False Claims Act Correction Act (S.2041) Approved by Committee, Heading to the Senate Floor

As was widely expected, the FCA Corrections Act was quickly approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday, and will now face a fight on the Senate floor. Committee member Charles Grassley, who has been considered to be the father of the modern False Claims Act since resuscitating the law in 1986 , has shepherded the bill this far, with bi-partisan support. We can be sure, though, that the powerful healthcare and defense contracting lobbies will be fighting these reforms tooth and nail, in both the House and the Senate. (The House bill is HR.4854). 


Sign up for our RSS feeds

Committee Vote on S.2041, False Claims Act Correction Act, Rescheduled for This Week

According to the website of the Senate Judiciary Committee, that body will be voting to send the FCA Corrections Act (S.2041) to the Senate floor this Thursday, April 3rd, 2008 @ 10AM.



Senate Committee Schedules Thursday Vote on False Claims Act Correction Act (S.2041)

UPDATE: THE COMMITTEE VOTE ON S.2041 HAS BEEN POSTPONED. AS OF TODAY (3/13/08) AT 2PM IT HAS NOT BEEN RESCHEDULED. MORE INFO WILL BE POSTED AS WE RECEIVE IT...


The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote on S.2041, The False Claims Act Correction Act, in a meeting this Thursday. The bill is designed to reverse key federal court decisions which have undermined the intent of the FCA. This legislation has been championed by committee member Sen. Charles Grassley, and was the subject of a hearing on Feb 27, which I attended and blogged here.

False Claims Act Correction Act (S.2041) Hearing Summary

I attended the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing this morning on the False Claims Act Correction Act of 2007.  Senators Leahy, Specter, Grassley and Durbin all attended intermittently, with Senator Grassley being the only member to attend the entire hearing. The witnesses were :

•    Michael Herz, a Deputy Assistant Attorney General representing  the Justice Department ;
•    Tina Gonter, a Qui Tam whistleblower;
•    John Clark, a former federal judge, now a Qui Tam attorney;
•    John Boese, a corporate attorney, representing the views of the U.S.  Chamber of Commerce.

Although each of the panelists had a distinctly different viewpoint on the False Claims Act, they did agree on one thing: that the FCA – having rooted out $20 billion in fraud since 1986, including $5 billion since 2005 -- is a highly effective fraud-fighting tool and it should be kept that way.  But what should be done to upgrade the law, if anything?

Mr. Herz and the Department of Justice expressed agreement with some of the reforms in S.2041 (such as increasing the statute of limitations to ten years), ...

...but also said that DOJ has deep reservations about the provision in the bill which would allow government employees to become Qui Tam relators if the government did not take any action on their issue for 1 year after it was reported. Their view is that it would give an appearance of impropriety for a government employee to receive a whistleblower reward for reporting something that they learned in their official capacity.
Senator Leahy also questioned Mr. Herz on the Justice Department’s FCA statistics that were recently submitted by the AG  (and reported by our blog here>>). Specifically Sen. Leahy was concerned about the number of Iraq/Afghanistan cases that had not been intervened upon, and why.


Ms. Gonter’s was a moving testimony by a whistleblower who risked everything to stop her employer, in this case a Northrup Grummond subsidiary who was making defective ship valves for Navy submarines, from putting people’s lives at risk. Ms. Gonter went to great lengths to prove their guilt, even wearing a wire to work for a time. Although the Justice Department did not intervene in her case against Northrup Grummond, she did eventually hold them accountable and obtain a settlement


Judge Clark offered the point of view of a relator’s attorney (not Ms. Gonter’s, but he has represented many Qui Tam whistleblowers).  He deftly made the point that the Rockwell, Totten, and Custer Battles cases had been wrongly decided, and that the public disclosure bar was routinely, and incorrectly, being used as a defense by contractors.

Most notably, Judge Clark said (to paraphrase him): That although he must counsel his prospective clients as to the personal and professional hardships of being a whistleblower, it is even more important and difficult to tell them that the legal landscape of the FCA offers just as many, if not more obstacles. Meritorious cases often don’t proceed because of the previous bad court decisions that have eroded the intent of the law.


…Then it was Mr. Boese’s turn to represent the views of corporate defendants (he disclosed that his firm had defended Northrup Grummond in Ms. Gonter’s case).

Mr. Boese (which, as he said to Senator Durbin, “rhymes with crazy”) said that his concern was not with protecting the guilty contractors, but the ones that were falsely accused -- as if FCA relators and attorneys are routinely risking their careers to pursue frivolous claims. Later, in response to a question from Sen. Durbin, Mr. Boese suggested that if the scope of the False Claims Act were expanded, the plaintiffs’ attorneys would be filing suits every time a federal worker or Social Security recipient bought a defective product (because the money came from the government). Senator Durbin was not amused with the alarmist tactic, and had the quote of the day when he responded that Mr. Boese had “some of the most tortured logic he had ever heard on this committee.”


The debate was a spirited one, and it was evident that the FCA is in need of real repair.

West Virginia Lawmakers Still Don't Get It

In the wake of the deadly 2006 Sago mine disaster in West Virginia, angry miners came forward to say that the company that managed the mining company had blatantly sacrificed routine maintenance in favor of greater productivity. Why didn't these workers come forward sooner? Because they were afraid of losing their jobs. Even now, over 2 years after the January 2006 explosion that claimed 13 lives, lawmakers are dragging their feet on mine safety reform and specifically, whistleblower protections.


Last Friday, this West Virginia newspaper reported that the WV Senate had shot down a bill that would protect mine safety whistleblowers from retaliation when they report unsafe conditions in their mines. The lawmakers that voted against the bill were also spineless enough to request that their votes be anonymous -- fortunately for the voters of West Virginia, that request was not granted.  It is shocking to think that the WV legislature would turn their backs on the safety of the hardworking miners in their district.

Consumer Product Reform Bill Would Protect Whistleblowers

The Washington Post is reporting that Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. Senate have reached a compromise on legislation to reform the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). This essentially ensures that the legislation (S.2045) will pass the Senate within the next couple of months, and  then move on to the House of Representatives, where a companion bill is already in the works. This legislation was prompted by the rash of recalls over the past year, which peaked our awareness of unsafe consumer goods, including toys made with lead-based paint.


The Good News: S.2045, the Senate bill, includes a very strong provision to protect whistleblowers who work in manufacturing, distribution, or retailing of consumer products.  These employees would have the right to report retaliation to the Department of Labor, and to appeal that decision in federal court.


The Bad News: The House companion bill, which is currently stalled the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, does not include any whistleblower protections. Further, big business lobbyists have expressed vocal opposition to any bill that includes whistleblower protection, and they are fighting very hard behind the scenes to make sure that it is left out of the final language.


The National Whistleblower Center has issued an Action Alert on this issue, and is urging all concerned citizens to take part.

Click here to view the Alert>>

Good Politics: New Jersey Passes False Claims Act

This February 5th is being called "Tsunami Tuesday" as many of the big states line up for primary elections to nominate candidates for President.


Ordinarily we would be urging those of you who are politically active to take advantage of this forum. We’d tell you to call, write or hire a plane to fly a banner. Just do anything to get attention for the False Claims Act during the campaign. We are a little disappointed nobody has asked the candidates to support the False Claims Act Corrections Act at any of the seemingly endless series of snooze inducing debates. What’s one question about fighting fraud mixed in with the You-Tube chatter?


Despite this void there has been a major positive event to highlight before February 5th.


Two of the biggest states at stake on February 5, California, and Illinois, have had their own False Claims Acts for many years. New York just got on board last year. Now, perhaps sensing a tsunami of support for fighting fraud, New Jersey has joined the group. By a unanimous vote in its Senate, The Garden State enacted its own False Claims Act just in time for Feb 5th.


Were the legislators and Governor afraid not to have a False Claims Act on the books when the national press arrived to cover a presidential campaign? Probably not. Probably, the New Jersey Legislature just knew a good thing when they saw one. Now, in addition to the billions collected through the Federal FCA, whistleblowers will be able to fight fraud at the local level.


The political implications of more states enacting these laws should not be dismissed. First of all the False Claims Act is popular. Fighting fraud is the safe place to be if you are voting in any legislature. We need to remind the Congress of that simple fact early and often to push for improvements to the law. Second, the laws enacted at the state level will increase popularity for all the False Claims Acts. It can be hard to get attention for a federal case involving merely millions as opposed to billions of dollars, but at the state level smart politicians/attorneys can make a nice career out of saving their state a few million dollars and fighting fraud. That’s fine with me.

New FOIA Law Contains Long Overdue Improvements


President Bush has signed into law the first legislation in more than a decade to strengthen the Freedom of Information Act. The Open Government Act of 2007, signed by Bush on New Years eve, contains several important changes and improvements to the Freedom of Information Act.


The new law establishes enforceable deadlines for agencies to process FOIA requests; extends FOIA's reach to certain records maintained by government contractors; establishes an ombudsman to resolve disputes; creates a FOIA tracking system; restores provisions for recovery of attorneys fees by FOIA litigants who successfully prevail in court, including cases where there is a voluntary or unilateral change in the government's position after filing of the lawsuit, so long as the FOIA requester's claim is not insubstantial; and requires that any award of attorneys fees be paid out of an agency's budget and not the Treasury Department's judgment fund.


Legislative improvements to FOIA were long overdue and the Open Government Act of 2007 is intended to speed up citizen access to government information. The Freedom of Information Act is an essential tool to assist whistleblowers, journalists, citizens and watchdog groups discover what their government is up to and provide outside oversight of government activities.


A copy of the Open Government Act of 2007 is linked here

New York Times Editorial Supports Strong Whistleblower Law

The op-ed page of the New York Times contained an editorial today about the passage of S.274, the Senate whistleblower protection legislation (we blogged it here) , and the need for a strong bill to come out of conference. Check it out:


"Protection for Endangered Whistleblowers"
PDF Version

Click here to sign up for our RSS Feeds

False Claims Act Legislation, HR.4854, Introduced in Congress

Another big legislative announcement! We received word today that the False Claims Act Amendments Act of 2007 has been introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Howard Berman. The bill number is HR. 4854.


This bill is designed to be companion legislation for the False Claims Act Correction Act of 2007, which was introduced in the Senate in September of this year by Senators Grassley, Leahy, Durbin and Specter. The legislation is intended to correct loopholes in the False Claims Act, a law which permits private citizens to file suit against contractors who defraud the federal government. 


The NWLDEF and the National Whistleblower Center fully support this legislation, and urge Congressional Leaders to make it a priority when they return from recess.  

Congressman Wynn Introduces New Whistleblower Bill

 

**UPDATE: THE FULL TEXT OF THE LEGISLATION IS LINKED HERE

 

Congressman WynnThis week, Congressman Albert Wynn introduced the Congressional Disclosures Act (HR. 4650), legislation to protect federal employees from retaliation when they make disclosures to members of Congress. This is important legislation and it has been strongly supported by the National Whistleblower Center and many other public interest groups.


This bill is the second of the No FEAR (Notification of Federal Employees Anti-discrimination and Retaliation) laws, the first of which was enacted in 2002, and has been described as "the first civil rights law of the 21st century."

in a December 18 press release, the No FEAR Coalition, an organization whose mission is to push for the enactment of laws protecting federal employees, put forth the following statement:


"This law will provides courageous federal government workers with concrete tools to defend themselves against a government of lawlessness, for the first time, government employees will be entitled to legal defense, groups, such as medical doctors...will be protected against harassment and retaliation when they expose corruption in hospitals. Agencies will have to disclose the total dollar amount spent to pursue victims of discrimination and retaliation. We commend Congressman Wynn for introducing this historic legislation."


Senate Passes S.274, A Whistleblower Protection Law for Federal Employees

 

Late last night, the U.S. Senate finally got the job done, unanimously passing S.274, the Federal Employee Protection of Disclosures Act. This law, along with its companion house legislation (H.R.985), if preserved in conference, would go a long way towards protecting every single federal whistleblower and federal government contractor from retaliation when they report illegal activity to their supervisor. This legislation will effectively overturn the terrible Supreme Court Decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos, which held that government employees are not protected by the First Amendment when they report concerns at work.

More on this issue to come...

Below is the text of today's National Whistleblower Center Press release:

 

Washington, DC., December 18, 2007. Last evening the U.S. Senate, by unanimous consent, passed the Federal Employee Protection of Disclosures Act (S.274). This law enhances the protection for federal employee whistleblowers by expanding the scope of protected activity to cover complaints within an employees chain of command.

Passage of S.274 now sets the stage for a conference between the House and Senate to agree final legislative language. On March 14, 2007 the House enacted the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (H.R. 985), which expanded the scope of whistleblower protections to national security related agencies, permitted employees to obtain jury trials in federal court, provided enhanced protections for federal contractors and protected employees who exposed misconduct to their managers.

“The House and Senate whistleblower protections laws complement each other. They need to be melded together in conference and immediately enacted into law. Only by combining the best of both bills will federal employees obtain realistic protection. Until then, the taxpayers and citizens will remain the losers in this debate, as billions of dollars in waste remains unreported and government officials who violate the law and mislead the American people escape accountability,” said Stephen M. Kohn, the President of the National Whistleblower Center.

“The Senate Action now sets the stage for the final passage of what will be one of the most important laws enacted by this Congress,” added Kohn.

The House and Senate bills were strongly endorsed by a broad coalition of public groups, including the National Whistleblower Center, the Project on Government Oversight, the Government Accountability Project and Taxpayers Against Fraud, the No Fear Coalition, the Make it Safe Coalition, the Liberty Coalition, and the Bill of Rights Foundation, among numerous others.

-end-

 

Will Congress Pass Whistleblower Protections Before the Next Disaster?

 

I call it the two crash rule: It takes two disasters for Congress to protect whistleblowers.


For example, for years airline pilots pleaded for Congress to enact modest protections for airline employees who exposed safety concerns. Year in and year out legislation was introduced, but stalled or was ignored. Then, in 2000, two Alaskan Airlines jets crashed. Only after two plane crashes were the whistleblower protections enacted. The same story holds true for almost every other federal whistleblower law. Disasters prompted action – but in each case the legislative response was limited to fixing the crisis at hand.


How many more disasters are needed to provide real whistleblower protection for all American workers? How many more billions lost in various schemes (such as the home mortgage fiasco)? How many tainted products will be imported into America? How many more taxpayer dollars will be wasted or swindled by contractors in Iraq?


Since January, 2007 numerous whistleblower protection laws have been introduced into Congress. But since the Democratic takeover of Congress only one whistleblower protection proposal has actually passed. This law provides enhanced protections for truck and bus drivers who complain about safety risks.


Obviously, truck drivers need whistleblower protection, but what about the tens of millions of employees who remain completely unprotected?


Congress needs to enact a comprehensive national whistleblower protection law, a law which will provide all legitimate whistleblowers with adequate legal protections.


Below is the list of whistleblower protection laws are currently pending in Congress. They all deserve our support. But why has no member of Congress introduced a national whistleblower protection act, which would protect all honest employees who expose violations of law or threats to the public safety? Why are most whistleblowers still without any adequate protection under federal law? When will Congress finally act?


Here is a list of the major whistleblower protection proposals introduced into Congress since January, 2007. As of today, none of these laws have passed: