they had the foreign intelligence surveillance act passed only after the disclosure by "the new york times." with regards to just the general transparency, the members of the intelligence committee will tell you they learned more what was going frontal wikileaks than from every single overslight hearing, that the nsa was coming up, the cia and otherwise. some of them refused to even attend discovery sight hearings, saying, bruce, i could read more in "the new york times" about

classified hearings. that is adequate oversight? it is a joke. >> have to make the point, which is is that the first amendment, and also article 1, section 5, which says that each has to keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as it may this their judgment, require secrecy and the yays and anyways on either hays -- we always point out that even george washington in that founding father realized there was an issue after secrecy and the issue of the first amendment. and that's the tension of this debate. sir? >> institute for justice. my question is for mr. yu -- >> tide the whole office come? >> my good colleague and i -- >> anybody else from the office with a question?

supporters of the ementire -- empire. do they gate any questions? >> the constitution has a presumption of liberties that power that are enumerated and limited. earlier you mentioned that courts shouldn't really wage are political capital on engaging on issues involve thing exercise of power and focus more on civil liberty, but the exercise of power implicates civil liberties. so focusing on the authorizations post 9/11, how are those -- how did the implications on individual liberty make their way into the analysis? how does the executive branch do that? seems that from what we have seen in the aftermath, that things probably didn't go as planned. >> i thing obviously the president takes an oath to

execute the laws, to take care the laws are faithfully executed, and the supreme law is the constitution. so the president has an obligation -- i thought he was giving me signals like he was my manager and telling me to throw a curve ball. >> just wants the mic. >> i think the president -- obviously has to carry out the constitution that is a supreme law, and a fact laws are judicial decisions or executive actions which violate the constitution, aren't to be carried out. and so the executive branch has to follow the bill of rights as well. and so the primary issue that bruce has mentioned is a surveillance program, which has obviously strong tensions with the fourth amendment and the right to privacy and the right against warrantless searches and seizures. if you thought the executive branch was in fact not paying

attention to the bill of right us-didn't care about the fourth amendment, they should have just listened in on everybody's phone calls and read everybody's e-mails. why bother? is a understand it, in the course -- there's different conflicting accounts exactly what happened. the nsa looked at the phone numbers. they didn't look at the actual calls. they just looked at the phone numbers. they looked at the headers of e-mails. didn't look at the content. for americans. for people outside the country, they listened in and looked at everything they could. that is consistent with our constitution's fourth amendment as interpreted by the supreme court. we may all as citizen want to have much broader privacy rights, against electronic surveillance, and we should have congress pass such a law. bruce will say, congress doesn't do it, congress is outrageous, they're so weak. when this came up after the supreme court's decision in

katz, congress passed a law in 1968, the crime control act, which set up a system to regulate electronic surveillance and broaden privacy beyond what the courts required. so in this case i think the executive branch tried to exercise surveillance powers as broadly as it could, but consistent with the fourth amendment, as it had been interpret by our supreme court, and if we want to have broader -- a well-known libertarian organization, and so if you want to have a broader scope of individual choice, that's the job of congress. congress can pass laws and require the privacy rights to be broader in this internet age than in the past. >> michael hayden said right after 9/11 he was summoned and told, any powers you want, you tell us, we'll give them to you. i have reason know the nsa's resources went from like 80% focused on surveillance, for

terrorism purposes, not crime purposes like the omnibus crime control act. how many lawyers were assigned the task of determining whether or not the fourth amendment was complied with? now, when the president roz own privacy and civil liberties work got around to looking at the program, the president trusted to them -- what they said? not only is it not authorized by statute. it doesn't work and it's unconstitutional. now, the cases are in the courts. they've had one district court say it's unconstitutional. another one went the other way. the case is on appeal in the u.s. court of appeals. but we shouldn't always rely upon the courts to say whatever the last word was. this was in 1979. the president should by alert to their obligations to understand liberty is the center of our constitutional universe, not empire. and when there's ambiguity, we choose liberty, not empire. >> the technology issue is a hot

issue. this -- we're going to this gentleman, the gentleman in the glasses, the gentleman over here, the gentleman over there. so everyone knows, and then the gentleman there. that will be the order. and then we'll end up with george. okay? >> my name is thomas stray. i'm a presnowden nsa whistleblower and was indicted by the obama administration for espionage. me -- my question is this. anywhere in article 2 of the constitution, anywhere, that you can cite, that trumps national security? >> anywhere where article 2 is more important than national security? i apologize. i don't quite understand the question. article 2 describes executive power. i think unlike john, i don't believe that the use of the word "executive power" means the president can go to war. if article 2 goes down so far as

to enumerate and express pour to recognize ambassadors, why would it omit something as important to say the president can go to war unilaterally. that's hiding an elephant in a mouse hole. so when john is talking about what kind of language you would expect to be in there, but i don't -- that's all my response is. i'm not sure that i understand national security and article 2. >> a great deal on article 2. what is your sense of this notion of national security and article 2? >> i don't want to misunderstand your question, but i think what you're asking more is, where does it say in the constitution that national security trumps article 2 or trumps the constitution. is that -- that's how i take the question. i think that is a valuable question. i don't think that just the claim of national security needs

itself trumps the constitution or article 2. however, i also don't think our framers created a constitution that would be defective, that could not handle the challenges and threats placed on our government today by threat of terrorism or war. i don't know the particulars of your case. i'm sorry that the obama administration prosecuted you if it was unjust. i just don't know. but i don't think that the constitution would -- that our framer would have written a constitution that would so paralyze our government it could not protect national security. the more important question, how are the president and congress supposed to interact properly so we maintain the balance between national security and liberty. i don't want to be seen as arguing that liberty gets zero and national security gets 100. the framers were practical men

and there was supposed to be a balance between the two. sometimes our institutions might not work out the way the framers thought and how you strike the balance properly. i don't know the facts of your case. >> comparatively as the french constitution has, for the reason of state, which allows the state act and wash over any civil lyric. the british have peace, order, and good government, p.o.g.g. also gives the crown extraordinary power. but there's no pogg clause and there's an omission in the constitution. >> i don't mean to be associated with anyone who quotes french in public debate. for someone from harvard, expected a little bit more.

>> i'm with the freedom institute, and my question is to ask both of you to elaborate on a point you made, that the articulation in section 10 has the implication that there's no such limits on the president in section 8. mr. fein, i trust you don't agree with that, and i'd like you to elaborate why you don't, and mr. yoo, since you seem to think the president is restricted when he goes to for a, as in nixon and watergate, how given the secrecy in other powers surrounding war is one to know when one has gone too far? >> help explain the question. >> the power to -- the power of the purse and the power to declare war. john marshall explained, you don't read the constitution of the united states text like the internal revenue code. you need to read it with an

understanding of what its broad purposes were. because they understood technology would change. the world wasn't going to be a petrified forest, and all i can say is, it is unmistakable to anybody grounded in the debates of the constitution, the ratification process, and all the worries about too many wars, clogged in the arteries of war, that all those who voted to ratify believed that congress alone had the authority to initiate war. president could repel immediate attacks. so, i don't think we ought to quibble about semantics if you want to get really refined, references to the dictionary, but just go to the major point and the reason why they wanted congress to be entrusted with that power, because it doesn't have the conflict of interest the executive has. you don't find in the corridors of congress anybody on a pedestal because they war great

war hero for voting for war in the presidents you find them everywhere. that's why i think those clauses mean exactly what they say. >> now i understand why bruce doesn't like robert bork. because he just said, we should allow the spirit of the constitution as he is telling us to override the text. the text of the constitution has this prognosis, article 1, section 10, that said -- i think i read it accurately. bruce's response is, i can tell you the spirit of the constitution is that no one would have thought that the president could wage war and it should be very difficult to go to war. using quotations. some quotations are not from 0 the ratification period of the constitution. they're after. so, you can get people from the revolutionary period who are against the executive. you can get people from the constitutional period -- from the ratification period, like alecer in hamilton, who were more executive. that stuff does not come into play until you have read the constitutional text. i'm not reading it like a tax

code. it says what it says. and i think what is strange is that you have this very precise clause about starting war, and one part of the constitution. used to restrict the states. and then when it comes to restricting the president, who you would think is a much bigger threat according to bruce, in wartime, because of self-aggrandizement and self- , and why not repeat the clause again? most of these people are lawyers who are participating in the drafting of the constitution. why instead say the president is commander-in-chief and the congress has power to declare war, has power of the purse? >> let me just reveal, however, this kind of wooden enter operation. the first amendment says congress, not the president or the judiciary or state. congress shall make no law braining freedom of speech. under john0s interpretation the president can bridge freedom of speech, court can bridge freedom of peach. you don't read the spirit like you want the people to be able

to censure the government, and john's approach took root also in 1928 when the supreme court initially said, to intercept conversations would not a violation of the fourth amendment because it protects persons, houses-papers and effects, not conversations. so you can wire tap at well. john says, read the text. doesn't say anything about conversations. in that way you pervert all of the constitution, and turn it into a dictionary, yeah the reasonable i focus on the constitutional text i'm not so confident i have the secret about what the framers thought and the great message of the constitution. i think bruce's approach requires you to agree with his version of the constitutional history. i think the reason why the text is important, and always the starting point, is because that is what was passeest. that was rat identified. that is in writing, it opportunity are doesn't require us, unless we're not sure to resort to then broader abstract

judgments about what i think the burn of the constitution is. >> the next question, because it allows you all all to hear the classic constitutional argument that take place at the supreme court every monday, tuesday, and wednesday, how to interpret the document. >> eye newman rated powers, unenumerated rights. >> i think everyone watching should get out their constitution and understand enumerated powers, article 1, d. >> really good at driving down ratings. >> i think it's more important to happen education than ratings, john. >> thank you very much. >> i want to go back to part of why -- i'm sorry. i've steven jordan. i wanted to -- oh, i run a management consulting firm. >> are you sure it's not institute for justice? >> no. >> you look like the other guy. >> no affiliation -- thank you. but i want to go back to the

heart of this debate, which i think is really not just about the present circumstances vis-a-vis afghanistan or iraq or eye circumstance but it real -- or isis, but i it is the fundamental impact of power of our executive and legislative branches, in terms of what they and can cannot do, vis-a-vis us. ultimately. and it's -- issue early in the conversation you talked about precedence and what was informing the founders. the two major precedents they were drawing from were the british civil war, and notice the british army against the royal air force and royal navy, but the whole idea of parliament against monarchy on the one hand, and the other one they were drawing against was the slippery downward slope of the roman republic which degenerated into a military awe totcracy in

which they were able to interpret the law as they saw fit. on the other hand we have eisenhower's warning about the military industrial complex, and the idea that all 50 states, there is economic activity and there is special interests that have the potential to subborne congress in this way. in what way are you concerned about institutional corruption affecting the course of the future or these institutions. >> i think they're very, very profound and serious. money and the status that goes with being a neocon or war hawk is enormous. you're a very reluctant even in the government. you know you're going to go out, criticize the national security state because you'll get $500,000 contract with booz

allen or somebody else, and people are worried about what they're after government career is going to look like. and so the security state builds on itself. i think that we have a government now that exaggerates fear. many, many fold, in order to get theman to continue to come. just think, six months ago isis wasn't even a footnote in the middle east. then suddenly it went to a regional power, then a global power, interplan tear power, intergalactic power. the worst danger the world as ever seen. now the money is now appropriated. i was going to sign up to be a member of the free syrian army to become wealthy overnight. they're looking to find people to give money to because the greatest danger is isis. that's an example where we now have an institutionalized bias to find -- to multiply the actual danger of any foreign force, and you can see it right

now to chinese. once isis and al qaeda go away, we'll say china is the great power we need to confront and we'll be building more aircraft carriers because it builds the military industrial complex, buck mckeon, the chairman of the house armed services committee said, yep, defense budget, it's like a work program. we can't cut these jobs out, and that keeps the military in business. >> so i think it's an important question. i think our debate has mostly been about president versus congress, and my argument has been i thought the president has much more constitutional initiative and flexibility, but that for most of the things going on now there's agreement. your question goes beyond that, to ask, there are limits on what the government itself can do in war even if they agree. and your worry is -- the button there -- such a -- you do it

that way by clinking wine glasses instead of ringing a bell. i think that your concern is that war is creating something like the falling collapse of the roman republic into the empire. i like to associate people who can quote latin. that's a very valuable skill. so -- always wear underwear, which rhymes in latin. i don't i want to make sure i understand the question. the first response i don't think we are an empire. if we are, it's a funny empire because we don't have the territory abroad, we don't run regimes. we can barely get a cools of people -- coalition of people to help us bomb a terrorist group in the middle east. if we're running an empire it's a sorry empire, and diplomatic

historians who study the cold war, thick the classic book is called "invitation to empire." that the united states' expansion of its military and stationing troops abroad was the crying demand of the countriesed a broad. it was just much a pull as a push, and we may have troops in germany, troops in japan, troops in south korea. i don't think those are imperial provinces of the united states. i also don't think we're like the republic, we don't have a functioning legislature. i have to say i really disagree with bruises implication that our government officials are engaged in fear-mongering and trying to provoke war in order to make themselves personally wealthy. really -- for the people i worked with in the government -- of course i know only the people i worked with in government -- whether i agree with them, the obama administration or bush

administration, i think for most part they're good-hearted public citizens and are trying to protect the nation's security. they're not looking to say i'm going to work for lockheed now. i'm going to get a war going and build f-35s at lockheed and get rich. that's a terrible insult to the men and women in the armed forces and our government. what i think are unfortunately rapidly dwindling resources. that's hurt can our security, the cuts in the defense budget, not corruption by people in the military stoke are war toe so they can make a fortune. >> just like the marxist critique of the vietnam war. i'm surprised to hear this shallow critique of the united states what that adopted by marxists in the 1960s. >> michael hayden is at booz allen. i you don't understand the revolving door of the intelligence community --

>> i want to be clear. you are saying that people in our government, the highest leaders, are deliberately fear mongering and provoking war so they conclude wealthy -- >> not direct live that way but i do -- >> not directly that way. >> not necessarily a direct rid quo quo. late mr. mcconnell in vamp there's subtle signals and they understand that with the war power upon, they'll go back and have these contracts. that's what they do. >> so you think that these leaders you just mentioned, our highest government leaders, are just as guilty at governor mcdonnell in virginia? >> no. i'm saying you can have understanding without direct quid pro quos and if you think the people in government don't know what is available outside as private consult organize otherwise, i think you're very anyway eve. they know it's there. -- naive. >> since we know many of these individuals and served with them, rather that attacks in

order toll vault the debate, one of the issues that when the military industrial complex, as eisenhower said in his last speech, the speech had the congressional military industrial complex, and eisenhower, because of the two people coming into the presidency were kennedy and johnson, two senators, he thoughted it would be inappropriate for him to have the two senators castigated and struck out the congressional realizationship. that notion of the iron triangle has been deep in our understanding of the politics and policy since that period of eisenhower. this gentleman has been very patient. a quick question, please. >> thank you very much. being irish, i don't get called patient very often. i'm a veteran correspondent for the "washington times" and upi for 25 years. my question is primary my for bruce. because i believe history shows james madison was wrong.

when congress that the power of the powers that is not enough. the problem comes when congress willingly abdicates the power of the purse and asks no questions. congress asked no questions in 1950 when hari truman called the korean war, which turned into a land war between the united states and china, but goes down in history as a police action. that's how we got around the embarrassing need to and congress to declare war, which it never did in 1964 come asked no questions over the gulf of torch kin resolution which was base inaccurate information to put it mildly. and before the 2003 iraq war congress asked no questions again. in passing resolutions, and with the last two democratic secretaries of state, john kerry and hillary clinton, both eagerly voted to give the powers

that george w. bush northeasted to -- needed to go to war in iraq. bruce made a key point before which brings up the answer to this to the weakness of congress. >> a history of a supine congress. >> one key followup. bruce made the vital point that supine congresses can be driven to carry out what their constitutional responsibility ought to be by public opinion. how do we expand public opinion? >> i don't believe that james madison concedes that one branch of government would become an in -- invertebrate brans and eagerly surrender its powers. one of the reason is because the party system wasn't nearly as entrenched at that time. now the loyalties are more in congress to the party rather

than the constitution of the united states, even only their only oath is to uphold the constitution. also i do think that dish call this a psychology of empire -- that has emerged in the united states, even if john doesn't believe having 1100 military about bases abroad and runs of thousands of troops is not an ear mark of empire, i think it is, even if they invite us in after we bribe them by bribes -- i mean in treaty commitments to defend countries that are not strategically important to us. but putting that aside, i think that the whole country -- this is blames us, we, the people -- have accepted too readily the idea that we need to go abroad in search of monsters to destroy, and we're surrendering our liberty in exchange for at least safety and that's something madison couldn't understand but a the whole idea of the revolution was individual liberty, and ultimately, you're

right, the recommend is not going to stick a backbone in congress. that's not going to happen. it's up to the american people, through debate, through education, through seminars, debates like this to say, no, we're standing up and we're going to vote people out of office. they take to us these wars too often and that's what happened with regard to syria and needs to happen again. >> feel like it was a question. i agree with bruce but here's something else bruce should have said. no one is asking me those questions. i don't think there's anything to respond to. >> coming close to 8:30. i have this gentleman in the queue for quite a while. a person really wants to ask a question, so i'm going to give the mic to both of you, both you ask your questions and then i'll let you both have the last word. okay? >> sure. >> my name is george jamison, i'm a consultant and lawyer and

former retired cia lawyer. >> you better run out off here now before they get you. >> for the record, i'm not wealthy. i did not become wealthy during my government service, nor did i become wealthy following my government service. maybe it's because i was not in favor of the wars in iraq. bruce may have answered part of my question by saying people can vote congress out of office, because my comment before the -- my question is, aim wrong in thinking, we had two different debate. we had a legal debate and a policy debate. john, i think, was arguing in favor of the constitution and the system as one that has tensions built into and it you may not like the answer. bruce, clearly doesn't like the answer, and so my question, since he trashed the executive and he trashed congress, and then trashed the courts, how do you resolve the policy differences between people abuse

the system? part of the-and-you get members of congress who will vote the way you like but suppose they don't vote that way? you can have all the debate in the world. what do you do when you have a system -- are you seeking to change the system is my question. >> woman in the pink. >> please say who you are and your affiliation. >> i'm janine, professor george mason university. my comment is motivated by mr. yoos comment and the discussion just before the last -- concerning the careers of retired generals and i just want to point out that it's a matter of fact and public record that 20 years ago, when 30 years ago, when generals and admirals

retired, they actually retired and played golf and played with their grandkids and so on. today, according to a database of more than 700 generals and admirals to which my database put together by "the boston globe" to which my shadow influence project has contributed many more data points, predominantly retired generals and admirals no longer retire when they retire. they continue working and they continue working in the military industrial media, et cetera, complex. so, again, this is not -- this is a matter of fact, public record. mr. yoo, you can have your opinion but this is about facts. thank you. >> why don't we give you both the last word. i think you started with the -- i think we'll give you the last word.

>> ultimately in my judgment, the destiny of the nation, war, peace, rests with we, the people. if we don't get it right, if the culture doesn't get it right, the government is not going to be superior. and i recall -- we had a period of time where white supremacy reigned. we had jim crow, separate but equal. didn't make it right even though it what the rule that was prescribed by the united states supreme court. and we need to take it in our hands and not just complain about congress and the executive branch, but that's part of it. and do something about it. vote them out. say, this is wrong. we don't want to do it. we did it's year ago in syria, and that has to become the norm rather than the exception. there's only so much a constitution and text could do, but ultimately if the spirit of liberty doesn't beat in our hearts and minds every day, it will die and no court and no

president and no congress can save it. [applause] >> i'll just answer the questions really quick ask then sum. the first question, i don't disagree or agree. i think we're getting the policy we voted for as an electioner toat. i get the sense the majority of the people in this room don't agree with those policies but i think we have had a democratic process, multiple elections since 9/11, and our elected representative are making these decisions. i do agree that if we don't agree with the policies we can change representatives. we're not a.m. an empire where there's a emperor telling us what to do. we voted for president obama and voted for members of congress. on the advertisement for the database, i don't like numbers. i admit i don't do numbers. i'm a lawyer specifically so i wouldn't have to do numbers. but surely you know the

difference between correlation and causation, and just because they're generals or admirals who have the correlation of going to work for contractors after they retire does not show causation these guys, men and women, are making decisions deliberately while in office to provoke wars, fear monger, in order to enhance their employment prospects, which is what i took bruce to say. just to sum up, bruce says we have this constitutional system, our job, if we agree with him, is to vote people out even if the different branches have different policies, even if the constitution is interpret differently than we would like wife. say that's what happened in 2008. we elected an avowedly antiwar president who took exactly bruce's positions on these issues and, look what happened to our national security and defense tour and those are a direct result of the kind of policies bruise i promote -- bruce is

promote and we're much less safe now because of it. [applause] >> i think i'd like to first -- both the people on the panel and people mentioned, thank people for their public service. one may not agree but there are many patriots and the patrioters serving. i want to thank the committee of the republic to sponsor this and the press club, and these are the type of events we need in order to put these issues in front and have save debate about what the true values are, and this is a model of what we thought or democracy can and should be. and i encourage you, if you're interested in more of these type of debates, we at the american bar association, we have written a book called patriots debate in which we go through 10 or 12 of the issues pro, and con, and try to put out the issues based on light and not anger.

i think we have to debate rationally, and be actually a model for the rest of the world. so, thank you so much for being so kind, being so civil. thank you for more or less staying close to your timing, and i want to thank you, and let's have another round of applause. [applause] nod [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> coming up tonight on c-span2, president obama introduces a new issue in tonight to fight the spread of ebola. then a senate hearing on the ebola outbreak in west africa. then job jindal talks about his energy proposal. >> president obama announced an expanded u.s. response plan to the ebola crisis. his remarks came during a visit tuesday to the centers for disease control and prevention in atlanta. it's ten minutes.

>> good afternoon, everyone please be seated. i want to thank dr. frieden and everybody here at the center for disease control for welcoming me here today. tom and his team just gave me an update on the ebola outbreak in west africa. our efforts to help mobilize the international community to fight it, and the steps we're taking to keep people here at home safe. tom and his team are doing outstanding work between the specialists on the ground in west africa and here at headquarters. they've got hundreds of professionals who are working tirelessly on this issue. this is the largest international response in the history of the cdc. after this, i'll be meeting with some of these men and women, including some who recently returned from the front lines of the outbreak, and they represent

public service at its very best. so i just want them to know how much the american people appreciate them. many of them are serbing far away from home, away from their families. they're doing heroic work, and serving in some unbelievably challenging conditions. working through exhaustion, day and night, and many have volunteered to go back. so we're very, very proud of them. their work and our efforts across the government is an example of what happens when america leads in confronting major global challenges. faced with this outbreak, the world is looking to us, the united states, and it's a responsibility we embrace. we are prepared to take leadership on this to provide the kinds of capables only america has, and to mobilize the world in ways only america can do. that's what we're doing as we speak. first and foremost i want the american people to know that our

experts here at the cdc and across the government agree the chances of an ebola outbreak here in the united states are extremely low. we've been taking the necessary precautions, including work with countries in west africa, to increase screening at airports so someone with the virus doesn't get on a plane for the united states. in the unlikely event that someone with ebola does reach our shores, we've taken new measures so that we're prepared here at home. we're working to help flight crews by identify people who are sick and labs now have the ability to testmer quickly nor virus. wore working with hospitals to make sure they're prepared and ensure our doctors and nurses 0 our medical staff are trained, are ready, and are able to deal with a possible case safely. and here i've got to commend everybody at emory university hospital.

i just had the opportunity to meet with doctors and members of their team and the nurses who -- sorry, doctors, but having been in hospitals, now they're the ones really doing the work, and i had chance to thank them for their extraordinary efforts in helping to provide care for the first americans who recently contracted the disease in africa. the first two of those patients were released last month and continue to improve. and it's a reminder for the american people that should any cases appear in the united states, we have world class facilities and professionals ready to respond and we have effective surveillance mechanisms in place. i should mention, by the way, had a chance to see dr. brantly in the oval office this morning, and although he is still having to gain back some weight, he looks great. he looks strong. and we are incredibly grateful

to him and his family for the service that he has rendered to people who are a lot less lucky than all of us. as we all know, however, west africa is facing a very different situation. especially in the hardest hit countries, liberia, sierra leon, and guinea. tom and others recently return from region, and the scenes they describe are just horrific. more than 2400 men, women, and children are known to have died, and we strongly suspect the actual death toll is higher than that. hospitals, clinics, and the few treatment centers that do exist have been completely overwhelmed. an already very weak public health system is near collapse in these countries. patients are being turned away. and people are literally dying in the streets.

here's the hard truth in west africa, ebola is now an epidemic. of the likes we have not seen before. it's spiraling out of control. it is getting worse. it's spreading faster and exponentially. today, thousands of people in west africa are infected. that number could rapidly grow to tens of thousands. and if the outbreak is not stopped now, we could be looking at hundreds of thousands of people infected, with profound political and economic and security implications for all of us. so this is an epidemic that is not just a threat to regional security, it's a potential threat to global security, if these countries break down. if their economies break down. if people panic. that has profound effects on all of us even if we are not directly contracting the disease. and that's why two months ago i directly my team to make this a

national security priority. we're working this across our entire government, which is why today oil giants by leader throughout my administration,, and we devoted significant resources in support of the strategy with four goals number. one to control the outbreak. number two, to address the ripple effects of local economies and communities to prevent a truly massive humanitarian disaster. number three to coordinate a broader global response, and number four, to urgently bent up a public health system in these countries for the future. not just in west africa, but in countries that don't have a lot of resources generally. this is a daunting task. but here's what gives us hope. the world knows how to fight this disease. it's not a mystery. we know the science. we know how to prevent it from

spreading. we know how to care for those who contract it. we know that if we take the proper steps, we can save lives. but we have to act fast. we can dawdle on this one. we have to move with force and make sure that we are catching this as best we can, given that it is already broken out in ways that we have not seen before. so, today i'm announcing a major increase in our response. at the request of the liberian government we're going to establish a military command center in liberia to support civilian efforts across the region, similar to our response after the haiti earthquake. it's going to be commanded by major general, general williams, commander of our armed -- army forces in africa. he just arrived today and is now on the ground in liberia. and our forces are going to bring their expertise and command and control in logistics in engineering, and our

department of defense is better than that, our armed services are better at that, than any organization on earth. we're going create an air bridge to get health workers and medical supplies into west africa, faster. we're going to establish a staging area in senegal to help distribute personnel and aid on the ground more quickly. we are going to create a new training site to train thousands of health workers so they can effectively and safely care for more patients. personnel from the u.s. public health service will deploy to the new field hospitals that we're setting up in liberia, and usaid will join with international partners and local communities in a community care campaign to distribute supplies and information kits to hundreds of thousands of families so they can better protect themselves. we're also going to build additional treatment units, including new isolation spaces and more than a thousand beds. and in all our efforts the

safety of our personnel will remain a top priority. meanwhile, our scientists continue their urgent research in the hope of finding new treatments treatments and perhaps vaccines, and today i'm calling on congress to approve the funding we requested, so that we can carry on with all these critical efforts. today the united states is doing even more but this is a global threat and it demands a truly global response. international organizations just have to move faster than they have up until this point. more nations need to contribute experienced personnel, supplies, and funding that's needed, and they need to deliver on what they pledge quickly. charities. and individual philanthropists have again generously and can make a big difference, and so we're not restricting these efforts to governmental organizations. we also need ngos and private philanthropies to work with news a coordinated fashion in order

to maximize the impact of our response. this week the united states will chair an emergency meeting of the u.n. security council. next people week i'll join u.n. jacket ban ki-moon to continue mobilizing the international community around this effort. then, at the white house, we're going bring more nations together to strengthen our global health security so we can better prevent, detect and respond to future outbreaks before they become epidemics. this is something we announced several months ago at the g-7 meeting. we determined this has to be a top priority. this was before the ebola outbreak. we anticipated the fact that in many of these countries with a weak public halve system, if we don't have more effective surveillance, more effective facilities on the ground, and are not helping poor countries in developing their ability to catch these things quickly, that

there was at least the potential of seeing these kinds of outbreaks, and sadly we now see that our predictions were correct. it gives more urgency to this effort, a global health initiative we have been pushing internationally. let me just close by saying this. the scenes that we're witnessing in west africa today are absolutely gut-wrenching. and in one account we read family liberia that disease already killed the father, the mother was cradling a sick and listless five-year-old son. he other sun are son, ten years old, was dying, too. finally reached a treatment center but couldn't get in. and instead were just sitting. these men, women and children are just sitting. waiting to die. right now. and it doesn't have to be this

way. the reality is that this epidemic is going to get worse before it gets better, but right now, the world still has an opportunity to save countless lives. right now. the world has the responsibility to act, to step up and to do more. the united states of america intends to do more. we are going to keep leading in this effort. we're going to do our part and we're going to continue to make sure that the world understands the need for them to step alongside us as well in order for us to not just save the lives families like the one i just discussed, ultimately to make sure this doesn't have the kind of spillover effect that become even more difficult to control. so, thank you very much to the entire team that is already doing this work. and please know that you have your president and commander in chief behind you. thank you.

>> darth the world health organization the ebola outbreak is in five countries. dr. kent brantly, one of the americans who survived ebola was among the witnesses tuesday at a joint senate hearing on the outbreak. this is about three hours. >> committee on health, education, labor and pensions, and the appropriations subcommittee on labor, health,

human services, appropriations will come to order. in march of this year, public health officials reported an outbreak of ebola virus in guinea. unlike past ebola outbreaks that it have been efficiently and effect if there stopped, this outbreak has spread in ways that are potentially catastrophic for the world. due to the gravity of the situation, the danger poses not only to the affected region but also to our country, i have taken the unusual step of calling together this joint hearing of both the authorizing committee i chair and the appropriations subcommittee which funds it, which i also chair. we have come togetherred to to learn what can so we can work together over the coming weeks to stop this daysly plague. the extent of this epidemic is tragic and grows more serious with each passing day. the death toll is already far greater than all other previous

ebola outbreaks combined. the world health organization estimates 20,000 people may become infected by dem if current control efforts north strengthened and we know the mortality rate is close to 40 to 50 percent. we have other estimates that are much higher. and of course, the constant concern that that's virus spreads it can also start to mutate and become even more deadly. or have other means of transmission other than through badly fluids. ebola is just an example. others include avian flu. me rs, and health threats easily crisscross the planet. that's why i worked hard to strengthen, all of us on both completeeyes, to strickennening investments in public health preparedness and responsibility capabilities at home.

last year the bipartisan pandemic and all hazards preparedness reauthorization act was signed into law. that came through this committee and, of course i see senator bur r here, who led a lot of effort on that. on his side, senator alexander, senator casey, all worked very hard on this bill. it strengthens cdcs response capables and ensuring the biomedical advance research development committee has the authority it need to spout the attempt of critical dreams and vaccines. the appropriations committee has worked together for years to curtail fundings at cdc to set up a network of disease detection nevers across the globe. we now have ten, including three in africa. we need one in every country africa. it is these centers that are now

deploying trained epidemiologists and other staff to help in areas and we'll have more discussion on that when we get to our witnesses with the cdc. i hope and expect that in the ex-day for two the senate will vote in favor of the $88 million we are trying to secure. this is a crucial investment that will enable 100cdc scientists to continue working inest africa. it will keep the zmap and vaccine candidates moving quickly through clinical trial us but it's just a first step. i hate to say this but ebola will not be conquered in at the ten weeks of the continuing resolution. when we come back to negotiate the fiscal year 2015 appropriations bill the fight to contain ebola must continue be an urgent priority. the subcommittee passed a senate labor hhs bill that includes a

new $40 million global health security initiative. you must carefully consider the size and goals of this initiative in light of the ebola outbreak, while maintaining our commitment to cdr staff in the field. as this crisis illustrates, we must stop chases diseases after the fact. and start building public health systems around the globe, capable of detecting and stopping diseases before they cross borders. last year, with the help of senator mr.an, we were able to start a new global initiative called the national public health institute to do just that. this program needs to be expanded, in light of this epidemic. with these big challenges ahead of us, today's hearing is absolutely critical. we have a distinguished group here to educate us and advise us. ask i will now turn to senator alexander and senator moran.

before before that i request the record be kept open for ten days. i recognize senator alex anywhere. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thanks the birdie coming here today. we must take the dangerous deadly threat of ebola as seriously as we take isis. let me say that again. we must take the dangerous, deadly threat of the ebola epidemic as seriously as we take isis. i think i have a reputation as a senator who is not given to overstatement. the spread of this disease deserves a more urgent response from our country other countries around the world than it's now getting. this is one over most explosive, deadly epidemics in modern time if we do not do what we know how to do to control it. it will require a huge and immediate response. there's no known cure. there's no vaccine. half of those who get sick, die.

each sick person, accord together center for diseases control could infect 20 or more others, including caregivers, friends and family. samantha powers, the u.n. ambassador, said to me earlier this week, she is trying to get other countries to view this with the same urgency that we do. this is an instance she said when we should be running toward the burning flames with our fireproof suits on. ...

>> >> a doctor who has contracted ebola and has recovered and is here to talk about it. it is the like of flu italy spread by bodily fluids of did through burial practices are carrying for someone who was sick but only one airplane ride away from a person exposed to ebola getting on the plane in the united states than once they arrive. but human tragedy in africa

it affects the united states and dr. brantly will testify as the ebola patient and is graduates from the university in like many americans go on a mission trips around the world to help people. level support the administration request that senator hart did talk about with biomedical research advance treatment and there is a request to address $500 million of reprogramming so why should our military be involved? they have to. there is no way for doctors and nurses and health care workers to do it. i am pleased double sides of the aisle to recognize the

severity of this epidemic. and to learn about the severity and what we must do control it. i will endorse started. we must take that deadly and dangerous threats as seriously as we take isis. >> senator thank you i appreciate your leadership from the senator of tennessee it is interesting to see what is taking place in africa but we have the ability to make a significant difference in the outcome of what is occurring. sometimes we don't know what to do and while i realize we have not discover of skiers

and treatments we do well will save people's lives and the spread of ebola around the globe so the encouraging fein is from the united states senate. and so i appreciate the leadership today we need to declare war on ebola it is real but something with that campaign we have the ability to change people's lives did diminish the number of people that is effective the future it is a global response to provide necessary of leadership that the war was one. thank you chairman. >> we have a distinguished panel and now we will move ahead with the statements.

first director of the national center for the emerging e factious diseases that cdc. dr. bell is responsible for the efforts to respond to a of a broad range of emerging and established threats and to help lead the response to the ebola outbreak in west africa. serving in multiple leadership roles including during the response of the 2001 anthrax attacks and h1n1 influenza epidemic. dr. brantly deposition held since the team 84 providing outstanding leadership. receiving a portfolio of applied research to improve our understanding of infectious diseases to apply this knowledge with

prevention and treatment they and strategy. serving as one of the key advisers to the white house and d.h. us on the initiative to you pollster prepared this is against the emerging infectious disease threats. i will extend the committees will come to a director of the biomedical advanced research authority and about office of the assistant secretary preparedness' response that vhs. dr. robinson is responsible for france development and acquisition of innovative medical countermeasures including vaccines and diagnostic tools to protect against man-made and naturally occurring health threats. played a key will to ensure the ongoing research and development of experimental ebola treatments. i would just ask consent all statements be made a part of

the record and dr. bell give us a summary for the we will have a lot of questions so i just set up we would appreciate it. >> good afternoon chairman market. ranking members and members of that committee. i a director of the national center for infectious diseases at the cdc and i appreciate the opportunity to be here today to discuss the current epidemic of ebola in west africa that shows of a tragic way that need to strengthen global health security and i have been asked to send sincere regrets to the doctor to not be here in person but also your continuing support to will be able us to build this sustain a capacity to respond to health threats like ebola. this epidemic is ferocious

and spreading exponentially. the first is recognized and west africa of the biggest and most complex ever documented as of last week it surpassed 4400 pripet cases including 2300 documented deaths although we believe there is considerable under reporting and expect the actual numbers would be two or three times higher. we have now seen cases imported into nigeria and senegal and other countries are at risk as the outbreak grows there is the urgent need to help border countries to help prepare for cases now in st. the detection of response capabilities and africa. this includes the collapse

of the underlying health care system with the inability to treat malaria has led as non healthful impacts such as economic instability. these are intensifying and not only signally growing humanitarian crisis but also impact on the ability to respond to the ebola epidemic itself. there is a window of opportunity to control the spread of this disease but it is closing. if we do not act now we could be dealing with it for years to come affecting larger areas of africa is currently an epidemic the worst outbreak in history, but we have tools to stop it and accelerated global the spots is urgently needed. it is important to note we do not view ebola as a

significant public health threat to the united states the best way to protect the u.s. is stop the outbreak in west africa but is possible that infected traveler could derided the u.s. and if it occurs your confident our public health systems can prevent any outbreak here to recognize the authorities in investments provided by your committee have put us in this strong position. many challenges remain since there is no fair pure vaccine shown to be saved and effective. we need to strengthen the global response which requires close collaboration with the who and additional assistance from international partners and a strong and coordinated government response. cdc has over 100 staff currently and hundreds of additional staff are supporting the effort in atlanta. we will continue to work

with our partners elsewhere to focus on the five pillars of response. establishing effect the emergency operation centers. rapidly ramping up isolation facilities. helping to promote safe burial practices. strengthening infection control and other elements of the health care system and improving communication of the disease and how we can be contained. controlling the outbreak will be costly requiring sustained effort by the u.s. and world community. with hhs the administration recent proposed congress provide $30 million for a response during that continuing resolution period a and counter measures in the president indicated a logistics' and capabilities of the military would be engaged and we work across

united states government to assess the full range of resources to change the trajectory of the epidemic. working with our partners we have been able to stop every outbreak and we're determined about this one. it will take meticulous work and we cannot take shortcuts. as cdc director has noted fighting ebola is like a fire if you leave behind one case and the epidemic could reignite. this tragedy highlights the need for stronger public health systems around the world and there is a worldwide agreement on the importance of global health security but the ebola epidemic demonstrates there are much more to be done and legal liability could have widespread impact if not stopped at the source. as you are aware that fyi 15

president budget includes an increase of $45 million to strengthen the fundamental health around the globe. if there currently battling to leaven their early outbreak would not have grown to what we are facing today. stopping the outbreak where they occur is the most effective and least expensive way to protect people's health. i and many of you have traveled to africa to see our work and we come away with an appreciation of the challenges that people face. these may be or not more evident than the current epidemic each day i was impersonal, the - - contact with people in the field to have a desired need to put real faces on the tragedy that cannot simply be reduced to numbers or fax

but these also reinforce the role that cdc and partners play with the intensified global focus to make a difference. think you for the opportunity to appear before you to make cdc were, the epidemic and the health threats possible. >> thank you very much mr. chairman ranking members and members of the committee i appreciate the opportunity to speak to you about the role of the national institute of infectious diseases and research addressing the ebola virus disease. i have some handouts with the visuals. the involvement of nih and ebola dates back to the tragic events of 9/11 2001

followed closely by those anthrax the tax through the mail to the senators as well as members of the press because this led to a broad smaltite agency in denver of by a defense against threats not only deliver it but unexpected naturally each emerging threats. as you can see on the right-hand side there was a research agenda of category agents they are listed there and anthrax, botulism, and on the bottom you can see as a category called those fever viruses which are ebola. the reason why they were so

important and deadly and in need of counter measures is as you named in those introductory remarks they have a high degree of lethality. unfortunately this mostly supportive without specific anti-viral drugs directed against the microbes in question and as we know, a a vaccine for any is not available at present. the tea levin fibrous given the name of the appearance one has when they look at it , the countermeasure research and development program is ongoing and has been but before i even mentioned that underscore something that dr. bell said. right now today the best way

to contain this epidemic is by intensifying intensive control capability to isolate and identify and protect the health care workers with personal equipment. but to be prepared we need countermeasures. what we do is basic clinical research but provide the resources to get to that end game that is better diagnostic and therapeutic and vaccine. that product development pipeline for developing that concept tooling preclinical studies which i will

mention. we partner with our colleagues who are involved in the advanced development to hand the baton over to industry for commercial manufacturing with the ultimate regulation and approval by the u.s. fda among other agencies if you will hear from dr. robin since shortly. let me have those promising therapeutics. you have heard of a combination of artificial the produced anti-buddies against ebola virus and has been shown to be promising in the animal model and as you will hear it was given for the first time to humans is very important to re-enter stand how well it works and if it is safe and

what it looks like it could be beneficial but we don't know that. it is our job to prove it to have their readily available. but among those interventions one of those drugs with the reproductive process then one company has a drug of the small and had it molecule but as i mentioned it as bennett ministered to seven individuals. would be at that animal model very encouraging results but this has the

potential because it could block the virus that we could capitalize on with research ahead. then the issue of vaccines. this is that effort to protect people we have been working on the ebola vaccine in the process we have improved upon. we have favorable results with those civil models using one of two candidates that is that glaxo smithkline candidate that was developed at the nih in collaboration with glaxo smithkline and looked very good with that animal steady. but the proof is in the pudding to show scientifically that it works.

on september 2nd in bethesda we started the first phase one study of this vaccine but so far 10 of 20 were vaccinated and so far no red flags. we will expand these studies to try to prove the fact we have a safe and effective vaccine. in closing of a like to reiterate as the dual mandate of nih research with infectious disease. but to have that microbiology infectious diseases but also that mandate to respond rapidly and efficiently with those

counter measures that prevent mortality to have the citizens and clearly ebola is the most daunting of those infectious diseases and it is our aim that we do have those countermeasures to prepared to address the problem. thank you very much. >> good afternoon. think you chairman heart can and ranking members and distinguished members of the committee to speak with you today about our response everett's. i am dr. robinson and secretary of hhs. created by the pandemic of 2006 is the agency responsible for providing

advanced development and countermeasures and therapeutic drugs and diagnostics for the entire nation. exist to address the consequences of by of threats and on a routine basis responding to your emerging threats and the etf outbreak last year. today we face ebola that is up by a thread with the department of homeland security and the emerging infectious diseases. when it comes to ebola the best way to protect their country is address the current epidemic. florida works with federal court in to transition to a early development into a

finance development toward ultimate fda approval since 2006 we have built a pipeline of more than 150 measures chemical biological nuclear threats. we are having therapeutic candidates with advanced development in concert with the federal partners to have counter measures to protect -- over the past five years n.i.h. and cdc we have bill of flexible and rapid response superstructure to develop and manufacture counter measures. as a result of the preparedness it has been

afforded to federal industry partners. to design and develop and manufacture with those in record time we're working with the of a wider array of canada and u.k. and western africa and the country's navigates foundation and others to make these candidates. forbade established infrastructure and to assist developers of a daily basis to respond immediately but today we use in animal studies network centers for innovation to expand production and our manufacturing network to put the vaccines into files. the computer models of the

consequences of man made threats is coordinating international efforts of the current ebola epidemic of medical or not medical intervention. lastly large-scale production of the public health emergencies so that containment outbreak of 2013 to day the therapeutic manufacturers that specifically support the development of the antibody therapy for clinical studies for one manufacturer. and with those other refractors to seek other candidates to expand the production and additionally working with nih and partners to scale of

manufacturing of to promising candidates for a clinical studies. fyi 2015 appropriations are needed now to fund investment with a counter measures. the challenges of the coming weeks and months with the manufacturing of these countermeasures' but bottom line to use the collective capabilities to address today's epidemic to be better prepared for future outbreaks or biotech's -- by a terrorism going forward with thank you for your support and the opportunity to testify and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you dr. robinson and for your statements. i will try to it here we

also have dr. brantly who is a survivor also a worker of the ground in western africa so we would like to get to that panel this afternoon. i will start first. dr. bell comedies disease outbreak seem to be coming more common because the proximity of humans and animals can travel is common. what happens in west africa i believe is the failure of the public health system or the nonexistence of one. years ago traveling with dr. friedman it occurred to me they need the cdc or entity that is culturally sensitive to involve people of that country to detect the news early to do the work to isolate and control

to be connected with ours as well so we can work together. last year the senator and i put money into the appropriations bill ted million dollars or something like that to start expanding can you speak to this? how important is it for them to create their own version of the cdc so they could be dealt with - - controlled from the beginning? >> thank you. you make some very important points there are fundamental capabilities that we at the cdc take for granted because they are so fundamental that absent in these countries like basic laboratory capacity rapid response teams, and understanding of what it takes an emergency

operations to understand the structure to identify control the outbreak. telecommunication systems and this is what we agree that every country these days of that is what the agenda is about. one example from another country in africa, we're in the midst of the extremely challenging and outbreak but the cdc has been investigating and stopping that outbreak for a longtime. one of those countries is uganda. some of the largest ones we thought was a lot it over the last decade working with

uganda and the ministry of health to build capacity that now have a laboratory that allows them to do their own testing to detect ebola and other fevers and transportation networks that allows them to move specimens around the country to get to the laboratory and rapid response teams and consequently what we have seen in you got that is more outbreaks and they are much smaller to the point where one year ago there was an outbreak of ebola that vault one person and they could stop after one person and they are small close -- clusters stopped quickly. this is building the capacity that is a benefit to the country solve the fundamental health problems

that they have. this is an example that these to be built into every country. >> i hope the congress that follows will take this up. we have spent lots of taxpayer dollars to shore up military operations around the globe so people could defend themselves. but yet we have spent inadequate just like we expect our cdc to do everything. it can do of what but we need falco stealth there where people can defend themselves from that rapid transmission so thank you very much.

i hope the next few years the cdc could be replicated in countries around the globe. >> dr. bell, you and the other witnesses carefully explained we know what to do about ebola to demonstrate it can be controlled. but talking with you and dr. friedman i can tell you feel this epidemic or outbreak is a very serious problem that we ought to do jump all over. you said of moments ago a few hundred cases would be a big outbreak but today the official report says you have identified a little less than 5,000. but it might be higher? what if that is under

reporting? >> quite likely. >> it is also a true those cases and they were reported the last three weeks? >> more or less. >> of the number was 10 or 15,000 instead of 5,000 perhaps half of those would have been reported? >> quite possibly. >> the danger is the rapid infection. why is it that spreads more rapidly? but why such a grim outlook about this epidemic? why is it the most dangerous epidemic of modern times? >> thank you. but ebola is not easily transmitted it is not to the

air and requires a direct contact with bodily fluids of dead bodies. but what we see in this outbreak because of right now is sufficient capacity to icily patients with ebola greasy then trades of transmission in you can imagine as the cases grow the number of contacts for each case continue to propagate that is how those cases grow and continue to grow faster as the number of cases increase it is that matter of arithmetic pretty me to the point what is the critical issue right now especially in liberia? we must come up with ways to effectively isolate and

treat ebola patients. >> peppers to have to chase down every infectious person? >> right now in liberia you could have patients so we must do meticulous contact to isolate and check the temperature every 21 days bad right now especially in liberia the problem is we don't have measures to isolate case is that we do identify that is the limiting factor. >> so those cases appear or double every three weeks and have those infected die? >> it appears that is the mortality rate right now.

>> dr. bell you don't catch ebola by breathing on someone but it is bodily fluids usually when someone is infected or dead? in those are most of those infections bayou reported to say it is not likely it will change how it is transmitted which produces an even more serious set of possibilities. are you tracking the virus as it affects more and more people to see if this is mutating so we're not deceived? >> that is an important question that i will tell you what we're doing.

right now that ebola virus is not transmitted through respiratory tracts there is us discussion since it replicates a lot the greater the up possibility of it mutating. most mutations are irrelevant not associated with the biological change or function. said even though you see a lot of nutation it is unlikely there will be a change but there is a possibility usually if you have a change of function it to be more or less virulent or spread the way usually is are less efficient in is the unusual situation were of mutation would change the way it is transmitted not

possible that unlikely so we follow it carefully and to it a direct answer we have an arrangement with one of the best microbial sequencing groups in the world in boston getting samples looking at the evolution of the mutation in to make sure that they are not occurring that would have an important impact on the biological function. i want to make sure that people understand that changing the transmission rate is something that could be frightening and want to make sure people under state and that we watched that carefully but it is not impossible but of likely.

what is likely if we don't do what we're doing now of the major ramping up of infection control capabilities including getting the military heavily involved it is very likely if we don't stop this epidemic it will just get worse and worse that is why we concentrate kiddie get under control to not give it that opportunity to mutate of virus that does not replicate cannot mutate if we put the lid on it then that is it. >> so now in order of appearance senator warren isaacson casey johann's and

those man and empire and senator durbin. >> dr. bell 84 the visit to atlanta of few days back and visit this week i had expressed at that time to express gratitude for the efforts of the people that work at cdc to contain and change the lives we are very grateful for what you have undertaken. let me ask that question first, it was just indicated about the potential response of the of military. is something you can say to the american people to ensure military men and women are safe and secure from ebola with the new

tasks they are being asked to undertake? >> the key for those kind words. we already have more than 100 people in the field the question thus it safety and security of our own staff or any staff or members of the u.s. government the safety and security is our number one priority as we have been paying a lot of attention to this issue to make sure the us staff understands what the situation is like on the ground before they go to understand clearly what are the intervention is that they need to take the they have the right equipment to understand basic strategies to distancing to know what to look for if they start to

feel ill. that is the bottom line it is a dire situation. we are concerned about safety and security and have taken a lot of steps to do what we can to minimize the risk. bin is a difficult situation i where about this with my own staff. >> i will give my a expression of gratitude to those organizations working globally with significant risk to themselves. what type of coronation education retreating to you understand has taken place with our military and the preparation for their assignment? >> at all have specific information that i will say

that this is one of the areas we have been working quite closely in training. next week we host a course in alabama that is the three day safety trading for health care workers planning to deploy a to work for the ngo in liberia or sierra leone a. and the precise purpose is to explicitly teach them about the important principles they the turgot to care for those ebola patients and we hope to have this course weekly the first

is completely full and that the trading is pivotal event to your point to make sure they can care for patients safely. >> the broader question, dr. bell. what is the best case scenario with ebola with the spread of consequences and the worst case scenario and what makes the worst case scenario not happen? >> over the coming months we can effectively isolate and treat patients and follow the contacts and do

something about those save burial practices to not have bodies in the street and people could bury the dead over a period of the coming months to interrupt transmission tuesday that increase of cases that senator alexander was talking about. worst-case scenario to see this exponential biting and the corollary is exhortation to other countries we already have that to nigeria and seven call. they do really worked extremely concerned you could imagine if we have ebola get out of control how

incredibly dangerous but it was the enormous effort to get to that situation to where it is today we do not think there is uncontrolled transmission that this involves following up on thousands of contacts working in the emergency operations center. so one exportation requires the an enormous amount of work so we can expect many more to other countries and each requires a huge amount of work and we have no guarantee we would be successful you can imagine that outbreak spreading around those borders that are affected.

>> i just have one clarification doctors said on respiratory communicable? what if somebody sneezes? >> mr. chairman there is no evidence over multiple outbreaks that respiratory spread ochers or if it does it is extraordinarily rare. never say never in biology but people in situations if that would have been noticed clearly indicate that is not the case. >> hq senator for your extraordinary service to the nation and to the world. we have a large library and - - liberian community they

are hard-working and read about their families dr. bell and dr. rowe those that participated in a conference call we were both involved to set that up. also also to salute those volunteers who have dr. flanagan in the country giving their skills courageously on behalf of the people of liberia. and the emperor are here on the status deferred departure that expires september 30th that i would hope he would do so because to send people back

would be inappropriate to. but i will last dr. dr. fauci day you have this sense how fast this could be deployed? have you reached a point to that you say it is said huge risk but it has to be done? >> excellent question. the standard way to implement a vaccine goes through a series of steps is it safe for does it or doesn't have the hypersensitivity reactions and then to find out the right dose of the right to give you a response. then you go to larger

numbers of people that is called phase to. then depending on the disease they you don't want to deploy a vaccine but it doesn't '01 that is more terrible or one that makes it worse. you have to consider that the with the emergent situation with the desire to get people protected, there are ways to get the answers. not as definitively but to employ a the people who'd be that backseat as part of the clinical trial to compare one and against another set you try to determine if it is safe or effective but at

the same time by getting people in these trials you make it available. so right now with this situation we know it is safe to have that expanded trial to get that opportunity to get vaccinated clear the that is directed to the health care workers were emergency response they put themselves at risk as is dr. brantly. >> if you prove it is safe but not effective you could inoculate those health care workers but it is not

definitive. >> so leave knowing you'll not get a definitive answer but in the of urgent situation if you have to do the best you have. >> commensurate with these trials the vaccine has to be available to make sure we can go to partial scale so the studies could be done and there is more backseat available. >> thank you for your extraordinary work and all of your colleagues. >> senator? >> the key to this panel and the next panel all those called into action over the next weeks and months but hopefully not years.

you said if we don't not now what is that for the timeline? at which point do we reach our opportunity? >> i wish i have a crystal ball to tell you that answer but the situation is fluid it is hard to predict with any type of precision. i can say speed and scale is of the essence. >> is controlling the outbreak of us save you use that the same way as containment? >> yes, sir. >> had you achieve containment on the disease that is already broken and containment? >> is the matter as bending a kurd in one direction everyone to make it go in another direction of the week at two -- we have to

break that trade of transmission to isolate patients so they cannot transmit and with health care facilities. >> taking liberia as an example we search through dod that capacity in the country that is the road now my math is not great but my maths as we are behind the eightball on to a number one because of that but said today is or individuals ride with their families then ride home so how long can that virus survive and in

fact, somebody? >> there have not been definitive studies. it is not a durable virus is fragile but people get infected by touching those dots -- dead bodies. it is did the time frame of the funeral because that isn't people are documented i don't think we could go beyond giving you days or weeks but clearly is not instantaneous once the virus is out of the body is gone because real people have been affected at funerals by touching the the bodies be back we have seen generations of transmission by how many have we seen so far and how many have fleecy

the chain of transmission in? >> i cannot give you a number of that but if you have the virus it notoriously is the bad reproduce or in makes mistakes and the tapes most don't read anything it is just irrelevant. sometimes that means it kills the virus may be it has modified its functions i cannot tell you how many generations but that could mathematically be figured out of the paper that kim had a couple weeks ago over 78 people the virus was taken from them you could say how they replications

and you could determine that. >> if you could get that to us. but in recent-- isis modeling says we could see 20,000 cases per month the outbreak of last as long as 18 months that would be 360,000 cases. i think we continue to be a step behind that one -- what projected number is the response strategy based to date with those actions announced today? >> there has been a number of models out there and it is certainly true a number of these models predict without additional interventions we could see hundreds of thousands of

cases. so all of those mottling exercises have been taken into account as we call for additional intervention that the critical point is those models are based on not scaling up and in addition to what it is doing there are many other international partners that are also scaling up like the did you rachel and other countries some of the colleagues that will testify in the next panel so the financing that has become available from the world bank. the lead is involved so it

is fair to say there are forces and what they predict is not what we will see. >> i follow that closely and i know the mobilization of most other countries is not the time frame hours is why it scares me to death. let me to say to you have the resources you need?

the, a it's important to mention one of the reason is fought to hard to role back sequestration in the >> to provide -- which have had to deal with this steep and harmful budget cuts. i believe it's goingo