Senate Proceeding on Apr 23rd, 2009 :: 1:36:45 to 1:51:20
Total video length: 12 hours 29 minutes Stream Tools: Stream Overview | Edit Time

Note: MetaVid video transcripts may contain inaccuracies, help us build a more perfect archive

Views:201 Duration: 0:14:35 Discussion

Previous speech:

Next speech:

1:36:41 to 1:37:03( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: immediat and i ask -- first i request. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. leahy: mr. president, i ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment. the presiding officer: is there a sufficie second? there appears to

1:36:45 to 1:51:20( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Chuck Grassley

1:37:04 to 1:37:24( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: mr. leahy: and i there not be amendments to the amendment. the pr objection. mr. leahy: and i ask further consent that this request not appear and interfere with the statement of the senator from iowa. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from iowa.

1:37:25 to 1:37:46( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: mr. grassley: the second point i wanted to make before i get my formal remarks is the question legitimate the senator from a big of an ieb alternative is enough to -- incentive is enough to get reported? well, that's a legitimate question.

1:37:47 to 1:38:10( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: here's what my experience, with 22 years of the false claims act, in dealing with whistle-blowers, gover agencies listening to whistle-blowers or to them, the justice department taking a case or not taking a case, or whether the whistle-blower initiates the case on their own.

1:38:11 to 1:38:33( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: what i have found, that false claims act does not come up early in anybody's thought process about initiating a thought process that there might be fraud out there and somebody ought to be investigating and get to the bottom of it. and usually the whreus sell

1:38:34 to 1:38:56( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: blower has -- the whistle-blower has ample evidence of this or they wouldn't be first blaze because they jeopardize whistle-blowers that want to do the patriotic thing actually jeopardize their professional future. so what i found, they don't know about the false claims act. they don't know about getting a percentage of it.

1:38:57 to 1:39:19( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: they don't even know about whistle-blower protection laws. they want to do the patriotic thing. they want to report fraud. so, you know, to talk about the award being the incentive to come forward, i don't want to say in some cases that might not be the case,

1:39:20 to 1:39:40( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: these are knowing about the fraud and abuse of the taxpayers' money, they think it's wrong it ought to stop. they think it ought to stop within the agency. they don't get anywhere with the agency, so they come people. and then eventually along the lines, somebody says you need to take this to

1:39:41 to 1:40:03( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: you can this if you win, if you've got a case. probably the majority of them don't win. and so they get nothing out of it. but they're trying to be patriotic citizens. so i think that bringing up the issue of how much an award is big enough to get information out shouldn't even

1:40:04 to 1:40:25( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: be a part of the debate. now, it's still something because we're talking about taxpayers' money. what's an incentive to do this? but it ought to be discussed a thoughtful way, not on an amendment to a bill that's just trying to correct a few court -- bad court decisions to get the false claims act back to its

1:40:26 to 1:40:46( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: original purpose, which i thank the senator from vermont for letting me cooperate with him on this issue. but the senator from vermont also recognizes that the false claims act is a very useful against fraud, which is the overall senator leahy's and my bill.

1:40:47 to 1:41:08( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: the other thing you've got to remember is this has brought in $22 billion. senator leahy made that very clear. there's so many court cases that i can tell you where the government, through the justice department, has come in and tried to belittle the whistle-blower

1:41:09 to 1:41:29( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: access to an award. and how many times judges have had to berate people in the justice department? i'm not talking about bush or reagan or bush and clinton administration. i'm talking about in several of them, that you wouldn't even have a case.

1:41:30 to 1:41:50( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: in other words, prosecutor, the justice department, do you realize you wouldn't even have a case without this patriotic whistle-blower coming forward? or there's been more recently a case that was the justice proceed forward.

1:41:51 to 1:42:11( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: and the judge stepped in and said there's something wrong here, and we're going to get to the bottom of it. so, we got $22 billion back, because of patriotic americans -- and you know what? just because the false claims

1:42:12 to 1:42:32( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: act has been o been a preventive to a lot of fraud. just like all the other tools that senator leahy's bill that's going to not only help with prosecution, but the possibility of prosecution is going to be a

1:42:33 to 1:42:56( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: so i feel strongly issue of an award limit comes up, that it ought to be discussed thoroughly and thoughtfully in a false claims act that has proven its worth by $22 billion and a lot out there.

1:42:57 to 1:43:17( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: and we ought to t thoughtfully. so i want this amendment defeated. the false claim act is the number-one tool for recovering taxpayers' dollars lost to fraud, waste, and abuse. whistle-blowers that bring false claims cases on behalf of the government, they're known as qui tam relater, often risk

1:43:18 to 1:43:39( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: everything to uncover truth. currently the false claims act provides a whistle-blowers that come forward with good-faith allegations of fraud of government dollars. they are allowed to file lawsuits on behalf of the federal government, and the case rims under judicial seal in

1:43:40 to 1:44:02( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: federal court. the justice department then decides to join a case or maybe not join a case. if the justice department joins a case, the case is successful, a whistle-blower can recover 15% to 25% of the funds recovered. if the justice department does not join, because then it's going to be a much more

1:44:03 to 1:44:23( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: difficult process for the whistle-blower and his or her coun go forward with the case. and then in that case successful can somewhere between 25% and tkpwepbgd upon the depending

1:44:24 to 1:44:46( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: and some say this is a windfall for whistle-blowers the statistics paint a different picture. where the department joins the whistle-blower t average share for the whistle blower is if the 25% or 30%, it is 16%. now compare that 1

1:44:47 to 1:45:09( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: percentage that it takes to administer government generally throughoutovernment -- about 12%. do you think there are enough people in the justice department department, enough circle tons are buried? where all the fraud is being committed? no.

1:45:10 to 1:45:31( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: and so this average award i too far out of line with the average admin government. now,here have been 6,197 complains filed since 1996 which have resulted in $13.7 billion recovery to

1:45:32 to 1:45:52( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: governnt averaging about $2.2 billion referred for complaint filed. in the 6,197 cases the governme paid $2.2 billion in awards. that means the average share award for a whistle-blower is

1:45:53 to 1:46:14( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: just about $350,000. there is hardly a one would see particularly if you are ruining your professional career by being a whistle-blower, coming forth to do what's patriotic, to do what's right. it is, in that helps fuel complnts

1:46:15 to 1:46:36( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: coming in. however, if we start adding new caps to the already existing whistle-blower caps, we could reduce the incentive for whistle-blowers to proceed through i don't think coming forward in the first place that would help

1:46:37 to 1:46:58( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: us recover billions of dollars. i'd like to share the tina gonter, a whistle-blower, who testified before the judiciary committee just last week ms. gonter worked closely with

1:46:59 to 1:47:22( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: the government and when unde months clctsin collecting documents and evidence of fraud against the navy and she even wore a wire for the federal a defense department. ultimately a couple of individuals went to jail as a result of ms. gont are's work but

1:47:23 to 1:47:44( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: e the contractor for fraud. believe that? the government refused to sue. obvious evidence filed a false claims case against the company and it was not joined by her own justice department.

1:47:45 to 1:48:08( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: the judge in that scolded the justice department and case. ultimately ms. gonter prevailed and the contractor paid over $13 billion -- or million, to ms. gonter received a share of that money but had she not brought this case the justi

1:48:09 to 1:48:30( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: department and the defense department would have been satisfied with simply putting two people in jail the contractor to walk away with the money it received for providing fraudulent product to the navy. and it's not just a case of fraudulent product to the navy, it

1:48:31 to 1:48:51( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: for the people in the military that put their lives on the line in the defense of our freedom. so just one example out of that the false claims act provided power to get fraudulent

1:48:52 to 1:49:13( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: activity under control. it is a check o the power of the government bureaucracy to look the or way. that's what the justice department did in this case. and pretend that fraud didn't happen on their watch. however, it is f courageous whistle-blowers like

1:49:14 to 1:49:34( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: tina gonter and without sufficient financial incentives to come forward and fight the cases for five to 10 years they can take into court and without that we may lose this valuable tool against fraud. it's about recovering money, taxpayers' money. i find it ironic, i hope people

1:49:35 to 1:49:56( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: are listening now because there's a conflict here between people on my side of the aisle that think this is a good idea, i find it very ironic that those outside groups supporting thi amendment were in staunch opposition to the idea of the senate posing any caps on executive compensation at companies receiving bailout

1:49:57 to 1:50:18( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: funds. now, the recovery of good faith whistle-blowers to come forward with claims of fraud at companies that are ripping off amer the false claims act works and will continue to work if we

1:50:19 to 1:50:40( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: don't cut the incentives to go to court. the law already has a cap for whistle-blower recoveries and i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment based upon a couple of extreme cases that aren't the norm -- $22 billion coming in under this act. we h

1:50:41 to 1:51:01( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: after this act was passed, the defense industry, to get it passed, the defense industry tried to gut it after it was passed. when they koip get it because they didn't -- when they couldn't get it because they didn't have the proper press together they fight for them. that didn't happen.

1:51:02 to 1:51:23( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: now, i don't know exactly what groups are out there now backing all this stuff but when are you ever going to realize that in this country the taxpayers deserve a if there's fraud in your industry, we shup let, no holds