>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." >> good evening. i'm al hunt filling in for charlie rose. we begin with retired general carter ham. he oversaw u.s. defense interest

in libya and nigeria. he was a top commander in iraq. he was one of the few army privates who rose to four star. i am pleased to have him. >> thank you. happy to be here. >> is al qaeda on the rise? >> it is very episodic. it depends on what locale you look at. that is one of the challenges of africa. we as americans have a tendency to look at africa as a whole. it is quite diverse. in east africa, al-shabaab has largely controlled somali for a long time, is on the back foot. certainly very violent, in the westgate mall attacks, heavily populated resort areas previous

tracking capability. they don't control nearly as much of somalia as they used to. >> in general there was a sense after we kill bin laden they were in decline. we had beaten them. did we miscalculate? what should we do with these new challenges? >> one of the challenges of al qaeda is it is not an hierarchical organization. these local franchises, regional franchises are quite lethal. while they are guided by a common ideology, they resource themselves differently. they sometimes conduct themselves differently. to have killed bin laden was a good thing. that certainly was detrimental to al qaeda. it doesn't necessarily translate

to immediate operational effect for these regional organizations. >> one of those regional organizations is in nigeria. boko haram. what is their relationship? >> i don't know. it is a little unclear. they certainly have some common ideology. there is not a formal affiliation it went well boko haram and al qaeda as there is between some others, such as al-shabaab. nonetheless i think they are guided by a common ideology. they are very violent, increasingly violent him and certainly destabilizing in their region. they have demonstrated a clearly stated aspiration to extend their violence and their influence beyond the region of west africa. these individual organizations in africa, and boko haram, each

individually are quite dangerous. what really concern me in my previous assignment as the commander of africana, worrisome indicators of collaboration and coordination amongst the groups. >> one of the worst things was they captured those young girls. there are 219 missing. the radicals are demanding a swap in exchange. one of our goals is we want to try to cut off or reduce their funding. a lot of their funding comes from kidnap and ransom. that is a dilemma. >> it is very much so. it is u.s. policy that we do not engage in that activity. but it has certainly been the

case that private individuals and others have provided ransom money to blow boko haram and other terrorist organizations that have enabled those organizations to buy weapons and influence simply, vehicles, gas, and the like. >> let's switch to libya. qaddafi was a terrible dictator. i think almost everyone can agree. you look at libya now, the country is more chaotic and violent. al qaeda seems to have more of a stronghold. was the intervention worth it? >> it is important to go back to the purpose of the initial intervention. encapsulated by the basic security council resolution focused on the protection of civilians. we forget about it now but if we take ourselves back to early 2011, february and march, people

remember at that time the libyan army was on the outskirts of benghazi, and we heard words from gaddafi himself and his spokesman, we will hunt them down like rats and exterminate them. words that the world has heard before. i think the united nations took a very bold step in the government of the united states and many others agreed to uphold that u.s. security council resolution and prevent the libyan army from doing what i believe they would have done, killed unknown thousands of people in benghazi. that was the genesis of the intervention. it was not to remove the government of qaddafi. it was to protect civilians. that was the genesis of the

effort. i think in that regard the intervention was necessary and certainly successful. >> could we have done a better job post intervention after qaddafi? >> this is the challenge of these very complex situations that occur in africa and the mideast. the military piece is almost the easy piece. it is relatively defined in this case. protect civilians. the military intranet was used. i led the effort initially before transitioning to nato. to lachesis effect military objective, it is much harder, much more complex to say how do we help this country get out of this? >> do you hold any optimism?

>> i'm not sure. the short-term i am pessimistic. i'm a long-term optimist for libya. having met many libyan people, what they cherish almost irrespective of their political leaning, for the first time in most of their adult lives, the opportunity for self-determination. the violence precludes that. there will come a point in time when the libyan people will decide we can no longer tolerate this level of violence. we have to stop killing one another. whether that happens this year or next, or in five years, i don't know. that time will come. when it does, based on the libyan people who i have met, i am confident they will find a good path through this current chaos. >> general, you have said you don't want to relitigate benghazi which has become a football in washington.

you were in charge. to me ask a couple of questions to clarify. you were in charge september 11 2012. am i right? within hours of the awful attack, you were aware this was an act of terrorism. not a random act, and you so reported to secretary panetta. >> i happen to be in the pentagon that day. and the other combatant commanders and service chiefs. within just a few moments of the attack being initiated i was notified by my command center in germany that this was going on. we didn't know precisely what it was, but we inform the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, and we together went to update secretary panetta. it became clear early on because

of grenades that there was some degree of sophistication to this attack. within a short period we knew this was clearly, to us, at command a terrorist attack. >> there really wasn't in your mind a fog of war. susan rice testified it was probably a suggestion it was a random act because the anti-muslim video. at that stage he were convinced it was terrorism. >> the fog of war was alive and well that day. it was typical to get a clear vision of what was going on. we didn't spend a lot of time trying to figure out why did this happen. we were trying to figure out what happens, what was happening, what can we do about it. but i don't recall there being

any more than a passing conversation or discussion that this was a spontaneous rally or something like that because of the video. i do not, i do not have any recollection that there was any serious thought that this was anti-video demonstration that spun out of control. >> the other critique that we could've provided air support more quickly. you were in charge greg could we have? >> yes, we could have. in the run-up to september 11, as you might suspect, we have lots of conversations of what we think might happen, and how do we want to be prepared? lots of conversation with embassies and other facilities around the continent of africa. we thought kidnappings, may be improvised explosive devices. those kinds of attacks were the most likely thing to happen.

so we considered, i considered whether it made sense to have strike aircraft on standby with capabilities, but came to the conclusion that was not the right response capability for the types of events we expected. that was my decision. certainly people have second-guessed that. most of them are people without military background. i understand that. even after the attacks began, there was some who said we could have mobilized aircraft and the like. there was no benefit to doing that. in a very densely populated area, we didn't have resize information about who was where, what would they do. it became a complex issue, but

my decision was strike aircraft rocket right response. >> nine years ago, were you surprised that isis was able to take over? >> it was heartbreaking. i served from 2004-2005, through the first elections in january of 2005, i came to love the people of the city, and to see what has happened to that city and those people, it is truly heartbreaking. the question now is how do we help the iraqis reestablish that level of security? the deployment of advisors is a

good start. >> we trained that army. when that hit, when isis hit, they collapse. isn't that worrisome? >> it is very much worrisome. given the treasurer, and lives that were lost in iraq, i think it is indicative of how complex these issues are. there is a military component. my personal view is that the failings in iraq, while certainly military, it was not done in a manner which the u.s. had to instill within the iraqi government. largely apolitical shortcoming

on the part of the iraqi government more so than a specific military shortcoming. >> you were the highest-ranking officer, i believe. how are you doing? >> i am fine. to be clear, i was never diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. but i did have, when i came back from iraq, i wasn't the same. my wife pointed that out to me. i didn't feel fulfilled. i needed to still be in iraq. i just didn't feel like i was making a valuable contribution. i wasn't sleeping well. i wasn't a good husband, a good father. i wasn't a good friend.

it was an army chaplain who i had known for many years, and i was able to meet with that chaplain have conversations. that was very helpful to get me back on a good track. i was glad to have the opportunity to talk about that. >> there is a suicide of a veteran every day. is it time we address it? >> the biggest challenge remains the stigma. that is why i have spoken out. to say if it is ok for a for or star general to say i have some problems and i needed help to get me through this period, if other soldiers said it is ok for

that for start to get help, it is ok for me to get some help. >> thank you for doing that. thank you for being with us. stick with us. we will be right back. ♪ the movement of the tea party has played a huge role depending on your view, casting a shadow over the republican party. this season, the establishment, karl rove, fought back. there are two different narratives. with speaker boehner and kevin mccarthy in charge of the house, despite a few election defeats, the right dominates the agenda as the party and establishment candidates moved to the right in congress. joining me now, mike needham, and ed rollins, a veteran

republican strategist, and bob costa, of "the washington post." you've heard this conflicting narrative. michael, what is closer to reality? >> the second one. if you look at where we stand right now, 10 years ago transportation bills, bloated bills were flying through congress with eight no votes. farm bills were flying through. that type has stopped. we've had a real debate about these types of issues. the most interesting policy proposal from either side of the isles are coming from conservative leaders. ted cruz on energy. bobby jindal on health care. you have momentum behind conservative ideals and the

broken status quo in washington that has made so many people on the right and left that up with our nation's capitol has ground to a stoppered it is a great time to be a conservative. we are seeing that energy changing washington. >> and, do you agree? the chamber of commerce has a different agenda. >> the chamber of commerce, the republican party in the conservative agenda is one in the same. i started out as a reagan democrat. i became a conservative. to a certain extent, it is that commendation. they are the active is pretty establishment can go off without money in the special races like they have. the of taking good candidates. these aren't liberal candidates.

these are good him a solid republicans. they have basically use them to elect them. that doesn't mean we need to volunteer forces of conservatives out there that call themselves tea party. we need all the help we can get. we can't be split. >> bob am there are tensions. compared to democrats there in the same boat. between the establishment, and the moving right. >> there are certainly tensions. what kind of tensions are these? i'm not so sure there isn't ideological battle. some like senator rob portman has a different view of marriage. but i don't see an ideological civil war but one about tactics and divided government. we saw that with the federal government shut down. the ted cruz wing versus the john boehner wing. do they differ on policy, probably not. they have a different perspective on how to and of the

obama era. >> you spent time in mississippi, a brutal race down there. significant? >> it was significant. thad cochran was able to win by going after democrats and asking for their vote. i'm not sure we're going to see that across the map and 2014. some republicans like cochran and others are trying to broaden the electorate on the republican side. maybe that is reaching out to black democrats, to young voters. >> you can't forget haley barbour. one of the greats who work for me in the white house. a great reaganite. did a lot to help that election. >> everybody agrees that when you expand the party, how you expand the party may be irrelevant to mississippi. i don't know if i would use the phrase tension. there is a healthy debate going on.

it is only liberals on college campus tour against the bay. there's a real debate going on between what i would call conservatives who believe in free enterprise system and, the chamber of commerce, a lobbying group for big business. they have a right to do that. it raises itself and the fight that is going on right now. there is no ideological way you can defend boeing, greatest example of cronyism. this is are you willing to take on the cronyism that corrodes washington, d.c. so we have the moral high ground to fight on bigger issues, or are you so dependent on checks that you are afraid to take on those accounts? there is a healthy debate going on that is a good thing for the party. it shows the validity and

self-confidence we have. it is a real debate. >> there is certainly a real debate. my point about temperament is this. when you look at what is happening this week, or is a discussion about executive orders and how conservatives and republicans respond pretty speaker boehner has decided to sue the president. on the other side of the coin, you have a sarah palin calling for impeachment. it is a question of is it lawful and not for his impeachment the course of action republicans want to take. there is tension on how to go at the administration. >> for me understand the point, should the party be less close to wall street? >> they should. to be honest. wall street has gone both sides. we have to be true to our philosophy. if we want to be a significant party, we have to attract young people on fiscal issues.

we can't walk away from the moral agenda. if they want to be a part of the attraction, we want smaller budgets, things that are meaningful to most people. it has been good for billing and others. >> do you feel the same way about wall street? >> i don't think we should demand gog wall street one way or the other. we should be in favor of free enterprise. i agree with everything ed said. we can be the party of free enterprise that says companies, internet freedom and those issues can't that is the way we can resonate with younger voters and resonate with the spirit want to bring newer ship. there are very powerful interest that can write large campaign checks that don't want uber to succeed. there are huge fight between the entrenched coattails and airbnb.

we can stand on the growth that has made america great and let chuck schumer be the one fighting with the chamber of congress. >> for me ask you to jump in on the issues of immigration. that seems to divide. speaker boehner would like to bring a bill to the floor. he doesn't do it of his caucus. it's immigration and issue that will the devil republicans prequels when i was on the ground following chris mcdaniel and mississippi there was talk about populism, going against the banks. immigration was at the forefront of what he was arguing. the party losing its way in washington. boehner and others were trying to push too much to craft comprehensive deal. that is where the anger right now is within the conservative grassroots. >> you saw what happened in your

home state of california. >> i was involved in the 86 immigration bill. that would have been enforced in the employees didn't do there in part of the bill. we allowed 5 million illegals into the country. when the bill was passed, it took reagan six years to get it through. it was a bipartisan bill. we have to do something about the 14 million people who are here. nobody trusts the administration. you can't have open borders. it is we need today. >> i think there is a lot of common ground on this. nobody with more pride with the immigrant story than a grassroots conservative activists. doing immigration the legal way, try to create a great life or your family. 90% of the issue, how do we create a modern immigration system where people can come here and be safe?

there is agreement in the republican party. there is a lot of disagreement between president obama, which explains his opposition to guest worker programs. the question of legalization is one that is divisive. it is a fundamental issue of fairness. if someone overstays their visa they should be able to be here. >> what are you going to do about it? >> the first thing we should do is modernize the immigration system. we donate to solve every single problem that once. we can get into trouble when you try to do one big comprehensive 2300 page bill that solves all of our nation's ills. let's solve the problem, with a modern system that matches supply for labor and demand for labor.

>> you don't think deportation is feasible? >> i don't think anyone is suggesting it. there is an issue that the order. something needs to be down there in terms of deportation. the first step is to have a modern immigration system. had we match demand for labor with supply of labor through high school workers, guestworker programs, increasing the cap said people who come into this country is the real country. once you have done that you can look at people who are currently here and figure out who gets to stay and who doesn't. that is a question for a later date. when you build up trust the system is fixed. when you set the precedent that we are going to grant amnesty, it becomes an incentive for more and more people to come here. we need to avoid that and solve the problem.

>> we are now a country with a 300 million people in very dealing with small numbers. there is no reason we can't have 5-6 million legal immigrants come into the system every year and absorb them. >> let me turn to the movement right. is there anybody that has the inside track in your publican party now, any prominent candidates unacceptable? >> if anyone has the inside track for the movement it would be senator cruz of texas. there is no one who is having the reagan message, returning time and time again in the speeches and public statements to a hard-line that appeals to that side of the party. you see rand paul moving into the movement. he is doing a different dance. he is trying to reach to young people, the populists. >> they are different types of conservatives.

>> that is the reason the right movement likes them both. on the establishment side, risk wrist he has a lot of problems with the movement right. he is successful as a republican in new jersey, but he is not their favor. jeb bush isn't a favorite of the movement right. that is a problem. they like cruise and sarah palin, but is there anyone in the movement right who can win the nomination and win a general election? that is an open question. >> is cruz and paul, anyone would be an acceptable? >> we are 18 months away from new hampshire voting. healthy primaries are a good thing for the party. barack obama was a better candidate against john mccain because of the tough primary that he had gone through. he was a better debater. after going through that debate with hillary clinton, if you can

have a healthy debate where rand paul gets to talk about what differentiates him from ted cruz, scott walker, bobby jindal, so many people who are players, that is a good thing. >> give me an analysis of cruz versus paul. they are different. which has more appeal? >> i think both of them are great. when rand paul stood on the floor of the senate filibustering and demanding an answer from the president of united states, my wife am a democrat said i admired that. here is somebody standing on the for asking tough questions. it is a reasonable question. because he took that tough stand he got his answer. he turned a lot of people onto their publican party. when you look at ted cruz, everything that has gone on with obamacare, it was an honorable effort to put if this is behind obama care trying to stop it last october. it is issue and the president

was going to go to the links that he did to make sure this law when forward. he is exciting. that is what is exciting right now. you go through rand paul, ted cruz, marco rubio. these are exciting people. there's a lot of excitement across the party. compared to four years ago, we are in a strong edition. >> you did leave out anybody. ed rollins, ted cruz, is he reaganesque? >> he is a bright man. he and rand paul are in the top five. we brush aside the governors. we have some significant governors. you have to go through iowa, new hampshire, south carolina. he have to win one of those to get a jumpstart. the critical thing is, who can earned $20 million to win the primaries? if you don't get to iowa or new hampshire, you're probably out of it.

significant people could last longer and be viable candidates. >> on that note i want to thank you. it is 18 months until new hampshire. we can't wait. >> don't forget iowa. >> people were talking about mitt romney in 2016. >> that's another program. thank you very much. we will be back. ♪

>> the baseball season is approaching half-time three next tuesday is the mlb all-star game. here to look at the season and the state of the game we have three unique experts. joining us, petter gammons, a mlb network insider. george mitchell, who rescue the game with his 2007 report on drug use. and "the new york times" richard sandomir. i am pleased to have them. welcome. let me start with peter.

what strikes you about the 2014 season? what are you looking for? >> what strikes me is the buzz of the young players in baseball. i've worried for a long time one of the reason baseball was in trouble attracting the younger audience is it clings to the barnacles of the past. when we look at this season, we see the gilded players, we see tanaka, were from japan. john carlos of the marlins, mike trout of the angels, this generation of young players is attracting not only a younger audience through a diverse audience, and effect of the game is excepting that -- it's okay to love playing. that is what struck me most.

it carries over into the all-star game those people performing. >> what strikes me is the competitive balance that has been achieved. it was 15 years ago that the commissioner seal approached me and others to create a commission on the competitive aspect of sports. since then a degree of competition has been increasing. you have the fact that right here at midseason there are quite a number of teams hovering around 500. they have lost as many games who have won. they have a chance to make the playoffs. >> richard, you wrote a wonderful place about lou gehrig. what would he think about today's players? >> he would wonder why pitchers can go nine innings. he played so many consecutive games. i think he liked the game. he played in the shadow of babe ruth. i don't know if he liked all the colorful miss.

he was a grinder. he was someone who probably would recognize the game. it would just be too flashy for him. >> you know the enormous respect i have for you. this is a painful question. you are a consultant of the boston red sox. how did you go from worst to first to worst? >> the only thing tougher than winning the world series is winning in two years in a row. it is very difficult. a lot of luck him a chance, when you win things go this is a tough year for the red sox. >> i agree with what senator mitchell said. if you look at these two teams, they are somewhere in between all i team that overachieved last year and underachieved this year.

the transition they are trying to make with young players, they have five rookies playing for them. they have met able to produce. it has a mini power. there has been a great deal of pressure thrown on the shoulders of these younger players. being under the microscope is very difficult. the have gone through that transition period. as the make the second half of the season a prelude to spring training, they will play much better. the pressure will be off. they will at the young players' talent start to emerge. >> let me ask you what i think. the oakland athletics are the 25th highest payroll. is billy beane the greatest genius executive? >> he is most creative. the thing about billy, a lot of

what he does is misunderstood because of moneyball. he was always searching for undervalued properties. the same time, the thing that struck me going back to his playing days, he is so flexible. he has great intellectual flexibility. his ideas change all the time. how do you use the biggest home-field advantage in baseball, you never stop coming up with a way to change the way he thinks. i don't care what the business -- that makes for inventiveness and the ability to re-create himself all the time. >> he may be able to run the senate. let me ask you, the new york

yankees, your hometown team has a payroll -- they are barely over 500. >> the oakland a's have gotten so used to the constraints of his payroll, of working in that environment, the yankees have the advantage of money that just keeps coming in. you get used to being able to buy your way to a pennant. a lot of older players with spare parts playing. they have somebody else who nobody ever heard of. last are had a lot of no names. this year they have few or no names. jeter is back. sharris is ok. no certainty of a closer.

>> necessity is the mother of invention. billy beane and the a's validate that. they have met able to go deep into the playoffs past few years. this may be the year. >> they made a big trade for pitchers. >> every ballpark in america has number 42 insignia. to commemorate jackie robinson did. only 8% of the roster is african-american. what should baseball do, what can they do to attract more young african-americans? >> it is a cultural issue that goes beyond baseball. i don't think you can isolated just to baseball. in baseball, it is influenced by latin players. at the time that the african-americans were a larger

percentage, there were few latin americans. now there are more asian and non-american players. i think baseball is trying, but has to intensify its efforts to get young people engaged at an early level. soccer, for one. tennis, golf, other sports. baseball has to work harder and better. i think more inventively to try to maintain the interest of african-american athletes. >> we are lucky in boston. we have the south end baseball program. the largest free baseball league in america. they branch out into a number of teams, including the boston astros. most important, 62 kids have come out of that leak and play college baseball. including a left-handed pitcher

from vanderbilt. the things of a tie together, the educational element. it is hard. the r.b.i. program was a well intended. it is never reach that. it is important they get that together. i understand the ncaa, they eliminated minorities in college because you don't have full scholarships. the same time, if these urban groups, and they need to be funded not necessarily by major league baseball, but by people who care about their city, but if they can get them into baseball, tying together the 8k ash educational with the baseball, we will see a start to blossom. in chicago we were there, we took some kids to play the jackie robinson league. the same enthusiasm, educational

tying in, there is a lot that can be done. >> just in general, does up to make changes? the games are long. major league attendance is down. television ratings, there is not as much offense as there used to be. >> it could be the lowest offense of output in 22 years. it is pretty tough. i did a story the other day about how the world cup games are over in less than two hours. that is real-time. sports like baseball have stoppages, but they have been bloated by too much commercial inventory. and baseball players dawdled too much. they should be on a clock. they should be penalized for being off the clock.

you can change the nature of baseball. it is not a game of intense action. but there have to be things they can do, and to enforce. >> they change the game before. would you make changes? >> yes. keep it in context. there are factors that go into the figures you cited. this is an unusual year were both teams in new york and chicago are not performing well. that affects television ratings. the red sox generally our national draw on both television and where they visit other parts. >> the yankee red sox rivalry is not what it used to be. it used to really, it was a great national story. it not what it was 10 years ago. >> would you make changes to produce more offense of? >> the television game, there is one team that has 90 drop ins in

every game. it is unwatchable. i completely agree. pitchers should pitch within 14 seconds. there are a lot of things. this commissioner would do every one of them if he could. >> let me turn to the question of drugs and steroids. there was an epidemic, and your famous report was a landmark for baseball. do you think baseball has beaten the drug problem? or are there too many loopholes? >> you have to establish context . every society has laws against crime. nobody expects crime to come complete. it is an ongoing social program that has to be managed. that is the same way with drugs. stimulants have been used in

sports, not just baseball, forever. the calculus that a person makes in whether to use or not use is skewed towards use because of the tremendous financial reward. baseball deserves great credit for being the only sport to have conducted a completely independent investigation and report and implement recommended changes. >> do they use significantly less? >> use of steroids is down. the problem is, at this moment, literally right now and eastern europe, there are people trying to create new chemical compounds that will enhance performance without detection. it is a cat and mouse game. a new drug comes on, it takes

scientists a while to detective. baseball deserves credit for having the toughest program in professional sports in this country. they have to keep at it. i don't think you will ever reach a point where everyone can say with certainty there is no more drugs. >> the red sox the other day took some shots at nelson cruz who was suspended last year and is now leading the majors in home runs. should we take that seriously? >> i thought it was unnecessary. nelson cruz served a long suspension. he went out in the open market. he signed for $8 million, which is not close to what he would have gotten. he not only was with the requirements to sign him a draft choice, but there was a carryover. teams they had we justified

giving $25 million a year for three years for a guy -- what i found fascinating was the orioles through some large -- it was interesting that back-to-back days cruise and ortiz detailed how often they would get drug tested per month. it says something about the program. it is hard to know. if it is true, what i've been told, they can produce something that is in and out of your body in 5-6 hours. what good is the drug testing? it is somewhat preventative. the punishments are tremendous. the chemists are ahead of the tests. >> there have been several mentions of commissioner siegel, who will be stepping down next january. will he be able to pick his own successor?

>> he would like to. we had a story a month ago about the detroit white sox owner does not want his plan to go forward. they have hired a recruiter. we don't know whether they are going to find anybody. but he may not have -- put it this way. budd has always found a way to gain consensus. that is his job. work the phones, find a way to get agreement on what he wants, whether it is a drug program, a business thing. equally fascinating is i went and found with the senator thought about this, the news that rodriguez got a therapeutic use exemption to use steroids, one of his best seasons, knowing

the possibility is if you need test austrian for therapeutic use, he has lowered testosterone, they approved of this without him knowing. do you think this is a weird loophole that needs to be close? >> we commented in my report on the use of these exemptions. i think they have declined. my report was issued in 2007. this season followed that. i do want to same to affirm peter statement about drug testing, the single most important conclusion was that drug testing him a while essential, is not bias self-sufficient. the most important recommendation which baseball adopted was the creating a department of investigation to look into drug use independent of positive testing.

lance armstrong, marion jones, a host of athletes have illustrated you can be tested and not have your use discovered. you need strong testing. you need very aggressive programs. looking at non-testing evidence of use to complement it. >> this has been a fascinating conversation. thank you. before we go, one of your great predecessors, harry baker died. what do you remember? >> howard was the senate majority leader for most of my first four years in the senate. i came to admire him, respect him, look up to him. we became close friends after we both left the senate. we created a big partisan policy center which seeks bipartisan solutions to problems.

howard was a wonderful person, a great senator, who understood that the national interest comes first. >> he was a great leader. thank you very much for being here. thank you for joining us. ♪

>> live from pier 3 in san francisco, welcome to "bloomberg west," where we cover innovation, technology, and the future of business. i am emily chang. ahead this hour -- amazon trying to turn its drone delivery team into a reality. the company just filed with the faa, working on delivering packages less than five pounds. it is a company with no assets, no revenue, and just one employee. its shares plunged in the second half of trading after rising more than %