medicare and medicaid fraud? >> i'm sorry. we're working with our partners at dhs, kathleen sebelius and i are expanding these heat strike enforcement teams to increase the federal presence in our investigative capacity in those cities where we have identified these problems. and what we've 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. and it's something that i think should be funded as high a level as we possibly can. >> 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 in areas like glendale, california? >> okay. yeah. we can do that. i can make clear to you what we're doing generally with all the cities that we have targeted. but i can also share with you what we're doing in california in the area of california. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> thank you. the gentleman from california, mr. berman 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 in greece, 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 the subject because here i think the justice department and you are doing this right and it seems the law is quite effective and i'd 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. though i wasn't able to participate in the panel, i'm told one of the issues discussed on that panel was whether or not we should change how they're compensated for their efforts and recovering on behalf of the taxpayer. 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 relater. 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 key 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 and they can last for years. they require commitment and i don't know if a general good feeling about "doing right," is what will make someone remain committed to the cause for the long haul. right now relaters can be awarded a percentage between 15% and 30% depending upon certain

factors such as whether or not the government joined the relaters. in my mind, as plaintiffs, in my mind and i think the history of the act bears this out, this percentage share encourages a relater to pursue a case until they can recover an amount equal to the entire impact of the fraud as opposed to settling when the case goes too long. perhaps because you 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 cap deterred one such case, it would be a hefty cost for the taxpayers. in 1986 and in revision since, proposals to enforce our hard cap have not been well received.

of course, there are reasons the defendants fighting key suits would want to limit damages, but i'm more focused on what works best for the taxpayer. i believe what we have now is working well. i sent you a letter on this subject last -- earlier this month, but i wonder if you could share some thoughts with me now about whether the department remains committed to relaters being awarded a percent share or if you support a shift to the a hard cap. >> i'm not totally familiar with the proposal you have described, but i can say that the act as it is presently constructed is working extremely, extremely well. and you're right, we asked you to come to the justice department to celebrate the success 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've had nearly 8,000 cases that have been filed yielded more than $21 billion in recovery. $21 billion in recoveries for the united states $3. 4 billion

in relaters. in fiscal year 2011 alone, the department recovered more than $2.78 billion in cases, received about $538 million in the statutory shares. 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 showed to be an effective tool at getting at fraud and inventivizing people. and i will look at it, but i have to tell you on the basis of my examination of the rule -- the regulation as it exists, the statute as it exists, i'd be extremely reluctant to tamper with it. >> thank you. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. general holder, both the

criminal division head lanny brewer and his deputy jason weinstein had knowledge that they let guns walk and most all were recovered in mexico in connection to the fast and furious scandal. when they reviewed the letter that falsely denied the aftf knowingly allowed the sale of assault weapons to a straw purchaser who transported them to mexico, do you think it is a serious offense for an individual to mislead the congress? >> well, first, with regard to the question, i think you've got it a little off there. the two individuals you talk about, mr. weinstein, mr. brewer did not know about the tactics used in the fast and furious until the beginning of last year. >> but they did acknowledge, "atf let a bunch of guns walk." and "some were recovered in mexico." >> that was in connection with,

i believe, with operation wide receiver. >> correct. 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 about what's going on in your department? >> well, to the contrary they did acknowledge they did have that information about wide receiver and said it was a mistake on their part not to share it with the leadership of the department that prior knowledge 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 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? >> well, they are certainly -- they have apologized, they have been -- >> apology's a good thing, but it's not a consequence for gross mismanagement of an operation that cost 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 forthcoming to the congress and to others and not putting a halt to the subsequent activities that took place. >> again, i think your premises are wrong. they have not -- they have been forthcoming to congress, testified or interviewed in a way that i think is consistent with the facts. they have been very forthright -- >> what about the underlying decision of allowing this to go forward. >> and that's the other part of the premise -- they were not in charge of. they did not have operational control of operation -- >> when they knew about it, what did they do about it? >> well, that happens about the same time everybody in washington finally hears about these tactics. they were assured by the people in arizona that the gun walking, in fact, did not occur. that is the information they got -- if you look at the

materials that we submitted, the deliberate materials around the february 4th letter, you will see neither mr. brewer nor mr. weinstein had information -- they were assured walking tactics were not employed with regard to operation fast and furious. >> now, 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 reelected 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 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 exculpatory evidence that would reveal the senator's innocence was that one of them was suspended without pay for 40 days and the other for 15 days. why were not these individuals fired? >> well -- >> some would've said they should have been disbarred for that activity. that's not the purview of the justice department, but certainly no longer having them on the payroll of the justice department would be a good step in the right direction, wouldn't it? >> well, again, premises there that are inconsistent with the facts. this is a case that's brought by the prior administration. it was not dismissed by the court. i dismissed the case. this attorney general dismissed this case after had concerns about the way in which we had 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 a report done and the recommendation made by those people charged with the responsibilities that those penalties should be imposed. i guess 40 days and 15 days. this is not something that the attorney general, deputy attorney general is involved in. the determinations as to how those cases -- what punishment should be made for findings of fact if done by people who are career within the department, the same thing happened with regard to the determination concerning the creation of those olc memos involving interrogation techniques. whether or not the attorney general agrees or disagrees with what the career people do. 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 weich, assistant attorney general, which i think rebuts the statements made by the attorney general with regard to what was known and was not known about operation wide receiver and operation fast and furious be made a part of the record. >> with that objection, the documents will be part of the record. mr. scott is recognized. >> thank you, thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you, attorney general, for being with us today. mr. holder, you've been criticized for not turning over information upon request to t the -- one of the committees. did some of those requests involve information pertaining confidential informants and wiretaps under court-ordered c.o. and ongoing investigations? >> yes, that is true. but we have turned over a very significant amount of information. we have collected data from 240

custodians. we have processed millions of electronic records, we have turned over 7,600 pages on 46 separate productions -- >> can you tell us -- what's wrong with handing over information involving confidential informants, wiretap information on a court seal, 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. and 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 the wiretaps. >> thank you. >> would the gentleman yield? >> i have very little time --

>> i'll be very brief. >> go ahead. >> we did not request any wiretaps under -- i'm the person who signed the subpoenas. >> thank you. i'm reclaiming my time. mr. attorney general, section five is there to prevent discriminatory election practices from going into effect. could go into effect until the victims of discrimination raise enough money to go to court to get an injunction. those who benefit would get to legislate until 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 five, the burden is on states to demonstrate that an election change does not have a discriminatory effect and purpose. section five covered states were

not selected randomly, they were covered the old-fashioned way. they earned it with a history of discrimination. now how is the department of justice using section five to prevent discriminatory voting practices? and specifically, what are you doing in florida to prohibit purging of voters according to press reports that include decorated war veterans clearly eligible to vote? >> well, i think first, just a bit of an -- this may take a second. you have to understand that over the course of the time in which i've been attorney general, we have looked at about 1,800 requests under section five. we have opposed 11, 11. 1,800 requests, we opposed 11. including among those, what florida has been trying to do with regard to the section five covered counties that one of which, one of those changes which a federal judge has already said is inappropriate.

section five was reauthorized by a near unanimous congress, signed by president bush, findings made by this congress that's beneath where section five, reauthorized, i believe, until 2031, it is the position of this department and attorney general that we will vigorously defend and vigorously use section five. the need for it is still there. >> thank you. the first bill this president signed was the louis ledbetter act prohibiting dealing with discrimination and employment. one of the things that talking about discrimination and employment, 1965, president johnson signed an executive order prohibiting all discrimination and employment with federal contracts. i understand this administration still allows discrimination based on religion if it's so-called faith-based group. my question is, do they need permission, a certification to

qualify for the right to discriminate? or do they just get the right to discriminate based on the fact that they're faith-based organizations 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, or 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 the applicable laws. >> does that mean they can discriminate? >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> i think it was a yes or no answer. >> okay. >> if you would answer the question. >> as i said, we try to do this -- we look at these policies and try to make sure they act in a way that's consistent with law. >> okay. thank you, mr. scott. the gentleman from california,

mr. lundgren is recognized. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. attorney general, i follow up on what my friend from virginia had to say with respect to the stevens case. i realize that you reassign people after that. i realize it 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 consequences now, you're going to have no real changes 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. you did come forward with a motion to dismiss, recognizing the problems. the investigations showed widespread misconduct among the whole team, and yet, i am unaware of any -- 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 that, frankly, the message is not seriously received. so i would just like to state that for the record. now mr. attorney general, if i were lucky enough to be invited down to meet you, see you at your office at the justice department, wouldn't i have to show a government-issued photo id 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 id? >> that's not been my

experience. here in d.c. >> some federal courts you're aware that's required, some federal courts in this land? >> i don't know. >> you're 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 id, do i do not? >> that one, yes, to get on a plane you have to have a photo id. >> and that does involve constitutional right of travel among the states, right? >> yep. the supreme court has 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 of grievances only goes to some people. if i've got a complaint with the justice department and want to come to the justice department, are you inhibiting me, affecting my constitutional right by requiring me to show a government-issued photo id? >> no. but let's get to the bottom line here. >> well, no. my question -- >> well, i'll give you an answer. >> that's all i'm asking. >> the answer is with regard to the limited things that you have discussed that might not have an impact on your constitutional right, but that some of telephone laws that we have challenged do have an impact on a person's ability to exercise that most fundamental of constitutional rights, and that is the right to vote. >> it's a fundamental right to petition the government to redress my grievances. don't you think that's as important as quote/unquote the right to vote? >> i would agree with president johnson with what he said after

the '65 voting rights act was passed. the voting rights, that voting is the most important right we have as american citizens. it is what distinguishes this country and makes it exceptional as compared to over nations around the world. >> i also think it's important to have the opportunity to petition the government to redress grievances. i think that is as fundamental. >> but through the vote i can change the government. >> you can sue me 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 the 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 to cast a ballot. >> i can't even come in and talk to you unless i show a government-issued photo id is the point. >> that's not true in the government. that's not true in the justice department. if you were to show up at the

justice department and somebody were to vouch for you, you could come in and we could have a conversation. >> is that right? i haven't tried that with the tsa. that doesn't work very well in terms of being able to get on an airplane to fly back here to knock on your door to get to see you. >> well, there are terrorists who are trying to bring down planes as we have seen over the course of the i guess last 12 years. >> and there are people who cheat about voting when they don't have a right to vote. >> we do not see that to the proportions that people have said in an attempt to try to justify these photo id 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 that it does exist. >> so the supreme court was wrong in its decision in 2007 when it said that states have a legitimate interest in requiring photo ids for voters, even absent evidence of widespread fraud in order to inspire confidence in the electoral system? you disagree with the court on that? >> you know what is interesting there? and please expand.

>> if you will, answer the question, and then we'll move on. >> sure. the supreme court -- the crawford case is fundamentally different from that what we're talking about now. that was not a section 5 case. indiana is not covered by section 5 of the voting rights act. and i would just -- with all due respect, attorney general mccasey talked about the crawford decision and tells how it is different. he said the court acknowledged the undeniable fact that voter id laws can burden some citizens to vote. it is important for states to administer such laws in a way that minimizes that possibility. he says we will not hesitate to use the tools available to us, including the voting rights act if these laws, important though they may be ra are used improperly to deny the vote that is michael mukasey talking about, michael music case it is. >> thank you. the gentleman 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 this is 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're 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 think i'll get too emotional about that. let me deal with the thing that is 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 this year, the department of justice issued dimes 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 cyberattacks in the aftermath of the indictments against mega upload. so now there is a connection between piracy on the other hand and cybersecurity 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 cybersecurity 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. >> i mean, 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, the methods that we use to produce things is stolen by other organizations or by other countries, it has a direct impact on our economy. there is also a safety factor, a 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 risk. the whole question of various parts that can be used in airplanes, other things that are not done in a way consistent with the way in which our intellectual property standards are done can have a negative impact on safety in that way. so the piracy