you're saying you do not agree that ultimately a decision should be subject to judicial approval or disapproval as to invocation? >> ultimately a judge could override our assertion of the privilege and we'd have to decision whether or not we want to dismiss the case. our hope is through the process that we go through we only invoke the privilege where it's absolutely necessary, and i think if we look at the statistics, you'll probably see that we have invoked the privilege far fewer times than our predecessor. >> i hope you will share those statistics with us. thank you. >> thank you, mr. nadler. the gentleman from california is recognized. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. good to see you again, attorney. your last visit here, we asked about a few issues that we'd like to get a response from. in fact, i'm disappointed that to date your office has been unable to provide answers to what i consider some very simple

questions that we asked in that meeting. having to do with prosecutions of work site enforcement cases. i'm especially interested in the number of doj work site enforcement prosecutions for each of the last four years. the number of prosecutions of illegal workers who have been using fraudulent documents. when can i realistically expect to get a response on that? >> i was under the impression we answered all the questions put to me during the hearing that had been submitted to us. if that's not the case, i'll make sure -- >> i have not received them. in fact, we'll be happy to reiterate with specificity what those were. but it's pretty straightforward. >> we'll get you those numbers. and i apologize if you've not gotten them. >> okay. we'll work with your office. you know, we all know that many illegal immigrants are using fraudulent social security

numbers. or individual taxpayer numbers to take jobs from american citizens. i don't think there's any question about that in anyone's mind. they also receive tax pay r benefits, child tax credits, earned income tax credits. there have been reports some illegal immigrants are claiming tax credits for children not even living in the united states. what's specific, and i want to emphasize the word specific, steps are being used by doj to stop this fraud? recover taxpayer money. deport the illegal immigrants who have committed the criminal fraud. >> you know, we work with our partners at dhs to come up with a number of ways in which we try to make sure that people, through work site enforcement, through reaching out to employers, to making clear what the policies are, what the law is. we use a variety of techniques to try to make sure that the kinds of people you're talking

about are not, in fact, getting benefits to which they are not entitled. it is something we have worked, i think pretty effectively, with dhs. >> with this group of individuals that i'm speaking about, those that have clearly committed fraud, are these folks on a priority list for deportation, or are they among those that have been given an exemption or review to get a temporary green card? >> no, we have certainly prioritized those people for deportation. we tried to place at the end of that list people who potentially pose criminal problems for those in the united states, in the immigrant community, people engaged in violent acts. those ares the ones we're emphasizing. those further down the list aren't people we're trying to deport tsh. >> we know, and i'm glad to hear that acts of violence by criminal aliens are at the top of the list.

but the fraud issue, to me, is also an offense that should be very close to the top of the list when they're stealing the taxpayers' dollars that could otherwise be used to help your department, for instance. the -- also back in december we talked about doj addressing the issue of medicare fraud. 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? >> sorry. we're working with our partners at dhs.

kathleen sebelius, secretary at hhs, has been going around the country expanding what we call heat strike force teams to increase the federal presence in our investigative capacity in those cities where we have 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. and it's something that i think should be funded at as high a level as we possibly can. our enforcement. >> 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. >> okay.

>> yeah, we could do that. i can certainly make clear to you what we're doing generally with all the cities we have targeted. i can also share with you what we're doing in california, in the area of california you're talking about. >> okay. thank you, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you, mr. gallegly. >> 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 whistleblowers 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'd like to make sure it stays that way. earlier this year, you invited me to talk 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 relaters are compensated for their efforts in 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 that amount would cover most people's future earnings if theirest esfforts as a whistler kept them from working again. the report also suggests such a cap would not deter whistleblowers from pursuing key cases because in their study of

26 cases the whistleblowers 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 whistleblowers 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, quote, doing right, unquote, 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 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 cover 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 matured even one such case it would be a costly endeavor for taxpayers. when we considered the amendments in 1986 and in revisions since, proposals to enforce a hard cap have not been well received. of course, there are reasons defendants fighting key tam 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 a hard cap. >> well, i have to say that i'm not totally familiar with the proposal that you have described, but i can say that the act, as 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 key tam cases that have been filed that yielded more than $21 billion in recove recoveries. $21 billion in recoveries for the united states. $3.4 billion in awards to relaters. in fiscal year 2011, alone, the department recovered more than $2.78 billion in key tam cases. relaters received about $530 million as their 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 has shown to be an effective tool in getting at fraud and incentivizing people to stay involved in the process and working with government as partners. again, i will look at it, but i have to tell you, that on the basis of my examination of the rule as -- the regulation as it exists, statute as it exists, i'd be extremely reluctant to tamper with it. >> thank you, mr. brennan. the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlad, is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. general holder, both the criminal division head, lanny brewer, and his deputy, jason weinstein, 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 4th, 2011, letter that falsely denied that they knowingly allowed the sale of the weapons to a straw purchaser who transported them to mexico, do you think it's a serious offense for an individual to mislead the congress? >> first with regard to the question, i think you got it a little off there. the two individuals you talk about, mr. weinstein, mr. brewer, did not know about the tactics used in fast and furious until the beginning of last y r year. >> they did acknowledge, quote, atf let a bunch of guns walk, and quote, 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. they did not acknowledge that in their communication with the

congress. so my question to you, 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 to congress that they did have that information about wide receiver and said that 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 the prior knowledge when they were looking at fast and furious, to understand they should have been more sensitive with 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. >> apology is a good thing, but it's not a consequence for gross mismanagement of an operation that costs the life of one's 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 for not putting a halt to the subsequent activities that took place? >> well, again, i think your premises are wrong. they have not -- they have been forthcoming to congress. they have testified or been interviewed in a way that i think is consistent with the facts. they've been very forthright -- >> what about the underlying decision of allowing this to go forward? >> that's the other part of your premise that is not right. they were not in charge of, they did not have operational control -- >> when they knew about it, what did they do about it? >> well, that happened 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 to -- the deliberate materials we submitted to congress around the february 4th letter, you will see either mr. brewer nor mr. weinstein had information about the use of -- in fact, assured

the 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 re-elected to the united states senate. 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. 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

exculpatory evidence that would have revealed 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 say 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 t department would be a good step in the right direction, wouldn't it? >> again, there are a number of premise s inconsistent with the facts. this was a case brought by the prior administration. it was not dismissed by the court. i dismissed the case. this attorney general dismissed that 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 -- looked at the matter and made a determination that they did not do so intentionally. it's inconsistent with the

report that was done and the recommendation made by those people charged with the responsibilities that those penalties should be imposed. it's 40 days and 15 days. this is not something that the attorney general, the deputy attorney general, is involved in. the determinations as to how those cases -- what punishment should be made, or findings of fact is done by people who are career within the department. the same thing happened with regard to the determination concerning mr. yu and the creation of those olc memos involving interrogation techniques. whether or not the attorney general agrees or disagrees with what the career people do, the tradition in the department is that is something for premiere people charged with that responsibility to ultimately determine. >> mr. chairman, i would ask that a letter dated february 4th, 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 receive receiver and operation fast and furious be made part of the record. >> the documents will be made part of the record. >> 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. some of those requests involve information pertaining confidential informants and wiretaps under seal. court-order seal. and information related to 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 under 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. there's also a very practical reason. there are concerns that one would have about people 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 restriction on the provision of material connected to wiretaps. >> thank you. >> mr. -- 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 election practices from going into effect. you didn't have section 5, discriminatory voting changes could go into effect until the victims of discrimination raise enough money to get into court to get an injunction. those who benefit from the discrimination would get to legislate until the law's overturned. when not overturned, they'd get to run as with all the advantages of incumbency as a result of discrimination. there's an incentive to keep discriminating. under section 5 the burden is uncovered, states to demonstrate an election change does not have a discriminatory effect and purpose. section 5 covered states 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 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 overview, this will take just 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 for preclearance under section 5. we have opposed 11. 11. 1,800 requests, we have opposed 11. included among those is what florida has been trying to do with regard to the section 5 covered counties that one of which, one of those changes which a federal judge has already said is inappropriate. section 5 was reauthorized by a near unanimous congress, signed by president bush. findings found by this congress that the need for section 5 continues. reauthorized i believe in 2031. it is the position of this

department of justice and certainly this attorney general that we will vigorously defend and vigorously use section 5. the need for it is still there. >> thank you. the first bill this president signed was the lilly ledbetter act. prohibiting dealing with discrimination in employment. one of the things -- talking about discrimination and employment p 1965, president johnson signed an executive order prohibiting all discrimination in employment with federal contracts. i understand 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 d discriminate? or do they just get the right to discriminate based on the fact they're faith-based organizations using federal money? >> i think we're committed to

ensuring we partner with faith-based organizations in a way that's consistent with our laws, our values and department will continue to evaluate. legal questions that arise with respect to these programs and try to ensure we make sure we ensure that we fully comply with all of the applicable laws. >> does that mean they can d discriminate? >> the chairman's time has expired. >> i think it was a yes or no answer. >> okay. >> mr. attorney general, if you would answer the question. >> as i said, we try to do this -- we look at these policies and try to make sure that they do act in a way that's consistent with law. >> okay. thank you, mr. scott. the gentleman from california, mr. lungren is recognized. >> thank you very much. i follow-up from what my friend from virginia, mr. goodlatte had to say with respect to the

stevens case. i realize you reassigned 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'll have no real choices in the future. that was conduct 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 the motion to dismiss, recognizing 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, 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 court, or the fbi, that frankly the message is not seriously received. so i would just like to state that for the record. and 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 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. i don't -- >> some federal courts, are you aware that's required, some federal courts in this land? >> i don't know. >> are you aware 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 have to have a photo i.d. >> okay. that does involve the constitutional right of travel among the states, correct? >> yep. supreme court has said the right to travel is a constitutional dimensi 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. i mean, if i've got a complaint with the justice department, want to come to the justice department, are you inhibiting

me? affecting my constitutional right by requiring me to show a government issued photo i.d.? >> no, but let's get to bottom line here. that -- >> well, no. my question -- >> i'll give you an answer. >> well, 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. that is the right to vote. >> fundamental right to petition the government to redress my grievan grievances. don't you think that is 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, voting rights, that voting is the most important right we have as american citizens. that what distinguishes this country and makes it exceptional as compared to other nations around -- >> i also think it's important that we have the opportunity to

petition the government to redress the grievances. i think that is as fundamental a -- >> to vote, i can change the government. i have that ability. >> 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 the 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. now -- >> 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 the ballot -- >> i can't come in and talk to you unless i show a government issued photo i.d. is my point. >> that's not true at the government. the justice department, somebody could vouch for you and you could come into the department and we could have a very -- >> is that right? >> -- short conversation. >> i haven't tried that with the tsa. that doesn't work well in terms of being able to get on an airplane to knock on your doors to get to see you.

>> there are terrorists trying to bring down planes as we've seen over the course of the last, i guess, 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, as an attempt to try to justify these photo i.d. laws. all of the, i think, empirical and neutral evidence shows that the questions of both fraud do not exist to the extent that people say that it does exist. >> so the supreme court was wrong in its decision, 2007, when it said states have a limit interest in requiring photo i.d.s, even absent evidence of widespread fraud, in order to inspire confidence in the electoral system? you disagree with the court on that? >> it's interesting there, please expand -- >> if you will, answer the question, then we'll move on. >> sure. the supreme court, the crawford case is fundamentally different from which we're talking about now. that was not a section 5 case. indiana is not covered by section 5 of the voting rights