their subject. >> booktv weekends, they bring you author after author after author that spotlight the work of fascinating people. >> ila booktv and i make c-span fan. ..

>> host: what's next? >> guest: well, those hearings, i think, were very helpful at educating members of the committee, other members of congress and the general public about the importance of this issue. interestingly, we had already scheduled the hearing on encryption before the apple/fbi controversy broke out into the public's attention. and we were, i think, pleased with the presentations made by all of the witnesses at the hearing. but i think the number one thing that comes across is that encryption is a good thing and a very important thing, and we have got to find our way through this not by weakening encryption, but by continuing the effort to strengthen it. and you only need to look at the problems that we've had with foreign governments, with criminal enterprises, with just plain hackers stealing millions of documents from government

agencies and millions of credit card records from retail establishments, from financial establishments to know that we need to be moving toward stronger uses of encryption and stronger encryption itself. so that's got to be the foundation upon which we look at this. now having said that, it's also important to recognize the problems that this ever-increasing use of what's called end-to-end encryption causes for law enforcement as they attempt to solve crimes, prevent crimes and keep us safe. so we are going to continue to work in that direction. and as we do so, we'll recognize that this is not an issue of safety versus privacy as some people have tried to characterize it, but a matter of safety versus safety and privacy. because encryption is a tool used to keep people safe, keep information about them safe, keep their property safe and,

therefore, needs to be a critical part of how we move forward. the judiciary committee has long played a role in dealing with these issues from both the technology standpoint and from the law enforcement standpoint, and we will continue to do that. the energy and commerce committee also has a keen interest in this. so we're going to work in a collaborative effort both between the two committees and in a very bipartisan fashion to continue to develop the record on this and to look for solutions that will help to make sure that law enforcement has ways to be able to get -- gather the information they need and keep people safe. part of that's going to be law enforcement having to either find new ways to approach gathering information and utilizing more tradition always of gathering information because

i do think that over the last few decades the reliance upon electronic information gathering has probably grown too great. and the reaction to that has been an awareness on the part of the public that unlike 20 or 30 years ago, their most valuable information is now on these devices and in the cloud, if you will, whereas back a generation ago they were in vaults, safe deposit boxes, file cabinets or just maybe in your desk drawers at home. so the public is very aware of the fact that these are important things to protect, and that's going to continue. and we should not discourage that continuing. if you simply allow law enforcement to under any circumstance have a back door into everyone's computer, that back door can be entered by all those other bad actors as well as by law enforcement, and that's the number one concern we

have to address. >> are you seeing a growing consensus in the congress for legislation? >> guest: i think there's growing interest in the congress for legislation, but i don't think yet it is at all clear what that legislation would be. and so i think it's important for us to work on this, to work on it thoroughly and expeditiously but also with the recognition that we shouldn't jump at the first possible turn. and the -- possible alternative. and the congress itself should work on this and the important committees of jurisdiction should work on this, and i don't believe that we should turn it over to an outside commission as has been proposed by some. this is our responsibility, we have the expertise, we have the access to the advice from the outside that we neat to get both in -- we need to get both many public hearings and in classified briefings, and i think we ought to proceed a pace to do just that. >> host: let's bring kate tummarello of politico into this

conversation. she covers technology. >> you announced that you were going to mark up the e-mail privacy act next month which would require law enforcement to get a warrant before accessing stored e-mails. during a hearing late last year on the issue, you expressed some concerns that the bill as written could hinder civil agencies' ability to get information that they need for investigations. are you planning to try to change the bill at all as it goes through committee? >> guest: well, there have been a number of concerns expressed about the language in the bill. so let me start by saying that the core concept of this bill i have always strongly supported. and that is that you should have to get a warrant in order to get information from a third party that may be holding information just like what we just spoke about that belongs to somebody else. now, the bill in its current form will make that difficult if

not imbasketball for agencies that -- impossible for agencies that do not have criminal warrant authority. the fbi, the dea, they have no problem. but you're a civil agency that still conducts investigations like the securities and exchange commission, then you have a problem that we have had a lot of discussions with a lot of people about alternative ways to handle it. but that is only one of a number of other issues in the bill which was not written by the judiciary committee or even any member and, therefore, those discussions are going on now both amongst the committee members and with others to find ways to fix a number of concerns in this bill. without changing the core concept of bill which, as i say, i support, and that is the old method that you require, meet

one standard if the e-mail is of one age and another standard if it's a different age, we think that is by the boards, and we think a warrant should be required anytime you want to get information from any of these third parties. but there are a lot of fixes to this bill that we think are necessary, and that's why we'd be holding the markup and having a discussion about why to do. >> host: do you have a growing con consensus in the leadup to the markup? >> guest: i think there are many members who knowledging that need to be changes but which changes and under which language is yet to be determined. >> great. i wanted to shift a little bit to the issue of online sales tax which is something it seems like we've been debating for a long time in congress. the senate kind of teed up a debate for later this year when they passed the customs bill which included your permanent moratorium on taxing internet access, and for a long time that had, obviously, been tied up in the --

>> guest: i guess it's a permanent ban, huh? moratorium is by nature not permanent. >> yes, a permanent ban. you've obviously proposed a different can way to tackle this issue, so i'm kind of curious if you're planning on taking up their bill or if you're still pushing your bill or if there's a third party, like representative chaffetz's bill that you'll be looking at? >> guest: we will not be taking up the senate bill. we are interested in working with any senators who wish to help us address this issue because, again, this is an issue where we think it should be addressed both from the standpoint of the states needing and being entitled to the revenue that comes from online sales, but also from the standpoint of fairness amongst various types of retailers, brick and mortar retailers always have a physical presence with whatever their state they're doing business in, and they have to collect the sales tax.

if their customer goes out of the state online to a business elsewhere, they may or may not have to collect the sales tax depending on whether that state has a nexus with my state of virginia or whatever state the sale is taking place in. we think it should be addressed. we set forth quite a long time ago several principles which are available on the house judiciary committee's web site that we think any legislation should have to meet, and we don't feel that the senate legislation -- which this is not new, i mean, they've been working on this, and they passed a bill in the last congress, and on a number of occasions they have tried to tie that to other legislation that have been unsuccessful. we would like to work with anyone who is concerned about making sure that we don't set a precedence for allowing state -- precedent for allowing states to reach out ask and regulate businesses outside of their jurisdiction. and that's what we feel the senate bill does.

it requires businesses to comply with all of the rules of all the states and all of the subdivisions of those states that may have different add-on taxes in different localities. we think there's a much simpler way to do this, but more importantly than that is we believe there's a way to do this without having any state begun the authority to regulate businesses outside their jus diction. we've looked closely at the trend that we've seen with a number of states attempting to expand their regulatory and taxing powers by shifting the tests for this from what the supreme court set forth in a long series of cases including the quill decision and basing it on physical nexus. they'd like to move that to what is called economic nexus is so that if you have any kind of economic activity that might have any impact on a particular state, then that state wants to say, well, i'm going to regulate your business, they shouldn't have the right to do that,

because those businesses are not represented in their state legislature. they're represented in their own state legislature. so we've put forward a plan for how to do it in an alternative way. it's gotten good reviews from technology companies, from online businesses, from taxpayer organizations, from conservative groups. but we're still very open to having discussions with the states to work this out. i frankly felt when this issue first started coming up more than two decades ago that the states would work together and form a compact where they would find a way to share the revenue without having the congress have to give them authority to regulate businesses outside their jurisdiction and that they'd come to the congress, and we'd simply have to vote to flip the switch. 20-25 states have engaged in those discussions, but a lot of of states, including some big,

key states have not, so that's why this has come back to the congress with you fix it for us, but fix it in a way that we like. well, i think we should fix it in a way that protects the american taxpayer and protects our economic system that's built upon having businesses able to easily do business across boundaries without being regulated by a multitude of different states. you see this not just in the sales tax issue, but california right now is regulating the production of eggs by telling nevada and utah and any state that wants to ship eggs into california if you want to sell eggs in our state, you've got to raise the chickens expect eggs in a way -- and the eggs in a way that meets our regulations. well, all 50 states decided to get into that and have conflicting regulations, it doesn't make sense. it's why we have the commerce clause in the constitution, and it's why we make sure as we try to of this problem we don't do

it in such a way that gives states the ability to regulate interstate commerce. >> host: chairman goodlatte is also co-chair of the congressional internet caucus x another issue that's important to the tech community is h-1b visas. what's your thinking on this? it's in the news and the political news. >> guest: well, first of all, any immigration in the country should be founded on a couple of principles. one, that it is fair to american workers. second, that it encourages the education of americans so that they can get as many of these jobs as possible. finish -- but also that recognizes there are certain areas in our economy where there are short ams of workers and where if you don't meet those shortages, you run the risk of businesses locating their enterprise anywhere in the world, in china, india, wherever. and so it makes sense to make

sure that companies are able to get the workers they need in order to maintain their operations in the united states. so the h-1b program, which has existed for a long time, is an important program. it's in need of reform. in the be last congress, we passed legislation that reforms the h-1b program. and similar legislation had been introduced again in the near pooch in the congress -- future in this congress, most likely by congressman darrell issa who was the author in the last congress. and we look forward to examining that very closely to make sure that we are doing everything we can to encourage economic growth in our economy. and the h-1b program, done properly, does just that. so that's where we are on the issue. many people have been extremely disappointed with the president's lack of enforcement of our immigration laws and,

therefore, the committee has also spent a lot of time on enforcement legislation. and i would say that most people in the public want to see those enforcement measures and want to see a president enforce our immigration laws before they see action taken on legal immigration matters because fact of the matter is if you don't trust the enforcement of the law, you're going to be very worried that your job is at stake with the government not protecting you from unfair competition by people simply entering the country. not just across the border, but also entering the country legally on business visas, student visas and simply overstaying. so this is a situation where the united states is a nation of immigrants, but we're also a nation of laws. and if we are going to have a successful economy in the future, we're going to have to have respect for the rule of law.

and that's not occurring urn the leadership of the current administration -- under the leadership of the current administration, and i think that lack of effort in that regard makes it more difficult to pass legislation that's needed, addressing some reforms of our legal immigration program. so let's do the enforcement first. >> host: we've talked about three issues and potential legislation, for encryption, ec ca and immigration. it's an election year. is it going to happen? >> guest: i would say there is always the possibility of these things happening when you have a bipartisan effort to do to. i think, for example, we were talking about the issue related to internet sales tax collection. that issue is one that when we have the right solution, that will be the right time to move it, and i don't think the political environment will play a major role in that. immigration is a very hotly

contested, controversial issue, and until we address the enforcement issues first, it's going to be more difficult to address some of the other things that i certainly acknowledge need to be addressed in the process. with regard to ecpa, that is a bill that has more cosponsors than any other bill in the house right now, over 300. so i think that, again, if we find the right solution to that, that has every prospect of passing the house. i hesitate to speak for the united states on any of these issues, but obviously for it to become law it also has to pass the senate. >> another privacy issue that, you know, is kind of on everyone's mind is fisa reform because certain authorities expire at the end of next year, and you've kind of kickstarted the consideration of fisa reform in your committee. what changes do you see being to get made to that authority, and is this going to come down to the wire like it did with usa

freedom? >> guest: well, it may. now, it didn't come down to the wire in the house. in fact, we'd been working on it for a long time, we passed it in a timely fashion. the senate leadership did not agree with the legislation passed by the house, but they could not come up with any alternative that came even close to getting majority support, much less the 60-vote cutoff for debate. so they were at the end of the day forced to take the house bill and put it on the floor, but it passed the senate with a very strong bipartisan vote. again, don't want to predict what will happen with the senate, but in the house, we don't want to get up against the deadline, so we're hard at work on that. i wouldn't want to predict at this point what changes need to be made. we're still in the process of learn what the impact of making changes would have on the ability to gather intelligence regarding foreign nationals who could be a let to the united states. that's what -- a threat to the united states.

obviously, as the name implies, it is designed to gather information to keep us safe. when you gather information about foreign nationals, that does sometimes intersect with information about u.s. citizens who might be communicating with somebody outside the country and, therefore, you have to pay very close attention to making sure that those citizens' rights are properly protected under any laws that we pass because they're entitled to be protected and should be protected as provided in our bill of rights. so i look forward to continuing to work on that. i made a commitment at the time we did the usa freedom act which ended the government's mass metadata collection not just for telephone metadata, but for any kind of metadata, and not just under that particular section of the patriot act, but under a whole host of different government statutes. so i think that was well handled, and it both enhanced

our national security and citizens' privacy. we've got to handle this same one, this issue in the same manner. >> another judiciary issue that i know a lot of us have been following very closely is patent reform. there hasn't been floor angst since both -- action since both committees passed sweeping reforms last year, and i think there's some, you know, sense of worry in the tech community that, you know, just the clock is running out as it does every two years. now you see some lawmakers introducing much more narrow bills specifically aimed at, you know, venue reform so that the so-called patent trolls can't bring their cases in courts that are especially friendly to them, and that language is largely taken from your language. are you open to moving a venue-only bill? >> guest: well, if you take the innovation act which is patent litigation reform, it addresses six or seven different areas of the law. and it is are widely

supported -- very widely supported, it had a very large vote in the house n. the last congress it was passed out of the committee with a big bipartisan vote in this congress, and it is supported by more than 350 organizations around the country who recognize that patent trolling, the extortionate practice of threatening usually a small business and user of technology with a very expensive patent suit unless they pay them, you fill in the blank, $10,000, $25,000. it needs to be stopped. it is not difficult to take segments of this legislation and pass them separately. so that is certainly a possibility that we are aware of and are not opposed to. our preference would be to take the bill which has this broad support and pass it as a whole. but no decision has been made yet about scheduling that for the floor.

so we are open to to both avenues in order to do as much as we can in this area. and it's also true that courts have made some important decisions in the last couple of years that have helped, mostly helped -- some have not, but most of the decisions have helped -- in this area. and we are more than anxious to build off of that as well. >> host: is there going to be movement in this year with on music and how we listen to it and how it gets paid? the fair play, fair pay act? >> guest: well, when i became chairman of this committee, i recognized that there hadn't been a review of our copyright laws in more than 40 years. not a comprehensive review. so we understood took that -- undertook that, and we have held many, many hearings here in washington in the committee, but also we've gone out to various parts of the country to take

testimony and to have discussion panels with a wide array of the different interests in copyright law. music is certainly one important segment of that, but you also have book publishers, and you have motion picture companies, you have the people who use them not just the direct consumers, but also you have lie blares and universities and -- libraries and universities and various types of online services and so on. so trying to look at opportunities within the information that we've gathered more reform of our copyright law is what we're now focused on. we've gathered the information x now we're looking for targets of opportunity. i think it's clear that the music sector and music licensing is an area that is extraordinarily complex, in some respects archaic and may not be

fair to all of the various parties that have an interest in being compensated for the music they may write, perform, license, own. and is so looking for opportunities to bring those parties together talk to talk at rational reforms that are necessary because the laws haven't kept pace with the changes in technology. and the way people get their music today is very, very different from the draws when you taught -- from the days when you bought a 45 single and were happy to have a collection of those that you put on your small record player or the large, gigantic stereo that was in your front hall like it was in our home when i was a kid. so the way people get and enjoy music today has changed, the laws need to change as well, but it takes an effort for people to sit down and think about where they think the trends are going and then try to catch up with or

get ahead of those trends in respect to the law. because the law is difficult to change, and once we do change it, it's going to have to last for a while even though the technology is going to continue to evolve. >> on copyright there's been some debate lately over whether the library of congress is the right home for the copyright office, especially as the office has to deal with this constantly changing digital landscape. is that an issue you're looking at as part of your sweeping review? >> guest: very much so. we think it's very important that we find the right balance. i think that there are a lot of members, including myself, who believe that copyright office should remain in the legislative branch of our government. but there is concern regarding whether or not the library of congress -- and this has been enhanced by the fact that the current library has retired, and we have an acting librarian, and we have a nomination now for a new librarian.

the concern being that the copyright office needs to be able to make decisions regarding the modernization of the office, particularly turning to new technology which in and of itself would help solve some of the problems that we've talked about with regard to how people use copyright, how they're compensated for it and so on. the more easily accessible the information about what's copyrighted, what's not and who owns the copyright which is all contained in the library of congress is very, very important. and so making those reforms is at a leading edge of what we should be doing with regard to changes in copyright law. so one of those issues is can we make the register of copyrights who is basically an employee of the library of congress and reports to the librarian, can we give them some greater independence so that we cannot only target money to them as we

do right now through the appropriations process, and we work closely with the appropriators on this, but also give her the independence to headache some of the decisions and not have to be -- make some of the decisionses and not have to be held up or operating in conjunction with other aspects of the congress that have little or nothing to do with the copyright laws. >>st we are out of time. bob goodlatte is cochair of the congressal internet caucus -- congressional internet caucus, kate tummarello covers technology for politico. >> c-span, created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. >> former contribution a and nsa director, general michael hayden, discussed his book, "playing to the edge," and offered his views on intelligence and national security.

he talks about waterboarding, the apple iphone encryption debate and the brussels terror attacks. the american enterprise institute hosted this event. it's about an hour and a half. >> thank you. whoa, we're life. we're live. >> good afternoon, everybody. welcome to the american enterprise institute. i'm marc thiessen, a fellow here, and we're pleased to be joined today by former cia and nsa director michael hayden. with the events in europe this week, i can't think of anyone better than mike to enlighten us and put these, put everything that we're seeing on our television screens into perspective. mike, thank you for joining us. >> thanks, marc. thank you.

>> so you have a new book out called "playing to the edge." what motivated you to write that book, and what does it mean. >> sure. in the forward which i actually wrote at the end, the manuscript was already done, and penguin said, so why'd you write this book, i talk about being in australia in the outback at a joint facility, the australian call pine gap, we call it alice. it's really in the outback. you land on the the outback, you get on -- let me choose my words carefully -- the road. and we were having a schmooze, and we were walking off the ops floor into brilliant outback sun, and i turned to my trail january counterpart -- australian counterpart and said wouldn't you like to tak