for the bad actors attempting to use online advertising, these claims violate the member companies' advertising policies and existing laws aimed at protecting consumers. we applaud federal agency's for recognizing the weight loss scam problem and their active efforts to educate consumers about misleading claims. in addition to its active law enforcement against scammers, the ftc's consumer information website has an entire section devoted to weight loss and fitness outlining many advertise that users could encounter on the internet and other places and debunks their claims. stopping the ads critical for online advertising companies as well. collectively, our member companies have hundreds of individuals on their respective teams spanning policy, engineering, network security and legal, that are dedicated to identifying and preventing this illegal activity. fortunately, most of these types of ads never reach the user and are immediately rejected through

automated filtering processes. as soon as they are submitted. for those detected after being published they are immediately reviewed and the advertiser account is reviewed. frim or permanent suspension of the advertiser account is then considered, depending on the severity of the ad's policy violations. user feedback plays an important role detecting bad ads. in our carefully review year complaints related to ads and quickly take action when warranted. over the course of the past 18 months, aol, google, facebook, twitter and yahoo collectively reviewed or rejected 2.5 millions of ads due to numerous ads policy violations. all stakeholders are working hard to stop these ads, weight loss scammers, some who are incredibly sophisticated work maliciously to find ways to avoid detection by agencies falling within their guidelines and circumvent our company's all the automated filters. they are fully committed to improving their systems to help

protect users across the web. we believe that if we all work together to identify threats and stamp them out we can make the web a safer place for everyone. again, thank you for this opportunity to testify. >> thank you. doctor? >> thank you for this opportunity to discussion and participate in the panel discussion. i'm the ceo and executive director of natural products association, the oldest and largest trade association in the natural product industry. we represent thousands of suppliers, and distributors and the millions of americans that eyes supplements. some members are household names and many are small businesses many women-owned who got in this business to help people truly live healthier lives. our first rule with customers is

always consult with your health care provider and dietary supplements are part of a broader healthier lifestyle that includes diet and exercise. madam chair, we support efforts to prevent fraud. and to rules and regulations the federal government has to protect consumers. deceptive advertising is illegal and should not be tolerated, period. we are especially concerned about fraud on the internet. our association was founded by brick and mortar. not internet-only or fly-by-night firms. our members know that public trust with their customers one of the main reason natural products are in such high demand. no one has more of an interest in weeding out fraud than our members because bad actors only tarnish their good integrity. to support the ftc, npa has their own industry policing program where members report claims so bad actors can be disciplined. we are allowed to follow these rules and if you see something, say something. under truth in advertising program, questionable ad claims are reviewed to determine if they are over the line and we take two actions.

the first is to mail a cease and desist letter. i attached a the example of that in my testimony and the second is to refer cases to ftc and fda. for potentially fraudulent advertising. since this program began in 2010 it resulted in 446 letters to such firms. of those, 320 acknowledge the issues an made corrections. the remainder were submitted to fta and fdc over the time. we have a strong partnership with regulatory agencies, but we depend on federal authorities to provide enforcement action and make all this a reality. while we see positive action we also see areas for consideration and some areas of concern. we heard about existing enforcement authorities but some are being used for the first time. my former job, director of the dietary supplement programs at fda used existing tools like mandatory recall, injunctions and procedures for recidivist firms failing to meet. quality standards.

fda have likewise taken actions against firms that have deceived consumers with regard to weight loss. npa fully supports those efforts but we're wrestling with the internet advertising today and fly-by-night issues. they need to be more agile and disciplinary. to companies without regard to their revenues. more aggressive an enforcement of the so-called "fly by night" needs to be as important add large scale problems. the department of justice and other agencies currently eyes misdemeanor prosecutions, assist civil money penalties for those under consent orders or those that violated other laws but we don't see much use of these tools. also, it appears that they need to pursue more sizable cases perhaps at the expense of the regulatory muscle on one end and the security stream. if they don't act and take down fly-by-night on the front end early in the game more will be

attempt to get into the game. lastly, while we support the ftc mission, we see evidence of this having negative outcomes from a cost perspective and potentially reducing the quality and quantity of information about the products available. and with the statutory interpretation and rules of general. it's not beneficial to anyone particularly consumers. one example is the apparent new requirement that additional studies and research are necessary prior to advertising like a requirement to conduct two double-blind randomized trust studies to support lawful statements which is not a current legal or statutory requirement. this is not only outside the statute, but the least unnecessary use of resources which can disincentivize the substantialability of claims.

this is happening with a cost benefit on behalf of consumers or the economy. a firm investing in the study that's well controlled and meets competent and reliable standards would be prohibited from sharing that information and that results in less information being available to consumers, not more, and effective live changes the rule. this is a critical concern and to our members it's appears to bridge protected speech or this possible first amendment issues. we'd like to work with the ftc and others to address these concerns and also to ultimately protect consumers by giving them the widest access to the information they need. >> madam chair. thank you. >> we'll have questions and we have votes that begin in a little less than an hour. hopefully we'll have an opportunity for everybody here to have two rounds of questions. i can't figure this out, dr. oz. i get that you do a lot of good on your show. i understand that you give a lot

of information that's great information about health and you do it in a way that's easily understandable. you're very talented add very bright. you've been trained in science-based medicine. now, here's three statements you made on your show. you may think magic is make-believe but this little bean has scientists saying they found the magic weight loss cure for every body type. green coffee extract. quote, i have the number one miracle in a bottle to burn your fat. it's reps ber r raspberry ketone. it is the simple solution you've been looking for to bust your body fat for good. i don't get why you need to say this stuff because you know it's not true. so why, when you have this amazing megaphone, and this amazing ability to communicate, why would you cheapen your show by saying things like that? >> well, if i could disagree

about whether they work or not and i'll move on to the issue of the words that i used. and just with regard to whether they work or not, this is an example, i'm not going to argue that it would pass fda muster if it was a pharmaceutical drug seeking approval, but among the natural products out there it had several clinical trials. one large one and a good quality one that was done the year we talked about this 2012. >> but what i want to know is -- i want to know about the clinical trial. the only one i know is 16 people in india paid for by the company that was in fact, at the point in time you initially talked about this being a miracle, the only study out there was the one with 16 people in india that was written up by somebody being paid by the company that was producing it. >> this paper argued know one was paying four it be i have the five papers plus a series of basic science papers as well.

senator mccaskill, but we can spend a lot of time arguing the merits of whether this extract is worth trying or not but many of the things we argued that you do with regard to your diet are like wise criticizable. should you be on a low fat diet? low-carb? we've come full circumstance in that argument and no longer recommend that. we realize it wasn't working for our patients. it's remarkably complex as you know to figure out what works for most people in a dietary program. in the practice of medicine, we evolve by looking at new ideas, challenging orthodoxy, evolving them. so when i hold, you know, these are the five papers, these are clinical papers. and we could argue about the quality of them, very justifiably. i can pick apart papers that show no benefit as well. but at the end of the day, if i have clinical subjects, real people having undergone trials, and in this case, i actually gave it to members of my audience, it wasn't a formal trial. it was just an -- >> which wouldn't pass -- the trial you did with your audience you would not --

>> no. >> -- say it would ever pass scientific muster. >> i'd never publish the paper. that wasn't the purpose of it. the purpose was for me to get a thumbnail sketch, was this worth talking to people about or not? i don't think this ought to be a referendum on the use of alternative medical therapies. i've been criticized for having folks come on my show talking about the power of prayer. as a practitioner, i can't prove prayer helps people survive an illness. >> it's hard to buy prayer. >> that's the difference. >> prayer is free. >> prayer is free and people -- that's a very good point. thankfully prayer is free. so when -- i see in the hospital when folks are feeling discomfort in their life, and a lot of it is emotional, when they have people praying for them it lightens their burden. so my show was about hope. as you very kindly stated, we've engaged millions of people in programs including programs we did with the cdc to get folks to realize that there are different

ways they could rethink their future. that their best years aren't behind them. they're in front of them. they actually can lose weight. so if i can just get across the big message that i actually do personally believe in the items that i talk about in the show, i passionately study them, i recognize oftentimes they don't have the scientific muster to present as fact. nevertheless, i would give my audience the advice i gave my family all the time and given my family these products, specifically the ones you mentioned. i'm comfortable with that part. where i do think i've made it more difficult for the ftc is in an intent to engage viewers, i use flowery language, i use language that was very passionate, but it ended up not being helpful but incendiary and provided fodder for unscrupulous advertisers. that clip you played which is over two years old, and i've done hundreds of segments since then, we've specifically restricted our use of words. i'm literally speaking about

things i would otherwise talk about. there's a product i'd never talk about in the show that i feel strongly about because i know what will happen. i will say something very -- in fact, we did a show with yacon syrup. it's a south american root that had a big study published on it, a very high-quality study, it showed not only did it help people lose weight but helped their health. it was done in women who were diabetic. done by an academic center down there. it was not funded by industry. and we talked about it and i used as careful language as i could and still, there were internet scam ads picking one or two supportive words where of course i support them, i wouldn't be talking about it otherwise. still ended up out there. >> well, listen, i'm surprised that you are defending -- i mean, i've tried to do a lot of research in preparation for this trial and the scientific community is almost monolithic against you in terms of the efficacy of the three products you called miracles. when you call a product a miracle and it's something you

can buy and something that gives people false hope, i just don't understand why you need to go there. you've got so much you do on your show that makes it different and controversial enough that you get lots of views. i understand you are in a business of getting viewers but i really implore you to look at the seven -- i would ask you to look at the seven lists that the ftc put out on the gut check. the seven -- it's very simple. causes weight loss of two pounds or more a week for a month without dieting or exercise. causes substantial weight loss no matter how much you eat. causes permanent weight loss. like you said, looking for it to bust your body fat for good. if you just look at those seven and if you spend time on your show telling people that this is the seven things you should know, that there isn't magic in a bottle, that there isn't a magic pill, that there isn't some kind of magic root or

acai berry or raspberry keton that's going to all of a sudden make it not matter that you're not moving and eating a lot of sugar and carbohydrates. do you disagree with any of these seven? >> senator mccaskill, i know the seven. i say those things on my show all the time. >> why would you say something is a miracle in a bottle? >> my job, i feel on the show, is to be a cheerleader for the audience. when they don't think they have hope, when they don't think they can make it happen, i to look and i do look everywhere including an alternative healing traditions for any evidence that might be supportive to them. so you pick on green coffee bean extract. with the amount of information that i have on that, i still am comfortable telling folks that if you can buy a reputable version of this, i say it all the time. i don't sell it and it's not long-term use. green coffee bean extract, one bean a week over the trials that have been done. it's one pound over the week in the trials done. that happened to be the same amount of weight lost by the 100 or so folks on show who came on. half the got a placebo, fake pills to half the people, real

pills to the other half. it's the same thumbnail. i'm looking at a rough idea. if you can lose a pound a week. doing the things you do already. you can't sprinkle it on keilbasa and expect it to work. if you get a few pounds off, it jump-starts you and gives you confidence to keep going and you follow the things we talk about every single day including the seven items, i think it makes sense. >> well, i'm going to give time to my colleagues now. hopefully i'll have a chance to visit with some of the other witnesses in the next round. i will just tell you that i know you feel that you're a victim, but sometimes conduct invites being a victim, and i think if you would be more careful, maybe you wouldn't be victimized quite as frequently. >> senator mccaskill, those topics you mentioned are over two years old. i have not been talking about products in that way for two years. and it has not changed at all what i'm seeing on the internet and frankly it's getting worse. i completely heed your commentary.

i realize to my colleagues at the ftc i have made their jobs more difficult. that's whey i came today. >> good. >> i'm cheerleading for this process. i want to do anything i can do help. if taking away those words doesn't change the already happened. >> you're the popular person on the witness stand today, dr. oz. i had a group of students outside and they all knew who you were so i asked the students who clearly their parents or someone watch your show and pay attention. let me ask -- let's be real clear. do you believe that there's a miracle pill out there? >> there's not a pill that's going to help you long term lose weight, live the best life without diet and exercise. >> do you believe there's a magic weigh loss cure out there? >> the word -- if you're selling something because it's magical, no. if you're arguing it's going to be magic because if you -- you

you stop eating carbohydrates, you will lose a lot of weight. you might not agree with the flowery use of the word magic, but it's true most people cutting out simple carbs will lose weight. >> what works for most people? you mentioned that to the chairman. >> what works for most people, diet out of the ground, looking the way it is when you eat it, not been processed, with some physical activity. most of weight loss i believe is about the food choices you make. most of keeping your weight low is about the physical activity you engage in. >> okay. and it is true you do not endorse any products or receive any product from any products sold? >> that is true. >> now you've worked -- you said you had some ideas because you've worked to stop advertisers from using your names and likeness and in your testimony you address online advertisements. what would you like to see done? >> if i could give three ideas. i'm trying to be constructive. >> i'd like to hear them. >> i think the private sector can help by creating a quick reference registry that lists

celebrities legitimate l legiti directed with products. whether the services are being promised and involve ellen degeneres, jimmy fallon, rachael ray, a list of sam celebrities goes on. if all of us made a list of what products we actually do work with, it would make it easier for web hosting services to say dr. oz doesn't have any proxy product he sells, so how can they run an advertisement saying he sells this? second idea, we have a whistleblower systems that are in fact in workplace safety. we have them for financial services. i think honest employees deserve compensation and reward if they expose illegal behavior by employers and ought to incentivize whistle blowers in this space as well. when i busted scam artists in san diego, there were people who worked in the company who knew what day were doing is wrong and might have come forward. thirdly, create a private sector bounty that might help with getting bounty hunters effectively on the web, people who have time, desire and knowledge to go after these folks. a lot of times the people who are victims of these

infringements, myself included, people on this panel, would love to do anything we can to empower private citizens to shut down scammers. if it helps the ftc, it might be worthwhile to consider a bounty system funded by the private sector. not looking for new laws, nor looking for government funding of these initiatives. >> thank you. mr. harrelson, what is your organization doing to stop these third parties from placing ads on websites and, perhaps, those ads that are less truthful? >> well, again, as i pointed out in my testimony, you know, our companies are deeply incentivized to making sure these ads stay off of our platforms. i think having user trust in the advertisements they see is making sure the internet economy survives. when we do -- i mean, our companies have very sophisticated automated filtering systems that look for

this kind of stuff and when we do find these ads, they're automatically removed by the systems long before they're served by or seen by users. but at the same time, as we -- as we are notified, we do see bad ads that are on our platforms. they're immediately removed. the advertiser account is reviewed and appropriate action is taken when warranted. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you. >> senator klobuchar? >> thank you very much, chairman. thank you for holding this hearing. thank you to all of you. yesterday i looked up the top-selling weight loss products on amazon and even with the ftc's actions against green coffee marketers, green coffee is still a product in the top 20 selling products. the rest of the products are currently garcinia, cambogia related products, which i

understand was featured on your show, dr. oz. and it was also highlighted as a product that advertisers used to scam consumers by creating a fake website claim to be "women's health magazine." when it was on your show, did you talk about the side effects? i know senator mccaskill has questioned you at length about this. you said this was all two years ago and you're not making these claims anymore, but do you talk about the side effects then and do the deceptive practices coming out of that change how you have conducted your shows? >> i actually brought transcripts of the different shows. we would in each case have an expert who spends their entire life dealing with dietary supplements talk about the different products. they review pluses and minus. in most -- i just leafed through a few of these pages. but, you know, i look at these scripts and i think to myself, i wish that they'd just play another 30 seconds of the clip they use for the advertisements we often see on the left.

the garcinia show, i'm going to say something for everyone here, i don't sell this stuff, i'm not making money on it, i'm not going to mention brands to you either because i don't want you to control. i bring that up, by the way, elsewhere in this segment i talked specifically about the fact if you don't exercise and diet at the same time, it's not going to work. you know, folks, it's just a pill. don't go home thinking it's just a pill that's going to help you. but together with the normal natural things we tell you to do with the foods you eat, or healthy lifestyle, et cetera. so we make those points. you know what the biggest disservice i've done for my audience? it's not the flowery language that senator mccaskill is criticizing me for. it's that i never told them where to go to buy the products. i wanted to stay above the fray and i felt in my own mind that if i talked about specific companies selling high-quality products, it would seem like i was supporting those companies. and so i never gave them the audience an idea of where to go to buy the stuff. so that opened up a huge market

for folks to just make, take stuff, real stuff, doesn't frankly matter and start to use my name to try to sell. i left my audience hanging. thinking i was doing the ethical thing. and i firmly believe if i called it a miracle, again, not a miracle like it's, you know, doing the work every day for the rest of your life for every person. miraculous something like this is out there, we don't know about it. if i told them go buy these four companies' products because they're reputable, it would have killed this off. i blame myself. >> what stopped you from doing that? >> i thought it was commercial. a doctor shouldn't sell products. you wouldn't trust me if you came to me for advice and i said, you know, senator, you got a stubbed toe here, take my version of a solving cream here. it doesn't sound and feel right to me. i really feel that -- in the internet age taking a bricks and mortar approach to it doesn't work. i should have been savvy enough to say myself -- i kick myself still, maybe i'll do it in the future, i'll just say here are the companies i

trust, buy their products. they're not going to scam you or make illegal claims. if i say it helps you lose a pound a week for eight weeks which is what a trial says and someone on the web takes that and changes it to 40 pounds in 3 weeks, which you can only do through an amputation, it hurts me. part of the reason i came today, this is a huge problem for me. >> okay. as someone that's seen these ads, they're very, very seductive when you're looking through things and trying to figure out a good diet plan to go on. and i mean, you're going to have two choices here. either you don't talk about these things at all that are going it be susceptible to this kind of scam, or you're going to have to be more specific because right now it isn't working, and obviously you're not the only celebrity that has had this happen to them. i guess i'd go back to you on this. is whether or not you think you have enough resources to go after this, what you think of the idea that you shouldn't just be focused on fly-by-nights.

what do we need to do here to get a handle on this? >> the ftc -- thank you -- the ftc does put a lot of resources behind our weight loss fraud an enforcement efforts, and we do pursue more fly-by-night companies and more established companies. the coffee case i mentioned was a fly-by-night company. we also pursued 11 different companies that were selling acai berry weight loss products. through fake new sites and affiliate marketing over the internet. in addition to sensa and established companies. we look across the board. unfortunately, there are a lot of players in this space. these cases can be time intensive to investigate. we do look at the studies that are out there very carefully. we hire experts. often the defendants will hire experts. we pay a lot of close attention because we don't want to -- you know, we want to be sure where

the science is. we don't want to challenge something as false or misleading if in fact it has real efficacy if the claims are substantiated. the cases are time intensive. we're trying to bring as many of them as possible and get as much money back for consumers as we can. >> do you think there should be more fda regulation of these supplements and kinds of things? would that be helpful beyond the advertising? i know we've had votes on this and discussed this in congress. >> well, i certainly can't speak for the fda. i understand that they have their hands full with, in the case of dietary supplements with adulterated products. they've taken a number of actions against weight loss products that actually contain prescription drugs in them and they're putting their resources there. >> but do you think that we need a bigger approach to this than just looking at a celebrity list or advertisements if people are falsely relying on claims that aren't true? >> well, i do think it would be helpful for the -- first of all,

i think the approach taken by the organization with google and the others is quite helpful. i think if the media could do a better job of screening out these facially false claims and we're hopeful that the bbb will work with us to better disseminate that and get that message across and help eliminate some of the ads at least from running. >> thank you. >> what is -- i know you've taken a lot of action against various companies, and some of them fly-by-night. but what about the media outlets that run these ads? you all have never gone there. talk about that. is that an approach that you've considered? is that one that you have authority to do? if you've got a media outlet that is, you know, particularly using a lot of fraudulent advertising that appears to be fraudulent on its face, but yet they're not screening them out,

why no enforcement action there? >> well, the media enjoy significant first amendment protections, so there are certainly those issues if we were to attempt to sue a media company for running a deceptive ad. section 12 of the ftc act does actually give us authority to pursue any entity that disseminates a false or misleading ad for food, drug device or cosmetic. but we have really thought it made for sense to work with the media voluntarily, cooperatively, by issuing actually this gut check guide we issued earlier this year was a re-issuance of the guidance we first issued back in 2003. we called it red flags and we've renamed it. we had good success at that time. particularly with the magazines in getting them to stop running ads containing these seven facially false claims. and we think it, you know, makes more sense for us to try to work voluntarily with the media.

>> i know you've said that some media have done a sophisticated job in screening and some haven't. who's doing a good job here and who's doing a bad job? >> well, you know, largely varies by the size of the media, but the national broadcast media has historically had very rigorous ad screening programs that you would not see the types as you are showing today on the national advertising part of the media. >> but the national -- the interesting thing is those national broadcasting companies own a lot of the cable stations that these ads are appearing on. >> and the -- >> it's the same ownership. >> and the screening that is done for the affiliates and for the cable channels vary. then when you get down to smaller media and, you know, i think radio is a good example. i mean, it's a local media. the advertising staffs are pretty small. and i think that's where

something like what the ftc has just done with the, you know, seven claims that even an ad buyer in a very small media can just sit and look at the seven claims and say, you know, yes for this and no for that. i mean, you know, a claim that you're never going to have to diet again or eat all you want and take this pill, you know, those claims we still see and they shouldn't be getting on the media at all. >> but satellite radio is not local. and they're all over satellite radio. >> so there have been a number of changes in the technology that the industry needs to catch up with. you're exactly right. >> so you didn't want to say satellite radio, you just waited for me to say it? i do think that there is a problem there. >> and then i just -- and so there's really two things to look at in media screening.

one is the traditional type of media screening that the broadcast networks do. the second is this program that rob, mr. harrelson just talked about is which is trying to translate that to the new media. and look at these claims really not on a tax basis but almost out of rhythm basis, and that's an area that has a lot of promise for real progress. >> talk a little bit about the fly-by-nights. i think the doctor's point that it's easier to go after loxitane and sensa and companies you can find that have buildings and are actually manufacturing something and putting their label on it than these post office boxes. that's one of our conundrums in consumer protection in this subcommittee. so many hearings we've had, whether robo calls or other topics we've had hearings on. finding the post office box or

finding the ip address and taking action against those who are responsible is very complicated in this world. especially when it, you're looking at technology in terms of ip addresses that certainly many of them are not cited in this country. tell me about what kind of resources you may need or that you don't have to do a better job after the fly-by-nights? >> yes, so you're absolutely right. i mean, when you see an ad on the internet, so for us the first thing is to try to figure out who's behind that ad and it's not actually easy to do. what we're seeing a lot nowadays is that some company will be working with a number of affiliate marketers through an affiliate network, and so there's a whole host of different companies that are actually placing the little ads that you see then when the consumer clicks on it, you know, one tiny tip to a flat belly or something like that, one weird old trick to lose weight, something like that, the

consumer clicks on that and if they buy the product, then that affiliate gets paid, but that's not actually the company that's selling the product. there's another company who's behind the product and it requires us to send out multiple rounds of subpoenas to the web hosters and the ad network to figure out who's behind this. that's what we did in the acai berry sweep. it takes a certain amount of resources. we're able to do it. we have compulsory process authority. we can subpoena the information but it's time consuming. >> what about the marketers? the middle man here. have you gone after the middle man? the ones that are actually the affiliates you talk about that are actually the ones moving these ads around the internet, then they are really a conduit to the actual product company that is behind the curtain? have you taken action against those folks that are actually placing the one secret to get

rid of your belly fat? >> yes, we have. we have gone after affiliates and one of the issues there, we've gone after some large affiliates, but one of the issues there is when we go in, we never know how big the company is. sometimes it turns out to be quite small, they haven't made many sales and it's not worth pursuing. we've gone after the larger affiliates as well, every player in the ecosystem. >> senator mccaskill, can i add, for small frauds the bbb with 100 offices get complaints and provides where you can go and check and see what types of complaints you're getting. as i said in my testimony, very often these, you know, types of complaints you are getting. also as i said in my testimony, you know, these types of claims are also accompanied by bad refund policies, negative option shipping policies. you know, even, you know, the st. louis bureau had one of these companies that was billing people sort of randomly for the products. so if consumers will go to

before they buy, they'll go to the bbb website and check and see what type of complaint history this company has, it will, you know, help. it won't eliminate, but it would help and help protect them. >> thank you. miss engle, i want to know a little bit more about your recent consent orders as part of the operation failed resolution. the ftc is now barring defendants from making certain claims unless they have at least two adequate and well controlled human clinical studies. is that accurate? >> yes, those cases all require the company's end order to have at least two well-controlled studies to support weight loss claims going forward. >> it's my understanding the ftc has also tried to apply that elsewhere, and even know there's some current guidelines in agency that states that determining whether competent

and reliable scientific evidence exists is a flexible and fact-specific inquiry. do you have conflicts or do you -- i guess the question is, are you applying this new standard elsewhere? and is there a conflict in some of the regulations that you're trying to enforce? >> i don't see any conflict. the basic law is companies must have a reasonable basis for the advertising claims they make at the time they make those claims. what constitutes a reasonable basis will depend on the product and the claim. in the case of products that promise health benefits, the commission has required competent and reliable scientific evidence and then, again, what constitutes competent and reliable scientific evidence will vary depending upon the claims. so, for example, a claim that a product will prevent cancer, or treat cancer, for example, will require a higher level of evidence than a claim that a product will, you know, smooth dry skin. in the case of weight loss

products in particular, based on the factors we consider and consultation with experts, we've determined that randomized controlled clinical studies are needed in order to substantiate a claim that a given product will cause weight loss. the commission has required two of these studies in its orders. now, it's not -- i'm not saying that if a company came into us and had one good study on weight loss, we would say, oh, that claim is not substantiated, but once we have determined that a company has violated the ftc act, has made unsubstantiated weight loss claims and they're now under order, we have put in a requirement that going forward they should have two studies and these kinds of studies for weight loss do not need to be particularly long term. they're not particularly expensive relative the amount of money that can be made for those products. and given the level of fraud in this area, it's important to have extra assurance of a second

study to ensure this is a real result, wasn't due to some fluke or inadvertent bias or something like that in the study. >> let's talk about your dietary supplement guidelines. you have not revised that or repudiated some of those guidelines. even though there's some parts of those guidelines that seem or appear to be inconsistent with ftc's current stance as we just mentioned about competent, reliable, scientific evidence. do you see it that way? >> no, i don't see a conflict because the dietary supplement guidelines are written broadly to cover the full range of dietary supplements that may be offered and the full range of claims that may be made for them. the guidance is written for broadly. then, again, when we're in the context of a specific case, a specific investigation of a product, we know what claims were made for them. what the ingredients are. and then have a record on which to base order requirements for substantiations for claims going

forward. >> is there any intentions of modifying those guidelines? >> well, there's been some discussion of just looking at them. gosh, they're, i think, 13 years old now maybe. to see, you know, what, if they need to be freshened up. again, i don't think there's a conflict between what they say at all and what we're doing. >> thank you. thank you. >> senator klobuchar? >> thank you. and mr. harrelson, i want to talk to you a little bit about the work you're doing. >> sure. >> i was looking at my twitter account and found four of these ads about these things. how many cups of coffee i can drink in one day to lose two pounds. that was pretty good. and various other things on fat melting and other things. i understand that your member companies permanently suspend advertiser accounts with the severity of the violation of the ad policy is high. what does that mean? how many ad accounts have been permanently suspended?

are there temporary suspensions? how do you handle this? >> every company in trustedads.org has different approaches and policies in place to address these, however, again, it depends on the severity of the violation or if there's multiple violations. there are options where company, member companies may, for example, work with the advertiser to fix the ad to make sure it is in compliance with the ads policy. there's an option to remove the ads. the third option, obviously for egregious violations is to suspend the advertiser account. but interestingly enough, some of these sophisticated scammers will immediately try to open new accounts and try to push their ads, again, through these filtering systems so it becomes a little bit of a cat and mouse game. >> would you say it's easier to target vulnerable populations through online advertising?

than some of the more traditional methods or, and do you think more online companies are going to be -- sometimes with online they think it's a personal message to them. these are often just from people. >> well, i think that these types of scams a attract the largest constituencies as possible. be it weight loss, hair loss, whatever you name it. and, again, i think we're seeing these types of ads across the board both in print, or in print media and online. >> okay. >> how about the protection of data? i mean, more and more we're using data collection, things like the fit bit. like the fit. i have my -- i hope that's not deceptive. i think it's pretty good. and, of course, people are getting all their data collected now and through this and it's been actually -- i think it's a pretty interesting way to use self-motivation to get yourself to exercise and other things. and are companies protecting consumer data to make sure it doesn't fall into the hands of scammers? what's going on on that front?

>> for example, i'm not familiar with fit bit. it collects the data that's on the device that's on your wrist. i'm a little -- can you repeat the question or clarify the question? >> the question is more and more about the diet data going online. people are entering things in just like they're entering other things in. has there been an effort by your member companies to look at how you're going to protect that data? maybe someone else can better answer that. >> well, again, to my knowledge, i don't believe that our member companies are collecting third-party data particularly to health-related devices or whatever the case may be. so, but i'm happy to -- >> it's a whole other issue of the pop-up ads you get when you start using products. so in a way some of them are collecting it because then you can get pop-up ads about things that related to it. yes? >> senator klobuchar, there is a fairly broad coalition called the digital advertising alliance

that is looking at the question of collection of data across sites. and doing some pretty significant pioneering work. the organization was formed really at the request of the federal trade commission to look at exactly those issues. the specific issue that you're talking about which is special restrictions on sensitive data about health is one of the things that's still under development. that's a fairly tricky issue to get everybody in the industry on board with, but there is an organization that's been formed, working very effectively and looking at all those issues. >> so i'm thinking about all the new money that's being spent on all these products as people are, you know, desperately looking at ways to lose weight and, yet since the 1960s, adult obesity has more than doubled leading to health care challenges for our country as we

know. we know some of these diets are legitimate and well researched and some of them aren't. what really bothers me at its core is while for the first time we saw a leveling out for kids, not really a big reduction but a leveling out of the increase in obesity this last year, we're hoping some having to do with the work of the first lady and the work of some of the school lunch programs which i don't think we should be rolling back those standards, but that's a whole other topic. what do you think we should be doing to get people to spend their money on what works and what doesn't? we have to admit we have a major problem when people are spending more and more money and gaining more and more weight. >> and, you know, that is precisely the advertisers that sell and market products that do work. and one advertiser comes to mind who sells fitness equipment and the ads, you know, people say

when you watch the ads you start sweating while you're watching the ads because it's very clear you have to have a dedicated regime and stick with it. they lose their sales to these, you know, fraudulent products because people say, well why would i, you know, exercise for 45 minutes if i can take a pill and never diet again? >> your answer would be to be more intense about going after these fraudulent products. that's why i keep going back to not just the advertising but the fda and trying to get some of them off the market. >> yes. i think there's a big role that the types of self-regulatory programs that this 2/3 of the table is talking about can play to supplement the resources that the government has. because what we see is a lot of cases where when we contact the advertiser, and we do it fairly quickly, they can say, oh, we'll change that claim. we have a fairly high record of success, and that's that many fewer cases that the fda or ftc have to deal with. >> senator, if it would be possible for me to add, one

thing i think that makes it difficult is the fact that a lot of these -- it's not illegal to sell these products. i think when it becomes illegal is when you're doing it under false claims and so for our companies that clearly some of these claims that are fraudulent violate our ads policies, but, again, makes it difficult to substantiate the good advertisers versus the bad advertisers because of the sophistication of scammers and the language they're using and ways they're trying to circumvent our systems to get their ads served online. >> understand. very good. well, i think to me it means we need some more standards and resources and we appreciate your efforts trying to monitor them. thank you. >> senator blumenthal? >> thank you, madam chairman. dr. oz, i want to pursue a question that senator klobuchar raised. i understand that it's not your policy to support any particular brands and that you feel now as

you said to her in response to one of her questions that that perhaps is a mistake. so i'm wondering would you consider creating a sort of master list of brands that would be helpful to consumers? because after all, you have the immense power of your voice and credibility that would be helpful to consumers if you created such a master list of brands that you feel do work and are helpful. >> i would love to do that. i've been speaking to people who i trust in industry about how to go about it. my best estimate is 80% of the products made by 20% of the companies are high quality, reputable products by people who really do their homework and audited in many different ways. good manufacturing processes and the like. 20% of the products are made by a lot of the companies, theoretically 80%, who really

aren't that good. they're fly-by-night. the quality issues are of major concern. the post office box example dr. peeler gave is a good example. i busted these folks in san diego. i went to their listed address. it's a post office box. so you really could never find anybody. so i've been actively looking at that. with your suggestion and support, i think i'm going to do it and i think it will do a lot to drain the swamp we've created around this area. >> i encourage you to do it. draining the swamp is really very, very important. because in this area as you know and i think many of us know, i was attorney general of the state for 20 years. i did a lot of work in this area, and if there is any area where consumers are most susceptible, and vulnerable to misleading and false pitches, i think it is this one because their hopes are so high and

their needs often are so great. so i think that would be a welcome development. i introduced a measure called the dietary supplement labeling act along with senator durbin last august and would require dietary supplement manufacturers to register their products with the fda and disclose the known risk of their ingredients on a product's label. and i think that this kind of measure is crucial to provide information to consumers regarding dietary suplements and help the fda identify potential health concerns and as you suggested a master list of celebrity endorsements might be helpful for the ftc to identify and this would create a master list of dietary supplements similar to that one that could cause adverse effects to help consumers understand the risks. what are your thoughts on that legislation?

>> it's a wise place for us to invest resources. some dietary supplements raise great concerns for me. they're often adulterated. even though they claim they're not working in that way, that has been a proven way of getting weight loss. you put an amphetamine-type product in a drug, and it'll work with weight loss. but the side effects are too great for us to tolerate as a population. >> that method of weight loss may actually be unhelpful. >> proven to be unhelpful which is why the fda pulled those products off the market. that's also part of the challenge we face. we're at a time in history where we're getting closer to having fda approved drugs that work in this area. we had a few now. we had very, very few for many years. as we get better prescription products that would be effective, more medicine will turn in that direction. given the very basic techniques we know work, bariatric surgery which we way underperform in this country is very effective

but people don't want to go that far. if you're 100 pounds overweight at age 50, you have the same mortality rate as if you have cancer. these are desperate situations with desperate people looking for solutions and that's a recipe for a problem. i strongly support the need to look at whether the products are safe or not and the other side of the equation is trying to find ways of getting people ideas that they can use to jump-start their way back. >> miss engle, let me ask you, would the ftc find that kind of list helpful? >> well, the commission, itself, has not taken a position on that legislation. speaking for myself, i think it could be helpful. i think it could be helpful to fda certainly in law enforcement efforts and provide consumers with useful information. >> thank you. thank you all for being here and thank you for your great work. thank you. >> i just want to briefly follow up. i don't know if anyone else has a follow up. i want to briefly follow up. and i want to make sure -- i appreciate, dr. oz, we've

covered a lot of ground this morning and a significant part of it was about some of your language you've used in association with products on your show. you indicated the products i talked about in my previous questioning, those shows were a couple of years ago. three weeks ago, i quote you, fbx literally flushes fat from your system. quote, every time you cheat on your diet, i want you to grab one of these tiny itty bitty pills. this tiny tablet can push a lot of fat out of your belly. people want to believe they can take an itty bitty pill to push fat out of their body. instead if you said every time you cheat on your diet, i want you've to take a walk. that would eliminate the problem that is at the root of this hearing today. that is that your credibility is

being maligned by fraudsters and frankly being threatened by a notion that anybody can take an itty bitty pill to flush fat out of their system. in january you called one, quote, lightning in a bottle. and a miracle flower to fight fat. that was just in january. so i really hope -- i know you know how much power you have. i know you know that you are very powerful. and power comes -- with power comes a great deal of responsibility, and i know you take it seriously and i know you care about your listening audience and your viewing audience. i know you care about america's health. you're being made an example of today because of the power you have in this space. and we didn't call this hearing to beat up on you, but we did

call this hearing to talk about a real crisis in consumer protection. and you can either be part of the police here or you can be part of the problem and we're just hopeful that you will do a better job at being part of the police. >> well, i came here because i want to be part of the solution, not part of the problem. you mentioned fbx, which is basically a fiber. and we know that fiber, when taken correctly, has been a very effective tool for weight loss for the reason i stated. your comments about the language i use is well heard and i appreciate it. i host a daytime television show where i feel a need to bring passion to people's lives about what they can do. and i'm very respectful of the fact that when it's used, and it has been used as a way of defrauding people, that it's a harmful process. i appreciate your kind words about the power i have. i'm in a situation where i am second guessing every word i use on the show right now.

fbx is used by my family. i do think it's important, i do think if you cheat on a meal it's worth including something with fiber. that's why we tell people to eat vegetables when they go out for a big meal because it serves that very purpose. i have things that i think work for people. i want them to try them just to help them feel better so they can spend time doing other things we spend every single show talking about. when i feel as a host of a show that i can't use words that are flowery, that are exultatory, i feel like i've been disenfranchised, my power has been taken away to get people. you don't want to be on a pulpit talking about how passionate you are about life thinking if i use that word it's going to be quoted back to me, yes, the other words around all about doing things right. i'm very respectful. i've heard the message. i told my colleagues at the ftc, i get it. >> okay. good.

i'm going to say all that passion, floweriness about the beauty of a walk at sunset. >> okay. touche. >> or how you feel when you get off the bike in the morning. and, you know, no one's telling you not to use passion, but passion in connection with the word miracle, pill, and weight loss is a recipe for disaster in this environment in terms of the people who are looking for an easy fix and getting sometimes i think delusional about whether or not an easy fix is going to be there for them. so, and i appreciate everyone being here. does anybody else have anything else? >> well, i was going to say we all experience the feeling as elected officials of any word that can be taken out of context. we kind of can relate to this. but at the same time, in addition to being a celebrity, you're a doctor and i just believe that doctors have this duty as we believe we have to represent the people we represent. you have the duty to give them the best evidence. and when stuff is being taken out of context like it has or you admitted making mistakes in

how you described a few things, i think you have a duty to correct that record and then be careful going forward because you can use your knowledge and your celebrity status to do good things and right now, to me, it seems like we're going the opposite way here. >> well, senator, just, again, i don't want to rehash this, but as a good example, i did a whole show around how green coffee bean extract, and the way it was described was not the right way to do it. i brought audience members in, did a several month program to sort of see if it worked or not. it has no impact. the things i have said continue to be used as weapons against the public. >> understand. i think that continual debunking of some of this is helpful and the emphasis on what works best and you know it better than us. so we appreciate if you keep focusing on that. >> thank you, all. >> dr. oz, if you ever need anyone to fill in -- >> i know who to call. >> you have a few takers in this body. >> thank you, senator blumenthal. >> thank you all very much.

join us later today for more from the white house summit on working families. we'll go back to the omni hotel in downtown washington, d.c., for president obama. he's expected to speak about 1:40 p.m. eastern. later, we'll have wrap-up comments from first lady michelle obama. that's scheduled for 5:30, and you can watch them both live right here on c-span3. missouri democratic senator claire mccaskill is hosting another hearing this afternoon looking into campus sexual assaults. syndicated columnist george will recently wrote a column that generated a lot of discussion. here's a clip of a brief conversation we recently had with mr. will.

>> george will, college has become the victims of progressivism. >> yes. >> and i think the day we're reporting this, "the st. louis post dispatch" announced they've dropped your column. >> yes, they have. they now how to appreciate the rebel. but -- but this is my job is when dubious statistics become the basis of dubious and dangerous abandonment of due process, to step in and say, take a deep breath, everybody. what's happened is, the administration has said that 1 in 5 women in college experience a sexual assault. and that 12% of sexual assaults are actually reported. which if you take their own -- if you take that, only 12% of sexual assaults are reported, take the reporting, extrapolate from that, you don't come to

anything like 1 in 5. i mean, the administration's own statistics fall apart. but beyond that, the office of civil rights and the department of education have said, schools should adjudicate sexual assault charges by a preponderance of evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt. just a preponderance of evidence. and there are serious due process problems here. and what's going to result is, a lot of young men and young women are going to, in these -- this sea of hormones and alcohol that gets into so much trouble on campuses, you're going to have charges of sexual assault. and you're going to have young men disciplined, their lives often permanently and seriously blighted by this. don't get into medical school. don't get to law school. all the rest. and you're going to have litigation of tremendous expense as young men sue the colleges

for damages done to them by abandonment of the rules of due process that we have as a society evolved over many centuries, and are you in danger of casually shoving aside. >> i have a letter that you know about. of course, you've answered it from senator blumenthal, feinstein, casey and baldwin. they begin the letter by saying -- having -- let's see. your thesis and statistics fly in the face of everything we know about this issue. more egregiously you trivialize the scourge of sexual assault, putting the phrase -- it is, in fact, a spreading epidemic and you legitimize the myths that victims and victim advocates have worked tirelessly for decades to combat. >> have you seen my letter that i wrote back to them? >> i have it. >> okay. well, what i say in there is, "a," i take sexual assault more seriously than i think they do. because i agree that society has

correctly said that rape is second only to murder as a serious felony. and, therefore, when someone is accused of rape, it should be reported to the criminal justice system that knows how to deal with this. not with jerry built improvised campus processes. second, i take, i think, sexual assault somewhat more seriously than the senators do, because i think there's a danger now of defining sexual assault so broadly, so capaciously, that it begins to trivialize the seriousness of it. that when you can have remarks become sexual assault, improper touching -- bad, shouldn't be done, but it's not sexual assault. we begin to blur distinctions that are important to preserve if you believe, as the senators purport to believe, that this is a serious matter. >> so did you have any idea that you'd get the kind of feedback you got from this and that you had a lot of people calling for your head?

>> well, i -- i knew -- sure. the reason i write about it is there was a lot of passion involved. that's what i do. that's what you're supposed to do. calling for my head, no. look, today for some reason, i've got some theories about it. indignation is the default position of certain people in civic discourse. they just -- they go from a standing start to fury in about 30 seconds. i think it has something to do with the internet. the internet is a wonderful thing. it has lowered, indeed, erased the barriers to entry into public discourse. that's a good thing. unfortunately, the downside of this, and there's a downside to everything, is that among the barriers to entry that have been reduced is you don't have to be able to read, write or think. you can just come in and shout and call names and carry on. and we have all kinds of

interest groups who think they're only going to get attention, and they're probably right, they only will get attention if they are at maximum decibel level. so they shout and say, i don't just disagree with him, fire him. send him to jail. silence him. all that stuff. but it's -- you know, these are, like, summer storms. they dissipate fast. >> the post stuck by you right away. >> of course. >> "the st. louis post dispatch" drops their column, say, we've been watching him for a lot of years here. we haven't been paying close enough attention. >> so they say. >> why do you think they really dropped you? >> i have no idea. but i don't think they've -- >> over the years have you had much of this kind of reaction? >> no, not really. on some occasions one gets a lot of people angry with you. but, again, that's part of my job. and -- >> you wouldn't take back any of those words that you used? >> none. no, no. >> that's a portion of a recent conversation we had with george will, campus sexual assaults will be the topic of a senate homeland security subcommittee hearing later today. we'll have that live for you

starting at 2:30 p.m. eastern here on c-span 3. also, we'd like you to weigh in. use facebook or join us via twitter at #cspanchat. join us for another hearing discussing veterans health issues. join us for live coverage. that begins at 7:30 p.m. eastern here on c-span3. request live coverage of the u.s. house on c-span and the senate on c-span, here on c-span3, we complement that coverage by showing you the most relevant congressional hearings and public affairs events. then on weekends, c-span3 is the home to american history tv with programs that tell our nation's story, including six unique series. the civil war's 150th anniversary, visiting battlefields and key events. american artifacts, touring museums and historic sites. history bookshelf, with the best-known american history writers. the presidency, looking at the policies and legacies of our

nation's commanders in chief. lectures in history with top college professors delving into america's past. and our new series real america featuring archival government and educational films from the 1930s through the '70s. c-span3, funded by your local cable or satellite provider. like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. josh earnest is getting ready for his first briefing as the new white house spokesman. that's due to start at 12:30. until that gets under way, here's a portion of today's "washington journal" looking at e-cigarettes. >> anna edney from bloomberg news. she reports on the fda. you write a story the fda is now turning its attention to something called e-cigarettes. first of all, what is an e-cigarette. >> well, a lot of them can look like a cigarette, so it kind of

mill mimics smoking in a way. there's not the tobacco inside of it. it's going to heat up a nicotine vapor. it still has the addictive substance in it, the nicotine. but what else is in there isn't exactly uniform across the industry. but there's a va p vapor that i heats up. >> so it works in the sense that someone would draw in the stuff and the vapor comes through like a more normal cigarette. >> exactly. >> as far as the liquids, is nicotine in the liquid? you said nobody knows for sure what else is in the liquid. is it because it's a trade secret? >> some have reported what exactly is in there. some have decided not to. but the fda has proposed they need to give them all of their ingredients. but for sure nicotine is in most of them at different levels. since it's derived from tobacco, that's how it falls under these possible tobacco rules. >> how popular are these things? >> well, they're taking off.

you know, i guess it was in maybe 2012. so it was last year in 2013 that they tripled in sales. it was 1.5 billion. people are predicting 3 billion this year in sales. it's a market that's growing really fast, especially without regulation. >> because it doesn't have regulation, is there -- can anybody gain access to these? >> pretty much. there are companies that have said we do not sell to minors. and they try to set up systems, whether they're ordering them online or in the, you know, convenience store, where someone under 18 can't get these products. and there are some states that have said no one under 18 can have them. by and large, you know, it's kind of murky. >> as far as the why, why would someone choose this other a regular cigarette? >> well, the not-yet-proven kind of thought is that they could

help people stop smoking. so maybe it would be more smokers who switch to it. but there are critics who say, no, it's really just a bridge so they can smoke in a restaurant or, you know, smoke in their office and then smoke a real cigarette in places where they can smoke a real cigarette. then there are a lot of advertisements lately. you've probably seen some on tv with jenny mccarthy and things like that. so they -- people are just getting interested in them. you know, seeing them as an alternative. so whether they get people to start smoking or help smokers stop is kind of to be learned yet. >> and you said advertising, one shows a billboard with something called vapor shark and has a picture of santa claus. i expect this is some of the stuff you're seeing advertisingwise. >> yeah, for sure. there's billboards. there's tv commercials. you know, ads in magazines. and some of this is stuff your

regular cigarette companies can't do any longer. they're prohibited from. and there are a lot of even lawmakers, senator durbin in illinois particularly, who thinks these are aimed right at kids and that the celebrities, you know, kind of the hip culture are things that kids are picking up on. santa claus, obviously. >> and because they have certain flavors you can buy, apparently. that kind of goes to the whole kid market, at least some would say. >> yeah. right. there was actually a hearing last week on capitol hill where some members in the house were holding up cotton candy flavor, your traditional cherry, orange, likes thing that. >> the e-cigarette industry and fda interested in looking at regulating it and questions about it can be directed to our guest. if you do have questions, here are the numbers. 202-585-3881 for republicans.

we are available on twitter @cspanwj. now, specifically, the fda. what is it interested in doing? how far does it want to go? >> the proposal they've put out there is not as far as some people wanted them to go, but they're trying to get the basics done first. they want e-cigarette companies to have to submit to them basically an application for the fda to clear their product for review. what exactly that application would entail, we don't really know. and the fda, i think, is trying to figure that out. but once this proposal fda made is final, the companies would have two years to get that proposal in. they can keep selling their products. they're not pulling everything off the market. they can keep selling them, and they need to get that review cleared by the fda to stay on the market. it will prohibit sales to minors. it will stop sampling. so if you, you know, go to a

concert or, you know, maybe a nascar race, then you see -- you might see these companies handing out free e-cigarettes. it would stop that. like i mentioned before also, the companies would need to submit their ingredient list to the fda. so they could find out what's actually in there. >> and if i'm one of those companies that sells these product, how am i reacting to this? >> they were pretty happy with the proposal initially. there were some who expected online sales might be banned as well as the flavors that you mentioned might be banned. since the fda hasn't weighed in on that, they say they're waiting until these initial proposal is final. they were pretty happy with the way that it came out. they think this is something so far that they can comply with. >> is the happiness determined on how big a company is and their ability to meet these without much financial harm or risk or whatever to the company?

>> yeah, i think you do see kind of a happiness level growing based on the company. because there's going to be standards they're going to have to meet. they call them current good manufacturing practices, on how they make these products. the bigger you are, the easier it is for you to gear up. most of them, the bigger ones probably have already been gearing up because they knew this was coming. >> our guest is with us until the end of the show. first call is from judge in pennsylvania, democrats line. you're on with anna. good morning. >> caller: yes, hello. my question is for the regulation of e-cigarettes, i notice many people under the age of 19 are using it, especially around pennsylvania and other large cities and suburban areas. there's no regulation. like you said, the ingredients are not listed for most companies. i think people should know what they're putting in their bodies, especially if there isn't

serious regulation such as cigarettes. with cigarettes, you'll know you're putting nicotine and chemicals they use to filter those into your body. >> yeah, you're right. in a lot of places there's just nothing yet. it was a new industry. kind of cropped up before any of the regulators could get ahold of it. that's the proposal the fda has, to try to stop those sales to minors and take care of some of those things you brought up. >> we've set aside a line this morning for e-cigarette users. this is hanna from kansas. hi. hanna, good morning. we'll try one more time for hanna from pittsburgh, kansas. let's go to jeff. jeff from texas, republican line. hi. >> caller: hey, how's it going this morning? >> goes well. go ahead, please. >> caller: great. yes, up to four years ago, i was smoking two packs a day, every

day. i was going through more than almost -- i was going through almost three cartons a week. the e-cigarettes came out. i got the non-nicotine e-cigarette. my mom, my wife, and my children all told me there was no way i was going to quit like that. i quit in 30 days flat. i threw the cigarettes away, started the e-cigarette, and 30 days i was done. even the e-cigarette was done. so i know they work, and if you guys regulate them to where they're so expensive that smokers can't afford them, then you're never going to get anybody to quit. that's what i'm worried about. >> what kind of cost were you paying for e-cigarettes versus what you were paying for cigarettes? >> caller: i paid $32 for one month worth of cigarettes on the e-cigarette. that was 12 filters, i think. and it was good for 30 days. so i smoked that for 30 days. when i was done, i handed them off to a friend. he ordered the filters, got new filters, and he smoked it and

quit. so they're still being given to my friends, and they're all quitting. >> why do you think it leads -- why do you think it led to you quitting? >> caller: because what i found was when you smoke the e-cigarette, if it gives you the hit at the back of your throat like a regular cigarette, it takes that craving away. after three days of doing that, the nicotine is out of your system. then you have to get rid of the habit of getting up and going outside to smoke a cigarette or however you do that. >> anna, what do you want to add to that? >> congratulations, first of all. also, i haven't heard a lot yet come up about the cost of these going up. maybe as more regulation comes on line, that might come up. it isn't something i've heard a lot about yet. you know, we'll stay tuned for it. >> dayton, ohio. mason is next, independent line. hi there. >> caller: hi. good morning. i use e-cigarettes. the reason i found is i've been

a smoker for a long time. i am one of these people who believe that it is a legal substance. i enjoy smoking. i should be allowed to smoke. but unfortunately, we live in a world where there's a lot of prejudice against smokers and a lot of second-class citizens. i was facing a couple major back surgeries because of a pretty bad injury. the surgeons were very discriminatory for the fact i smoked. it didn't matter if, you know, a person is on crack or doing meth or is an alcoholic. they'll take you any way in those instances. if you smoke, they won't do the surgery that you so desperately need to get back to life. so what i did is looked at my resources and found e-cigarettes as one of the possibilities. so when i looked at the e-cigarettes, what was attractive to me was that i could smoke them in the hospital because it's water vapor. and i could also -- it relieves

that oral fixation for me and that fidgety fixation. so this gives me that alternative to having something in my hand and that oral addiction. i'm concerned with the regulations on two parts. one, i'm worried about the cost going up and regulating these so heavily they become the same thing cigarettes are. they're legal, but they're impossible to use anywhere. and you're looked at as a second-class citizen yet again. also, i think with the regulation of fda, i don't understand why they would stop the free sampling if it's -- because there's so many out there and they taste so differently. if you're a smoker and smoke marlboro lights, you're trying to find something comparable to that. so that would really get rid of the opportunity to switch and quit. >> so did i hear you correctly,

you can smoke these in the hospital? >> caller: yeah, i found you can smoke them anywhere. it absolutely is true. it's 100% true. it's been looked at. it is just water vapor. it does not harm those around you. >> okay. thanks. >> i think when you were talking about the sampling, i wanted to bring up that it seems some of the criticism of that is that it's being done at events where there are a lot of underage kids. i think i mentioned music festivals. nascar maybe not as much. also, on the vapor, i haven't quite seen any hard evidence of what effects it might have on, say, those standing around you while you're smoking it. i think that one of the things the fda is trying to do, and i heard a talk the other day by pitch sell mitch seller, who heads the fda's tobacco office. he said they're trying to figure out where there might be a

middle ground. he thinks there could be a cessation possibility for these. they just want to make sure they're also not starting -- getting people to start smoking. so they're trying to make a continuum. somewhere in the middle might be e-cigarettes. so what you mentioned on them being overregulated doesn't happen. >> to the marketing point you mention the hearing that took place. senator barbara boxer was questioning an executive on e-cigarettes and talking about the marketing, whether it's done to children. here's what she had to say. >> why did your parent company in their youth smoking prevention website say, kids may be particularly vulnerable to trying e-cigarettes due to abundance of fun flavors such as cherry, vanilla, pina colada and you market them in three of the flavors. are you selling to children? >> no, i'm not.

>> who's attracted to cherry, berry, vanilla. >> adult smokers. >> they are? that's interesting. >> anything to add? >> that's definitely been the argument among critics. most adults don't go for cotton candy flavored things, particularly when they're looking to have a smoke. >> 29 palms, that's where greg is. >> caller: hello. how are you doing, pedro and anna? i think it's crazy when you have lobbyists, the tobacco lobbyists that probably sway the fda to look at regulation. they always talk about they want us free. no one has -- no one can show any damage that has been caused by eshl-cigarettes. then i bet anna, i bet you never even tried an e-cigarette. i was listening to barbara boxer, and she was naming out these various flavors.

well, you know what, cherry sounds good to me. berry sounds good. vanilla sounds good. those are great flavors. and all the sudden we're going to say these are for children? this is crazy. let americans be free and let americans decide for themselves. and stop trying to regulate every doggone thing. >> you'd be wrong. i tried one. i do cover the issue, so i thought it might be important. on the flavors, you're probably right. there are some adults who do -- are interested in, you know, all kinds of different flavors. but there are kids who possibly could be interested in them more. i think that's the fear. >> nicotine, glysol, flavorings. what's the concentration of nicotine compared to a cigarette? >> it really depends.

you can get one that's just like a cigarette. you can get the concentrations that are steps down, that way you can eventually get to zero, which kind of goes towards the cessation argument. so it can come in many different -- you know, you can go to a website and see three different e-cigarette -- i guess you call it juice that they can order. >> and you tried one, you said. >> i have tried one. >> what was the experience like? >> it was pleasant. i mean, it wasn't harsh. i've written stories about cigars that i had to try. that was a little bit harder. this was fine. it was not a bad experience at all. >> back to mason, who smoked in the hospital. as far as rules for how these are used, is it same as cigarettes? most indoor places don't allow cigarette smoking anymore. is that changing for e-cigarettes? >> it's starting in some big cities. new york particularly has said, you know, we don't want these indoors. chicago, l.a. kind of followed with similar prohibitions. so there's some states that are

starting to pick up on that and want to limit it exact lay like cigarettes are limited. >> this is rob from north carolina on our democrats line. an e-cigarette user. hello. >> caller: yeah, hello. >> you're on. >> caller: yeah, hello? >> rob, go ahead. you're on. >> caller: yeah, i wanted to say, i have used -- well, i smoked a pack of cigarettes a day. i went to the e-cigarette. you can use that indoors, which is the good thing about it. but it did kind of irritate my throat, you know, when i was using it so much. but i want to say that i think it's all about the government losing tax money because people are not smoking as much. so the government is trying to regulate to put their hands in it because they're losing tax money. what would you think about that? >> as far as i can recall, i don't think they worked out much on the tax end of these yet. well, at least as far as, you know, kind of to the level that

cigarettes are taxed. it's not something that the has come up in my reporting as much. so i'm not exactly sure what they're making up versus, you know, what they get from cigarette companies. >> the fda working on the regulation side. are they also working on the research side as far as the long-term effects of e-cigarette use? >> they are. so they have a pretty big program where they're trying to follow users and different things like that and figure out kind of what the likelihood of smoking versus cessation is with these kinds of things. >> forest hills, new york, independent line. xena is up next. hello there. >> caller: good morning. what i would like to say, i was smoking for about 56 years. i considered myself a smart

woman, but i was as stupid as a lot of the calls you had just gotten. okay. i used to say to people, well, at least i know what i'm going to die from. i'm going to die from lung cancer. all right. i got to the point -- the trouble with smoking is, all these people with bravado doesn't realize that all the sicknesses do not show up for 20, 30 years. you want to find stupid, it was me. because in the '60s, i started getting what they called copd. chronic oppressive pulmonary disease. i have emphysema. thank god it's not that bad at this point. i'm 76. i have taken breathing tests

where the person giving me the test would get up and try that i should push air out of my mouth because the signal he was trying to get was going nowhere. in other words, i can't breathe very well. and it only gets worse. >> so as far as the fda looking into this other version of cigarette, what do you think given your experience? >> caller: okay. i would take -- i no longer smoke as of a year ago. but like addicts, that's all i can do, is say i do not smoke. the cigarettes are the same thing that i was using. first of all, up until last year, it was costing me $550 a month for cigarettes.

and i live in new york. that's getting on a train to get it about 80 cents a pack cheaper too. >> xena, thank you for your comments this morning. >> i think it's an excellent point that you make that a lot of the diseases with cigarette smoking show up a lot later, once you've been doing it for, you know, 15, 20 years. we don't have that much experience yet with e-cigarettes. so that's research that needs to be done. >> as far as research, you mentioned the fda, but what about outside medical organizations? have they weighed in on e-cigarette? >> not that i can recall, as far as the medical organizations, whether they have decided it would be a cessation device or it's something, you know -- you have the cancer -- american cancer society that has been cautious and not behind it exactly as a cessation device and wanting these regulations,

just to keep an eye on it. but i haven't heard yet anyone saying ban them or get rid of them. these are like cigarettes. >> what about the tobacco industry? how have they responded? >> they are some of the biggest makers of these products. the blue is your most popular e-cigarette. that is made by and owned by a company that's the third biggest tobacco maker. they're the biggest menthol seller in the u.s. so phillip morris and also r.j. reynolds have gotten in on it and are testing some in different parts of the country. their executives say that they want to completely eliminate tobacco smoking. so cigarette smoking. which is an interesting comment to hear because, you know, their companies are one in the same. >> okay. david up next. good morning from new jersey, an e-cigarette user.

go ahead. >> caller: yes. i smoked cigars every once in a while. so i started smoking an e-cigarette whenever i wanted to smoke a cigar. i don't really want to talk about myself. i want to talk about my son. my son has been smoking for about three, four years. i've been telling him he's got to quit smoking cigarettes. he picked up one of these e-cigarettes on april the 1st of this year and has not had another real cigarette since. i absolutely believe that this is a cessation device. i think it takes the place of kind of the oral fixation that you have when you smoke cigarettes. i smoked cigarettes back in 1970s and '80s, and i ended up quitting smoking cigarettes in 1981. the reason why i'm just jumping up and down on my son is i know

how difficult it is. the longer you smoke cigarettes, the more difficult it becomes. i was amazed. he picked it up on april the 1st and has not had another cigarette since. now, he's using nicotine, all right. he started with, like, 18 milligrams of nicotine. now he's down to two milligrams of nicotine. the next one is going to be zero. so he's ridding himself of the nicotine slowly, and he's using this to kind of get away from the act of smoking. and i think that's the most difficult thing. >> thanks, caller. >> it's great that, you know, your son's able to get off cigarettes with this. i think there are a lot of people that are like him and some of the other callers that we have listened to that have been able to use e-cigarette to stop smoking. i don't think anyone is saying it couldn't be a cessation device. but they just want to make sure

there aren't other, you know, factors to it. does it make nonsmokers pick up a cigarette because they started on e-cigarette kind of like the gateway for smoking? or does it allow smokers to continue smoking who might have otherwise quit? i think with the regulation, they're trying to balance that somehow, knowing there are a lot of great stories like yours where people stop using cigarettes altogether. >> san francisco congresswoman jackie spire getting into the mix of, this saying she'll introduce legislation today that will restrict the advertising. it would restrict television advertisements for electronic cigarettes as it did for tobacco. she plans to introduce the bill today. so talk about the television advertising. what are we seeing as far as commercials are concerned? >> a lot of the commercials tend to glamorize it. i think that's the biggest complaint about them. i mentioned jenny mccarthy in

some of the commercials. so people think it's -- you know, the commercial is trying to make people think it's a hip thing to do. kind of bringing back that whole idea where smoking was cool. you look at doing it, that sort of thing. and there are definitely lawmakers who want to jump ahead of the fda regulation and go ahead and get legislation passed, that way they don't have to wait. >> i actually just screen captured the jenny mccarthy commercial on the e-cigarette. as you look at those, we'll go to our next call. jim from new jersey, independent line. >> caller: yes. thanks so much for taking the responsible approach to this argument today. it's been very instructive today. the last caller touched on something i don't think your industry has really seized upon. i was a four pack a day smoker my wife talked me into hypnosis. after three or four days, i

realized i didn't have the physical addiction. once you know that's gone, when you've broken the physical addiction, that's 90% of the battle. when you consider what you're up against, you have that jenny mccarthy up there and the guy from the tobacco company talking about he didn't think that marketing the product with cotton candy and cherry names, there are so many dishonest people in the industry. we all know at this point that the people on television, a lot of these are lawyer, even our politicia politicians, you can't trust a word they say. this is a very important issue. i hope you'll stay with this thing. it's long overdue we get rid of this industry entirely. nobody benefits from it other than the people that line their pocket, and they do so overstepping the bodies of poor, sick people like that elderly gal from new york. >> that is a complaint i've heard during the hearings that i've been in, that the house or senate have held. this kind of feels like tobacco all over again.

they think the advertising and the flavors, which cigarettes used to have, it's just coming back around with e-cigarette. so some of the hardliners against them and that want them heavily regulated have made some of the same complaints. >> as far as states, what kind of rules have they put on e-cigarettes? >> mostly we brought up the not smoking the e-cigarettes where you can't smoke a cigarette. they've also jumped in already on the age restrictions. so they want to keep them out of the hands of minors. those have been the two big ones. >> ft. myers, florida. here's john. hi, john. john from ft. myers, go ahead. >> caller: oh, hi. i'm john. i was wondering how you guys feel about -- again, the fda is judging people. i mean, this could be good

because we're allowing people into our school systems to teach people, and the major problems are second-hand smoke and third-hand smoke when people are smoking cigarettes, not necessarily the first-hand smoke because they actually want to smoke the cigarette. so i was just curious how you feel about derogating people or judging them towards smoking and maybe, like, denying them job offers because they don't smoke or smoke. >> i haven't heard of anyone being denied a job because of e-cigarettes. i guess you're saying with cigarettes. i think the -- as far as i can tell with the regulation, i haven't seen a lot of judgment. they're trying to sort of find a middle ground that regulates an industry because people are, you know, smoking. they're inhaling what's in the e-cigarette into their body. so i think -- and you know,

there are people around them that might also do the same. i haven't seen sort of a lot of -- at least from the fda, i haven't seen a lot of judgment on these. >> clarice from new jersey, democrats line. >> caller: yes, i smoke the e-cigarettes. as far as the vapor that comes from the e-cigarette, it would be the same as if you're sitting beside someone that was -- we don't want to wreck the place on my first day here, guys. good afternoon, everybody. nice to see you all. hope you had a wonderful weekend. i have a few things i want top run through at the top, so if you'll indulge me here a little bit. the first is i want to talk just a little bit about the white house works families summit taking place across town. the president will deliver remarks at the first ever white house working families summit.

the president will announce new concrete actions that he will take using his pen to expand flexible workplace options that will better support the needs of working families. as you know, he's also used his pen to mobilize -- used his phone, pardon me, to mobilize a diverse group of stake holders to elevate this national conversation, including businesses, economists, labor leaders, legislators, advocates, and the media. because if we're serious about changing our culture here, we recognize that all of you have a big role to play. now, recognizing that, as the graphics behind me show, today's work force is changing. and we have to make sure our work force -- workplace policies keep up. in recognizing we all have a role to play from the federal government policymakers to the private sector and ordinary citizens. that's why today, as the president announces his own actions to help both working families and businesses succeed, you'll also hear him lift up the best practices of companies that are already showing how innovative workplace policies can be good for their employees

and their businesses' bottom line. companies like jetblue, which offers flexible work arrangements for customer service representatives. google, which offers paid leave policies for any primary caregiver. and the gap, which recently announced it will raise wages for all of its employees. so we're looking forward to talking about these and other solutions over the course of the day today. i have two other matters that i want to talk to you about before we get started, both of them foreign policy related. today the international maritime task force completed its extraordinary mission of removing the final 8% of the declared chemical weapons precursors from syria. we congratulate the u.n. opcw joint mission and the entire international coalition for their unprecedented work in removing more than 1,000 tons of declared chemical weapons materials from syria. the world will never forget the loss of more than 1400 innocent syrians senselessly killed with

chemical weapons on august 21st, 2013. there is no starker reminder that for almost 100 years, the international community has deemed the use of these weapons to be far beyond the bounds of ak semiable conduct. the removal of these materials sends a clear message that the use of these abhorrent weapons has consequences and will not be tolerated by the international community. while our work is not finished to ensure the complete elimination of syria's chemical weapons program, this is an important milestone in the international community's commitment to respond to the use of chemical weapons by removing the syrian regime's stockpiles. in addition to the removal of all declared chemicals, the opcw has also verified the destruction of declared production, mixing, and filling equipment. the opcw has also verified the destruction of all delivery vehicles, including mistime warheads. in the coming weeks, the united states will begin destruction of a large amount of syria's chemical weapons precursors. this will be done in the safest, most environmentally sound

manner. it's an unprecedented mission, deploying unique american capabilities to destroy the most dangerous elements of the syrian arsenal. this will ensure that they will never be used against the syrian people or against the united states, our allies, our partners in the region, or beyond. we continue to strongly oppose the assad regime's appalling violations of human rights and will continue to work with our friends and partners, including the moderate opposition in syria to support efforts to assist the syrian people and bring about a transition to a government that is responsive to their aspirations. finally, i wanted to read one additional statement about a situation in egypt. the united states strongly condemns the verdicts rendered against three al jazeera journalists and 15 other defendants today in egypt. the prosecution of journalists for reporting information that does not coincide with the government of egypt's narrative flouts the most basic standards of media freedom and represents

a blow to democratic progress in egypt. as we've said many times before, democracy is about more than elections. true democracy requires thriving democratic institutions, including a vibrant free press that is empowered to hold the government accountable to the people. perhaps most disturbing in this verdict comes as part of the succession of prosecutions and verdicts that are fundamentally incompatible with the basic precepts of human rights and democratic governance. these include the prosecution of peaceful protesters and critics of the government and a series of summary death sentences and trials that fail to achieve even a semblance of due process. it should be emphasized that the victims in these cases are not just the defendants and journalism more broadly but the egyptian people who have courageously asserted their demands for the fundamental freedoms to which all are entitled. we call on the egyptian government to pardon these individuals or commute their sentences so they can be released immediately and grant

clemency for all politically motivated sentences starting with the other defendants in this trial. we strongly urge president al sisi in the spirit of his pledge to review all human rights legislation to provide the protections for free expression and assembly as well as the fair trial safeguards required by egypt's international obligations. the united states will continue to stand with the egyptian people as they seek to realize the rights for which they have long struggled. so i apologize for the long wind-up, but some important news i wanted to start off with today. so with that, julie, you want to start with the questions? >> yeah, thanks, josh. i want to go back to the syria chemical weapons situation. i know that the administration sees this as a policy victory, but i'm wondering if that's tempered at all given the fact that even if you've gotten all of the known chemical weapons out of syria, that policy has done virtually nothing to stop the civil war there, and that conflict is bleeding over into iraq. >> i guess the short answer to

your question is, yes. we remain very concerned about the situation in syria. what's notable about this announcement today is that for a long time the assad regime in syria was one of the more conspicuous violators of the widely accepted notion across the globe that chemical weapons have no place, particularly when they're being used against civilians as they were last august. the fact that syria has now, you know, declared that they have chemical weapons, signed the treaty, and has cooperated with the international community to dispose of those declared chemical weapons is an important step. and there was some justified skepticism by people in this room and by other close observers of this situation about whether or not syria would actually follow through, and they did. thanks primarily, again, to the

work of the international community to hold them to account, to follow through on this mission, and the united states was able to bring some unique capabilities to bear to dispose of these kchemicals. but that -- >> is there any regret that when the chemical weapons attack happened last year that the option that the president went with was this plan, to get rid of the chemical weapons, and not something more broad that could have perhaps slowed the violence there and prevented isil from spilling over into iraq? >> well, that would -- i think what i would say to that is that the president has been carefully reviewing his options. i think we've been pretty honest about the fact that there has been a regular process under way here inside the administration to continually review our options for confronting syria. and for dealing with the terrible humanitarian and diplomatic situation there. the fact of the matter is that there are not a lot of good

options. and this has been a difficult policy problem to confront. but there are a number of things that we've done. certainly getting a handle and disposing of these declared chemical weapon stockpiles is an important step. the united states continues to be the largest donor of humanitarian assistance to the region. we've also spent quite a bit of time coordinating with our allies in the region to assist in the response to the violence in syria. we've been worried for some time about the destabilizing impact that the violence in that country could have throughout the region. there's no question that some of the violence that we've seen in iraq in the last couple of weeks and the amount of territory that isil has taken over is an outgrowth of that instability. this is something that we've been focused on for quite some time, but there's a difference between being focused on it and actually having a solution to what is a, i think, everybody

acknowledges, even our harshest critics, that this is a thorny problem to deal with and that the answers here are neither easy nor obvious. but there is a strategy in place that the president has deployed that is bearing some results. and, you know, the elimination of these declared chemical stockpiles is an important step. primarily because -- and i just want to finish with this just one thought. among our biggest concerns with this stockpile that was maintained by the assad regime was the possibility even likelihood of proliferation that these weapons could fall in the hands of terrorist groups or other rogue nations and that we could see them used against our partners, our allies, or god forbid the american people. because these declared weapons stockpiles have now been secured by the international community and disposed of by the united states, these weapons will never be used by anybody, and no one

will be a victim of these weapons. and that is an important step, and one we're pleased to see. >> finally, you mentioned the territory isil has taken over, over the weekend. they took three with syria and jordan. how concerning is that to the u.s.? and while you have these military advisors going over there, are you worried that by the time they assess the strength of the iraqi security forces that isis gains could be so strong they could be almost irreversible? >> i've seen the reports of the progress that was made by isil over the weekend. we continue to be concerned about the security situation in iraq. the president has laid out a strategy as he did from this podium on thursday for dealing with this problem. at the root though the -- this is a problem that's going to be solved politically. it's going to require some very difficult choices to be made by

iraq's political leaders. pursuing a political agenda that's more inclusive, that gives every iraqi a stake in that country's prosperity and future is the only way that the nation of iraq can present a united front to the extremists there that don't have the best of intentions. roberta? >> just following on to what you said about a political solution. the isil said yesterday that he was critical of u.s. plans in iraq and i'm wondering how that -- if it's a signal that iran is unlikely to cooperate with u.s. efforts to find that political solution? >> well, roberta, as reuters and other news organizations have reported, there were -- there was a conversation on the sidelines of the p5 plus one meeting between american diplomats and their counterparts in iran about the situation in iraq. i don't have any additional conversations to read out to

you. i think i would just remind you of the case that i made last week that there -- that it is not in the interests of iran for there to be a deteriorating situation in a neighboring country. so there is -- that presents what could be an opportunity for some common ground and for the united states to work with all of our partners in the region to try to resolve that security situation in the short term and give the iraqi political leadership a little room to make the kinds of difficult and politically courageous situations that are required to unify that country so that the people of iraq can meet that threat and defeat that threat and pursue an inclusive feature that's in the best interests of every citizen of that country. >> one direct question. kevin mccarthy said yesterday that he opposes renewing the

charter for the xm bank and i'm wondering what the white house is going to do to make the positive case for renewal to counter that. >> well, the incoming majority leader is certainly entitled to his own opinion, but there are some important facts to consider that have important consequences for policy views like the one that he articulated. the xm bank helps american companies create and support banks here at home at no cost to taxpayers and helps us meet our export goals which is why reauthorization of the xm bank has historically enjoyed bipartisan efforts in the past. the benefits are clear. over the last five years the bank has supported 1.2 million jobs in the united states across a range of business sectors including more than 200,000 in fiscal 2013 alone. additionally, xm bank provides american small businesses the certainty and protection they need to enter new markets, grow their businesses and create jobs

here at home. the bank last year in 2013 approved 3,413 small business transactions. that's assistance provided to american small businesses. so the focal point of the president's domestic policy making agenda is on expanding economic opportunity for the middle class. one area of an important economic growth is our exports and anything we can do to help american businesses capitalize on opportunities that exist in overseas markets is something we want to make sure that we're taking advantage. the president strongly supports the funding for -- or the reauthorization of the xm bank. i know this is something that the incoming majority leader has supported in the past and it's traditionally enjoyed strong bipartisan support. as we were talking earlier at the white house, somebody pointed out to me that president reagan himself in 1986 had

something interesting to say. he signed -- i thought it was interesting. i'll let you judge for yourself as i read it here. he extended a piece of legislation that extended the bank's charter for six years. he said it, quote, sends an important signal to both our exporting community and foreign suppliers that american exporters will continue to be able to compete vigorously for business throughout the world. he went on to say, this authority will give the united states needed leverage for use in negotiations to eliminate predatory financing practices whereby companies nicks omix of spending on major overseas projects. so i can imagine that he might discount what i have to say but i would be surprised he would discount president reagan. >> are we going to see them

press hard for that? >> i'll let you judge. >> it's been asked a number of times in this room about whether al maliki is the kind of person who's going to be 5ib8 to build and rework the government and build the coalition. it's a practical question to all of this about whether or not there would be even enough time if he suddenly becomes mr. coalition before the u.s. can engage in an airstrike? >> i wouldn't want to get ahead of any decisions the president might have to make about future actions, but it is our belief as i'm standing here today and you're asking me, there is time for this to get done. there is a process that's in place under the iraqi constitution for a government to be formed. i know there are a variety of leaders in iraq who have

signalled that the formation of that government should act quickly because of the deteriorating situation there but also to make sure that we have -- or that the iraqi people have inclusive political leadership and there is a process in place or a laid out process by which this needs to happen and we're at a common sense place in that process for these steps to be taken. so what's needed here is the political will from all of iraq's leaders to unify that countries country and help them meet the threat that they're facing right now. >> can you clarify something? when the president spoke in this room last week he said the reason why troops weren't left in iraq is because we couldn't work out an immunity agreement and we'd never send our troops anywhere where they don't have a guarantee of immunity. over the weekend a senior official traveling with

secretary kerry told reporters that there still isn't an immunity group for the troops, the 300 the president has decided to send over. that is, quote, still being worked out. can you give clarification? is there immunity for the troops the president has decided to send over to iraq? >> suffice it to say the commander in chief would not make a decision to put it our men and women into harm's way without getting necessary assurances. what i can tell you is we've gotten acceptable assurances from iraq on the issue of protections for these personnel, specifically, iraq has committed itself to providing protections for our personnel equivalent to those provided to personnel who were in country before the crisis. we believe these are adequate for the short term advisor mission our troops will be performing. >> so it's been worked out? you're satisfied? >> there's been an exchange of diplomatic notes that give us a muted assurance. >> i'd also like you to respond

to something we heard from ryan crocker, former ambassador to iraq and afghanistan. he said that this group, isis, is actually more formidable than al qaeda was at september 11th. do you agree with that assessment? >> i don't have a personal assessment to share. i think the president was pretty clear when he spoke from this podium on thursday about his concern about the potential forviolence that isil has already demonstrated. they have used some pretty terrible tactics. there have been reports of massacres of some iraqi troops so there is no doubt that this is a group that has some violent tendencies and it's the subject of some concern that's why the president has laid out a pretty specific strategy for trying to

contain that threat and to deal with it, but it hinges on some important political steps that need to be taken by the iraqi government. >> there's no question they have some violent tendencies and they are problematic, but crocker is suggesting something much more, that they now have access to resources that al qaeda never had previously, financial resources, access to weapons which suggests, you know, some are saying maybe the most formidable terrorist threat we've ever seen. that sounds like something much more than you've described, violent tendencies. >> i'm not in a position to make that personal assessment, but i think that what you've seen from this administration, from this president is a response that's commensurate with the threat that's posed by this group, and it is -- i mean, i guess i would say that some of our strategy for dealing with this threat, john, is beefing up our intelligence forces to make sure that we are keepi