government would decide how much you get and how much you spend ant what you can spend it on and there we would be. he wants to target labor unions simply demonstrates his view that it's not about the rich people. it's about people of average means, pooling their resources. that's what labor unions of all organizations, that's what labor unions do. they are members pooling their resources and participating. so he thinks that a bunch of people who are very modest in means because they pool -- they have the audacity to pool their resources and participate in our system are an evil force that needs to be suppressed. as to the rich generally, you know, i think it's fine if they participate in our political system. i don't want them to be the only ones that get to participate. that's why we need participation

of labor unions and associations and corporations and advocacy groups in our system. on the political affect of this, which he seems to be somewhat interested in anyway, what i have found is that there's more liberal democrat rich people than there are conservatives. frankly, i admit to being a republican and a conservative. while some liberal interests seem to think that they stand in the way of getting their liberal agenda, they find out differently when they go to hollywood and raise the enormous sums that they do from the richest people in our country. but look, there's rich people on both sides. this is not about partisan politics or punishing those people you don't like or suppressing those you are fearful, speak out in opposition to your favorite policy. but about the ability of all of

us to have outlets of participation in our political system that are not closed by partisan efforts by government agencies to suppress our speech. >> i don't know if either of you want a minute to sum up. mr. bopp, it sounds like that was a summation. you can have another minute. >> i can always say something else. >> i'm sure you can. as most lawyer's prerogative, they like to talk. mr. bonifaz, anything to say in summation? >> yes. as i make a summation, i would just say that there are many unions that support this constitutional amendment because they recognize that they cannot compete with exxon and mobile and chevron in the political process. they need to have an equal playing field. as far as where we are going with this overall movement, dr. king said the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice. when we look at what happened in

the poll tax case before the supreme court, we have to remember that was in 1966. earlier before that, there was a case brought in 1937, a group of poor voters challenged the poll tax, a fee charged to voters to vote. they got to the supreme court. they lost. the supreme court said it was necessary to charge these fees in order to faerret out the frivolous voter. if you were a true voter, you could come up with the $1 to vote. 1951 a second group challenged the poll tax. they got to the supreme court. they, too, lost on the same grounds. then on the way to harper versus virginia board of election, the 24th amendment to the constitution was enacted barring poll taxes in federal elections.

but th but there remained four southern states that held on to the tax. virginia was one of them. in 1966 the supreme court finally got it right and the court said what qualifies as equal protection under the equal protection clause does change and does evolve. dr. king is correct. the right side of history is one that says that democracy will prevail not big money interests, big union interests, big corporate interests drowning out our speech and undermining the fundamental promise of political equality for all. >> thank you. when we were designing the time limits here, i thought how could we give a lawyer one minute for anything. we're trying. mr. bopp? your closing thoughts on this topic? >> you know, the example that john just gave demonstrates the fallacy in his argument. the government set the poll tax and the government then imposed

the burden on people participating. government doesn't determine the price of ads. the government hasn't decided that ads are going to cost something. it's the marketplace. it's the private -- it's reality, one. and it's private people doing that. you know, are you going to get the lumberjack to work for free to cut down the tree in order to make the news print so that you can do this for free? you know. it's not about the government imposing a barrier. it's about the government providing for freedom and preventing the government from imposing a barrier which is the suppression of speech by criminal penalties that john has supposed and continues to support. secondly, as to exxon mobile and chevron, to my knowledge they haven't done a thing after

citizens united. matter of fact, very few private companies for profit companies had -- labor unions do but not private companies because of the market forces. they don't want to get in the controversy. they didn't want to lose customers. what we have seen though is advocacy groups of all stripes participating and having new avenues of participation since citizens united. the final thing is, you know, we have reached the tipping point as far as contribution limits are concerned. we have had 13 states, including florida, raise their contribution limits. the reason is quite simple. finally the forces of the reality is sinking in on incumbent politicians that by limiting contributions to them they're not preventing challengers from getting the resources, they are hurting themselv

themselves. that's a good thing. contribution limits should be radically increased. and if we had that, we would have a more transparent and accountable system. >> thank you. this is an illuminating debate. [ applause ] we are live at the white house briefing room waiting for press secretary josh earnest to conduct today's briefing. he will talk to reporters shortly. live coverage here on c-span3.

>> good afternoon, everybody. nice to see you all. apologize for the delayed start today. jim, do you want to get us started with questions? >> sure. thank you. congrats on the work. >> we're excited. i think the columnist at kansas city star said it best that for a long time we spent most of the year talking about how the royals have been to the playoffs. it's true that the royals haven't lost a playoff game in 29 years. well said. anyway. >> you can fill us in on what the president has been doing today or will be doing today regarding ebola? it seems you canceled -- he has been talking about not wanting to create a panic.

yet for the second day in a row he canceled other activities. i wonder if that doesn't by itself kind of contribute to that sense that something is really amiss. >> i do think -- what it contributes to is the sense of urgency that the president and members of his administration feel about dealing with the situation. you will recall that yesterday the president did convene a meeting with members of his cabinet and other members of his senior staff who were responsible for the response to this particular ebola diagnosis. and to the broader ebola outbreak that has occurred in west africa. today the president will meet with some members of that team here at the white house to continue these discussions and to follow up on some of the actions that the president directed out of that meeting. to be clear what the president directed out of that meeting is a commitment on the part of the federal government to ensure that we're doing everything necessary to detect, isolate and treat ebola patients when they

materialize at healthcare facilities in this country and that we do that in a way that protects healthcare workers and the broader american public. that is a core priority. at the same time the president wants to ensure that those effort dozen not distract from the important work being done in west africa. we have been -- our experts tell us that the only way to completely eliminate risk from the ebola virus to the american public is to stop this outbreak at its source. that's why cdc officials have been on the ground in west africa for seven months now dealing with this specific ebola outbreak. it's why last month, the president announced a significant commitment of resources from the department of defense to lend their expertise to improve the flow of personnel and supplies that are being used to mitigate the outbreak in the region. that was the topic of discussion in yesterday's meeting. i'm confident it will be the

topic of discussion in the follow upme meeting. the president will also convenience a series of phone calls. he will call a number of members of congress to talk about the ongoing response efforts and discuss a role for congress to play in that ongoing effort. he will also convene a call with healthcare workers from the cdc to talk about that agency's response to this situation. the president will also make a couple of additional calls to foreign leaders. you will recall that over the last 24 hours the president has placed a call to prime minister abe of japan and convened a secure video teleconference with the prime minister of the u.k., the president of france, the prime minister of italy and i believe the german chancellor as well. in those conversations, the president reiterated the need for leaders in the international community to step forward with contributions to the effort to

stem the outbreak in west africa. the president will be placing a couple more calls along those lines to different world leaders to discuss the same issue. i do anticipate that we will have readouts of those calls later today. >> reports on that response to the logistical support reports that the president might sign an executive order directing the national guard to be deployed in liberia. can you elaborate on that. >> i'm not in a position to elaborate on that. will point out the department of defense has indicated that to carry out of mission that the president has ordered in west africa, we will require about 4,000 or up to 4,000 department of defense personnel in west africa. so in terms of the composition of that force, i would refer you to the department of defense. i would anticipate they will be

able to share more details with you about the composition of that force in the next day or two. >> would that require presidential executive order? >> for the mechanics of deploying that force, i would refer you to the department of defense. i am not sure if a specific presidential executive order is required to do that. it may be. the department of defense will know for sure. >> as you pointed out, the president has been drawing attention to the outbreak in west africa and how serious it is there. i'm wondering whether because of that and in response to some comments from members of congress is the administration reconsidering the idea of a temporary travel ban from the afflicted region? >> at this point, jim, that's not something we're considering. this is something that's been raised a couple of times. let me give you more insight into the thinking about that.

currently, when individuals do travel from west africa to the united states, they are screened prior to departure in west africa. they are screened again once they enter this country. and they are suggested to heightened screening if they have traveled in these three west african countries in the last three weeks or so. that is an indication that we are taking the necessary steps to protect the american public. that is our core priority. that is why the president has directed that these heightened screening measures be put in place at the airports where 94% of travellers from western africa are arrive in this country. now, if we were to put in place a travel ban or a visa ban, it would provide a direct incentive for individuals seeking to travel to the united states to go underground and to seek to evade this screening and to not be candid about their travel history in order to enter the country.

that means it would be much harder for us to keep tabs on these individuals and make sure they get the screening that's needed to protect them and to protect more importantly the american public. we want to keep those lines of transportation open so that those individuals who seek to enter this country -- again, it's a relatively small number. about 150 a day that enter this country. we want to make sure those individuals are subjected to the heightened screening measures. separately -- i mentioned this before -- it's also important for us to keep this line of transportation open because commercial transportation is critical to ensuring that supplies and equipment can get to the region. what that means, if we acknowledge that what the experts tell us that the only way we can completely eliminate risk of the ebola virus to the

american public is stopping the outbreak at its source, we need to make sure that we're surging supplies and equipment and personnel to the region. not putting in place a travel b ban that would restrict that. >> nobody is talking about banning going into -- it's coming out of the region that's the issue. >> right. but if -- essentially, if you are a commercial air carrier -- i know nothing about that. commercial airline industry. you are not going to fly planes to west africa and then fly them out of there while they're empty. as a practical matter, putting in place that travel ban would make it harder for the international community to respond to this incident and to mobilize the personnel and equipment that's necessary to stop this outbreak at the source. again, the reason we're focused on stopping this at the source is not just because it is the humanitarian thing to do.

it's also the right thing do to protect the american people. okay? jeff? >> josh, with schools being closed in some states because of this, is there a concern at the white house that people are overreacting to the threat of ebola? would you concede that the white house's efforts to avoid a panic are not working? >> well, jeff, what i would say in terms of the steps that individuals are taking to protect themselves and their communities, i would encourage them to be cognizant of the medical advice of etch periods. what the experts tell us is that the likelihood of an ebola outbreak in the united states is exceedingly low. the reason -- a couple of reasons. the firwe know how the ebol is transmitted. it's not transmitted through the air. it's not like the flu. it's not transmitted through water that you might drink in the united states or food that you might eat in the united states. it's only transmitted when

individuals come into close contact with the bodily fluids of an individual that is exhibiting symptoms of ebola. that is why tragically we have seen a couple of healthcare workers who were trying to meet the medical needs of an ebola patient in dallas who obviously did have to come in close contact with that individual and tragically they did contract the ebola virus. but the risk that they faced was obviously very different than the risk that the average american faces. that's the first thing. the second thing is people should be confident in the ability of our medical infrastructure to deal with ebola cases as they arise. as i mentioned at the beginning of this briefing, the president did direct his team to ensure that we're doing all that's necessary to detect, isolate and treat ebola patient in the united states. and that we do that in a way that protects healthcare workers

and the american public. i would point out there are already a number of cases of ebola patients that have been treated in the united states. there were a couple of -- a total of four or five humanitarian aid workers who did contract the ebola virus while treating ebola patients in west africa who were transported to medical facilities in the united states at emory university hospital in atlanta and at a medical facility at the nebraska medical center. these facilities demonstrated an ability to treat those patients. some of the patients who received treatment there have recovered and been released. the president had the opportunity to meet a couple of them. the patients were treated in a way that protected the public in those communities and protected the het the healthcare workers. so we have a track record of being able to handle cases like this. that should inspire confidence across the american pub lib as well.

>> do you think people are overreacting closing schools? >> again, i would encourage those individuals who are responsible for making decisions about protecting their communities to rely on the medical advice from experts about the prudent steps that they can and should take to protect the communities. >> has the white house been monitoring the stock market drop? do you think ebola is helping to spur that? >> jeff, i can tell you there are a lot of things monitored at the whies houshte house, includ financial markets. i'm not in a position to play market analyst today. i recognize that there are other people who have appointed them service as individuals who have keen insight into the kinds of things driving the market. that's not something i'm going to speculate on from here. >> are you concerned about the market drops in the world? >> we have talked -- i'm not in a position it talk about specific markets. i think that there are indications that broader economies in countries around

the world, including economies that are closely linked to the united states, have seen some weakening in recent months. that's something we are concerned about. at the same time it under scores the strength of the american economy that even in the face of some decline that we're seeing in other markets, or in other economies, the u.s. economy is -- continues to gain strength. and that is true based on almost any measure, whether it's the job market, whether it's an evaluation of economic growth, even consumer confidence indicates that the u.s. economy is demonstrating resilience that is the envy of the world. that goes to american workers who through their grit and determination have helped this economy recover from the worst economic downturn since the great depression. certainly, our entrepreneurs, small businessowners deserve a

lot of credit for what they have done to drive our economy forward. >> do the other economies -- >> what's important is that people understand that the difficult decisions and the policies that this administration put in place in the depths of that economic crisis have also supported this broader recovery. a lot of those policies were the subject of quite a bit of controversy and criticism from the president's political opponents. the fact of the matter is, what the approach that this president implemented for this country has served the country and our citizens extremely well, particularly when you consider how that stands in contrast to the policies that were put in place in other countries and the results that were experienced by other countries. in terms of our outreach, the president has been in touch with leaders of other countries quite a bit in the last few weeks. he will continue to be. i would anticipate that these kinds of conversations will be taking place in the context. g-20 meeting in which the president will participate next

month. jennifer? >> you mentioned that the president will be reaching out to members of congress today. who is he going to be calling? what is he going to ask them to do? you said members of congress have a role they can play. what is that role? >> jennifer, at this point -- i done believe the president has placed the calls. he is planning to do so late they are afternoon. if we have more information about those calls that we can release at that point, we will let you know. >> what is the white house seek congress's role as? >> congress controls the purse strings. it's important for us to make sure that members of congress who have an interest in this issue and have an interest in the kinds of policies that will contribute to this response are aware of the strategy that we're pursuing and are on board with it. we certainly want to give those members of congress an opportunity to offer up their advice if they have some suggestions for policies that

might benefit this response, then we're going to consider those as well. again, i don't want to get too far ahead out of the conversations that haven't occurred yet. if there's more information, i will let you know. >> thank you. have there been conversations about designating particular hospitals that are the place for ebola patients or people who are experiencing ebola symptoms to go to? does the white house think that might make sense? >> well, i will say a couple of things about that. a designation like that would be the responsibility of the cdc. they are the point of contact for hospitals across the country. right now -- what you have seen in the last couple of days is that the patients in dallas have been transferred to those facilities, one in emory that has a track record of treating ebola patients. another patient was transferred today to nih. that is a facility run by

federal government and a facility that treated a patient that was suspected of being exposed to the ebola virus. so this is a question that cdc iss is examining right now. in terms of a broader policy decision like that, i would refer you to the cdc. >> does the white house have a view on it on the preparedness of american hospitals for a possible outbreak? >> well, we continue to believe that the risk of a widespread outbreak in the united states is exceedingly low. that said, the cdc has taken seriously their responsibility at the direction of the president of the united states to communicate in a detailed fashion with hospitals all across the country about what precautions and what measures they should put in place in advance in the unlikely event just base on the odds that they

have to care for an ebola patient. again, what we want to make sure that we're doing -- this is at the direction of the president of the united states, that all of the elements of his government are focused on detecting, isolating and treating ebola patients. in a way that protects healthcare workers and the american public. there are a variety of ways that can be done. what the cdc is focusing on is the best possible advice about protocols are being communicated to medical professionals across the country. welcome to the briefing room. >> at the house hearing under way right now, the subcommittee chairman, mr. murphy from pennsylvania, he said the reason the travel ban has not been put in place is because the administration wants to protect fledgling democracies. is that the reason? >> it's not. the reason that the travel ban in the view of this administration is not appropriate right now is because it's not in the best interest of

the safety of the american public. people who are traveling from those countries to the united states right now are subjected to screening both on ground in the three countries, but also upon arrival here in the united states of america. if we were to put in place a travel ban, it would drive those individuals underground. it would make it easier to evade detection of the they wouldn't be screened before they left. it would be harder to ensure that they were being screened when they arrived in this country. >> how would it drive them underground if they were flying across the ocean? >> i don't mean literally. they would be below the radar of the transportation system. they would have an incentive to be less than candid about their travel history. if knowing they could not travel to the united states by saying they had been in liberia, individuals are much less likely if they are planning to travel to the united states to disclose the fact they have been in liberia. right now -- they're subjected to screening measures on the

ground in liberia and here in the united states of america. those screening measures are critical to the safety of the american public and we want to make sure that individuals who are travel together united states are monitored as they make their way through the system and screened appropriately. >> can't you understand the question about this that americans may have? this summer, a brief travel ban was put into place flying into airplanes in the middle east on the fear of an air strike. this is an actual case of ebola. can't you understand the questions that americans have about this? >> i can understand the questions. it's why it's important for people to have the facts. it's important for people to understand how ebola is trans t transmitted and how it's not. it's only transmitted when an individual comes into close contact with the bodily fluids with an individual that has ebola. what people need to have the facts about is the facts -- that there are screening measures in place to ensure that individuals who are traveling from west

africa don't currently exhibit symptoms of ebola when they try to enter the country. that's harder for us to do if we put in place a travel ban. people will attempt to circumvent that and it will make it harder to get the screening necessary. >> from the very beginning of this administration, the president has always said he can be president from any placement he has the equipment to do this job any place. why cancel for a second day in a row? >> jeff, what we are focused on is evaluating the cases on a case by case basis. there has been governmental business where the president decided to move forward with his travel because he felt like he could perform his responsibilities to deal with that emerging situation while at the say the time dealing with the situation -- with the things on his schedule. today, the president and his team made the judgement that it was necessary for him to not travel so that he could remain

here the athe whiat the white h focus on ensuring that we have the government response to this situation that's up to the standards that he has set for his administration, that he believes the american people deserve. jim? >> it seems what you are concerned about is an outbreak of fear in this country. would it not go a long way to have the president address the nation in a prime time address to go through some of these common sense misconceptions that people have about ebola, to put some of these fears to rest? >> that's not something we're considering right now. jim, i think this is a place where the american public are depending on faithful public servants like yourself who communicate with them on a daily basis, when they see your face on cnn with the logo there they can count on the fact that they are getting accurate information about the world. accurate information about the threats facing them and their families and communities. that's why -- >> i appreciate that.

>> i spend a lot of time trying to make sure you understand. if they can turn on their television and hear from you that they are not going to catch ebola through the air, by drinking water in the united states or eating food in the united states, that will help reassure people. again, the anxiety people feel is understandable. we are talking about a deadly disease that is rewreaking havo in west africa. because of the medical inf infrastructure here, people can take solace in understanding the risk of an ebola outbreak is in the united states is low. >> let me ask you about the second patient who is able to get on the plane. apparently, she contacted the cdc and was not told to not get on that plane. i assume you are aware of that. what's the administration's

reaction to that? is that another misstep? >> the reaction is something that the director of the cdc said, which is that that should not have occurred. he rightfully accepted the cdc's responsibility for that error. i guess it would be an opportunity for me to reiterate that while that should not have occurred, the risk that -- risk to other passengers we believe is quite low. according to those who were on the plane, this particular healthcare worker is someone who was not exhibiting symptoms of ebola. again, the only way that ebola is transmitted is through the close contact with the bodily fluids of an individual that does have the symptoms of ebola. we are -- we have been in touch or attempting to be in touch with all the passengers on that plane to help them understand the risk that they face. it's important for everybody to understand that the risk is quite low.

>> you mentioned the importance of getting the message correct and getting the information correct. it's also important to get the response correct. >> absolutely. >> a congressman running for the senate in iowa said at that hearing that he is greatly concerned that the administration did not act fast enough in responding in texas. that's a senate candidate who is in a tight race with the balance of power in the senate on the line saying that your administration did not act fast enough. fair criticism? >> he is somebody that has a reputation for being willing to speak truth to power whether in the same party as him or not. it's another indication he is willing to do that. i think dr. frieden acknowledged there have been shortcoming in the federal government's response to the situation. i acknowledged that in the briefing as well. >> you say dr. frieden has acknowledged. >> i say that because he said that. >> does the white house

acknowledge his response? >> i did that yesterday. it continues to be true today. what i would encourage people to do is to continue to evaluate the response by looking at what the administration has done to respond to those -- to the shortcomings that the president talked yesterday about the centers for disease control standing up a s.w.a.t. team of experts that can quickly respond to -- respond to hospitals that have diagnosed an ebola patient, that these experts can be on the ground within 24 hours to be there with the healthcare workers at the hospital to make sure that the patient is getting the kind offed ed mmedical ass they need while the health and safety of the healthcare workers is protected. that's a reaction to the shortcoming that dr. frieden has acknowledged in this response. what you have seen from the cdc is improved guidance to the healthcare workers at the

facility in dallas about the protocols they should put in place to protect themselves when they are treating ebola patients. there are lessons learned that are being gleaned from that event. as there is strengthened guidance for the cdc to communicate to healthcare professionals across the country, they would do that. i would anticipate they would do that soon. the other thing that you have seen the cdc do is more actively monitor the health status of healthcare workers from the dallas facility that we know treated the index patient. they are doing this in response to the fact that one and now two healthcare workers has contracted the ebola virus while treating that patient. the cdc has appropriately responded by ramping up monitoring of other healthcare workers who are at more risk than previously thought. again, that does as some critics have pointed out that there have been shortcomings in our response. it indicates a commitment on the part of this government at the direction of the president of

the united states to the kind of ten a shous response that we ensure the safety and welfare of the american public. chris? >> there have been a number of statements by dr. frieden that suggest that they wish they had done things it differently, that he wished there had been a rapid response team in place or a s.w.a.t. team as you called it earlier. he said the nurse should not have traveled. there's a need to enhance training and protocols that they have not been able to specify what the breach was that caused these infections. now we understand the cdc guidelines that have been criticized as too lax are being beefed up to be more in line with doctors without borders. i want to go back to your statement, which is people should be confident in the ability of our infrastructure. given those statements, has the administration response by more reactive than proactive. >> well, chris, i think i can evaluate that statement in a number of ways. the first is the federal government through the cdc but working with usaid has been

focused on responding to the outbreak since march. that is when this outbreak was first reported. >> does that make it more concerning that these things have happened? >> i think what it indicates is that the administration has been very forward leaning in confronting this significant challenge. at the same time, we have seen medical facilities in both georgia and nebraska respond mobilizing expertise and equipment and resources to treat patients. there are a number of patients who again contracted the ebola in west africa while rendering or trying to render medical assistance to individuals that were afflicted with this disease in west africa. those individuals were evacuated to the united states because of the confidence that we have in the medical infrastructure in the united states to both treat these individuals but also to ensure that while they were receiving treatment these individuals would not spread the disease to others in america.

that was successfully completed on a number of occasions at emory hospital. the hospital in nebraska has done the same. that is an indication that the medical infrastructure is in place in this country to handle ebola patients both to treat them and help them recover but to do that in a way that it doesn't pose a significant threat to healthcare workers or members of the community. what you are pointing out are shortcomings in the response. the way people should evaluate that is to determine what the reaction to that has been. and from standing up s.w.a.t. teams to offering additional guidance, the cdc and other members of this administration have been ten a shous about updating the response to meet the evolving circumstances. that should give confidence. the likelihood of widespread outbreak of brebola in the unit

states is low. >> part of preparedness is knowing what you are going to face. how the president been given or asked for specifics about the projections for infections in the united states? >> i don't know the answer to that. this is something that the cdc has looked at. i don't know what the specifics are of those projections, if they exist. >> would they be important to understanding what we have to have in place to deal with it? >> let me answer that question a couple different ways. projections are less important because the risk of a widespread outbreak of ebola in the united states is exceedingly low. we don't anticipate that's going to happen. what we do anticipate is certainly possible maybe even likely is that some additional cases of ebola will occur. it is possible, again maybe likely that there will be additional healthcare workers

from this hospital in dallas who may contract -- may have contracted the virus. so that's why we are actively monitoring the health of other healthcare workers that came in contact with him. it certainly is possible that other individuals will travel to this country that don't exhibit symptoms in transit but after they arrive may have the virus. we will make sure that we have the kind of response that's needed to as the president directed yesterday to detect, isolate and treat those individuals in a way that protects the american public and protects healthcare workers rendering that medical assistance. >> a nurse said this morning that if she contracted the disease, she wouldn't want to go to that hospital. she didn't feel confident. if she who loves her job doesn't feel confident in going to her own hospital, should the average american feel confident about the treatment they would get at their local hospital? this is supposedly one of the

best hospitals in texas. >> chris, let me restate this again. the risk that faces the average american from catching ebola is exceedingly low. the fact of the matter is the individuals who have been diagnosed with ebola at this facility were healthcare workers who were responsible for trying to meet the medical needs of this ebola patient. these individuals put themselves in harm's way to try to render medical assistance to that individual. that is a heroic thing. the fact that they have contracted ebola is tragic. but we are committed to ensuring that they get expert medical attention and medical treatment. that's why these patients have been transferred to the facilities they are getting treatment. and our thoughts and prayers are with them as they fight this disease. >> my question was to assess the level of preparedness of hospitals across the country. >> that's with assessing the level of risk. the level of risk is low. in terms of preparedness, we

want to make sure that the cdc at the direction of the president of the united states is offering the best guidance that is available to hospitals across the country as it relates to protocols and other measures they should have in place so that they can treat an ebola patient if one shows up at their facility. the likelihood of that happening is low. the efforts by the cdc to update their guidance and communicate it clearly to medical professionals across the country is ongoing. okay? ed? >> i want to follow up on the flight ban. before you said there's restrictions in place. but a wise person this morning said i think substantive actions have to be taken that may involve moving patients to certain hospitals. you wouldn't disagree, would you? >> i think jay raises some good points. i think, again, that is why you have seen this administration in response to some of the shortcomings that have been

identified ramp up our response to make sure that we are closing the gaps. >> a level of seriousness. doesn't that suggest that this administration has to get more serious about the restriction snz. >> ed, i think the president based on his response and the response of his team indicates that we are deadly serious about this. we are dealing with a deadly disease. what you are seeing is the kind of response that the american people are counting on. there have been shortcomings that have been identified. there have also been responses to the shortcomings to close the gaps to make sure healthcare workers are getting the guidance, that we are standing up s.w.a.t. teams that can respond quickly in other cases are diagnosed. we are making sure that we are doing more to actively monitor those workers that we know are at grace being risk than previously thought. >> when you say deadly serious -- it went on for two hours. some people suggest the president was angry a second

healthcare worker after he was told this was unlikely to happen, that he was demanding answers. that's a fair characterization as to how could this happen again? >> i think the president was very focused on getting answers to very basic and direct questions about what happened in dallas and what steps are being taken to correct those shortcomings that have cropped up. again, the president as i described yesterday believes that some aspects of this response have fallen short of his expectations. he has high expectations for the performance of his government when it comes to ensuring that we're protecting the safety and well-being of the american public. that's why you have seen so much tenacity in making sure that this response is responding to evolving circumstances on the ground. >> the seriousness of it, then why hasn't a particular agency been held responsible? is there a particular person who is held accountable? we have seen this with other stories. we messed up. something dropped the ball. we fumbled.

a person is not held accountable. who is responsible for these shortcomings you are talking about? >> you have seen at least in a couple of instances dr. frieden take responsibility for the cdc not performing up to expectations. at the say the time, the cdc has been focused on the situation since march. they have been offering expert assistance to countries in west africa to stem this outbreak. you have seen the cdc ramp up the kind of assistance that they can marshal so that a s.w.a.t. team can be bepldeployed. you have seen the cdc draw on expertise to give guidance about the protocols that healthcare officials should follow when treating an ebola patient. again, as we have said in a lot of these situations, it's important for people to evaluate the response. i think what you are seeing is the kind of ten a shous response the president expects. there's more work to be done. >> a couple quick follow-ups. bowe bergdahl, we haven't heard

about him. this administration promised there would be a full investigation if there was a law broken. the understand it's in the hands of the army. is the white house pressing for answers? is this going to be released before the election on a timetable soon? >> i believe that -- i haven't talked about bowe bergdahl in a while either. my recollection is that this department of defense review that is under way is focused on determining how exactly mr. bergdahl fell into the hands of the enemy. it's my understanding that that review is still under way. i would refer you to the department of defense. >> about the prisoner swap. about the 30-day notification for congress and -- >> i can check on that. there are members of congress who have been interested in the issue. the president determined this was in the national interest. the secretary of defense certified that this transaction could take place in a way that

mitigated the risk to the american people. it secured the release of an american soldier. the president believes that was the right move. i don't know if there's any ongoing review of that specific aspect of this situation. because the president believes that was the right thing to do and that living up -- as the commander in chief, he felt it was important to make sure that this administration and this government were living up the principal that we don't leave anyone behind. >> any update on how many it cost for the president to fund-raise? >> i don't have any specific stats on that. we will work with you on that. carol? >> to follow up on chris' question earlier. each of those instances that she laid out at the start of her question about the shortcomings that have come up in the response to ebola, at each of those times the public is hearing from the white house, from cdc was that there were strict protocols in place and no cause for concern. now you are in a position of

saying, we have now implemented x, y and z in response to the shortcomings. everybody should feel confident in the process now as it is. how is that -- why should people believe you now? are you concerned about an erosion in public trust based on what you have said previously and what you are saying now what's happening in between? how much is that a challenge for you going forward? is there a way to get off the other side of that? >> i think -- let me give you one example about how the cdc has approached this specific issue as it relates to the protocols for using personal protection equipment. one thing that the cdc did was they actually deployed a couple of nurses from the hospital at emory that had sub saysfully treated a couple of ebola patients in their hospital. they sent them to this facility in dallas to do training about the proper use of personal

protection equipment. that is an indication where we are taking best practices from one facility that had success in treating an ebola patient and transferring those best practices to other hospitals. i think again what tom frieden the director of the cdc acknowledged is that the cdc should have acted sooner to make sure that those kinds of experts were on the ground in a more timely fashion to ensure that the proper protocols were in place and that they were being properly implemented. i think it is fair for the american public to take some confidence in the fact that we have taken the best practices from a facility that has successfully undertaken this effort and are applying that best practice to at least one other hospital and communicating that best practice to hospitals all across the country. >> the president is fully confident in the system that's

in place now given those changes that have been made? >> the president is -- continues to be confidence in the advice we're getting from medical and scientific ex about what is necessary to treat ebola patients in a way that protects health care workers and the american public. in fact, the president has directed that every member of his team, including the cdc are doing everything that they can to ensure that ebola patients are properly detected, isolated and treated and all of that in a way that's consistent with protecting the american public and health care workers who are responsible for meeting their medical needs. april? >> josh, from the podium you said there is anxiety in the public. you did acknowledge that and you said to jim that the president would not be coming out making a statement at this time. when it comes to ebola. you also said that the press will be delivering the news to help disseminate the news that it's not as bad as what people

are perceiving. beyond that, where is the onus on this administration? what will this administration do further to help lessen a panic as a vast majority of americans believe that there is a concern about ebola. >> well, again, we're doing everything we can to make sure people have the facts. did you hear from the president directly yesterday at the conclusion of his meeting talk about those facts. he talks about the fact that he had met nurses who's had treated an ebola patient. he talked about the fact we know specifically about how ebola is france transmitted. it's not transmitted through the air or food and water in the united states. the president has addressed this on a number of occasions as recently as yesterday. it's something i've talked about. we've had senior officials like secretary about yourwell, director frieden and others talk about these kinds of facts. we do think that the american public should understand exactly what the risk is. and that a full understanding of the risk will understand -- will

help people understand why this is something they don't need to be concerned about. but right now, it's understandable that people are concerned because we're talking about a deadly disease and the proper way to address that concern is to make sure they have a full accounting of the facts. >> it's kind of a tight wire rope type situation i guess trying to make sure the public is not in a panic situation but delivering information. when do you say enough is enough, we have to come out and say give more facts than what you're giving or for the president to come out and do an oval office speech to the nation at night versus the sound bites that come out before nighttime events so that people will fully understand that this is something, as you said, that is going to be harder for them to get than other diseases? when do you say when? >> well, you know, april there are social media channels we're taking full advantage of right now that there are materials being circulated by hhs and even from here at the white house to make sure people have the necessary facts.

we've got medical experts from outside the administration, obviously, are senior administration officials, as well. are playing a leading role in communicating these fakes to the american public. if we determine that it's necessary for the president to give a more high profile address, we'll do that. given all the media scrutiny on this issue and the ample opportunity that i've had at least to talk about this issue and to answer your questions, should help people understand exactly what the risk is. again, i think it is perfectly understanding arable that people would have some concern about a deadly disease and we've acknowledged there have been a couple shortcomings in response. more broadly what people should take solace in they're not at high risk of getting ebola. the risk of an ebola outbreak in the united states is exceedingly low. what you're seeing as a health care system in this country and a federal government in this country that have already demonstrated an ability to take

in patients from west africa. they're american citizens performing it humanitarian medical work to bring them to this country, to treat them, to do it in a way that allows them to recover but also doesn't expose the health care workers in hospital or people in the broader community to significant risk. so that experience and that track record should give people some confidence that the administration is mobilizing the kind of tenacious response that they deserve. >> lastly had, very simple question. what is the mood of this administration right now. you're challenged with a lot of issues, not only here but around the world. what is the mood of this administration, particularly this president? >> i think the mood is determined. you have a president who is dealing with a lot of pressing issues right now, but the president as you would expect and i think is pretty obvious to anybody who's watching that the president takes very seriously his responsibilities as the

leader of the country and the commander in chief. and the president is working hard. and anis pushing his team really hard to make sure that at least in this specific situation, that we're mobilizing the kind of response that's up to the standards that the president set for his administration and the kinds of high standards that the president has set for serving the american people. major? . >> what the coverage will be today? how will we be able to see anything the president is working on? >> i don't know what time the meeting is at this point. as we lock down details we'll be in touch with you. >> is bailey seeing the president today? >> there's a possibility of that. let us lock down the details and get back to you. >> in the phone calls with members of congress, is the president trying to lay the groundwork for request for additional funds to be dealt with during the lame duck? >> it's unclear at this point whether or not that will be needed. these are the kinds of issues we

want could confer with them on the front end so if that eventuality arises -- at this point, we're just having conversations with them about what may it be needed. >> i just want to double back on the executive order. regarding the national guard. are you saying that you're not sure if the president needs it or are you saying that you are aware that he has ordered it and just a matter for the pentagon to carry out that order without anything required from him as far as signing a piece of paper? >> it's the mechanics with which i am unfamiliar. the president laid out clearly what the mission is. the department of defense has told the president it will require about 4,000 department of defense personnel to execute the mission the president directed them to execute. what i don't know is the composition of that force and whether reservists or national guardsmen will be required to augment that force and if they

are required, i don't know the if the mechanics dictate that an executive order has to be signed by the president or if that's something that the department of defense can go ahead and act on. >> related to that, is the president asking all those who are on this team what are his executive order powers to do things to address this is particular ebola issue? nurses have asked for him to do things as far as sending -- using his executive power to make some very clear communications about clothing or other procedures in hospitals. to what degree is the president asking for that information and contemplating using something you've talked a lot about this year to address some of these short comings and improve the federal response? >> well, out of the meeting yesterday, the president was very clear about directing his team to make sure we are using all the necessary federal resources and authorities to detect, isolate and treat ebola patients in a way that we can

protect the american public and the health care workers rendering them assistance. so that is something that if necessary, the preds i'm confident will not hesitate to use. but at there i don't know if it's necessary or at least we haven't come across a situation where it's necessary for the president to invoke a specific executive order or an executive authority in order to get something done. obviously, a lot of this response is being driven by the executive brank of government and that's why the kind of whole of government approach that you've seen is one that the president is leading and directing and will continue to do so to ensure that we're meeting is the high standards he set for his administration. >> isil, since a week ago, from thursday to today, roughly 150 people have been killed in suicide bombs in baghdad, 36 died today in a massive attack. does the administration believe this is a signature tactic of isil and this is something that

has been introduced new into the relate of baghdad or even if it may not be under immediate threat from a full-on assault from isil from the west, it is nevertheless having its daily rhythms and life vastly disrupted by an isil tactic that is somewhat new? >> let me answer your question in a couple different wayses. let me start by saying deputy national security advice remembers tony blinken was in baghdad and erbil over the last three days to meet with u.s. officials to discuss the latest political and security developments in iraq and the region that presumably includes the recent spate of bombings we've seen in and around baghdad. mr. blinken emphasized the united states' commitment to continued support for the iraqi government and safeguarding a unified iraq and combating our common enemy isil. tony's meetings in baghdad included discussions with the president, prime minister abadi,

council of representative speaker jabori, foreign minister jafar, national security visor fayad and other other senior security officials. in erbil he met with the kurdistan regional government prime minister and also received a briefing from u.n. officials on the humanitarian situation in iraq including assistance to displaced people and refugees. his comprehensive discussions in iraq covered the full range of issues at stake in our cooperation with the iraq government and people in the fight against isil. he protection pressed appreciation for the government of iraq's progress in resolving political differences so that the strongest possible force is brought to bear against isil. let me asks of also as more direct answer to your question note we strongly condemn the terror attacks across iraq in recent days that have cost scores of innocent lives. we're committed to working with

the government of iraq to end this terrorist scourge and strength be the capability of its security forces to take the fight to isil. we extend condolences to the family of victims and hope for rapid recovery for those injured. >> and what would you characterize has been going on the last 48 to 72 hours? you're seeing a lot more specifically targeted air strikes there? and does the administration now believe what appeared to be something that might be an overrunning of that small village might have been forestalled and possibly ended? >> well, i'd refer to you department of defense for the latest assessment. it's a pretty dynamic environment. what you have seen. >> -- making it clear there's been a very good deal of activity there in the last couple three days. >> that's evident. they are -- centcom has been pretty consistent about putting out information about the air strikes conducted by the united states and our coalition partners in syria. they've been pretty specific

about the fact that the number of air strikes around cobanny have increased in recent days. just last night, i don't know if they put this out yet, another 14 strikes were conducted around kobani just yesterday and our -- the united states and our coalition partners are continuing to target our air power in the vicinity around kobani. the reason for that is that we are, as we've discussed many times, striking isil in syria to try to diminish the group's ability to project power, erode their military and economic infrastructure and deny them safe haven. we've seen that isil fighters and materiel and supplies have been marshalled in and around kobani as they mount this offensive. what that is created is essentially are a set of targets for american air strikes to occur. so as we're seeking to degrade the ability of isil to operate

in syria, taking strikes at clusters of it fighters or pieces of equipment, they're all now operating or at least there are a large number of them in a pretty concentrated area in syria. that's enhances the environment for military air strikes and that is what accounts for the stepped up operational tempo in that region of syria. >> this may sound flippant. i don't mean it too at all. the pentagon has a name for this operation. inherent resolve. what does that mean? >> that's a name given by the pentagon in terms of -- >> what does it convey? >> the commitment of the international community to something that is not going to be a short-term proposition. the president has been clear this is going to require sustained commitment and that it is critically important to not just the united states but to all of our coalition partners that this kind of extremist organization is not allowed to

establish a safe haven in syria. that that is inherently threatening to countries in the region and potentially could be threatening to the united states and our interests around the world and maybe even eventually here in our homeland. and that is -- that is why the president has laid out a strategy for degrading ultimately destroying this organization. >> so the point is to convey instead of take a long time? >> well, again, in terms of the name, you'd have to check with the department of defense. they may have a more cogent explanation than i do. based on my reading of it, i do think that it is an intent to convey that all of the members of our coalition have a are resolved to confront this threat and to ensure that this extremist organization is not able to establish a safe haven inside the power vacuum that currently exists in syria right now. >> let's move around. justin? >> i just had a quick one on the

consultation with congress. one thing that many lawmakers dozens of lawmakers have mentioned is the travel ban. you've explained why you guys oppose it but republicans have said they're going to introduce language when they get back. ted cruz said the congress should be called back immediately to address the legislation. if it were to pass, is it something you guys would veto? >> you're talking about a piece of legislation that hasn't been introduced yet. i won't at this point convey our position beyond what i've already explained about how how putting in place a travel ban would increase the risk to the american public. because the president's focus is on trying to reduce the risk, we want to leave the channels open so we can screen the individuals when they enter this country and do more to ensure the safety of the american public. >> quickly, i know yesterday you explained why -- zing channels

and sense of responsibilities. i'm wondering if that was something that came up with the president, was that idea floated or discussed? and do you still feel it's not something you're going to do? >> what we continue to believe that the clear lines of responsibility have been established and they continue to exist. that it is the clear responsibility of the department of defense, for example, to levering and their logistical expertise in west africa to improve the response to the outbreak in that region of the world. you know, for example, cdc andh hs have important responsibilities here at home. dhs and cbp have responsibilities for monitoring ports of entry including airports that everybody has a clear line of responsibility. and the president is holding those agencies and the leadership of those agencies to a high standard for executing on their line of responsibility.

everybody who is responsible for some aspect of this response was participated in that meeting in the cabinet room. and i think all of them walked away with clear direction that they'd received from the president for ensuring that we are at the top of our game here. okay? >> jared. >> i wanted to follow-up back on this notion of are there designated hospitals or anything? there's one thing that is true is you keep pointing to these examples of success emory university certainly nih. but these are hospitals different than bes by tierian and dallas. these are state-of-the-art facilities. now the president says if there's an ebola case we want to get a s.w.a.t. team in place when the first patient, dr. brantley and miss writebol were treated the question was sked then, can people go to any hospital and the answer from both emory university and the centers for disease control was yes, any hospital in america is able to handle one of these cases. does the president still believe that is true?

>> the president does still believe that that's true. the goal here and you know, this is indicative of the kind of response that we have deployed to the situation in thames. we want to make sure that the best practices that have been learned and successfully deployed and the nebraska medical center at nih and at emory, that those best practices are shared with health care professionals across the country and there is more that the cdc believes can and should be done to support hospitals in the unlikely event that they're dealing with an ebola patient in their facility. so what dr. frieden expressed was the importance of having medical experts on stand by who are ready to travel on very short notice that they can be at a hospital within hours of an ebola diagnosis, that these experts can be on the ground standing next to hospital administrators, doctors, and nurses as they're trying to meet

the medical needs of this patient. we believe that he that is an effective template for managing the situation. >> that wasn't the template initially in dallas. the cdc has said as much. maybe they should have responded quickly. >> ha that's correct. >> was that slowness or just the misreading of how quickly they should respond because there was a belief that is now maybe in doubt that any hospital in america had the proper procedures and protocols in place at that time? >> i think the concern that we have about what happened in dallas is that experts weren't on the ground right away to help those local officials maximize their capabilities to care for these patients in a way that didn't endanger the health care workers that were trying to render this life-saving aid. what we're talking about here is the kinds of best practices that now can be applied to other facilities again in the unlikely event that they are responsible for treating an ebola patient that shows up at their door. okay? alexis. >> josh, he want to follow up on that. i have two questions related.

jared, to follow up what he was asking, 24 hours after the president endorsed the s.w.a.t. team approach as jared points out, the policy has switched to removing the patients to the most sophisticated health care facilities in the nation to handle infectious disease. oh if you are a hospital or a health care worker out there, you are now going to expect that you are going to get removed after being stabilized, not that you will be treated until you recover at a let care facility. has the president confused the situation even more 24 hours after he endorsed the s.w.a.t. team approach. >> no, he has not. this does not reflect the policy change. it reflects decisions being made by medical professionals about the proper course of treatment for specific patients. that's not something i'm not qualified to comrept on. we're going to make decisions we believe are in the best interests of the patients and the best interests of health care workers treating them. we continue to believe that with the expert assistance of a

s.w.a.t. team that's deployed on short notice that the hospitals across the country do have the capability for managing the situation in a way that doesn't pose a significant risk to their employees or to the community. but in there case, these two individual patients were transferred in the last 24 hours. but again, does not reflect the policy change. it reflects commitment to putting in place a treatment protocol for those that's best suited for those patients. >> the question is, because yesterday and today you have many times emphasized that if cdc is in a position of offering guidance and monitoring and suggestions and best practices. but you have also indicated that nurse number two has been moved to a federal facility nih. and is now in the care of the federal government. my question is, has the president considered using the stafford act or the national emergencies act or hhs's power to declare a national health

emergency to federalize all ebola responses? >> well, let me correct one thing. i believe it's actually health care worker number two, the woman who was more recently diagnosed was yesterday transferred to the facility in atlanta. it's the first health care worker that was diagnosed with contracting the ebola virus transferred to the nih facility today. as it relates to the stafford act, i'm not aware of any consideration that currently is under way as it relates to the stafford act or any sort of national medical emergency. i wouldn't rule it out, but frankly, i don't know what those sorts of designations, the entirety of what those designations entail but that's not something that we're actively considering right now. >> the dallas hospital had assured the nurse that is you just described that her care would be covered by the dallas hospital. but just to correct the record now, her care is being covered by the federal government?

>> the when you say covered by, what do you mean? >> in other words, the hospital said that any costs ip occurred by the nurse for her health care or her family, obviously her family in ohio, that it would be covered by the hospital in dallas. they made that offer. but -- >> i'll be honest with you, alexis, i'm not aware of what arrangements have been made for her care or what sort of insurance she's covered by. all i know is that she is currently being treated at a federal facility in the terms of what the consequences are for her medical bills or for insurance coverage. >> one goes to nih and the other goes to emory, the actual cost how it's covered may differ? >> i'm not aware of what sort of financial arrangements are in place to cover the costs of the treatment of these two individuals. okay? mark? >> josh, you spoke earlier about media coverage confident ebola situation. do you think that some of the

media coverage is over the top and might be contributing to needless alarm or even panic? >> there are plenty of media critics out there and even people who are amateur media critics will take their own opportunity to evaluate the quality of media coverage of this and other events. but i'm smart enough not to do that. >> when did the number of forces needed in africa, west africa go from 3,000 to 4,000? >> i think that all along the department of defense has been -- has described that as the range that they needed. i think what they said was between 3,000 and 4,000. i recognize i'm confusing it by now describing it as up to 4,000. those twos things aren't necessarily consistent for the precise assessment or evaluation that the department of defense has reached, i'd refer you to them. okay? can. >> thanks, josh. >> fred, i'll give you the last one. >> thanks, josh. on the fly, we have two patients

now. would there possibly be any kind of trigger or threshold that would make you reconsider your views on flight restrictions or some variation even if it's not a total travel ban? >> well, can you tell me, what was the first part of your question now? >> well, i said like maybe a trigger or he an threshold? if there are more patients, if there it is encreased concern, would there be -- would that cause the administration to rethink a if not a travel ban, then some sort of variationing? >> at this point, we're not considering a travel ban at this point. does that mean it could change? i suppose it does. again, based on circumstances as we're aware of them now, it's not something we're considering. you raise a good point which is that this ebola outbreak occurred seven months ago and so far, there is one individual over the course of that seven months that has traveled to this

country from west africa and started exhibiting symptoms of ebola after they arrived. that's only happened once. and so i think that is a relevant statistic as people a travel ban that in a different circumstance could have the perverse effect of giving individuals an incentive to evade monitoring. i guess the other thing i should mention in the context of your question is that the screening doesn't just occur in this country when individuals from west africa are seeking to enter the country. it does occur if we know they've been in those countries recently. it also occurs on the ground in west africa in the three countries where the ebola outbreak currently exists. we also know there are dozens of individuals that were exhibiting symptoms who were denied boarding from those planes and so again, if we put in place a travel ban from west africa, those individuals is you know could go to other countries and

try to travel here in disguise their original destination. now the thing that's important for people to understand is that when those individuals who are denied board were tested, they were not found to have ebola. but it indicates how important it is for us to have those kinds of screening measures in place to protect the american public. and again, that is the bottom line for the president. if we're trying to protect the american public, we should not put in place a travel ban. >> when the president spoke to the world leaders yesterday, did this topic ever come up about what other governments would be doing or what they might be considering? >> i know that the focal point of the president's conversations with them on this topic related to the need for other members of the international community to ramp up the assistance they're providing to their response in west africa. i don't know the whether or not they had a discussion about a travel ban. chris, you seem very disappointed when i told fred he was getting the last one. >> i was. questions are a little bit different as usual. on monday,' forum is taking

place here in d.c. featuring transgender members of the armed forces who are unable to serve in the government openly because of regulation. it's been five months since the white house said secretary hagel's efforts to review the policy. has the review come up between the president and secretary? >> i don't know if this is on the agenda for that meeting. i guess it occurred earlier. i don't know if it was on the agenda for that meeting. but i refer to you the department of defense who should be able to give you an update in terms of the status of that report and when you can expect it to be finalized. >> the president spoken about the success of don't ask the don't tell repeal under his administration. the president is going to take the lead to allow openly gay people to be in the military, why isn't he taking the lead for openly transgender people? >> i do think that the president's commitment to equality is one he has arct articulated many times. he believes that commitment in equality makes our country stronger and makes our armed

forces stronger. so his commitment to that the principle is unwavering. as it relates to how it is implemented in the armed forces, that's the subject of an ongoing review and i would defer you to the department of defense for a status update on it. >> will the president himself call for it before the end of his administration? >> i don't know the answer. we'll get back to you on that. thanks, everybody. have a good afternoon. >> thank you. >> tonight here on c-span3, we'll show you panels from this year's national bullying prevention conference held in washington. federal officials from the education department discuss the latest bullying trends and how to best encourage be an environment that discourages the behavior. we'll show you comments from students discussing their experiences coming up at 8:00 eastern tonight. also tonight, 2014 coverage will

continue with an wa senate department featuring bruce braley and joan i ernst. the third and final meeting between the candidates. here's a look at some of their recent campaign ads. >> i'm bruce braley and a prove this message. >> take a closer look at joan i ernst. in the state senate, ernst sponsor add amendment to outlaw abortion even in cases of rape or incest. an earnsst bill would have banned many common forms of birth control. she wants criminal punishment for doctors who provide abortion. >> the providers should be punished. >> joan can i ernst, radical ideas wrong for iowa. >> expecting her to fulfill campaign promises. >> joan iern st. louis promises shut down the department of education, hurting iowa students. abolish the epa, giving polluters a pass. that's why extremist sarah palin

and the billionaire koch brothers want earnsst notice washington. >> expect her to fulfill promises. >> joan i ernst, promises to them too extreme for us. the league of conservation voterses is responsible for the content of this advertising. >> i get very upset. >> are you ready to apologize. >> you're damn right i read the bill. >> that individual had no college education. >> it's ironic there's a big push to shut down the house gym. >> do you have any advanced diagnoses in economics. >> i get very upset. >> i read the bill. >> there's no towel service. >> i an farmer from iowa who never went to law school. >> we're doing our own laundry down there. >> i get very upset. >> you don't have a masters or mhd in health care policy. >> one of the most important places i go is to the house gym. >> have you published any scholarly treatises in a peer reviewed journal. >> i an farmer from iowa who never went to law school.

>> i get very upset. >> are you ready to apologize? >> i get very upset. >> more campaign 2014 coverage tonight with an iowa senate debate between democratic congressman bruce braley and his republican challenger joan i ernst. it's the third and final meeting between the candidates. recent polling listed this race as he an tossup. starts live at 8:00 eastern on c-span. this weekend on the c-span networks, friday night at 10:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, from the texas tribune festival a conversation about dealing with undocumented youth coming into the u.s. saturday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern, a town hall meeting on the media's coverage of events in ferguson, missouri at harris stoet state university in st. louis and sunday evening at 8:00 on q & a, richard norton smith on his biography if i of nelson

rockefeller. friday at at 8:00 on c-span2 it, author richard whittle on drones how they transformed the american military. saturday night at 10:00, jake halperin on the questionable practices of the industry. and sunday at 2:00 p.m. eastern, a 20 14s southern festival of books. friday at 8:00 on "american history tv" on c-span3, martin luther king's poor people's campaigns and the 196 election and saturday on lectures and history, the life and legacy of booker t. washington. sunday afternoon at 4:00 on real america, from 1964 exercise delaware, a joint armed forces readiness operation between the u.s. and iran when the two the countries were allies. found our schedule at c-span.org and let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us at 202-626-3400.

or send us a tweet at c-span #comments. join the c-span conversation like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. now a faneuil discussion on voter i.d. lawsen and early voting. our speakers all have ties to florida politics and they debated the impact of such laws at the local level. this was part of a political campaign ethics conference held at st. thomas university law school at miami gardens. it's close to is an hour. >> so again, as was stated, our intention is to open up our conversation for questions from the floor. we invite you to participate by asking questions but first we're going to try to work our way through a preset agenda of

sorts. on the panel voting rights, foiling fraud, protecting access and finding common ground. this is a distinguished panel this monk. i'm excited to be the moderator. the people on this panel i think have thought long and hard both in the trenches and in the academy about voting rights and access to the ballot. in roberto martinez, we have a former u.s. attorney and someone who served on the transition teams of two statewide elected officials. in professor robert zell done, a scholar has written at least two books on huge little important supreme court cases, one on bush

v gore and another sweat v painter who is thought and teaches these issues at nova southeastern in the history department. in the robert fernandez, we have someone who has worked in the executive department of state government and who perhaps more than anyone on the panel has thought about these issues in service on with respect to ethics and elections here in the state of florida and dan gelber who has been both a federal prosecutor, a state elected official, has again sort of thought about these issues and on lots of levels most recently at least in my knowledge as a member of the voting rights commission which held al important hearing here in south

florida earlier this year. and so i think we have a wonderful mix of viewpoints and perspectives both institutionally situated and to have i think a very fruitful conversation. so i'm going to start with a sketch of what we'd like to talk about with respect to issues around voting rights and fraud and access. and so the first is an issue that comes to us most recently out of the 11th circuit. that is, the 11th circuit's recent decision in arsea versus the florida secretary of state with respect to the legality of the 2012 purging of the voter rolls for purposes of purging noncitizens from the rolls.

and the decision was decided under the national voter registration act and it was decided that the -- that the action violated the national voter registration act. and i'd like to invite our panelists to speak about efforts to maintain the legitimacy of the electoral rolls with respect to citizen participation and issues of access particularly in light of recent supreme court decisions around the voting rights act. and so i'm going to start with mr. martinez on my left and invite other panelists to speak about the tension between again access and the protection of the integrity of the voting process

in. >> thank you. good morning. i'm not sure i'm the right person to begin the topic. obviously we will all have an interest in making sure those who have the right to vote. we also have an interest in making sure that vote is cast by people who are in fact entitled to vote. it protects the integrity of the process. with regards to the purging of the rolls, as i understand it, professor, that process has been stopped here in florida and for good reason apparently, the rolls that were being used were -- there was question of their accuracy. so i don't know how much more i can tell you at this point in time. i thought you were going to talk about the photo i.d. requirement in wisconsin. >> we'll get there.

>> the secretary of state has delayed the institution of the voter purge until the homeland security database is more accurate according to the secretary of state's memorandum. if anyone wants to address that question and again the tensions that rise. >> thank you. and bob was brought here to class the place up. i was brought here to go the other way. i think the purge voter i.d. a lot of these things implicate the issue that is not unique to florida but especially acute and pronounced in florida. florida is a state that's always in play. so when you have a -- when you have like nobody wonders what's going to happen in new york on november 5th. but they wonder what's going to happen in florida when you have close elections, the apparatus of elections tends to be more

important. the fault lines are displayed more proudly to the world. when you have a close election and we obviously saw that in 2000. so it happens with all of these issues which i think is the issue you're getting at is the question is whether the "efforts to promote integrity are simply being used as a stocking horse to try to change the outcome of an election." and i'm not worried about appearing too partisan because frankly, florida is a state where the apparatus of elections are run by the legislature which is republican legislature. it may be different in states where democrats run the legislature, but here in florida it, really most of the efforts to the deliver "integrity to the process" whether it's a purge or voter i.d. in other states that are close, most of those generally are intended really more to such press the vote than it is to assure integrity because things like early voting constraints and purging and things like that really aren't a

lot of people running to polls with fake i.d.s to vote. there aren't really a lot of felons really desperate lit trying to vote. there aren't people here out of status hoards of them running to vote. if that happens, it happens incredibly ip frequently and usually by accident. almost all of the problems with votinging from an integrity point of view are in the absentee voting area. almost always. you don't hear about other cases really. i would tell you that the purge was a very was an idea whose only purpose was to suppress vote of a population that they believed that the governor believed might not be necessarily favorable and i think frankly most of the election laws that come out of the legislature have an ulterior and a mischievious purpose. >> and again, this is connected to the issue of voter i.d. but but to push back in some

sense, there clearly are downed cases of -- and even in the 2012 voter purge, there were documented cases of noncitizens on voting rolls. at least 858 people were whittled down from a large number of 180,000. i guess the question that i have for the panel is, does it matter and if i take mr. gelber's comments to heart, he seems to suggest it doesn't but does it matter that the secretary of state is putting a hold on moving forward to find a better database? that is to say, to the extent that there were problems with the 2012 effort to protect the integrity of the voting rolls, was it based upon the mechanism used, that is to say that the use of dmv records simply was a

bit noisy and allowed for the inclusion of too many legal voters or does it go back to your point about what you take to be the intent behind the attempt to sort of clean-up the voting rolls? >> if i could speak on that, i think this is somewhat equivalent to being shocked there's gambling in this establishment. we've known for a long time the various databases we've used for our voter rolls have been filled with flaws. and to suddenly discover oh, my god, there's flaws here and we need to hold back which is probably the right decision is also coming a little late. we knew this back in 2000. we knew this in 2004, 2006. has been an ongoing problem not only in florida but across the nation of voter roll databases that simply we don't know, we don't have enough good data. we have problems in which there are errors and mistakes in the

databases we're using to check against the voters. and the end result is much as we've seen here. you start with hundreds of thousands. there's big news and everyone hears about it. in the end you come down to 85 people. out of 100,000, out of what, 7 million potential voters in florida. the problem isn't new. and so while i think the decision to hold back was the right one, why were we in the situation to begin with in 2014? why weren't we fixing this or not even or holding off earlier? >> professor, i'm not an expert in this area. obviously, the way in which this whole thing was implemented was rather clumsy, certainly gave that appearance. so we it didn't look well. but it is in our best interests to make sure we don't have people on the rolls that are not entitled to vote, right?

if we have somebody who's on the rolls here but also on the rolls in another state and that person is voting in two different states, obviously we don't want that. if the person is not qualified to be on the rolls in the first place, we don't want that person to be voting. we do have a legitimate interest in making sure the people entitled to vote are the ones voting. perhaps the way in which it was done was so clumsy, it throws the whole process into question. we don't need to throw out the baby with the bath water type of thing. i know it looked bad. i'm glad it stopped. it certainly didn't look good for the republican party and for the governor. obviously, the way in which it was implemented may have been clumsy but that doesn't mean we don't have a legitimate interest in making sure there is integrity in the voting rolls. >> to go even further, there's a question about whether or not the state ought to have access to its own database. that is to say, to the extent that the state is relying on a

database of homeland security in reading and preparing for this panel, he thought, isn't it interesting and this is not to cast aspersions on the administration, isn't it interesting that homeland security would say hey, the database isn't quite ready. so you to the extent that partisanship might be influenced, might influence both the homeland security's efforts to get a database to the states that can in fact be used doesn't make the argument that the states in some sense ought to have a database or ought to be able to make recourse to a database that is not perhaps vulnerable to the machinations of perhaps a -- the opposite party. >> it sounds like a great idea except florida has been trying to put together its own database in this area for about the last 20 years. and it has been flawed. the dmv database is flawed.

various other databases in florida sought to use as a comparison for the voter rolls. has been flawed. sometimes it's by choice almost. in 2000, the decision was make connections that involve the same first name, last name, middle name and date of birth but it doesn't matter what the order is. they knew there would be a lot of false positives. so they understood the database's limits and said okay, we'll go with false positives and sent the whole list out and said purge them. this has been an ongoing problem. the databases that we ourselves have in florida aren't very good. so one of the reasons returning to homeland security is because they're looking for a better ker database. whether homeland security is doing it for political reasons or surprise, it's hard for them to get a good database, it doesn't -- it undermines the process as a whole. and voter registration until we have a national registration process we're going to run into these problems and it's going to

be difficult to purge the lists even when as was mentioned it's legitimate to clean out the voting lists on a regular basis. but if you're doing it in a way that would voters are then purged when they shouldn't be, that questions legitimacy of the electoral process. >> very briefly, i agree with bob you shouldn't have people who aren't authorized to vote voting. but i think you've confused who is the baby and who is the bath water. in a sense that when you have you know, when you have 80 people who probably shouldn't be on the list obviously and they may or may not be voting but you're prepared to literally purge tens of thousands of others that ought to be on the list that aren't on the list that are real residents and ought to be voting, that's the problem. that's what happened in 2000 with the felon list. we put out a list realizing i think they're smart enough to realize that whole lots of citizens of our state were going

to be purged to get a couple people who probably shouldn't have been on the list. that's what happens. because i believe that i think this is clear as day, that those lists tend to implicate certain types of voters who vote a certain way, there's not a problem doing it. that's the problem with the voter purge is it takes citizens who should be voting. there's a story of a broward county veteran was the face of it, i served in world war ii and i can't vote right now because somebody with my name is also on that list. and i think that's the problem. you shouldn't do a purge unless you can really protect actual voters. >> let me just chime in here for one second. you know, dan is right that maybe there might have been serious issues in 2000 but we're in 2014. what i'd focus on in this debate is where are we in 2014? and although we are still talking about a purge list, in

2014, i mean, i challenge anybody in here to tell me that there is massive purging going on of people who should be voting that aren't allowed to vote because of a bad list. yes, there are lists. yes, there already still problems with it, and they have voluntarily decided we are not going to go ahead and do this right now till we have confidence in the lists that we have that in fact people who should not be voting are in fact not going to be voting. we can talk all day about what happened in 2000. but in 2014, that's not happening. that's where we need to focus where we are in 2014 and going forward and how are we going to make sure -- there is a legitimate public interest in making sure people who should not be voting do not vote because it dilutes did everybody else's vote who should be voting and entitled to vote. having said that, we want to make sure that nobody like the veteran is put in that situation. i can promise you based on everything i know, that's not happening in 2014. >> if i can just follow up. because i think part of the topic confident panel is common

ground. so can we all agree that we should have a list that's accurate? it's just the way in which we go about doing it that needs to be reviewed? is that basically what we're saying? can the democrats and republicans agree we need to have a list that is accurate? it seems to me that's a pretty basic -- >> that goes back to my question. again, if i take mr. gel berle seriously, seems to suggest that a list that's accurate is irrelevant in light of the intent" behind the attempt to clean up voter lists. so i think that's in some sense the crux of the problem. >> yeah, why would the governor push a purge when he knows the list contains tens of thousands of people that shouldn't be on it? i mean, that's -- that's the governor's a smart guy. he realized what you and

everybody else here realized that that list isn't capable of actually really purging people who shouldn't be voting. it's going to include loads of others. >> but does that is so taint the attempt to protect the integrity that every subsequent attempt becomes suspect? >> i suppose we have an enlightened governor, governor gel ber and he decided he wanted to cleanse. >> is that an endorsement? >> let's suppose that he wants to enlighten republican chief of staff. so he hires me. so we go about cleaning the list in the right way. i think we all agree we want a list that is accurate and that is honest. >> we all agree people who shouldn't be voting shouldn't be voting. but that's the easy part of this. the hard part is, well, if you don't have a list that works, what do you do? and just like in the court system, you say we'll let ten guilty go free instead of convicting one innocent, what is

the ratio of vote ares? are we prepared to kick out of the voting polls you know 1,000 citizens so we can find that one guy that isn't a citizen and an until you have a good list, it's an academic debate. of course, our governor has acted with a bad list. that's the point. he didn't act with a good list. he knew the list wasn't good and he did it anyway. i only used 2000 because there's a history of it in this state. i'm sure we'll talk about a history of voter suppression at some point in this discussion but i think that's the point. >> the well, are i certainly want to pivot to that. that is to say in light of the supreme court's decision during the last term in shelby county in which the supreme court invalidated the formula, the coverage formula that will triggered preclearance under the

voting rights act, the court seemed to suggest that history would not forever be a taint on certain political jurisdictions. and certain covered jurisdictions immediately began to move to implement or move forward with the implementation of voter i.d. laws. the supreme court in 2008 affirmed the state's interest in protecting the legitimacy of the ballot by use of voter i.d. laws. so there's -- so we stand here sort of after crawford, after shelby with the doj in litigation in texas and north carolina and in other places with respect to voter i.d. laws, the conversation that we just had on wednesday a district

court in wisconsin has thrown out the wisconsin voter i.d. law and again, it goes back to this question of the evidence that justifies the state's interest in protecting the integrity of the ballot. and the effectiveness of voter i.d.s in protecting it against the harm identified by the states. and again, a project that was affirmed as constitutional in crawford. and in which now post-shelby, we've got some work to in lots of places. and so in light of the wisconsin decision which seems to minimize crawford, that is to say, which seems to say look, we're going to take seriously the impact that voter i.d. laws have on subgroups within the state to

make the assessment of whether or not these laws violate the voting rights act, and again,ing there probably is lots of common ground on there panel with respect to what ought to count as evidence, what counts as sufficient evidence to justify the state's interest. so i'd like to -- i'll start with you, this time again mr. martinez. >> okay. well, again, i'm not an expert in this area. this is very esoteric. in the shelby case, what the court said has come back with a different formula. they invited congress to come back with a different formula. i don't know whether the obama administration has proposed one. the wisconsin decision which a friend of mine brought to my attention and he's in the audience that decision was rendered recently, what that held in case some of you don't know, it held that in wisconsin passed a law requiring a photo identification. in order to be able to vote, you

had to obtain and present a photo i.d. if you didn't have one, the state would give it to you for free. for free. and what the court in a very long opinion held was that getting that free photo i.d., if you didn't have one, would impose an unjustified burdenen on those people who didn't have the photo i.d. and therefore, found it unconstitutional. and the court also held that the class of people who would be impacted were mostly the poor people and that including those categories would be african-americans and latinos. so it had a discriminatory impact. frankly, i find the scope of that ruling rather expansive. the court went out of its way to find that unlike crawford, justice stevens son crawford, the state did not have the an interest in protecting the integrity of the roll sufficient to establish that requirement. and i think went on to legislate

its own standards. you know, it surprised me in reading that opinion, professor because we've had photo i.d. in florida for quite a long time. i don't believe it to have been an impediment to anyone's right to vote nor do i believe it to have been discriminatory as to any particular subgroup including hispanics which i'm in that category. i think that effort in wisconsin, maybe it's unique to milwaukee and wisconsin. if this is part of a movement to stir up the votes among certain groups, perhaps that's the intent behind it, but as far as being a law that is unconstitutional or contrary to the voting rights act, i think that was a reach by the district court judge. >> let me do a historian's job and put this in a little bit of context of why people can come to very different conclusions on the same topic. republicans generally have a view of the purpose of an election which is certainty. the purpose of holding an

election is that we know who won and that we are clear as to who won and confident as to who won and there's no question as to who won. so anything that in a sense cleans up the up the electoral , that gives us that certainty is a burden worst paying because that's the purpose of an election. democrats generally believe it involves participation. anything that limits the participation of all those who could vote there voting undermines the legitimacy of the drought come even if that means that the results may be messy on the edges. these are both legitimate positions to take. this is a perspective toward the purpose of the election of voting. but each perspective focuses on a different answer to the question of what is a legitimate burden for the state to impose upon voters in the voting process. and of course underneath this is that not so secret dirty little

secret that of course each side takes the position that is very comfortable with outcomes that will help them. the broader the electoral, generally the better for democrats, narrower, the better for republicans. not necessarily doing it for that reason, just always easy to do the right thing if the end result is the one you want. and so part of the reason why we have this difficulty is we have i suspect a district judge in wisconsin whose perspective is legitimacy is access and you have a majority on the stream court currently that believes the purpose is certainty temperature that's a difficult thing to break because of differing perspectives. so while we can all say we agree he that we should keep people who shouldn't vote from voting, what that entails at a practical

level provides what is the legitimate answer and that often leads in two different directions. >> is there some possibility for common ground if we understand crawford and wisconsin decision as both asking a question about reasonableness of the fear that the process will be -- will lack certainty or the reasonableness of the fear that the process will lack broad participation? in some sense the court in crawford seems to suggest there simply is no evidence that the voter i.d. law will cause the burden complained of. whereas it in the wisconsin decision, the courts seem to suggest there simply is no data to support the fear. >> actually, he argues and part of the reason it's so long is he

goes into great detail trying to explain why there is in fact this burden. the court might have said we have no evidence. you won't evidence? here is evidence. at least in milwaukee. but again how one interprets that in part is how you perceive the purpose of the election. >> i have a little bit of a it is agreement. first of all the wisconsin case is a pretty good example to look at. and the judge pointed out over eight years in wisconsin, you could count not one hand, but on one finger, how many instances of somebody trying to use a fake i.d. or showing up at polls as somebody else that happened. and that 9% of the population, 200,000 or 300,000 people in wisconsin didn't have an i.d.. so those two points sort of tell you that whether you're on the

certainty side or the participation side, those aren't the sides in an election when the certainty side is using sort of phony justifications to create obstructions to vote. you ask anyone in this audience who sat in a line for eight hours in 2012 or six hours in 2008, they won't tell you that will w this was to make certainty there was early voting. they will tell that you somebody did something to stop the process of accepting voters to obstruct that processyou that sy did something to stop the process of accepting voters to obstruct that process about a they did not want robust participation. that is what is going on. it's a wonderful thing to say one group likes certainty and the other likes participation, but if the one group that like certainty is saying we like certainty and the way we'll do it is pie simply stopping lots of people from voting, that's not a democracy. and that's what has been happening in florida.

there were lines for ten hours because of artificial obstructions. that had nothing to do with certainty of election. >> i became a citizen in 1974 because i wanted to vote. i was paying taxes. i could work. but i wanted to vote. so i believe very strongly. i registered as a republican after it i left the prosecutor's office. i believe very strongly as a republican, as an american citizen first, that people should be entitled to vote. that's my priority, it scht certain. with regards to the decision in wisconsin the judge found that the burden was that you had to take time to go to the department of motor vehicles and get a photo i.d.. and that was a hassle.

that was the burden. and by the way the photo i.d. was free. but he found it to be an unjustified burden. i was kind of curious as to why this judge went to such great lengths to basically make this -- find this law to be unconstitutional, so i did a little research on the judge. i don't know the gentleman. i'm sure he's an intelligent person, but he also served for 0 years in wisconsin legislature as a democratic senator. so maybe he brought partisan to that law. but frankly to hold that, taking time -- we all have to do some effort. to take time to go to the tent of motor vehicles to get a photo i.d. for free that that was a constitutional hassle, i find to betent of motor vehicles to get a photo i.d. for free that that was a constitutional hassle, i find to

be an extra ordinary reach. >> and again this goes back both to the wisconsin decision and in some sense toordinary reach. >> and again this goes back both to the wisconsin decision and in some sense to crawford. should it matter which groups bear the burden of a voter i.d. law. should that matter to the extent that the voter i.d. law is generally applicable law. right in crawford, scolia writing for thomas and alito and himself said shouldn't matter. that is to say that the differential burdens borne and in some sense to go back to your point about the wisconsin justice says crawford didn't decide that question, so i'm free to decide this question and that it does. that the subgroup burden does in fact matter. does it matter, should we take

into account that there are groups that will be differentially affected by this and that those are groups that are connected to the voting rights act? >> i think that he found that to be relevant with regards for the statutory violation of the voting rights act. and he found that it had it is criminal in aer to impact on those that are poor. but i'm not sur what the significance of that reaction nael was. i'm sure african americans and latinos can take time and figure out how to get a free photo i.d.. it's not that difficult to do. i found that the comment by the judge frankly to be perhaps a little patronizing with regards to his views of certain subgroups. i'm not sure i understood the

reason for that rationale. >> i disagree. surprised. 9% of wisconsinians who were vote being didn't have the i.d.. marketplace tells that you 200,000 or 300,000 people didn't have it already.eing didn't hav. marketplace tells that you 200,000 or 300,000 people didn't have it already.ing didn't have. marketplace tells that you 200,000 or 300,000 people didn't have it already.ing didn't have. marketplace tells that you 200,000 or 300,000 people didn't have it already.ing didn't have. marketplace tells that you 200,000 or 300,000 people didn't have it already. and i dispute that it's an enjoyable experience not to disparage anybody who works at the dmv. but i think the point is that it does go to the intent of action. if you implement a voter i.d. law knowing that 200,000 voters don't have i.d.s and those tend to be minority or democratic performing, then -- and there is no justification for it in that there hasn't been a did you wanted case other than one person who actually voted for their spouse who passed away over eight years, then it goes to the intent of the action and

also disproves the idea that there is any legitimate state justification for imposing that burden. and we didn't though in florida what that does because there are lots of people who don't have vehicles who can't afford even public transportation sometimes who live remotely, who live on the sort of the fringes of the economy. and frankly those people have a right to vote, also, without an added obstruction. >> professor, maybe somebody here knows the answer. we've had photo i.d. laws in florida for dwigquite some time. is there any evidence that that has had a burden on any sub groups from voting? i've never heard of it. never seen any litigation, never heard anys