tv Senator Bob Corker on Middle East Policy CSPAN December 1, 2015 8:00pm-9:01pm EST
>> welcome everybody. >> i am walter isaacson and it's my pleasure to welcome you to the f. -- aspen institute. we were just discussing the period in the late 1940s evan thomas and by many years ago wrote a book called the wise men which was the time of a bipartisan foreign-policy and we were facing challenges that were similar to the global challenges we are facing today. during that period robert lovett who is the undersecretary of state every evening he is to drive by the wardman park across rock creek for marie lived and stopped by and talk to the republican chair of the senate foreign relations committee. and together with a bipartisan group of people, with the senate and truman administration working in concert they were able to have the most creative flourish to global challenge
that i think you can find in history that created nato -- the creation of nato, the world bank and the institutions of radio free europe, the bretton woods economic agreements the marshall plan as we build europe. we are facing a type of struggle today when we face terrorism eyes is a new global challenge that's pretty much as dangerous as the rise of soviet-backed communism was in the 1940s but we very rarely have that structure of the great wise men. i use this as an introduction because when people say you're the wiseman today i always think of senator bob corker so it's our honor to have him with us today and for me to turn it over to dan glickman who runs their program. used to be a congressman from the great state of kansas and agriculture secretary. >> thank you senator corker for coming.
you all have the dash in front of you but i like to think who were the founding fathers had in mind for people who are managing and running great public policy issues and i think they had a guy like you in mind. your background businessman, not career politician but at the same time somebody who has come to washington and viewed as independent thoughtful bipartisan all not often used to describe people of influence like yours so we are delighted to have you here. we have a great group of people around. i just want to say this is series has been brought to us and financed by the robert h. smith family foundation we thank them very much. i'm going to ask the senator question and they want to turn up to the distinguished folks here. we will try to get you out of here but so you just came back. you were in egypt and he stopped
in paris and you have been in 66 countries. he said that you have been chairman? >> whatever it is it's traveling around and i'm sure your wife is thrilled that you go to all these vacation places. from your observation of the world and the middle east, how do you justify the different state structures around the region? you have from bolivia to iraq to syria to jordan to egypt and everyplace else. do we have a group of countries that are capable of managing these problems or are we going to be in a constant state of chaos and crisis over the next couple of decades? >> it's a great question and i would like to say before answering i'm always thrilled to be with people like you are here i think most of you know i was a
business guy before coming to the senate and what i have learned i have learned from people like you and others around the world so it's a privilege for me to be with such an esteemed group of people i look forward to your comments. obviously the state structure has been a structure that was created years ago that we build governance off of and balance of powers and a little bit of disarray right now in the middle east. as an example with egypt a country with 90 million people, 2.5 million new people each year warning to the country. they had that 700,000 new jobs created each year just to take care of the young people that are coming in. they need 24,000 classrooms this very second. they have a medical system that is very decrepit. and they have got issues
obviously of economic growth. tourism is obviously way down especially because of what just happened with the airliner but also concerns about terrorism in the sinai desert and the western portion of the country near libya. you look at the tough issues that president obama has to deal with as president but then you look at a guy like assisi in egypt right now and the issues they're they are dealing with are just unbelievably difficult. they have moved through a three-step process now that wherever it takes them who knows. you look at libya which is not really a country at present. you look at iraq where a body just isn't doing those things that we thought he should or would do. serious not really a country so the answer to your question is that we need strong state
structures for governance to occur. otherwise you end up with vacuums that end up being breeding grounds for the kinds of things we saw take place in paris and yet obviously in these countries we either haven't had the leadership, the will or the support to make that happen. so making sure over the longer haul we do those things necessary to ensure that these structures can function in flourish is very much in her national security interest. >> you talk about the leadership and will. how would you characterize the american leadership and will answer relates to issues like syria, isis and iraq and the nuclear issue which is a whole separate one. today i noticed the secretary of defense talk about sending some verification -- verification of ground support into the region. how do you feel about that? >> i think you know, it's the
same question i was asked last week in paris. i think we have to make a decision. the president has to make an executive decision, especially as it relates to syria but over time libya is going to the same type of place. that is that his decision that we are truly going to defeat isis or is it his decision to continue along with what i think he would self-described as a strategy that's been more about containment. i really do believe, i know we have people running for president in obviously they are making all kinds of comments on a daily basis as we would expect and people in the body i served making all kinds of prognostications about numbers of troops and all those things but i think the first decision that has to be made by the president is give me a plan that will allow us to actually defeat isis and let me that bad.
i think any of us during out bits and pieces that are not coherent would take us there so i think that when i met with the national -- the equivalent of the national security adviser in paris, who was coming here to meet with the president that was a moment in time when i said look, because of what has occurred here which is obviously devastating, this was your time to really press our president into a place to be part of a coalition that really wants to defeat isis, not just contain them. i think that's what they did when they came here. there are particular week was made up of a meeting with merkel , cameron, obama and i think it's a peer to cameron is moving ahead in the u.k.. it appears that germany is moving ahead and hopefully at the catalytic moment where the president will make that
decision that we are going to lead in an effort to truly trying not just to contain but defeat. what that means exactly i don't know, i'm not an expert. >> just to follow-up on walters questioned about the history foreign-policy, this is not anon important struggle. potential nuclear threats and everything else and so the president tries to figure out what he thinks we ought to do. in your role as chairman of the foreign relations committee and the will of congress had he think president should relate to congress? >> so, first of all there is a very strong bipartisan sense on the foreign relations committee and it really does exist. it it is real.
we are in constant contact and their chiefs of staff are very close, very close so there's a constant back-and-forth. so that's a real. the house is functioning somewhat that way. as it relates to the administration, i have worked much more closely with them than people i think realize. but i will say since we have the momentum around the iranian, they iran nuclear review act, that has dissipated. once we have passed that piece of legislation out of committee, there hasn't been a lot of give-and-take and i don't know whether it's just that time in the administration.
you know it's an interesting thing. i think you talked about walter, things like the kinds of things that you laid out which are creating institutions and for those kinds of things that happen i think you do have to have obviously congress involved and working at all the way through. when it comes to laying out policy as to what you are going to do in ukraine, i think the administration really resorts back and you can understand this the article ii mentality that we are the commander in chief and that pushing if you will which we have had plenty of, bipartisan on ukraine and other places is not particularly well received. there's really sort of a pushback that takes place. we passed a bill out of committee as it related to
dealing with a free syrian opposition when it really was robust back in may of 2013 before they crossed the red line. a bipartisan piece of legislation but again it felt i think by the administration whether there is bipartisan push to in some ways give the administration some cover, give them some support from the senate on particular issues. i don't think that was particularly well received. on other things we are trying to work through on reform in those kinds of things we have worked very closely with them so again you referred to institutions being created. i think it is different with an administration who has tried to develop policy when at the end of the day let's be honest, i think the president would say this in a close setting, but these are not issues that you
want to pursue in the first place. you wake up in you or the president of united states and you've got these problems to deal with. they're not the kinds of problems he really wanted to deal with as president said he wants to be at the robust level of what you are doing is probably going to be as low as possible. it's not a criticism and i think when the president ran he stated clearly that these types of issues certainly were things he wanted to end. i think what we found unfortunately the middle east i was telling ben and walter before we came in of 66 countries yes, but it seems like i go to the same ones over and over and over again. we are not adding to the list. we continue to go back to the middle east nonstop and i think when the president came in, the kind of expected at some point
that we were going to be able to check the box and i think what we found is the middle east because your first question is not a place where you can just check the box and believe at some point that's going to create problems for us. >> i have one final question before we get to you all and ask you to put your cards up if you want to ask a question i will recognize you in the best order again. you mentioned the iranian nuclear agreements of the question, what does your committee propose in terms of oversight and how effective do you think it can be in monitoring what's going on? >> we have a joint letter going out today or tomorrow from ben and myself, ben cardin. it's going to lay out the schedule of oversight that will be taking place. the first date, the first operational date from the administration's december the
17th. tomorrow we have a briefing, classified briefing on what's actually happening with the previous or most people say possible military dimension i would say previous military dimension so a lot of activities but one of the best pieces, we watch what happened in north korea where agreements were reached but not followed up on and therefore north korea as a nuclear country today really for all actual purposes. there was a follow-up to one of the most important aspects of the iran review act was not just the understanding of the deal but they encode follow-up that takes place and the things that the administration, after this administration does is going to go on for a long time but all the demonstrations had to do and what congress' role is in
overseeing that to ensure that this is one of the things that we do a deal, we forget about it and move on and the next thing you know you wake up and you are in a very different place. >> it talks about the president asserting authority and it's interesting article i was not the executive branch. personally i'm glad you are taking a progressive stance. >> it's bipartisan and if you are someone who supported the iran deal, you want to make sure everyone is paying attention and it's successful. if you didn't support the deal, if the same motivation. what has now been agreed to and for at least this period of time during this presidency, this is the deal that's going to continue and i think all of us at the end of the day are genuine sears central concern
was assuring that iran didn't get a nuclear weapon. people on both sides of the aisle want to do an incredibly diligent job to make sure that doesn't happen. >> ambassador and then we will go down the list. keep your questions as short as possible and introduce yourselves. >> i would be remiss not to find the israeli issue in your capacity on the foreign relations committee in the senate. a few weeks back the president made it clear -- while he is a novice. do you in your capacity in your committee, do you see any movement or any possible movement or perhaps an initiative that you might take they can get this going again or must the occupation go on forever? thank you.
>> look, just being honest i see a real momentum around that issue right now and i know secretary kerry to his credit while we may disagree on certain policy issues, to his credit like an energizer bunny as it relates to trying to take on tough issues. i'm sure he is very disappointed by the fact that it doesn't appear that is the likely outcome. i want to say on one of my trips i snuck into gaza and traveled from north to south, from north to south and back to north. i stood in raqqa and watched all kinds of come you name what you want, coming through the tunnels. i do understand the importance. on my trips there i have always spent time with palestinian
prime minister's. i don't -- i felt momentum a few years ago. i'm going to say three years ago it felt to me like things are coming together. the security situation especially in the west bank was changing. economic growth is taking place. this last trip which i think was an the march timeframe, think that's right, i feel zero momentum around the issue at present. >> senator thanks so much for being here. the question i want to ask you this about the strategic mindset when i think back to the cold war and look at the debates that happen in that time you have people liberal intervention just just -- interventionist that wanted to -- but behind that
stage with the stark realities of how everything put in because of essentially u.s. soviet action. today that grammar, that powered the united states has seems so easily hijacked by one costs and you can call isis a strategic threat on par with anything else. i get the sounds the map that people bring to the policy considerations doesn't easily think through the trade-offs, the cost intended to the approach. i guess i'm interested when richard lugar was in a senior position i remembered him asking david petraeus once about something going on in afghanistan and david was then commanding isaf. petraeus waited and said they couldn't answer that question a broader strategy because my world is just afghanistan. i thought it was very important exchange which i don't reflect back on and i'm wondering with your committee members they
think about this. is there a strategic frame that we are all missing that somehow your committee members have. >> i think it's great. i think it's a great question and a great point. i think with all the multiple issues that are being dealt with and not one insurmountable issue, they are all complex. you are right the strategic focus was not trying to get out of any blame relative to this but i think we have this fight polar world where it's the cold war and everybody understands. i think it's so much easier to develop a strategic framework created to think in fairness to the administration and i hate to keep being so fairness meeting. [laughter] i think part of some of the
resistance from joint chiefs has been exactly what you just said and it is like the media will obviously be issued today and obviously the country focuses on what's on television and being reported in publications. so everybody gets focused on that for period of time and you are right i think in some ways i'm certain of this actually, that is based on conversations i've had, there is a resistance by the military complex because of these competing resource issues and not wanting to get to into one particular place knowing that resource allocations, when you really think about it i don't know how you want to grade these. each person would grade them
differently. we think about tapping the south china sea which is of concern, when you think about what russia is doing in ukraine and i had a great meeting with our nato head what he was sharing with me is exact to what you say. the problem is russia is looking at -- what we do is we keep looking at one piece of the rug relative to what they are doing so we keep responding. the eastern ukraine and crimea and syria here. they are not looking at it that way. they're looking at it from his perspective very much like you just laid out. but then you add to that the issue of isis. you have what's happening in syria specifically and you look at iran, just a huge amount of energy that it took to negotiate
debt deal and took all the oxygen out of it. again, i kind of think that, i think you accompany that with the administration who i really think just -- i don't want to be overstating to the media. i think they are looking so forward to january 20. i really do. it's kind of like bush at the end of his term. i think they're looking so forward to being away from the military excursions in those kinds of things that the notion of developing some type of strategic vision if you will
with congress is not something they want to engage in. i think they want to move away from being in office and have as little engagement as possible which is understandable but it doesn't read laying out a vision if you will. at the end of the day while you had some wise man vaulter would call them, working towards that end when lugar and others were dealing with the cold war types of things, you also had an a demonstration that was laying out a vision towards that and working interactively with congress. that certainly is not taking place today. >> ambassador negroponte and we will keep going around the room. >> senator if i may say a word i have worked for ted kennedy and the senate was very fortunate to have him. >> we miss him. he was a lion.
>> i just spent five and a half months in the middle east on and off doing anti-isis work which i can't get into here but i have been looking at this so-called coalition. this coalition that kerry has -- and yet when you start scraping away the surface, the germans have finally kicked in but nato allies have been reluctant. arab allies, the sunni states had not really stepped up to the plate. i am curious, other than the fact been at the beginning they had a couple of planes flying overhead but as soon as the jordanian pilot was captured and brutally murdered they disappeared. we can't they take on isis
without an effective coalition and that is not a crusader coalition and i'm wondering how do we get the arab states in your mind to fess up and to pony up to what is necessary here? >> i think everything you just said is true. we have a coalition of 65 or 66 folks most of them not really involved in a meaningful way. i do think that is changing a little bit. i have seen especially some of our closest friends and parliament and others are moving in that different direction to be more involved. but you are right. i think a part of this is look, i hate to say this again, is getting trite but i really think what happened in august of 2013
changed everything for us in the middle east. when assad crossed the red line and we did not take action, it really raised a lot of questions with our middle eastern partners as to who we were. are we committed and are we going to do the things we said we were going to do? i think still in their minds as you talk with them privately and obviously when i meet with the white house they say something am sure different and i'm not in those meetings but there's a commitment that they are concerned about. where are you all really but let's face it, from our standpoint back to them i think this is kind have been the way it's been, hasn't it? there's a lot of talk that takes place. we are going to be back in the region on this very topic in the next several weeks but we have
all kinds of meetings in munich. we see them in their own countries and there is a lot of talk but until we get a real commitment from them you are right we are going to create another dynamic on the ground in syria and again from the administration's perspective just as you stated that so were they concerned and we have got to put arab face on what's happening on the ground there. >> ambassador negroponte. >> almost verbatim the last my question. about the crusade in what's being done to help encourage these other arab countries to do something about this. i think it's almost pointless to try to just do it for the west, to try to do it themselves. a couple of observations and maybe a question buried in there somewhere would be first.
>> this is one of the wise men. >> i went to your office when you still had ox is. you have just gotten elected and we had the pleasure of meeting when i was going to be secretary. i just wonder, and i learned from hard experience in iraq at the u.n., it's hard to do some of these things if you don't have consensus in the security council. some people might think i'm being silly about this but basically if you don't have consensus of the security council it seems the great powers are divided and of the great powers are divided the others are going to pursue their own inclinations rather than some kind of a global system. so that brings us to what the chances are of us really getting on the same page as the russians. i would say the chinese will
come along with whatever the russians agreed to and that comes to another negotiation is going on and that's the one about syria and the negotiations for a cease-fire in some kind of a political transition. the way i read that negotiation and i don't have inside information but the way i read it is the russians are sorted implicitly saying if you can find some kind of the way to work with elements of this regime, then maybe they could join with you in fighting isis but at the moment i think they want us to drop our insistence on driving bashar al-assad out of power and helped negotiate some kind of a transition. have you been following those talks ended heavy talk to the different actors who are involved in it?
>> i'm sure sure sure i talked to secretary kerry last week about this very topic. i obviously would never share what he said to me in a private conversation but yes following it very closely and following today the president in a press conference in essence kind of negotiating publicly on this issue, doing the same thing. i think at the end of the day i think everyone understands the administration and our nation is open to dealing with an allied regime. we understand that we don't want to have happen is what happened in iraq and what has happened in libya and we want to make sure there's a country we are dealing with and everyone understands the alawites are going to be a major part of that. the question is how do you get 10 alawites regime without assad look, i don't think we ever
going to get -- i don't think iran never gets to the place of the national security council and i'm not trying to be perjury but i don't think they are that relevant to this. russia is. they are ultimately totally relevant and i have a sense that we may still get there. and you know the russian ambassador is a -- was in my office recently for a couple of hours one evening. i just think there's enough overlap, let's face it pay that's what we do constantly and that's what i'm trying to find the overlap and you did it as a diplomat. i have been to russia. i haven't been recently for obvious reasons but the optics of it didn't seem like the right thing to do. but you know anyway i kind of
think there's a good chance we are going to get to the right place. >> thank you. >> fred is obviously a syria expert as well as many other things. >> suppose the president does come to the conclusion that to defeat isis at least in syria is going to require professional, capable ground force to complement the arab campaign. and suppose he does decide to go for the kind of coalition that mark and others are talking about and is part of the price of coalition building the united states is going to have to have some skin in the game on the ground in syria, perhaps beyond 50 special operators. how do you think that kind of proposition is going to be received in the committee and
what's with the president have to do to ensure a good reception by that committee? >> i go back to the elements above questions but steve's in particular. whenever you are walking down the hallway he walked out of the senate chambers or you were going to a meeting, that's the question that people want, what about the ground troops and how many and what about the special operators? special ops. so it seems to me that the ultimate important issue is let's lay out the context. let's lay out where we are going. don't call me about 16,000 troops but let's have a meeting like this and you guys layout where it is we are going. i think if that's done with
ferocity i think there would be a very good reception. i personally believe the administration is acting within their legal authority right now dealing with isis. it's close but i believe they are acting with the aumf in syria and iraq. so people have talked about is crafting an aumf but here's the dynamic that exists right now. you have republicans who don't believe there is such a thing in a strategy. and i shouldn't say republican. i think republicans and democrats alike believe that there is no strategy. there might be one or two that i could find but on a bipartisan basis people understand. so republicans are concerned
about getting behind in amf when they don't see a strategy. in other words how are we going to win this? what are the elements of this and the democrats really, a big push on their site is to say we are not that interested in aumf. we may act like it but what we understand is making sure the next president, and i know this president is like not to do something in a massive ground troop way. want to make sure the next president does sophie look at those dynamics they have nothing to do with the sovereign promise. i think respected folks both on the state cited things but also on the pentagon side of things and with real leadership laying out what we are going to do and how we are going to defeat an alliance of activity and they have tapped out pretty well on how we are going to carry out.
cutting off their financing when there are so many elements a go at this issue will now i think it would be received well. but it cannot the hey at the way we are sending in special ops. let's lay out and share how it is we are going to deal with this and by the way we will be participating. >> thank you. senator you mentioned some countries in the region where the situation is chaotic but in the same region you can find other countries which are doing well despite the tremendous challenges they are facing. instability in the neighborhood. places like my country tunisia and democracy which deserve to
be encouraged. my question is, do you think they usa is doing enough to help tunisia a country in the dark, too considers democracy process? >> i was in tunisia earlier this year on my second or third trip there and it's an amazing thing to see what has happened there in spite of what's happening around its borders. it's an amazing, amazing testament to personal leadership within the country. people of different factions putting the country first and still have huge numbers of foreign fighters that at some point are going to be coming back. tremendous challenges so for what it's worth we had a
discussion about tunisia before we came over here. i know there has been some discrepancy between resource allocation between the house and senate. i think that maybe what you are fern to but the commitment level has been $134 million which by the way has ramped up. i i know doesn't sound like a huge amount of money but it's ramped up hugely from where was years ago. i think when you see see this on the does come out you were going to see all of that fix in the appropriate way. i know the senate committee, that's not my committee, cut to half of that but they use unspent suns from another place to fill the void. i think you will see in the next 10 days happiness as it relates to tunisia and i think yes there is a real commitment to do everything we can to help tunisia, help their leadership
which has done an outstanding job for the travails that they have had. >> i hope that ends up being truthful but that's what appears is going to happen. >> thank you senator. the notion that we are dealing with the american council, the notion that we are dealing with a multi-active world and the notion that they want opportunities in asia-pacific. i'm interested to hear the discussion in the committee dealing with china and the middle east issue? >> to you -- to be honest not much. china relevant to the middle east issue. i know they have just announced
building their first naval base generally if you will in the region but not much. i think most of us look at china as a country that is 99.9% self-interested. if users role in the world very differently than what has been the role of the united states over the last 60 or 70 years and just a very different world. we know they are very interested in those things that can support their economic growth but really haven't seen them as a major country picture if you will to sovereign -- solving the problem so there has been almost no discussion about it. >> i can't see your name, i'm sorry.
>> certainly i hope that changes. >> i am frank to list what the senator for american progress. you mentioned you were in egypt and i want to be could share your -- the political situation with the transition and also with you have conclusions about how u.s. policy which has been quite strong for years how might evolve or adapt? >> i was not happy with us altering our relationships. obviously was a coup, was it not a coup? has spent a lot of time on the phone with secretary hagel and i think secretary hagel by the way didn't really want to alter our
relationship with egypt but i felt like that moment in time it was not the right thing for us to do. i just think that if you look at the security concerns inside the country, and the economic issues of the other issues are very difficult to deal with and that particular piece is. when i was in egypt i met with, as we always do and typically we do at first. people are concerned about religious persecution although that wasn't really the focus but what's happening with detainees
and disappearances and the treatment of people who have altering views. so i think you know with a country like egypt, with the issues that they have our policy should be that we are going to continue to be, to work very very closely. over time we want these human rights issues dealt with in the appropriate way. we understand you are stepping through these very slowly, not at the pace that many people would like. at the same time i do have a sense of some of the major major challenges we are dealing with inside of the country and have the degree of understanding as to why they would put security and economic issues at the top and want to deal with so many
other issues later. that doesn't mean they're not important. they are very very important and they have two exist or at some point in time there's going to be a pressure within the country that is going to create significant problems so they have to be dealt with. i think our policy should be to do everything we can. a 100 million person country and in four years that has significant issues that it is at least functioning for us to do everything we can to support a state that at least is operating and try to make it as successful as we can. >> thank you. i want to close with walter but let's do one more because i want to make sure we give senators time to vote. i think the next person up is john. >> my question is broader.
i am concerned about the former ability and challenges of our closest friends jordan lebanon in tunisia. obviously jordan and lebanon pays incredible issues. integrating their security forces and penetration by outside horses. what is your sense of survivability and our security relationships with jordan and lebanon and support for tunisia and morocco? >> the survivability? what you mean by that? >> in terms of the fact that they have incredible dust of challenges and external challenges from the refugees. aside from providing funding for refugees ensuring that jordan lebanon are going to --. >> we are submitting your resume to the next president of
lebanon. >> i think there's significant to huge concern about jordan. the king has been slow to move to some of the reforms that need to take place. he is a great great friend of ours, a great friend of israel and a great friend of the region. he spent a lot of time on external issues but he had tremendous internal issues that still have to be recalled. resolved. most of us in the worm have visited refugee camps both in turkey and jordan and other places and it's phenomenal what these countries have done and jordan in particular. they are hosting people in their homes. it's an incredible thing. these kids are going to the schools and they have lack of water resources and their burned up by the huge amount of people in their country.
in almost every conversation we have relative to the region jordan more so than lebanon and we have the same concerns about lebanon but jordan in particular is focused on is a country that could go either way if the wrong things happen to occur. we do support them i think more than people think relative to internal security issues and those kinds of things but jordan in particular is a country that will play a highly constructive role in the region and yet has tremendous destabilizing forces that are taking place and it's a a place where they pay a lot of attention to. i can say less about morocco. we understand concerns but i think if i were going to tear the rest i would tear jordan, lebanon, morocco.
and irony spoke to tunisia. >> walter i would like to close with you. any comments or questions? 's. >> you are causing a dispute between the two of them. let me know what the question that's a little bit tangential but involves intelligence issues there has been a debate over collection of data, bulk collection. the nsa quit doing that and admiral rogers inductor clapper has said this is causing us to go blind at a certain point when we lose track of terrorists. how much should we worry about that and how much do we calibrate on that? >> i'm sorry. i haven't been around that long. i'm 63 years old and some would
consider me a teenager in the senate, but there's no doubt there was a generational thing. it wasn't clearly along those lines but it emanated from a generational thing relative to the millennial thing and a libertarian thinking about civil liberties and what with the nsa was doing relative to bulk collection. i thought it was, i'm sorry but this third, absurd that we did away with bulk collection, absurd. absurd, absurd and ridiculous. i get really angry to think about the fact that this person who betrayed our nation helped create this atmosphere of us not
protecting our own citizens. after that i spent four hours at nsa and walk to the bulk collection program. obviously we had lots of other encounters with nsa during that time to understand what's happening. are you kidding me? we have 22 people total who could access materials and they had to go through all kinds of levels to ever access, by the way one and two and three hops out. now it's restored and how many thousands of people are going to have access. they are going to be gaps. i'm so upset that our nation followed this momentum in the wrong place, in the wrong direction and it's hurt our security. i can't believe that it happened but it did. the other piece of its walter is
even more of a concern to me is you know i have moved into the new age now. i have an iphone and i was with tim cook five years -- bye weeks ago and his goal as a businessman is to make sure this piece of equipment, there is no way for you to ever ever gain access to this. everything that comes in and out of this is encrypted so that you can store your health records and everything else on it. and i understand that, of course. there's a little bit of the debate over what we had a discussion about. people are talking about having a key so that people can access the bad guys and this point would be if the good guys can access it to find out what's happening then the bad guys can which is a legitimate point. any go to paris and you meet
with folks who know things about this and you realize that now regardless of what they may do there are all these apps where all your messaging is encrypted. so as upset as i was about the issue has to do with old collection i can't believe we have gone down the path we have gone down. i can't believe the administration would even let us go down that path but to let the fever of the time take us down that place is disappointing but what's happening in our society now is that most communications, most of our isis folks over time are going to have the ability and i'm not blaming this on apple by the way. again there are already apps that exists where you can communicate on a totally encrypted network that
somebody's going to create. that's what happens in this world of innovation. somebody is going to create even more if it's so how then how then are we going to be able to keep things from happening in our own country? i don't know how we solve that problem. i don't know if our guys did an essay will have the ability no matter what is developed over time to still get in and decode and understand what's happening at this moment in time my sense is that where the gap exists and it's very problematic. i thank you all for letting me be here. >> thank you. [applause] >> it really is one of the voices of reason and if i may add for 30 years or so the institute has set up professional program starting with dick clark and thank you