10 Jan 2012

Administration Ignores 90 Years of Legal Advice from DoJ, Senators Question Role of DOJ in Role on Recess Appointments Ruling

By Grassley Press

Friday, January 6, 2012

Senators Press Administration on Ignoring 90 Years of Legal Advice from Justice Department

 

WASHINGTON - Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Chuck Grassley is leading Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee in questioning the administration's decision to ignore more than 90 years of legal precedent in making four controversial recess appointments while the Senate remained in session.

The members argue that the Justice Department, including the Office of Legal Counsel, has clearly said that a congressional recess must be longer than three days - and perhaps at least as long as ten? in order for a recess appointment to be constitutional.  This position has become the stated position of the executive branch, in cases before the Supreme Court and other legal filings, regarding the required length of time for a recess in order for the President to make a recess appointment.

"The Justice Department and the White House owe it to the American people to provide a clear understanding of the process that transpired and the rationale it used to circumvent the checks and balances promised by the Constitution," Grassley said.  "Overturning 90 years of historical precedent is a major shift in policy that should not be done in a legal opinion made behind closed doors hidden from public scrutiny."

In their letter, the members wrote that they were, "Seeking information about what role, if any, the Department or OLC (Office of Legal Counsel) played in developing, formulating, or advising the White House on the decision to make these recess appointments.  Further, we want to know whether the Department has formally revised or amended past opinions issued by the Department on this matter."

The letter continued to explain that the questions were necessary, "Given the Department's historical position on this issue and the President's unprecedented decision to unilaterally reject the years of Department precedent and Executive Branch practice."

The letter was signed by Senate Judiciary Committee members Grassley, Orrin Hatch of Utah, Jon Kyl of Arizona, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, John Cornyn of Texas, Mike Lee of Utah and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.

Here's a copy of the text of the letter.  A signed copy of the letter can be found here.

 

January 6, 2012

Via Electronic Transmission

The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr.

Attorney General

U.S. Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20530

 

Dear Attorney General Holder:

On Wednesday, President Obama deviated from over 90 years of precedent established by the Department of Justice (Department), and the Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), by recess appointing four individuals to posts in the Administration, namely Richard Cordray as the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and three members of the National Labor Relations Board, despite the fact that the Senate has not adjourned under the terms of a concurrent resolution passed by Congress.  This action was allegedly based upon legal advice provided to the President by the Office of White House Counsel.  We write today seeking information about what role, if any, the Department or OLC played in developing, formulating, or advising the White House on the decision to make these recess appointments.  Further, we want to know whether the Department has formally revised or amended past opinions issued by the Department on this matter.

 

In 1921, Attorney General Daugherty issued an opinion to the President regarding recess appointments and the length of recess required for the President to make an appointment under Article II Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution.  The Attorney General opined that "no one, I venture to say, would for a moment contend that the Senate is not in session when an adjournment [of 2 days] is taken.  Nor do I think an adjournment for 5 or even 10 days can be said to constitute the recess intended by the Constitution."[1] The reasoning of the 1921 opinion was given affirmative recognition in subsequent opinions issued by the Department, including opinions issued in 1960,[2] 1992,[3] and 2001.[4]

 

The Department has also weighed in on the applicable time period for recess appointments in legal filings in federal courts.  In 1993, the Department filed a brief in the federal district court for the District of Columbia arguing, "If the recess here at issue were of three days or less, a closer question would be presented.  The Constitution restricts the Senate's ability to adjourn its session for more than three days without obtaining the consent of the House of Representatives."[5] Additionally, the Department, via the Office of the Solicitor General, argued in a 2004 brief to the Supreme Court, "To this day, official congressional documents define a 'recess' as 'any period of three or more complete days?excluding Sundays?when either the House of Representatives or the Senate is not in session."[6] This exact argument was also filed by the Solicitor General in another case during 2004.[7] Most recently, the Deputy Solicitor General argued before the Supreme Court in 2010 that "the recess appointment power can work in - in a recess.  I think our office has opined the recess has to be longer than 3 days."[8]

 

Taken together, these authorities by the Department clearly indicate the view that a congressional recess must be longer than three days - and perhaps at least as long as ten[9]? in order for a recess appointment to be constitutional.  These various authorities have reached this conclusion for over 90 years and have become the stated position of the Executive Branch, including multiple representations before the Supreme Court, regarding the required length of time for a recess in order for the President to make a recess appointment.

 

Given the Department's historical position on this issue and the President's unprecedented decision to unilaterally reject the years of Department precedent and Executive Branch practice, we ask that you provide responses to the following questions:

 

(1)   Was the Department asked to provide legal advice to the President regarding the decision to issue recess appointments of Cordray, Block, Flynn, and Griffin?  If so, was a formal opinion from the Department prepared?  If so, which office at the Department prepared the advice?  If such advice was prepared, when will it to be made public?

 

(2)   If a formal opinion was prepared, provide a copy of that opinion.

 

(3)   Attorney General Opinions, such as the one offered in 1921, are essentially the forerunner to opinions that today come from the Office of Legal Counsel, providing legal advice to the President and executive branch on questions of law.  Such OLC opinions are accorded, in the words of one former head of OLC, a "superstrong stare decisis presumption."  Was the 1921 Attorney General Opinion withdrawn to make way for this new opinion of law that a recess appointment could be exercised when the Senate is in recess for only three days?

 

(4)   Has the Department formally withdrawn any other prior opinions issued by the Attorney General or OLC regarding the length of time a recess must extend prior to the President making a recess appointment?  If so, which ones were withdrawn or overturned?  Provide the basis for withdrawing or overturning those opinions.

 

(5)   Given this unprecedented maneuver of recess appointments taking place while the Senate stood in recess for only three days, would it be the Department's position that the President could make a recess appointment during the weekend or when the Senate stands in recess from the evening of one weekday to the morning of the next weekday?

 

(6)   In 2010, the Deputy Solicitor General argued before the Supreme Court that "recess has to be longer than 3 days" for the President to use the recess appointment power.  Does the Department continue to support this position?  If not, why not?

 

(7)   In the event that the Department has not withdrawn or overturned any of the prior opinions issued by the Attorney General or OLC, how does the Department reconcile those opinions with the decision of the President to make recess appointments while the Senate remained in Session?  If you believe the positions can be reconciled, provide a legal basis supporting this position.

 

(8)   Do you believe the President's decision to make these recess appointments notwithstanding the absence of an adjournment resolution is constitutional?  Please explain.

 

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter and for responding no later than January 20, 2011.  We look forward to your detailed response.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

 

[1] 33 U.S. Op. Atty. Gen. 20, 25 (1921).

2 41 U.S. Op. Atty. Gen. 463, 468 (1960) (stating "I fully agree with the reasoning and with the conclusions reached in that opinion.").

3 16 U.S. Op. Off. Legal Counsel 15, (1992) (concluding that the President could make a recess appointment during an intrasession recess from January 3, 1992, to January 21, 1992).

4 2001 OLC LEXIS 27.

5 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, at 24-26, Mackie v. Clinton, 827 F.Supp.56 (D.D.C. 1993), vacated as moot, 10 F.3d 13, (D.C. Cir. 1993).

6 Brief for the United States in Opposition, Miller v. United States, No. 04-38 (2004) available at http://www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/2004/0responses/2004-0038.resp.pdf (last visited Jan. 5, 2012) (citing

7 See Brief for the United States in Opposition, Evans v. Stephens, No. 04-828 (2004) available at http://www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/2004/0responses/2004-0828.resp.pdf (last visited Jan 5, 2012).

8 New Process Steel v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., No. 08-1457 pg. 50 (March 23, 2010), statement of Deputy Solicitor General Neil Katyal available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-1457.pdf (last visited Jan. 5, 2012).

9 It is noteworthy to add that according to the Congressional Research Service, prior to President Obama's recent recess appointments, no president in the past 30 years dating back to President Reagan, had made a recess appointment in a shorter recess than 11 days for an intersession recess and 10 days for an intrasession appointment.  See Henry B. Hogue, Congressional Research Service, Recess Appointments: Frequently Asked Questions, pg. 3, Dec. 12, 2011.

 



[1] 33 U.S. Op. Atty. Gen. 20, 25 (1921).

[2] 41 U.S. Op. Atty. Gen. 463, 468 (1960) (stating "I fully agree with the reasoning and with the conclusions reached in that opinion.").

[3] 16 U.S. Op. Off. Legal Counsel 15, (1992) (concluding that the President could make a recess appointment during an intrasession recess from January 3, 1992, to January 21, 1992).

[4] 2001 OLC LEXIS 27.

[5] Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, at 24-26, Mackie v. Clinton, 827 F.Supp.56 (D.D.C. 1993), vacated as moot, 10 F.3d 13, (D.C. Cir. 1993).

[6] Brief for the United States in Opposition, Miller v. United States, No. 04-38 (2004) available at http://www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/2004/0responses/2004-0038.resp.pdf (last visited Jan. 5, 2012) (citing

[7] See Brief for the United States in Opposition, Evans v. Stephens, No. 04-828 (2004) available at http://www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/2004/0responses/2004-0828.resp.pdf (last visited Jan 5, 2012).

[8] New Process Steel v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., No. 08-1457 pg. 50 (March 23, 2010), statement of Deputy Solicitor General Neil Katyal available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-1457.pdf (last visited Jan. 5, 2012).

[9] It is noteworthy to add that according to the Congressional Research Service, prior to President Obama's recent recess appointments, no president in the past 30 years dating back to President Reagan, had made a recess appointment in a shorter recess than 11 days for an intersession recess and 10 days for an intrasession appointment.  See Henry B. Hogue, Congressional Research Service, Recess Appointments: Frequently Asked Questions, pg. 3, Dec. 12, 2011.


10 Jan 2012

New F&F docs reiterate that DOJ knew about guns being walked in Wide Receiver

By Grassley Press

Thursday, January 5, 2012

 

Senator Chuck Grassley released the following statement after the Justice Department provided additional documents related to the gunwalking scandal that has plagued this administration.  The documents were provided only after being issued a subpoena from the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

 

"The documents dumped today by the Justice Department prove that this administration knew that guns were walked in Operation Wide Receiver, yet did nothing about it even as it was happening again in Fast and Furious.  I've said all along that walking guns is wrong, period.  I don't care who did it.  We know that Lanny Breuer knew about guns being walked in Operation Wide Receiver, which is why he needs to do the right thing, hold himself accountable and resign."

 

Here is a copy of Grassley's statement given on the Senate floor outlining his call for Breuer's resignation.

 

***Supporting documents can be found here.***

 

Prepared Floor Statement by Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa

Ranking Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary

Holding People Accountable for Gunwalking

Wednesday, December 7, 2011

 

I have been investigating ATF's Operation Fast and Furious for almost 11 months now.

It is past time for accountability at the senior levels of the Justice Department.

That accountability needs to start with the head of the Criminal Division, Lanny Breuer.

I believe it is time for him to go, and I'd like to explain why I have come to that conclusion.

The Justice Department denied in a letter to me on February 4, 2011 that ATF had ever walked guns.

Mr. Breuer had been consulted in the drafting of that erroneous letter.

On May 2, 2011, rather than acknowledging the increasingly obvious facts and apologizing for its February letter, the Justice Department reiterated its denial.  Thus, when the Justice Department revealed on October 31 of this year that Breuer had known as far back as April 2010 about gunwalking at ATF, I was astounded.

This was a shocking revelation.

The controversy about gunwalking in Fast and Furious had been escalating steadily for 10 months.

The Justice Department had publicly denied to Congress that ATF would ever walk guns.

Yet, the head of the Criminal Division, Mr. Breuer knew otherwise and said nothing.

He knew that the same Field Division was responsible for walking guns in a 2006-2007 case called Wide Receiver.  But the real shock was how Mr. Breuer had responded within his own Department when that earlier gunwalking was first brought to his attention in April 2010.

He didn't tell the Attorney General.

He didn't tell the Attorney General's Chief of Staff.

He didn't tell the Deputy Attorney General.

He didn't tell the Inspector General.

Instead, he simply told his deputy to meet with ATF leadership and inform them of the gunwalking "so they know the bad stuff that could come out."[1]

Later, his deputy outlined a strategy to "announce the case without highlighting the negative part of the story and risking embarrassing ATF."[2]

For 18 months, the embarrassing truth about ATF gunwalking in Wide Receiver and Breuer's knowledge of it was successfully hidden.

It only came out because of the Congressional investigation into gunwalking in Fast and Furious.

The public outrage over Fast and Furious comes from average Americans who cannot understand why their own government would intentionally allow criminals to illegally buy weapons for trafficking to Mexico.

Next week, it will be one year since Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was murdered by bandits armed with guns as a direct result of this policy of letting guns walk.

The Terry family and all Americans who sympathize with their loss are rightfully outraged and astonished that our own government would do such a thing.

Yet when Mr. Breuer learned of a case where ATF walked guns in a very similar way, all he did was give ATF a "heads up."

There seems to be a vast gulf between what outrages the American people and what outrages Lanny Breuer.  Mr. Breuer showed a complete lack of judgment by failing to object to the gunwalking that he knew about in April 2010.

If Mr. Breuer had reacted to gunwalking in Wide Receiver the way most Americans reacted to gunwalking in Fast and Furious, he would have taken steps to stop it and hold accountable everyone involved.

Fast and Furious might have been stopped in its tracks.

When Mr. Breuer came before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism the day after those revelations, I gave him a chance to explain himself.

I listened to what he had to say.

He told us that he "thought that ... dealing with the leadership of ATF was sufficient and reasonable."

Clearly, it was not sufficient.

Mr. Breuer even admitted as much, saying: "I regret that I did not alert others within the leadership of the Department of Justice to the tactics used in Operation Wide Receiver when they first came to my attention."

He regrets not bringing gunwalking in Wide Receiver to the attention of the Attorney General, but what about bringing it to the attention of Congress?

He didn't even step forward to express his regret until emails that detailed his knowledge were about to be produced under Congressional subpoena.

It is astounding that it took the public controversy over Fast and Furious to help the chief of the Criminal Division realize that walking guns is unacceptable.

He'd had nine months after the February 4 letter to step forward, correct the record, and come clean with the American public.

He'd had 18 months after learning of gunwalking in Wide Reciever to put a stop to it and hold people accountable.

He failed to do so.

So during his testimony, I asked him point blank if he reviewed that February 4 letter before it was sent to me.

His misleading answers to these questions form the basis for my second reason for calling on Mr. Breuer to resign.

He responded that he couldn't say for sure but suggested that he did not review the letter.  He said: "[A]t that time, I was in Mexico dealing with the very real issues that we are all so committed to."

Now, last Friday the Justice Department withdrew their February 4th letter to me because of its "inaccuracies."

The department also turned over documents under subpoena about who participated in the drafting and review of the letter.

So imagine my surprise when I discover from documents provided Friday night that that Mr.  Breuer was far more informed during the drafting of that letter than he admitted before the Judiciary Committee.

In fact, Mr. Breuer got frequent updates on the status of the letter while he was in Mexico.

He was sent versions of the letter four times.

Two versions were emailed to Mr. Breuer on February 4, after he'd returned from Mexico, including the version of the letter that was ultimately sent to me that day.

At that time, he forwarded the letter to his personal email account.

Mr. Breuer's deputy also sent him two drafts of the letter while he was in Mexico, and he also forwarded one of those to his personal email account.

We do not know whether he did that in order to access it on a larger screen than a government-issued Blackberry or whether he engaged in any further discussion about the letter in his non-government email account.

However, we do know that in response to the draft received in Mexico, he wrote to one of the main drafters of the letter, "As usual, great work."

The Justice Department excluded Breuer's compliment about the content of the draft from the set of emails it released to the press on Friday.

That evening, Mr. Breuer submitted answers to written questions.  He wrote:

"I have no recollection of having [seen the letter] and, given that I was on official travel that week and given the scope of my duties as Assistant Attorney General, I think it is exceedingly unlikely that I did so."

So as late as Friday night, Mr. Breuer was still trying to minimize his role in reviewing the letter despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Why would Mr. Breuer say "great work" about a letter he claims not to have read?

It just isn't credible that someone like Mr. Breuer would forget about his involvement in a matter like this.

Mr. Breuer's failure to be candid and forthcoming before this body irreparably harms his credibility.

His complete lack of judgment and failure to deal with gunwalking when he first learned of it in April 2010, was bad enough, but this is the final straw.

Mr. Breuer has lost my confidence in his ability to effectively serve the Justice Department.

If you can't be straight with Congress, you don't need to be running the Criminal Division.

It's time to stop spinning and start taking responsibility.

I have long said that the highest-ranking official who knew about gunwalking in Operation Fast and Furious needs to be held accountable.

That standard applies no less to officials who knew about gunwalking in Operation Wide Receiver.

Gunwalking is unacceptable no matter when it occurred.

Documents make clear that Assistant Attorney General Breuer was the highest-ranking official in the Justice Department who knew about gunwalking in Operation Wide Receiver.

He did nothing to correct the problems, alert others to the issue, take responsibility, or even admit what he knew until he was forced to by the evidence.

Therefore, I believe the Attorney General needs to ask for Mr. Breuer's resignation and remove him from office if he refuses.

If Mr. Breuer wants to do the honorable thing, he should resign of his own accord.

Now I'm not someone who flippantly calls for resignations.

I've done oversight for many years, and in all that time, I don't ever remember coming across a government official who so blatantly placed sparing agencies embarrassment over protecting the lives of citizens

He has failed in his job of ensuring that the government operates properly, including that people are held accountable.

Because of that, Mr. Breuer needs to go immediately.

Anything less will show the American people that the Justice Department isn't serious about being honest with Congress in our attempt to get to the bottom of this.

Just last night, the Justice Department sent a letter refusing to provide several Justice Department staff for transcribed interviews.

The letter explicitly goes back on the assurances I received when I consented to proceed with the confirmation of three senior Justice Department officials.

One of my conditions for agreeing to proceed with those nominations was that officials who agreed to voluntary interviews in this investigation would have either a personal lawyer present or a Department lawyer present, but not both.

I personally met with the Attorney General and he had that condition listed on a piece of paper in front of him.

It looked as if he had read it and was familiar with it, yet he never objected to that condition.

Dozens of witness interviews have been conducted under that understanding with no problem.

The only difference now is that instead of ATF witnesses, we are now seeking to interview Justice Department witnesses.

Well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

There's no reason to change the rules in the middle of the game.

I was relying on the Attorney General and the other officials at the Department to honor their agreement.

Apparently, that's not going to happen.

Fortunately, Chairman Issa has the ability to require the witnesses to appear via subpoena if they refuse to appear voluntarily under the conditions that the Department previously agreed to.

I am confident that he will do that if it becomes necessary.  And, I will take whatever steps I have to take here in the Senate to encourage the Department to reconsider and stick to its original agreement.

 

-30-

10 Jan 2012

Grassley begins 2012 meetings with Iowans in 36 counties

By Grassley Press

WASHINGTON - Starting today and through January 19, Senator Chuck Grassley will meet with Iowans in 36 counties.

Grassley has held at least one meeting in each of Iowa's 99 counties every year since he was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 1980.

The January meetings will take place in Riceville, Charles City, New Hampton, Waverly, Waterloo, Clarion, Dakota City, Algona, Forest City, Garner, Hampton, Mason City, Manly, Osage, Calmar, West Union, Independence, Manchester, Vinton, Gladbrook, Centerville, Albia, Chariton, Corydon, Garden Grove, Mt. Ayr, Creston, Osceola, Winterset, Greenfield, Panora, Grimes, Grand Junction, Boone, Ames, and Le Grand.

"I look forward to these meetings to hear directly from Iowans and to have the kind of dialogue that's so important to the process of representative government.  I like to say this process is a two-way street.  I need to go to people to answer questions and listen to comments, and they need to come out and participate in the discussion," Grassley said.

In addition to regular, face-to-face meetings in Iowa and with Iowans in Washington when the Senate is in session, Grassley responds to every letter, email and phone call from Iowans.  He also communicates via Facebook, Twitter and at http://grassley.senate.gov.  Grassley is a regular guest on public affairs broadcasts statewide where he responds to questions.

Below is more information about this month's meetings.  The town meetings are open to the public.  Local hosts should be contacted regarding other meetings.  Grassley will be available for interviews with local reporters for 15 minutes after every meeting.*

 

Thursday, January 5

7-8 a.m.

Speak to the Riceville Kiwanis Club

Windy Tree Cafe

101 East Main Street in Riceville

 

9:15-10:15 a.m.

Tour School and Q&A with 5th and 6th Grade Students

Immaculate Conception Elementary School

1203 Clark Street in Charles City

 

10:45-11:15 a.m.

Floyd County Farm Bureau Coffee

North Iowa Area Community College Center, Room 110

200 Harwood Drive in Charles City

 

12-1 p.m.

Chickasaw County Town Meeting

Chickasaw Wellness Complex, Multipurpose Room

1050 West Hamilton Street in New Hampton

 

2:15-3:15 p.m.

Bremer County Town Meeting

Wartburg College, Whitehouse Business Center 214

100 Wartburg Boulevard in Waverly


Friday, January 6

7:30-8:30 a.m.

Tour Facility and Q&A with Employees

Engineered Products

2940 Airport Boulevard in Waterloo

 

Tuesday, January 10

8:30-9:15 a.m.

Q&A with U.S. History II Students

Clarion Goldfield High School

1111 Willow Drive in Clarion

*Grassley's media availability in Clarion will be at 8:15 a.m., in advance of the event, rather than immediately following.

 

10-11 a.m.

Humboldt County Town Meeting

VFW Post

412 Main Street in Dakota City

 

12:45-1:45 p.m.

Kossuth County Town Meeting

County Courthouse, Assembly Room

114 West State Street in Algona

 

3:15-4:15 p.m.

Winnebago County Town Meeting

Waldorf College, Salveson Ballroom

1006 South 6th Street in Forest City

 

5:15-6:15 p.m.

Hancock County Town Meeting

Garner Education Center

325 West 8th Street in Garner

 

Wednesday, January 11

7:30-8:30 a.m.

Franklin County Town Meeting

Center 1 Chamber, Large Room

5 1st Street SW in Hampton

 

9:45-10:45 a.m.

Q&A with Students

Newman Catholic High School

2445 19th Street SW in Mason City

 

11:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m.

Worth County Town Meeting

Manly City Hall

106 South Broadway in Manly

 

1:30-2:30 p.m.

Mitchell County Town Meeting

Krapek Family Fine Arts Center, Cedar River Complex

809 Sawyer Drive in Osage

 

4:45-5:45 p.m.

Winneshiek County Town Meeting

Calmar Public Library, Community Room

101 South Washington Street in Calmar


Thursday, January 12

7:30-8:30 a.m.

Tour Facility and Q&A with Employees

Art's Way Manufacturing

706 Highway 150 South in West Union

 

10-11 a.m.

Buchanan County Town Meeting

County Courthouse, Assembly Room

210 5th Avenue NE in Independence

 

12-1 p.m.

Delaware County Town Meeting

Manchester Public Library

304 North Franklin in Manchester

 

2:45-3:45 p.m.

Benton County Town Meeting

City Hall, City Council Chambers

110 West 3rd Street in Vinton

 

5-6 p.m.

Tama County Town Meeting

American Legion

Corner of Johnston and Front streets in Gladbrook

 

Monday, January 16

5-6 p.m.

Appanoose County Weekly Meal at Faith United Methodist Church, Q&A with Attendees

23851 Highway 5 South in Centerville 

 

Tuesday, January 17

7:30-8:30 a.m.

Monroe County Town Meeting

Albia Area Chamber of Commerce

18 South Main Street in Albia

 

10:15-11:15 a.m.

Lucas County Town Meeting

Carpenter Hall

1215 Court Street in Chariton

 

12-1 p.m.

Wayne County Town Meeting

Wayne County Courthouse

100 North Lafayette in Corydon

 

2-3 p.m.

Speak to Government Class

Mormon Trail Jr./Sr. High School

502 East Main Street in Garden Grove

 

4:30-5:30 p.m.

Ringgold County Town Meeting

Jamie's Coffee Mill & Deli

118 West Adams Street in Mt. Ayr

 

Wednesday, January 18

7:30-8:30 a.m.

Union County Town Meeting

City Hall/Restored Depot, City Council Chambers

116 West Adams Street in Creston

 

9:45-10:45 a.m.

Q&A with Students

Clarke County High School

800 North Jackson in Osceola

 

12-1 p.m.

Madison County Town Meeting

Winterset Public Library, Meeting Room

123 North 2nd Street in Winterset

 

2-3 p.m.

Adair County Town Meeting

Andrews Memorial Adair County Health & Fitness Center, Meeting Room

202 North Townline Road in Greenfield

 

4:15-5:15 p.m.

Guthrie County Town Meeting

Panora Community Center

115 West Main Street in Panora

 

Thursday, January 19

8-9 a.m.

Q&A with Students

Dallas Center-Grimes Middle School

1400 Vine Street in Grimes

 

10:30-11:30 a.m.

Greene County Town Meeting

Grand Junction Community Center

212 Main Street in Grand Junction

 

12:30-1:30 p.m.

Boone County Town Meeting

Boone County Historical Center

602 Story Street in Boone

 

2:30-3:30 p.m.

Tour Facility and Q&A with Employees

Becker Underwood

801 Dayton Avenue in Ames

 

5-6 p.m.

Marshall County Town Meeting

Le Grand Area Community Center

206 North Vine Street in Le Grand

 

-30-

10 Jan 2012

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau appointment

By Grassley Press

Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Ranking Member of the Committee on the Judiciary, today made the following comment on President Obama's appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

"The President is upending years of Senate practice and legal precedent with this move. He's interpreting advice and consent as bypass and appoint.  It's an affront to constitutional checks and balances.  It's also an affront to the principle that every agency should have accountability, which the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau lacks.  The President is ignoring the longstanding advice of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, which has found that an adjournment of '5 or even 10 days' would not be sufficient for a recess appointment.  I'm planning to write to the Attorney General to ask if the President asked for a new Justice Department opinion prior to making this appointment and whether the Attorney General agrees with it.  Regardless, the President needs to make clear why there was a change in position and what rationale the White House counsel used to overturn more than 90 years of Justice Department precedent.  The White House should make the rationale public.  The public's business ought to be public.  And the President promised to run the most transparent administration in history."

27 Dec 2011

Q&A on Payments from Drug Companies and Medical Device Makers

By Grassley Press

with U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley

 

Q:        When will the public have access to information about payments made by drug and device makers to doctors?

A:        The public is a step closer to learning just how much money and travel expenses pharmaceutical company and medical device makers give to doctors.  This month, a federal agency finally put out proposed guidance for the companies that will have to disclose the payments under the Physician Payments Sunshine Act, which I co-authored and saw through to enactment last year.  If implemented as designed, the sunshine law will require a drug company to disclose whether it pays a doctor to attend a conference in Hawaii.  A medical device maker will have to list whether it keeps a doctor on paid retainer for medical advice.  Fees paid for consulting, speeches and expert advice will be reported.  In 2013, the public will have access to this information through a user friendly website of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.  This fall, the federal agency responsible for launching the program missed a key deadline for putting out the Sunshine Act guidance.  Senator Herb Kohl of Wisconsin and I pressed the agency to explain the delay and encouraged it to move forward.  The day before an agency witness was supposed to testify on the issue at a Senate hearing, the agency issued the guidance.  So riding herd worked.

 

Q:        Why did you push for a disclosure requirement?

A:        For a number of years, I've been digging into pharmaceutical and medical device industry payments to continuing medical education, taxpayer-funded medical research, medical schools, medical journals, and advocacy organizations.  Among research doctors, my oversight work found a number of cases where highly influential research doctors were receiving payments vastly greater than what had been reported by them or understood by their prestigious universities.  Discrepancies ran as high as millions and tens of millions of dollars.  In direct response to this exposure, the National Institutes of Health, which distributes $32 billion a year in federal research dollars, proposed new disclosure guidelines for federal grant recipients.  I'm still working to see this agency act more aggressively in this area as a steward of tax dollars.  Separately, a number of drug companies began disclosing financial relationships voluntarily.  More than 40 universities nationwide took up revisions of their disclosure policies.  My oversight work also built the case for enactment last year of the reform bill - the Sunshine Act -- that Senator Kohl and I had been promoting since 2007.

 

Q:        What do you hope to accomplish?

A:        The well-regarded Institute of Medicine issued a report in 2009 endorsing transparency and stating that protections against conflicts can be established without inhibiting productive relationships between medicine and industry to improve medical knowledge and care.  My argument has been that the transparency of these financial relationships is appropriate so that patients and their doctors can be informed and because taxpayers pay billions of dollars each year for prescription drugs and medical devices under Medicare and Medicaid.  The goal is to let the sun shine in and make information available to foster accountability.

 

Friday, December 23, 2011
27 Dec 2011

Grassley to meet next month with Iowans in 36 counties

By Grassley Press

WASHINGTON - Senator Chuck Grassley will meet with Iowans in 36 counties in January, including 25 town meetings.

Grassley has held at least one meeting in each of Iowa's 99 counties every year since he was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 1980.

The January 2012 meetings will take place in Riceville, Charles City, New Hampton, Waverly, Waterloo, Clarion, Dakota City, Algona, Forest City, Garner, Hampton, Mason City, Manly, Osage, Calmar, West Union, Independence, Manchester, Vinton, Gladbrook, Centerville, Albia, Chariton, Corydon, Garden Grove, Mt. Ayr, Creston, Osceola, Winterset, Greenfield, Panora, Grimes, Grand Junction, Boone, Ames, Le Grand.

"I look forward to these meetings to hear directly from Iowans and to have the kind of dialogue that's so important to the process of representative government.  I like to say this process is a two-way street.  I need to go to people to answer questions and listen to comments, and they need to come out and participate in the discussion," Grassley said.

In addition to regular, face-to-face meetings in Iowa and with Iowans in Washington when the Senate is in session, Grassley responds to every letter, email and phone call from Iowans.  He also communicates via Facebook, Twitter and at http://grassley.senate.gov.  Grassley is a regular guest on public affairs broadcasts statewide where he responds to questions.

Below is more information about his January meetings.  The town meetings are open to the public.  Local hosts should be contacted regarding other meetings.  Grassley will be available for interviews with local reporters for 15 minutes after every meeting.*

Thursday, January 5

7-8 a.m.

Speak to the Riceville Kiwanis Club

Windy Tree Cafe

101 East Main Street in Riceville

 

9:15-10:15 a.m.

Tour School and Q&A with 5th and 6th Grade Students

Immaculate Conception Elementary School

1203 Clark Street in Charles City

 

10:45-11:15 a.m.

Floyd County Farm Bureau Coffee

North Iowa Area Community College Center, Room 110

200 Harwood Drive in Charles City

 

12-1 p.m.

Chickasaw County Town Meeting

Chickasaw Wellness Complex, Multipurpose Room

1050 West Hamilton Street in New Hampton

 

2:15-3:15 p.m.

Bremer County Town Meeting

Wartburg College, Whitehouse Business Center 214

100 Wartburg Boulevard in Waverly

 

Friday, January 6

7:30-8:30 a.m.

Tour Facility and Q&A with Employees

Engineered Products

2940 Airport Boulevard in Waterloo

 

Tuesday, January 10

8:30-9:15 a.m.

Q&A with U.S. History II Students

Clarion Goldfield High School

1111 Willow Drive in Clarion

*Grassley's media availability in Clarion will be at 8:15 a.m., in advance of the event, rather than immediately following.

 

10-11 a.m.

Humboldt County Town Meeting

VFW Post

412 Main Street in Dakota City

 

12:45-1:45 p.m.

Kossuth County Town Meeting

County Courthouse, Assembly Room

114 West State Street in Algona

 

3:15-4:15 p.m.

Winnebago County Town Meeting

Waldorf College, Salveson Ballroom

1006 South 6th Street in Forest City

 

5:15-6:15 p.m.

Hancock County Town Meeting

Garner Education Center

325 West 8th Street in Garner

 

Wednesday, January 11

7:30-8:30 a.m.

Franklin County Town Meeting

Center 1 Chamber, Large Room

5 1st Street SW in Hampton

 

9:45-10:45 a.m.

Q&A with Students

Newman Catholic High School

2445 19th Street SW in Mason City

 

11:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m.

Worth County Town Meeting

Manly City Hall

106 South Broadway in Manly

 

1:30-2:30 p.m.

Mitchell County Town Meeting

Krapek Family Fine Arts Center, Cedar River Complex

809 Sawyer Drive in Osage

 

4:45-5:45 p.m.

Winneshiek County Town Meeting

Calmar Public Library, Community Room

101 South Washington Street in Calmar


Thursday, January 12

7:30-8:30 a.m.

Tour Facility and Q&A with Employees

Art's Way Manufacturing

706 Highway 150 South in West Union

 

10-11 a.m.

Buchanan County Town Meeting

County Courthouse, Assembly Room

210 5th Avenue NE in Independence

 

12-1 p.m.

Delaware County Town Meeting

Manchester Public Library

304 North Franklin in Manchester

 

2:45-3:45 p.m.

Benton County Town Meeting

City Hall, City Council Chambers

110 West 3rd Street in Vinton

 

5-6 p.m.

Tama County Town Meeting

American Legion

Corner of Johnston and Front streets in Gladbrook

 

Monday, January 16

5-6 p.m.

Appanoose County Weekly Meal at Faith United Methodist Church, Q&A with Attendees

23851 Highway 5 South in Centerville 

 

Tuesday, January 17

7:30-8:30 a.m.

Monroe County Town Meeting

Albia Area Chamber of Commerce

18 South Main Street in Albia

 

10:15-11:15 a.m.

Lucas County Town Meeting

Carpenter Hall

1215 Court Street in Chariton

 

12-1 p.m.

Wayne County Town Meeting

Wayne County Courthouse

100 North Lafayette in Corydon

 

2-3 p.m.

Speak to Government Class

Mormon Trail Jr./Sr. High School

502 East Main Street in Garden Grove

 

4:30-5:30 p.m.

Ringgold County Town Meeting

Jamie's Coffee Mill & Deli

118 West Adams Street in Mt. Ayr

 

Wednesday, January 18

7:30-8:30 a.m.

Union County Town Meeting

City Hall/Restored Depot, City Council Chambers

116 West Adams Street in Creston

 

9:45-10:45 a.m.

Q&A with Students

Clarke County High School

800 North Jackson in Osceola

 

12-1 p.m.

Madison County Town Meeting

Winterset Public Library, Meeting Room

123 North 2nd Street in Winterset

 

2-3 p.m.

Adair County Town Meeting

Andrews Memorial Adair County Health & Fitness Center, Meeting Room

202 North Townline Road in Greenfield

 

4:15-5:15 p.m.

Guthrie County Town Meeting

Panora Community Center

115 West Main Street in Panora

 

Thursday, January 19

8-9 a.m.

Q&A with Students

Dallas Center-Grimes Middle School

1400 Vine Street in Grimes

 

10:30-11:30 a.m.

Greene County Town Meeting

Grand Junction Community Center

212 Main Street in Grand Junction

 

12:30-1:30 p.m.

Boone County Town Meeting

Boone County Historical Center

602 Story Street in Boone

 

2:30-3:30 p.m.

Tour Facility and Q&A with Employees

Becker Underwood

801 Dayton Avenue in Ames

 

5-6 p.m.

Marshall County Town Meeting

Le Grand Area Community Center

206 North Vine Street in Le Grand

 

-30-
27 Dec 2011

Grassley and other senators urge extraordinary effort by Justice Department in MF Global case

By Grassley Press
WASHINGTON - Senator Chuck Grassley, along with 16 other senators, today wrote the Attorney General urging him to bring justice to the actions of MF Global executives for the potentially illegal misappropriation of funds from the segregated accounts of its commodity customers.

 

"If the (Justice) Department's ongoing investigation uncovers illegal actions, criminal prosecution should be pursued without hesitation ... we urge federal agents to use every legal resource available," the senators' letter said.

 

Grassley has participated in oversight hearings of the Senate Committee on Agriculture seeking information and accountability for the loss of up to $1.2 billion in customer funds, including money from Iowa farmers, grain coops and brokers.

 

"Establishing the specifics of what happened is key to figuring out how the system failed and how to fix it going forward.  That's in addition to the immediate task of helping to minimize the damage for farmers and other investors caught in the MF Global debacle," Grassley said.  "Both the brokerage firm that's now in bankruptcy and top federal officials in charge of enforcing commodity trading and securities law, including the Commodity Futures Trading Corporation, need to be held accountable."

 

Today's letter to Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. was signed by Senators Max Baucus of Montana, John Thune of South Dakota, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Grassley, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Scott Brown of Massachusetts, John Barasso of Wyoming, Jon Tester of Montana, Roy Blunt of Missouri, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Mark Kirk of Illinois, Mike Johanns of Nebraska, Johnny Isakson of Georgia, Dan Coats of Indiana, John Hoeven of North Dakota, and Tim Johnson of South Dakota.

 

Click here to read the letter.

23 Dec 2011

Grassley: Coralville Student Selected by West Point

By Grassley Press
WASHINGTON - Senator Chuck Grassley said today that Christopher J. Drew of Coralville has been selected for admission to the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, New York, for the 2012-2013 school year.

Drew will graduate in May from Iowa City West High School.  He is the son of Tracy and Stephen Drew.

"Admission to West Point is highly competitive and a great honor," Grassley said.  "Students like Christopher Drew work incredibly hard to earn this kind of opportunity, and I join many others, no doubt, in wishing him well and expressing appreciation for his commitment to serving our nation."

At Iowa City West High School, Drew has been active in National Honor Society, student government, Boy Scouts, track and field, jazz band, show choir, and the school musical.

Drew was one of the Iowa students Grassley recommended this year for appointments to the U.S. service academies.  Information about seeking a nomination is posted at http://grassley.senate.gov/info/academy_nominations.cfm.

For more than 200 years, the U.S. service academies have educated and trained the best and the brightest to lead and command the U.S. armed forces.

 

-30-

23 Dec 2011

BOXER, GRASSLEY, TONKO CALL ON OMB TO IMMEDIATELY IMPLEMENT NEW DEFENSE CONTRACTOR SALARY BENCHMARK

By Grassley Press

Defense Contractor Salary Cap Included in Defense Authorization Bill Awaiting President Obama's Signature

Washington, D.C. - U.S. Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Congressman Paul Tonko (D-NY) today called on the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to immediately implement a new benchmark for taxpayer-funded salaries for defense contractors, especially in light of the National Defense Authorization Act's new provision that will ensure that all defense contractor employees are subject to the same limit on taxpayer-funded salaries.

Currently government contractors can charge taxpayers $693,951 for the salaries of their top five employees, based on an executive compensation benchmark last amended in 1998. Employees of government contractors outside of the top five can and do earn taxpayer-funded amounts in excess of the current benchmark.

The Administration has already told lawmakers that it considers the current cap on taxpayer-funded salaries for contractors to be "unreasonably high." But the Administration has not yet released its salary benchmark for 2011, even as 2012 quickly approaches.

In their letter, the legislators urged OMB to implement the National Defense Authorization Act's new rules quickly and provide lawmakers with regular updates on its progress in addressing this important issue.  The National Defense Authorization Act was enacted earlier this month.

The text of the letter follows:

 

December 19, 2011

The Honorable Jacob J. Lew

Director
Office of Management and Budget
725 17th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20503

 

Dear Director Lew:

We write to follow up on a letter we sent in September 2011 regarding the executive compensation benchmark for government contractors.  As we are now only days away from the start of 2012, we note that you have still not announced the new benchmark for 2011.

The National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA) includes an important provision that extends the benchmark to all employees of defense contractors, with narrowly targeted exceptions for scientists and engineers.  While we were disappointed that the final conference language did not include the exact language of the Boxer-Grassley amendment to align the benchmark with the salary of the President of the United States, we are encouraged that real savings will result from applying the benchmark to all defense contractor employees.

As you noted in your response to our previous letter, increases in the compensation benchmark are "forcing our taxpayers to cover levels of compensation that we in the Administration view as unreasonably high."  We could not agree more with your statement - which is why we are requesting that OMB implement this law as soon as possible.

Section 803 of the NDAA requires that regulations to enforce this provision be implemented within 180 days of enactment of the law.  To ensure that new regulations are published in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) no later than July 2012, we request that you provide us, in writing, with regular updates on the FAR Council's progress in complying with the law.

We believe that taxpayers should not be on the hook for exorbitant contractor salaries, and we look forward to your prompt response.

Sincerely,

 

Barbara Boxer

United States Senator

 

Chuck Grassley

United States Senator

 

Paul D. Tonko

United States Representative

 

###

 

23 Dec 2011

Grassley Law Recovers Another $2.8 Billion of Taxpayer Money Otherwise Lost to Fraud

By Grassley Press

More than $30 billion has been recovered thanks to federal False Claims Act

WASHINGTON - Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Chuck Grassley today said that the federal False Claims Law has recovered an additional $3 billion to the U.S. Treasury.  Grassley is the author of the 1986 qui tam amendments to the law as well as an update to the False Claims Act in 2009.  According the U.S. Department of Justice, the qui tam amendments alone recovered $2.8 billion of taxpayer money.  The total amount recovered through the False Claims Act since Grassley's 1986 provisions were signed into law is now more than $30 billion.

"Year after year, the federal False Claims Act proves to be the most powerful tool in rooting out fraud against the federal treasury.  Not only does the law help recover billions of taxpayer dollars, but it deters untold more, and is a real savior for taxpayers tired of Washington ways," Grassley said.  "The whistleblowers who bring these cases to light know the secrets hidden by those who are ripping of federal taxpayers.  Unfortunately, alerting federal officials about fraud often puts them at great employment peril.  Our 1986 qui tam amendments have empowered these people to come forward and risk their livelihoods to do what is right."

The amendments Grassley championed 25 years ago along with Rep. Howard Berman of California strengthened the Civil War-era False Claims Act which was originally signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln.  The 1986 Grassley-Berman qui tam amendments empowered whistleblowers to file suit on behalf of the United States against those who fraudulently claim federal funds, including Medicare, Medicaid, contract payments, disaster assistance and other benefits, subsidies, grants and loans.

According to the Justice Department, since the 1986 Grassley-Berman qui tam amendments were signed into law, whistleblowers have filed more than 7,800 actions under the qui tam provisions, including a peak of 638 this past year.

In 2008 Grassley introduced legislation that would further update the federal False Claims Act.  Many provisions of this legislation were included in the Fraud Enforcement Recovery Act that was signed into law in 2009.  The legislation overturned several court decisions that threatened to limit the scope and applicability intended by Congress in the 1986 update.  Grassley said the update helps ensure that no fraud will go unpunished because of legal loopholes.

Fraudulent claims by defense contractors during the 1980s prompted Grassley's initiative.  Today the qui tam amendments also recoup billions that would otherwise be lost to health care fraud.  This year alone, most of the $2.8 billion in recoveries were in the Medicare and Medicaid programs administered by the Department of Health and Human Services, the TRICARE program administered by Department of Defense, the Federal Employees Health Benefits program administered by the Office of Personnel Management, and Veterans Administration health programs.

 

-30-

 

 

 

________________________________________________________________________

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                        CIV

MONDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2011                           (202) 514-2007

WWW.JUSTICE.GOV TTY (866) 544-5309

 

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT RECOVERS $3 BILLION IN FALSE CLAIMS ACT CASES IN FISCAL YEAR 2011

Department Sets Records for Recoveries in Health Care and War-Related Fraud Annual Recoveries in Whistle Blower Cases Reach All Time High

WASHINGTON - The Justice Department secured more than $3 billion in settlements and judgments in civil cases involving fraud against the government in the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2011, Tony West, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division, announced today.  This is the second year in a row that the department has surpassed $3 billion in recoveries under the False Claims Act, bringing the total since January 2009 to $8.7 billion - the largest three-year total in the Justice Department's history.

The $3 billion total for fiscal year 2011 includes a record $2.8 billion in recoveries under the whistleblower provisions of the False Claims Act, which is the government's primary civil remedy to redress false claims for federal money or property, such as Medicare benefits, payments on military contracts, and federal subsidies and loans.  The department has recovered more than $30 billion under the False Claims Act since the act was substantially amended in 1986.  The 1986 amendments strengthened the act and increased the incentives for whistle blowers to file lawsuits on behalf of the government.  That in turn led to an unprecedented number of investigations and greater recoveries.

"Twenty-eight percent of the recoveries in the last 25 years were obtained since President Obama took office,"Assistant Attorney General West said.  "These record-setting results reflect the extraordinary determination and effort that this administration, and Attorney General Eric Holder in particular, have put into rooting out fraud, recovering taxpayer money and protecting the integrity of government programs."

Assistant Attorney General West noted that the $3 billion recovered this year included $2.4 billion in recoveries involving fraud committed against federal health care programs.  Most of these recoveries are attributable to the Medicare and Medicaid programs administered by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).  They also include the TRICARE program administered by Department of Defense (DoD), the Federal Employees Health Benefits program administered by the Office of Personnel Management and Veterans Administration health programs.

Fighting health care fraud is a top priority for the Obama Administration.  On May 20, 2009, the Attorney General and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced the creation of an interagency task force, the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT), to increase coordination and optimize criminal and civil enforcement.  Since January 2009 alone, the department has used the False Claims Act to recover more than $6.6 billion in federal health care dollars.  This is more recovered under the act than in any other three-year period.

The historic $2.8 billion recovered in whistle blower cases came from suits filed under the qui tam, or whistleblower, provisions of the False Claims Act.  These provisions allow private citizens, known as relators, to file lawsuits on behalf of the government.  In the 25 years since the False Claims Act was substantially amended, whistle blowers have filed more than 7,800 actions under the qui tam provisions. Qui tam suits hit a peak of 638 this past year, after hovering in the 300s and low 400s for much of the decade.

Assistant Attorney General West thanked the courageous citizens who have come forward to report fraud, often at great personal risk:  "We are tremendously grateful to whistle blowers who have brought fraud allegations to the government's attention and assisted us in this public-private partnership to fight fraud," he said.

In 1986, Senator Charles Grassley and Representative Howard Berman led successful efforts in Congress to amend the False Claims Act, including enhancements to the qui tam provisions to encourage whistle blowers to come forward with allegations of fraud.  In this 25th anniversary year of the 1986 amendments, Assistant Attorney General West paid tribute to the bill's sponsors, saying that "without their foresight, the breadth of the recoveries we announce here today would not have been possible."  He also expressed his gratitude to Senator Patrick J. Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and to Senator Grassley and Representative Berman for their support of the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009, which made additional improvements to the False Claims Act and other fraud statutes.

Assistant Attorney General West also applauded Congress' passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010, which reenforced the government's ability to redress fraud in the nation's health care system.  Among many other changes, the ACA amended the False Claims Act to provide additional incentives for whistle blowers to report fraud to the government and strengthened the provisions of the federal health care Anti-Kickback Statute.

Enforcement actions involving the pharmaceutical industry were the source of the largest recoveries this year.  In all, the department recovered nearly $2.2 billion in civil claims against the pharmaceutical industry in fiscal year 2011, including $1.76 billion in federal recoveries and $421 million in state Medicaid recoveries.  These cases included $900 million from eight drug manufacturers to resolve allegations that they had engaged in unlawful pricing to increase their profits.  Additionally, GlaxoSmithKline PLC paid $750 million to resolve criminal and civil allegations that the company knowingly submitted, or caused to be submitted, false claims to government health care programs for adulterated drugs and for drugs that failed to conform with the strength, purity or quality specified by the Food and Drug Administration.

Adding to its successes under the False Claims Act, the department obtained 21 criminal convictions and $1.3 billion in criminal fines, forfeitures, restitution, and disgorgement under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA).  The FDCA's criminal provisions are enforced by the Civil Division's Consumer Protection Branch.

In addition to health care, the department continued its aggressive pursuit of fraud in government procurement and other forms of financial fraud, including grant, housing and mortgage fraud that emerged in the wake of the financial crisis.  In November 2009, President Obama established the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force to hold accountable the individuals and corporations who contributed to the crisis as well as those who would claim illegal advantage through false claims for funds intended to stimulate economic recovery.  Of the $3 billion in fiscal year 2011 recoveries, these non-war related procurement and consumer-related financial fraud cases accounted for nearly $358 million.

Overall, the department recovered $422 million in fiscal year 2011 in procurement fraud cases, including $89.3 million in recoveries in connection with the wars in Southwest Asia.  This brings civil fraud recoveries in connection with the wars in Southwest Asia since January 2009 to $153.4 million, and the total amount recovered in procurement fraud cases during that time to $1.5 billion, again a greater amount than in any previous three-year period.

Assistant Attorney General West expressed his deep appreciation for the dedicated public servants who contributed to the investigation and prosecution of these cases.  These individuals include attorneys, investigators, auditors and other agency personnel throughout the Civil Division, the U.S. Attorneys' Offices, HHS, DoD and the many other federal and state agencies.

# # #

Pages

Subscribe & Listen to Reader Podcasts

On Stands Now

 

Tagged Content

Two Ways to Subscribe

1. Subscribe to free weekly e-mail content updates.

You'll get both the current official narrative challenge and What's Happenin' in the Quad Cities.
(Did you know we publish a new Amy Alkon Advice Goddess, Real Astrology, Red Meat cartoon and RCR Crossword every week?) 

* indicates required

View previous campaigns.

2. Get 12 monthly issues mailed first class for $48

Get 12 issues mailed monthly for $48 per year.

Get the printed Reader edition mailed to you (or anyone you want) first-class for 12 months for $48.
$24 goes to postage and handling, $24 goes to keeping the doors open!

Click this link to Subscribe now.