in stability to their south. i believe they could do more along the border. and so in the meantime it is true, the kurds are acting and because the kurds are capable of acting, we're supporting them and that is successful and it does threaten raqqa. i think the tension with respect to the sunnis is best managed in the way that we're hoping prime minister abadi will manage it namely by letting them each succeed within their own territory, defeatize l and have substantial decentralization of governance in iraq that allows

them substantial opportunity to determine their own destiny within the territory that they control. that is what multisectarianism in iraq would mean. as you indicate, it's a lot tougher in syria. but that's the objective that we have to have sunnis -- i would like to see the sunni tribal leaders that you met with be as successful as the kurds are. we would welcome that. that's what we're trying to stimulate. and we're willing to do more as the chairman indicated and i indicated when we have a capable ground force that we can support the way we did support over the weekend the kurds in the north with air power. >> thank you mr. chair. mr. chair, i also want to agree with the line of your questioning earlier. i think it would be absolutely

foolish for us not to clarify the rules of engagement for the syrian trained folks inserted back into the field to make clear that the u.s. will support them if they come under attack by assad regime. for them to go in without protection, we would lose all credibility. and i would encourage the administration to clarify that rules. >> thank you, senator. i have been asking the question for a long time and i keep getting the answer we haven't made that policy decision. it's shameful to send people in and not assure them that we'll defend them against attacks by barrel bombs. senator graham. >> to build on what we're just talking about, do we have the legal authority to assist the free syrian army that we train against assad? is there a doubt about that?

>> i am not sure about the legalities of it quite honestly, senator. >> if there's any doubt whether we have the legal authority to protect the troops we train against assad, please let the committee know. you don't answer right now. but that's a big decision. if there's a lack of legal authority i want to know why and what can we do to fix it. >> i appreciate that thought. >> general dempsey thank you for decades of service. general dempsey, would you agree there are more terrorist organizations with more safe havens, more capability a, more men to strike the homeland? >> thank you for your service. i know you're retired recently. yes. >> do you believe that isil is expanding in other countries as we speak? >> yes.

>> okay. when it comes to iraq do you both agree that partitioning iraq into three separate countries is probably not a viable strategy? >> i certainly agree with that, yes. >> do you agree that the sunni world would object to giving the southern part of iraq to iran? that's what would happen, right if we partition to south? do y'all agree with that? >> yeah, that sounds like sectarianism to me and we know it lies down that road. >> an independent kurdistan is going to create people turkey at large. do you agree with that, separate independent state? >> for the turks, an independent state would be problematic. and in iraq, a substantial awe on the my within a decentralized but integral iraq is what they're trying to do. >> i agree. do you ie agree with that,

general in. >> i do. >> as to the kurds, do o either one of you believe that the kurds have the ability or will to go in and liberate ramadi? >> i'll start that. i think may may have the ability and we are obviously trying to facilitate their movement south. whether they have the will is another matter. the only reason that i say is that they're getting, at that point, to the edge of the territory that is kurdish. >> that's my point. for anybody to suggest that the kurds are an answer to all of our problems, they don't quite frankly know the mideast. the kurds are not going to liberate syria. do ya i'm agree with that? they'll be part of the component but not liberate the force. >> part of the component absolutely. >> as to assad what's more likely, president obama leaves

office in 2017 or assad goes first first? >> well, it's certain that president obama will leave office. >> i know that. >> so that's an easy question. but then it ends up turning on whether assad will be in power then. >> who leaves first, obama or assad? >> well i certainly hope it's assad. >> yeah, i do. but i don't think so. so the bottom line, if assad stays in power do you worry about jordan and lebanon being a victim of the war in syria if it continues the way it's going, that jordan and lebanon will become a casualty of the war in syria? >> i think jordan and lebanon are already suffering from the effects of war in syria. >> it could even get worse tharjts's exactly the concern we should all have about -- one of

the concerns we should have about what's going on in syria. it's not just the syrian people. it's the neighbor as well. >> do you agree with me that no arab force is going to go in and fight isis alone unless you put assad on the table? >> i see what you're getting at and it gets back to our train and equip program. and we are finding people whose principle security fear for their own people. and this is really for their own villages is isil. so they're willing to go and fight against ice. there are others who want to fight against assad then's another matter. >> here's my point. they're recruiting more foreign fighters than we're training free syrian army. this math doesn't work. this is never going to work in isil being degraded or destroyed. the only way i see it to be degraded or destroyed is for

ground force to go into syria. do you agree with me that no ground force made of turks, saudi, i grip chans you name it are going into syria to fight isil unless one of the goals is to replace assad? they're not going to give half of syria to iran. >> that sounds sensible to me and i certainly wish that such a force would be created. one of the great disappointments in all of this is that the sunni world more broadly isn't more involved in this fight. >> let's dig into that for a moment. if we went to turkey, egypt, saudi arabia tomorrow and said we would like to use your armies we'll be integrated would you agree with me for them to say yes that we would have to make assad a target of that army? and are we willing to do that?

>> let's see. i would guess that -- it's very hypothetical because sadly none of them has indicated a willingness to do anything of that kind under any circumstances. >> hear's what they told me. >> i see what you're driving at which is will the rest of sunni, the sunni middle east participate in this conflict. i certainly wish they would. the one answer i know, senator, is for the turks. >> can i state -- >> the turks stated their position which is they definitely want assad to go and the conditions for any other participations so far has been that they want to fight against assad. >> well, i would suggest you do the following. you travel a lot. we've went to saudi arabia and all over the middle east. and they told us to a person we would gladly join forces with you upon the condition that assad is part of the target set.

and nobody in the united states will tell them whether or not we're willing to take assad on militarily as part of the ground force. so i would suggest insfaed of being upset with the sunni arab world that our problems lie within ourselves that we're not putting assad on the table militarily. do you ie agree with that? do you think assad is on the table militarily? >> snard as i'm sure you know his position on the battlefield is more tenuous today than it has been for a long time. >> it is. but the point is is our efforts designed to take assad out militarily or are we focusing just on isil? >> no our approach has been as i think has been stated clearly for some time to find a political exit for assad rather than a u.s.-led military exit.

that is the approach. >> thank you. >> thank you. and thank both of you for your decades of service and that includes you mr. secretary, because you have given decades. i want to follow up on that line of questioning. so if assad exited tomorrow what would be the likely strategy that we would use going forward? >> our strategy would be to encourage the moderate opposition to partner with the structures of the government of damascus, not directly associated with say said or with

his deplorable behavior. and i think we can determine what that is. keep the structures of government in place. unify with the moderate syrian opposition and create a new government which is more reflective of the aspirations of the populous than assad's is. and then they would in turn need to go and reclaim their territory from isil. and i think the united states and the rest of the international coalition would be pleased to support them in that. >> and does assad exiting sooner rather than later does that create conditions that are so chaotic for the interest of the united states, or is the interest of the united states in him leaving sooner than later? >> i think sooner and in a way,

as i indicated that the reason for -- to get back to the earlier line of questioning for a political rather than a military transition for us to support and seek that is that it is less disruptive, less chaotic, less sparks sectarianism and therefore violence. that's why it's much to be preferred over a simple toppling of assad because you don't know what's on the other side of a simple toppling of assad. i know it's unsatisfying to talk about a political transition when he himself gives very little indication to doing that. but that is much preferred if we can have that. otherwise we know what happens when these countries disintegrate. >> were a political solution to be found for his exit, which of course is going to be difficult

with iran being his mentor, but vladimir putin could be instrumental in arranging some kind of exit strategy. but were it to be a political solution, do you think it reasonable that there would be some accommodations so that the al lo white minority would not be slaughtered? >> i think there has to be that ingredient. first of all the community will fight for the territory in the northwest. but once again, that's just further conflict further civil war. and ethnic cleansing of any kind is the kind of thing you could see on the other side of a collapse there. and we know how tragic that is for people. what would his arranged exit do

with regard to hezbollah and will they resist it the whole way in. >> hezbollah has been one of the principle supporters of the assad regime. so they do not give any indication of welcoming the path that we're discussing here. the russians perhaps. and i know that we've been in contact with the russians about that over the years. and certainly i think that they would, if they threw their weight behind such a transition be inflenl with assad. and so i certainly hope they would but i have no confidence as i sit here right now that they will. >> when -- mr. secretary when you look at a map like this a map of syria that i assume you

handed out somebody did that's a mess. and maybe it is the only solution is the solution of a political exit for assad so that we can go after these extremist's elements. by the way i had to leave the committee to do an interview on cnn. and the whole focus that they wanted to jump on was your statement earlier in the hearing that we had only trained up 60. but i pointed out to them what you said was the vetting is very difficult. and in fact we are vetting some

several thousands additional. and the vetting is a lot more torturous because you don't want to have a guy trained up and then he turns around and aims his gun back at us. in iraq do you think that this new prime minister has the capability of getting out of his shiite mold and does he have the capability of bringing in all of the shiites with all of the iranian influence in his government in order to reach out with an olive branch to the sunnis? >> thank you. with respect to the first part of your remarks, i'm always going to be truthful with you. and the number is 60. and i think we've stated that number before. but i said it today.

and i'll always tell the truth. and that is a mall class. it results from the fact that that is the number that got through the very rigorous vetting selection process that we have. generaljenna -- i expect the numbers to increase. but i wanted to tell the truth and i did tell the truth. we expect the number to improve but you deserve to know where things stand. and i'm telling you where things stand. with respect to abadi, he has indicated to us and he was here in washington, i believe he spoke to many of you as well, his intention to proceed in a way that is distinctly different from the way his predecessor proceeded which led to the situation we now have in iraq. we're certainly supporting him

in that regard. but one can see that his intentions are contested in baghdad. and so we continue to support him, we continue to think -- to get back to the earlier line of question that a multi-sectarian few chr for iraq is the best for peace and the best for defeat of isil. but he will have some substantial influence over that. but it's clear he doesn't have absolute control in baghdad. we are supporting him. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you secretary carter and general dempsey for being here today. and general dempsey i especially want to thank you for your decades of service to your country and to the cause of freedom. we wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors. i'm not sure whether that this will be the last time we're

privileged to speak with you in a hearing but regardless please know how much we appreciate what you you've done for our country. i want to thank the men and women who are doe employed in iraq and so many other places in the middle east and for their service to our country. although they've not been labeled combat troops, they're still operating under dangerous and uncertain circumstances and are far removed from their families and from the people they love. i want to follow up on the discussion between senator mccain and secretary carter on how we might support syrian rebels once they return from training. mr. secretary, you stated that you believe we have an obligation to those we train to provide them protection. and i agree with that. and i also believe we have an

obligation to let the american people know and that you have an obligation to let congress know and help us to fully understand what the strategy entails, what that means. and the funding the time and the effort that providing any such protection might entail and what it will necessitate. so can you tell us when will the department of defense fully explain to the american people and to congress what the strategy will involve, what it's going to cost our government? i've said this before but this is something that should have been made clear last year when the president came up with this plan. but regardless it's better late than never. it's good that we do it now rather than not at all. can you tell us when that might occur? >> i'll continuously tell you

what's going on over there with respect to what we're doing in iraq and what we're doing with respect to syria. and we're going to have to as i said, i think we have an obligation to support those fighters when they go into -- we're going to have to decide under what conditions and what way we'll make that tactical decision when we introduce them. but i think the main thing is that we increase the number from what is now a very small number. i'm not surprised that it's running on television -- into a much larger number. i think we can do that. and the officer who runs this program believes that he will be able to do that and we'll keep you apprised of our progress. and i'll tell you every day what i know as i've done here today. >> thank you. i appreciate that and look forward to that.

now u.s. strategy in syria is to empower the quote unquote moderate opposition to defeat isis and to put enough pressure on the assad regime to achieve some type of negotiated peace settlement. for the sake of discussion let's say the mod rates are successful in degrading isis to the point they're no longer a factor in syria. what does pressuring assad or its supporters into a negotiated settlement look like at that point, especially given the military support from iran and hezbollah. what role will the united states play in bringing about the pressure and suspect to achieve this kind of settlement? >> i think the way it would look, the outcome that we are aiming for, is one in which bashar al assad and those who have been associated with his

atrocities in syria are removed. but the structures of government in damascus and in iraq that remain continue on are an inclusively governed way that is multi-sectarian to include alloys and others. and that can then turn to the task of regaining its sovereign territory from isil to the east in a project that would look like what we're working with baghdad to accomplish to its west in iraq. that is the post assad transition that would be the best for the syrian people and the best for our counter-isil strategy. >> by the way, do you believe that 2001 authorization for the use of military force gives

authority necessary to engage the say said regime forces that may come into conflict with any rebel we may train? >> i'm going to be very careful how i answer a legal question in that regard and i would prefer to get back to you in that regard. >> okay. now, mr. secretary what level of command and control in your opinion does isis leadership have over these various affiliate groups across the middle east as well as lone wolf individuals for groups in the western hemisphere? >> it's mixed. but in the main -- not entirely, but in the main what one sees is a mixture of groups that were already radicalized and already intent on attacking the west or

attacking western interests or destabilizing places in the middle east, rebranding themselves assize l because of this seemingly -- seeming success it had. and then to get to the lone wolf part, you see people who have had no training, no association with it, including americans, who go on the internet and find themselves enthralled because whatever lost souls they are, enthralled by the violence or whatever associated with isil and self radicalized and unfortunately undertake to do violence. so you see that spectrum there. you do see some effort by isil meaning isil in syria and iraq, to command and control. but it's not exclusively that way. and i say all this because that's very distinctly different

from the al qaeda mod. the al qaeda model was a very clear and command and control type terrorist enemy. and that meant they had discipline and it meant they could take on big things like 9/11. but it also meant that when we started to go after them they were vulnerable to attacks on the command and control structure and on their logistic structure. isil is more resilient because it's decentralized and informal in that sense. we're highly aware of that as is law enforcement by the way. >> i see my time has expired. thank you, mr. chair. >> senator mccain asks that i recognize senator fisher. >> thank you for your service to this country and i especially want to thank you general dempsey for the many, many years that you've served the people of this country and the military families that have been under you. thank you sir.

mr. carter, earlier senator rounds had a conversation with general dempsey about the act of patience and time. and i know the general's counselled patience and discuss time. what role do you see time playing in our strategy? you know, do we have a strategy on forces, on containing isil? are we going to allow them to be able to maintain control of territory for the next three to five years? is that going to be acceptable to us? and do you see risks with that type of strategy? >> well, i think we're going to continue to strike and apply pressure to isil throughout this period. we're doing it now. we do it every day.

it as had some effect. and we're going to continue every single day, as we did over this past weekend, to defend ourselves against isil, include these home grown people. all that will go on and has to go only because we have to protect ourselves in the meantime. what takes this time -- and i think this is what the chairman is getting at. what takes the time just in the nature of things, getting a lasting result. a lasting result is one where not only is isil defeated but they stay defeated. in order for them to stay defeated, there has to be somebody on that territory who is keeping the peace and governing and replacing isil in the territory. that takes some time. we see ourselves -- we're working with the kurds to do that. we're working with sunni tribes. but that's in the nature of things. we want that to go as quickly as possible. and we're hastening that to the

best of our ability, as are other members of the coalition. but that is the thing that takes the time to build. but in the meantime we have to protect ourselves and we have to keep pressure on isil and we'll be doing that constantly. >> i agree with you on that -- >> could i -- would you mind? >> certainly. >> i've thought about this a lot. your question is really whether patience increases risk. that's really your question. and i think patience probably does increase risk to the mission somewhat because it extends the time when other things could happen, right? but i think were we to take more responsibility directly and unilaterally, that would certainly increase risk in other way. it increases risk to our force and increases risk to the other missions that we're held accountable to accomplish globally. what i get paid for is to give advice to the secretary of

defense with the jcs and the president on managing risk. so to your question, does risk increase due to patience of course. but the alternative increases risk in other ways and it's our job to manage that risk. >> as you look at managing that risk and you look at balancing it how do you, how do you reach a decision where you can maintain that patience when you know that when isil controls that territory that they have now and they continue to advance in other areas whether it would be in the region or in russia, that that is recruitment item for them that it will inspire attacks, whether it's in that region or elsewhere around the world. how do you balance that and have

the risk that we face in our homeland continue what i think would be continue to grow because of possibly an overabundance of patience? >> yeah. i'll keep at it because as i said, this is the issue in which the campaign turns correctly -- or correct? so what you have to be assured of is that as we manage risk, we look at those things which could threaten u.s. persons and facilities around the globe and the homeland. and where we see risk accruing that could have threatened that national security interest, this's no hesitance for us to act unilaterally and decisively. on the other hand, this campaign is built on the premise that it relies upon other actors.

that necessarily requires a degree of patience that we need to nurture, we need to reinforce and we need to understand in the context of the other things we're trying to accomplish, not only in the middle east but globally. so if you're suggesting that isil's threat to the homeland could increase because of this patience i concede that risk. we take on the responsibility to manage it. but i would also suggest to you that we would contribute mightily to isil's message as a movement were we to confront them directory on the ground in iraq and syria. >> if we look at, if we look at patience, if we look at restraint, don't you think that with our restraint we're in many ways encouraging the iraqis to look elsewhere and to especially look to iran and invite them into iraq where they are because

they know that iran will be, will be there fighting a common enemy that they both face at this point? aren't we opening that door to iran with this, what i kind of view as an overabundance of patience? which to me is the greatest risk. >> when you look at what we're doing, we're trying to -- by the way, the government of iran has been reaching out to iran since roughly 2004. and they have probably increased their outreach to iran. but has very little to do with what we're doing or not doing. it has everything to do with the fact that they believe that their future is -- that it's their turn and that their particular form of governance which is not yet inclusive as it needs to be, is the right form

of governance. they are going to do this whether we're there or not and whatever manage of which we have influence. >> they have boots on the ground in iraq through no action or the united states or inaction by the united states? >> i would say that the advisers that have been sent the isr that they're flying and some of the other capabilities that they provided to the government of iraq, i would agree with you that they would have provided that whether we were there -- >> it was a question. it wasn't a statement on my part. >> the answer is yes they would have been there regardless of our actions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you for the testimony today. general dempsey, i want to join any colleagues in commending you for your decades of service. and secretary carter good getting caught up last week. i appreciate your outstanding service as well to our country. you know there's been a lot of

criticism of the president when he, in august 2014 and then just a couple of weeks ago at the g-7 meeting talked about how we don't have a strategy yet with regard to isis. he said that in 2014. he again said it again just a couple of weeks ago. but what he really has not been criticized for and i think is something that i'd like to get your view on is each time he's talked about the lack of a strategy, he's essentially put it on your plate. each time he's said, well the guys at the department of defense are kind of coming up with options. still haven't gotten them yet. d.o.d. is working this. literally said that a version of that in august of 2014 and in june of 2015 is -- did it take the department of defense a year to come up with a strategy to

defeat isis? >> i'll start that. first of all, thank you for your conversation. thanks for everything you're doing, especially at the respect of our asia pacific strategy senator. very grateful for that and your travels there and your leadership. we just spoke yesterday at the pentagon with the president about his strategy. and the strategy is the one -- >> you laid out. >> -- i described today. >> so he can't -- >> he described eight or nine months ago. and that doesn't -- this is important. it involves us and we have an important role. >> right. >> but it involves other parts of the government as well. that's one of the reasons to keep laboriously citing nine lines of effort. there really are nine lines of effort. wu know we don't directly, for example, try to intradistrict

self radicalized americans. we've got to do that while we're working on the difficult problems of iraq. >> i agree 100% with that. that's why to me again it was a little bit -- maybe you just can't answer the question directly. i wish you would. but the fact that the president -- it goes to some of the process here. the fact that the president for a year has essentially been saying we don't have a strategy and it's because the guys over at d.o.d. has not given me one to me is not how we develop strategy, as you just mentioned. this strategy needs to be all instruments of american power. the military is one but we need economic, energy, finance, diplomatic diplomatic, the whole list and that of course has to be developed by the white house, not by the department of defense. i don't think it took a year for the pentagon to come up with a strategy. and despite the fact that the president each time he said he don't have a strategy said that was essentially your fault.

i don't think it was your fault. i think it was the whouts's fault. i want to be on record saying i think that's unfair criticism to be put at the chairman or the secretary to say we don't have a strategy yet as it's because of d.o.d. i guess can now can say we have a strategy. is this the strategy? >> this is the strategy and it is devised by the president and the white house. we play a role in it. i did not observe any waiting for us to come up with a strategy. >> he actually said it twice. >> the strategy that i've described the nine lines of effort was described the end of last summer. it makes common sense that our strategy has all the parts that the nine lines of effort described. yesterday's meeting was to give him an update and get his guidance on how we go forward. it doesn't just -- it happened to be at the pentagon and the focus was on one of the nine lines of effort.

but there were other members of the national security community which is essential to this who were present and participated in the discussion. >> thank you. and mr. chairman, you don't have to answer this. but i don't assume it took a year for the military to come up with options for the president. >> well no i'm happy to answer it. because we're frequently and constantly adapting options. but the context of when you said that was he had asked us is there something more we need to be doing with the sunni tribes. that's the context of the question. the real issue is whether we should be doing more with the sunni tribes. and the outcome of the conversation and the planning that went it with the train and advise assist platform. >> i know there's been some discussion with regard to the ndaa and i think it's a good bill very bipartisan bill.

senator reid and chairman mccain should be commended for the great work they did. one of the things we try to do in the bill and a number of areas is bolster the credibility where the united states is seen as working -- having a strategy both supported by the executive branch and the legislative branch. and some of us think that our credibility in certain areas of the world has been weak and it's been one of the weaknesses of our national security and foreign policy strategy. but we tried to do that in a number of areas and i want to provad tworide two examples. the rebalance to the asia pacific. there's strong language in there about the support from congress. very bipartisan. and how we need to be increases troops in the asia pacific. also very much a focus that i think is an area that mr. secretary you said we're late in the game in. you may have seen -- if you

haven't, i would recommend that you take a look at "news week." the title is "in the race to control the arctic the u.s. lags behind." it talks about how this is developing as the new great game and kipling's famous phrase, how the russians are very involved in the arctic. mr. chairman you in testimony in front of this community talked about the new brigades, their exercise in the last couple of months. and then the comment on the coast guard is essentially saying it's a new geopolitical cold war that the u.s. is in danger of losing. we're not even play in this game at all. i just wanted to ask a final comment, mr. chairman. you talked about managing risk, mr. chairman.

would removing our only airborne brigade bct in the arctic only bct in the asia pacific, what would that do to our credibility? would that bolster the kred about in the arctic or asia pacific with regard to the rebalance? and you talked about managing risks. certainly seems to me as vladimir putin is militarizing this part of the world, if we're actually removing forces removing forces our only arctic trained forces, that's a way to increase risk. because we know he views weakness as being provocative. they're making a move in the arctic. if we start withdrawing troops, the 425 in particular, i think that heightens risk. would either of you care to comment on that? >> yes. i think it increases risk. but some of the decisions -- and you're talking about the army in this case. but some of the choices that the

service units are going to have to make as we continue to go down in terms of resources -- you know the army is tasked with going from 490,000 active where they are today to 450 in the next two years. and they got to come from some place. >> but to put that bct on the block first to me is inviting a, the congress is saying don't do it and the ndaa. but secondly that's going to undermine our credibility not only in the arctic. it's going to yurn mind our balance. >> i'm not going to presuppose the army's decision although it sounds like you may have some insight. >> no, i don't. >> we are familiar with congress telling us know on the reforms that we're making not because we're trying to cut ourselves apart but because we've got a trillion dollars -- that's a t, not a b, a trillion dollars less

in budget authority over ten years. we've said from the beginning, it's a disaster. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just do want to mention that if we're looking at bcts going to the area where the congress has actually said we need to increase forces, having those -- having our only asia pacific arctic capability which you know, general, you can't develop overnight, our o only airborne capability in the entire asian pacific that would be a blunder. and i think congress comes in with broader have teejicstrategic insights than congress does. >> let me thank you for your testimony and i personally want the thank you for your service to the nation, particularly general dempsey as you conclude your uniformed service. again with chairman mccain's

direction, i will adjourn the hearing. thank you.

next a discussion on the future of radio with mike fran says so. this was part of the 25th annual talkers magazine conference in new york and it's 15 minutes.

[ applause ] thank you very much. good morning, everybody. this is good to see -- i was just sitting here with brian, i was just talking to sean hand any, a frankly square guy and i'm a long island guy. the long island guys are well-represented here. i work right down the block here a couple blocks away. it's an easy jaunt this morning to come in and say hello. and i was looking through some stuff the last couple of days and i thought i should wear black the way everybody is talk abradio these day. it is amazing the amount of negativity, no matter what part of the business that you're in. now i've been part of wfan since 1987. aye i've actually been in the same job since 1999, same hours, same

time, same station since 1989. it's been a long time. i used to have a partner. i don't know where he went. i lost him somewhere along the way. after 19 years, i looked up, he was gone. i think he's working but i haven't been able to find him. i send out notes, everything. he's doing fine, though, on a different part of it. obviously it's serious and doing a baseball show. but all you read now is consolidation leads to death, clusters which to me is a dirty word, cutbacks. i mean, nobody nobody has a good word for radio anymore and i'm here to tell you even though i'm probably a little closer to the finish than i am the start. if i was -- back when i was pounding on the door to get into wfan and it took me 18 interview to get hired folks -- i would be as bullish on radio and as

gung-ho about getting a career and feeding my family in radio now as i was then. i'm shoous why. i know you don't believe me. i'm telling you. all you hear now is that companies -- listen i work for a big company now. i fight with them all -- you can see some of my executives are in the room. i'm telling you, i haven't talked to them in months. maybe years. you can read about it. it's out there. i'm not going to discuss that today. i would like to but i won't. the point is yes it's hard now. it's much more fun and i'm a big believer -- although we have sean and we have so many people who have done so well and have built brilliant industries and brilliant businesses doing network radio, mine has always been live and local and

immediate and i've always liked this small city here as kind of my home turf. i think of it as my own as a matter of facts, folks. my point is that yes, it's changed. it's not going to change back. we know that it's going to be owned most of the time, most of your stations are going to be owned by people who have a lot of stations. managers who have more than one station to run. sales people who are involved in more than one kind of programming. all that stuff. it's all true. but it does not change the dynamics of the business. i'm just getting over a cold so i apologize. the point is live and local has to go back to that no matter what part of the business you're running because eventually it's about a guy who has a showroom to sell cars or a storefront that he wants people to walk into or a restaurant he wants people to eat in and your job is

to sell that. and then it works from there. so whether you're talking about a network empire like sean has or you're talking about one station where i've been able to control things for a very long time here in new york either way it's still the same dynamic. it gets back to the same dynamic. it has to eventually get back to the community and get back to live and local. but it's changed because you now have to deal with the digital aspect of this. digital is not going away. so digital has to be a partner in all of this. look at what it's done for sports. that's obviously what i do. digital -- let me tell you this. the owners of the baseball teams, of the football teams guys you see who really are given credit for being smarter than they really are because they fell into this digital thing. they didn't know what would happen.

they owned some of these teams for many years. they bought them mostly out of vanity. some guy gets lucky and gets rich or is born rich and decides i own this big business and nobody knows who i am so i'm going to buy a team to get publicity and someone finds out who i am and that's where jerry jones in the world come from. the point is they fell into the digital end of this which is now producing insane amounts of money. if you look at -- i can give you an app where baseball is making over a billion dollars on one app. nfl is making billions in digital revenues. so the digital part of the business on the radio side has to be enhanced. there's no way around it. it has to be embraced. that's the way to success because we talk now about social media. we all deal with it. if you have been in radio a long time, it's something that's been at first an intrusion and then you have to learn to live with it.

i've had to do that but think about it. the first real social media was radio. the first real mass social media was radio. radio is twitter's father. that's what it is. they are the same relation. as a matter of fact facebook is harder to apply to radio but twitter is the most perfect -- they don't know what to do with twitter as you saw. they booted the guy out last night. they don't know what to do with twitter. they don't know how to monetize it like people haven't figured out how to monetize digital radio. explain this. monetize this for me. i have not got an answer yet. same thing with twitter. how do you monetize it? they have a product they haven't figured out how to monetize. twitter is immediate and nonstop information source.

what's radio? immediate and a nonstop information source. they are the perfect marriage. the guy and probably not going to be me because i won't put enough time into it or maybe not smart enough to come up with it but the guy who marries twitter and radio will make a fortune because it's the perfect complement. they are the same -- they're from the same lineage. they fit perfectly. we use twitter a lot with our show. my producer is on it the entire show. we use twitter a lot. i'm not going to tell you why or how but i'm telling you we do. the point is you have to whether you're in management, whether you're in sales, you have to marry what is the live, local base part of radio where everything starts whether it's local radio or network and marry the digital part of this because that's not going away. it's going to continue and now everybody in the world carries a

trancister radio. we all do now. we all have one. and everyone has one now. you have every car with a radio and now everybody has a radio in their pocket. it couldn't get better than that. that's an advancement from where we were 20 years ago when basically radio was in a car, drive time, don't worry about the house. we took care of that with simulcast. you can touch people everywhere they are, any time, anywhere. hopefully when they're not driving a train. if you're the management part, you have to embrace that. if you're the talent part you have a couple things you have to do now in my mind. number one, you have to understand that the audience has more information than you have because they care about a certain subject. they care about a certain team. they care about a certain person. they can get more information right now than you can about a single subject so your job is different. it has to be more to entertain.

it's always been entertainment. it used to be to inform. not anymore. it's now about your take. you have to have the right opinion or an opinion at least that stands out. you need personality and presence when you perform and then you have to figure out a way to cut through and be a brand. if you're not a brand you won't be that successful. that's the way -- there's so much out there. so much noise out there. so many people out there. there are so many more people working now than there were when i started that you have to stand out. if you're not a brand, you wouldn't be up here if you weren't a brand. i'm a brand. hannity is a brand. if you weren't a brand you wouldn't be doing this. that's how it works. on top of that though, you have to understand and figure out how to utilize and monetize and figure out the value -- this is essential going forward i think -- of what you do with the secondary applications of your

content. what you are, what we are in radio is content providers. my content has always been 5 1/2 hours live every day. later on it became we're going to do the interviews and then we're going to cut them up and send the opening and the interviews to the website. i'm, like, don't do that until the show is over. we fought about that for a long time. they did it anyway. i said wait a second. what you're doing is wrong. you're bastardizing the product. this is the right way to enhance. i said tell me how it will make money. duh. i never got an answer. figure out the value. you have to. you're a content provider but you're not a content provider anymore for just radio or just television. it goes to a podcast. it gets cut up. i'll give you an example. my stuff every day goes from 5 1/2 hours live. it goes to cbs local sports.com

and playit.com and then it goes to different places from there. now think about that. the other day i did an interview with bob. it went to nine place afters after i did it. i don't get paid for those. they're going to say i get enough. i agree. i am. the point is if i was not and i was starting out, i would want to put a value on every one of those applications. they have to be able to monetize those. if they're not they're not doing their job and you have to as a broadcaster to put a value on those because those secondary to the ninth degree of content are what your providing. you are a content provider. you're not just a broadcaster anymore. you're now a content provider.

that and all those different places are selling it to something or their plan is to sell it to somebody and you should get something for that. what has to be decided. i think our business the executives in it and to lesser extent the talent have done a terrible job of monetizing the digital aspects of this. i've never gotten a straight answer in all these years on how we monetize even the website to now i gave you all of the different places. there's more. the point is that if i'm going to produce content and it's going to go eight places and be sold in eight different places, i have to share in the pie. if i was going to be here for 30 more years i would make sure i shared in the pie. i'm not going to worry about that now. i'll let you. that's the future. you are not just a broadcaster anymore or a tv person anymore. you are now a content provider across all these different

levels that are going to be there and more are going to be created whether in podcast, whether it's all different ones. look at the ones cbs has created. look at the different ones. they create them every day. they have other things of me and these cartoons which i've never even approved but they say we own the content that they get a tremendous amount of hits on and they keep producing them. they are my old bits. my old interviews. my old rants. there's a lot of rants. my old monologues. you never know when i'm go off. the one where they said i fell asleep on my yankee cohort got 1.3 million hits on youtube as an example. that was on "letterman" three nights in a row which is a little much. this stuff is going to get used, abused and worn out and you have to -- the company has to figure out a way to monetize it accurately and as talent you have to be part of that. that's a big part of the future.

it's not just about whatever your hours are on the radio or even -- i understand the dynamics change when you talk network versus local and i'm talking mine sean can talk his, the point is it all gets back to the same place. if radio forgets that it all gets back to live and local and to that guy trying to sell a car in a showroom or fill his restaurant, then you know what? they will be wearing black for radio. thanks for coming out. have a great day. and we'll see you soon. thank you. [ applause ] >> that was just a portion. you can see the entire discussion on the future of radio at c-span.org. coming up shortly, after just two minutes, a floor debate late tuesday evening they passed a bill to prevent displays of

confederate flags and encountered no opposition. a directive was issued in 2010 that allows national cemeteries which commemorated designated confederate memorial day to decorate with small confederate flags. the flags must be removed as soon as possible once the confederate memorial day is over. we can honor that history without celebrating the confederate flag and dreadful things it symbolizes. we'll have more on this issue in just a couple moments. we'll take you live to columbia, south carolina as the state house of representatives there debates a bill to take down the confederate flag from the state house. they're expected to hold a final vote either today or tomorrow. the south carolina senate by the way passed a similar measure yesterday. the vote on that was 36-3. live coverage here on c-span3 when it gets under way in just a moment. right now, some of the debate from yesterday.

>> members of the senate will please rise as we receive our president of the senate. >> senate will please come to order. members and guest remain standing while we're lead in devotion. >> you are my sheep. the sheep of my pasture and i am your god, says the lord god.

let us join our parts in prayer. holy got how comfortable that we are your sheep in your pasture. we thank you for your care, your guidance, your blessings and for your gracious comforting love. moreover, we pray dear god that these servants themselves will always labor diligently on behalf of and be concerned and thoughtful toward those who are in their care. every woman, man and child here in this pasture we call south carolina. may these shepherds employ wisdom in their leadership of our state to your glory of course and for the betterment of all of our citizens. we pray this in your name dear lord. amen. >> we pledge allegiance to the flag.egiance

to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands one nation under god indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> please be seated. are there any petitions or presentments of grand jury or such like paper? there are no communications we're informed by the clerk therefore introduction of new bills and resolutions. >> favorable on reappointment of the -- >> that was debate yesterday. now live to the south carolina house of representatives for continued debate on displaying of the confederate flag. >> good morning. the word for today comes from 33rd chapter of job.

now hear my speech and listen to my words. see i open my mouth. the tone is my words. my mouth speaks. my words declare uprightness of my heart and what my lips know they speak sincerely. let us pray. lord we thank you for your watchfulness over us. in these difficult days o lord give wisdom and guidance to our speaker and the members of this house. cause them to seek your will and give them courage and integrity. bless these representatives as they take up the agenda of the day. may cool heads and warm hearts

rule the day. give us your grace doing these difficult days always. and protect our defenders of freedom as they protect us and heal wounds those seen and hidden of our brave warriors who suffer and sacrifice for our freedom, lord in your mercy hear our prayer. amen. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands one nation under god indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> right on time, brother.

>> you're watching live coverage of the south carolina house of representatives as members there continue debate on the confederate battle flag. today the house is expected to do what's called the second reading of the bill that would remove the flag from the state capitol building. yesterday the state senate voted 36-3 to remove the flag. both bodies needed two-thirds majority for the bill to be agreed to. the debate in the senate was not very contentious as indicated by that final passage of 36-3. the house expected to be another matter during this phase 26 amendments on the agenda to be debated. it's expected some could be pulled back. right now what you're seeing in the house is a roll call vote taking place giving members a chance to make their way to the floor for the pending debate. this could last up to 30 minutes. again, you're watching live coverage of the south carolina house of representatives as they continue debate on the confederate flag removing the

confederate flag from the state capitol.

>> we're in the roll call period. members please record your presence.

>> we're in roll call period. all members please record your presence.

>> we're in roll call period. all members please record your presence.

>> again, you're watching live coverage of the south carolina house as they begin a second day of consideration to the bill that would remove the confederate battle flag from the state capitol. yesterday the state senate voted 36-3 to have that flag taken down. the debate now moving to the house where lawmakers would examine it today. amendment votes are expected. vote on final passage could come today or tomorrow. right now members are taking a roll call vote to bring members down to the floor so the debate can get under way. the herald newspaper today has an article discussing the prospects for the bill in the house. some house republicans are saying not so fast and they plan to offer amendments that would preserve some kind of symbol in front of the state house to honor their southern ancestors. one of them, congressman mike pitt said to banish all flags would be akin to erasing

history. "i guess my plan for today would be a lot like my ancestors were at the bloody angle." that refers to a battlefield where fighting raged for 24 hours in 1864. "and fight until i have nothing left to fight with." he said his favorite amendment supports flying a blue banner similar to the state flag but with a wreath around the tree. similar art is etched on a wall inside the state house pitt said.

>> while we wait for this roll call debate to wrap up here, we'll show you some debate from the state senate yesterday. >> proceed. >> mr. president members of the senate, before i get too long into this, i want to thank my friend from richland for bringing to my attention i didn't mention him yesterday. he is my friend and i'll have to say that in the south carolina senate the democrats are the minority party but they are very

respectful when folks want to be heard because they understand what it is like to be in the minority and i am in the minority of the majority when it comes to many issues. but i wanted to -- i wasn't going to speak today but the e-mails i received overnight from folks that were very upset and many of them said they were going to impeach someone in the south carolina senate and could i be removed because of my pushing my faith on others. and as i was walking into the lobby, i noticed we have a chaplain in the senate who read from those folks that seem to have so much hostility toward almighty god, he read from the bible and said a prayer in your name and i would assume that

would be jesus' name so i guess that all of the folks that watched the national media will now be coming after him. i guess all of you. because you see it doesn't stop with the flag. we found out yesterday it's not the flag because i put up an amendment for a flag that has not been used by hate groups. it was only flown as the first flag of the confederacy and got very few votes. so it's not about the flag. it's about heritage. but the e-mails that i got yesterday -- i want folks to understand that when i had several people say why were you talking about gay marriage why did you bring up gay marriage in this flag debate? are you not paying attention to what's going on on the senate floor? i know we have an attention span of 30 seconds. i'm guilty of it.

that's why millions and millions and millions and tens of millions of dollars are spent on 30-second ads because they know that's about the attention span because we're all so busy. we're an information society. for those of you that didn't have time, which i know many don't have time to see the entire proceeding, what i did was i moved to amend so we could take up a bill pertaining to marriage since the supreme court ruling came down and then i had someone tell me the supreme court didn't decide that for south carolina. well, yes, we did have a judge who had already decided that before it made it to the supreme court but had the supreme court ruled otherwise, that would have had an impact. so this idea of federalism and this idea of states having rights pretty much ended with this war. it pretty much ended. lincoln -- let's think about

this. this is a president who suspended an entire state's legislature. i have had people that have come out and said, well you're not a patriot. you're not a patriot because those folks were traitors. these are e-mails i'm getting from people in our own state. in our own state. these men fought for what they believed was what the constitution said. listen, our nation was wrapped up in slavery. you can't get around it. i got an e-mail today about how i need to end this cycle of hate. i realized how many people of color died on slave ships. not one confederate flag flew over a slave ship. let's learn the real history. that's what i'm worried about this flag. it's the real history being removed. let's discuss it.

let's debate it. i'm not going to be long today. i don't plan to filibuster. i don't plan to draw this thing out but these e-mails i've been receiving from people in our state need to be addressed. this thing about our nation's history and not having anything to do with god is just absolutely ignoring history. to say that the confederacy, the fight for states rights was only about slavery is to ignore as much the history of god in our founding. when the federal government passes an amendment to basically enshrine slavery in the constitution in order to get the south to return, we're ignoring our history. and legislatures aren't here for history lessons. we are involved in public policy. and i know the house is going to

have a much different debate. i just want those viewers out there that say that this country was not founded on judeo-christian valuesvalues, to study history a little bit. they didn't want a state religion, but they didn't want a secular -- >> we adjourn today in memory of robert robowksi. >> it is so ordered. >> thank you. the bus -- they are not here

to defend themselves and it's popular right now. attack the south and southern heritage and attacking the racists from the south, it's very popular, and it has been popular for a long time. but i have to tell you what you saw in charleston, the south has changed. it has changed. and there is love in the south, and that's -- i know that folks came up and spoke yesterday about what happened in charleston and the grace that was shown and the grace that exemplifies christ and i appreciate that grace and it's humbling to see it in my home state, but i don't believe after that vote yesterday on the stars and bars and getting ready of the battle flag and when i saw the vote on the stars and bars, i know where we are and it's not about the flag, it's about an acquiescence that the south

was the racist, the evil the white supremacist, and lincoln was a great emancipator, and that's not the truth, and people have a right to know the truth and the history, and the history is politicians -- i want to say one of my favorite reports is by napoleon, and that is that history is the most agreed upon fable. what happened in the '60s was wrong, and dragging the indians was wrong, and we were at war with germany and japan, and we didn't lock up the germans but we locked up the japanese that was wrong, and i could go on for hours about the things that we

do that are wrong but one thing that was right that our ancestors did for us is states having the right to make the decisions that were left to the states, and i think the very fight that an amendment to the constitutions was passed by the congress and senate to guarantee slavery under that flag in order to get the south to come back the core amendment, and i was not a history major in college, and i was -- i had this feeling in college that i was being taught a lot of things that were not true, and after studying i was right, there is a lot of things taught in colleges and indoctrination, and higher education is more about indoctrination than education. and it's distorted -- the media,

for the most part especially the national media they have a vent. it's up to the citizens to be informed and it's up to them to take all different forms of media and come up with their own conclusions, because regardless of where you get your news from, it needs to be through a filter in your mind and that's the bigger problem that we have is the fact that this debate on the flag haspurely one sided. i wish there were folks -- more than myself and more folks willing to come to the well and talk about the fact that what happened with the government our federal government and how it has removed all references to god in our public schools, and that seems to be okay. it's amazing if a principal did -- if a principal did what

our chaplin did today, what would happen in our public school right now? and i know they are trying to take the ten commandments out of every vestage, and it seems like people seem to be okay, and what is right seems to be portrayed as wrong and what is wrong seems to be portrayed at right, and that's the popular sentiment. but back to the flag. i believe that lincoln has been worshipped and pretty much cannonized because he was aizer of power, and if this nation doesn't turn from the power in washington that isthe trampling the very foundation for which our country stands, and to think that by removing this flag, to think that's going to end racism and our history

not just our state but our nation, and it's to think you can go to the edge of the atlantic and think you can drink the ocean dry. so we are going to do what politicians do we're going to pass something that will make a great press conference and at the end of the day what it will do is not change anything we have taken people that respect their southern heritage and kicked them in the teeth, i will ask for a row call and if we can give that i will be glad to relinquish the floor so i just ask for a roll call. the senator from lawrence. >> thank you, mr. president,

lady and gentlemen of the senate. kim, my wife she is my conscience and my time keeper. when i got home last night she reminded me what i went beyond what she allows is 15 minutes, and anything worth saying can be said in such a timeframe. she granted me a dispensation yesterday, and i assure you i won't hold the floor for the length of time that i did on the amendment that i offered yesterday. but i do want to try to put a capstone on my thoughts and share with you some verse from a hymn that my mother sent to me less than an hour ago. to me it incapsulates the

ministry in life and death of clemente, and it embodies his minute treeistry ministry and those of his parishioners, and i believe this verse of him embodies the life and testimony of the south carolinans that preceded us in the 19th century, the 18th century, the 17th century and it's my prayer that it will be the testimony that embodies the life of our children and

grandchildren. turn your eyes upon jesus and look full in his wonderful face and the things of this earth will grow strangely dim in his wonderful grace so much of the truth of that word has been lived in creed, lived in creed. i heard you senator from charleston, and i reflected on it. so much of it has been demonstrated here in this chamber, the streets of our cities the prayer rooms of our gatherings, even in our private places of meditation and prayer.

so i am encouraged, i am encouraged that things that transcend time -- things that transcend time and carry for eternity will remain poignant for us. i also had a meditation shared with me by somebody close to me that reminded me of the struggles of a very human but yet very saintly servant of the lord, king david. a man that sought the face of god in trying times, who had to deal with the aftermath of