and we know by many accounts there's as much as $60 billion a year that is being used, as being stolen from our medicare program fraudulently. what steps is doj taking to increase prosecutions on medicare and also on medicaid fraud? >> i'm sorry. working with our partners at dhs, kathleen sebelius, having gone around the country and expanding what we call these heat strike force teams to increase the federal presence in our investigative capacity in those cities where we've identified these problems and what we have seen is that we have received in the settlements, in the prosecutions that we have brought, record amounts of money brought back into the federal government as i indicated in my opening

statement for every dollar that we spend in enforcement we bring back $7 to the federal government. it's something that i think should be funded as high a level as we possibly can, our enforcement efforts. >> one closing question, could you provide information to the committee on what specific enforcement is taking place in this area in california specifically southern california and more specifically in and around the area of los angeles and areas like glendale, california. >> we can do that. i can certainly make dlir what we're doing generally with all the cities we've targeted but i can share with you what we're doing in california, in the area of california you're talking about. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> the gentleman from california is recognized. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, and welcome attorney general. i want to start by commending you and the department for your

diligent work defending u.s. taxpayers against fraud by government contractors. every year i watch the total amount recovered for taxpayers under the false claims act increase. and i'm grateful for the work that the department and whistle blowers do together to protect our tax dollars. i think we're now up to something just over $30 billion, and a lot of my colleagues today are focusing on their beefs with you today. i want to talk about this subject because here i think the justice department and you are doing this right. and it seems the law is quite effective and i would like to make sure it stays that way. earlier this year you invited me to take part in a commemoration of the 25th anniversary of the false claims act and though i wasn't able to participate in the panel discussion that followed the main event, i am told that one of the issues discussed on that panel was whether or not we should change

how people are compensated. in october of last year the united states chamber of commerce put out a report suggesting that a hard cap of $15 million would be adequate to compensate any relator. their logic seemed to be that amount would cover most people's future earnings if their efforts as a whistleblower kept them from working again. the report also suggests that such a cap would not deter whistle blowers from pursuing cases because in their study of 26 cases the whistle blowers responded to a question about why they were willing to bring suit and most of them said that they did it because it was the right thing to do. i believe that. but i also know for a fact that the whistle blowers put themselves at tremendous risk when they make the decision to file suit and try to recover on behalf of the government and the american taxpayer. these cases are expensive to pursue.

they can last for years. they require commitment and i don't know if a general good feeling about quote doing right unquote is what will make someone remain committed to the cause for the long haul. right now relators can be award ad percentage between 15% and 30% depending upon certain factors such as whether or not the government joined the relators. in my mind, as plaintiffs. in my mind and i think the history of the act bears this out, this percent swrag share encourages the relator to pursue a case until they can recover an amount equal to the entire impact of their fraud as opposed to settling when the case goes too long. perhaps because they know there is a hard cap and they can only recover so much money. though the chamber argues that a hard cap would save the government money i have to wonder how many cases it would deter or at least reduce the recovery for the taxpayers. in today's world where some of

these cases recover billions of dollars, if a hard cap deterred even one such case it would be a very costly ende dedeavor for taxpayers. when we consider the act proposals to enforce a hard cap have not been well received. of course there are reasons that defendants fighting suits would want to limit damages but i'm more focused on what works best for taxpayer. i believe what we have now is working well. i sent you a letter on this subject earlier this month, but i wonder if you could share some thoughts with me now about whether the department remains committed to relators being awarded a percent share or if you support a shift to a hard cap? >> well, i have to say that i'm not total in agreement with the proposal you have described. but the act as presently constructed is working extremely, extremely well. you're right. we asked you to come to the

justice department to celebrate the success that we've had over the past 25 years with regard to an act that you were instrumental in passing. over the past 25 years we had 8,000 cases that have been filed that yielded more than $21 billion in recovery. $3.4 billion in awards to relators. opinion 2011 alone the department recovered more than $2.78 billion. the statute as it is presently constructed works and works quite well. i would be reluctant to fool around with a formula that for the past 25 years has shown to be an effective tool in getting at fraud and incentivizing people to stay involved in the process and work with government as partners. again, i'll look at it but i

have to tell you on the basis of my examination of the rule, the regulation as it exist, the statute it exists i would be reluctant to damp with it. >> thank you. the chairman from virginia is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. general holder, both the criminal division head and his deputy had knowledge that the atf let a bunch of guns walk and some were recovered in mexico all related to the fast and furious scandal. in a prior operation when they reviewed the february 4, 2011, letter that falsely denied the atf knowingly allowed the sale of assault weapons to a straw purchaser to transported them to mexico do you think it's a serious offense for an individual to mislead the congress? >> well, first with regard to the question, i think you got it a little off there.

two individuals you talk about did not know about the tactics used in fast and furious until the beginning of last year. >> but they did acknowledge that quote atf let a bunch of guns walk and some were recovered in mexico, end quote. >> that was in connection, i believe with operation wide receiver. >> correct. >> that occurred in the prior administration. >> correct. but they did not acknowledge that in their communication with the congress. so my question to you is do you think it's a serious offense for an individual to mislead the congress about what they know on what's going on in your department? >> to the contrary they did acknowledge to congress they did have information and said it was a mistake on their part not the share it with the leadership of that department that prior knowledge and also indicated it was a mistake on their part not to use that prior knowledge when they were looking at fast and furious to try to understand that they should have been more sensitive to what was going on

with regard to fast and furious. >> what consequences have they faced as a result of that? >> they are certainly -- they have apologized. >> apology is a good thing but not a consequence for gross mismanagement of an operation that costs the life of one border security guard. why haven't these two most senior political attorneys in the criminal division faced any consequences at all for their participation in this lack of being forth coming to the congress and to others and for not putting a halt to the subsequent activities that took place? >> again, i think your premise is wrong. they have not -- they have been forth come doing. they have testified or been interviewed in a way that i think is consistent with the facts. they have been very forthright -- >> what about the underlying decision to allow this go forth. >> that's the other part of your premise that is not right.

they were not charge of, they didn't have operational control of fast and furious. >> when they knew about it what did they do about it? >> that's when everybody in washington heard about these tactics. they were assured by the people in arizona that the gun walking, in fact, did not occur. that is the information that they got. if you look at the materials that we submitted to congress around the february 4th letter you'll see neither of the two men had information about the use of -- they were in fact assured that gun walking was not deployed in regard to operation fast and furious. >> with regard to the prosecution of senator ted stevens in alaska, in that case senator stevens was falsely prosecuted, his reputation was ruined, he was not re-elected to the united states senate, and it

was determined that the u.s. prosecutors were engaged in outright fabricating of some evidence, deliberately withholding information that revealed the senator's innocence and ultimately they were held in contempt of court and the charges against senator stevens were dismissed. but what consequences have they faced? to my knowledge the only consequences for engaging in the outright fabrication of evidence and deliberately withholding exculpaer te exculpatory evidence is one was suspended for 45 days and the other for 15 days. why were these individuals not fired. some said they should have been disbarred. that's not the purview of the justice department. but certainly no longer having them on the payroll of the justice department is a step in

the right direction, wouldn't it? >> again, there are a number of premises there that are inconsistent with facts. this is a case brought by the prior administration. it wasn't dismissed by the court. i dismissed the case. this attorney general dismissed that case after we had concerns about how we failed to turn over information that the defense had a right to. the opr report looked at the matter and made a determination that they did not do so intentionally. it's inconsistent or it's intention with the report done by mr. shulky and a recommendation made by those people charged with the responsibilities that those penalties should be imposed, 40 days and 15 days. this is not something that the attorney general, the deputy attorney general is involved in, determinations as to how those cases, what punishment should be made or findings of fact is done by people who are careered within the department. the same thing happened with regard to the determination

concerning mr. youth and the creation of those olc memos. whether or not the attorney general agrees or disagrees with what the career people do in the department is that that is something for career people charged with that responsibility to ultimately determine. >> mr. chairman, i would ask that a letter dated february 4, 2011, signed by robert weiss assistant attorney general which i think rebuts the statements made by the attorney general with regard to what was known and what was not known about operation wide receiver and operation fast and furious be made a part of the record. >> without objection the documents will be made a part of the record. the gentleman from virginia mr. scott is recognized. >> thank you. thank you, mr. attorney general for being with us today. mr. holder, you've been criticized for not turning over information upon request to the,

to one of the committees. did some of those requests involve information pertaining confidential informants and wiretaps under co, court order co and information related to ongoing investigations? >> yes that's true but we've turn over a significant amount of information. we have collected data from 240 custodyians. we've turned over pages on 46 separate productions. >> what's wrong with handing over information involving confidential informant, wiretap information under court co and information related to ongoing investigations? >> we are by law prohibited from discussing or turning over the contents of wiretap related material. there is a criminal provision that has a five year penalty that prevents us from doing that. there's also a very practical reason, there are concerns that one would have about people who

are involved in these matters. you might put victims' safety at risk. you might put at risk the success of a prosecution. those are all the reasons why there are very tight restrictions on the provision of material connected to wiretaps. >> thank you. >> will the gentleman yield? >> i have very little time. >> i'll be very brief. >> go ahead. >> we did not request any wiretaps under seal since i'm the person who signed the subpoenas. >> thank you. reclaiming my time. mr. attorney general, section 5 is there to prevent discriminatory alexandria processes from going into effect. you didn't have that until the victims of discrimination raised enough money to get into court to get an injunction. those who benefit from the discrimination would get to legislate little the law is overturned and when overturned they would get to run as with

all the advantages of incumbency as a result of their discrimination and so there's an incentive to keep discriminating but under section 5 the burden is on covered states to demonstrate that an election change does not have an discriminatory effect and purpose. section 5 covered states that were not selected randomly they were covered the old-fashioned way. they earned it. with a history of discrimination. how is the department of justice using section 5 to prevent discrimination practices and what are you doing in florida to prohibit purging of voters that include decorated war veterans clearly eligible to vote. >> first just a bit of an overview. let me take a second. you have to understand that over the course of time in which i've been attorney general we've looked at about 1800 requests for pre-clearance under section 5. we have opposed 11.

11. 1800 requests, we have opposed 11. included among those is what florida has been trying to do with regard to the section 5 kofrds -- covered counties. section 5 was reauthorized by a near unanimous congress. signed by president obama. findings by this congress that the need for section 5 continues, reauthorized until 2031. it is the position of this department of justice and this attorney general that we pill vigorously defend and vigorously use section 5. the need for it is still there. >> thank you. first bill this president signed was the louie ledbetter act dealing with discrimination in employment. one of the things that talking

about discrimination in employment, 1965 president johnson signed an executive order prohibiting all discrimination in employment with federal contracts. i under this administration still allows discrimination in federal contracts based on religion if it's so-called faith-based group. my question is do they need permission or certification to qualify for the right to discriminate or do they just get the right to discriminate based on the fact that they are a faith-based organization using federal money? >> well, i think we're committed to ensuring that we partner with faith-based organizations in a way that's consistent with our laws, our values and the department will continue to evaluate. legal questions that arise with respect to these programs and try to ensure that we make sure we ensure that we fully comply with all of the applicable laws. >> does that mean they can discriminate? >> chairman's time has expired. >> i think it was a yes or no

answer. >> okay. >> mr. attorney general, go ahead answer the question. >> as i said, we tried to do this -- we look at these policies and try to make sure that they do the act in a way that's consistent with law. >> okay. thank you, mr. scott. the chairman from california is recognized. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. attorney general, i just follow up on what my friend from virginia had to say with respect to the stevens case. i realize you reassigned people after that. i realize there was an investigation and indictment that came before you were attorney general. that's not the point. the point is if you have no real conso wenss now you won't have any real change in the future. that was conduct that was stated by the judge to be outrageous. he held a hearing as to whether a new trial ought to be called before he made a ruling. he came forward with a motion to dismiss recognize the problems

internally. the investigations showed widespread misconduct among the whole team. and yet i am unaware of anybody that was fired and senator stevens lost his election, but more importantly he lost his reputation. and i happen to think that in the absence of serious action taken against employees of either the department of justice prosecutorial corps or the fbi, the matter won't be taken seriously. mr. attorney general if i was lucky enough to meet you or see you at your office in the justice department wouldn't i have to show a government issued

photo i.d. to get in to see you? >> you might. >> if i were to go to the federal courthouse here in d.c., either as a party or as an attorney, wouldn't i have to show a government issued photo i.d.? >> that's not been my experience. here in d.c.? >> some federal courts you aware that's require, some federal courts in this land? >> don't know. >> are you aware that if i have to come here from california to exercise my constitutional right of travel and as an ordinary citizen petition the government for redress of my grievances, i have to show a government issued photo i.d., do i not? >> that one, yes, to get on a plane, you need a photo i.d. >> that guarantees the constitutional right of travel among the states, correct? >> yep. supreme court said the right to travel is a constitutional

dimension. >> so, is your justice department investigating the discriminatory effect of those laws with respect to someone's constitutional right to travel or constitutional right to visit you? i mean the constitution doesn't say, petition the government for redress or grievances only goes to some people. i mean if i've got a complaint with the justice department and want to dome the justice department are you inhibiting me, affecting my constitutional right by requiring snow a government issued photo i.d.? >> let's get to the bottom line here. >> no. my question -- >> i'll give you and answer. >> that's all i'm asking. >> the answer is that with regard to the limited things that you have discussed that might not have an impact on your constitutional right but that some of the laws that we have challenged do have an impact on a person's ability to exercise

that most fundamental of constitutional rights and that's the right to vote. >> fundamental right to petition the government to redress my grievances, don't you think that is as important as quote-unquote the right vote. >> i would agree with president johnson what he said after the '65 voting acts right was passed that voting is the most important right we have as citizens. what distinguishes this country and makes it exceptional. >> i think it's important that we have the opportunity to petition the government to redress the grievances. i think that's as fundamental -- >> i can change the government. i have that ability. >> you can still be in court. you can threaten to sue me in court and as a proud individual american citizen i suppose i have a right to at least talk to you about whether you're going to bring me before the court and bring majesty of the government against me and i would think

that that is as important a right. >> well i certainly have that ability to talk to you. but if i disagree with you at the end of the day i have the ability -- >> can't come in and talk to you unless i show a government issued photo i.d. >> if you were to show up at the justus department and somebody can vouch for you you can come in. >> haven't tried that with tsa. that doesn't work very well in terms of getting on an airplane to fly back here to knock on your door to see you. >> there's terrorists that are trying to bring down planes. >> there are people who cheat about voting when they don't have a right to vote. >> we do not see that to the proportion that people have said, in an attempt to justify these photo i.d. laws. all of the, i think empirical and neutral evidence shows that the questions of vote fraud do not exist to the extent that

people say it does exist. >> the supreme court was wrong in its decision 2007 when it said that states have a legitimate interest in requiring photo i.d.s for voters even absence of widespread fraud in order to inspire confidence in the procedure. >> if you will answer the question and then we'll move on. >> sure. t the coffer case is different. i would just, with all due respect, attorney general mccasey talked about the crawford decision, the indiana decision and this is how it's different. he says that the court acknowledged the undeniable fact that photo i.d. laws can impede a citizens right to vote. he said we'll not hesitate to use the tools available to us including the vote rights act if

these laws are used improperly to deny the right to vote. he's talking about the indiana/crawford decision. >> thank you. the chairman from north carolina mr. watt is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me start by just expressing my disappointment that some of my colleagues are spending so much time advancing the notion that we should be disqualifying people from exercising the most basic right that they have in our democracy, the right to vote. and that the judiciary committee in which these arguments are being advanced is just disappointing to me. second, i want to applaud the

justice department for some work that they are doing in my congressional district in particular. some very high level cases fighting drug trafficking, protecting against child predators, a bunch of money we spent on the cops program and the most vigorous supporters of the cops program are the most conservative sheriffs in my congressional district because they've been able to access funding to beef up their law enforcement capacities. so i won't go back to the voting rights part of this because i'll get too emotional of the thing. let me deal with the thing that's under my subcommittee's jurisdiction the one that i'm the ranking member on and that's we made some efforts to try to do something about piracy.

we were not successful legislatively, but the problem has not gone away. recent article in the "usa today" notes the proliferation of dangerous counterfeit products that pose safety concerns for the american public. many of these products including counterfeit pharmaceuticals are available online and come from foreign sources. in january of this year department of justice issued indictments against mega upload, a foreign based website that was charged with illegally infringing the copyrights of american businesses and now i note that some group has -- what's it called, anonymous, unleashed a series of cyber attacks in the aftermath of the indictments against mega upload. so now there's a connection

between piracy on the one hand and cyber security on the other hand. can you just talk to us about the real threats that we have in that area, both on the piracy side of this issue and on the cyber security and their connections just a little bit so we'll have some background that at least informs the american people how serious the problem is? >> the piracy issue has a number of dimensions to it. it is an economic issue. it is a jobs issue. when the theft of our intellectual property or the methods we use to protect things are stolen by other organizations or other countries i want has a direct impact on our economy. there is also a safety factor, health items, medicines that are produced in a way that are inconsistent with the great standards we have in the united states and then sold back to the united states or sold in other countries can put people at