to give their opinions. >> here on c-span2 tonight "the communicators" is next with republican congressman bob goodlatte of virginia. plus go bob goodlatte is the chairman of the house judiciary committee. he is our guest this week on "the communicators". chairman goodlatte hearings held on encryption fbi apple issue.

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

agencies and alleys of credit card records from retail establishments, financial establishments to know that we need to be moving toward stronger uses of encryption and stronger encryption itself so that has got to be the foundation upon which we look at this. having said that it's also important to recognize the problems that this ever-increasing use of what is called end-to-end encryption causes law enforcement as an 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 will recognize 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 and the 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 a 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 are going to work in a collaborative effort both between the two communities and a very bipartisan fashion to continue to develop the solutions that will help to make sure that law enforcement has ways to be able to gather the information they need to keep people safe. part of that is going to be law enforcement having to find new ways to approach gathering information and utilizing more traditional ways 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 their 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 involved, safe deposit boxes, file cabinets or just maybe in your desk drawers at home. 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 backdoor into everyone's computer that backdoor can be entered by all those other bad actors as well as by law enforcement raid that's the number one concern. >> host: are you saying 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. so i think it's important for us to work on this, to work on it fairly and expeditiously but also with the recognition that we shouldn't jump at the first possible alternative than the congress itself should work on this and the important committees of jurisdiction should work on this and i don't believe 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 and we need to get both public hearings and classified briefings and i think we ought to proceed to do that. >> host: let's bring in k. who

covers technology for the publication. >> guest: you announce you're going to bring announce the e-mail privacy act which would require law enforcement to get access of e-mails. you express some concerns that the bill if written could hinder several agencies ability to get investigations. are you planning to change the bill at all to go through committee? >> 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 enforced and that is that we 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 someone else. now the bill in its current form will make that difficult if not impossible for agencies that do

not have criminal warrant authority, the fbi and dea and organizations like that are empowered to conduct criminal best occasions they get warrants but if you are civil agency that built index investigations then you have a problem that we have 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 of the judiciary committee 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 the bill which as i say i support the old method of requiring to meet one standard if the e-mail is of a certain age and if another standard it

is another age. we think that's a standard by the boards and a warrant to get information from these third parties but there are a lot of fixes to the bill that we think are necessary and that's why we are holding markup and having a good discussion about how to do that or even whether to do it. >> guest: do you think there's growing concern cracks. >> guest: there are many members on both sides out that the knowledge there needs to be some changes but which changes and under what language is best? >> guest: wanted to shift a little bit to the issue of on line sales tax which is something you have been debating for a long time in congress. the senate has teed off this sales tax debate earlier when they passed the cousin joe which included your permanent moratorium on taxing internet access and for a long time that obviously didn't tied with the senate.

>> guest: and moratorium by nature is not -- >> guest: republican leadership in the senate committed to debating it. you have obviously proposed different, different way to tackle this issue. now there's this pressure in the senate if you're planning on taking up their bill or you are still pushing their bill or you are a third party like representative chaffetz bill you're looking at? >> guest: we will not be taken 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 states needing and being entitled to the revenue that comes from on line sales but also from the standpoint of fairness amongst various types of retailers, brick-and-mortar retailers always have a physical presence whatever state they are doing business in and they have to collect the sales tax.

if the customer goes out of the state of mind to business elsewhere they may or may not ve to collect the sales tax and whether that business is a nexus with my state of virginia or whatever state the sail 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 to should have to meet and we don't feel the senate legislation and this is not new. they have been working on the senate passed the bill and the last congress and on a number of occasions there've been attempts to tie that to other legislation but have been unsuccessful. we would like to work with anyone who is concerned about making sure that we don't set a precedent for allowing the state to reach out and regulate businesses outside of their jurisdiction and that's what they feel the senate bill does. it requires businesses to comply

with all of the rules in all the states and all of the subdivisions of those states that may have different add-on taxes in different localities. i think there is 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 give the authority to regulate businesses outside of their jurisdiction. we have looked closely at the trend we are seeing with the number of states attempting to expand their regulatory and taxing powers by shifting the test for this from what the supreme court set forth in a long series of cases including the quill decision and basing it on physical miss. they would like to move that to what is called economic sophie have any kind of economic activities that might have an impact and that state want to say well i'm going to regulate your business they should have the right to do that exist those businesses are not represented in their state legislature.

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

you fix fix it for us but fix fn a way that we like. i think we should fix fix it fie should fix fix it in a way that protects the american taxpayer and protects the american consumer and protect our economic system that's built upon having businesses be able easily to do business across boundaries without being regulated by a multitude of different states. you see this not just a sales tax issue but california right has regulate in the production of eggs by telling the fata and you talk and in a state that wants to ship eggs into california if you want to sell eggs in our state you got to raise the chickens and eggs in a way that meets our regulations. all 50 states decided to get into that and had regulation that doesn't make sense. that's why we have the commerce clause and it's why we must make sure that as we try to follow the states we don't do it in such a way that it gives states the ability to regulate their

states. >> host: chairman goodlatte is cochair of the congressional internet caucus and another issue that's important is immigration h-1b visa's. what's your thinking on this this in the news and the political news? >> first of all any immigration in the country should be founded on the couple of principles. one that it's fair to american workers and second that encourages the education of americans said they can get as many of these jobs as possible but also to recognize there are certain areas in our economy where there are shortages of workers and where if you don't meet the shortages you run the risk of businesses locating their entire enterprise in canada come in europe anywhere in the world china india and forever so it makes sense to make sure that companies are able to get the workers they

need in order to maintain their business operations in the united states. the hp one program which has existed for a long time is an important program. it's in need of reform and in the last congress would pass on the house judiciary committee legislation that reforms h-1b program and similar legislation will be introduced again in their future this congress most likely by congressman darrell i so who is the congress -- the author of that and we look forward to examining that very closely to make sure that we are doing everything we can to encourage economic growth and our connie in the hp one 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 enforced maneuver 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 immigration laws before they see action taken on legal immigration matters he caused the fact of the matter is if you don't trust the enforcement of the lie law you are 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-board but entering the country legally through visas and simply overstaying. so this is a situation where the united states is a nation but we are also nation of laws and if we are going to have a successful economy in the future we are going to have to have respect for the rule of law and that's not occurring 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 is needed addressing some are reforms by legal immigration programs so we do the enforcement for first. >> host: we have talked about three issues in potential legislation. it's an election year. is it going to happen? >> guest: i would say that there is always the possibility of these things happening when you have bipartisan efforts to do so. i think for example we were talking about the issue related to internet sales tax collection that issue is one that's when we have the right solution that will be the right time to move 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 difficult to address some of the other things that i certainly acknowledge need to be addressed in the process. with regard to ask the -- at a pub that is a bill that has more co-sponsors than any bill in the house right now, over 300 so i think 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 senate on any of these issues but before policy because lott also has the past. >> guest: another privacy issue that is on everyone's mind is private reform because certain -- are expired at the end are expired at the end of any kick-started the consideration of reform in your committee. what changes do you see being made to that authority and this is going to come down to the wire? >> guest: well at may.

it didn't come down to the wire in the house. fact we have been working on it for a long time and 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 votes to cut off debate so they were forced to take the hospital put on the floor but when they did that it passed the senate with a very strong bipartisan vote so again i don't want to predict what will happen with the senate but in the house we don't want to get up against a deadline so we are hard at work on that. i wouldn't want to predict at this point 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 foreign nationals who could be a threat to united states. that's obviously a foreign

intelligence surveillance act is designed to gather information to keep us safe. when you gather information about foreign nationals it intersects with u.s. semacode with someone outside the country and therefore you have this pay close attention to making sure the citizens rights are properly protected under any laws that we pass because they are entitled to be productive protected and should be protected as provided in our bill of rights. so i look forward to continuing to work on that reagan made a commitment at the time we did usa freedom act which ended the governments mass metadata collection not just for telephone metadata but any kind of metadata and not just under that particular section of the patriot act but under whole host of different government statue so i think that was well handled and an enhanced or national security and u.s. citizens

privacy. we have to handle the same one. >> guest: another judiciary issue that i know we have been following closely is patent reform. there hasn't been any floor action since your committee and the senate judiciary committee passed a sweeping patent reform bill last year they think there is some sense of worry and the tech community that the clock is running out as it does every year. now lawmakers aren't adducing much more of narrow bill specifically in depth then you reforms in the so-called patent control. you can't bring your cases in the courts that are friendly to them in that language is partly taken from your language. are you open to moving the bill's? >> guest: well if you take the innovation act is patent litigation reform committee addresses six or seven different areas of the law and it is very widely supported. has a very large boat in the

house in the last congress radio is passed out of committee with a bipartisan vote. in this congress is supported by more than 350 organizations around the country who recognized that the extortion practice of threatening usually a small business and user of some technology with a very expensive patent unless they pay them you fill in the blank, 10 thousand, 20,000 you become a multi-industry for these patent control than any city stop stopped. it is not difficult to take segments of this legislation and pass them separately so that is certainly a possibility that we are all aware of and we are not opposed to print our preference would be to take a the bills which has broad support and pass it as a whole but no decision has been made yet about scheduling that for the floor.

we are open 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 in some of not but mostly that it helped in this area and we are more than anxious to build off of that as well. >> host: is there going to be movement this year on music and how we listen to it and how it gets paid, the fair play fair pay act? >> guest: when i became chairman of this committee i recognize there had been a review of our copyright laws in more than 40 years in a competent review so we had to take data and we help many many hearings here in washington in the committee but also we have gone out to the various parts of the country to take testimony and to have discussion panels

with a wide array of 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 direct consumers but also you have libraries and universities and various types of on line services and so on, so trying to look at opportunities within the information that we have gathered for reform of our copyright law is what we are focused on. we have gathered information and now we are looking for for targets of opportunity. i think it's clear that the music sector and the music licensing is an area that is extraordinarily complex and 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 that they may write, that they may perform that they may license and that they may own so looking for opportunities to bring those parties together to talk about rational reforms that are necessary because the laws haven't kept pace with changes in technology and the way people get their music today is very very different from the days when you bought a 45 single and were happy to have a collection of those and you put on your small record player or the large gigantic stereo that was in your front hall like when i was a kid. the way people people get and enjoy music today has changed in the laws of changes well but it takes an effort for people to sit down and think about where they think the trends are going and try to catch up with her get

ahead of those trends in respect a lot. once we do change a lot will have to last for a while even though technology will continue to evolve. guest on copyright there has been some delay -- debate whether labour congress is the right home for the copyright office especially constantly changing the digital landscape is that an issue that you are looking at an part of your review? >> guest: very much so. we think it's very important that we find the right balance. i think there are a lot of us including myself believe the copyright office should remain in the legislative branch of our government, but there is concern regarding whether or not library of congress and this is enhanced by the fact that current library and have retired have been an acting library and we have a nomination for a 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 tech knowledge he which in and of itself help evolve -- salsone the problems with talk about with regards to how people use copyrighted and how they are compensated for in so one, the more easily accessible to the information about what is copyrighted and who is not in who owns the copyright which is all contained in a library of congress. this is very important and so making those reforms is at the leading edge of what we should be doing with regard to the changes in the copyright law. so, one of those issues is can we make the register of copyrights with basically an employee at the library of congress and reports to the library and am we give them some greater independence so we can not only target money to them as we do right now in

appropriations and we work closely with the appropriators on this but also give them the independence to make these decisions and not have to be held up or have to be operating in conjunction and library of congress that have little to do with the copyright. >> host: unfortunately we are out of time. bob goodlatte is the chair of the house judiciary committee, cochair of the congressional internet caucus and kate tummarello covers technology for "politico."

>> when i tune into it on the weekends usually authors are sharing their new releases. >> "washington journal" on booktv is the best television for serious readers. >> on c-span they could have a longer conversation to delve into their subject. >> booktv weekends, they bring

you author after author after author, fascinating people. >> i love tv and i miss c-span fan. >> up next it's booktv in prime-time with books on politics. first matt lewis talks about his book on the state of the republican party titled "too dumb to fail". in his book "too dumb to fail" author matt lewis explores how the republican party has changed to the years to its current state today. he recently discussed the book with conservative commentator s.e. cupp on "after words." this is an hour. >> host: matt, first when did you start writing thisk