a legacy. she thought about what she had as a first lady, as an important job, her contribution american life. would bebly her legacy barbara walters in that interview. when asked how do you want to be remembered? good friend. >> that's how she felt about the american people. she was a good friend to them. people he american returned that friendship to them? >> absolutely. >> and it's a generational next program, we be moving with the youngest couple moving to the white house and looking edys forward to learning how the country changed. we thank our guests so much for their work. your biography is available if interested.

arilyn holt, mamie dowd, general eisenhower and the president's first lady. thank you for your time. >> thank you for watching at home. great to have you in the audience.

> johnson & johnson and subsidiaries agreed to pay more than $2.2 million for marketing for uses that were never

approved. eric holder talked about the justice t from the department. his briefing was 30 minutes. >> good morning, thank all for being here. associate by the attorney general and the for tant attorney general minute achusetts, car orti ortiz. the deputy inspector general for investigations at the department of health and human cantrell. gary we are here today to announce johnson and three to pay ries have agreed $2.2 million to resolve criminal marketed claims they prescription drugs for uses they and proved they were safe

effective and paid kickbacks to pharmacies for prescribing and promoting these drugs. through the alleged actions, the pockets atined their the expense of american patients, and private insurance industry. everyonee up costs for and negatively impacted programs solvency of like medicare. involving the anti-psychotic drugs and the necricore and other products. addresses ent allegations of conduct that put at risk some of the most vocal society, including the children, the elderly, and the disabled. he criminal information that as filed today, allege the johnson & johnson subsidiary violated the federal food, drug, cosmetic act by introducing

market for the unapproved uses. it promoted the drugs for the psychotic symptoms exhibited by elderly, nonschizophrenic patients who suffered dementia although the okayed only to treat schizophrenia. johnson nd pharmaceuticals promoted the rugs to doctors and to nursing homes as a way to control disturbances in children as well as the the disabled. the companies downplayed the ealth risks associated with wisperdol including the risk of to ke and paid doctors induce them to prescribe the drugs. he companies allegedly played

kickbacks to the largest long-term care pharmacy whose supposed to be the gatekeepers to provide an ndependent review of patient medications. and the company's it would be said good for patients who displayed alzheimer's disease and dementia. health care in the program paying millions of dollars in false claims for these drugs. allegations e stemming from the improper romotion of wisperdol, jansen pharmaceuticals will plead uilty and has agreed to pay $400 million in criminal fines as well as forfeitures. & johnson and jansen pharmaceuticals have agreed to to resolve the civil liability in the false claims act.

& johnson will pay for term d kickbacks to long care pharmacy. in addition to these claims, we johnson and the subsidiary promoted the heart natricor for of the uses to cause costly nfusions of the drugs without credible scientific evidence it ould have a benefit for those patients. in a resolution in 2009, they and paid a total of million to solve current allegations. the companies have agreed to pay additional $184 million. was made by men

and women serving as part of the health care prevention or action team or heat which health and human services kathleen sebelius years d more than four ago to recover taxpayer dollars to keep the american people safe to aggressively pursue fraud and misconduct when ever and it is found. he conduct is shameful and unacceptable. it's displayed a reckless indifference to the safety of american people. and it constituted a clear abuse public trust, showing a blatant disregard to laws designed for public health. as our filings make clear, these crimes.victimless americans trust that the medications prescribed for the arents and for their grandparents, for their children, and for themselves are selected because they are in the patients' best interest. laws enacted by congress and the efforts of the food

provide administration safeguards for the drugs that uses that have been safe and effective. fforts by drug companies to introduce the drugs for interstate commerce for those ved uses subvert laws. likewise, the payment of kickbacks undermines the udgment of health care providers. it creates financial incentives to increase the use of certain putting the health of some patients at risk. every time pharmaceutical this type ofage in conduct, they corrupt medical ecisions by melt care providers. they jeopardize the public health and they take money out taxpayers' pockets. this settlement demonstrates that the departments of justice services and human working alongside a variety of local , state, and partners will not tolerate such activities. law.ompany is above the

and my colleagues and i are determined -- determined to keep forward, guided by the facts in the law, using every tool, resource, and authority at disposal to hold these corporations accountable. to safeguard the american people, and to prevent this conduct from occurring in the future. this announcement marks an our fraud.pproach to we can be encouraged by the actions we've taken and the recent we obtained in years but we cannot yet be satisfied. here in washington and across critical workthis will continue. i'd like to thank everyone who made this settlement possible. the leaders, the prosecutors, attorneys, the investigator, the staff in the civil division here in as our unitedwell states attorney's office in philadelphia, boston, and in san francisco. grateful for the committed

efforts of the partners at the health and human services and particularly in the office of the inspector general food and drug administration. and many other federal agencies that contributed to this outcome. thank each of the states' attorney general and units d for control across this country that contributed to the investigation. happy to take any questions and maybe direct the nitial questions to the announcement that we just made. >> over what period of time improperly drugs patients -- how many them?ed >> with regard to the number of i don't have that figure. it covers a ten-year period from 1999 to 2009.

with regard to the criminal misdemeanor charge, it covers a one-year period. it starts in about march of 2002 december ofon until 2003. it covers a time period where label was limited to schizophrenia. >> any cases where the risk turned into actual harm. at risk, hey were put but they had some sort of harmful effects? the evidence to in this case, we don't have evidence of actual patient harm. what we do have are statements representation that risk was to the d with regard risk of stroke and with regard o the diabetes and things of that nature. we need to assure patient safety. >> just to add to that, one

thing that ties the pieces of together, all of it relates to conduct that regulatory system that's been set up to protect the safety of the medicines that we take. relates to of it activities of the company in efforts, but also the omni care portion of the case kickbacks that were paid to have the potential to medical judgment of medical professionals making decisions of individual patients think it's important that that thee this program ood and drug administration administers for the safeguards of organizations across the country. remaining claims that the government has against johnson & to these s relating settle all ofthis

the claims the government has against them? > this is a global resolution and with regard to the drugs that are announced, this esolves the matter based upon the evidence that we evaluated and made significant what the ions as to appropriate result would be. and we now reached a global esolution so that we can move on to other cases. >> how many physicians were involved in taking kickbacks and how much was paid? >> we do not have that specific umber and a lot of what had occurred was that j&j as well as to en played the kickbacks omni care. and omni care actually in 2009 it in charges against which it had accepted the j&j and it paid homes that nursing

utilizing omni care. and the kickbacks were in the rebates that went to for are and fees to pay also nd to payments disguised for educational funding, particularly with used to ts who were induce doctors to prescribe certain medications and in respidol to seniors in nursing homes. > >> no actual individual payments were made to doctors? they were made a sort of a payment? >> i believe the payments went doctors in this -- in speaking fees and certain meetings that were attended. the question e already asked, if we're looking for a case that someone has died has been rly person

injured because of this, you don't know of one, is that accurate? correct.ieve that's yes. that is, sir? from the second circuit last december in a case versus coronia that off that it protected labeling by drug companies. why fthat was wrong, why did the department try to pursue that elsewhere. are you pursuing these cases despite that? laws you think those should be enforced anyway? particular case, the court determined it could be relative of first amendment speech. what we're behind here. certainly under the facts of this case, we're not looking at in terms of keting alleging factors that are accurate. drugs that were highlight in this case, it had of approved for uses schizophrenia by the fda and only that use. soldompany promoted it and

it and induced every others to schemes rough kickback and other endeucements to treat the elderly who were suffering forms zheimer's or other of dementia to treat children the disabled.eat when you promote drugs for purposes they are not intended the fda, we ved by don't believe that's a violation first amendment. >> that's off label marketing, isn't that what it is? promoting drugs. promoting cuting drugs for purposes not approved and shown to be safe or even effective. case is about.s the statute requires that for the labeling for the drug provide directions for use. and reflect any restrictions that the fda requires. about in e're talking

involved promotion for intended uses without the date.ed statute man that's the nature of the claim here. >> mr. attorney general, there are a lot of questions about the at l.a.x. on friday. i wanted to know what your understanding is of the you think on and do there are things that could have been done to stop this and how do you stop it in the future? >> the investigation sundays way. part of that investigation will be the review of the security that were in place, not only in l.a.x., but i think a review of the security arrangements that exist in other airports as well. he function of the tsa is to ensure that people can board flights fely, take safely. he responsibility for protecting airport security is not a tsa function but we need examine what happened in los

angeles. >> do you think it's fair to say that the anger behind the the nment was behind attack. >> this is one of the things that they're going to try to part of the been investigation. preliminary things are learning. hey have been reported but we have to have a full understanding of the person we now have in custody to the motives -- what the motives might have been. hatever the motives, i doesn't justify what occurred, the brave tsa agent who was killed. no others who were injured feelings about the government justify those kinds of actions. trial in ed to go to three weeks over that -- airlines and united airways. how likely is it that you will case before it starts to trial? what are the status of the negotiations? is a matter that with the en in touch

industry -- the airlines we sued. we expressed concerns about the reduction of competition that the merger would potentially impose. i'm not going go into any detail with regard to the discussions that we are engaging in. will say that they are ongoing. tried to focus son to make sure that any resolution n this case necessarily includ includes divestitures of key throughout the united states. that, for us, is something that has to be a part of any resolution. the conversations are ongoing and we hope that we will resolve this short of trial. meet those not demands, we're fully prepared to to trial. > that complaint was listed in more than 1,000 different c payer roots. would be ying you willing to accept a settlement

lower d substantially number of payers that were part the settlement? our concern is to look at all cases to make sure we bring benefit to the consumers. alleged in the complaint the concerns that we've had. there are a number of ways we with those concerns. we'll see what the conversations that we had with the other parties bring. we will not agree to something that does not fundamentally resolve the express in t were the complaint and do not relief to ly bring consumers. >> is there a magic number of from that you need different airports like jfk or laguardia or dc? . >> yes, there is. but i won't tell you what it is. >> attorney general, quick question on the surveillance issues. a flap over the last week or

two, very significant over seas about u.s. surveillance practices. 80% of the work agencies like the nsa does is outside of u.s. and basically ungoverned by statutes. it's governed by guidelines that put in our predecessors place. are you saying there are sufficient protections if any given to can be people abroad that this government isn't just willy it?y rummaging through > as the president indicated, he's totally right. e're in the process of the review of the surveillance active ties to strike the keeping the american people safe and allies safe. nd the civil liberties and the prooif -- privacy of other people. we're in europe and other parts of the world to make sure we strike that appropriate balance. fundamental questions

that we have to ask ourselves. certainecause we can do things not necessarily that we should do these things. in some -- those are ways are the chief questions that has to be resolved. to benefit.ost what's the benefit we're receiving. what are the protections that we are generating against the privacy that we have to give up. that review is under way. it's a thorough review. the president is fully engaged members view as other of the national security team and the intelligence community. expect that in a short period of time, we'll have announcements to make in that regard. >> the -- >> emphasize one thing. the concerns we have here are citizens.with american i hope that people in europe will hear this. people who are members of the eu, nations of the members of the eu. goes to their

privacy considerations as well. we look at this in a very way.stic taxpayer help the understand why health care fraud investigation is slowing and why a banking investigation might many years? they mentioned the complaint in his case was back in 2002, ten years. can you -- help the average takes understand why it so long to get to here? >> i'll have them speak about one. but my own experience is these are complex investigations that equire huge amounts of research, lots of documents that have to be reviewed. have numbers of people who to be interviewed. they frequently cross jurisdictions. the state lines, even federal jurisdictions, one of the things that you want to sure is that you investigate these things as make ghly as you can to in its t you understand

have ties, the harms that occurred and the individuals that you -- > but is there a feel that unless there -- unless we do it now, particularly later, a ceo, the cost of used in doing business as others have testify? the think the given magnitude of the settlements that we extract and also the nature of the monitoring that is done, that is a part of resolutions that conduct tend to change in these companies. and we as i said, we work these to make sure that which happen in the past does not happen in the future. don't know if you were aware -- had anything else? >> the only thing i would add is seen in the you've

last 4 1/2 years from the and department of justice in settlements like this, nd resolutions like nonmonetary provisions which seek to change corporate behave, provisionsve specific here, that talk about changing the compensation model for the changing somebout of the incentives. to actually try to change behavior. obviously the magnitude of the fine and the penalty sort of speaks for itself. but in addition to accountability, i think, we are deterrence. factual statements oftentime, here you have a guilty plea, of the fully civil only kinds of settlements, you have an acknowledgment of facts oftentimes. think as we think of how best to resolve these types of ways we are looking for that would change behave your as demand accountability. >> one more question. give us an update

on the discussions with j.p. morgan chase. expecting a settlement to be announced quickly. there appears to be sticking points. us what they are and what the prospect of resolve it soon? what time frame were you expecting? >> soon, soon. that's an operative phrase. he associated attorney general has been leading our side in connection with the conversations. they are ongoing. been k they had productive. to get into the nature of what we were talking about other than to say that i xpect one way or the other, we will resolve this soon. we will have an agreement or we will be filing a lawsuit. perhaps tony could elaborate. >> we're not in a position to announce anything today. >> thank you very much. on, hold on -- are there other questions. general. torney

>> i can't help that almost four years ago today you were at the your and announced decision. it's four years now. t's a military prosecution that's taking place. do you stand by your decision then? the prosecution would have been over by now if it were in a civilian court. the last four years, not to be egocentric about this, but i was right. access to documents, files, recommendationings by the offices u.s. training in the eastern district of virginia and southern district of new york. announced on that day was the right one. i they the facts and events that have occurred since then demonstrate that. gone along the path that i announced at that ime we would not have had to

close down half of manhattan. it wouldn't have costed $200 year.on a and the defendants would be on as we speak. we did not go down that road for that were largely political. and i think this is an example politics ppens when gets into matters that ought to andimply decided by lawyers by national security experts. >> which brings me to libby tried in the federal court. expect that ou trial to last? what are the expectations for the case and is there anything that you can share about it? >> a pending matter. want to be careful about any comments that i might make, obviously charges have been file