Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
>>> Coming up next on "Arizona
Horizon," Congresswoman Kyrsten
Sinema joins us to talk about
the crisis in Syria and the
latest on immigration reform.
And we'll hear about a new
medical test that can check for
cancer and a variety of other
illnesses by measuring the
body's immuno signature.
Those stories next on "Arizona
Horizon."
>>> "Arizona Horizon" is made
possible by contributions from
the friends of 8, members of
your Arizona PBS station.
Thank you.
>>> Good evening and welcome to
"Arizona Horizon."
I'm Ted Simons.
Congress is facing a major
decision regarding what
President Obama describes as a
limited and narrow attack
against Syria.
Here now to discuss the
situation, along with other
issues, is Representative
Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona's
9th Congressional district.
Good to see you again.
>> Ted, it's great to be back
with you.
>> Let's talk about this because
this is front and center, A
number 1 here.
The president considering what
he calls a limited, narrow
attack.
Is this something that the
United States should be getting
involved in?
>> You know, Ted, I think its
too early for us to answer this
question.
I learned about the president's
decision actually last weekend
when I arrived home from a trip
to Afghanistan visiting our
trips.
So it was a huge surprise to see
the president take this
position.
What I am interested in doing is
getting a briefing.
I need to be fully briefed from
intelligence officials, from the
leadership of our military
branches, to understand what the
president's intention is in this
strike, and what the
administration defines as a
victory.
I think it's undisputed that
chemical warfare has been used
by the Assad regime against the
people of Syria.
What isn't yet clear is what the
United States stands to gain
from a security perspective with
a limited attack, what that
would look like, and, frankly,
what that means for U.S.
security interests in the short
and long term.
>> You are talking about
repercussions after the bombs
fall.
>> We just don't know.
As of right now, we are not sure
what the president intends to
do, what the strike would look
like.
We are not sure what impact that
would have on either the regime
or the rebels, as you know.
Some of the rebellers affiliated
with Hezbollah and some are
affiliated with Al-Qaeda.
We are not sure what it's going
to look like.
I am reserving judgments until I
have had the opportunity to get
all the information from a
classified briefing.
But die have a lot of questions.
>> I was going to say talk to
bus those questions and how much
information you need.
When the president says the U.S.
can't ignore people being killed
by chemical weapon, the
Secretary of State says he can't
afford to be spectators to
slaughter.
You can't just sit there and do
nothing.
Can you sit there and do
nothing?
>> I think the real question is,
what are the U.S. security
interests in this struggle?
Do we win?
What does winning look like?
What does this mean for the
short-term and long term
security interests of the United
States?
Does the regime of Syria present
a short-term or long-term threat
to the security of our country
or allies particularly countries
like Israel?
I think it's too soon to answer
those questions.
And I haven't gotten an answer
yet.
I am interested in hearing.
And so I am going to be doing
this week is listening, both to
the administration and to the
constituents of district 9, to
determine if that -- the best
course for our community.
>> There's a thought out there
that says we should be
emphasizing prevention as
opposed to punitive action.
Again, doing nothing would send,
the critics say doing nothing
would send the wrong message
about American influence and
standing by its allies and
punishing its foes.
I know you are look for answer
and such but are these the kind
of things that need to be
considered?
>> I think these are the kind of
questions that need to be asked
and until we have an opportunity
for a thorough discussion of all
the possibilities, all the
outcomes both intended and
unintended, we can't really make
a decision on this issue.
But it's Congress's job now to
ask those questions, to get
those answers from the
administration and to make a
division that's right for our
districts, that's right for our
country.
>> Would you rear see diplomacy
exhausted, the stakeholders
given a play, maybe work through
the unites nations, doing
weapons inspection, maybe
stopping the flow of arms, these
sorts of things?
Do you find yourself geared more
toward that than even a narrow
and limited strike?
>> You know, I always believe
that we got to have all hands on
deck, that we shouldn't take any
options off the table.
What I don't know is which
option is the right one for us
right now?
That's simply because I don't
have all the information.
So what I have said publicly and
what I would hope all
representatives would say is,
until I have all the
information, I don't want to
lean one way or the other or
make a decision one way or the
other. The worst things we
could do is jump to a conclusion
without having all the
information.
>> The president says he has all
the information and so does the
Secretary of State John Kerry.
They say they have the
information, and that we have to
do something and that we should
do something and the president
was apparently ready to do
something until he stepped back
and said, all right, Congress,
you want to play, let's play.
How much emphasis do you put on
the president's judgment?
John Kerry's judgments?
>> Well, I think the voters of
district 9 rely on me to make my
judgment based on what matters
to our district and to our
constituents.
And with all due respect to
other elected leaders, I am
receipting the people of
district 9 and that's my sole
and primary responsibility.
And so what I intend to do in
classified briefings is listen
to the arguments and listen to
the information.
But make a judgment that's right
for our district.
And the only person who can do
that is me.
I am the elected representative.
But it's my job to listen to the
community in our district as
well as listen to informed
military officials at our
country.
>> What are you hearing from
your constituents in your
district?
>> I will say that as I mention
I had came home from Afghanistan
on Friday.
And an aside I want to say, Ted,
it was absolutely incredible to
spend time with our men and
women who are serving in the
armed services and representing
Arizona so proudly.
I went to go visit, I thought I
would ask them lots of questions
about Afghanistan.
But all they wanted to do was
talk about home and talk about
Arizona.
We had a little ASU photo of me
with some Sun Devils.
So it was wonderful to be with
them but to come home and hear
from constituents at home, they
were saying much of what I was
hearing from troops in
Afghanistan, which is, be really
careful.
Think carefully before we go and
make an intervention.
We don't know what it would look
like if ground troops were
committed.
I am very concerned that we
could lead to a commitment of
ground troops which I think
would put our service members in
harm's way.
>> It sounds like leadership,
the president, informed
leadership and ground troops
would not be involved.
>> That's reassuring.
That's reassuring.
I think all Americans, most
specifically here in district 9,
we are tired of seeing our
service members in harm's way.
Thank goodness in Afghanistan,
as the draw down is occurring we
are seeing fewer and fewer
casualties.
We want to headache sure that
doesn't happen to our service
members in other countries.
>> Last question and it goes
back to something I ask often in
debates regard, the thought
process that goes into this kind
of an office.
If the majority of folks in your
district say, yes or no, but you
find yourself saying no or yes,
which side do you fall on?
What do you do?
>> I think you always have to
deal with the best interests of
your community and country.
My hope that is usually align
was the popular feelings of your
constituency.
Ted, you know me, I have taken
unpopular positions before and I
think it's important we do
what's right for the long term
safety and security of our
country.
>> If you get maybe a 55-45
split, and you still think it's
either the right thing to do or
the wrong thing to do that's the
direction you would head?
>> I think the people elect you
to certainly reflect their views
but to do what you believe is
right.
And I hope thin case it's going
to be a very difficult decision
but I want folks to know I am
weighing it very carefully, both
the opinions of the constituency
and the information we will be
getting from the administration
about the long-term security
interests and I intend to make a
decision that is hopefully the
best for our country.
>> Let's get to immigration
reform.
What are you hearing back there?
It sounds like things are
crowded there in the house and
all sorts of ideas are happening
regarding defunding, Affordable
Care Act and all sorts of
stances being taken.
The Senate plan is still there
and still there to work with.
What are you hearing?
>> Well, I think there's a lot
of debate about how immigration
will move forward in the house.
It's not likely the Senate bill
comes to the house.
What's more likely is the house
takes a certain set of issues
regarding immigration and deals
with them one by one.
And in preparation for that,
about a week and a half ago you
spent a day at the border
meeting with ranchers, meeting
with folks who keep our country
secure, meeting with border
sheriffs and meeting with the
folks who live and work on the
border, the produce folks, the
real State folks and trying to
understand what is actually the
feeling on the border and what
they need for security and the
long-term plans for immigration.
I can tell you I learned a lot,
Ted.
What I am going to do is take
that information back to
Congress to hopefully inject our
conversation in the house with a
practical dose of common sense.
>> Does it sound, though, it
sounds to me like you are
saying, what I am hearing from
Congressional Republicans as
well, that instead of the
comprehensive seems to be a
pejorative in this debate but
instead of a comprehensive
immigration reform plan the
house wants to take things on
piece mile.
>> I am pretty practically, Ted.
If we have to do it in little
bits and chunks.
If we do it in one piece, great.
We have to get to yes.
The people of Arizona are living
in a crisis because of the
Federal government's failure to
address this immigration issue.
We are ground zero for
Congress's failure.
So my opinion is, whichever way
we get to yes, whether it's in
one bill or four or five bills,
let's just get there.
And the method we use to get
there is less important than the
substance of what we do.
>> The pathway to citizenship
seems to be a strum gulling
point in the house for the
Republicans. Is a pathway to
citizenship so essential that if
it's not included, the whole
thing is scuttled?
>> I think the practical reality
is that to get a bill through
the house and the Senate and to
the president's desk, you need
both a pathway to citizenship
for most, if not all of the
folks who are already here,
particularly dreamers.
But you also need a strong
security set that ensures we
have a secure border, protected
from our enemies in the future.
And with both of those
components, I think we can find
a solution.
>> It sound like the Senate plan
does work on that security, and
probably more than some had
originally thought.
And yet we are hearing from hoax
in the house, one of the leaders
there, I forget the committee
but the committee is looking at
this, saying pathway to
citizenship, DOA, don't even
start that.
>> That's the chair of the
judiciary committee.
But I refer you to
representative Mccall of
Texas, the chair of the Homeland
Security committee.
He passed a bill out of his
committee unanimously.
Ted, you know not much happens
unanimously in the United States
Congress.
So there is way to find
consensus and I think that
Mr. Mccall is on the right
track.
>> Let's talk about the
Affordable Care Act here real
quickly.
We had senator flake on recently
and he said that the Affordable
Care Act is falling under its
own weight even as we speak.
Valid?
>> Well, as you may know, I
actually published an OP-Ed in
the "Arizona republican"
yesterday where I called on
Congress and the federal
government to take time to fix
portions of the Affordable Care
Act.
There are portions that are very
important and need to be
protected.
Protecting kids from being
banned because of preexisting
health conditions.
Allowing young kids like college
kids to stay on their parents'
insurance until they are 26.
Stopping the discrimination
against women.
Right now women pay more than
men for health care.
So those things are very
important to keep.
But there are a lot of stinkers
in the lot.
There's some real problems in
the law for businesses, for
families who are trying to
understand how to navigate the
law.
So I think we have got to do two
things.
First, help navigate the law so
small businesses and families
can figure out what works best
for them.
Then numbering two, Congress
needs to find some bipartisan
solutions to fix some of the
problems in the law and make it
work.
>> I think one of the stinkers
that critics of the plan point
to I will the idea the penalty
for no insurance seems to be as
it stands now, in many cases,
lower than the premium.
That's structurally will not
hold.
A valid point?
>> That is very true.
Over time, of course, that
penalty gets much higher.
What I think would be more
effective is to change the way
that we manage businesses so
businesses can get the
information they need, that it's
an incentive for them to get
health care for their employees
and they can afford it.
Right now business cants afford
insurance with the new
marketplace.
We have to mix that.
>> The CBO estimates I think put
this thing as being obviously a
plus as you get on down the
road.
But again, according to
senator Flake and critics of the
Affordable Care Act the
assumptions are all wrong, the
numbers they have plug intoed
that equation are all wrong.
Certainly some of the ideas
moving forward would not be what
those equations are.
Can you trust the CBO numbers?
Can you trust the fact that once
we start on this road, we are
not going to be begging and
itching to get off it in a few
years?
>> You know, I don't know
whether or not the CBO numbers
can be trust order not.
I have only been in Congress
about eight months.
But what I do know is this.
That if something isn't working
it's Congress's responsibilities
to fix it.
It's our job to take a look at
the how Law, fix the parts that
don't work, get rid of things
that aren't great, add new stuff
if we need to and make
adjustments as we go along.
That's what Congress has been
doing for generations.
Every time we pass a big piece
of legislation we have to make
fixes to it along the way.
And that's Congress's primary
duty when it comes to passing
and changing legislation.
>> Is Congress ready, though, to
make fixes or is Congress just,
again, itching to scuttle the
whole thing?
>> I think it depends on who you
ask, Ted.
I am a bipartisan co-sponsor of
three different bills to make
fixes to the Affordable Care
Act.
Each those bills purely
bipartisan.
>> Very quickly, what are those
ideas?
>> Let me give you one.
One is to change the way the
taxation works on medical
devices.
It actually doesn't raise that
much money.
It's a bad idea.
And it hurts technological
innovation and most importantly
hurts Arizona companies.
We want to change that and get
rid of it.
We also want to get rid of this
innovation board that seems to
kind of have its own ability to
change aspects of the law
outside of Congressional
approval.
That doesn't work.
That's not the way it should be.
So I have sponsored a bill that
helps get rid of that.
Those are a couple of examples.
>> Are you getting Democrats on
board with those?
I imagine Republicans would be
eager.
>> They are bipartisan.
>> So Democrats as well are
saying we got to fix this?
>> Absolutely.
Anyone who functions from a
common sense perspective
recognizes that eliminating an
entire law is not super likely
but what is possible to fix it
and make it workable.
>> Good to see you again.
>> Thanks, Ted.
>>> Get the inside scoop on
what's happening at Arizona PBS.
Become an 8 insider.
You will receive weekly updates
on the most anticipated upcoming
programs and events.
Get the 8 insider delivered to
your email inbox.
Visit azpbs.org to sign up
today.
>>> Health tell is a local
startup medical company that
worked with ASU's Biodesign
Institute to develop a test that
can detect cancer and more than
30 other illnesses by measuring
the body's response to a
pathogen instead of attempting
to detect the pathogen itself.
Dr. Stephen A. Johnston
developed the new test.
And he joins us right now.
Thank you so much for being
here.
This is a new test for cancer.
Give us more here.
>> Well, our goal has been to
have a really simple,
inexpensive test that would work
for any disease.
And we have been working on it
for many years to do that.
The process is quite simple.
You take a drop of blood,
literally a drop, and you I did
light it 10,000-fold and put it
on a little chip that we
manufacture.
And what happens is, your
antibodies bind to that chip.
We look at signature, the
fingerprint of your antibodies
on that signature.
And it changes day to day but
also changes coherently if you
have a particular disease.
So the signature, when you have
a cancer, will change versus
Alzheimer's.
>> This is lung cancer, prostate
cancer, colorectal?
>> We have looked at all of
those.
>> How do you test the test?
How do you know it works?
>> So fortunately there are many
registries where they have
collected blood on people who
had a particular kind of cancer
and people that don't have that
cancer.
Because this assay is so simple
we can go back to those blood
collections and say, OK, can we
tell the difference in the blood
between somebody who has breast
cancer and somebody who doesn't
have breast cancer, somebody who
has lung cancer, and it's a very
simple test.
We can pretty quickly figure
that out.
>> Black and white or is there
some gray areas?
>> There are gray areas because
cancers have different stages.
And some of them are earlier
than others.
And so for instance when we
looked at very early pancreatic
cancer, the signature of that
looks very different than
late-stage pancreatic cancer.
Cancer is changing even over
time.
>> Do both signatures, are they
different from no pancreatic
cancer?
>> Yes.
>> So you know something is
going on, just not maybe survey
what?
>> Right.
It takes longer.
We have to look at more samples
and look at it more carefully.
>> This business of a an immuno
signature, what are we talking
about here?
>> It's basically what I
described.
You have about 100 billion
antibodies in you at any
particular time.
And they are changing all the
time relative to your health
status.
And so the, when you get a
cancer, one.
First things, or Alzheimer's or
an infection, one.
First things that happens is
that the cells that make those
antibodies change their
production rates and what they
are making.
And the chip that we designed is
so sensitive it can actually
pick that up.
Those small changes that are
taking place, even at early
stages of cancer and infection.
>> It is similar to when people
get tested for viruses.
They find antibodies.
If you had chickenpox or mumps
when you were a kid, you will
have those antibodies with you
the rest of your life.
>> It's same principling, the
same antibodies being tested but
in the old ways, we just collect
would the sum of those and we
said, OK, you have antibodies to
chicken pox.
Now we can spread all of those
antibodies out and look at them
in their final detail and
basically tell, you have a good
protection against chickenpox or
you don't have good protection
against chickenpox.
>> With that in mind can you
look at this test and say, you
don't have pancreatic cancer or
whatever the case may be, but
the immuno signature suggestion
you might or, the tendency is
there.
Does it work that way?
>> No.
That's more the assay where you
look at the DNA and you say, O.
you have a genetic mutation that
makes you more likely to get
this cancer.
What this would be more than the
next stage where you say, maybe
I have a propensity for lung
cancer, but that doesn't say I
will get it or even when I will
get it.
But you would use this test if
it all work the way we plan it,
you would use this test to say,
OK, now I see that there is the
first indication of lung cancer.
>> And compare with what this
test would do with current at
the Detection methods.
>> We have very, very few what
are called biomarkers for early
cancer detection.
So really what we are trying to
push this for is that we can
take the time point that you
would detect a cancer earlier
and earlier.
We know, from a lot of, for a
lot of experiments, that cancer
can start 10, 20 years before
it's actually diagnosed.
And what we don't have those
markers yet that we can pick
those out.
We think those immuno signatures
because they are so sensitive
may allow us to do that.
>> It's interesting you bring
that up because there was some
debate I think with men's
prostate cancer specifically
regarding a test whether or not
you need to know you have it
when it could be 20, 30, 40
years in development, and you
could be long gone by the time
this becomes a problem.
How does that play into all
this?
>> That's a really important
question.
It plays very prominently in the
question.
These are called -- it's
estimated that for prostate
cancer, breast cancer, lung
cancer, there's maybe 25% of the
growth that you won't even call
them cancers, growths that are
detected by current diagnostic
techniques are actually
something we shouldn't worry
about.
They will either self-resolve or
they will stay indolent for,
stalled for so long that they
are not even a concern.
So an important aspect for any
detection system that's going to
detect cancer early is to be
able to tell the good guys from
the bad guys.
And that's an important
challenge for us.
>> A challenge but can that
challenge be met?
>> We think it K our preliminary
evidence says that that
certainly a possibility, to tell
what is an aggressive cancer
from a be nine cancer.
>> Technology designed at the
ASU biodesign institutes.
Give us more information on
that.
>> The institute or the
technology?
>> The whole process.
I was hired about seven years
ago by George post to come over
here and invent things that
nobody would take a chance on.
That's what I did.
And the biodesign institute was
the place to go for doing that,
to do way-out ideas and they
gave you a running chance to see
if you could do it or not.
And it's turned out quite well.
The ideas that George let me try
out that everybody thought was
crazy, they looked pretty
promising right now.
This was one of them.
>> Was this an idea you had?
>> Yeah.
>> Or idea you researched?
>> No.
It's an idea, it was driven by
the concept that we had to
revolutionize health care.
We can't have, we can't be going
on -- I have heard the talk just
before this, and the health care
act is good in the sense or bad,
depending on your opinion, but
it basically redistributes who's
taking responsibility for the
current system.
What we really need to do is
fundamentally rethink the health
care so we stop being a post
symptomatic health care system
taking care of people after they
get sick and start being
presymptomatic so we can give
people better costs cheaper.
That was our mission, can we
get, there is a technology we
could invent 2 to allow people
to have better health care
cheaper and cheaper is
important.
>> Indeed.
>> It wasn't then.
We got criticized for saying the
word "Cheaper."
But that was the sole goal.
We just set out, I am an
inventor.
And so I just said, that's the
goal.
Let's see what we can invent &
what we came up with was immuno
signatures.
>> This is licensed through ASU
tech center?
>> All of the technology that's
developed by people within ASU
goes through an independent
entity that watches out for
ASU's intellectual property
called AZT.
They go out and say here's the
technology.
We will contact the people that
might be invest in it or license
it or something.
They are basically the
technology transfer managers for
all of ASU.
>> Interesting.
So we got this new test now.
Is the new test in use?
>> No.
So that's what health care or
health tell was started for.
>> OK.
>> So we need to, there's an
important aspect of that.
I briefly went over this chip.
Right?
The key is that if you are going
to have monitor people's health
on a regular basis, every let's
say once every six months or
something, you have to be able
to manufacture millions if not
billions of these chips.
So we turned to the intel-type
technology to start
manufacturing these chips and
just set up a facility in
Chandler to manufacture these
chips on a large scale.
>> Real quickly, one year away?
Two years away?
>> The launch estimate is the
beginning of 2015.
>> All right.
Good luck.
Encouraging news and we wish you
the best.
>>> Thank you.
>>> Wednesday on "Arizona
Horizon," we'll have a debate on
the role of government in
economic development.
And we'll hear more about the
justice department's enforcement
priorities in states that allow
recreational marijuana use.
and 10:00on the
next "Arizona Horizon."
That is it for now.
I'm Ted Simons.
Thank you so much for joining
us.
You have a great evening.
Captioning Performed By
LNS Captioning
www.LNScaptioning.com
>>> "Arizona Horizon" is made
possible by contributions from
the friends of 8, members of
your Arizona PBS station.
Thank you.
>>> When you wanted to be more
informed, 8 delivers news and
analysis with multiple
perspectives.
Thanks to financial support from
you and --
>> Friendship village Tempe, a
retirement community for over 30
years.
Offers independent living with
residency option, lifelong
learning classes as well as
continuing care.
information at friendshipvillage
AZ.com.
>>> Later on 8HD.
>> Today Arizona has more
national monuments than any
other state in America.
18 remarkable destinations.
And so under the official banner
of natural wonders, ancient
cultures, an early history, this
is the story of how one state so
magnificently defines itself as
monumental Arizona.
on 8HD.
>>> 8HD, 8 life and 8 world.
This is Arizona PBS supported by
viewers like you.
Thank you.
>>> Join us for the next "Check,
Please! Arizona!" tasting tour.
On Tuesday October 22, a private
motor coach will transport you
to five of the show's memorable
dining destinations where you
will sample food and beverages
while Mingling with other local
foodies.
You will start at four peaks for
appetizer, get tasty selects
from Arcadia tavern, Phoenix
city Grizzly and Richardson's.
Members of the Arizona craft
Brewer's guild's provide beer
tastings.
Relax and enjoy this exciting
tasting tour while support, the
production of "Check, Please!
Arizona!" on 8.
Seating is limit sewed sign up
today at azpbs.org/checkplease.
>>> 8 celebrates Arizona history
with a moment in time made
possible by the link Us group, a
registered investment advisor.
Opened in 1962 in the area.
The Phoenix zoo was one of the
largest nonprofit zoos in the
United States.
>>> Coming up on 8HD, 8 life,
and 8 world.
>> It's been a life saver for me
as a teacher.
I was able to take the class
online and get college credit.
I learned a lot of strategies
which I am implementing in my
classroom.
Teacher life has help immediate
be a better teacher.
It's where I belong.
>> Learn more at
azpbs.org/teacherline.
>>> Coming soon to 8HD.
>> I'm mark in Wichita, Kansas.
Hurrah!
>> Are you serious?
>> More excitement, more
surprises and more treasures
next time on ""Antiques
Roadshow"."
on 8HD.
>> When you want to be more
inspired, 8 delivers
unforgettable experiences in
music, music, and the arts.
Thanks to you and --
>> In 1998, the people of
Arizona created clean elections
to improve the integrity of
Arizona state government by
diminishing the influence of
special interest money, more
about running for office or
those who do at clean
elections101.com.
>>> Flagstaff, Arizona, weather,
outdoor activities, dining, and
entertainment.
It's the destination for all
seasons.
Event calendar and visitor
information at
Flagstaffarizona.org.