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 question is one that has economic consequences as well as safety consequences. if one looks at the whole cyber issues, again these are national security issues. the ability of foreign countries or organizations to have an impact on our infrastructure, to use cyber tools to ferret out secretive information from the united states, all put our nation at risk and is worthy of the attention, i think of this committee this, congress and the executive branch and i would hope we can work together to come with a way in which to craft tools to deal with what is truly a 21st century problem.

>> thank you. at the risk of going, not going over time like some of my colleagues have i'll just stop there because any other question i could ask would be well over into the next person's time so i'll yield back mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. watt. the gentleman from california is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. attorney general, december 14th, 2010, brian terry was gunned down and we began knowing more about fast and furious shortly thereafter. but you've said people representing you have said repeatedly you didn't know about it before then. i've sent you a number of letters. senator grassley sent you a number of letters. you mentioned in your opening statement the speaker's letter. speaker did not limit the scope of the subpoenas you're under an obligation to respond to. he simply asked you for response to two key areas. he did not revoke any subpoenas.

however, you implied that we were working together when, in fact, since may 18th nothing, nothing has come from your department. not one shred of paper. i want to ask you first of all today have you and your attorneys produced internally the materials responsive to the subpoenas? >> we believe that we have responded to the subpoenas. >> no, mr. attorney general, you're not a good witness. a good witness answers the question asked. so let's go back again. have you and your attorneys produced internally the materials responsive? in other words have you taken the time to look up our subpoena and find out what material you have responsive to it or simply invaentd privilege that doesn't exist? >> you say internally. >> internally. have you pulled all that information >> we've looked at 240

custodians. we reviewed 140,000 documents. >> 140,000 documents. how many documents are responsive but you are withholding at this time? >> we produced 7600. >> look i don't want to hear about the 7600. >> chairman, i would beg to allow. >> the lady is out of order. >> excuse me, mr. chairman, i would beg to allow the attorney general to be able to finish his answer. >> the attorney general will be allowed to answer the question. >> i thank the chairman. >> the attorney general will have more time to do that if we don't have interruptions. >> i would like my time reclaimed >> you're given additional time. >> mr. chairman i suggest we take back the time mr. lundgren, the two minutes he used -- >> you want to give me an additional two minutes. >> no i'll give the 45 seconds i yielded back. but we're going to apply the rule on one side of the aisle and apply the rule -- >> the gentleman from california has a time and the attorney

general will be allowed to answer the question. >> isn't it true, mr. attorney general, you've not produce ad log of materials withheld even though our investigators have asked for it? >> i know that -- i'm not sure about that. >> okay. i'm sure you didn't. let's move on. march 15th, 2010, before brian terry was gunned down. april 19, 2010, before brian terry was gunned down. may 7th, 2010, before brian terry was gunned down. may 17th, 2010, before brian terry was gunned down. june 2, 2010, before brian terry was gunned down. july 2nd, the real date of our independence, 2010, obviously earlier, before brian terry was gunned down. these wiretap applications which we did not subpoena but which were given to us by a furious group of whistle blowers that are tired of your stonewalling

indicate that a number of key individuals in your administration in fact, were responsible for information contained in here that clearly shows that the tactics of fast and furious were known. they were known and are contained in these wiretaps. i understand you've read these wiretaps since we brought home to your attention, is that correct? >> i have read them and i disagree with the conclusion you've just reached. >> so let me go through a very simple line of questioning if i may, mr. attorney general. james cole, deputy attorney general has written that the department has a greater obligation than just checking the legal sue efficient ency in approving wiretap application. he thinks applications have to comply with doj policy. is that correct? >> applications have to agree with doj policy? >> that's what he said. >> sure. >> okay. during a transcribed interview deputy assistant attorney general jason weinstein testified that senior officials

approving the wiretap applications do not read the wiretap applications. is this practice acceptable to you? >> they read summaries of the applications. that's a process that's been used by this administration and by all previous administration. it's the way in which the office of enforcement -- >> are you aware that federal judges to your knowledge -- >> can i answer my question? >> no, you've given me a sufficient answer considering the amount of questions i have and the amount of time i have. you're okay with that practice. you've already answered that. would you agree senior officials are responsible for documents they sign. i would assume the answer is yes. let me ask you the question. jason weinstein, is he responsible for what is in these wiretaps? >> is he responsible? >> he's the responsible officer under statute. is he responsible for them even if he only read a summary? >> he did not create those affidavits. he did not create that material. he would have been a person as a

deputy san attorney general who would review -- >> so when congress writes a statute requiring certain individuals be responsible such as justin weinstein, lanni brewer and yourself -- >> regular order. >> i'm in the middle of a question. >> the attorney general will be able answer the question. >> it says they are responsible and if in fact they are not read then in fact -- >> how are the american people to understand -- >> regular order. >> responsible for what is contained in these documents. >> the attorney general will be allowed to answer these questions. >> does anyone including the atf former director anyone reading these according to him would have to be sick to their stomach because they would be aware -- >> do you have a question, mr. chairman? >> who is responsible, mr. attorney general? >> all right. you conflated a bunch of things here. the responsibility.

>> you've delivered so little. >> regular order now, mr. chairman. will he be allowed to tans question. >> the attorney general can answer the question. >> the responsibility about which you speak is in fact the responsibility of a deputy assistant attorney general to make sure there's a basis to go into court and to ask that court to grant the wiretap based on a determination that a responsible official makes that probable cause exists to believe a wired facility has been used in the commission of a crime. they don't look at the affidavits to see if, in fact, to review all that is engaged or involved in the operation. i have read those now. i have read those. i've read those. i read them from wide receiver as well. i can say what has happened in connection with fast and furious was done in the same way as wiretap application were done under the previous administration in wide receiver. i've looked at the summary and they acted in a way that's

consistent with the practice and the responsibility that they have as defined by the is a at any time. >> thank you. the gentleman from california is recognized. >> mr. chairman -- >> does the ranking member wish to speak out of order? >> if i may. >> you are recognized. >> i think the previous questioning was the first note of hostility and interruption of the witness that i think has been uncharacteristic of what we've been doing here so far today, and i would like to ask the chair to admonish all the witnesses from here on out to please try to -- all members from here on out to allow the witness to finish his answers. >> will the gentleman yield? >> of course. >> you know i appreciate that there was hostility between the attorney general and myself. i would hope -- >> just for the record.

>> i would hope that the ranking member that, in fact, most of it was produced by the fact that i have a great many questions and a relatively little period of time in which to get answers, and for a year and a half my committee through subpoena and interrogatories has been attempting to get answers for which this witness has basically said he assert as privilege without -- >> parliamentary inquiry. >> the gentleman from michigan has the time. >> parliamentary inquiry. >> i would like to yield to the attorney general at this point, please. >> well, with all due respect to chairman issa, he says there's hostility between us. i didn't feel that. i understand he's asking questions. i'm trying to respond the best i can. i am pretty calm. i'm okay. >> let me assure the gentleman from michigan that the attorney general will be allowed to answer future questions and the gentle woman from california is

recognized for further questions. >> thank you. mr. attorney general thank you for being here with us. when you were last before us in december i asked you about a case involving the seizure of a domain name called the jazzone.com for alleged copyright infringement. in december you said you were unfamiliar with the case but that you would certainly look into it and get back to me. since that hearing not only have i not heard from you but new details have surfaced and therefore i would like to revisit the issue. to refresh everyone's memory, the jazzone is a blog. it's a blog dedicated to discussion of hip-hop music and in november of 2010, the domain name of the site was seized as

part of ice. after the government seized the domain name the owners filed a request for the government to troirnt them and under the law the government had 90 days to initiate a full forfeiture proceeding against the domain or else return the property. however, in this case that deadline passed with no action. when the website's lawyer inquired with the department's lawyers he was told the government had filed an extension but under seal. the website was given no notice and they were never given an opportunity to appear in court and to respond and i have talked to the representative of the website, and he assures me that he made daily again efforts to try and actually appear and make his case. when he asked for proof that the extension existed, your department's lawyers basically said they would have to trust them. now this happened two more times. finally in december of last

year, more than a year after the original seizure the government decided it didn't have in fact probable cause to support the seizure and return the domain. now we have unsealed court records and we know that i.c.e. and your department were actually waiting for the recording industry association of america which made an initial allegation of infringement to provide detail, apparent lie proof and i've reviewed the affidavit in which i would ask unanimous consent to put into the record, that in september of 2011, ten months after the seizure, the i.c.e. agent was still waiting for information from ira a to give probable cause. here's the concern that i have. blogs are entitled to first amendment protection. and i think it's the law that you have to have probable cause

before you seize things. you can't seize things, have secret proceedings in the federal court and then a year later come up with probable cause. so, here's my question for you. it looks to me, and i say another issue as to websites. i mean this isn't like a car that's stolen or disappear or a bag of cocaine. it's a website. so the evidence can be completely preserved even without seizure, so i think the issue of seizure does need to be visited with us. but i want to know, what the department's posture is, if an i.c.e. agent is behaving recklessly in an investigation as it seems to be in this case, don't the prosecutors in your department have an obligation to reject faulty affidavits? do you think that the ex parte process here was consistent with

the first and fifth amendments to seize a domain name that has first amendment protection for a year without any opportunity for the owner to be heard? >> as with all domains that are seized or were seized an operation within our sites i believe the seizure that you referenced was conducted pursuant to lawful, a lawful court order and the procedures that the court followed in that case. it was consistent with the statutes that authorize the seizure and forfeiture. >> you are suggesting the representation which turned out to be false under the initial affidavits which again i would ask to be made a part of the record were those false affidavits were sufficient to have ex parte communications and sealed and secret proceedings in

the federal court for over a year? >> clearly material that was submitted false in -- >> or at least misleading. >> that would not be an appropriate basis for action on behalf of the government. the seizure and forfeiture of property is a powerful tool that government has. it has to be used ju dishodici. we should not be in court trying to do the kinds of things that i have described here, domain name seizures. if the underlying material is not consistent with the facts. that's something we shouldn't be doing. >> as i say, last december you were going to get back to me and i know you have many things to do. but i would appreciate -- i'll ask again if i could get a report on this specific case, and certainly as my colleague mr. waters has mentioned, there are important issues that need

to go on. i don't disagree with that. but we also have to be very careful about first amendment and the fifth amendment. i hope that you do not disagree with that. >> thank you. without objection that the gentle woman referred to will be made a part of the record. >> i have a parliamentary ininquiry. >> gentleman from california in his statement about his own subpoena mentioned today that he did not request wiretaps under seal. and in mr. issa's contempt citation the wiretap application document the extensive involvement of the criminal division. >> would the gentle woman stead her parliamentary ininquiry. >> did anyone review zmoosh that's not a parliamentary question. >> whether this leaked information will -- >> miss jackson that is not a

parliamenta parliamentary inquiry. >> we'll have to deduct this from your file you continue. that's not a parliamentary inquiry. >> i believe it is. >> gentleman from virginia, mr. forbes is recognized for his questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. general, thank you for being here today. i think despite all the rhetoric we know that this committee is not asking you to break through regarding what you say or information you provide to congress. it's just as you know it doesn't matter if you appear before congress seven times or 70 times when you're asked you say i don't know to the questions that are most pertinent or doesn't matter if you supply 7,000 pages or documents or 700,000 participation if they are not the proper papers to answer key questions. so i want to begin where you began and that was the standard that you said, that you have in the department, which is that every action is guided by law and facts and nothing else. i think i stated that correctly. is that fair? >> certainly when we're at our

best that's what happened. >> we know that every cabinet secretary doesn't adhere to that standard. in fact, we have in the paper today the fact that several cabinet members were required to come to a meeting at the democratic national committee headquarters where the campaign manager, the top strategist for the campaign, the executive director of the democratic national committee was there telling them the actions that they should take and four items, to help the president win re-election regarding the campaign structure, the importance of the electoral college and the importance of staying on message. the question i want to ask you this morning is, i know that you're familiar with david axelrod who is obama's top campaign strategy and to the best of your knowledge, has mr. axelrod or anybody on his behalf or anybody on behalf of the campaign had any discussions with you or members of the

justice department regarding actions that you should or should not take, messaging that you should or should not make or hiring decisions that you should or not. i mean, they're -- one of the things that i like a great deal about my interaction with people in the white house is that i think they take their lead from the president, is that they have respected what i would almost -- i would call a wall that has to exist between the justice department and the political operation that goes on in the white house. i've not had any of that kind of interaction. >> so there have been some publications out, and of course, we never know whether the publications are accurate or not. but at least in one book that claims that you and mr. axelrod had some type of confrontation when he was trying to get you to hire someone -- you're saying that's not accurate at all. you've never had any kind of meetings with him regarding any hiring decisions at the department of justice. >> no. we talked about -- not a hiring decision. we talked about ways in which we might improve the ability of the justice department to respond to political attacks that were

coming my way. david axelrod and i are good friends. he's a close friend of mine. we have a great relationship. he's a person i respect a great deal. we work together on the campaign while he was at the white house. but he's never done anything that i would consider inappropriate. >> but then what you're saying is, you have had contact with mr. axelrod, campaign strategists, about how you should handle different attacks coming to you as attorney general, correct? >> yeah, there's a political dimension to the job that i have as attorney general. the reality is that i don't sit up in an ivory tower and just -- >> you can see all of this in our overnight programming of c-span 2 and on c-span.org. president obama is at the university of nevada in las vegas, where he'll deliver remarks on improving college affordability. the president is urging congress to prevent student loan interest rates from doubling from 3.4% to 6.8%. ♪

hello, las vegas! well, how is it going, rebels! >> four more years four more years! >> thank you! >> four more years! >> thank you so much. if you've got a chair, go ahead and sit down. you can make yourself comfortable. if you don't, you're out of luck. just stay there. it is great to be back in nevada. i want everybody to give george a big round of applause for that introduction.

i want the to thank all of the students for coming out here. on a nice summer afternoon. some of you might be at capriotti's or someplace. but instead you're here with us. >> you look great! >> thank you! thank you. i'll tell michelle you said so. >> i love you! >> and i love you back. thank you. so i'm here today at unlv. home of the running rebels. to talk about what a lot of you folks are thinking about every day. you know. now, keep in mind, we're in vegas. so in vegas, you can bet on just about anything.

but what the students here have bet on is themselves. they've bet on themselves. by earning your degree, you've decided to make the best possible investment in your future. and in the future of america. and i'm proud of all of you for making that investment. because it's never been more important. you know, in today's economy, the single best predictor of success by far is a good education. and the statistics prove it. the unemployment rate for americans with a college degree or more is about half the national average. their incomes are twice as high as those with only a high school diploma. a higher education is the clearest path to the middle class. and rebuilding the middle class

is what we've been all about. you know, we're -- i don't have to tell folks in nevada that we're recovering from a crisis that cost millions of middle class jobs. when that housing bubble burst, it hit people really hard. but we're also fighting back from a long-term trend. that has cost working families all across the country that sense of security. so our job is not just to get people back to work. our job is to build an economy where hard work pays off. so i want more people to be able to make the investment you're making. i want to make it easier for more students, like you, to earn a degree without shouldering a mountain of debt.

because even though a college education is still a great investment, the burden of debt is serious, and it's hard on folks just as they're starting off in life. i don't want to be a country where a shrinking number of people are doing really, really well, and a growing number are barely able to get by. i want everybody in america to get a fair shot. i want everybody to do their fair share. i want everyone to play by the same rules. that's the america i know. that's the america i believe in. that's the america we're trying to build. for you, for my children, for future generations. now, [ inaudible ] you're welcome. now, look. the fact is, again, i don't have to tell folks in nevada, we're still going through this process

of recovery from that crisis. and we have taken some tough steps together. and the good news is, our economy is growing again. but we need it to grow faster. businesses have created almost 4.3 million new jobs over the last 27 months. but to recover all the jobs that were lost in that recession, we've got to have them come back faster. the truth is, the recovery has seen stronger job growth than what happened during the last recession, a decade ago. but the problem is, the hole we have to fill is a lot deeper. the global aftershocks are much greater. we're already seeing it. just like last year around this time, our economy has been facing some serious headwinds. you've got the lingering effects of the spike in gas prices. you remember that. it's still tough on a lot of folks' wallets. you've got the situation in europe.

but from the moment we first took action, when i came into office to make sure that we did not go into a free-fall depression, we knew that all -- recovering all the jobs that were lost during the recession was going to take some time. and we knew there would be ups and downs along the way. what we also knew, though, was if we acted wisely and we acted together, if we didn't quit, we would come back stronger. we would do more than just get back to where we were. we would build an economy that would last for the long-term. and las vegas, i still believe that. i believe we will come back stronger. we have better days ahead. and it's because of people like you. it's because of folks like you. it's -- i'm inspired when i hear folks like george putting in long hours, working and taking summer classes.

some older students who are retaining -- there you go. i don't know -- you don't look that old to me, but -- but folks deciding to go back to school, retrain yourself for a new job, the jobs of the future. so you're working hard, you're playing by the rules. you deserve to have leaders who are going to do the same. leaders who will take -- take action. leaders who will do whatever it requires to fight for the middle class and grow the economy faster. we may not fully control everything that happens in other parts of the world. but there are plenty of things we can do right here in the united states to strengthen the economy further. there are plenty of steps we can take right now to help create jobs and grow this economy faster. so let me just give you some examples. last september, i sent to congress a jobs bill. full of the kinds