funding that can go to companies that are doing development of products? i think that is certainly one that should be looked at in terms of the themes that he has articulated. then on the other side that was just raised by jonathan this issue of how are you going to pay. the global conference competin competing -- convened a panel discussion on this that was extremely insightful. if you build it well they pay tax now we have to worry about what we do with this innovation? kimmie afford it and afford it and the larger health care system? i think there is an exciting opportunity here to post the circle of it. if we can prevent disease and please let's prevent it and boy do we have a lot of prevention work that needs to happen. if we need cares let's figure out how to fix that part of the system and get the funding so we can do that and we have a robust economy. but boy do we have to pay attention to that other and too which is how are we valuing do we valuing dissemination and how are we as a society going to sort of be able to take in what's coming through?

i will say in years past jonathan in his work and much of the work that is being presented here when we were at meetings on innovation and the big bugaboo that ui is heard, the bogeyman, the fda. fda is responsible for all the problems. not true obviously and not what you hear now. i e-mailed some colleagues at the fda recently. i said interesting fda is not coming up at all. what is coming up is the specter of not being able to have products be reimbursed and so i think that is one that everybody can sort of lean in collectively and start talking about this value equation. >> to further comment on the economic realities, one of my responsibilities is to balance the budget of a medical school. well we put in $60 million in --

for each dollar that comes in we spend about 25 cents and we are. efficient in extra dollars to support the research enterprise. that is the importance of cms. where those dollars come from for most medical centers where there is a mission not an option to invest in other places but that's the mission to do the research and education. those dollars primarily come from clinical revenues. a little bit from philanthropy but if you do the math is a huge amount that would be required to make up that gap and that is why the decisions on funding that are made from cms which type of privates are so critical to this research enterprise. it's not just nih budgets that supplement that every academic medical center put sand to

research enterprise where it's the mission to look for the cures. it's not an option. >> i just want to say this exceeded my expectations and i want to thank everybody for coming today. i really want to thank -- most of the members have left but i can't really remember a more robust discussion among members of congress that we have had either about looking at a visionary way to the future so thank you all for participating in our introductory effort. fred i'm excited to hear what your plans are next. but i just have a couple of comments. the first one is, you note show when you asked the question about funding, it wasn't just dr. collins who has a personal interest and increase funding for the nih. it was every single one of our guests today across all

political backgrounds, all fields, all agencies and everything. but it's really not just a matter of let's just increase the budget of the nih and/or the fda because it's not linear. it's not like purchasing things. it's not like purchasing warships or something like that. you spend x. amount of money and you get y amount of tears and that is why these discussions are difficult. it seems to me it is number 1:00 p.m. on the funding. it really is. we still are at the top. we have the biggest commitment of any country in the world to this kind of funding and some of the legislation i've worked on over the years when i get my stem cell legislation and went to other countries and met with their researchers and these other countries, they were saying to me we need to have stable research in the united states because we are working on

anti-israeli researchers or the people in singapore or london or wherever are hooking onto our basic research. so it's not just -- when we cut research here doesn't only affect our junior researchers. it affects these other researchers around the world and increase investment by these countries can make up for that knowledge that we have. that's also why we really have to make sure that we do keep the funding study and robust because otherwise we won't have those researchers here who are doing that research that everybody else is hooking onto. so that's the first thing. we really do have to have sufficient and robust research budget and it has to be steady over the long. i think there've been a lot of good suggestions today. the second thing is that we have to be able to maximize their results. this is something that nobody really asks this question

although dr. burgess did bring it up a little bit. in 2007 when we reauthorize the nih we did some pretty good restructuring as you might remember mr. barton and we did that because when the nih was set up, it was set up with all of these different agencies which was wonderful. but the nature of research has really changed. so you have to be able to do all kinds of interdisciplinary research. that is why we did the structure of the nih at that time. we have made a lot of innovations over the years working in conjunction with the fta and i'm very pleased to hear from the witnesses that a lot of that seems to be working. so this is all a very long way of leading up to my question which is, and you may not even be able to answer today. one thing that fred and i are really thinking about as we look at this big picture view is are there ways going forward that we

can restructure over two weeks the structures of some other key research agencies not just the ones represented here today, but cdc, the lapse, other agencies so that we can encourage arafat targeted interdisciplinary research so that will not only help us find cures faster and help with diseases in this country and around the world but also lead to a greater degree of efficiency and efficient utilization of resources. >> i very much appreciate the question. i think actually the science agencies and the people who work within them are increasingly pretty good at figuring out opportunities for interdisciplinary projects and doing them together. you can see more and more evidence of that but they are bureaucratic barriers that get in our way and one other request

that you all are putting forward is to have some information about those. i think we could all made some suggestions. some of these may seem like small ball kinds of issues that they can really get in our way. for instance scientist cannot travel to conferences and we have an anonymous amount of paperwork and oversight which is really quite deafening to a scientific community which ends up costing the government more money because the oversight is so slow and owners that you missed the registration deadline for an earlier cost so you pay a higher cost for the travel. it is actually pretty offensive to many scientists to have this kind of approach taken to something that is the lifeblood of how you build these interdisciplinary connections which is to get together and talk about shared ideas. there is a place where we could sure use some help. i think jim woolliscroft brought

up the paperwork that falls on his institution many others much of which is mindless. after reporting comes to my mind presence. in terms of as many reports and i think many of you saw the "washington post" document the more the 1000 reports that are somehow still on the books that congress has asked for. not that anybody reads in many busy people spend time on compiling these are ports. but that if housecleaning here would be most welcome especially for those of us who end up spending a lot of her time trying to do that are asking our step two. are you interested in that kind of feedback? i think we would all love to provide it. >> i wanted to comment a little bit on the concept of interagency interactions. i spent a fair amount of my career in the department of energy national laboratory and i think one of the things that the biomedical enterprise benefited

from in the early days of the atomic energy commission and d.o.e. and so on was the ability to bring to bear some of the really great engineering and mathematical skills in the national laboratories to bear on medical problems. i think that one of the things that has happened over recent years is a certain degree of compartmentalization so they nih takes care of life sciences and the department of energy is worried about other aspects of biology and science. but there is in my opinion a great deal to the gained by bringing these agencies together so that they -- can combine the multi-disciplines that they each encourage in pursuit of some other really important biomedical problems. it would help us a lot if he could do that.

>> jonathan beat me to the punch but i'm going to take this opportunity to talk about the development of antibiotics. it does fit into your question about collaboration. stick with me for a second. one of the issues is these drugs would be approved for very limited populations. this legislation would give fda the flexibility to approve drugs, antibiotics to treat conditions with smaller datasets so the indications would be targeted and the clinical trials would be more feasible and it would be cheaper to develop these products or which there is a great need. but then that raises the question of because these drugs won't be studied in broad populations how do you make sure they are not used in broad

populations, because the risk benefit calculation may not match up for someone with simple memo yet. so they adapt at uses cdc infrastructure, the national health care safety, to monitor how these drugs are used. so it's not looking at an individual prescription or rather a broader approach looking at more broadly how the drugs are used to make sure that the drugs are used like congress if congress passes this list is just lishan intended. i think it's an interesting way to use fda and cdc together to help bring, to help encourage these new drugs and make sure that they are monitored. so it's something that is all outside of the box and you asked about collaboration in terms of science. on the front end is a science and on the backend this goes to that theme. i think it's extremely important as well.

>> thank you. >> i would echo that go further on smu. i think there is a compelling need for antibiotics. there's no question about it but the fact is there's a compelling need for alzheimer's and big diseases that we are not making a lot of progress on and i really would encourage we look at how that can be done in a place where there there is buy-in by the fda and by companies and other patient groups because there is a compelling need and we are not going to get it just like on the lung cancer trial, one drug at a time in one patient at a time. i think there are opportunities for us to come together and look at that and not only look at restrictive views but what we can get in a post-market situation when we are going to really get a lot of good data. >> thank you. i just want to first of all thank the staff. they worked very hard and

they're right witnesses here and for everybody's time and for five months we have been planning this event. i have to say when i got my first gavel in subcommittee chair way back when was i really don't want more than four or five witnesses at the table because you know i'm going to lose everybody and foes are going to happen and all of that. so this is a little violation of their rope at all 11 of you were really terrific. i know you have got a lot more to say and we have a lot more time to hear you as well but more than you there are a lot of other folks who want to conjure with as well and that is what is exciting about this. because as we think about you know from the government decide how do we make the government work better and how do we get faster cures and so many talented people involved that so many people too all the disease -- disease patient groups looking for the an

i know that there are republicans and democrats willing to find other offsets to make sure that it is the right level, to really do their job. but this is the first step. i think it has been a thoughtful, bipartisan -- there is no partisanship at all really , first step of where we want to end up buried in the know that joe palin's and frank paul loan will be working hard as the chairman and ranking member. as we go about the process, the next steps have been whispered about. they're is a lot of folks we want to hear from. remember, and dr. collins, the idea is, limiting the bureaucracy, lamenting the paperwork, the crazy rules that are out there, we can fix that.

but we cannot fix it without hearing from you first. and that is what is important. and so for the folks that are not in this room that are, perhaps, watching today or next week is that watch a replay of this might yours. you have direct impact to all of us, and we look forward to a lot more thought flowers as we figure out the course to make everybody's life of a new one that we want to support. thank you. >> thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> of look at u.s. military options and how events in the middle east are affecting military preparedness.

from washington journal this is washington journal continues. host: linda robinson is joining us. thank you for being with us. >> thank you for being with us this morning. recently it was announced adviso iraq. give us the latest. guest: there are initial teams on the ground to do an assessment. the latest report is there going to get out and do some surveys. they will be protected by some airstrikes -- air cover. this is just to assess the situation on the ground and see what they could do potentially to assist the iraqi security forces. we have got continuing developments on the insurgent side. they are continuing to consolidate in the north and west.

is big news over the weekend hashead of the group an islamicself state. they have dropped the last two parts of their name. they just call themselves the islamic states. they have global intentions. host: what kind of ramifications for this rebranding? guest: it is a sign of their ambition and that their ambitions want to reach beyond that territory. we have no idea what the reaction is going to be. recruits orw more so more groups may fold up underneath them. there have been reports of individuals from rival groups joining up. it could provoke a counter reaction.

we have to wait and see. as the u.s. core issue is are there groups coming and plotting to attack the u.s. or individuals? there are a number of foreign fighters associated with this group. that is the most immediate threat. are they intending to attack the u.s. or u.s. citizens? the stability to the region is important. as this group grows and takes control and gathers other groups underneath it, sunni groups that are not jihadist are collaborating and that is what aided them taking some of the major cities, there is a question of how far they will advance in iraq.

they are in control of some of the border crossings. do they pose a threat to jordan and other countries. will this add to the conflict in syria? there are a lot of issues. linda robinson is joining our conversation. if you are a war veteran you can also call in. presidenteekend, obama aired an interview where he was asked about iraq. these are his comments. >> i think we have been under serious threat my entire presidency. under threat predating 9/11 by those who embrace this ideology.

>> they are gaining strength aren't they? >> in some places. areave seen europeans who sympathetic to their cause traveling into syria and may travel into iraq during they come back and they have european passports. they don't need a visa to get into the united states. we are spending a lot of time making sure that we are improving intelligence so that we can respond to that. we have to be able to respond to that. special forces will have a role. there will be a time when we take strikes against organizations that could do is arm. is signaling a concern about individuals that could come back to attack the homeland. that is the first priority for him. he also signaled an increasing willingness to consider amending an array of options once this is

over. he mentioned special forces on the ground. there is the issue that has been raised from the beginning about airstrikes, whether from manned or unmanned drones. is there any resolution about those options? a question ofs both the efficacy of those strikes, do we know where the key leadership is? casualty and collateral damage issue. those require what is beginning now as an on the ground assessment and intelligence to figure out what would work. the threat continues to grow. the iraqi government is concerned. for russian jets to

come in. the prime minister of iraq has asked for help from the u.s.. there are apache helicopters on order from the u.s.. this is a foreign military sales issue. they have been slow to arrive. he has turned to a quicker solution. they have very little air support capacity. patrick is in pennsylvania on the democrat line. caller: how are you both this morning? when you come from the , you knowce industry with the narrative of deceit is particularly in the trajectory of the american people. as the american people look at the lies that are being deployed in syria and iraq, to understand true narrative. from asident comes back

meeting with the saudi arabian town apart. prince band are is terminated as president of intelligence from saudi arabia. no sooner does that take place in two massive issues take place. u.s. turns renna provides missile technology to the terrorists. it then literally back-to-back covern around and provide for the saudi arabian power grab. this is a geopolitical power grab. words, it is ae saudi arabia and saying that is being under radian -- underwritten with american tax dollars.

the rand corporation is behind this. the american people are understanding. hillary clinton is correct when she says that you have lost the information war. the american people are understanding that oligarchical corporations in this country are beginning the march toward tyranny in our country. they are using the mideast as a inhanism to make this fact host: i want to pick up a few things. the politics of that region are extremely complicated. i think it is important to bring in a few more data points. the administration did announce last week that it would be $500 million worth of support to the syrian

opposition. be not the us -- extremist syrian groups. you have a number of groups there. this is an attempt to attack the isis. is one initiative. john kerry has a diplomatic offensive in the region which is very important. whatever the u.s. decides to do, it needs to get the support of the regional actors and figure policyt is an effective that would be supported by the people who live in an area. numerous's have been well-documented reports about support coming out of saudi arabia and other gulf states for these extremist groups.

the saudi arabia has been calling on the u.s. to do thething to counter violence in the region and to counter this assad regime in syria. i reject the implication that rand -- rand is a research organization. , secretary kerry just met with the foreign ministers. there is an effort to try to figure out what to do on the diplomatic and political front. engaging with the prime minister ad trying to get representative government and an approach that is going to include the sunnis of iraq in that governing structure and in

the economic life for that country. the government has marginalized the sunnis over the last many years. it is important to press on that front. powerfuln extremely holdingstate that is cities and large amounts of territory in northern and western iraq. with the border posts following it provides a seamless area of operation. if you look at the facts on the ground and there are many maps out there showing territory being held, this is an extremely serious problem. if political inclusiveness is not quickly coming, there are a lot of people who feel that some type of military action or necessary to hold

the line here in keep this from getting worse. 500: you mentioned the million dollars the administration is seeking from congress. that would go to the fetid elements of the moderate syrian opposition. how do you identify the moderates? guest: there are groups who have been working with them. we have got a massive refugee problem that now spans all of those countries. groups are smaller and weaker. month, thest they'vet group

continued to grow and take territory. the problem is will they be enough. bel they bethe question is wily enough, will they be effective? iraq cannot be directly addressed by helping the syrian opposition. secretary kerry made clear this is not an attempt to bring syrian fighters into iraq, which alreadymplicate an extremely difficult position. since up to one third of the iraq he army may have deserted and crumbled in the face of this attack, there is a question of how to shore up the iraqi exchangeforces and in for what political concessions by the iraqi government. committee is on our line for independents. caller: i want to ask you guys a question.

how much did you think it played a part on all of these people doing all these things relating to the disrespect of the president? everything we do we seem very divided. we are supposed to be at war and supposed to be behind the president. when your enemies see that you are so divided as they are, as obama -- trying to impeach him and calling him a communist, it is just ridiculous. i think that played a lot of it in their. there.t of it in . guest: it is an interesting comment you make. as i watched these various insurgent and jihadist groups playing years, they are to public opinion around the

world. that is what this declaration over the weekend was intended, to make themselves look bigger and trying to draw recruits. they are very astute about american public opinion and the debates we have in our country. i do think the president has made some strong statements the need to focus on the group. congress will probably have to take up the group -- take up the issue to determine the aid question as well as what type of authorization might be required. ofnow senator tim kaine virginia raised this issue in an op-ed last week. the one clear thing is this is the magnitude of -- i do want to

emphasize potential. that seems to be the focus in the region and not trying to mount attacks outward. there has been reporting of a who try to learn from the yemeni franchise of al , and we do have this group of foreign fighters that has gone over to iraq and syria. are u.s.es in citizens. those certainly are most concerned because we can travel most easily. i would think for every american, no matter what their political views are. host: eleanor is on our line for republicans in massachusetts. caller: a moment of silence.

the invasion on the united -- the military has to be put there and no amnesty for illegal immigrants. question -- have a comes the united states first. comesler: united states first. [indiscernible] this was brought forth and presented as opposition to the oil cartel. this would bring down the price of fuel. qaeda and the al --ficulties in latin america

it will bring down the price of the fuel flux would revitalize the economy. it will start with nato. i am not an expert on the oil business. certainly oil prices has gone up and one can presume the instability there is certainly having some impact. i do think it is important to talk a little bit about the situation on the ground area the iraqi government is trying to mount a counter offensive. they launched an attack to try to retake the city of tikrit. it was saddam hussein's hometown. it is kind of a seesaw battle right now.

they don't have that many helicopters. weekendeport over the -- all of these steps down toward getting involved more and more deeply are going to be thoroughly debated because there is the question of appearing to side with the government that has behaved in a very sectarian way. hand, this group is extremely powerful. if he can resist a concerted counteroffensive, there is also a seesaw battle going on for the major oil refinery. there has been no contributions the task the first drawing a line so these roots keeping baghdad from

becoming an all-out battle ground is job number one for the iraq a government. they also have to address whether and how they can retake the territory they have already lost. that is a tall order for them to do on their own. they have made a call for volunteers. a lot of the volunteers have been shiite iraqis. that then complicates the sectarian dynamic. everything has a cause and effect here. it is going to take a while to sort out the complication of measures.

caller: could you verify something for me. it the shiites we are helping -- al-maliki is in charge. being backed by iran. are the majority of a rainy and shiites as well? guest: yes. caller: another question, would you kindly tell me who is going to pay for all this? if my into -- if my income tax is going there, which is very high for it in this country, i would rather have it be huge -- be used here. guest: certainly the major ally

in the region of iraq is iran. it has provided diplomatic support, military and economic support. the support with regard to the offensive in iraq has primarily been advisory reports. there have been reports of the main regular force of iran. be how much will more is iran willing to do to help iraq? i would say when the u.s. department at the end of 2011, made -- maintained maintained military sale agreement with iraq. we have a signed agreement called the strategic framework agreement that envisioned a host -- host of types of support.

it is a question that iran and u.s. are supporting the iraqi government. there is great concern that iraq e-government has not been inclusive enough. process a long beginning to form the government. some people think malik he has been to sectarian and should not be the one to lead the next government. his party got the most votes. it is a complex parliamentary negotiation. it is not a purely shiite government. the head of parliament has been sunni. been aasn't

multi-sectarian cooperation there. the other question about the amount of aid -- no decisions about themade yet degree and the amount of help the u.s. government is willing to give to iraq. salesre are the military that have been concluded and approved by congress. what is going on is an assessment mission created military assets have been placed into position to provide support to the iraqi government. they ruled out ground mag -- ground forces of any magnitude. that is off the table. there might be further military assistance. -- ave yet to see host: the numbers to call and is --

iraq veterans, your number is -- next caller is in hamilton, ohio. caller: good morning to you. what i would like for you to -- what i have heard in the news is that our military advisers told president obama that at least 20,000 american soldiers would be needed there to keep the peace. to keep 2000illing there.

malik he notes president obama -- he didn't take him seriously. that is why he didn't give -- presidenta obama -- to let the soldiers be under american rule. tryident obama didn't even that hard to persuade him to change his mind. not the 20,000 that are military advisers told president obama would be needed. al-maliki, i would not take him seriously as well. me -- could also tell

from what i understand george soros was one of the masterminds behind the arab spring uprising. if that is true and he was one of the masterminds, i believe that man should beat hard and feathered. thet: i have no idea about last question but i think this issue that you raised -- that back and forth, the long drawnout negotiations about how many troops to leave behind in theback, that happened in 2010, 2011 time work. that came to a lower number that was offering to prime minister malik he to stay behind. to take that request from legal

u.s.ctions, for those servicemembers that would stayed behind, the u.s. determined it needed a vote from the iraqi parliament to ratify that prime minister malik he just wanted to give an executive guarantee that those -- thatvice members deal fell apart. there has been a great deal of debate over it. i would say that issue also pertained to afghanistan, where we are departing. the general question is what is the end game? to do thes are needed phase transition out and ensure the security forces of a country we have been helping for some time are able to stand up and move forward on their own. i would say that is an academic debate.

i'm sure there will be a lot more written about it in years to come. very we are right now is a tiny office of security u.s.tion out of the embassy in baghdad. how much more are we going to do to support this government? it is seen as critical to bring the sunnis back over to the government side, which is more or less where they were when we departed. the violence in iraq was down. now many of them are siding with this extremist group, the islamic state. the question is can you peel them away and get them to support the government? up 300sident has set advisers.

they are supposed to be located in joint operations centers. so they are not going to be out fighting, if you will. they are purely there as advisers. will that be sufficient? well that mission and and they will come home and we will leave the iraqis to fend for themselves? all these questions are still very much up in the air. >> host: over the weekend congressman peter king also commenting on the situation. let's listen now to his comments. >> this is a real, real threat. a very aggressive on this. syria is our biggest there right now. now the thousands of europeans. there's also at least 100 plus americans who are over there in syria right now. any of these people can come back to the united states and carry out the type of attack they're being trained for in syria. the terrorists in syria are extremely sophisticated,

advanced. like thousands of people go back to europe in crimea, over 100 americans to come back here. one or two of them, and we could have a very real attack year. >> again, i think that is highlighting the top u.s. concern. representative came, the question is, are those americans that have gone over to fight and obviously had a degree of radicalism to go over there and join the movement, but are they going to be developed into fighters that will come back an attempt to learn some kind of attack on u.s. soil or against americans elsewhere? and i would point out that we have been discussing military options to help stabilize the region and diplomacy efforts that the secretary has taken. there is also the fbi and all the homeland security entities of the u.s. government that are

looking at these individuals, tracking them. it is really their mission to try to safeguard that scenario of potential american geodesy coming back to attack and u.s. soil. we have many efforts going on, and people, i think, are looking at this very intensively. you can ask questions about what might have been done in the months before, but i think the criticality of the situation right now is such they you have all the relevant agencies of the government quite focused on what are effective needs because the situation, frankly, is so dire that it may not be a very small advisory mission will be sufficient. if the iraqi army has crumbled to this degree, some of the day the boys they have, about 180 helicopters, and just in the fighting has occurred today,

there are reports that the third of them have been damaged destroyed. i'm not sure if they are all rendered inoperable, but this question of air support is a critical one because they simply do not have the platform. they have to caravans that have been launching missiles from. that is just a tiny amount of air power to try to take back the territory. but i think we from of homeland security perspective have all lot of law enforcement intelligence efforts going on to try to counter the four infighter coming back issue. >> host: new perspective given the amount of unrest in syria right now, is it possible to find a solution? >> guest: well, i have to say, to me, it is important, just looking at the situation on the ground and the goals of this insurgent groups. they do not distinguish between the territory of syria and iraq. obviously we have a longstanding

effort to try and get the leader of syria to leave. there are groups obviously fighting to get him out. but in terms of this group, the islamic state of syria, the different names and have been used to translate. they want to take over that entire territory. and that, i think, is the thing that the u.s. is trying to develop more of our regional approach to. the aid, of 500 million to the secular or moderate syrian opposition group, obviously they hope that they can start attacking the bases and strongholds within syria. they're already holding a lot of territory. and the trend line, the big picture of the story is the trend line has been favoring the extremist group. the question is from both the

syrian side and the arab side can day at least stop the advance in this their way to begin over time to mount an effective counter-attack? that's a very tough problem. >> host: on the line for democrats. >> caller: hello. >> host: go right ahead. you're on. it looks like we lost him. let's move on to the bronx, new york. >> caller: good morning. first of all, time's magazine, when the united states senate said that you're going to help $500 million. another one at the u.s. and

israeli, the highest of los numbers, two groups. in the third part, clearly there behind is based terrorist group. conclusive this point that, idea here is the point. this is tough. first the iraqi government, a kind of interference into the dominant issues of the country. the try to show that between the

two groups that think it's not that -- is a lot of evidence and proof to be had. the magazine, they heard that this is not as the terrorist groups. those are loyal to saddam hussein. these are loyal, the dictator. they are against the government. >> guest: you know, what to say. it's a great show because you

hear some many different views. i think there is clearly -- we are having a debate right now. the administration has been very deliberate about how involved it wants to get. starting to draw down its involvement in the conflict. so the question is, what does the u.s. government out decide to, raising its head. of course there have been people arguing that people should do more to aid the opposition. the senate and its bill have called for aid to syria and opposition. there have been of the people agitating. the question now that the obama administration is proposing to do just that, will include

things like surface to air missiles. is it going to be effective eight? is it going to be enough? of course this aid package will have to pass congress. it may be that there will -- the sense of congress will change. there will not aid the syrian opposition. a groundswell in the sense that more needs to be done. that is certainly what they administration appears to be doing. many to look for some measures without cutting involved in a full-blown war. of course everyone is hoping that the diplomatic and political measures will pan out. the government has not been perceptive. the last point the alliance of the stream javascript and that is certainly part of what is going on.

those that we sell that same alliance in 2006 when the sectarian war was at its height previously, and those groups do not share the aims of the islamic palisade and the extremist in. but because they are so frustrated with the government they are willing to provide common cause what happened to dampen the violence in 2006, when they turned against al qaeda, will they do that themselves this time? will they do that without help? when it happened before the u.s. was very involved in supporting that and putting those two elements. i think there's just a very honestly understandable wariness about how far the u.s. wants to get involved. it's a difficult moment we are in right now.

>> host: a couple of minutes left. the democratic line. >> caller: good morning. i would like to make a couple of points, if you will allow me. people were critical of vice president biden ten years ago when he said the only way that iraq will work, split it up into three autonomous regions. as the only way. and have a looser central government. all the sudden, i always hear these neocon 88 on line and say, well, obama should be doing more but they don't have sons and daughters going over there. why should we? a never have once, the head but and it was a mistake in the first place. critical obama. but when you ask them, what would you do? it is a country people

don't want to fight for. thank you. does represent a very strong point and you in this country. i would like to say one thing whichthe free state idea, has been around quite a while. the secular iraq ease don't want a separate state. they always wanted a state of iraq where they had representations. if you are to divide up the country in these three areas, the sunni area has no oil resources and they would be starved for an economic basis for that state. this is why you see the groups attacking. have control of some refining capability in syria.

that would provide a state with some economic means. >> it would be a very radical, extremist state that would sport a lot of violence and instability in the region. there is a fragmentation going on and a radical extremist group is attacking into the kurd area and they are taking kirk cook which is a mix city and an oil city. it is an area that has been contested and everyone hoped it would be subject to a diplomatic agreement as to the status of

what it should be. there are all kinds of instability. >> in a few moments on the communicators. a conversation with gordon smith. in a half our, our booktv program focuses on soldiers returning from war beginning with ron capps discussing his book "seriously not allright." in a little more than an hour and a half phil clay talks about his book "redeployment" and then a panel at the los angeles times book festival discusses the retalities of war.

>> national association of broadcasters and president ceo gordon smith is our guest this week. senator smith, the aereo decision came down by the supreme court. what is your reaction? >> guest: i am smiling, peter. i am gratified the supreme court stood by a principle that is as old as the constitution which is that copywrite material has a value and those who own the copy write should be free to negotiate it's value. >> aereo was compared to a cable company. is that fair? >> guest: of course it is. you had broadcast, cable and then satellite.

what if satellite said we are different than cable. we have a different technology. and we will take that and not consider ourselves not to be in law what is called an mpvd. but satellite didn't do that so why should aereo come up with a different technology and they see don't have the negotiate for copy write material. -- copyright -- >> host: what is the business model? >> guest: if the technology may have a place in the market but they now have to obey the rules of the roads that everyone has

to follow. >> host: so you can see them dealing with the companies and retransmission cost? >> guest: my job as the president is to advocate for laws and regulations that allow my members to stay in business. aereo was a threat to that. a direct threat to that. and i would imagine this doesn't go away and there will be discussions with aereo and broadcasters but that is beyond my responsibility and i will leave that to the judgment of members. >> host: joining us is monty tayloe of communication daily. >> does the success suggest that broadcasters should be doing something differently to target that market or take the customers? >> guest: they were just doing

what we were doing with antennas but they were charging for stuff going free over the airways and that triggers copyright law. my own sense is we are interested in every viewer having access to content as long as it is done lawfully. >> it has been suggested that aereo could respond by going to congress, lobbying, and i know the house judiciary chair says it highlights how they should look at the copyright laws. do you have a plan for congressional battle over the years? >> guest: i am not suggesting the copyright law shouldn't be revisited but it is extremly difficult to do because it is about picking winners and losers and it is hard for congress to make those judgments.

but, that said, i believe we will be very cooperative and highly engaged in the development of updated copyright law and already are. >> senator smith, i want to read from justice scolia and the question is one of the first question is whether aereo's record function which -- >> that is something for the court's to decide. what was upheld was the fundamental constitutional principle you cannot take someone's property and resell it without dealing with the owner of that copyright. however future cases develop,

that principle was decisively established and settled by the supreme court today. >> if we could move to the incentive auction. >> is it going to be a success? are there enough broadcasters that will participate in that? >> guest: i only know of 70 stations that want to participate. i think they would need more than that to have what is regarded as a successful auction. but i would also want to say one of the motives behind the spectrum auction was the funding of the first public safety network that chairman rockfeller wanted. and the aws3 auction that is being held, the fcc said that will probably provide the sufficient money to fund the first net system.

so the fcc shouldn't be in a hurry to get the rush through when the pressure is off financially to accomplish a public goal. what we hope is that they will do it right and not just in a rush. our concerns are from the so softwear modeling this government is having difficulty with software. when we run the modeling, half the viewership or half the tv statio stations' coverage areas are impacted and that is a real problem because that disinfranchi disinfranchises a lot of people that can not afford a $200 a month cable or satellite bill and they are dependented on being included in the overair broadcasting. >> the commission said the software they want to use is the

only one that can handle the calculations and the others are old by most standards and how can you use this holder? >> we have no problem with them looking at census data. that is fine. but new software doesn't also work as hhs found out. we want what works and we don't want to lose half of the coverage area because that is not holding broadcasters harmless as the statue calls on them to do. >> in filing about the software you use language that seems like you might go to court over that. would your members support a court challenge of the software and is there a chance it could derail the software?

>> guest: we will defend the coverage areas and would do that in court if necessary. >> host: do at&t and verizon have too much say in these auctions? >> guest: they have the big checkbooks. they have the influence and there is a tug to return to the federal treasurery versus not trying to re-create a duopoly and competition, if it needs to be there in the end, those are the decisions the fcc needs to make. >> host: what is your impression of tom wheeler? >> guest: i like tom. he is a smart guy and trying to get it done with the time remaining. he has a job to do and i respect

that and i like him. but i am disappointed that the narrative that came with him, and he finds offensive is a former chairman of cable and wireless. so we are defending ourselves and my job is to defend my members and i think my members confer an enormous value still on the american people. we don't care if folks get their television from subscription tv or over the air. gary shapiro says 6%. nielsen says 11% and a new study says 20% and that is 60 million people. and who are those people? they tend to be minority community members overwhelming,

they tend to be the elderly, the young techies and the economically disadvantaged and the question is do they count? and my answer mind sound democratic but i think they sound. i think localism is something that congress established in the beginning so every community has access to broadcasting. if they can't pay for it, they can get it for free to tell them what the weather, traffic and sports scores are and especially in emergency situations where there is a terrorist attack, a tornado, hurricane, earthquake -- all of these other telecommunications devices tend to fall first, but not broadcasting. governor after governor has said in alabama and kansas and missouri thank heavens broadcasting stayed on because they saved human lives.

>> host: how local is it when a st. clair owns several stations across the country? >> guest: they have to do local news. they own baltimore and seattle and they are looking at seattle news in seattle and that comes with the license a broadcaster has. and there is no one else in paid tv or on the internet or any other form other than newspapers, radio and television are covering local issues and providing local information and that is really important to being a civically involved and minded member of the country. so no body does that except broadcasting and that has a durable value for the country. >> companies like sinclair, they were highly dependented on sharing plans to get it done --

dependent -- what do you hope to accomplish by doing that and if you get that successfully taken back what do you want out of that? what rule should be in place? >> guest: they changed the rule in the middle of the stream. deals that were blessed are now in violation and, you know, it isn't hard to note the irony with all of these huge mega mergers in cable, satellite and telephone and there seems to be no concern about that. but they are concerned about sharing arrangements in bangor or boise. why do they have do it? they have a right to do it to us but not to them. i note the irony that the focus seems to be on us and not where

all of the big action is occurring for example when cable has interconnect and do sharing of ads and negotiating but that is wrong for them and okay for us. >> your court challenges involve the closing of the 2010 review. i am just wondering, the 2010 review got to that point because they could not make a decision. if you get that part to come back, why would the 2014 review go differently than the previous one? >> we think they have a statutory obligation and with when they make decisions on ownership related issues they ought to live up to the statute and say what has changed and what should change relative to ownership or sharing arrangements before they start saying broadcasters can't but it is okay for everyone else.

>> when i went to the nab show a lot of the talk was some of these policies is to make broadcasters uncomfortable. do you think that is a prevailing view and do you agree with it? >> guest: i believe that is the view. there is a bias and hostile toward the broadcaster and an under appreciation of the benefit we infer to the american people. free to those that can't afford to pay for it. but that is the view of my members and i would hope that would change and we are doing everything we can to change that. >> do you agree with that? it is the case to force you into the auction? >> i would hope not. i see decision after decision that is coming down that is trying to complicate life for

broadcasters but no one is stepping to do what they do; providing all of the localism for free. think about what we do every day. sometimes at the risk of life of a broadcaster to go out into the eye of the storm and broadcast the news that people need to be save or rescue or recovery. when you look at cable/cnn doing that, i love cable, but you have look in the corner and they are taking a broadcast feed because the local broadcast is doing that and sharing that with a cable station. sharing is somehow wrong, but i don't see that. what is is essential is broadcasting survive because of the values it serves. economies of scale are necessarily. they are ownership restrictions that are not applied to others and i believe that is born from

a bias against us. >> host: gordon smith, your opinion on the mergers moving forward in the paid tv industry. time-warner, at&t and comcast. >> guest: i know my members are concerned on our scale and relative to their scale and if is all about negotiating and getting fair value for content: our members are concerned. >> host: what is your current relationship with the comcast? >> reporter: they are -- >> guest: they own nbc and at the highest level i am pleased to tell you they have been with us on broadcasting issues. they haven't been the problem in relationship to retransmission consent or these issues. they have been standup guys. but that doesn't necessarily say

that my other network members are really comfortable with this evergrowing network of cable that has tremendous market power and theirs seems to have shackles. >> going back to the fcc, do you think is more politicized now? >> guest as to broadcasting? >> everything. >> guest: i will tell you the irony in this. i know being the head of the republican high tech task force that we were anxious to get the support of silicone valley. the democrats beat us to it. they are better at it. they are drawn to the wishes of

google and microsoft and great companies. what i am amazed at when you look at the demographic of a broadcast viewership it is the democratic party. many of the minority community. the techies and economically disadvantage and my plea is don't forget who brought you to the parties. broadcasting is important even tha as they look to silicone valley. >> there were studies to look at diversity and broadcasting but they were canceled because of political pressure primarily. chairman wheeler said they need to be preplaced. how should they do that? on the critical information needs study. >> guest: well, what that ran into a was a reglulator getting

into the room of -- regulater -- i think the motives were not to infringe but it is hard for the state to do. >> they have a court order that requires them to gather data. how could they go about it to fufill those -- fulfill -- those that could be okay for your leadership? >> guest: very difficult. i don't have an answer for that. and i know it has been eroding. >> host: i want to talk about the tech issues you were talking

about. what is the future of the nab with the googles and silicone valleys of the world and the different technology for watching television and getting video and that includes aereo as well and their technology. >> guest: i would say we welcome them, love to do business with them, that is not my call, but my members call. they would not like us infringing on their copyright laws. we ask they do business upfront and in the open. >> host: does aereo go away at this point? >> guest: that is up to them. i read comments it is over. but it is a technology that if it can operate in compliance with constitutional law, fine, let's do business. but those business decisions are not mine. they are my members.

>> host: what kind of business would you see the broadcasters getting into it? >> guest: i can only conjecture but for example a broadcaster member way want to see if there is a business opportunity. i don't know if there is but i know they have a platform that if it can be compliant with law there is a business there. >> wouldn't that be in line with what chairman wheeler said at the nab show? focus on your online sharing. >> guest: i could not help not note the irony saying you cannot share an advertising organization or content but share your six mega hertz and i

am thinking that is only good until is isn't. but i wondered, mr. chairman, have you checked the internet? we are the biggest par participating crowd. what he is urging us to do is done. is there more to do? of course. there is more opportunities and my members are great business people and looking for ways to increase viewership. >> doesn't the 3.0 effort flow into this? >> guest: it does. >> was that proceeding quick enough or threatened by what sinclair said? >> guest: no, in fact, i think sinclair is right. this is technical for viewers, but back in the early '90s, there were two standards ofdm

and atcs and the rest of the world went ofdm and america went atsc and what we know now that wasn't known then is in the digital mobile word ofdm is a better receiver standard. and we might need to go through another transition to a new standard. it is very complicated. if we get on the right standard, we can do mobile in ways that penetrate building and you can look at free tv on devices and anywhere you are. you cannot do that on the current standards. there is 4k ultra high definition. and there is 8k that i have seen

which is like 3d without glasses. you need a better standard than an ats but the ats 3 gives what the ofdm standard provided. so i see an opportunity that people can stream it or in the future get it for free which free is better than a fee. >> host: speaking of the senate commerce committee, gordon smith, they are working on stela and talk of ad-ons and not making a clean bill. >> guest: we don't like that. stela has to be reauthorized for satellite to get to stranded viewers and we are fine are that. but what the paid community does

is use the reauthorization which is in their favor to damage broadcasting and try to get extraneous things in their like government coming in and arbitrating or putting their them on the reconsent process. we don't like and resent that and i am optimistic in the end stela will be clean or won't be reauthorized. we are engaged and chairman has hostile views and the house congressman committee has put out what i would call a good st stella. a dusty stella. chairman leah put out a clean stella with senator grassley.

there is four jurisdictions. one acted. one might be problematic. in the end this will be likely be decided if at all in the lame duck that is surely to come. >> host: is telecommunication policy too often in your view legislative in stove pipe fashion >> guest: yes, and that is the problem. this is how congress operates. it seems to be in slices because big things are difficult so the stove pipes are the practical outcome but create policy that makes it difficult for old legacy industries. >> host: monty tayloe time for one more question. >> is there hope for keeping the

sports blackout rule in tact? >> gues >> guest: i think so. sports blackout sounds like a bad thing. but the fcc rule just backstops what is contractual between the local television, network and for example the nfl. it is designed to make sure that they can put fans in seats and that the local television station is sported so that people who have to get it, want to get it, need to get it for free can still get it. there are only two blackouts this last year. the nfl is working hard to re s retribute the economics so there are not any. on the other hand the sports blackout rule would do in isolations