>> rose: welcome to the program. we begin this evening with a reporting by "the wall street journal" reporters jay solomon and carol e. lee that president o billiona has sent a letter to the ayatollah of iran looking at connections between iranian nuclear negotiations and the fight against isil. >> well, i think the letter strikes me two things about it struck me. and one is the timing of it really underscores how much this president wants a deal with iran. it is his top foreign policy priority. he's staring down just two years left in office. this is something he very, very much wants. the second is that the fact that he sent this letter is, it stems from the fact that the white house knows that if a deal is going to be cut, it's totally depends on the supreme leader. that that is the person who

is really calling all the shots. >> rose: we tonight with another al hunt on the story segment. this time a conversation with tom daschle, former senate democratic leader, and trent lott, former republican senate leader. >> the culture has changed. the city has changed. the environment politically and legislatively has changed dramatically. you have people that now rarely move their families to washington after an election like this. you have people living on their sofas and leaving on thursdays and coming back on tuesdays and trying to govern this incredible country on wednesdays. you have too much money in politics today. as i understand it over $3.5 billion. they ran 1.5 million ads in this cycle am so there is a culture that has changed. and i think these independent groups have poisoned the well to a large extentment many candidates complained to me that they feel more like a spec tate never their own campaign today because you've got third party adds going back and forth.

>> we conclude this evening with sir andrew witty, the c.e.o. of glaxosmithkline. that pharmaceutical giant is trying to develop an ebola vaccine. >> we're very busy with ebola right now. we've been working thanks to help from the nih over the last several years, we're in the fortunate position to have a potential vaccine available. we finished our animal studies and we are we're now into the dose ranging phasement as we stand today, we're working with various authorities including the world health organization to hopefully be in a position where we could have a substantial number of vaccines available for the ton of the new year so the beginning of 2015 for potential use in clinical trials in the camp business have been affected by ebola in west africa. >> rose: a new development in the u.s. iran relationship, looking at the new republican senate, and the definiteliment of an ebola vaccine. when we continue. >> funding for charlie rose is provided by the following:

>> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: we begin tonight with iran, "the wall street journal" reported today that president obama wrote a letter last month to iran's superleader. in it he stressed the country's shared interest in fighting islamic state in iraq and syria. he also said cooperation in defeating isil could depend on reaching a nuclear deal. the newspaper report comes

as a u.s. and five other world powers are under pressure to reach a deal by november 24th. the president's letter is the fourth he has written to the ayatollah since he took office in 2009. white house spokesman said thursday that the administration's policy towards iran has not changed. joining me now from washington, two reporters who broke the story, jay solomon and carol e. lee. also in washington ray takeyh from the council on foreign relation. jay, let me begin with you. tell me what you are reporting about this, and in terms of these letters and is anything different than what we know from earlier letters from the president to the supreme leader? >> i guess what's tricky from the white house's perspective is that they very much stick to the line that there is no coordination, no intelligence sharing, no military cooperation. but there is kind of a growing examples that both sides are sort of tipping each other off on what

they're doing in iraq and syria. and certainly not targeting each other as has been the case in the past in iraq, particularly. we reported a couple of weeks ago that the commander of the irgc's force, the overseas unit of the revolutionary guard inside iraq is fwafling shiite militias not-- troops or services that are operating forces inside iraq. . >> in syria with the military site they are not threatening what is iran's closest allies in the a saad regime. the letter very much seems to be in line with what this messaging has been both privately and publicly. but the fact that he's targeting the supreme leader in this communication at this really kind of critical historical time shows just how much importance the white house and president obama is placing on getting the supreme leader in some

way to sort of play ball. and there's a lot of skepticism that he will. >> rose: ray what do you make of it. >> i think this particular letter has to be seen in a context of things that have happened over the past month. there's been an attempt by the administration to suggest to iran the benefits of some sort of an agreement on the nuclear issue, benefits would be in terms of economic dividends, in terms of potential path towards normallization. and this letter seems to suggest cooperation on some issues that the two sides seem to have some common interest in, namely the cooperation against isil. i should note that iranian reg even lead by khameini reject the noex that iran should cooperate. and jay's reporting suggests that one of the things we have said to the iranians to this letter, this channel is that we are not targeting their allies in the two fronts of iraq and syria. it is the official policy of the united states that

iran's ally, president a saad has to go. so i'm not quite clear sure about promising iranians a safe passage or sanctuary for the allies was wise in this context. the other fear that i have and concern is that how would iranians and supreme leader who lives in a ward of conspiracies interpret this letter. he may see it as a sign that the united states wants to deal very much. and that may affect the way he negotiates and approaches the nuclear issue as well. so there's a lot of things in there that one has to be cautious of. >> carol, how can i ask this in a way that i'm not asking for your sources. how did you get this story? >> well, the thing about this issue is that there's a number of people who wanted to succeed. and there are a number of people who don't want it to succeed. and so you kind of can find information from both sides

depending on which one feels like they're under siege or not. >> rose: so you have source both in terms of iran and the united states. >> the risky thing in this letter is that it can up set some of the u.s.'s allies in the region and also some of the folks on capitol hill who perhaps are very skeptical about cutting a deal. >> rose: principally saudi arabia. let me make sure i understand it. this is the way i said it. that the letter says cooperation in defeating isil depends on reaching a nuclear deal. is that what it says? >> the u.s. white house chief said there no quid quo pro, we're not linking the two. but if you have seen what has happened over the past couple of years, in the talks, at first, it was only the if you clear agreement. we're to the going to touch any regional issues with the iranian side. and then that-- then that kind of moved to where they are talking with iraq very publicly, they talked with about it in vienna, i believe probably new york. so the issues are blurring

in a lot of ways even as the white house keeps saying there is not going to be any quid pro quo, there is not any blurring of these issues. but they are particularly since isis, you know, the last few months, these territorial gains, they have blurred. and it's difficult because our allies, saudi arabia, the emirates, jordan, israel, they're all superworried about a realignment or some sort of reproachment and how that could undercut that interest. and what are the difficult things or that the white house has done over the past couple of years is they kind of have kept this very closed hole them were having secret talks with the iranians in oman going back to mid 2012. and none of our allies knew about it until late 2013. so i think this, another letter, another direct communication between obama and the supreme leader is only going to heighten these concerns that somehow there's going to be a deal cut behind their backs.

somehow the deal is going to hurt their interests. and the white house has a really, it's an incredibly complicated game they're playing diplomatically as we come into these final two weeks before the deadline. >> so ray, tell me how naive i am. for example, would the president have sort of communicated to the saudis, especially, look, i'm going to send this letter, that is my first question. secondly, would the president have sent the letter only because someone in iran encouraged him to send the letter? >> on the first one, i'm not quite clear sure if the president would have consulted with the saudi regime. nor do i think that's necessarily the obligation of the president. even though i think united states needs to do something to rehabilitate the alliances which as suggested have been quite battered. in terms of a letter being solicited by the iranians, i don't think so. i suspect that this was the american initiative. to bring to the supreme

leader the notion that a nuclear agreement could open up wide areas of cooperation between the two sides on issues that are seemingly concerned to both of them, given the way this issue has played out, i suspect this was very much an american initiative as opposed to one solicited from iran. >> rose: can you imagine some grand bargain coming out of this? >> well, the letter strikes me-- two things about it struck me. one is the timing of it really underscores how much this president wants a deal with iran. it is his top foreign policy, priority. he's staring down just two years left in office. this is something he very, very much wants. the second is that the fact that he sent this letter is-- it stems from the fact that the white house knows that if a deal is going to be cut, it's totally depends on the supreme leader. that that is the person who is really calling all the shots. whether they can get some sort of-- this can get some

sort of grand bargain, i don't know. but i think what the president was signaling is that, you know, hey, if you do this, then all of these other doors could open, perhaps, into other avenues of cooperation. >> i can just say one thing about this assessment. we tend to few the islamic republic as a country of personalities and sanctions. and that's true. and khameni is the most consequences of those factors but any agreement over a nuclear issue, he does have to consult with critical actors such as his military and security services, the revolutionary guards and an organization we don't talk much about, atomic energy organization and the scientific establishment. i mean he is the supreme leader to be sure. and he is the c consequential actor. but he does have to actually check with some of those constituencies before signing off to something. we tend to very much personalize iran's foreign policy and suggest there are

good guys and bad guys, white hats and black hats. but the color of truth in this case is very much in the gray. and it is entirely possible that parameters of a deal that he will agree to have been conditioned or are being conditioned by a dialogue between a variety of organizations and institutions that institutes the upper echelon of the islamic republic. >> rose: jay, remind us what the iranians have said about any kind of cooperation with the united states against isil. >> i mean, again, it's complicated because of these various factions. the supreme leader has made some incredibly kind of vitriolic statements accusing the united states of basically creating al qaeda and creating isil and using that as, you know, a tool to divide the region. rohani has kind of-- and the foreign minister as well have kind of made some statements saying well, we do have the shared, you know, the shared enemy in some ways. maybe there could be some

cooperation in the future if there is an agreement on the nuclear accord. so they have kind of played it-- they've kind of played it both ways. different factions have said different things. what i find so interesting, we're only two, three weeks from a deadline and honestly, no one seems to knows what's going to happen. i think when you just look at how big the gaps have been, as far as what the. is wants and what the iranians say they want as far as a nuclear program in the end, it's vast. but the way the white house and the top negotiators in the u.s. are describing a potential breakdown, you just don't feel there's anyway at all they could walk away from it. they've-- initially they were saying if there is no diplomacy there's a war. wendy sherr mann the top u.s. negotiator a couple of weeks ago said there will be vast escalation across the region if this diplomacy doesn't succeed so on the one hand, it's so close to the deadline it's hard to see how they have this big comprehensive agreement, particularly because what the supreme leader has said.

but on the other hand, it's almost impossible to see the process just breaking part. >> rose: what is the presence of iranian troops in iraq, or is it through surrogates? >> my understanding is there are actually iranian troops, at least advisors and paramilitary groups weren't in iraq. and increasingly in syria as well to buttress the a saad regime. so the-- assad regime. so the deployment of eye anian forces t in one case -- -- which is strength epps iraq which is the advantage of the u.s. in the other case strenges assad which disadvantages united states this is how complicated this region has become. given the fact that it doesn't really have significant, powerful states any more. where everybody's kind of medaling in everybody's business-- meddling in everybody's business. an occasions given how this has become, there are common interests between unlikely acker the. you can see there is common interest between assad and president obama, and on the

issue of isil as well. when the region is this disorderly, such manifestations are not unusual. >> one fascinating thing in iraq is you do, i mean the u.s. intelligence definitely believes that the revolutionary guard advisors including the commander of the-- actually deployed sometimes in iraq. but a lot of these militias that the irgc, the iranians established during the iraq war to basically harass the united states, whether it was to mock the army or hezbollah or some of these other militias, they're telling them to stand down right now. not to harass, not to attack u.s. personnel some it's a pretty interesting shift given how the ieds and some of these other equipment that were moved into iraq to hurt the u.s., came from these militias who now are basically being told to stand down, at least for now. >> rose: well, the heads of the forces i have been told,

general solomani has been seen in damascus and iraq. >> and in kurdistan. >> yes. there have been photos of the guy at the front so it is incredibly complicate kd. in one theatre we seem to be totally on the same side. and in syria, ostensibly we have said assad must gallon. but the message right now, and maybe it could change, from the u.s. military is that they are not targeting assad. they're not training syrian troops-- sorry syrian rebel troops to go after assad at this stage. so this is a message that's going to be very difficult going forward as far as maintaining this coalition against isis. because saudi arabia, tur qui-- turkey, qatar, some of our allies in the fight, basically have gone if saying assad pus go. and part of this operation has got to be targeted at that and if the u.s. is not doing that and if a few weeks time there is an agreement with iran that is seen as allowing them to maintain at least a capacity to develop atomic weapons, i don't know how you keep that coalition together.

because its-- it really frays along sectarian lines. >> if they want f the united states and iran wanted to share some kind of military intelligence, my assumption would be they could find a way to do that. >> i would imagine that would go through the iraqis. and as jay and carol's story pointed out, the iraqis have been conduits of these particular messages. in some cases it might even be direct communication between commanders on the ground. but i do think, i want to focus back on the notion that the american alliance system in the middle east is actually quite disorganized and battered right now. that's something that should concern washington as it focuses on the region. and particularly the president, i think, needs to reach out more to the allies in terms of assurance about what the direction of american policy is and where it's likely to go. there is a lot of concern in the region about what is taking place. and ultimately the defeat of isil and radical sunni islamic forces is contingent

on participation of sunni actors such as saudi arabia and the gulf states and so on. and that's the long-term stabilization of the islamic militancy we see in the region. >> rose: jake, carol, thank you ray. pleasure to you have on the program. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> we'll be right back. stay with us. >> rose: we're join -- >> we're joined which two former majority leaders of the united states senate and minority leader at one stage. trent lott from mississippi and tom daschle of south dakotah. glad to have you with us. >> glad to be back. >> thank you. >> you look at the election, bitter partisanship, dysfunction over the years, a by and large a lame duck president, unpopular. a presidential election coming up it is enough to depress you. but you have some optimism, trent lott. >> well, you have to have optimism. and the people expect it. >> you think something is going to happen? >> i do. there are some areas where clearly i believe that the president working with the congress can make some progress.

there they're already talking about things like trade promotion. if you want economic growth, we can did more an benefit more from a trade treaty with the asian countries, the pas civic area countries, also with europe. the president is to the going to get that just with democrats. it's going to take republicans too. and he's going to have to lead. and the republicans are going to have to lead. so that's one. the energy area, we're having an energy boom in this country. but are we taking full advantage of it? are there some things we can do to help move that forward. but you know, i'm so optimistic, i think even on tax policy f you look at where obama is and you look at where the republicans are, if each one of them would make one move, they could get something -- >> you're talking about corporate taxes. >> yeah. >> tom dashem, you think things can get done? >> i do. i think it's against conventional wisdom today. people have seen the polarization, the confrontation now for so long. and i think they're absolutely convinced that as you go into a presidential cycle, with the ted cruzes of the world, and those who really feel that what they

have done in the last up could elf years has worked. the stand your ground advocates have said look, look at the record. look at what we did this election. but i also think that there is a responsibility and an opportunity to prove you can manage, to prove you can govern. and i think people are looking for some indication that governance is still possible. and so you've got mitch mcconnell saying a lot of the right things. and i think, you know, i think the democrats and president need to step up to the plate and continue to seize on what could be an openingment and we'll see in the next few weeks. and the lame duck in particular, whether that's even possible. >> let me ask you both just a question or two about the senatement because you have such experience there. tom daschle, what does it mean to get back to regular order. and why haven't we been there? >> well, we haven't been there in part because we have used senate rules to protect senators and to try in many ways to message what

it is the senate is supposed to be about at that particular moment. regular order simply means going back to a process where you introduce legislation t goes to committee, you have markups. you go to the floor. you have a debate. you offer amendments. you actually pass legislation, go to conference and work out differences. >> you think mitch mcconnell is really serious and we will get back. >> we will know shortly. but i think that potential exists in part because of the point i made a moment ago. i think that both sides need to prove to the american people before 2016 that we can actually govern. that we can manage. that this dysfunction doesn't have to be a permanent state of affairs in washington today. >> i know for sure that mitch is serious about it. but he also recognizes and we have to recognize most things still will take 60 votes. one of the things they need to do, you talk about regular orders, get back to passing an annual or by did-- b, annual budget which sets the tone for the rest of the year. and the majority leader has

to give time on the floor with amendments for appropriations bills. you know, we've been funding the government with these massive continuing resolutions which is a big mess. where you do all the funding in one little package. i hope they will get away from that too. but the downside for me is unfortunately the republicans did not run on specific message or agenda. their message was obama is bad. vote against obama. i don't think that's enough. we saw a surprise election in virginia where mark warner did win, but ed gill es pe ran a very good campaign on issues and he almost pulled it out and none of us expected it. that is a little bit of a problem. and i wish they had said, you know, if we take the majority, here's three things we'll do right away. the other side of it is, i wish the president had been a little bit more magnanimous in his opening press conference yesterday. it's not enough to say i will be glad to hear what the republicans have to say when they agree with me. you know, he needed to be more like bill clinton was after '94.

he could not have been more-- you know, more magnanimous. and his tone was right. and de work with the congress. was it easy? no. we got well fare reform but he vetoed it twice before we got there. so i think both sides need to try to find a way to work together. actually, their personalities are such you would think well o bomba and mcconnell will never be able to talk turkey. i done know. maybe they could. >> when and i, senator lott, first came to washington, there were senate filibusters over big issues. >> yeah. >> and it seemed to serve an important purpose. because it really, there was a serious debate. in recent years, everything is filibustered. motion to proceed, everything else. was the change that harry reid made, should it be undone. >> it can be undone. and i believe, and i certainly hope that mcconnell in the first day of the next session will take the nuclear option away. but in order for that to have the affect you want, you know, he's going to have

to let amendments be offered. he shouldn't be filling up the tree, which means block every amendment. and then the leader of the democrats and i prepare it will be harry reid, has got to be prepared not to filibuster everything. although mcconnell and the republicans did. and i thought to their detriment sometimes. so it's been evolutionary. we did it somement but every, you know, two years it seems to have gotten worse. and i think they now need to begin to find a way to back off that ledge that they are on. >> senator daschle, we talked the last few minutes about rules and procedures and regular order. but is that the root of the problem, or is it culture. and is it the perm innocent campaign and the senate for partisanship. >> i think it's really all of the above. the culture has changed. the city has changed. the environment politically and legislatively has changed dramatically. you have people that now rarely move their families to washington after an election like this. you have people living on their sofas, and leaving on

thursdays and coming back on tuesdays and trying to govern this incredible country on wednesdays. you have too much money in politics today. as i understand it, over 3.5 billion. they ran 1.5 million ads in the last cycle, in this cycle. so there's a culture that has changed. and i think these independent groups have poisoned the well to a large extent. many candidates complain to me that they feel more like a spec tate never their own campaign today because you've got third party ads. >> there is nothing you can do about that, is there? >> well. >> you could have campaign-finance reform, or campaign reform, or election reform. so yeah, you can do something about anything. but that will be hard to reverse because you do have a constitutional question there. but he's right on each point. but i did see an article quoting kevin mccarthy, the majority leader of the house, that gave me hope. because he said look, we're going to go back to doing things where we're going to be here in washington for, you know, the major part of

a week or three weeks. and then we'll be off 1 week where we can go be with our constituents. and by the way, we're going to sync our calendar with the senate, which, you know, of late, the house would be in session, the senate would not. and then those are reversed. there needs to be better coordination to get things done. it's just one of the little things. but tom is right. my favorite quote from tom daschle is the biggest problem is the airplane. people jump on an airplane thursday morning to fly up here and the first question is when can i leave thursday. >> you two had a radical suggestion. you said actually three weeks a month i believe the senate ought to work from monday to friday afternoon. that's the way most american does. >> and we did that when we were majority leaders. we had votes on monday and friday mornings on many occasions. >> will they do it now, why don't they? >> they don't for a couple of reasons. one, they no longer move-- they done pov their families here so their families are back there. but then also, it is the money chase. i mean they've got to raise,

you know, a typical senator today has to raise about $15,000 a day in order to b be-- competitive. >> you don't have much time to do your business. >> senator lott, you also proposed that the parties, i remember you use today do this, the parties each week, there is a republican caucus lunch and a democratic caucus lunch. and you all have proposed that there be a republica republican-democrat lunch or dinner or whatever have you together. >> yeah,. >> does that matter. >> it makes a huge difference. it has to do with just relationships and the chemistry between all the members. and every time we had a disaster on our hands and we met as a senate, not as a party, whether it was in the senate dining room or in the old senate chamber, unbelievable things happened. and every tuesday tom and i used to talk about this. we would both have our party lunches and both side was come out, you know, fire in their eyes. yeah, we're going to take it to them. and we would say we're going to wait to move on this on wednesday and let people

cool down a little bit. i think, an this is something tom has really talked a lot about too. if they had more regularized luncheons where all the senators are in the room, you sit with them, you hear their perspective. it would lower the tension a little bit. we're at a point where parties are important, but america is more important. >> have you suggested this to senator mcconnell and senator reid. is there any receptivity. >> verbally and in writing and with our commission on campaign reform, relation reform, it's all in there and there are some things in there -- >> there are things you have to look at that are very hard to do. >> sure. >> you talked about the constitutional issue on campaign finance. but there are things that are easy to do. there is one of the easier things to do. >> why don't they do it? >> i don't know. this is a very contentious city right now. hopefully this election will be the catalyst to bring about sort of a question. how do we-- how do we manage better. and i think this is one of the most effective tools. if you start to get to know

each other and develop relationships. and i know in some cases quietly and privately, members do talk across the aisle. but you got to do it as a caucus and with some regularity. and you have to do it with the president. you know, the caucus has to be-- there has to be a joint caucus-- with the president on a regular basis. it's got to be once a week. >> not just when there is a crisis. >> kind of like you, we have talked a little bit, you know, about that, and senator daschle earlier mentioned senator cruz. there are members and i think ted cruz se one of them, maybe even some new members, johni ernst from iowa, outsiders like jim demeant who say no, we're here to draw lines. we don't want to do this kind of bipartisan stuff. and you've seen that contingent in your home state of mississippi. >> yes, we have. well, first of all, i'm a firm believer in always reaching out, the word coop is maybe not the right word but pull them in, meet with

them, talk to them. go to them early and often. i always had a little group that i had to worry that maybe they were going to get away from them. they were the more moderate and liberal in those days. but what did i do? >> i had a singing senators quartet that tried to help keep jim jeff erts in line. >> i used to listen to you. >> and olympia snowe. i worked on limb me all the time. here is what i recommend. don't assume that ted cruze is going to be a problem. go to him, work with him, listen to him, hear him. let him have some things that he can do. don't start off with the attitude oh, they're going to be a problem. now, maybe they will be. but that's when real leadership comes in. you have to be prepared to go forward, even if you don't have every member of your caucus. and one of the ways you do that, you get a little help from the other side of the aisle. you know, when i was majority leader i could ease over and maybe get john from louisiana to vote with us, or when tom was majority he could ease over and maybe get olympia to vote with him. but the point is not that you are stealing, but you

are enlarging the loop here. and there will be some disagreements. but you know, look, i really get agitated when some of these people start questioning my conservatism and my-- i make the point i was conservative and a leader before some of them were born. and i don't appreciate being questioned on that. >> i remember that. >> and so i make the point, when we had welfare reform and a balanced budget and tax cuts and safe drinking water and portability of insurance and raised military personnel pay, telecommunication reform, what about that is not conservative? >> and it was done across the aisle too. >> it was. >> tom daschle, we talked about the president. what changes, what changes does barack obama have to make. >> well, i think there has to be more of a conciliatory mood. we were talking earlier about words and how the president described the election. i think what's more important is action. i am hopeful that the

meeting that he's going to hold this week will lead to a commitment. not only on maybe legislation but on process. on how we start communicating more effectively. you know it's maybe hard for some to become more inclusive to become more engaged, to become more personal. but i think in this case it's essential to good sgof earnness. >> -- do you think that will change? >> i think it could. this is the president's last two years. he can make history on a whole array of issues. really some important contributions to public policiment but the only way that's going to happen now especially is the rea real-- rolization that it has to be a partnership. democrats and republicans figuring out a way to work together, to find common ground. i think it's possible. >> would it be helpful in seeking that common ground if the president deferred any action until sometime next year, if then, on an executive order on immigration? should he defer action in the interest of this common ground? >> well, i think it's

important that he take into account how do i accomplish the most common ground i can. i'm not sure that that is necessary. he could take small, he made a commitment that he was going to do something before the end of the year. and violating that commitment to a large segment of the american people i think might be a mistake. but it can be the first step. it can be an installment. he could say look, i'm starting here. but i really want to give a chance to this common ground opportunity that we now have on immigration to do something that actually would be in statute rather than executive order. and that would be a far more meaningful and impactful approach. so i think it's not necessarily an either/or. i think he can do both. he made the commitment. i think he needs to keep if. but i think that could be just the first step to a series of things it that could be done that could be very helpful. >> does mitch mcconnell need to change some too? >> i think so. i think he needs to be more accessible and more aggressive. bill clinton and i, we went both ways.

he called me regularly. i didn't hesitate to call him. i used to call and talk to president george w. bush at 7:20 in the morning because i knew his staff wasn't there and i could talk to him and tell him some things that i thought were important or maybe he needed to hear but the staff didn't want me to tell him. so you know, you need to, initiate the calls. get over the insults, i wasn't invited to this. do it yourself. one of the points i was going to make. i do think, i don't want to get him in trouble, because they got to deal with a very large conference now, but house republican leadership, john boehner, kevin mccarthy and steve scalise, these are good hands, they like to legislate. on issue after issue, if the president would really engage them, perhaps privately, you could see some good things occur. that broad spectrum of both parties would say this is good. so he shouldn't underestimate, it's not just about the senate. the house is where a lot of stuff begins.

>> we talked about would it be helpful for the president to defer action on immigration. would it be helpful if the republicans stopped voting to repeal obamacare and worked rather to change it? >> well, i think they are both going to have to do what they have to do. but do what you got to do, you know, and see how it turns out and then move on. >> becauser they're fots going to appeal obamacare. >> no. he's going to veto it. what i would probably do is i would quickly have a vote to repeal it, get it all the way through the process, it could get stopped in the senate, let the president veto it and say okaying good, we've done that here are some things we can do to improve the act. some of them a lot of democrats would like to do, maybe even some the president would be willing to sign. on a specific thing, it's kind of both of them, look, republicans have got to try to repeal obamacare. that was a big issue. we're all -- >> we need that and we believe that.

can we accomplish that, no, but we need to show we are serious about it but fix it along the way. same thing with immigration. i think we need to do immigration reform. we need to secure the border. we need to deal where the visa program. we need to deal with the people that are here in a responsible way. you may need to do that in pieces. now if obama overplaces him, and executive order like senator mcconnell said that will be like waving a red flag in front of a bull. it would go crazy. if he is careful and maybe what he proposes is sort of broad and overarching, but not, you know, into the details of letting everybody stay here regardless forever. be careful how he does it and says, by the way, which he did, even this will go by the wayside as we act. so he's got to do what he has to do. but he needs to be careful how he does it, leaving an opportunity. you got to always leave the barn door open at the back

where you can get an escape hatch. >> tom daschle, do you have any optimism about immigration, and what other issues, big issues you think what two or three other big issues. >> i do. i think this is almost a must-pass. if i had to list the most likely source of common ground, i think it would be immigration if it's done correctly procedurally. just because i think with the presidential cycle now beginning, there's little doubt that a large percentage of the american people are expecting that congress deal with it, that the administration deal with it, that democrats and republican cans that find some reason for agreement. and i think they will. i think that it's so possible. we've come close a couple of times. the second area is trade. i think there is a real opportunity here with the transpacific partnership, tpp and tpa, the authorities necessary to pass the legislation in the first place. i think that's the second

one. the third one i think that has real potential believe it or not, might be health care. trent and i work on telehealth issues. and a lot of things, the sgr, the sustainable growth rate. and the extension of the children's health insurance program, that's expiring this year. there's a lot of things in health that could be done once you get beyond the repeal vote. that would be my third candidate. >> there are other areas where clearly they need to ago for the good of the country. and they're not identifyfully partisan issues. cybersecurity, we have a threat and we have not been able to act. even last year we had a group of bipartisan senators, a republican, senator kunz, democrat, white house-- john con kell, they were all working trying to get it resolved and yet they left it on the table. i think we're at risk. and i think if a disaster happens and the congress and the president have not acted in this area, there is going to to be hell to pay. >> i think also national security. i quickly mention iran and

isis i think are issues for which there are probably some pretty broad bipartisan sport on what would be done, depending on how things turn out. >> one other area, and that is the transportation infrastructure aviation. those are traditionally not partisan issues. the question is how do you pay for them. but we have a problem in america, with bridges an sewer systems and water systems and we-- highways. we need to do something. but in that area, i think something will app bus some the best legislators in the congress had those committee. head st. louiser in the house, and jim inhofe and barbara boxer, i say both of them because they worked together. >> we really have enjoyed having you. thank you very much. we will be back in just a moment. >> rose: sir andrew witty is here, the c.e.o. of glaxosmithkline, the global health care and pharmaceutical company, leader in vaccines and respiratory medicine. it's currently working on a vaccine for ebola that is

both effective and scaleable. last year they became the first major drug maker to announce it would to longer pay doctors to promote its products it also said it would stop compensation of sales representatives to the number of prescriptions that doctors wrote. i'm pleased to have him here at this table for the first time. welcome. >> thank you very much. >> rose: we have a lot of things to cover in a small amount of time. a couple of things about the company of which happened before you, there were some issues in terms of what would you call it, fraud. that is all behind you? >> yes. we had to deal with some unfortunate events in the past. we constantly are focused on raising the standards of all of our activities and employees around the group. and i believe that the company has, over the last several years, really last decade, has really been focused on trying to innovate its activities in the health care space and trying to make sure that we're balancing not just the benefits of invasion of medicine but also access and making sure more people get sack ses. >> let's talk about vaccines

first. the ebola vaccine. >> so we're very busy with ebola right now. we've been working thanks to help from the hnhi. we're in the position to have a vaccine available. we finished our animal studies and are now into the dose ranging phase. and as we stand today, we're working with various authorities including the world health organization, to hopefully be in a position where we can have a substantial number of vaccines available for the turn of the new year, so the beginning of 2015, for potential use in clinical trials in the camps which have been effective by ebola in west africa. >> rose: clinical trials could take place when. >> could be as early as january. >> rose: january 2015. >> correct. >> rose: and if, in fact, are found to be effective and meet all the requirements of agencies, they would do what? >> well, i think the important thing to focus on at the moment this cries sis really a crisis in three or four countries in west

africa. i think everybody's focus right now is let's make sure we do everything we can to try and contain and reduce and eliminate the crisis there. it may be that that, is the end of the story. if it's not the end of the story and if it unfortunately is and it becomes i more significant issue, then as you go through next year, not just us, but other companies are working on other vaccines an being in a position to create more volume, and hoping as we go through the year we can make more volume available to other countries if it is needed. but all of that is going to be carefully managed and controlled by the regulators app they're going to need to be happy before any vaccine is provided to anybody. >> rose: are you not a doctor but you are certainly the head of the big pharmaceutical company. what are the lessons so far from the ebola crisis? >> the he-- ebola crisis, clearly there are challenges in the basic health care infrastructure. they needs more health care workers, they need more intra structure to be able to get on top of these sorts of issues when they first come along. often i think people who are already vulnerable to

malaria tuberculosis, are especially vulnerable to these sorts of situations. so it's important that we address some of those other fundamentals health care needs. i think from, if i can put it this way, the west's perspective, i've been around long enough now to have gone through sears to have gone through pan-- sars, pandemic influenza to to you dealing with ebola. i think we need to think hard whether there is more fundamental strategic way to resolve these issues and be better ready. >> rose: and what might be one? >> if you lack at a company like gsk. we have a number of technologies or platforms which might be useful in developing vaccines. and they have been in the past. i think we would certainly as a company be ready to work with major governments to put in place more of a standing readiness, a bit like let's treat this as what it is, as a biodefense threat. let's put in more of a standing readiness, working with the right agencies like n, h but making sure that rather than having an emergency response notice way that we are all now dealing with it, can we do something which is a bit

more ready? we don't know when the next threat is going to be but let's put in place a strategic response. >> that is interesting. we do not know what the next threat is going to be. that is the scary thing in part. >> it is but we also know that we have a series of technologies, of building blocks, if you will, which in most cases so far we have been able to reassemble in a hurry, to put together something which gives us a response. but that process is very disrespect-- disruptive and very time pressured. what we could do is step back and say let's actually commit some resource, let's work together to put in place for the world a mechanism where we are working on those issues, those building blocks so we have something possibly ready, so that yes, we don't know exactly what the threat is. but we can get part of the way there in anticipation and take some of the prrb usual out of the system in the crisis. >> rose: does advances in biomedicine give you hope? you know that these kinds of challenges can be met? >> absolutely. if you look at where we are in ebola, the speeds at which we have been able to

move is one example but i think an even more powerful example, mall aria. if we want back a decade, people would have laughed at you or me if we said we could develop a vaccine for malaria. this is a parasitic-born infection. how you could possibly vaccinate against it. and here we are now, gsk, we filed for approval, the world's first potential vaccine for malaria back in june of 2014. with a fair win n could be approved in the mild of 2015. that is an extraordinary technological achievement delivered through bringing together three or four different ideas of technology, coalesced into one vaccine, collaborating with people like cdc, walter reid institute, over 20 years. and here we are with something which just a short number ofiers ago people would have said was impossible. >> rose: ed interesting thing about mall ar yax, lots of people including bill gates have made it target number one. in his case after polio. he believed that polio could be eradicated and believes malaria can be eradicated over a much longer period of time. do you believe that?

>> eradication is a very tall order. i think it's the right aspiration to have. let's just put this into context. in the duration of your program, your show today, more people will die of malaria than have died of ebola since ebola was discovered. so this is an extraordinarily heavy burden on the world so if there is one to pick, malaria is the one to pick. >> how many of those people will die in time of this program. certainly more than ebola, in a since its inception. but how many of them run the age of six. >> oh, very high. so if you look at children, something like 7, 800,000 babies and infants die a year in africa from malaria. i mean it's really an extraordinary burden. and that's why the vaccine that we have been developing is focused particularly on those young babies and infants. because we believe that's where we can have the single biggest. can you imagine, when i spend time in africa, you spend time in the villages who are blighted by malaria,

it completely undermines everything to do with that society. every parent is spending all of their time looking after dying children. i mean it's the most heartrending thing to see because it's not just affects the patient and the patients' family, it completely dictates what society behaves like. so imagine if we could intervene there, which is why bill gates is right to be ambitious. because if we can intervene and make that, whether it is with a vaccine or with other things as well as a vaccine, the potential impact on the individual, the family and the village is absolutely extraordinary. >> rose: and how many big pharma companies are there? >> i would say certainly less than 15. >> rose: 15 of the big,. >> yeah. >> rose: are all of them-- is there a different focus in each of them or are seven or eight of them focused on malaria vaccines? >> so really we're the primary focus point on malaria, there are other companies focused on medicines for mall aria. if you look across-the-board there are probably ten companies who are active in

some form or another in some type of neglected tropical disease am so meaning one of the unusual diseases in the west, that's very common in africa and then poorer and developing countries. so i think the industry, and we have pull together with bill gates's help, about three years ago, a declaration in london where we got about ten of the world's biggest drug companies to come together and commit to work together to limit or in some cases work towards eradication of a whole series of neglected tropical diseases. >> rose: have they done that? >> the industry so far has delivered everything it promised it would do. and we're on track in terms of the commitments made there, absolutely. >> rose: what else ought to be on our horizon in terms of vaccines delivering enormous potential? >>. >> rose: ebola, malaria. >> so dengi fever is another one of the great diseases in the developing world which is-- you have seen in countries like the u.s. and europe, human pap papilloma virus, vaccinatedding girls and the boys against hpv.

you have to remember the vaccines are one of the most cost effective interventions in health care. for one shot or maybe one or two shots, you get a lifetime's protection in many cases. it's one of the most cost-effective mechanisms to go forward. >> rose: what is the biggest barrier to evil doing new drugs? >> that is a big question. >> rose: i know. >> you know, it's a difficult job. somebody once said to me that putting a man on the moon was simp el compared to discovering a drug. and that's not far from the truth. if you imagine what you are having to conceptualize. you are thinking by a by logical system interacting with a chemical. you can't really see what's going on. you don't really, it takes a long time to understand the biology. and then you have to figure out how to interact with that biology through some kind of mechanism. and you need to find exquisite targets. where you just generate the good news without generating any. side effects. that's why these programs take 20 or 25 years. the programs i've commissioned at gsk in the last seven or eight years,

well, in many caseses, won't deliver medicines, even if they are supersuccessful for 15 or 20 years. and so you need exquisite creativity in your scientists. great connectivity with academia, for example, nih is a great example. one of the great institutions in the world who really help open the book on biology for people. you need those creative scientists who can really just have that inspiration. and when you meet one of these people, it really is almost like a eureka moment. when you see their ability to spot the pattern and then their ability to develop the drug on the back of it, it is a really-- it's an extraordinary mix of human individual creativity, backed up with industrial scale development capability. because of course what you and i need to be happy with is not just that the idea say good idea but a safe idea and it has been tested properly. that involves industrial scale so how you weld together that individual creativity with this industrial machine that sits

there, is a very interesting knack. and very easy to get that wrong. >> a couple of things before we go. hiv virus, where we stand in terms of developing. >> so certainly at gsk we have been a leader in hiv research in many years. we developed the first drugs for hiv in the 1980s. we have seen that disease transformed in terms of the choices but it is still a major disease and a tremendous cause of concern. obviously for individuals and families affected by it we have recently introduced a new medicine anmore excitingly we have if development what we call a superlong acting hiv drug where it may be possible for us to be able to treat people with a dose either once a month or even once a quarter, instead of people having to take tablets every day so i think we are now moving into a new area of hiv treatment. we have got-- ws are, i think, have been the beneficiaries for the last ten or 15 years of a number of drugs which has helped us control the virus. we are now moving into an area where we could do that in extraordinarily simple way that is what we are

working toward. >> i mentioned in the introduction haefing doctors not promote your products, or paying salespeople on the basis of how many prescriptions they've sold or how many they are selling per record. why did you do that? was it some sense that this raises questions about our own credibility? >> well, i think ultimately, we need to-- we want to be and we need to be seen for what we are, which is people who are working hard every single day. >> rose: to be transparent. >> to be transparent, working every day to take our technology and develop new medicines and vaccines, what we don't want is people being suspicious or getting in anyway the wrong sense or a sense of a conflict of interest. now all of the ways in which we used to work, perfectly legal, perfectly allowed. the whole industry has done it for many years. but we took the view, and i took the view, we shouldn't just innovate in the lab. we should innovate in the marketplace as well. and it is absolutely right that we look for ways in which we can once and for all eliminate any doubt in anybody's mind about our

motivations. and any doubts about our relationship with our key customers in the form of physicians. and i believe that there are am attorney difficult ways in which we can be just as effective without having to have that risk of conflict of interest being a perception. that's why we've made the changes. those changes have been very successful so far. i feel very confident that what we've done is the right thing to do. i think our organization, the people who work for gsk are very proud that we are innovating in that space. >> rose: thank you thank you for coming. >> thank you. >> rose: pleasure to you have here. thank you for joining us. see you next time. for more about this program and earlier episodes visit us on-line@pbs.org and charlierose.com. captioning sponsored by rose communications

captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

>> rose: funding for charl yee rose has opinion employed by the coca-cola company, supporting this program since 2002. american express. additional funding provided by: and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide.

. >> announcer: a kqed television production. >> it's like sort of old fisherman's wharf. it reminds me of old san francisco. >> and you'd be a little bit like jean valjean, with the teeth, whatever. >> worth the calories, the cholesterol, and the heart attack you might have. >> it's like an adventure, you know? you got to put on your miner's helmet. >> it reminds me of oatmeal with a touch of wet dog.