Part 13 of 32 Senate Judiciary Committee with Alberto Gonzales. Senator Chuck Grassley questions Gonzales. 7/24/07
KEEP IN MIND: Gonzales was given each and every question he would be asked beforehand. Nothing was a surprise - there was absolutely NO "GOTCHA!"
Transcript of this portion of the hearing:
LEAHY: Thank you.
Senator Grassley was actually the first one here, but is, like all of us, juggling more than one committee assignment. I'll recognize him now.
GRASSLEY: Thank you.
I was sharing my time with the Finance Committee.
Mr. Chairman, I have a list of outstanding requests and documents and information from the FBI, and I'm going to ask that this be put in the record and I'm going to refer to it.
LEAHY: Without objection, all the material will be part of the record.
And also without objection, opening statements by various senators who have asked be put in the record will be placed in the record as though read.
GRASSLEY: Thank you.
Mr. Attorney General, the request for documents and information relate to the oversight involving Special Agent Jane Turner, Special Agent Cecilia Woods, the Amerask (ph) investigation and e-mails relating to exigent letters that we detailed in the national security letters report.
I continue to wait for these responses, some of them months overdue. And as the FBI is a component of the Department of Justice and I'm doing it here at this hearing, to ask if you would personally ensure the prompt delivery of all information requested.
GONZALES: I'll personally assure you of the prompt delivery of the appropriate information requested.
GRASSLEY: I want to refer to the False Claims Act and its use in Iraq contracting.
GRASSLEY: I am referring to a Boston Globe, June 20th, 2007, entitled, "Justice Department Opts Out of Whistleblower Suits, Cases Alleged Fraud in Iraq Contract."
The article noted that the department declined to intervene in 10 false claims act -- whistleblower cases raising allegations of fraud, waste and abuse in contracts during reconstruction in Iraq.
Further, the article states that the department has only reached two civil settlements with contractors in Iraq, totalling $6.10 million. Congress has appropriated hundreds of billions of dollars to fund our troops and to support contractors as well as reconstruction projects, so I find it hard to believe that only $6.10 million has been lost to fraud and abuse by government contractors.
For instance, in government programs such as Medicaid, we know that fraud in program is around 5 percent and maybe higher. It's hard to imagine that fraud in Iraq would be less, but I'll leave the numbers to experts.
In addition, April 19th, 2006, a Wall Street Journal quotes critics of the department as saying, "The current administration's use of judicial seal of False Claims Act cases is unprecedented. Its critics argue that the department is using the judicial seal as a means to mask the true extent of possible fraud in Iraq."
So, General Gonzales, how many -- I want to ask -- well, let me ask a couple of questions at a time. I've got six questions in this series.
How many False Claims Act cases alleging fraud in Iraq has the department joined since 2003?
GONZALES: I think the answer to that -- I think there were 26, but I'd like to confirm that if I can. I think that's in the neighborhood.
GRASSLEY: OK.
Is the Boston Globe article accurate in stating that the department has declined intervention in 10 false claims cases alleging contract fraud in Iraq, and if so, why?
GONZALES: I don't know if that number is correct. But I will tell you, of course, the fact that we make -- we decline doesn't mean that we don't follow the case. We still remain the real party in interest, and so we closely monitor these cases. And we may decide to intervene at a later point in time. We may decide to file an amicus to protect the interest of the United States.
And so the fact that we have declined doesn't mean that we're not going to get involved in any way going forward.
GRASSLEY: Well, for the public and Chuck Grassley, it seems to me that declination of intervention does signal an unwillingness to pursue Iraq contracting fraud cases.
GONZALES: No, what it means is that we have to look at the cases and decide is there now, at this time, a judgment that we can prosecute these cases.
We have been very, very successful in those cases where we decide to join, because we evaluate the cases carefully and we think, "OK, there's something there. We can win this case."
In those cases where we don't join, the relator (ph) doesn't fare nearly as well, because they are taking on cases that are very, very difficult and they can't prove them. And so, we're trying to be smart in utilizing the resources that we have and prosecuting those cases where we think the evidence will support the charge.
GRASSLEY: OK.
Are there currently any FCA cases under seal relating to Iraq fraud contracting?
GONZALES: I believe the answer to that is yes, because, again, these are difficult cases and it takes us a period of time -- sometimes people would argue too long -- to decide whether or not we're going to intervene and join the case.
GRASSLEY: Let me ask you lastly on this point: How do you respond to the criticism outlawed -- outlined in the Wall Street Journal article? Is the department trying to escape accountability by using the seal as a shield? That's what was stated.
GONZALES: No. Far from it.
In fact, we want to expose fraud and mismanagement and waste, quite frankly, I think. And we have a special obligation at the department. If people are going to contract with the United States, they ought to be held to the highest standard.
And so, again, we use it as a way to protect the interests of the United States in litigation.
GRASSLEY: I want to go to the United States DRC, Inc. v. Custer Battles.
February 17th, 2005, I wrote you regarding this case, urging the department to comply with the request of district judge to file a brief on the issue of whether the Coalition Provisional Authority -- I'm going to refer to that as CPA -- was a government entity under the False Claims Act.
GRASSLEY: On April the 1st, 2005, the department filed a brief stating the government's position that knowingly false claims presented to the CPA by Custer Battles, if proven, would violate the False Claims Act.
The department also stated that, notwithstanding the brief, they declined to intervene with the whistleblowers.
Ultimately, the jury found Custer Battles violated the FCA and should return $10 million to the U.S. government. However, the judge overturned the verdict and dismissed the case, finding that the plainees (ph) failed to prove the false claims were actually submitted to the government. The department has filed a brief supporting the whistleblowers' position on appeal to the Fourth Circuit.
Why did the department decline to intervene in district court, yet continue to support to support the appellate litigation?
And lastly, is the department concerned that failing to intervene at an earlier time may lead to decisions that are detrimental to the False Claims Act?
GONZALES: It is a pending case, Senator, so I'm limited about what I can say.
But going back to a response to an earlier question, the fact that we don't intervene at the initial stages -- I mean, that we don't follow the case and we do have the opportunity, like we see in this case, of filing an amicus in the Fourth Circuit in order to protect the interests of the United States.
And so clearly, when we make a decision not to intervene, that doesn't mean that the interests of the United States are going to be jeopardized downstream. We do have the opportunity to file something to ensure that the interests of the United States are protected.
As to the individual decision, as to why we didn't get involved in the case in the first place, I don't have an answer to you but I'd be happy to go back and look at it.
GONZALES: If there's something we could provide to you, I'd be happy to do so.
GRASSLEY: I would like to have you provide that in writing.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Loading...
Like Arlen Specter, Senator Grassley is a republican that i can appreciate and respect. He has put ethics and accountablility ahead of party differences; case in point, his questioning of fellow republican Alberto Gonzales was very fair and unbiased, and raised many points of interest and discontinuity in Gonzales' testimony
whitmannn 4 years ago 3
Senator Grassley is a TRUE AMERICAN HERO, and I wish his fellow Republican, President Bush would learn some lessons from this elder statesman. This man has never been swayed, or bullied into just following the herd. That is a definition of a hero. Bless you, bless your family, and bless Iowa for keeping you where you are making a true difference.
drcrone 4 years ago