world. The “Crusade” paradigm will never be forgotten in this part of the world and we force our Diplomats to carry a lot of baggage around while walking on eggshells.

Be very careful my friend!

I’m very sorry,

bob

After receiving the email from Mr. Bergdahl, Mrs. Clinton orders a response (which is not disclosed) be prepared.

The new documents also contain an email from former Ambassador Joe Wilson to Clinton concerning the Benghazi attack, in which he suggests the military is being compromised “Christian Dominionists” in the U.S. military:

From: Joe Wilson
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2012 10:27 AM
To: H
Subject: From Joe Wilson

Dear Hillary, …

Glen Doherty [CIA contractor killed in the Benghazi attack] was a fellow member of the Military Religious Freedom Advisory Board, which fights to ensure that our military is not further compromised by the Christian Dominionists who seek to turn it into an instrument of their religious zealotry, an army for Christ rather than for the defense of our nation. He was invaluable in helping us uncover several cases where religious indoctrination was taking place under the guise of military training….

“These new Benghazi emails are disturbing and show why Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration had to be forced to disclose them,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Hillary Clinton, despite knowing that terrorists were responsible for the attack, allowed her spokesman to go to the Arab world and blame an Internet film.  Hillary Clinton trafficked in fantastical conspiracy theories that suggested both American conservatives and Israel were to blame for the Benghazi attack and jihadist violence in the Muslim world.  And the crazed email from Sidney Blumenthal shows that she was taking direction on her Benghazi spin based upon attack-style presidential campaign politics.  Finally, the ‘I just got up’ email shows that, smack dab in the middle of the Benghazi crisis, Hillary Clinton fell behind and may have not been fully briefed as she began an intense round of phone calls to foreign leaders.”

Judicial Watch’s FOIA lawsuits filed in 2014 and 2015 forced the release of these records.

The first lawsuit, filed on September 4, 2014, (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01511)), sought:

  • All records concerning notes, updates, or reports created in response to the September 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. This request includes, but is not limited to, notes taken by then Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton or employees of the Office of the Secretary of State during the attack and its immediate aftermath.

The second FOIA lawsuit, filed on May 6, 2015, (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-00692), sought:

  • All emails of former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton regarding the September 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. The timeframe for this request is September 11, 2012 to January 31, 2013.

As Judicial Watch chief investigator reporter Micah Morrison detailed last month, Sidney Blumenthal advised Clinton on Libya (and may have had business interests there).  The JW report also disclosed how Hillary Clinton emailed classified information to Blumenthal in response to his lobbying for Amb. Wilson’s efforts to secure taxpayer financing for an energy project in Africa. Hillary Clinton’s contacts with Blumenthal, who was also a highly paid employee of the Clinton Foundation, should have been subject to State Department ethics reviews for conflicts of interest, as promised by Mrs. Clinton.  For example, in January 2009, Hillary Clinton promised President Obama and United States Senate considering her confirmation that:

If confirmed as Secretary of State, I will not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter that has a direct and predictable effect upon this foundation, unless I first obtain a written waiver or qualify for a regulatory exemption.

###

Death Benefits Still Not Paid for Benghazi

Posted on by

Family of American Killed in Benghazi Awaits Promised Funds

NYT > WASHINGTON — Family members of Glen Doherty, a C.I.A. contractor and a former Navy SEAL who was among four Americans killed in the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, said they felt a sense of closure when they were told last December that the agency had finally agreed to pay Mr. Doherty’s death benefits.

“It was such a great Christmas gift that all this hard work and time and energy that we put in was finally done,” said Kate Quigley, Mr. Doherty’s sister, of the family’s effort in fighting for the funds. “We felt like it was honoring his name and his legacy.”

But a year later, the Doherty family has yet to see any federal money. Bureaucratic delays continue, even as the C.I.A. and Congress are now in agreement that paying the death benefit is the right thing to do.

The family’s fight has been overshadowed by the politics and recriminations surrounding the House Select Committee on Benghazi, whose Republican members have sharply criticized Hillary Clinton for what they say was her failure as secretary of state to secure the diplomatic compound in which Mr. Doherty and the other Americans died.

Mr. Doherty’s family members say he did not realize that the life insurance package he was legally required to buy from a private provider as a C.I.A. contractor would not pay death benefits — beyond funeral costs — if the deceased had no spouse or offspring. Mr. Doherty was single and did not have any children.

“An injustice has been done in his name,” Mrs. Quigley said in a recent telephone interview. “Seventeen years, he devoted his life to protecting this country.”

In response to the Doherty family’s efforts, the C.I.A. has proposed changing one of its administrative policies to allow it to pay up to $400,000 in death benefits to Mr. Doherty’s family and to families of terrorist attack victims in similar situations. The change would be retroactive to April 18, 1983, when suicide bombers killed dozens of people at the American Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon.

The proposed policy, which is modeled after one adopted by the State Department for the 2014 fiscal year, would use C.I.A. funds rather than insurance money to pay the families, providing a stopgap for those otherwise unable to collect benefits.

After months of debating the particulars of the proposal, four congressional committees responsible for approving it have done so, but the House defense appropriations subcommittee has told the C.I.A. it must find money for the death benefits in a different part of its budget than the agency initially proposed. The committees are now awaiting the C.I.A.’s response, which they must all approve.

“We are involved in a little game of Ping-Pong here,” said Representative Stephen F. Lynch, Democrat of Massachusetts, who has pushed for the rule change on Capitol Hill. “And I feel like we’re getting close, but I don’t want to take an eye off the ball.”

Mr. Lynch said that the rule change would most likely affect several dozen families. The C.I.A. declined to comment.

Mr. Lynch, the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight national security subcommittee, introduced legislation in January to go further than the internal C.I.A. change and update what he and others called an outmoded law. His measure would amend the 1941 Defense Base Act, which requires overseas contractors — including those working for the C.I.A. — to carry disability and life insurance. But it allows death benefits only to surviving spouses or children.

Despite gaining the support of Senators John McCain of Arizona, and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, both Republicans, the legislation has found little traction on Capitol Hill, which Mr. Lynch said in an interview might be because of its relatively narrow focus.

Jerry Komisar, the president of the C.I.A. Officers Memorial Foundation, which offers financial support to the families of officers killed in the line of duty, said that the death benefit of up to $400,000, while modest, would provide a much-needed lift to families.

“The demands on C.I.A. officers to serve on some of these hazardous assignments is going up,” said Mr. Komisar, a former member of the C.I.A.’s clandestine service. “The more we do to help incentivize them the better.”

Over the past three years, Mrs. Quigley, 42, said she has made dozens of phone calls and news media appearances, as well as trips from her home in Boston to lobby lawmakers in Washington. She has also met with members of the Benghazi committee, who she said pledged support. (Jamal Ware, a spokesman for the committee, said its chairman, Representative Trey Gowdy, Republican of South Carolina, has worked behind the scenes to help the family.)

My family have been trying to persuade me to look at a lawyer specialising in wrongful deaths and survival actions. But at times I just found it too much, particularly as there are so many law firms out there. I realise now that I probably shouldn’t have been so worried about getting the right lawyer involved, as it is so easy to do. A lot of law firms simply ask something like can you contact our wrongful death lawyers and you’ll hopefully get your lawsuit sorted. At one point, the family had been considering bringing a $1 million wrongful death suit against the C.I.A. and the State Department. But it decided not to press the suit after the C.I.A. agreed to the policy change. The family settled a separate suit against Rutherfoord, the insurance firm that sold Mr. Doherty his policy.

Mr. Doherty, who was 42 when he died, had served in Iraq and Afghanistan and had been hired by the C.I.A. to help with security and surveillance in Libya. According to Mrs. Quigley, her brother had designated a friend, Sean Lake, as the executor of his estate and did not know he would be unable to collect and distribute insurance benefits to the family as they had planned.

“The basic impetus of this is that this young man, a former Navy SEAL, agreed to serve us in a very meaningful way, in several very dangerous theaters,” said Mr. Lynch, who does not represent the family’s home district, but became involved in its efforts early on.

Under Obama, Inspector Generals are Stonewalled

Posted on by

Congress holds hearing for testimony from Inspector Generals. In early 2015, 46 IGs signed their name to a letter expressing concerns that agency officials systematically compromise IG independence by denying them full access.

In 2014:

AmericanThinker: AT News Director Ed Lasky has chronicled the shameful problems with Obama administration inspector generals for years, including the political pressures put on IG’s in almost every department of the administration.

A perfect illustration of this is former DHS IG Charles Edwards, who deliberately slowed investigations into wrongdoing at DHS, including the shredding of dozens of emails – an act that might send him to jail for obstruction of justice.

 

IGs: At Least 20 Investigations Slowed or Closed Due To Obama Admin

FreeBeacon: Numerous inspectors general say that at least 20 investigations have been slowed or closed due to government watchdogs not having access to needed documents or records under the Obama administration.

Dozens of interviews of people with firsthand knowledge of the years-long problem spoke of the tensions between the watchdogs and the administration.

The New York Times reports:

The Drug Enforcement Administration balked at turning over emails from senior officials tied to the raids, according to the department’s inspector general. It took nearly a year of wrangling before the D.E.A. was willing to turn over all its records in a case that the inspector general said raised “serious questions” about agents’ use of deadly force.

The continuing Honduran inquiry is one of at least 20 investigations across the government that have been slowed, stymied or sometimes closed because of a long-simmering dispute between the Obama administration and its own watchdogs over the shrinking access of inspectors general to confidential records, according to records and interviews.

The impasse has hampered investigations into an array of programs and abuse reports — from allegations of sexual assaults in the Peace Corps to the FBI’s terrorism powers, officials said. And it has threatened to roll back more than three decades of policy giving the watchdogs unfettered access to “all records” in their investigations.

“The bottom line is that we’re no longer independent,” Michael E. Horowitz, the Justice Department inspector general, said in an interview.

The restrictions reflect a broader effort by the Obama administration to prevent unauthorized disclosures of sensitive information — at the expense, some watchdogs insist, of government oversight.

In recent years, inspector generals have increasingly said the Obama administration is making it more difficult to acquire information as 47 of the 73 government IGs sent a letter to Obama last year for stonewalling their investigations.

The press additionally has chastised the Obama administration for lack of access to records as well. In March 2015, the Obama administration set a record for withholding government information despite promising to lead the most transparent administration in history.