that have engaged in the discussions but a lot of them including the big key states have not so that's why this has come back to the congress with you fix it for us but in a way that we like. i think we should fix it but in a way that protects the american taxpayer and consumer and/or economic system that's built upon having businesses easily do business across the 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 into california if you want to sell in our state you have to raise the chickens and the bags tags in a way that meets our regulations. all 50 states decide 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 we must make sure as we try to solve this problem for the states we don't do that in such a way that gives them the ability to regulate interstate commerce. >> he is also the cochair of the congressional internet caucus and another issue that's important to the technical community is the immigration visa. what is your thinking on this that's in the news and in the political? >> first of all, any immigration in the country should and the country should be founded on a couple of principles, but one that is fair to american workers into and second, that it encourages the education of americans so they can get as many of the jobs as possible but also it recognizes that that there's certain areas in the economy there are shortages of workers where you don't meet meet the shortages you run the

risk of businesses locating their entire enterprise in canada and europe and anywhere in the world in china, india, wherever so it makes sense to make sure they are able to get the workers they need to maintain their business operations in the united states. so the program that is in existence for a long time is an important program and it is in need of reform in the last congress we passed out of the house judiciary committee legislation that reforms the program and similar legislation will be introduced again in the near future in this congress most likely by the author of the legislation 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 in the 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 in the law and therefore, the committee has also spent a lot of time on enforcement legislation and i would say that most people in the public wants to see those enforcement measures and want to see a president enforce the law before they see action taken on legal immigration matters because the fact of the matter is if you don't trust the enforcement of the law, you are going to be very worried about your job is at stake with the government not protecting you from unfair competition but people simply entering the country not just across the border but on business visas, student visas and simply overstating so this is a situation the united states immigrants we are also a nation

of the law and if we are going to have a successful economy in the future, we have to have respect for the rule of law and that is not occurring under the leadership in the current administration and i think that lack of effort in that regard makes it more difficult to pass the legislation that's needed addressing the reforms in the program so let's do the enforcement first. >> we talked about three issues and legislation for encryption and immigration is it going to happen? >> we have bipartisan efforts to do so. we were talking about the issue related to internet sales tax collection. that is one that when we have the right solution that will be the right time to move in and i

don't think that the political environment will play a major role in that. immigration is a very hotly contested and controversial issue and until we address the enforcement issue first it's going to be more difficult to address some of the other things that i certainly acknowledge the to be addressed in the process with regards to 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 senate on any of these issues but obviously for it to become law it also has to pass the senate. >> another issue that there is on everyone's mind is that reform because certain authorities expire at the end of next year and you kind of kick started the consideration of the

reform and your committee. what changes do you see being made to that authority and is this going to come down to the wire? >> is made. it didn't come down in the house in fact we've been working on it for a long time and pass it in a timely fashion. the senate leadership didn't agree with the buddhist nation past decision past but they couldn't come up with any alternative that came even close to getting the majority of support much less the 60 votes to cut off the base. so they were at the end of the day forced to take the house bill and put it on the floor but when they did that it passed the senate with a very strong bipartisan vote. as of again i don't want to predict what will happen with the senate but in the house we don't want to go up against a deadline so we are hard at work on that. i wouldn't want to predict what changes need to be made. we are still in the process of learning what the impact of making changes would have on the

ability to gather intelligence regarding the foreign nationals who could be a threat obviously as the name implies it is designed to gather information and keep us safe. it does when you gather information about the foreign nationals that does intersect about the citizens who might be communicating with somebody outside the country therefore you have to pay close attention to make sure those citizens rights are properly protected under any law that we passed because they are entitled to be protected and should be as provided in the bill of rights. so, i look forward to continuing to work on it. i made a commitment at the time that we did the usa freedom act which ended the governments mass made a data collection not just for telephone that any kind of metadata under that particular

section of the patriot act that under a whole host of different government statutes so that was well handled and and that both enhance our national security and u.s. citizens privacy. we've got to handle the same one, the same issue in the same manner. >> another judiciary issue that i know we've been following very closely is the patent reform. there hasn't been any action since the kennedy and a senate judiciary passed their reforms last year and i think there's some worry in the community that the clock is running out as it does every two years. now you see some of the lawmakers introducing the bill specifically aimed at venue reforms and they can't bring their cases in the courts that are especially friendly to them and language is taken from your language in the act. are you open to moving a venue only bill? >> if you take the innovation

act which is patent litigation reform come it addresses six or seven different areas of the law and it's very widely supported and they had a very large boat in the house in the last congress was passed out of the committee with a big bipartisan vote and this congress and it's supported by more than 350 organizations around the country who recognized the patent trolling the extortionate practice of threatening usually a small business and user of some technology with a very expensive patent suit unless they pay than fill-in then fill in the blank, 10,020, $50,000 to become a multibillion-dollar industry for the patent controls and it needs to be stopped. it's not difficult to take segments of the legislation and pass them separately so that is certainly a possibility that we are aware of and are not

supposed to. our preference would be to take the bill that has a 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 both avenues in order to do as jazz we can in this area and it's also true that chords have made some important decisions in the last couple of years that have helped, mostly, some of the decisions have helped in this area and we are more than anxious to build off of that as well. >> is there going to be movement of this year on music and how we listen to it and how it gets paid, the fair play fairplay act? >> when i became chairman of the committee, i recognized there hasn't been hadn't been a review of the copyright law in more than 40 years, not a comprehensive review. so, we undertook that and we have held many hearings here in

washington and the committee but also we have gone out to various parts of the country to take testimony and have discussion panels with a wide array of different interests. music is certainly one important segment of that but you also have book publishers and motion picture companies, you have the people who use them not just direct consumers but libraries and universities and various types of online services. so trying to look at opportunities within the information that we gathered gather for the reform of the copyright law is what we are now focused on. we gathered the information and now we are looking for the opportunities.

i think it is clear that the music sector and the music licensing is an area that is asked for terribly complex in some respects archaic and may not be fair to all of the parties that have an interest in being compensated for the music they may write and perform, they may license, they may on some looking for opportunities to bring those parties together to talk about rational reforms that are necessary because the law hasn't kept pace with the changes in technology and the way people get their music today is very different from the day when you bought a 45 single and were happy to have a collection of those that you put on your small record player with a large gigantic stereo that was in your front hall like it was in my home when i was a kid so the way

people get and enjoy music today changed and the law needs to change as well but it takes an effort from 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 the trends in respect of the law because it's difficult to change and once we change it it's going to have to last for a while even though the technology will continue to evolve. >> there's been debate whether the library of congress is the right home for the copyright office especially as it has to deal with this constantly changing digital landscape. is that an issue that you are looking at as a part of your review lacks >> very much. we think it's important that we find the right balance. i think that there's a lot there is a lot of members including myself who believe that the 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 the current library and has retired and has enacted nomination now for the new library in. 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 we talked about with regards to how people use copyright and how they are compensated for it and so on and the more easily accessible information about what is copyrighted and what isn't and who owns the right which is all contained in the library is very important and so making those reforms is that a leading edge of what he should be doing with regards 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 and reports to the library and, can we give them some greater independence so that we can not only target money to them as we do right now in the appropriations we worked closely with the appropriators on this but also give the independence to not have to be held or have to be operating in conjunction with other aspects that have little if anything to do with the copyright law. >> unfortunately we are out of time. bob goodlatte is the chair of the house judiciary committee cochair of the internet caucus, kate covers technology for politico. >> an update on the situation on capitol hill after reports that shots had been fired at the capital visitors center police have been telling people in and near the area to shelter in place. we are getting word people at the capital are now being free

to leave. a look here at some of the messages from members of congress. chris and hardy of crescent hardy of nevada reporting shots fired at the capitol visitors center. all of the staff in dc safe and accounted for. one also from senator richard burr. my staff all okay. thank you to the capitol police. and one from new york congresswoman kathleen. relieved of the dc staff and interns are safe and sheltered in place grateful to the capitol police and all who responded to. a few more here as well. take a look at one from reporter rebecca saying house speaker paul ryan has been briefed on the incident at the capitol. one of his aides is telling her and then anymore here, tourists are now being let out of the capital and are free to leave. again, rollcall reporting sergeant-at-arms ace shooter had been caught and they reported earlier in police officer had been shot to has been shot to death now appears to not have

been the case. one more here from a reporter saying that the capitol lockdown has been lifted. visitors allowed in and out of the capital now but no tourists. again he looked from the members on the scene and we will continue to bring you updates on the c-span network as they become available. >> former cia director general michael hayden talked about intelligence and national security concerns that his book plane to the edge. he met with members of the audience and signed copies of the book. this is from the american enterprise institute in washington, d.c. and it's about an hour and a half.

>> good afternoon everybody. welcome to the enterprise institute. i'm a fellow here at the american enterprise institute and we are pleased to be joined today by the former cia and nsa director michael hayden. with the advent of europe this week i can think of anybody better than him to enlighten us and put everything that we are seeing on our television screens. thank you for joining us here today. so, you have a new book called plains to the edge. what motivated you to write the book and what does that mean? >> in the foreword that was already done and then they said so why did you write this book i talk about being in australia in the outback there at the joint

facility, it's really in the outback. choose my words carefully here that we get on the road and come to a t.. it's way out there. we were walking off the floor into the brilliant outback sun and i turned to my australian counterpart and said what didn't you like to take your citizens in and show them what the kids are doing and of course the answer was yes. well, that is kind of the book. in the longer form and i will spare you this because i disagree, i don't know of something so essential to american democracy that is less well known by the american population than american espionage. so the purpose of the book is to

bring my countrymen to the degree a loud by law and in spite of that come introduce them to the people and many of the things they do under the half. that is the objective. it comes back to something so essential and so consistently misunderstood. >> what is plain to the edge mean and are we playing to the edge? >> that is my wife's title she picked that out. but she had read the manuscript and i said we are asking for a title now, too. so that's what she put and it's a reflection of her reading of the manuscript into the conversations we have the last ten had the last ten years. in essence, the summary is edges are created by the american political process by the american democratic process. once you've got those lines come here are the limits. when the circumstances dictate,

you have a moral responsibility to play all the way to the line even though you know when you do that it is inevitable that he will have an ugly hearing, an ugly op-ed, probably one or the other that ever shows up at the world herald. [laughter] from one paper to another along the coast and frankly your life will be less pleasant than it would otherwise be but the point i make in the book is if you play back from the edge you may be defending yourself or maybe even protecting your agency that you're not protecting america so there is this dilemma, this moral compulsion but if the government authorizes and the situation demands it, you have to go all the way to the edge of the rights otherwise you're not doing your duty. when cbs very kindly arranged a session on sunday morning and it

was a very generous peace, david and i flew up to pittsburgh, my hometown, and we filmed a big chunk of it at the practice facility and one of the elements of the show was my walkinglong the sideline with david at the practice facility and one of the conversations we had that didn't make it into the final product as we were walking along i said those are the marks if you are really conservative and are really concerned, and you could tell your team i want to avoid any potential mistakes so i do not want to see the ball moved outside of the marks. you can run all the plays you want but the ball isn't going up. and i said i know how the game is going to end. the team is going to lose badly. you've got to use the whole

field. so anyway, that is my mark. >> one place they don't seem to have a lot right now is europe. [laughter] didn't mean to make you choke on your water. so the four days before the attacks in brussels they captured the logistics chief that carried out the attacks and he was immediately given a lawyer and told he had the right to remain silent in this than the first night in the hospital, second in the judicial hearing and then was put in the criminal justice system and during those days she successfully protected the information he had how it operates, how it moves and the attack happened. isn't this something of an indictment of the approach to the terrorism investigation? >> the answer is yes. i think your premise is true. this attack that is very

sophisticated clearly already matured to a certain point i think was put in motion because they feared he was going to say something that would interfere with it but this was a fully grown plot and it didn't get cooked up sunday in somebody's basement. i think that you are right he knew -- they feared and therefore they acted. there are so many ways of coming at this question. when i'm the director of the cia and i get to go to the german embassy, the ambassador is frankly bringing it in every two years for lunch so it's the ambassadors from the union to the u.s. and from time to time

they would bring in an american. i suspect bob gates may have shown up. so we took this very serious. we could have been talking about soft topics and building deeper intelligence cooperation. i went with renditions and interrogations. [laughter] it was a very candid, polite, respectful valuable conversation about page two or three of my notes as you know we had good speechwriters but this is one i kind of did some work on. page two or three i said look what the candid and let me tell you what i believe and my agency beliefs and frankly what i believe and my country believes we are a nation at war with al qaeda and its affiliates this war is global in scope and i've

noticed the response abilities i have for my citizens to take this fight that enemy wherever they may be. the war, al qaeda, global, take the fight. there wasn't another country in the room that agreed with any of those sentences. they not only rejected them for themselves but clearly they felt that we were not on solid legal ground in terms of applying them to us and so you do have this dichotomy. there's another part in the book i talk about targeted killing and an example i have to use is one that is made public with the killing of the al-shabaab leader in 2009 by the navy seals. there was no attempt to capture. this was a kill operation carried and i make the point there wasn't an intelligence service in europe that would

have given the information to enable that. it would have been unlawful under their law to enable the americans to do something with something they viewed to be an illegitimate use of force. so you do have this sharp dichotomy between the north american view and the european view of what this really is. now we have a lot of americans who claim if we don't do this in the law-enforcement model we are therefore being lawless which isn't true at all. there's a whole new body of law that we can depend on so that's one point. i'm sorry, wrong answer. the second point is the europeans have an incredibly pathological structural problem and by pathological and using the literal meaning it would lead to the death of the organism unless you fix it and by pathological problem is it is the division of labor between

brussels as a european capital, not the victim, between brussels and the sovereign state. the sovereign states exported some big chunks to their sovereignty. they've exported all questions of commerce, a lot of questions about finance and money and frankly all questions with regards to privacy. we have a dialogue with the europeans we are talking to brussels for the commission of this or that or the other thing. national security remains in the capital. it remains a national responsibility and the pathology that i see for the last couple of years you have a bunch of folks up here in the institutions making declarations about essential privacy and what constitutes the essential privacy free from the burdens of

guaranteeing the safety of their citizens. now, we've got issues here. we get the privacy mavens and security mavens in the same room and really have ugly fights. the europeans don't. you have a body up here creating rules in which the only imperative is how much privacy can we guarantee and then we have these folks down here that have to live with those rules and they are rules that have been developed i think i'm overstating this probably a bit about rules that have been developed largely absent of security considerations. ess

>> working for what is almost all of the time a dysfunctional government. >> you have no one responsible for the preventing of the attacks and when they cannot prevent the attacks and they are not responsible but -- >> what i think is going to happen, mark, you have the fill in the blank exit on the monetary unit, and we may or may not have patched that over, now we are creating torque because they exported border security to the other institutions and they are feeling uncomfortable and that will create torque on the union as it is constructed. and i think as i think through what i just said, this

privacy-security torque is going to create great tension within the union. unless the union adapts to what i think i just pointed out this is going to get worse and lead, frankly, to the crippling of the union besides whatever it might do with peace powers and so on. >> the logistics chief that was captured he is what we would have called in the cia contact the high value detainee. someone who had information ability the whereabouts, locations, identities and so on and so forth. when we captured a high value detainee not only did we not read them their rights we didn't announce their capture necessarily because we knew if you did, if people knew they had one of their people were captured they would close down trails, shutdown e-mails.

in europe we announced capturing and every leading saying he is cooperating which likely accelerating the attacks. is that a mistake? doesn't this show the need for secret detention? >> there is lots you can go back and run the video and say not so much. you can imagine the political pressure on the leaders to show progress and competency in terms of we are doing this and that. but i agree with you. in a world in which you are still focused on security and don't know when the next shoe is going to fall these are self-defeating things. if we had picked him up in another area i would buy into what mark said. that is not current american policy. that is not how we do it.

there is a fair argument if he had been picked up because of the energize of the local law enforcement and in the homeland i am running a deeper shell to claim we should start a detention inside the american intelligence services. that is just a practical matter inside how we americans view ourselves and how we pick between using the law if forcement model and the law of conflict model. it would even earmark, even in cia, it would have been a tougher case to use the law of arm conflict model. with all of that said, one needs to make a judgment based on the totality of circumstances you find yourself in at the time. the complaint people like me

have is not that we didn't do this or that. it is that we don't do it in any case and we have taken that tool off the table. people talk to me about would you like to get the techniques back and i stopped the conversation and first of all i would like to capture somebody that we are not already committed to putting through an article three court process. >> that seems to be missing today. but there is of course, the obama administration, frankly, got caught in the same criticism with the underwear bomber where they read him his rights immediately and it was a mistake. and even if the obama administration capture someone today they don't read them their rights on the first day. >> that is right. that is appellative to the point mark just described to you. i am a little worried. i like miranda. i don't want miranda adjusted

c casually as it protects me and you. rather than turning the dial back on miranda because you chose to do through a law enforcement model but we will go light on miranda and i don't want the feds going light there. i think the solution is rather than fooling itwing smee rely on why don't you process on the law of unconflict model when miranda doesn't apply and anything you develop won't be used in a court of law. if you want to put it in the law enforcement process later i don't care. >> that is the difference between the law enforcement approach and the intelligence-driven approach where you are capturing something after an attack happened and you are trying to get them to cooperate for a c

conviction. you can build rapport. >> they can tell you i will arrest your mother, father, and your kids even are going to jail. >> district attorneys every day say to somebody would you rather be in a federal prison or the general population in ruckers island? if you cooperate we will take the death penalty off the table. that is threatening a detainee. >> that would be frobidden in the army field. we look back and we can see 9/11 coming. you have the first world trade center attacks, the embassy bombings and other things. and now we have had the paris and brussels bombings.

it seems like this story is repeating itself. the director of national intelligence testified it is likely isis will try a directed attack against the united states in 2016. general clapper said they are not going to be happy with just lone wolf aic attacks. are we reliving this movie? >> yeah, we are. a couple things and i will try to be very efficient because i know you have a lot of question. if this is the degree of threat we exist under. this is where we were on september 10th, 2001. through the efforts of two somewhat different administrations we depot better. we really did. in 2011, we got about here. since about 2011, it has gone back up. right?

now here is not here. we are not yet to that point, mark. we are safer than we were on september 10th however we are less safe than 2011-2013. if that is what you meant by your question the answer is yes. we are kind of going through the same cycle. in terms of what it is we do about it i try to do this extended metaphor on morning joe a few days ago and only had three minutes. if you take everything mark talked about. why didn't you do this, why didn't you hold him, how far do you want to put the metal detectors out from the airport now. let's think of soccer. we just had an argument about stopping penalty kicks or the minimum we talked about we need a bigger, stronger, faster goalie because somebody put the

thing in the back of the net. and the trend line and the plan i would go to the europeans with, mark, the trendline is when something like this happens start talking about goalies. how come you didn't go with this guy? have better security at the airport? why didn't you arrest him sooner? why didn't the politicians make the statements? somebody has a real tubt opportunity to score first. practice defense, get better full-backs, train the goalie. but that is not a way to hand. if you are playing inside the 18 or stop penalty kicks you know what is going to happen. it is going to go back to the net again. so the metaphor is control the midfield and to do that you should be doing the things before the attacks.

collecting metadata, comparing the meta data -- you know this stuff. you do all of those things that a lot of our european friends are ringing their hands about. i am less inclined, i might criticize the belgiums for what they did immediately but less inclined to criticize them for what their police did in that 96-hour period. i am more inclined to say you want to have that conversation you thought you had two years ago about electronic surveillance? want to do it now with a better handle on the facts and why this is being done? i thought the soccer metaphor would work better in europe than baseball. and i mean it. that stuff that became so controversial is about controlling the mid field. david ignasious with a wonderful

police saying the people are lining up demanding more control. after you establish control of the mid field and you can blunt aatta atta attacks before they get into your airports, why don't you think about scoring goals? get into the attack zone and worry about threatening their goal level. aggressively take this fight to this back to my speech in the german embassy take this fight back to where they reside so get real tough with the islamic state. i am going to be overlydramatic

and maybe it isn't a good idea but here it comes. i would not be opposed to use social media and we blanket that part of the earth called the islamic state with the notion if you move oil you going to die. period. i think that is a legitimate act in the armed conflict we are engaged in. you make it clear we are serious about this now. the point i am trying to make is a lot of the conversation gets dragged down to the last 18 yards but the real answers are deeper and they harkin back to those debates over somebody's cellphone or a country's metadata. >> the administration would arg you they are getting tough in those places.

they just killed the number two leader of isis and claim they have taken back 42% of isis territory. it is like after you let cancer go in treated for many months you reduce the tumor by 40% but it was in your lungs but it spread to your liver, stomach and brain. brussels, paris and wherever the next attack is. is that something to be celebrating or do we need to hit them before they metastasize? >> you are asking me a political question as opposed to an intelligence question and i will give you a political answer. professionally, i think you could fairly characterize our effort against isis as what we call a level of effort to campaign. we have been told we are going to do that much. okay, big guy, go do everything you can with that much and under these rules. i would say, and there are

probably good friends of mine in uniform who would disagree with me, i would say we are not working backward from the desired effects we wish to create. and therefore we sourcing and governing our effort based upon the desired outcomes. here is what we can offer, here are the rules, go do the best you can. we are actually good. i said in another venue recently i got to be part of the most magnificent part of an artillery group. we are a hell of a killing machine. but i think i am disappointed with the pace and the level of effort. a good friend of mine, dave, did the planning for gulf war one. if he were here he would say the current air campaign is like a

fine irish mist when airpower was invented by god to be a thunder storm. when you think of it. we are hitting at the rate of 20 strikes per day. i would have amped it up. something else i would do, too, is i would move the threshold with regard to our tolerance for collateral damage. on the outside looking in, i think the right number for collateral damage, is zero. and i would make the argument that may not be a moral position because if you pass up multiple opportunities because of fear of collateral damage you may actually end up with more dead innocent people because you have not suppressed the enemy's capacity to do harm because of your almost total allergy to

collateral damage. these are all hard choices. it is really unfair to second-guess. but you asked so that is kind of my -- by the way, this is one war where the kinetic fight is ideology and one war where the battlefield to defeat the enemy undercuts the jihadist narrative. these guys are somebody because they are successful and they can advertise themselves as representing both the hand and will of god. nothing undercuts that like battlefield defeat. >> and if they know the rules of engagement for civilian cas causalities and think there is a drone flying overhead they go into a hospital or school. >> their presence in rocka with

civilian targets is an example of this. >> you say we are better at protecting the homeland than we were before 9/11 but isn't the threat becoming more complex? before 9/11 we had danger from one terrorist organization operating in one country mostly afghanistan. isis is spread out all over the world and you have the al-qaeda affiliates like al-shabaab, boka haram, and others. we face the new dynamic of free market competition in the jihadi world where you have isis and al-qaeda and they are competing and how do you win the fight? by hitting us. >> it is more complex. i read the cia press clips every morning.

i go get my wife coffee and come back and she said anything interesting in the clips. and frequently i say yes, what a great day to be a former former cia intelligence official because of what you described. let me riff on that a little bit. as much as i say what i just said here i and people like me understand that you cannot kill your way out of this problem. if we could kill our way out of the problem this thing would have been over 14 years ago. there are other broad issues, mark, we have to take on and i think everyone in this room would agree we are less good at that about the killing people thing. so that is the part of our game we really need to recharge. it is part of the gar weme ove don't have direct control, part of the game we are far more dependent upon our ali in the islamic could to achieve

success. to begin that conversation, one thing i think we have to do is get over the fantasy this has nothing to do with islam. okay? the response to this has nothing to do with islam is they all hate us. and i believe this forgets that and they are both wrong. i think what we need is an acceptance. this has something to do with islam and it isn't about all islam or for god's sake about all muslims. the king of jordan said it had something to do with islam. he said it was a civil war against islam. the president of egypt is waving his fingers saying it is about islam and you guys fix it. these crazies are denigrating and i am careful how hazardous

this and i understand this is one of the world's great monotheism but there is a struggle on how it wants to deal with certain issues. we cannot resolve it but i don't think we serve anybody by pretending that is not what is happening. perhaps we can empower the voices within islam that we think have the best answer not just for themselves but for islam and people who like the king of jordan. there is a lot to be done and i guess what i am saying is the complexity is beyond the battlefield threat complexity. there is a deeper complexity and our tools are indirect and distant. >> they are killing more muslims than they are people in the west at least for now. >> i would often view that much

hyperbolic that not about truth that we are merely collateral damage. we are the collateral damage in what is fundamentally a fight within one of the world's great monotheism. >> they were defeated militarily but rejected by the very people they claim the represent. >> who should have been most attracted. the sunni tribes. >> so they came to call the sunni mass to drive the u.s. out and the sunni masses joined with america to drive al-qaeda out. how can we empower people in the muslim world to hate isis, al-qaeda, and radical islam to join us in that fight? >> listen to woody alan who says

life is about 85% of showing up. and i realize that is different than saying out of our way, arab, friends. that is even worse. but given historical senses and who we are in the world right now, which sent a permanent condition and doesn't create a condition we are more intelligence -- special than anyone else, but our showing up creates opportunities for things to happen, our not showing up actually cuts in the other direction and in fact, might even be a negative because then others begin to go do other things on their own and the model is good at it. i am suggesting invading yemen for example.

it makes the situation worth than it would otherwise be. i am not calling for the return of maneuver gates to the western iraqi desert but i think there is a powerful solution. i don't understand, and this is beyond context of the book, i am close out with snowden i don't understand the lack of the no-fly zone and things that i think broadly would be accepted by what i would call the civilized world, christian, jew or islamic. >> you have accomplished something not a single gop candidate has done which is you got donald trump to back down. donald trump said he would employ waterboarding or worse and openly uses the word torture for what we would advocate as president and you pointed out the u.s. military wouldn't obey

the command to break the law and he backed down but said we have to change to the laws to allow torture. is that playing to the edge or going well beyond it? >> do you have a copy of my book there? >> we do somewhere. >> that is okay. i'll pretend. i will do hand puppets. i'm on my book tour and my wife says carl, play to the edge, dummy. i actually thought i was going to have to spend the book tour why our collective aggressiveness in going to the edge. that didn't happen because of the dynamics of the political campaign the book tour was more or less consumed by my explaining there were edges. there were things, no we are not going to do that. rather than explain way we were here, all right.

i was explaining why we would never be here. it was incredibly remarkable. the easy one was and he will kill their families, too. that is the one where bill mar asked me and i said that is not going to happen. the american military will not do that. and that is different from ratcheting up the bar on collateral damage. i would be willing more willing to embrace a little more risk for the desired military affect. but he is talking about killing the innocent. that is bad. that is, i mean, just morally but incredibly stupid operation ally. you are still mad for 9/11 and we are 15 years. why do we want to create that dynamic inside our enemy by going to kill their non-combatants? the tougher sell was his call

for waterboarding which i do talk about in the book and my agency did and we take take off the table but which i justify as having been effective and defend the people who did it. there is a little more nuance. i haven't had as much chance to get into it so i will do it her. he is doing it with enthuiasm and we did with regret. he is doing it because they deserve it. we never did it because they deserved it. we did it because we felt they knew something that we had a right to know in order to keep our citizens safe. ahe appears to want to do it frequently. we did it rarely to three folks. his language on waterboarding was so bad it actually gave waterboarding a bad name. okay? and i recognize and there is a

lot of language in the book about people who object to our having done that. all i argue and you know this is we did it based upon, out of duty, based upon the legal judgment we had at the time. and it did in fact lead to information. i did regret it and the honorable opinion is don't do it. that is off. and u.s. law says it is off now. i made the point and made the point on the book tour and make it in the book, if a future president decides to return to this and creates the legal framework where it is no longer unlawfully i say he better bring his own bucket because the cia is not going to do it again. as i explain in the back two or

three chapters of the book, the people who did this in good faith believed they were covered by the government's opinion felt a betrayal about what happened to them after the change of administrations. there was a show called spy masters on show time talked to the 12 former known directors. we didn't meet with one another. they interviewed us separately for four-seven hours. they have several of us saying will the cia waterboard again and everyone says no. that is not a rejection of the judgments made or the actions performed and the intelligence derived in the past. it was, we thought when we did this thing for you, the big you,

320 million you, we had a social contract that the republic had our back, but turns out this was one off year election cycle and the agency is taking a no-fooling lesson from that. it a very complicated issue, mark, and the most offensive part of the current debate is how stupidly oversimplified the discussion has been made. >> for us waterboarding is the end. for trump it is the starting point. >> i agree. i would add to the yin and yang here. yeah. >> the reality is we do sneed--n do need some interrogation process today that doesn't include waterboarding. we will have to start capturing

people and interrogating them. and people who disagree with what was done by the agency, they would have to acknowledge there was a line and the government, whether you disagree where the line should have been, the government did acknowledge a line, stay within a line, and try do that. trump wants to erase the line. doesn't that undermine our ability to create something we need that is more limited? >> hence back to my statement i will probably regret about giving waterboarding a bad name. that is my point. he is poisoning what has to be a very carefully crafted deeply conversation. this pulls us back away from that discussion and poisons it.

>> let's talk about something that is on everyone who has an iphone and that is the fight between apple and the opening the phone of the san bernardino shooter. in the tech world, you have people like bill gates who say ought to be doing more and in the national security world people like you have backed apple. explain that to us. >> i do shame more towards apple. i will not explain the question. this audience knows the question. there is a constitutional question. okay? i am not a constitutional lawyer so i am not going there. i think the government has within its authority to compel

what they want apple to do it. i don't think it a constitutional question. but apple is showing the first, fourth and 13th amendment to the union including involuntary service issue. i don't think there is a privacy issue. he is dead and it was never his phone. so i don't think the specific act engages questions of security versus privacy. i am over here looking at this purely in a security lens. i think it would be a good thing if the government could get that. i think the government has the authority to demand it. i just think it is a bad idea. i think it is a bad idea because jim clapper for the last two or three years said the most serious threat to american safety and security is cyber and you have an american company who developed a pret pretty good

cryptographic system because the government can't get into it. and now the government is going to demand they create something that doesn't exist which as a way to get through. what happens is done and this would be less secure than it was. and less secure even if you keep it over here and it requires multiple keys and you have to go to a court and all that. the fact you created this by definition it is less secure than it would be had you not created it. and the director said when we were going after a tough algorithm and probably not going to be able to break this thing and i have a crypt person coming in and they say we just found out someone else has been granted the technical term here extraordinary access through the encryptions. okay? my response was thank you, lord

because -- by the way, that may not be enough. but the odds of my getting in were increased because i have additional tools and paths i could use to get beyond the encryption. when this began, i wanted to side with the bureau and the theory under which i could decide with the bureau was this is good, this is bad, and i am not sure this inevitable leads to that. but the longer it goes on the longer i am convinced it is not a one and down. it has been testified we are asking for this phone but this is a precedent for many other cases. there a dozen around the country that will immediately be brought into a courtroom.

an attorney in manhattan has a room with 75 waiting to go. so i don't think it is a one and done. i was trying to stay over here but now i am convinced it can't stay over here. this leads to a less secure operating system. i can do this two or three more and i will. let's just say i am wrong. we decide to open the phone. what it is we are done through legislation or court order is we have forbidden technological progress. i am not feeling good about that being the winning hand. if we are successful doing this in north america the sum total is we would push it offshore which i think it is the worst of all possible outcomes we could get. and there is more. if the government gets the

authority to do this, what is apple supposed to do when other governments, for their own legitimate law enforcement reasons now come to apple and say i have to get in here, it is a fallen down guy. you know how bad they are. let me get in the phone. or the egyptian government comes saying i have to get in here, he is a terrorist, and i am kind of suggesting some countries are broad deaf nigfinitiodefinition. how do you answer that? one more turn of the wheel. it doesn't matter. the march of technology is a long arch in which it will become more and more difficult to retrieve content from intercepted communications. there is nothing we can do to stop that.

my counsel is get over it. understand no matter what we do with apple it will be harder and harder to get content. it doesn't mean it will get impossible to get actually intelligence out of intercepted communication but you will not be able to get content. apple created this problem by creating this powerful operating system with powerful encryption. apple has also given that instrument in your pocket incredible volumes of digital exhaust blowing out there into the atmosphere that a good intelligence service can collect, and i am not talking about collecting against you but foreign targets, that a good absence service can collect and gleam a lot of information. one more point. did you ever think the last 15 years were the anomaly?

did you ever think what happened recently is you and i used to keep things that were really well protected and decided to put them up here in our phone where they were readily retrievable and now we are regretting that. and the major muscle movement on here is returning to status go ante that we lived through a period of 10-15 years where electronic surveillance, law enforcement or foreign intelligence, has had a golden age. we all put it up there not knowing how vulnerable it was. now knowing, you are returning to the state back here. you are putting it up here but far more protecting it. that is probably too long an answer but my bottom line is i

am shading apple on this one. by the way, think of all of the things that mike rogers and jim clapper have said about this dispute. okay. you are done. they have not. this is not fundamentally a foreign intelligence problem. it is a law enforcement problem. the foreign intelligence guys know they can cheat. >> one more question on apple. play devils advocate. hasn't this backfired on apple? the third party came to them and put out the word and said we can break into this. all of a sudden it is -- >> a, we will see if it happens. all right? b, if i am still director of nsa

and apple says we are not going to do this and i am agreeing the next phone call is down to omb saying encryption is getting better. i need another $5 million because i will kick my way in. that is fair game. that is different from telling apple tool build something that may make the system less secure. look, there are so many factors bearing on this and they suggested in the book. we used to do this math, mark, against encryption that was not universally available and when you do that game on. kick the door in. but fundamentally what happened now is it is against encryption we depend on.

>> fbi goes to apple and says help us get in. they say no. let's assume this hack works and they can break in. apple has a security vulnerability that the government knows about. are they going to tell them? no, because they will not help them. >> do not presume that answer to the question that may be the government's preferred position for the moment but we had a debate about nsa and vulnerabilities and what they should do when they discover or create a vulnerability in encryption and the outcome of the debate is nsa has been shading too much in the direction of exploiting rather than fixing them. >> they should help them but there is no incentive. if they figure out a way to get into iphones --

>> the incentive to help apple is their broad moral responsibility to make america a safer and more secure place. >> all right. let's talk about the threat environment we face today. if you go back to 1990's. actually 1998 when george h bush was running for president and nobody asks him about saddam hussein. in 2000, when george w bush ran for president nobody asked about al-qaeda and 9/11 happened and the presidency was dominated by the war on terror. we are in the middle of a presidential debate and what is it nobody is asking the candidates about that could end up dominating the next presidential term? >> i used to get this question in government and i would be here with groups like this and the question is what do you think is going to surprise you

this year, general? my matrix is how much time do we have and how bad are they. tucked down here in the corner are things that are urgent; cyber and terrorism. a tsa at dulles makes a bad decision will not threaten the existence of the republic. i go out three to five years and i get another flavor of threat. a group of nation states i took the label ambitious brutal and lethal north korea, pakistan, and i throw in the russians.

it will not go bump tonight but if it does it is worse than what happened in brussels. we have three-five years to get a handle on that. i go out to ten years time line and way out here is china. i don't want you to thing i am treating china like al-qaeda or china like north korea i am just saying the accommodation of the people's republic into the a stable global system is the most serious security challenge we have but we do have time. that is how i kind of make it. it is not quite an answer to the question that you asked -- >> tell me what you don't know, general. i do think the brussels' event will create incredible torque in stability in the world that is important to the west that added to the torque created by the

immigrant crisis and the instability with eu members we will have to start paying attention to europe. let me be kind you have a populus government movement in several european countries and if they were to be successful they would i think challenge rice and george h bush's vision of a europe that is whole, free and at peace. >> let's talk a little bit about the tension between the intelligence community and the press. in the book you write a great deal about the efforts you went to to prevent "the new york times" from preventing things that were harmful to national security but you say informed public is the light of the de c democra democracy. how do we strike the balance between the informed public and

the security? >> the most important part of the book is a conversation i had with carly fiorina who was the head of the advisory board. the question i gave her was this: this is '07 and pre-snowden. i asked her will america be able to conduct espionage inside a culture that demands more transparency and public accountability from every aspect of american life? and they went to the mountain top of wherever she and her team went and came back and i asked her again and she looked me

right in the eye and said too close to call. which is important. our political culture in terms of what it demands before it trusts government is moving out from under the social contract the american intelligence community thought we had with american society. that is covered in the book pretty thoroughly. nsa was backfooted by the snowden stuff and i am disappointed that the administration particularly didn't explain things more quickly and completely and just better. one of the reasons the nsa backdated on the 215 program, the meta data, let's say you have been approved by two presidents, it was legislated by congress and well known with the

oversight committee and over seen by the fisa court. >> if we are able to show more of this -- right now we will break away and go to capitol hill to hear from the capitol chief from the dc chief from the shooting on capitol hill. >> two million people a year are screened through the capitol visitor center. today at approximately 2:39, an adult male subject entered the north screening facility of the capitol visiting center. the individual withdrew a weapon and pointed it at officers during the screening. an officer fired and struck the suspect who was treated by medical personal. the suspect was taken into custody and transported to the hospital for treatment. the suspect is currently

undergoing surgery and condition is unknown at the time. a weapon was recovered on the scene. the congressional complex was locked down and uscp ordered a shelter in place based on the initial investigation at approximately 3:40 the lockdown was lifted and all buildings except for the cbc which remains processing for crime scene. suspect's vehicle has been located on capitol grounds and it will be cleared of hazards and seized pending service of the search warrant. an uninvolved 35-45 year old female bystander suffered what appeared to be minor injuries and was transported to the hospital. no officers were injured. it has not been determined how many officers fired their weapons. the us capitol police

investigation department, capitol police responsibility, and the metropolitan police are conducting investigations into this matter. i stress much of this information is very preliminary. i want to stress while this is preliminary based on the initial investigation we believe this is an act of a single person who has frequented the capitol ground before and there is no reason to believe that this is anything more than a criminal act. as additional information is gained, i will provide as much as i can through our public information office. i want to assure the american and visiting public the u.s. capitol officers continue to protect the capitol and cbc for all who visit. we expect regular order of business tomorrow morning at the capitol visitor center so people

can safely visit. this is preliminary information and as we get more information i will be happy to provide it to you. >> is this suspect known to the capitol police? >> while i have not received conformation about who the suspect is we believe the suspect is known to us. >> how was he known to you? >> from previous contacts. >> disruptions, sir? >> chief, have charges been filled? >> not at this point. >> chief, there has been a lot of talk about security lately in light of what happened in brussels. this checkpoint was designed to identify a threat before getting into the capitocapitol. are you satisfied with the response? >> it appears the screening process works the way it is supposed to. that is correct.

>> this is preliminary and i know you want as much information as i can give you i don't want to give you bad information. i would rather give you information when i can confirm it. i will try to provide as much information as i can as i get it. thank you very much. >> if you can hear me, that was u.s. capitol police chief and he said the suspect tried to get into the capitol visitor's center today. that was matthew verderosa.

[inaudible conversations] >> a lot of reporters have a very brief news conference from chief verderosa from the u.s. capitol police who just took over that role. looking at tweets from reporters. earlier today an incident that got underway at 2:39 with a suspect entering the capitol visitor center, he was shot and undergoing surgery, the chief said a female bystander was injured but no officers were injured t the information the chief stressed was quote very preliminary and he said it seems

to be quote the act of a single person who had frequented the capitol grounds before. looks like we will hear more information from the u.s. capitol police and possibly from the met p metropoliton police. the visitor center itself is closed for the dureration of the day. we will update you as we can. we will take you back to the discussion with general michael hayden. >> lebanon could be put in there, libia certainly, this is not about getting back to the stable world order from which somebody has pushed us out.

that is gone. in answer to your question, we -- where is paul nitz? the next president will need him to scope how fundamental the issues have now become. until we do that we will be doing this for a long time. >> in the back over there? >> hi. >> thank you. in your opinion general, after the paris and brussels attacks, how important is it the persh mega should be on? >> i think that is called a leading question in the american court. so, it is actually tying very closely to what i just said.

all right? this is me being critical of policy which isn't quite the intelligence officer role but here it goes. if you don't believe iraq existing why would you insist on approval from baghdad? i understand, if i am still backing government and in the sit room, one has to be careful what one says, and how one does think. but my instincts are, and this is all about a structure in the middle east, i think a pretty useful building block would be the kurds. i realize my turkish friends are concerned, and iraqi , and syrian friends are concerned. but if the old is gone and the

new is yet to be created a good conversation is what is the future of the kurdish people and the other kurdish region in syria now. i would not constrain myself to the old models. and how did isis come out? long history. the most recent one i will tie to the american departure in 2011. and this is not we would defeat isis and use our kids to kill them. it is simply we were an effective stopper in a bottle that was unsettled still. while we were there, the three factions in iraq each of the three distrusted the other two and were convinced as long as the americans were the in some numbers the other two wouldn't eat them. as soon as we left, they all feared they were going to eat them and began to move to their

respective corners and act in ways they thought were defensive but were perceived by the other two factions as being horrifically offensive and that created the petri dish for them to rise up. >> two more questions >> back in the day -- back in the day, what were the rules of engagement or the rules for rendition to a third county somewhere? >> we had to have assurances from the third countries and assurances we believed the prison would be treated humanely. then we embrace ad moral and legal obligation to ensure that is indeed what happened. i do get the question how could you be sure and the answer i

would give you would be after all cia is an intelligence organization. so that was the ground rules. the rendition policy is the same as it is today. we insist on guarantees and so on. i find it outputting like we were not concerned about the laws. there is powerful power between 243 and 244. one thing the europeans mark on is not how much president obama is different than bush on terror but how much they are alike. i would argue there is a bigger

difference between the first bush administration and the second bush administration than the bush administration and the current administration. but i have to admit -- there is a great line i quote in there after snowden but it applies to everything. it as a quote in which a european, a german, is deeply lamenting, he thought it was just george bush. we thought there were two america's. now we know there is just one america which i respond, cool! ... the lady way in the back. >> you had mentioned some

limitations. >> i am am with the clear broadcast groups. you mentioned limitations from some of our counterparts in terms of sort of the fight on terrorism especially as it relates to intelligence. does this mean that it's time for the u.s. to have a larger global role and whether they be okay with that? >> we do have a large global role and we have stepped into that. i would invite that we not be the lone striker if we actually got somebody on either wing to pass the ball to take my metaphor even one more in that we have to sincere conversation with our punitive teammates about the midfield and you realize we could argue about the

specifics but it's not the forces of darkness trying to suppress the papacy. let's do that one again with maybe a better understanding of what it was and then in regards to this definition if you think you can handle this problem at the border and make it go away, you are wrong and therefore why don't you come up here and start playing ball on the offensive? we don't have much time and it's coming out harsh. this is a conversation among people that fundamentally share our values and stand with whom we should be able to have these conversations, so it is time for us to do this. the german embassy thing i was talking about, i am hitting this pretty hard we feel comfortable doing this and i'm getting pushback. finally, the ambassador -- this is related in the book, the

ambassador wants to kind of find some common cause. so i'm standing next to him talking to the ambassador and he looks up at me and assess general, i mean, surely you must admit that we are children of the enlightenment. [laughter] and i said yes sir mr. ambassador, but europeans seem to be putting a lot and we are over here with hobbes which are two great enlightenment philosophers that are the common culture civilization and a stand so why can't we begin to share a somewhat more hobbes view of this if they are somewhat more lockean view. it is after all part of the mainstream. professor i apologize. >> thank you for taking questions. [applause] m-mike has agreed to sign books

outside. wait a second way we get him out to the table and then you can ask them questions as he signed your book. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] i'm actually one of the editors. >> you are writing a review here pretty soon. >> [inaudible] thank you. and [inaudible conversations] we can do it very quickly. [inaudible conversations]

also the heritage foundation.

>> thanks for all your work and i look forward to meeting you again. >> [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] is [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] is [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

shows up for the fight. >> thank you very much. what i said about the relationships between china and the united states.

the conversation that we used to have in the soviet union. >> thank you. is [inaudible conversations]

a look at the a complex in washington, d.c. and on the east side that is the underground capitol visitor center where today a man was shot after drawing a weapon at the checkpoint at the cdc. the capitol police chief said the man has been taken to the hospital and is undergoing surgery and also said a female bystander sustained minor injuries. the suspect was known to police however they wouldn't confirm reports that he was the same man that disrupted the house chamber

last fall. you can find the conference online and we will keep you posted on any further developments as well as we get them. up next on c-span to a look at the upcoming convention this summer. >> general general counsel to the republican national committee with the party chair looking at the possibility of an open or contested convention explain what this means first what is a contested convention? >> when none of the candidates arrive at the start with the majority of delegates. so by definition, they have to contest to reach a majority. >> said if there is a candidate with a majority of the delegates but not overall so they go in with a majority what does that mean? >> guest: there is a magic number which is 1,237 delegates so you have to get more than that. you only have a plurality of the

way the rules are currently written is there will be ballots when the delegates get there and to see if you can win over enough of the unbound delegates to get over the majority. how much authority does it have over the convention structure in 2016. we will meet in the week before the convention and come up with what amounts to a working draft that will then be approved by the full republican national committee historically on the wednesday before the convention starts. about document will then go to what is called a temporary convention rules committee made up of delegates as opposed to the republican national

committee members and those delegates will then work through the draft and do whatever they choose in their authority and discretion to make the rules for the convention so the draft rules will then be sent on the first day of the convention and the committee will then meet again if they approve the rules and then it goes to the full convention for passage. but the answer to your question is the republican national rules committee is essentially doing a working draft for what the convention will consider. >> we keep hearing about cool 40 was put in place in 2012 and many called the ron paul rule. please explain what it is about and why it can be changed this year. >> 26 through 42 applies to each

convention and must be passed by each convention for itself so the rules that were passed in 2012 are not in effect for 2016 unless and until the convention rules committee passes them. in the two previous conventions in 2008 and 2004, the number had identified states majority in five states have to approve a nominee and ron paul claimed they had five states that would have caused a lot of messing with the schedule in 2012 so the committee at the suggestion of the romney campaign increase the number of states. but that isn't in effect in 2016. there is no rule on the number of states for 26 team until the convention rules committee and

then ultimately the full convention vote on the rules for its own session. >> but there is a rule requiring the delegates to vote on the first ballot so what are the rules going into 2016 and how obligated are they to the candidates they support in the primary? >> that's part of the permanent rules and not subject to the amendment for this convention and that requires that the delegates vote according to any statewide vote in their state. that was put into effect because in 2012, there were a number of instances where the candidates that came away with the most convention delegates haven't actually won the state so that rule was put in place to be certain that the votes, the primary voters participated in the primaries and conventions around the country actually had

their votes reflected in what the convention did. >> is it safe to say the last time this was an issue was 1976? >> yes that is fair to say. >> we will go back and see ronald reagan and president ford but before we do so, what happened that year? >> basically he didn't have a majority of delegates. ronald reagan was the most credible challenger to him. after the last of the primaries, both campaigns move to the delegates as best they could. president ford i think fairly and legally used the prerogatives of power that the white house brings and managed to convince enough of the unbound delegates to vote with him to the majority of delegates on the first ballot. >> in the film you will see that senator dodd was selected as the

running mate before he got the nomination which is something unprecedented. >> unprecedented and may be capable of repetition this year. we will have to see. >> let's go back in 1976 to begin with president gerald ford as he calls than them former governor ronald reagan to come to the podium. [applause] [cheering] ronald reagan to come down and join still signing autographs. you may not even be able to see the president. he's shouting into the microphone. he just delivered the alabama standard.

everybody in this great auditorium tonight, we are all pleased and honored to have ronald reagan and nancy reagan come down. [applause] [cheering] to give the leadership to vote on november 2 i put it like, i would be honored to ask my good friend to say a few words at this time. [applause] [cheering] as you look at ronald reagan he went on to get the nomination four years later.