Washington Post Reports That Hundreds of Contracting Scandals are Not Being Investigated

If you do the math on a Washington Post story yesterday it turns out the paper reported on what amounts to 225 scandals.

The Justice Department told the Post there is a backlog of approximately 900 False Claims Act cases, and that the backlog could take years to unclog. Obviously the time involved can damage the ability to pursue even the most meritorious cases. Justice also told the Post that they reject about 75% of all filed FCA cases, and most of those have little merit. I would bet that quite a few of the cases rejected have some merit but why quibble over that? If there are 900 cases in the system and a quarter represent cases that should be pursued, that means there are 225 good cases of fraud stuck in a black hole. That means we have not one scandal but as many as 225 scandals, because each such case deserves priority treatment the Justice Department simply does not have the resources to handle. These 225 cases have to be relatively big and they likely involve major contractors who can continue to commit fraud against the United States. Of the remaining 675 in which the Justice Department may investigate and see no merit, the inability to kick them back to private attorneys quickly does not help.

Private Attorneys would at least like to clear their own backlog but they would also like the chance to pursue some of those cases. Justice may have legitimate reasons not to pursue a case a private attorney might take a chance on, but if the case waited three years for an initial determination very few whistleblowers will still have the resources, time and ability to continue the fight even if they are right.

But the fact is, according to Justice there must be at least 225 cases that have merit. How can we let this continue? We know. We know by Justice's own procedures that there must be some 225 cases of major fraud and nobody can even get to deal with them. That's a pandemic of fraud and we are not fighting the disease. Within those 225 cases that means, important safety concerns and governmental functions are being undermined by unscrupulous contractors. The contractors who profit from fraud gain a competitive advantage and push out honest contractors who want to do good work. Fraud is very profitable and if you can get away with it provides a great competitive advantage. Right now you can get away with it.

These aren't small cases. Nobody takes the trouble to file a False Claims Act case these days if they can't find at least millions in damages because by the time the Relator gets their share, it does not leave much for what now appears to be years and years of legal work. Billions of dollars of fraud are lost this way. The whole point of the FCA is to punish and deter fraud. How do you deter fraudulent activity when it is clear to everybody that the Justice Department does not have the people power to stop it?

At least some of the fraud must compromise vital government activity. More and more contracts are being used to do what we used to think of as inherently governmental functions. The very mail room in the Justice Department where these cases arrive is run by a private contractor now. Its scary to think about how dependent national security is on private contractors who can commit fraud in this environment. It is also hard to think of anything that corrodes our basic faith in government more readily than the extensive nature of this fraudulent activity.

The Post story blew the whistle (if you will pardon the expression) on the problem, but who are we to blame? Certainly not the career Justice lawyers who are overworked beyond reason. Assistant United States Attorneys working on False Claims Cases have dockets of 60 cases. Open the file on each case and look at it and a whole week is gone. Main Justice has only 75 lawyers they can assign to these cases. The people trying to deal with these cases want to investigate the cases responsibly and they want to win even in a judicial environment hostile to whistleblowers. There are simply not enough attorneys and investigators to go around.

Justice has approximately the same number of attorneys working on these cases that they did in the early 1990s when far fewer cases were brought, far less government functions were handled by private contractors and when the kinds of cases were not generally as complicated or big. How do you investigate a fraud, which may have occurred in Afghanistan or Iraq? How does the same lawyer become an expert on Medicare regulations AND Defense contract procedures overnight?

Here's a starting suggestion. Hire all the lawyers. There has never been a better time. The only area of law experiencing growth right now besides fraud is bankruptcy, so there should be plenty of attorneys looking for work. I don't care if the Justice Department has to appoint special attorneys general to investigate one case or if they want to just take the first 750 resumes that come across the door, we have to do something. There are private law firms that have that many attorneys. Why is it so outrageous for the federal government to hire enough attorneys and investigators to deal with a serious issue of national importance, which would, if they did it save as opposed to cost tax money? We hear lots of talk about cutting waste fraud and abuse in an election year.

We don't hear much talk of a bill to specifically expand Justice by enough lawyers and more investigators to fight fraud. What else could the government spend money on which would certainly return money to the taxpayer directly and also improve the quality of work done for the government? Here is a law that actually gives investigators and lawyers at least some chance of fighting fraud in a courtroom. Now if we could only get enough people involved in bringing the cases there we might be able to find out what is going on in those 225 scandals sitting on a shelf in a Government office.

Senator Grassley Demands Answers On Youssef Allegations from Attorney General Mukasey

AG Michael MukaseySenator Charles Grassley
Yesterday, January 30, 2008, in a Senate Judiciary Committee DOJ Oversight hearing, Senator Charles Grassley (above, right) had some tough questions for Attorney General Michael Mukasey. Notably, Senator Grassley, a longtime critic of FBI policies and actions against whistleblowers, asked the AG about Special Agent Bassem Youssef, who has exposed serious misconduct in the war on terror.


In his full written questions, Senator Grassley, citing an October 2007 letter to Mukasey sent by Mr. Youssef's attorney, Stephen Kohn, says:

"Special Agent Youssef, through his counsel, provided my office with a
copy of a ten page letter (dated October 11, 2007) filed with your
office detailing threats to our nation's security caused by the failure
of the FBI to hire and promote subject matter experts within the FBI's
counterterrorism division. The examples set forth in that letter are
extremely troubling.  [Mr. Chairman, I ask that the letter be placed in
the record.]

What action has your office taken to investigate the issues and concerns
raised in Mr. Youssef's October 11, 2007 letter?

Do you plan to seek an independent review of Youssef's allegations about how lack of expertise among FBI managers is hindering its
counterterrorism effo
rts?  Why or why not?"

He goes on to ask Mr. Mukasey about the abuses related to National Security Letters program, of which Mr. Youssef has firsthand knowledge, and has been a vocal critic.


You can read all of Senator's Grassley's tough questions for Attorney General Mukasey after the jump...


Prepared Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa

Senate Committee on the Judiciary

Department of Justice Oversight Hearing

Attorney General Michael Mukasey

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Chairman Leahy, thank you for calling this hearing today on Department
of Justice oversight.  It has only been three months since Attorney
General Mukasey was last here for his confirmation hearings, but it is
always good to hold oversight hearings and check in on the
administration.

As a senior member of the Senate, I've always held great respect for the
oversight function of Congress.  The Constitution placed great power in
the Legislative Branch and that is not limited to just writing laws.
Instead, the Constitution requires that we ask tough questions of the
Executive Branch.  We need to make sure they are being faithful stewards
of taxpayer dollars and that they are enforcing and implementing the
laws as Congress intended.  That said, I want to ask the Attorney
General a number of questions today and follow-up on some responses he
submitted following his confirmation hearing back in October.

One topic I'd like to discuss with the Attorney General is a letter he
signed regarding the Federal Employee Protection Act (S.274).  This bill
provides some necessary revisions in the Whistleblower Protection Act
and unanimously passed the Senate back in December.  This legislation
will ensure that whistleblowers are protected and not subject to
retaliation.  I have some concerns with the letter signed by the
Attorney General and want to hear his rationale for raising objections
to S.274.

Next, I have some follow-up questions related to oversight of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).  These questions relate to the
Counterterrorism Division of the FBI and allegations that have been made
public by employees within the FBI.  I also have questions regarding the
FBI's use of "exigent letters" in relation to the investigation
conducted by the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General on
the FBI's use of National Security Letters.  These questions are vitally
important to ensuring that efforts to protect our homeland are accurate
and in accordance with the law.  I've been asking questions for some
time and look forward to further dialogue and, more importantly, some
answers on these matters.

I also would like to work with the Attorney General in the second
session of the 110th Congress on two very important legislative
initiatives, S.2041 the False Claims Act Correction Act of 2007, and
S.473, the Combating Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Act of
2007.

The False Claims Act Correction Act will clarify negative court
interpretations of the False Claims Act which I amended in 1986.  The
FCA is the premier tool in the Government's toolbox for combating fraud.
Since the 1986 amendments were signed into law by President Reagan, it
has helped the government recover over $20 billion that would otherwise
be lost to fraud, waste, or abuse.  However, 20 years later the law
needs a few tweaks to deal with court decisions that run contrary to the
spirit and intent of the 1986 amendments.  I look forward to working
with the Justice Department to ensure that the FCA will continue to work
as intended for the next 20 years.

The Combat Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Act is an important
bill that will ensure that our laws are up to date in combating the
laundering of terrorist and criminal proceeds.  I've long believed that
to effectively combat terrorists and criminal organizations, we need to
hit them where it hurts, right in the pocketbook.  However, as the fight
against terrorism continues, we need to make sure that our laws against
money laundering keep pace with technological advances, such as the use
of prepaid debit cards.  In fact, there are additional loopholes in the
law that have been pointed out that I also intend to address in this
legislation.  This is a testament to the ever-evolving world of money
laundering, and we need to ensure that our laws are not outpaced by the
creativity and unrelenting nature of terrorist and criminals around the
world.

I hope the Attorney General, and members of this Committee, will work
with me on these two legislative initiatives in the near future. 

Prepared Questions from Senator Chuck Grassley



(1) Oversight and Timeliness of Document Requests:

During your confirmation hearing you assured us that you would assist my
congressional oversight efforts with the Department.  I appreciate your
cooperation and will hold you to your word.

I'd like you to know that prior to this hearing the Department provided
responses to requests, dating back to March 2007.  Unfortunately, we
received these responses on Friday and have had four days to digest
nearly 250 pages of answers.

Buried in the responses from the FBI was a response to questions 64
through 83 that said answers are "provided separately", but they were
not.  

Attorney General Mukasey, I am troubled when I get responses stating one
thing but then you do another.  When can I expect this response from the
FBI I've been waiting for since March of 2007?  Can I expect these
answers before a full year has passed?

(2) Whistleblowers

At your confirmation hearing you testified about whistleblowers at the
FBI and said "people ought to be encouraged to come forward...and that
they should be protected."

The FBI and Justice Department have not always had a culture that
supported whistleblowers.  Instead the culture usually worked to prevent
whistleblowing through intimidation and retaliation.

One of the most difficult issues in whistleblowing is that of national
security whistleblowers.  These individuals have security clearances
that prevent the disclosure of our Nation's closest held secrets.  I
understand that a security clearance is a privilege and not a right.

However, individuals with security clearances who witness wrongdoing
often face a catch-22.  They can either report the wrongdoing to
supervisors who may retaliate against them, or they can sit silent and
let the wrongdoing continue.  Either situation is unacceptable.

As a solution, the Senate unanimously passed S.274, the Federal Employee
Protection Act of 2007.  This bill attempts to strike a balance.  It
allows individuals who know of wrongdoing in classified matters to come
forward and report that wrongdoing to Congress.  BUT, it only allows
disclosure to specific persons cleared to hear classified information.

This bi-partisan legislation would ensure that national security
information remains secret, while allowing Congress to conduct oversight
required under the Constitution.

On January 22, 2008, you along with Director of National Intelligence
McConnell, Secretary Gates, and Secretary Chertoff, signed a letter
objecting to S.274.  I am concerned by statements in this letter which
claim that secure reporting mechanisms for whistleblowers are somehow
unconstitutional or jeopardize national security.  While I agree that
this information needs to be secure, Congress must be able to conduct
oversight of the Executive Branch on matters involving National
Security. 

Further, I find it difficult to reconcile this letter with statements
made at your confirmation hearings.

Now, I'm not for a blanket privilege allowing whistleblowers to release
classified information at will.  That is not practical or safe.
However, we need a secure mechanism to allow whistleblowers to make
protected disclosures to Congress.

Why doesn't Congress have a right to classified information when
providing that information is necessary to report wrongdoing?

Why isn't it enough to require that whistleblowers report classified
information to those with the necessary security clearances?

(3) Bassem Youssef

As you know, in the 1990s whistleblowers exposed major problems with the
FBI crime lab. Dr. Frederic Whitehurst, testified before you when you
were a judge in New York, raised concerns about the lack of expertise in
the FBI crime lab.  In response, the former Attorney General recruited
five outside forensic experts to carefully review the work of the crime
lab and all of Dr. Whitehurst's concerns and to make recommendations.

One of the changes was to ensure that the FBI placed scientists in
charge of the lab.  In other words, the FBI put people with expertise in
leadership positions.  Now, there is another FBI whistleblower named
Bassem Youssef who is prepared to testify about major problems with the
FBI's counterterrorism operations.  The FBI has taken the position that
neither Arabic skills nor expertise with Middle Eastern counterterrorism
are required for management positions in its counterterrorism programs.
This sounds too much like the days when the FBI didn't think it needed a
scientist to run the crime lab.

After your confirmation hearing, I asked you about these issues and
whether you would consider appointing an independent panel of experts to
give them serious consideration.  In your written answers, which we just
received, you said you were unfamiliar with the problems outlined by
Youssef, but that it would be among your "highest priorities" to
familiarize yourself with the Bureau's counterterrorism efforts.

Special Agent Youssef, through his counsel, provided my office with a
copy of a ten page letter (dated October 11, 2007) filed with your
office detailing threats to our nation's security caused by the failure
of the FBI to hire and promote subject matter experts within the FBI's
counterterrorism division. The examples set forth in that letter are
extremely troubling.  [Mr. Chairman, I ask that the letter be placed in
the record.]

What action has your office taken to investigate the issues and concerns
raised in Mr. Youssef's October 11, 2007 letter?

Do you plan to seek an independent review of Youssef's allegations about
how lack of expertise among FBI managers is hindering its
counterterrorism efforts?  Why or why not?

(4) Exigent Letters:

Youssef is also a central figure in the controversy over so-called
"exigent letters" issued by the FBI.  These letters obtained phone
records by falsely claiming an emergency and promising that a grand jury
subpoena would be issued later.  According to Youssef, he helped the FBI
identify and fix the problems with these letters.

The FBI General Counsel recently briefed Committee staff and claimed
that her office did not know of the letters "at the time."  However,
according to page 93 of the Inspector General's report, interviews and a
review of email indicates that a division of the General Counsel's
Office did know "at the time," about the exigent letters as early as
2004, long before the FBI stopped sending them.

We should not have to rely on misleading statements from FBI officials
when there is evidence available that would clarify exactly how this
mess happened.  The Committee requested all of the emails related to
exigent letters last year, DOJ promised them to us, but we have received
only one small batch of heavily redacted documents.

When are these documents coming-it has been almost a full year since we
first asked?

DOJ Dropping Criminal Charges Against Whistleblower

This weekend, The Detroit News reported that the remaining federal criminal charges against DOJ whistleblower Richard Convertino will be dropped. Mr. Convertino, a career federal prosecutor, was hit with conspiracy and obstruction charges after blowing the whistle on DOJ mismanagement of terror investigations.

 


$670 Million False Claims Act Settlement from Merck Flying Under the Radar

I would like to take this opportunity to remind everyone that the False Claims Act is supposed to be a Whistleblower law. Something is strange when there's a 670 Million Dollar settlement under this law and it’s actually pretty hard to find out what happened. (The only reports I could find were in the Corporate Crime Reporter and a paragraph five mention in this Associated Press article)


There's a lot of good news in the fact that Merck had to pay this money, but we'll have to wait for all the details because it seems many of the documents are still under seal. False Claims Act Plaintiffs always have a hard time adjusting to the idea that they have to keep their mouths shut to let the Government investigate their claims. In this case, the Government should be congratulated - they got a huge result. Yet one of the points of the law is to deter the type of behavior Merck engaged in, and it's hard to see how keeping the results quiet does that.


We were able to find one court document, the Complaint filed in Nevada under that State's False Claims Act. If that complaint can be believed, and there are 670 million reasons to give it credibility, Merck went about "increasing market share" as they call it, pretty much the way a drug pusher does. Only drug pushers don't get the US taxpayer to underwrite sales.


The complaint filed in Nevada district court outlines a scheme to defraud the taxpayer. Merck essentially gave away their drugs, drugs for chronic conditions, to hospitals so that patients would be dependent on the prescription when they left the hospital. Then Merck charged higher prices when the patient left. Only problem is that by discounting drug away earlier they were supposed to report that as the new price of the drug and re-imburse the government accordingly. Ooops. You can't say the pill is 10 cents in the hospital but costs 2 dollars when the patient leaves and get two dollars per pill from the government which pays the bills each time.


In a special irony, one of the drugs whose "market share" this scheme Improved was Vioxx. So now Merck has more Vioxx liability for that drug's cardiac problems than if they marketed the drug legally. That would almost be funny if it didn't put so many patients' lives at risks.


Anyway, the US Department of Justice is to be congratulated for winning such a huge settlement. The Lawyers who won the case and certainly the Plaintiff who brought it have all earned their reward. I just wish that instead of keeping everything quiet everybody would do a little more bragging. Get all the documents out of seal and tell the world that the False Claims Act works to recover funds stolen from the government even in complex schemes. Let's encourage the whistlebowers to report fraud as the False Claims Act was enacted to do. When you win $670 Million, its time to tell the world.