>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." >> we begin tonight with iran. the wall street reported that president obama wrote a letter.

in it, he stressed the country's shared interest in fighting islamic state in iraq and syria. he said cooperation could depend on reaching a nuclear deal. the newspaper comes as the u.n. is advised to reach a deal by november 24. the letter is the fourth he has written since he took office. a white house spokesman person says the policy towards iran has not changed. joining me now are two reporters who broke the story. tell me what you are reporting about this and in terms of these letters, is anything different than what we know from earlier letters from the president to the supreme leader? >> what is tricky is that they very much stick to the line days

no courted nation, no intelligence sharing, no military cooperation. there is a growing example that both sides are tipping each other off on what they're doing in iraq and syria and certainly not targeting each other as has been the case in the past. we reported a couple of weeks ago the commander of the overseas unit of the revolutionary guard in iraq is basically telling shiites not to target american troops or services operating against isis in iraq. u.s. officials are very much telling allies and even publicly saying they are not targeting the assad regime with military strikes. the fact that he is targeting

the supreme leader in this communication at this critical, historical time shows just how much importance the white house and president obama is placing on getting the supreme leader in some way to play ball. there's a lot of skepticism he will. >> what are you thinking? >> i think this letter has to be seen in the context of things that have happened over the past month to suggest to iran the benefits of some sort of agreement on the nuclear issue and in terms of economic dividends or normalization. this letter seems to just cooperation of some issues that the two sides seem to have common interest in, cooperation against isil. they have rejected the notion that iran should cooperate with

the u.s. in stabilization of iran. this channel is that we are not targeting their allies in the two fronts of iraq and syria. it is official policy of the u.s. that president assad has to go. i'm not quite sure about promising iranians a safe passage or sanctuary for their allies. the other fear that i had and concern is how with iranians and the supreme leader who lives in -- interprets this letter. he may see it as a sign as the u.s. wants a deal very much and that may affect the way he negotiates and approaches the nuclear issue. a lot of things in their that one has to be cautious of. >> carol, how can i ask this in a way where i'm not asking for your sources? how did you get this story? >> the thing about this issue is

that there are number of people who want it to succeed and a number of people who don't want it to succeed. you can find information from both sides depending on which one feels like they are under seize or not. >> you have sources. >> they could upset allies in the region. folks are skeptical about cutting a deal. >> it depends on reaching a nuclear deal. is that what it says? >> they say we're not leaking the two. if you have seen what has happened, it was only the new

agreement. we won't touch any regional issues with iranian side. we are with iraq very publicly. the issues are blurring even as the white house keep saying there's not going to be any blurring of these issues. since isis -- these territorial gains -- they have blurred. it is difficult. our allies, jordan, israel, they are all super worried about a realignment or some sort of reproach and how that could undercut that interest. one of the difficult things that the white house has done is they were having secret talks going back to mid-2012. none of their allies knew about it until late 2013.

i think another letter of communication between obama and the supreme leader will heighten these concerns that somehow there will be a deal cut behind their backs and it will hurt their interests -- has heightened these concerns that somehow there will be a deal cut hide their backs and it will hurt their interest. >> tell me how naïve i am. will the president have sent the letter only because someone in iran encouraged him to send it? >> on the first one, i'm not quite sure if the president would have consulted with the saudi regime, nor do i think that is necessary.

even though i think the u.s. needs to do something to rehabilitate the alliances that have been quite battered. in terms of a letter being solicited, i don't think so. i suspect this was the american initiative to bring to the supreme leader that notion that a nuclear agreement would open up wide areas of cooperation between the two sides and issues that are seemingly of concern to both of them. given the way this issue has played -- >> carol, can you imagine some grand bargain coming out of this? >> two things stress me. one is the timing underscores how much of this president wants a deal with iran. he is staring down his last two years in office. this is something he wants. the second, the fact he sent this letter stems from the fact

that the white house knows if the deal is going to be cut, it totally depends on the supreme leader. of that is a person who is calling all the shots. whether they can get some sort of grand bargain, i do not know. i think what the president is signaling is if you do this, all of these other doors could open perhaps into other avenues of cooperation. >> can i say one thing about this assessment? we tend to view the islamic republic as a country of personalities and factions. that is true. in any sort of negotiations or agreements over a nuclear issue, he does had to consult with critical actors such as his military and security services, revolutionary guards, and atomic energy organization's and scientific establishments. he is the supreme leader to be sure and he is the consequential

actor, but he does have to check with those constituencies before signing off on something. they suggest there are good guys, bad guys, black hats, white hats. parameters of a deal he will agree to have in conditioned or are being conditioned by a dialogue of a variety of organizations and institutions that constitutes the upper echelon of the islamic republic. >> remind us what they had said about any kind of cooperation with the united states against isil. >> again, it is complicated the cousin of various factions. the supreme leader has made statements and using that as a tool to divide the region.

he has made some statements saying we have a shared enemy in some ways. maybe there could be some cooperation in the future if there is an agreement. they have kind of played it both ways. different factions have said different inks. what i find interesting is to her three weeks from a deadline, no one seems to know what is going to happen. when you look at how big the gaps have been as far as what the u.s. wants him with iranians say they want as far as nuclear programs, it is vast. the way the white house and the top negotiators in the u.s. are describing the potential break down, you do not feel there is any way at all they could walk away from it. initially they were saying -- a top u.s. negotiator said there

will be vast escalation across the region if this diplomacy doesn't succeed. on the one hand, it is so close to the deadline, it is hard to see how they have this big agreement. on the other hand, it is possible to see the process breaking apart. >> what is the presence of iranian troops in iraq or is it through -- >> my understanding is there are iranian troops, at least advisors, and increasingly in syria as well. the deployment of iranian forces -- in one case strengthens the assad government -- this is how complicated the region has become even the fact it doesn't have significant, powerful states anymore where everyone is kind of meddling in everyone's business.

given how disorderly the middle east has become, the art common interest in unlikely actors. you could see there is common interest between a sod and -- assad and obama. >> one fascinating thing in iraq is the u.s. intelligence believes the advisors including the commander -- on a lot of these malicious established -- militias established to harass the u.s., they are telling them to stand down right now, not to harass or attack u.s. personnel. it is an interesting shift to given how the ieds and other equipment that removed into iraq

to hurt the u.s. came from these militias who are being told to stand down. >> i've been told they have been seen both in damascus and in -- >> yeah. >> photos of the guy at the front. it is incredibly complicated. in one theater we seem to be on the same side. the message right now maybe it could change from the u.s. military is they are not targeting assad or training syrian rebel troops to go after assad at this stage. this is the message that will be difficult going forward. saudi arabia, turkey, some of our allies in the fight basically have gone on saying assad must go. part of operation has got to be targeted at that.

in a few weeks time there is an agreement with iran that is seen as allowing them to maintain a capacity to develop atomic weapons, i don't know how you keep that coalition together. >> if the united states wanted to share some type of military intelligence, my assumption would be they could find a way to do that. >> i imagine that would go through the iraqis. i do think i want to focus on the notion that the american alliance system is probably disorganized and battered right now. that is something that should concern washington. particularly, the president needs to reach out more to the allies for what the direction of american policy is.

there is a lot of concern in the region about what is taking place and ultimately the defeat of isil and radical sunni islamic forces is contingent on participation of sunni actors and so on. that is a long-term stabilization of the islamic militants we see in the region. >> thank you. pleasure to have in the program. we'll be right back. stay with us. >> we are joined by two former majority leaders of the senate and minority leaders at one stage. thank you both for joining us. >> glad to be with you. >> you look at the landscape. bitter partisanship you dysfunctional in recent years -- dysfunctional in recent years. unpopular presidential election.

you think something will happen? >> i do. there are some areas that i believe the president working with congress could make progress. they're talking about trade. we could do more benefit more from trading with asia countries, also europe. the president will not get that. the energy area, we are having an energy boom in this country. are there some things we can do to to help move that forward? i'm so optimistic that even on tax policy if you look at where obama is and where republicans are, if each one would make one move that could -- >> do you think things could get done? >> i do.

people have seen the polarization, the confrontation for so long here they are convinced as you go into a presidential cycle with the ted cruz's of the world and those who feel what they have done in the last couple of years has worked, the stand your ground advocates have said, look at the record. i also think there is a responsibility and opportunity to prove you can manage, prove you can govern. people are looking for some indication that governance is still possible. you have got mitch mcconnell saying a lot of the right things. i think they need to step up to plate and seize on what could be an opening. >> let me ask a question or two about the senate. tom dashiell, what does it mean to get back to regular order?

why haven't we been there? >> we haven't been there in part because we have used senate rules to protect senators and to try in many ways to message what it is the senate is supposed to be about at that moment. regular order means going back to a process where you introduced legislation that goes to committee and have markups. you have a debate. you offer amendments. you pass legislation. you go to congress. >> we will know shortly. i think that exist because of a point and made a moment ago. both sides need to prove to the american people before 2016 we can govern, we can manage. this dysfunction doesn't have to be a permanent state of affairs in washington today. >> i know that mitch is serious about it.

we recognize things will still take 60 votes. one of the things we need to do is get back to passing an annual or biannual budget. it sets the tone for the rest of the year. the majority leader has to give time on the floor with amendments for appropriations bills. you do all the funding in one little package. i hope to get away from that. the downside for me is republicans did not run on specific messages or agenda. the message was, obama is bad. vote against obama. i don't think that is enough. we saw a surprise election in virginia. ed gillespie ran a very good campaign on issues. none of us expected it. i wish they had said we take the majority and here are the three things we will do right away. i wish the president had been

more magnanimous. it is not enough to say -- he needed to be more like the clinton was after '94. he couldn't have been more magnanimous and the tone was right. was it easy? no. i think both sides need to try to find a way to work together. their personalities are such that obama and o'connell will never be able to talk turkey. i don't know. maybe they could. >> there were senate filibusters. it seemed to serve an important purpose. it was a serious debate. in recent years, everything is

filibustered and motion to proceed, everything else. >> should it be undone? >> it can be. i hope they will take the nuclear option away. for that to have the effect you want, he is going to have to let amendments be offered. he shouldn't block every amendment. the leader of the democrats has got to be prepared not to filibuster everything. although the republicans did. it has been evolutionary. every two years it seems to have gotten worse. i think they need to find a way to back off of that ledge they are on. >> we talked the last few minutes about rules and procedures and regular order. is that the root of the problem or is it culture? is it the permanent campaign? >> i think it is all of the above.

the environment has changed. people rarely move their families to washington after an election like this. you have people living on their sofas and leaving on thursdays and coming back on tuesdays and trying to govern this incredible country on wednesdays. too much money in politics today. they ran millions of ads. the culture has changed. these groups have poisoned the well to a large extent. >> you have got third-party ads. >> you could have campaign financial reform or election reform, you can do something about anything. that would be hard to reverse. he is right on each point. i did see an article quote that

gave me hope. he said, we will go back to doing things where we are going to be here in washington for major part of the week. then we will have one of all week were we can be with our constituents. by the way, synch our calendar with the senate. there needs to be a better coordination to get things done. tom is right. my favorite quote is the biggest problem is the airplanes. people jump on an airplane in the morning and fly up and the first discussion is when can i leave on thursday? >> we had votes on mondays and friday mornings.

>> why don't they do it now? >> a couple of reasons. they don't move their families here. their families are back there. also, it is the money. a typical senator has to raise about $15,000 a day in order to be competitive. >> you proposed the parties each week has a republican caucus lunch and democratic caucus lunch. you propose there be a lunch or dinner or whatever. does that matter? >> it makes a huge difference. it has to do with relationships and the chemistry between all of the members. every time we met as a senate, not as a party, unbelievable

things happened. they had fire in their eyes. we'll take it to them. we will wait until wednesday and let things go down a bit. if they have regular lunches and sit and hear the perspectives, it would lower the tension a little bit. we are at the point where if parties are important, but america is more important -- >> have you suggested this? >> verbally and in writing and with our commission on campaign reform and election reform, it is all in there. >> there are things that are very hard to do. you talk about campaign finance. >> there are things that are easy to do. this is one of the easier things to do.

this is a very contentious city right now. hopefully this election be the catalyst to bring about the question of how to manage better? i know in some cases quietly and privately. you have to do it with some regularity. the caucus has to be a joint caucus meaning. >> we talked a little bit about that. maybe some new members or outsiders who say no. we are here to draw lines. you have seen that contingent in

your homes. >> first of all, i'm a firm believer in reaching out -- pull them in. talk to them. talk to them early and often. i had to keep an eye on them. i had a singing senators quartet. >> i used to listen to you. [laughter] >> here is what i recommend -- don't assume that ted cruz is going to be a problem. let him have some things he can do. that is when real leadership comes in. even if you don't have all members of the caucus.

i could ease over. the point is not -- there will be some disagreements. i really get agitated when they start questioning my conservatism. i was most conservative leader before some of them were born in a don't appreciate being questioned on that. [laughter] when we have welfare reform and a balanced budget and tax-safe drinking water, what about that is not -- >> and across the aisle? >> it was. >> what changes does barack obama have to make?

>> i think there needs to be a more conciliatory mood. were talk that words and how the president described the election. what is more important is action. i'm hopeful the meeting he will hold this week will lead to a commitment not only on legislation, but on process, on how we start communicating more effectively. it may be hard for some to become more inclusive, to become more engaged, personal. it is essential to good governance. >> do think that will change? >> you could make history on a whole array of issues. really important contributions to public policy. the only way it will happen, especially the realization it has got to be a partnership. figure out a way to work together. figure out a way to find common ground.

>> would it be helpful in seeking common ground if the president deferred any action until sometime next year on an executive order on immigration? should he defer action? >> i'm not sure that is necessary. violating that commitment to a large segment of the american people i think like a mistake. the percent, and installment cash that he made the first step, and installment. it would be something in statute rather than executive order. that would be an impactful approach. it is not necessarily an either or.

he made the commitment. he needs to keep it. the first step in a series of things that could be very helpful. >> does mitch mcconnell need to change it, too? >> i think so. >> bill clinton went both ways. he called at 7:20 in the morning. i could talk to him and tell him things i thought were important and he may be needed to hear. you need to get over the insults i wasn't invited to this or do it yourself. i don't want to get him in trouble. house republican leadership john boehner and kevin mccarthy, steve scalise, they like to legislate on issue after issue.

if the president would really engage them. you could see some good things occur. both parties would say this is good. the house is were a lot of stuff begins. >> and deferred action on immigration, would it be helpful if the republican stopped voting to repeal obamacare? >> well, i think they will both have to do what they have to do. do what you have got to do. he see how it turns out and move on. he is going to veto it. what i would do is i would quickly have a vote to repeal it and get it over with in the process if i could. let the president veto it. we have done that. here are some things we can do

to improve it. some the president would be willing to do. republicans have got to try to repeal obamacare. that was a big issue. we need that. we believe that. could we accomplish that? no, but we need to show we are serious. same thing on immigration. i think we need to do immigration reform. we need to secure the border. we need to deal with the people here in a responsible way. you may need to do that in pieces. if obama overplays his hand with executive order, that would be a red flag. if he is careful in what he proposes is brought an overarching and not into the details and letting everyone stay here regardless forever, he is careful. he did not say, by the way. even this would go by the

wayside as we act. he has got to do what he has got to do. he needs to be careful how we does it. you have got to always leave the barn door open at the back we can get an escape hatch. >> do have any optimism about immigration? what other issues could be done this year? >> i think this is almost a must pass. if the had to list the most likely source of common ground, i think it would be immigration because i think with the presidential cycle now beginning, there is little doubt that a large percentage of the american people are expecting that congress deal with it, that this administration deals with it. i think they will. we have come close a couple of times. i think there is a real

opportunity here with the transpacific partnership. i think that is the second one. the third one has real potential might be health care. a lot of things. the extension of the children's health insurance program, that is expiring this year. a lot of things that could get done went you get beyond the repeal vote. >> there are other areas where they clearly need to act and they're not partisan -- cyber security. we have a threat in america. we have not been able to act. they were all working and left

it on the table. i think we are at risk. if they have not acted in this area -- >> i quickly mentioned both iran and isis, issues that are pretty -- have pretty broad bipartisan support. >> one of the areas that transportation aviation. those are traditionally nonpartisan issues. the question is how do you pay for them? we have a problem with sewers and water systems and highways. we need to do something. bill shuster in the house. barbara boxer in the senate. >> really enjoyed having you. we will be back in a moment. >> sir andrew witty is here.

it is currently working on a vaccine for ebola.

the first major drugmaker that says it would no longer a doctors to promote the products. it would also stop compensation of sales representatives for the number of prescriptions doctors wrote. i am pleased to have him here at this table. welcome. >> thank you very much. >> a couple of things of the company. there were issues on fraud. that is all behind you. >> yes. we had to deal with some unfortunate events in the past. we are focused on raising the standards of all of our activities. i believe the company has really been focused on trying to innovate its activities in the health care space and try to make sure there will be balance and not just the benefits, but also access and making sure more people get access to those vaccines. >> talk about the vaccines, the

ebola vaccine. >> we have been very busy with ebola. we have had help from nih. we have a potential vaccine available. we are now into the dose ranging phase. we are working with various authorities, including the world health organization, to be in a position where we could have a substantial number of vaccines available for the turn of the new year for potential use in the camps that has been affected by ebola in west africa. could be as early as january 2015. >> if they are found to be effective and make the requirements, they would do what? >> the important thing to focus on is this crisis is in three or four countries in west africa.

let's make sure we do everything can to try to maintain a reduce and eliminate the crisis there. it may be that is the end of the story. if not and it becomes a more significant issue, then as you go through next year, other companies are working on it. they could be in a position to great more volume. we can make more available to other countries if needed at all of that will need to be carefully managed and controlled by the regulators. >> you are not a doctor, but the head of a pharma company. >> the ebola crisis, clearly there are challenges in the infrastructure of these countries. they need more health care workers, and any more infrastructure to get on top of these sorts of issues. often i think people who are

vulnerable to malaria, tuberculosis, are especially vulnerable in these situations. it is important we address other fundamental health care needs. from the west perspective, i have been around long enough to gone through sars, pandemic influenza, and now ebola. we need to think harder on whether there are strategic ways to be better ready. >> what might be one? >> look at gsk. a number of technologies or platforms the might be useful in developing vaccines. i think we would be ready to work with major governments to put in place more of a standing readiness. let's put in place more of a standing readiness working with the right agencies and making sure rather than having emergency response in the way that -- can we do something that is a bit more ready? we'd do not know what the next

threat will be. >> we do not know what the next threat is going to be. that is a scary thing. >> it is. we also have a series of technologies of building blocks, if you will. in most cases, we have been able to reassemble in a hurry to put together one thing that gives -- that process is very responsive and time pressured. what we can do is step back and commit -- the mechanism where we are working on those ideas, but where we have something partially ready. we could get part of the way there in anticipation. take some of the pressure out . >> advances in biomedicine -- >> absolutely. a powerful example, malaria.

people would have laughed at you or me if we said we could develop a vaccine for malaria. a parasitic worm. how could you vaccinate against it? now we are here at gsk with a potential vaccine for malaria. it could be approved in the middle of 2015. that is an extraordinary technological achievement delivered through bringing together three or four different ideas and technologies coalescing into one vaccine and collaborating with people like cdc, walter reed institute, and here we are with something that just a short number of years ago, people would have said was impossible. >> interesting thing for malaria is people have made it target number one. he believed that polio could be eradicated and believes malaria could be eradicated over a longer period of time. do you believe that? >> eradication is a tall order.

in the duration of your program, your show today, more people will die of malaria than of ebola since it was discovered. this is an extraordinarily heavy burden on the world. if there was one to pick, malaria is the one to pick. >> how many die within the time of this program? more than ebola. how many are under the age of -- >> very high. if you look at children, something like 300,000 babies and infants die a year in africa from malaria. it is really an extraordinary burden. that is why the vaccine we have been developing focused on those young babies and infants. that is where -- can you imagine the second time in the villages

who are blighted, it greatly undermines everything to do with our society, every parent's spending all their time looking after dying children. it completely dictates what society behaves like. whether it is with a vaccine or other things as well as a vaccine, the potential impact on the individual, it is extraordinary. >> how many big pharma companies are there? >> less than 15. >> is there different focus on each of them or are seven or eight of them focused on malaria vaccine? >> really weird the primary focus point. some are focused on medicine. if you look across the board, probably 10 companies that are

active in some warm of another and some type of tropical disease. maybe one of the unusual diseases in the west is very common in west africa and other poor countries. we pull together with bill gates help about three years ago, a declaration in london where we got 10 of the biggest drug companies to come together and work together to limit or in some cases work towards the eradication whole series of these tropical diseases. the industry so far has delivered everything and promised it would do and we are on track. >> what else ought to be on the horizon in terms of vaccines delivering enormous potential? ebola? malaria? >> dengue fever. hpv got to remember that vaccines

are one of the most the preventions in health care. you get a lifetime of protection. it is one of the most cost effective mechanisms to go forward. it is a difficult job. somebody once said to me that putting a man on the moon was simple compared to discovering a drug. that is not far from the truth. you are thinking about a biological system interacting with a chemical. you cannot see what is going on. it takes a long time to understand the biology and had to figure how to interact with that biology through some kind of mechanism. you need to find exquisite targets where you just generate good news without generating side effects. that is why these programs take years.

the programs i have commissioned at gsk as ceo, in many cases won't deliver for 15 or 20 years. you need exquisite creativity in your scientists. great connectivity with academia. nih is a great example. really helped open the book on biology for people. you need creative scientists. it is a most like a eureka moment. spot the pattern. develop a drug on the back of that. it is an extraordinary mix of human individual creativity backed up with industrial scale development capability. what you and i need to be happy with is not this it is a good idea, is safe idea that has been tested. that includes industrial scale. how you put together the creativity with industrial machine is a very interesting --

>> couple of things before we go. hiv virus, where do we stand? >> at gsk we have been a leader in hiv research. we have seen that disease transform in terms of choices, a major disease and cause of concern for individuals and families affected by it. we have introduced new meds. a super long-acting hiv drug where it may be possible for us to treat people with a dose either once a month or even once a quarter by taking tablets. we're now moving into a new era of hiv treatment. we have been the beneficiaries for the last 10 or 15 years of a number of drugs that has helped control the virus. we're moving into an era where we could do that in a simple way. >> and idea of having doctors

promote your products on how many prescriptions they have sold or are selling, why did you do that? was it some sense this raises questions about our own credibility? >> ultimately we want to be and need to be seen for what we are. people who are working hard every single day. >> to be transparent. >> working every single day to develop great new medicines and vaccines. what we don't want is people being suspicious in any way or a sense there's a conflict of interest. all of the ways that we work, perfectly legal and allowed. we shouldn't just innovate in the lab. we should innovate in the market place as well. it is absolutely right we look for ways in which we can eliminate any doubt in everybody's mind about our

motivations and any doubt about our relationship with key customers in the form of physicians. i believe there are alternative ways in which we could be just as effective without having had that risk of conflict of interest. that is why we made the changes. i feel confident that what we have done is the right thing. i think the people who work at gsk are very program are innovating in that sense. >> thank you for coming. pleasure to have you. thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪ >> live from pier three in san

francisco, welcome to "bloomberg west." we cover innovation, technology, and the future of business. i'm cory johnson, in for emily chang. a strong jobs report did not send the markets soaring. the nasdaq and larger s&p 500 dipped slightly after the u.s. added 214,000 jobs last month. >> we recognize that this fight for solid growth, there are still a lot of folks out there who are anxious about their futures, who are having trouble making ends meet at the end