target is united states of america and iran. this is the two because somehow, they see strong allies between. >> there was also, there was, you know, you blamed the united states for having believed perhaps that the syria conflict was containable and it has obviously me tas sized in the region to something far larger. but now, you're speaking of the islamic state as if it is containable and not really a problem. >> it can be contain ed if you'e gained back the sunni and you give them the trust, the believe, i mean, 12,000 people, they joined the -- in the war against al qaeda. they fought with them. they were left out, no salary, no job, nothing left and all the shia ammunition. >> i kind of differ because

quite -- i mean, i do think that there's been quite a number of serious and conscioequential failures on the part of policymaking, but i think that the states of the region have utterly, utterly failed, to come up with any kind of constructive solution and at the end o f the day, everybody wanted the united states to come and use the air force so that everybody could have an alibi and work. so, without solving the iran, saudi arabia geo political game there which has been fought through sectarian hatred, i really don't think we can get anywhere. without engaging, without engaging the russias in their, in a peace process, i don't think we can get anywhere. so if we could just face those realities, i think we would be better off.

>> just a quick question and then we'll open up to questions from our participants. marwan, you sort of contrasted tunisia with the rest of the region, but there was this interesting article in "the washington post" today about the large number of recruits to isis from tunisia and talking about actions, repression against -- following terrorist attacks inside of tunisia. how do you take this apart? inclusion is important. engagement is important, but it's a complicated matter in these polarized societies and we see this country, even with its promising young democracy has still had a problem of radicalization of youth. could you address that? >> i mean, tunisia, what is

happening in tunisia does not suggest they're a fully functioning democracy. they still have problems and will continue to have them for a while. not sure i can explain why on the one hand they have this large number of fighters. they tell me that after the revolution, a lot of people were released from prison. some were legitimate political prisoners. others were -- i don't know. i mean, i'm not one to judge that. what i, when i keep referring to tunisia, it's because i think the arab world today should be engaged in a war of values. not a war between secular and religious elements. not a war between, it's a war of values and in that respect, tunisia has shown despite

everything you can say, but it has shown the arab world that islam and democracy can coexist. that democracy does work in the arab world. that performance now is starting to trump ideology in the arab world. traditionally in the arab world was that people vote according to ideology, either because they're islamists, et cetera. one very important i think result from the election which took place tuesdays is that all three parties that formed the troika, lost in the last election. another went down from 38%, about 20% now they're saying. mazuka's party we want down to 1.5% and it kept on -- never even, not showing up. in the results ch.

what is that telling you, that people want results and if people, you know, do not see result, they're not going to cast their vote blindly just because it's an islamist party or because it's a party they, and who was the party that's won? a new party, not necessarily progressive led by an 86-year-old man formed only two years after you know, the revolution. right? and it was able to defeat the islamists, an organized party in the country, which has been operating since 1981. the message is clear from now on, performance is going to trump ideology. this is the war of value, i think, that needs to be fought in the arab b world and it's not being fought. other than tunisia, we have few country, if any, that understand the real battle is about to -- and for inclusion and not about

the battle between secular and religious enemies. >> thank you. we'll open now to questions from the audience. please put up your hand and wait for the microphone. >> so, following up on marwan's answer, there's been a crackdown on a lot of the perhaps legitimate political islam, whether it's the brother hood in egypt or islamic groups elsewhere. as part of this whole crackdown on isis is the brotherhood is hamas, is all these you know, other kind of groups, so i was just wondering, especially if you could tell us more where do you see these legitimate political islamic groups going during this time. marwan was talking about how in tunisia, they've had this test

and are failing in certain aspe aspects of it, but they really haven't been able to test them anywhere else in the arab world. >> thank you. we'll take a couple of other questions at the same time. trz. >> i'm dr. caroline poplin. just an amateur at this. it's a very interesting area. my question is for the gentleman from turkey. why are the turks so concerned about assad? he's -- turkey is a big country, part of nato, relatively wealthy, syria's a smaller country and so on. and if bashar was to be replaced now, it would probably be by isis. they're the most powerful other force in the country. >> one more right here.

>> from senator barney's office. thank you for bringing up nonmilitary solutions because i thought it was vital and don't get to hear a lot of that. my question is about another contact brief you mentioned about how some view to look at this for as america's and maybe that's one of the reasons why the coalition and the fact it has to be successful is very important. but given the historic tensions between saudi arabia and iran and how -- also are looking at different end games in the region, is there any common ground for the coalition to function on? >> thank you. okay, let's start with the first question. let's start with you on the question on political islamists, particularly, the brotherhood and then the other speakers may like to comment on this as well. >> we used to see -- nice to see you today.

she does a good job reporting for washington. those you want to see the news in arabic. the end of it, i'm not so sure. i think there still is a great, in many country, of course, there many different groups. should we treat them equal? in other words, the key issue is those who use violence as a means to achieve their political gain. this is what we should be against. give a different example. part of the government. i think egypt with was the biggest concern. because egypt so that you have victims who like egypt with its

resources. military, power, its importance, to fall into a certain group. using ideology as a means and allowing the country. that was a big thing. to see from a while. should we treat everyone equal? i think i go back, if anybody used violence. as a mean, we should fight. we should not allow extremist groups, you should, any sort of belief you have, it's your right to believe. again, this has led to -- the whole issue of muslim brother in egypt. this is the key issue, but how basically decided that the operation is 72, they have 100 years history, so i want to back from that.

still the firm position in sp t support of the muslim brotherhood and how it closed between them and turkey in support of those groups. again, from other perspective, like i said, it's being used different differently. and included in the fact is he has bla in saudi arabia. muslim, of course, group. but i think we differ between those -- just a matter of -- today on that front. but i can say one thing, we don't get to see the end of

islam. it will be wild. have a different shape. it's like what i mentioned before. >> just one thing. what we're seeing is politics. on the part of the turkish government, not too late, to have really havee all the reservations between itself and the assad regime prior to 2011 and i think it is not morally wrong, but it is unrealistic for it to demand this be a priority for everyone else. on the other hand, based on what the other panel said and to the extent that i follow the

american debate, nobody can really stomach you staying in place either, but nobody really knows how to move him out without creating a state collapse and god knows we have enough state collapsed states. we don't need another on and it is also in my judgment that the turkish government, august 2011, even before then perhaps, to have a muslim brotherhood type politician to replace assad. i think this is what they want. i just don't know if there are any quote, unquote, moderates left who can pull things together politically in that country. >> marwan, these questions, then also the questions specifically to you. >> sure. let's agree first that political islam cannot be used. extreme are different from hamas and hezbollah.

within the muslim brotherhood, it's different from egyptian brotherhood is different from the -- that's the first broad point i want to make. second, those who use violence lose their right to be participa participants. wu then we have to km pleat the sentence. those who don't have the right to be included and it's interesting that in the arab world, that the big now sort of campaign is against those who don't use violence. it's against the muslim broth brotherhood in egypt. those who use violence, we haven't seen such a campaign in the past in the same vigor that we have seen it here. my point is once you, once you accept the principal of

excluding others from the political process because you don't agree with their views, you in the same breath, allow them to exclude you when they come to power. so, selective democracy is no democracy. that's my main point. regardless of whether you agree or disagree with political islam. again, back to tunisia. what they have done is historic. it's historic in more than one way, but one important way in which it was historic is that it was the first time in the arab world, probably in the world, i don't want to make that -- probably in the world, where an islamic party wins and loses an election by the ballot box and seats defeat by the ballot box, so those who have argued in the arab world that the nature of islamic parties is such that when they come to power, they will never leave, that argument today is undermined.

by the fact that you do have an islamic party which did come to power and which seated power according to the ballot box. again, people will argue tunisia is different, but if an islamist party can do it in tunisia, there's no reason they can't do it in -- on the issue of saudi arabia and iran, i don't see why the saudis and iranian cannot cooperate rate on isis, for example. that does not mean they're going to see eye to eye on all issues and certainly they won't and there's a lot of differences over iran, shiite issue, over the nuclear issue, over security et cetera, but we've seen stranger bedfellows before when it came to certain issues and i don't see why, not saying they will, but i don't see why they

won't cooperate. on isis in a limited manner that will not extend to other operations. >> syria, is base for -- to be attacking in syria and second, they do not have an air force capability, can join the same collision, so what they have is an old equipment, old air force, c cannot join. can they participate in the ground support. i think they are part of the problem and not part of the solution. it's iran who really be practical and it's iran and the one and then it's number two if iran did not to fear iraq, created issues. in such a way so they cannot really, you know, they can help, maybe provide something. give at the same time, today in

iran, they feel they haven't given more capability, gave muslim shia a better perspect s. >> the next panel is going to focus on iran in more detail, but would you say that iran having withdrawn support for maliki was crucial this terms of moving the political process forward inside of iraq. >> you supported twice by the -- win the election, iran supported that fully. if it was that and the fall of mosul and today to protect him, they give him a higher political politician in any legal case. he holds the vice president position so al maliki, everybody protected maliki.

>> okay, we can take more questions. there's one in the middle here. any yquestions in the back of te room i'm not seeing. first this one here, then questions further back. >> yes. i have just heard that i don't remember, i think it's one of the panelist, american policy is not clear and consistent. >> could you also identify yourself? thank you. >> i'm from argentina national defense expert, national defense and a student. my question is i heard that american policy is not clear and consistent. so, when the united states was begun the war, the united states was having a kind of symmetric war, now, we are trying to defeat this group, a band of isis. do you think that this kind of

asymmetric strategy will lead to solution or is it very hard to obtain a good side with military force? >> thank you. we'll take more questions. i see one at the very back of the room. >> my name is nazila. the military correspondent in iran. i don't want to disagree with all of the elements stated on the panel and all the previous panel, my question is about drought in the region. no one has referred to it as one of the reasons that is contributing to the growth of the sort of underclass that is mentioned. is that factor being ignored by the countries in the region, in jordan, marwan, i'm curious to know, agriculture and farm iings becoming smaller. people are becoming economically unhappy.

is there anything that the governments can do and they're not doing it? in iran, i know that the government doesn't pay attention to people who -- lakes and rivers completely disappear, then it turns into a crisis. >> yes, drought. there was one more at the back of the room. >> the question was about able the is. you spoke about -- i believe you were referencing the free syrian army and not the assad regime. assuming we armed them -- that's going to go and go along with that policy of exclusion marwan was speaking about. >> okay, marwan, perhaps let's begin with you this time to address the water issue. the drought issue and whether this is a significant contributing factor to the

disillusionment and franchise. >> i haven't thought of it in terms of this kind of thinking, but it's certainly is a major issue. in the region in general and in jordan in particular. just to give you some statistics, the per capita share of water, if it drops below 400 cubic litte cubic liters a year, then a country would be considered poor in terms of water resources. jordan's share is 100. would the syrian refugees, you have an addition, 1.4, number of refugees.

so, you can understand the extent of the problem. i'm not going to link it to isis because that's a bit of a stretch. but it is one of the main problems. that face the region with no solution. for a country like jordan, the only solution is going to be basically two solutions. the country has to make decision about whether to keep agriculture you know, activity or not and if it doesn't, what does that mean to you know, a few hundred thousand of people who are living off this. but the other problem is that long-term problem is sanitation. in jordan's case, it requires a lot of energy. and of course, financial resources that jordan simply does not have.

so, basically, people are waiting for the technology to be such that the cost would be lowered. but until that happens, the country and the region will have to face some very, very serious decisions on this. >> okay, let me turn to sully on these other questions about whether the military approach will work and what about let's say what if the free syrian army were able to overthrow bashar. hypothetical. >> first question, can a symmetric war be won. first, you can contain an islamic state, you can damage

them, but you cannot really totally root them out. which is precisely my understanding on what the american policy was, that if they would bonk and everybody else would fight and the only ones willing to fight are the kurds in syria because the free syrian army is i think a shell without much of a content, i think, and i guess in iraq, that's the iraqi army, the peshmerga and the pkk and that complicates matters. and now forgive me, if the ra iranian were not invited, i'm sure it's for other reasons than not having good planes and i want to -- i want to relate this to the issue of drop because we didn't mention drug because that was not the debate was not about why we had this civil war. but of course, the drop issue is going become everywhere in world, a manl national security issue. and these are really huge problems.

and in order to deal with those things, you need to have functioning governments. we don't have functioning governments and before the geo political contest is settled, we will not. i will add some other long-term and probably unsolvable problem if we go along this path. what do we do with those millions of refugees, i don't think for a second that the 2 million refugees who are in turkey, a big bulk of them, are er going to return, so what do we do with these people? do you leave them like that so they are the next generation of des prad os? especially when the climate conditions worsen, government's problems worsen and stuff and that really requires a degree of international cooperation that we have not seen. why? because the essential power

struggles have not been settled and the longer we can't with that unsettled political balance in the region, the more difficult it's going to be to actually tackle these problems and that requires regional leadership andinternational leadership. unfortunately, i fail to see it exists. >> i think having this country today, they feel they are fighting war by proxy. having millions put a -- small country like lebanon manage the issue. also jordan, turkey, it's a big problem. but don't forget, 2 million iraqis moved from mosul and the north to kurdistan. moving from south to north, so

we see this problem that needs to be addressed and not huge future consequences of that. i think i'll go back to the question in syria. two years ago, i wrote an article saying is a military transition an answer to the syrian problem. in other words, what i'm saying, the one who supports bashar is his military establishment. only stated we will not die for assad. but the question was if we have that military salutation positional counts, could that be a solution? where this could consist of both the free syrian army, what would they do? they maintain it would be accept blg to the captivity, still have bases and location in the country. they can still do a job to come, to bring a little stability to

encourage people to come back, to gradually build. and austria, beautiful place where he hid most of his money or nigeria or try to take him to a criminal court is up to them, but always my concern was those people fought and protected assad, never received assurance they would not be taken to court and as long as they don't receive that, still, they have the interest. so, we need to think much more comprehensive solution, which includes his part of his regime that have kept him survive and the other, you know, the really ask -- in no way, i mean, no way he will gain. in both cases, he's a loser. if he stays, more than the way he's doing today and part of

damascus or the damascus that he's controlling. at the same time, somebody will argue why -- let's see the plat for everybody, hezbollah, try to get rid of them -- b for the, everybody for the syrian army. let it be a platform. i disagree totally. we should really work in a political solution where we can try to see, increase the pressure. assad, he doesn't feel pressure b today. a fight between the you know, the peshmerga, still fight on the kobani and still there. >> we have time for r just a couple of more questions. there's one gentleman in the last row who's been tryinging for a long time to get his question in.

>> hi. my name is omar -- this question i may direct it to michelle. the moderator. or others, you mentioned the terrorism under coat. and but we never defined what it means and i have to quote my mentor, howard zen, who said we're fighting terrorism. terrorism war is terrorism. what are we fighting? war is terrorism. so, those who fight and it was mentioned during discussion, those who fight, they're the bad guys, okay. they should not be included. united states is in the forefront of fighting. war. so, given that, do we also as united states, the super terrorist? >> this gentleman here i believe had a question.

>> just talk to saudi arabia's role in terms of in one hand, fighting isis, a group whose ideology is rooted back inside the kingdom and what more could saudi do to try to balance those two sides on the one hand, fight, while on the other hand, spending millions to support that ideology through schools worldwide et cetera. >> okay, and a last question right here. >> i have a quick question -- is there any way you can tell us how the relationship between -- is based, how the current administration including mr. president is p perceived by rio? thank you. >> okay. great. t so, i mean, i'll start by

addressing the question of the gentleman in the back. you know, i think there are, there is a lot of controversy over the definition of terrorism and it was in quotes here partly because in the title of the panel because of the differences in definition between the, among the united states and its coalition partners and between some of them and i think we've gotten to those issues. a little bit about whether, everyone knows there's something broader going on here than isis. right, but the question is, so there's this fear of radicalization and then people, basically, the definition of terrorism is normally people using violence and usually, using violence against civilians or noncombatants for political reasons. and so, you know, we've discussed a little bit though that that, i mean, sully was

saying in the beginning that turkey wants the pkk to be treated as a terrorist group and b byd, perhaps. muslim brotherhood has also been claimed by saudi arabia and the emirates as a terrorist group. so there's this issue of whether all groups who political islamists should be considered part of the same problem or not. you know, what's interesting is i asked the question at the beginning of the panel. is this going to be a big problem. is it going to be something that's going to impede cooperation between the united states and its allies or even among the allies and i think what i've heard today is not so much. there are even bigger issues than the definitional issue, although the larger problem of radicalization and how that will extend remains very much

unresolved. let me give each of the speakers sort of one minute to address the last couple of questions. we're start with you since there was a specific question for you about saudi arabia. >> besides what comes to the issue you know, saudi turkish religions because i myself am in support of having a good relation between both sides, however, we agree on many issues and disagree on some. we agree on the issue that turkey and iraq can off set impulse with iran and iraq. we agree that turkey's extremely important to the syrian issue. at the same time, i think egypt has a problem in that. turkey does not witch to accept the reality that cease in power

is there, military are in position. they don't witch to see that defeated. i can understand president of iran position. in a country like turkey. i think my feeling that turkey, reality was setting down. we're going to see that the reality in the relations between both sides will take place much sooner than later. in his last visit to saudi arabia, a friend of mine, i believe who quoted the issue of relation again between turkey, saudi arabia, saudi has nothing against having a good relation with turkey, but they wish to see less tension between turkey and egypt. i think having a triangle saudi

arabia, egypt, turkey, i think they do great things in many region and security. >> your question sir i think was got to saudi, to fight both. yes. 1.5 billion muslim toward saudi arabia, we have to maintain you know, being the leader of islam, but at the same time, we have accepted the islam in the big conference -- and i see moderate islam exists, we are not -- and by the way -- is more about liberalism and not conservative. they wish to see power to their kids and sons and family, so they are not quick in reforms because they can do it much quicker because they would like to stay in power and at the same time, we understand extremism and we have to fight extremism. i think saudi arabia have proven

to be a strong defender. when we came up with a global center and saudi donated hurricanes of millions of dollars to the united states nation, it was our intention to have a global cooperation in fighting terrorism, extremism. this is something we suffer from. we have been fighting and we kobt to fight. >> it's a very political thing, that's why you have all these problems not agreeing on definitions because they're political differences. i'd like to conclude with the turkish american relations, which are turkey's paramount relations and those in my view, have been shaken somewhat in the last few months. partially because there are idea logical divergences, the topic of what to do with i.s. and what the best course to follow is.

i think it is worthwhile of both countries to actually try to figure out how they should redefine the lines of communication because a lot is at stake there if those relations go bad in my view. >> thank you, sully. marwan has seated his final comments in favor of letting you get to lunch. which is a buffet served outside here. so, please following this session, just get your lunch and come back in and have a seat. we'll be beginning the next section in 30 minutes. but before that, please join me in thanking.

president obama is in china today and announced that the u.s. and china would start granting visas to each other's citizens that would be valid for up to ten years. the president arrived in beijing day for a high level summit and is pursuing a trade pact with 11 other countries excluding china. this is part of a week long foreign trip for the president. thursday and friday, he'll be in myanmar and the trip will include in australia on saturday and sunday for the g-20 leaders summit and he is expected to deliver a major policy address there and we will be following the president's traveling on cspan. sylvia burrwell will be speaking about the upcoming opening enrollment period and ensuring the readiness of healthcare.gov.

beginning at 1:00 p.m. eastern. here are just a few of the comments we've recently received from viewers. >> i swrused your show this morning on domestic violence and was disappointed with what i saw and heard. i felt the guests were both weak and ineffectual and it seems that the bulk of callers were a bunch of whiny men. one woman is beaten every 15 seconds in this country by a husband or partner. that is one woman every 15 seconds. this issue alarmingly, is swept under the rug in this country. probably and most likely because of the perpetrators are male. the only way this will ever change is if men are willing to look at their own bad behavior and address it head on.

>> i'm listening to your commentator and the one from the news and they're talking about 2,000 some bills being on the harry reid desk to be presented for whatever. while each and every one of those bills have a repeal of what they call a obamacare or of the affordable care act a. whoever ever is your commentator and eds to bring out that point. i just heard your comment, the comments on the lady who called in and said i'm watching your show recorded by the way. that it would be good rather than having democrats -- comment and then one at a time, so let democrats and republicans basically fight it out sounds like verbally on the show. if you ever decide to do that, i'm up for that. >> continue to let us know what

inning about the programs you're watching. or send us a tweet. join the cspan con ver sag. like us on facebook, follow us on twirt. >> world bank president says the biggest concern with the ebola outbreak in west aftrica is the need for more doctors. he made the comments at a kre cent "christian science monitor" breakfast. he said so far, the world bank has pledged $400 million to the ebola swag, with 175 million available for supplies on the ground. and the bulk going to rebuild health systems and economic structures of the affected countries. this is an hour.

okay, folk, here we go. i'm dave cook from the "christian science monitor." thanks for coming. our guest is jim yong kim. this is his first visit with the group and we were honored to host a number of his pred successors. we appreciate him to being with us today. he was born in south korea and moved to iowa when his family, with his family, rather, when he was 5. he earned a bachelor's from brown university and -- from

harvard. before finishing his harvard degree, he cofounded the non-profit partners this health and was a leader in tackling tuberculosis and hiv aids in developing countries. in 2003, he joined the staff of the world health organization, becoming director of its hiv aids department. the same year, he won a mcarthur genius scholarship. along the way, he held a variety of professorships and shared departments at a number of distinguishes medical institutions including harvard medical school. he was the 17th president of dartmouth college and was elected world bank president of july 2012, the -- as always, we are on the record here. please, no live blogging or tweeting. no filing of any kind while the

breakfast is under way to give us time to let us listen to what our guest says. to help you resist the relentless selfie urge, we will e-mail several pictures to the reporters here as soon as the breakfast ends. if you'd like to ask a question, send me a subtle, nonthreatening signal and happily call on all when we have the time available. start off by offering our guests the opportunity to make some opening communities. with that, thanks again, sir, for doing this. >> thanks so much for having me. it's a great honor to be here. i know this breakfast has a long tradition and we know that starting with president mcnamara, the presidents have been here. i'm open to talking about anything you might want to talk about, but publicly, something on the top of people's minds is ebola. that's going on right now. first of all, let me just start

by saying that i've been watching carefully about what's going on in new york city and couple of things that are very striking to me. first, this was a city and a system that was extremely well prepared. i think we learned a lot from dallas. and looking at the response from both the governor, the mayor, the public health officials, tom frieden of the centers for disease control, it was very impressive. they did everything in just the way you'd want a government or system to respond. the other thing i'd like to stress is we have to understand that dr. spencer is a hero. he is doing exactly what's needed to actually bring the epidemic to an end. he is a hero in that he went and did the one thing that we need to do in order to stop more cases from coming not only here, but everybody where else. we need to have health worker, experienced health workers. he's a fellow in international emergency medicine, which is an

extremely good training for something like this kind of activity and the one thing that now we know in these three countries is that we need health workers. there's tremendous work being done, especially by the u.s. and u.k. on building facilities, but it's not clear where the health workers are going to come from to provide the treatment, the ice lasolatio isolation, the infection control we need right now. the epidemic is still growing. it's hard to get exact numbers on where we are in the three country, but we know it's still growing. i think any numbers you might hear, most of them are about, are oriented around thinking how to plan. how big could it again? so doesn't make any sense for me to tell yout's going to get this big or that. we really don't know. but i can tell you this for sure, that if we do not improve our ground game quickly, lots is

being done. if i look back just a month and a half, there's so much going on in the ground now there there was not before, but the biggest concern and this is why dr. spencer's story is so poignant for me, the biggest concern is that we'll build facilities and then won't have the workforce to put them into use, so, with that, let me stop and head it back to dave and then we'll talk about anything else you'd like to talk about. >> one or two, then go to guy taylor, anna from reuters, don from the "l.a. times" and brett norman from politico to start. let me take you back to something you said at a reuters event last week. you said in terms of the global response to ebola, we're not close yet. we're not close in terms of getting it right. has that assessment changed? >> we're closer now than even last week, so things are moving quickly. facilities are getting built. facilities are getting bill. we're looking at everybody

single option. i just spoke with margaret chan this morning. she calls me when she needs to tell me anything and she called to tell me a couple of things. first, they had a very successful meeting on vaccines because there are several vaccine candidates. now, let me stress that there is no proven vaccine, so we can't be lulled into thinking that a videocassette scene is going to solve this problem.

an interesting position now. >> what do you see as the world bank's role in this? do you find the organization suited for the division of how you might benefit the situation? >> world banks is very involved in world financing health. larry summers did a study, it was now 11 months ago, but in january 2014 larry summers publish the a study to show that in low to middle income countries, 24% of growth from 2000 to 2011 was due to improved health outcomes. life expectancy went up, mortality went down -- infant

mortality that went down, those accounted for a quarter of economic growth. we're involved in health because it's so important for health. in this particular case, we have a crisis response window. it's one of the only sources of readily available cash that we can move to developing countries. because the other traditional fund urz weren't stepping up and there wasn't a fun that immediately disperses when you have outbreaks like this, we had to become that organization. here's what we're focusing on now. we have -- we developed these very interesting instruments. they're almost like insurance instruments. we call them catastrophic draw-down bonds. what we do is go into a country like mechanics sxoe xico and sa time you had an earthquake, it was difficult getting the cash to be able to respond. there is a big chunk of money,

hundreds of millions of dollars. as soon as they have a disaster, those funds will dispersion. inside our organization people started saying, why don't we have things like this for outbreaks. that's what we're working on. we can use our balance sheets so a large fund, billions and billions of dollars can be set up. but will only dispersion if there's an emergency like this. that was the problem. as much as organizations like msf, other charitable groups, as much as they would like to scale up, there wasn't the resources, there wasn't the health worker core that was ready to go, we now know we have to build that. we will work on the financial pieces of it and our hope is together with the global community we can set something up that will work like this.

let's say something even worse than ebola, deadly pandemic flu, if we can get the emergency health worker corps into fighting the ep dicks where they exist. if you have a fund like this, we hope it will work as an advanced market signal for vaccine makers. vaccines would like to move forward but it's hard to find financing. is there any interest in your product or would they pay for it? we hope this would take a step toward answering that. the link between economic and health development, no question. but even protecting from downside risks to the global economy, this is one of the things i think we really have to do. >> sure, thanks. >> follow-up quickly. how much money did the world bank pony up right at the beginning? >> really, before anyone else

stepped up, we pledged $200 million. and then afterward when we saw that it was much more serious epidemic, we did $200 million more. the total pledge is $400 million. usually this takes months to dispersion. three months incredibly rapid dispersement. once we saw the problem from the time we took it to our board to the time it was in the three countries, it was nine days. now, normally we just don't work like that. but this was so crucial that we -- we did it. and this is going to -- the first $100 million -- first $117 million is paying for supplies, protective gear to health workers' salaries. we bought ambulances because ambulances were needed to kaert patients. so, we're really doing anything that's needed right now. a big chunk of that money also has to be for building back

those health systems and trying to get the economies going. our private sector, ifc, has committed to increasing its activities. the economic impact on these three countries has been devastates and we have to think about rebuilding those economies. all three have come out of conflicts over the last decades. and the last thing we need is for this epidemic to lead into another situation where they move back into conflict. we're trying to do many things at once but right now the focus has to be on putting the fire out. >> guy? >> thanks so much for being here, mr. president. my name is guy taylor from "the washington times." i'm probably going to be that guy because i want to try to shift the conversation just for a few minutes. i'm sure we'll go back to ebola and try to bring it inside the world bank for a minute. there have been a lot of

articles, some i've written and a number of others here, about unrest inside the bank. memos circulating among rank and file economists. there's one out now calling for people to hold a rally in the lobby of the bank every thursday. there have been several large rallies some of these people mostly won't give their names but accusing you on paper of gross mismanagement of a restructuring of the bank. i wanted to give you an opportunity to respond to that publicly. i specifically wanted to ask is one thing that's come out is this sense of a kind of culture fear inside the bank. people complain about this to reporters. i wonder what you're doing to address that. budget cuts, reforming, restructuring are one thing, but when a culture fear takes hold, as anyone in the media, i think,

understands, it's a difficult -- it's a difficult thing. >> when i tookt job in 2012, the questions i was getting in a pretty pointed way, what is the relevance of the world bank? the questions that kept coming up, are you relevant for middle income countries anymore? one of the things that was worrisome is that we were reaching what we called our single borrower limit. in other words, we were running out of space to support middle income countries. the other issue that came up was the sense as a knowledge institution, we had fallen backwards. we weren't providing state-of-the-art knowledge to all the different countries who are our clients. then we did a survey of the entire staff. the survey was extremely critical of the bank as it was.

and so the issues we tried to tackle were, how can we continue to through to be relevant for middle income countries? the second issue was, how can we ensure we're moving the best global knowledge to every country? and one of the things we found, when we asked technical specialists, how much of your time do you spend providing your technical expertise to other regions, because they're all locked into regions. it came back 1% of the time. we knew we needed to do a couple of things historically, we decided we needed to make fundamental root and branch changes. when we decided we were going to do that, i told everyone to begin with, this is going to be really hard because it hadn't happened for 20 years. no structural change for 20 years. this talk of moving toward a global knowledge system, talk of

trying to increase our lending capacity, all of this was on the table but nothing happened literally from 1997. when we started in, we tackled a very robust agenda. we did it at a time of historically low interest rates. that means our income is lower. so, the only way we would have been able to do that, to grow our capacity, to lend to middle income countries and to have dmroebl knowledge to do a review of our expenditures. it turns out an expenditure review hadn't been done for a long time. we had not for more than a decade. so, what the board told us was, we will work with you and let you increase your lending capacity and we support the move to go to global knowledge groups, but you really have to do something about efficiency

and your expenditures. so, the complexity of this is we did it all at once. the reason we did it all at once is because each was contingent on the other. you can expand your lending to middle income countries but you have to go through expenditure review. the only reason they would want more lending is if your knowledge was significantly better. we're in the middle of this and people are understandably worried about their job, worried about what the system will look like. in big bureaucracies like ours, when people get used to doing things, no matter how much they may be critical of it in a survey and tell you there are steps that don't need it, et cetera, et cetera, when you change it, it's very unsettling. we knew there would be many kroers corrections we would have to go through.

we're in the middle of a course correction right now. and the rallies have happened. after one of the rallies, i had a town hall meeting and we spoke about specific issues. there were some issues i was aware of, but then there were others that were brought to my attention in a very clear way at that -- at the town hall. the next week we had another meeting and we made policy changes. i would just put it this way. i have great emptythy and sympathy for the people who have to go through this and are still uncertain about their jobs. but the only thing we can do is keep going, make sure the changes happen. and then everybody will know soon enough whether or not they have a job or how the process of making decisions around jobs will go forward. you know, i've learned a lot from this process. one of the things most important, when you have 188

governors, when you have a live-in board. our board lives and work with us inside the institution, 25 executive directors, people from 100 different countries who speaking english is the language in washington but there are many different languages. with this much complexity, an organization that hasn't gone through a change for a long time, it's tough. but there are things that are happening already that i think are happening. the response to ebola has not been a regional response at all. it's been a response that's been involved in all kinds of different expertise in the bank. now we're structured so that we can do that. we recently were able to put together a price on carbon. a statement on a price on carbon for the -- for the -- for the u.n. general assembly. that was a cross -- you know, an institutionwide effort that

really wouldn't have happened before. so, i am extremely optimistic and confident that this is going to get better. >> real quickly because we have a bunch of other people waiting. >> i appreciate your answer. you did hold these meetings, town hall meetings. one of them, the issue of your cfo's bonuses came up. and i'm curious to know, this is bertran badry, he had been given a bonus, and you announced to the staff he would renounce his bonuses. however the world bank press office said he had already received 70% of his bonus and he was going to be keeping that but foregoing the last part. could you clarify that? this is going to be broadcast and i'm sure there are people inside the bank that know you're the one who has the answer to that question. is he actually giving his

bonuses back or he's keeping them and not going forward? >> no, he's not giving what he's already received back. that would be very difficult process to go for. he's foregoing in the future. the scare skills premium is because we are a rules-based organization. and salaries for staff in different countries are based on local -- local salaries. and it's very difficult for us to attract the kind of talent we need in many places in the world if we don't have a scare skill premium. bertran, he was the cfo of one of the largest banks in france, society general, so we were trying to meet the salary cut he was taking. i think bertrand did a great thing in refusing to take any more but we're not asking him to give what he already had back. >> anna?

from reuters. >> thanks for coming and talking about this again. i'm going back to ebola for a second. >> a little louder, please. >> i wanted to ask you about the chance of the -- how the disease is spreading or not in west africa. if you talk to experts looking at the number of cases and the fact that even in nigeria, as we talked about, the response was huge for just a small number of cases and given we don't have enough health workers, the expectation is this is going to spread to the neighboring countries. it's already on the border with core de ivory. what does it mean for the u.s. response? the u.s. has come in and so far they've said their troops will not be even coming near the disease, but do you think that's a realistic strategy? what is the exit point for that? >> so, what happened in nigeria was really a model, but it was a

model that was workable because there was one cross-border case that l to about 20 cases. just to give everyone the numbers, it was over 200 physicians, over 600 other health workers, upwards of -- more than -- we understand it's more than $10 million of costs. and they did almost 19,000 home visits where they took people's temperatures. this was beginning contact tracing. so, it was a textbook public health response but if -- you can imagine if there were 100 cases or 1,000 cases that came over the border, it would be challenge even nigeria to be able to respond effectively. so, right now the strategy is to do -- to focus on what are the critical things to do to make sure that you can somehow knock down the speed of the growth.

so, the two things people have identified as most important things are safe burials. and then identifying the people who are sick with ebola and then at the same time, trying to provide them both treatment and preventing further infection. so i think the goal now is 70% safe burials and 70% safe detection. that's not the classic public health response. what they're basically saying is that you -- it's going to be difficult to find every case right now and it's going to be really difficult to do all the contact tracing. so i think they're being extremely practical and trying to take that first major step, knock down the growth as much as you can by going at the places where -- going after those problems that are spreading the virus the most and then after that, you may be able to then bring in the classic public health response. right now, that's the reality. we're now using, you know, not the ideal techniques, but it's

because the epidemic in those three countries is so big. if we had thousands of health workers going in, we could get all of that done and then get to the classic public health response of doing all the contact tracing. that's what you would like to do. but in a situation where you don't have enough health workers, you have to focus on what are the highest impact things you can do right now. >> do you think it's going to spread to neighboring countries? what does that mean for the strategy of trying to fight it? >> we're also -- the world health organization, the whole global response is working with each of the neighboring countries to put their response in place. so, i think it's no doubt that the neighboring countries are much better prepared than those -- than liberia, sierra leone and guinea are. but it's going to be a challenge. if it's one case at a time, their systems may be able to respond. but if we don't get it under

control and hundreds or thousands of people start coming across the border, then i think we're going to have a voery, vey serious problem. >> michael lindberger, ian tally, and mark trouble from the monitor. mr. lee. >> mr. kim, with the g-20 coming up and leaders getting together, what do you expect specifically, or what are you looking for in terms of the response to ebola? and secondly on a non-ebola question, there have been reports about the u.s. actively opposing china's efforts to build a development bank and that could rival world bank. and i wonder what you think of that, that effort? >> i suspect there will be talk about ebola at the g-20.

i think, you know, both president obama and then yesterday prime minister cameron have been very loud about really asking other countries to also make donations and to do their part. i'll certainly give the same message that we -- we still need resources and we still need health workers. i'll certainly give that message at the g-20. i think at the g-20 the topic of discussion will also be global growth. the two items that the aus trailance have focused on is target for global growth. 2% global growth target. the interesting thing is when the oecd and imf did a survey of all the different economic strategies that are -- that are -- that are currently being carried out, that if everyone did what they said they were going to do, there's a chance to

get to 1% global growth. so, it's -- in that sense, it's a relatively positive picture, but then the question is, will everybody implement all the structural reforms they need to reach that target. that's one of the discussion items. and so the other issue of infrastructure gets right to your second question. one of the things that the australians have identified is there is a massive market failure right now. there are lots of great infrastructure projects that could both boost the growth of economies, especially in developing countries and there's lots of capital sitting on the sidelines earning very low returns. and the win-win situation could be we find some way of mobilizing that capital that's sitting on the sidelines and get it invested in the vital

infrastructure projects. so the australians have really focused on building something called the infrastructure center, global infrastructure center that will be a clearing house of information and opportunities to bring the capital on the sidelines and the infrastructure projects together. now, that's exactly what the infrastructure investment bank is going to do. it was just launched yesterday in china. you'd have to ask the united states government what their take on this is. i'll tell you our view of it. the chinese government began talking with us very early on. immediately after they had this idea. and the idea was that especially in asia, there's nowhere near enough money for infrastructure. so the estimate is there's a trillion to trillion and a half needed in infrastructure development. so if you put all the

multilateral development baction together we're about $45 million. if you look at the private sector from 2012 to 2013, private sector investment in infrastructure in developing countries went down. and the figure in 2013 was around $160 billion. all the infrastructure investment doesn't even begin to meet the need in developing countries for infrastructure investment. our perspective is that any institution that comes to the table to try to make these investments in infrastructure are welcome. we've been working very closely with them. they want to utilize our technical expertise. we've been doing everything from project preparation to implementation support to, you know, bringing multiple different groups together to finance projects for a long time. so, the asian infrastructure investment bank should be a very welcome addition to the current situation which is a woeful lack

of financing for infrastructure. now, the politics of it, you know, we're not a political organization. it's actually in our articles of agreement that we don't get involved in domestic politics, so you'll have to ask the u.s. their position on it. my sense is we could work with them very well. [ inaudible ] >> no, i have not heard from chinese officials. >> do you feel threatened? >> no, not at all. you know, the -- we without question know that there are many, many more infrastructure projects that are worthy of investment that we can invest in. we know that are to sure. i think the critical thing for us is to make sure our investments are well coordinated. i can even see co-investing in a lot of different projects. we just -- one of the outcomes of the australian g-20 is that we established something called global infrastructure facility

for just this purpose because we know that we did -- i think we did almost $30 billion last year, $20 billion last year in infrastructure spending. again, that's not nearly enough. so, what we did is we just launched a facility that we can -- we will put some of our own money in. we'll do all the project preparation. we'll use our safeguards. and then we're going to try to attract money from other sources. for example, sovereign wealth funds -- sovereign wealth funds from europe and united states that wouldn't think to invest in fran structure in developing countries. but if we're involved and we can make it clear that the risk/reward ratio really makes sense, then we can bring some of that capital into building roads and highways and sources of energy in africa. >> apart from mr. duncan, the first case of ebola diagnosed here, the record of treating

patients has been extremely good so far. the two nurses who were infected, cleared the virus before an average person even shows symptoms, or close to it, are there specific early interventions we're learning about here that might be able to be applied in africa in stages of catching it early enough? >> so, the ebola virus is a very interesting virus in the sense that it's -- it's really not well adapted to exist in the world in a sense that in a developed country, if you prevent any further infections and you give intensive care to the people who are sick, you can stop its spread very, very quickly. the reason it spread in those three countries, because it's

opportunistically taken advantage of the fact that those health systems were not developed to be able to detect, treat or further prevent further infections. it can only spread if you're falling down on the job in terms of providing health care services. i think we've all recognized that the next thing we have to really do is to just commit to putting in place adequate health services in every country in the world, because it's going to be -- it's going to be the country that doesn't have those services that's going to be the accelerator of future epidemics. we now understand that and we've got to get better of it. the treatment is supportive care. there are some candidate drugs, candidate vaccines, but meaning what happens is when the virus gets into cells and the cells start leaking, you lose fluids on the one hand, and electric row lights, potassium, but your electricity lights get out of

balance and you need to replenish those fluids. a doctor from liberia who survived and the story is he forced himself to drink 12 liters of fluid a day and he forced himself to eat by holding his nose. no, in any modern hospital, you wouldn't have to do that. you would provide intravenus fluids and if needed you would provide nastogastric feeding or even intravenous feeding. in other words, all the tools we have, all the tools we need to get survival rates very high, we actually have. and so one of the efforts we're trying to make in these three countries, and this is especially my focus, is to try to increase the capacity to do things like monitoring and managing electrolytes and managing hydration.

i think all his colleagues died because it's very hard to drink 12 liters of fluid and hold your nose to eat. any modern medical center would have given those nurses a much, much better chance at survival. so, what we're trying to do is to argue that we have to put in place in these three countries an extremely high level of care. so that the incentive is for people in those three countries to stay where they are. they want to stay where they are. they want to stay in their home country. they want to go back to work in their fields, go back to their jobs. but if you're in a situation where they're not available and you know survival is much higher, the incentive is to leig leave. the only way to put it out is to put in as high a quality of service as we possibly can. do the things quickly we know

will slow them down, like burials and identify who they are, but if you tell patients, we're going to isolate you. we're not going to give you intravenus fluids. we're not going to give you tube feeds or anything like that, but we're going to make sure you don't infect anyone else, if you think going into isolation is going to be -- is basically a death sentence, then, unfortunately, the incentive is to go somewhere where it's not the death sentence. that's the challenge. that's why we need health workers so badly. >> michael. >> dallas morning news. what did we learn, what were the mistakes or warning you didn't see -- or you saw taken advantage of in new york? >> i think, first of all, we now have a much, much higher level of suspicion, and we're paying much closer attention to travel history. so, you know, dr. spencer is a trained professional. so, he was taking his temperature twice a day from the

time he came. and the fact that -- the fact he made the call and got to care literally the morning when his temperature spiked, i think, suggests to me that the chance, just as everyone has said, the chance of infecting others before that was, as the department of health person said, almost nil. so, i think in dallas there was just not the level of heightened awareness and suspicion this might -- this might come to dallas. and so i think it's, on the one hand, unfortunate that happened to dallas but it's fortunate we've learned from it. my understanding is because of that experience, health systems all over the united states are now at a level of preparedness that they simply had not been before. and so it's the preparedness. it's thinking ahead. there's no miracle drug. there's no magical, surgical

procedure that stops it. it's high-level suspicion so when you think someone might have ebola, you isolate them right away. when they get sick, you provide them the kind of care they need to survive the infection. you know, i do -- i don't know exactly what the number will be, but i suspect that for cases caught early, and mr. duncan, unfortunately, died, but it's probably because, you know, we were a little late in getting the treatment. if we had treated him earlier, i think -- again, i think the chances of him surviving would have been much higher. if that's the story, and i think -- i hope that will become the story, that when you -- when cases are caught early and when they're caught nerl a prepared health care system like the united states, that not only do we prevent infections, but survival is very high. >> you were mentioning the importance of getting health care workers, given the case that's made the most attention here in america have centered on health care workers, how are you

going to convince thousands of folks, either from here or elsewhere, to go put themselves at risk? >> that's a great question. that's why i started with saying that dr. spencer's a hero. you know, dr. spencer understood this epidemic. he understood that the only way to protect americans in the medium and long term was to treat, and he understood that. that is actually the case. so, i -- even after dr. spencer came back with ebola, i would still say that what we need now is for physicians -- you know, we take various forms of an oath. the oath, is that, you know, we'll do everything we can to protect ourselves. but our job is to go out and treat those who are sick. if you have a global epidemic raging in three countries, i think it's -- it's extremely noble but also very much in the

spirit of what -- of what we -- of the oaths we take in becoming a physician. i wish him the best. i hope he gets better and gets better quickly. i would not at all be surprised if he goes back and continues to treat people in those countries. and i would urge others to seriously consider going and helping. >> my colleague in monrovia said there are numerous anecdotal cases of workers who aren't getting paid the cash, including yourself, the bank has provided. what kind of accountability structure do you have and assurances do you have that the cash is being spent as intended and isn't being siphoned off

into some accounts? second secondly, nobody's mentioned this. i'm just curious whether there's been any mention of sucomnment to oversee global efforts on this? you constantly seem to be saying that there is a shortage of supply, a shortage of action. you seem to be pushing, seem to be knowledgeable of what's going on and there's been criticism of other efforts. finally, if you could, can you elaborate just what your understanding is on the shortage of health care workers? what are we talking about here? how many thousands are we short? >> so, ian, as you know, we have

been aggressively trying to lead the fight against corruption in developing countries since 199 null when jim wolfson, it was unknown for people like the president of the world bank to use what they called the "c" word back then, corruption. his aides at the time begged him not to say corruption. he then went out and gave a speech called the cancer of corruption. ever since that time people like paul volcker and others have been working with us and all the other institutions to really follow the money as carefully as we can. every single project is audited. we have people on the ground who are following the money. and, you know, our understanding is that a lot of this is just related to the inefficiency in the system. on the other hand, if there is corruption, if there are people siphoning off these funds, we

have about as robust a system as one can imagine in settings like this to follow it afterwards. so, i think it's really -- you know, as i said, leading into the next question, margaret chan called me at 6:15, by the way, to tell me one of the things they're trying to do is put electronic payment systems in place. we actually know there are great examples of electronic pay systems in africa, one place is kenya. it's one of the things we're going to work on over the next literally days to weeks to get that on the ground. if we can do something more add you theed, people get paid on a card with a cell phone, we'll put it into place. i actually have a day job, ian, and the response is being led, i think, by all the appropriate people. so, the secretary-general is very personally involved in the

response. and, you know, as i said, margaret is 24 hours a day, margaret chan, head of the world health organization, 24 hours a day working on this issue. they're the ones who can do things like convene a meeting on vaccines and come up with a protocol to go forward. they're the ones who can convene all the right people to have the kinds of conversations that need to be had about where to go. it's very interesting. they brought in the person who's running the response now is probably the person who has the most experience and actually doing things on the ground, his name is bruce alwerd, a friend of mine and he's been running the polio eradication response. that's a huge implementation effort. now that he's involved, there's probably something you haven't heard of, the global outbreak alert and response network, goarn, they have about 300 people that were brought together around previous epidemics and they were critical in managing the sars epidemic.

just about everybody in that network is in those countries, working on the response. so, i think there are a lot -- there's a lot of activity in the organization. i don't feel i need to -- i haven't been asked to step in, but one thing that's really worked. margaret and i are really old friends. i hired margaret chen as part of the transition team in 2003 when i was leading the transition. so i've known her for more than a decade. i know these players so well, that it's been really helpful for me to be in this position, being able to put resources in very specific places in collaboration with the others. i think that's not the issue right now. the issue is continuing the momentum and at the risk of repeating myself too often, getting the people in place who can actually make it happen. >> we've got about five minutes le

left. mark. >> thank you. you've been talking about the importance of rushing resources to the west african region, but -- and we have our hands full trying to do that and get health systems here at home and the u.s. ready in cases like new york, but is there also a need to get going on that wider public health system? could this crop up in other developing countries that are ready and are resources being mobilized for that and how so? >> great question. let me answer the health workers question, i forgot, ian. it's thousands. i can't give you an exact number but more than that, it's thousands who rotate. it's really hard to do this kind of work for a year at a so the msf also has rotations.

we need literally thousands and thousands of trained health workers who will need more training around ebola to step up and volunteer. and we would love to see hospital systems in the united states volunteer numbers, we would love to see countries all over europe, you know, cuba has stepped up quite impressively. we'd like to see more and more countries do just that. the answer is, yes, could another epidemic come on top of this epidemic? yes, absolutely. could another epidemic that spreads more quickly and just as deadly crop up? yes. all those answers are yes. so, i think this is a wake-up call. i hope this is a wake-up call. this is why i'm so focused on getting this global facility put together, because if we go out and say, you need to put billions of dollars into a fund, i think there's going to be a very negative response. but if we say that we need to set up an instrument that you'd

only have to pay back if it dispers disperses, and it would only disperse in the face of a terrible emergency, i think we have the beginnings of a discussion. i actually began the discussion at the g-20 meetings. there has been a lot of interest. so we're going forward. we're going to put something together. but you also need basic public health infrastructures in place in every country in the world. and it's really not that expensive. it's affordable and doable. this is a conversation i'm having with tom frieden of the centers for disease control all the time. so, we're going to -- we're having that conversation as we go. but for now, the focus has still been on the immediate response. >> and is that important for ebola or just for the future? >> you know, ebola, ebola is not an airborne infectious disease. if it was, it would be an issue

for ebola. but ebola, because it moves relatively slowly, have you to have direct contact, you know, we're really focusing on the countries in the region. if they get on planes and go to europe and the united states, again, i think the awareness is so high that the systems are more prepared now than before. but in the medium and long term, we've really got to get on this task. [ inaudible ] >> a little louder, please. thank you. >> yeah. i was wondering about how organized the response. you've been insisting for the whole hour about the importance of having these health workers on the ground. what is -- the u.s. military are doing now, is it balancing health workers? and how are you thinking the response in terms of rotation, that means when health workers go back to the u.s., this doctor

from new york, is it imaginable they would wait in the country where they've been working in order to make sure they don't have ebola before they go back or is it not imaginable in the way you're going to organization their rotations? >> well, i think the rules right now, and the new rules coming up, is that if you've been to those countries, depending on your level of risk, the cdc is going to ask you to take your temperature on your own four times a day and then call into a call center to report what your temperature is. and the reason that's so important is -- and it's reflected in what happened in new york city is that the minute your temperature goes up or the minute you have symptoms, you have to report yourself and then go into -- go into quarantine. so if that's possible, if that system is in place, then i think it's still possible for health care workers to go and come back.

the fact you're not infectious until you have symptoms is an advantage for us, which means people should be able to come back and forth as long as we have a system in place that detects systems the minute they happen. that's what the cdc and usda has put into place now. last question. >> you talked about trying to fight the sense that nothing can can be done. i know this is something you talked about and i wonder if you can talk about the challenge first world medicine can make a difference outside the first world or has experience made us any better at that? >> thanks, scott. we encountered an outbreak, multidrugs resistance to tuberculosis and it's much more difficult to treat.

we found a really large number of cases in one community in a squatter settlement in lima, peru so with tuberculoids, which is airborne, infectious airborne, so i have treated patients with deadly diseases and they could actually cough it on you, what we knew, it's the only way -- the only way to stop this epidemic of multidrug resist ant tb in this community is to treat the people who are sick. once you treat them, they stop becoming infectious. you knock out the infection in their lungs. they stop transmitting it. you have to treat them over 18 months. it's complicated but it's the only way to stop an outbreak. so when we said we've got to treat it, everybody in the public health community said to us, it's impossible to treat. it's too complicated. you can't possibly do. we kept saying, but what do you expect us to do? well, just sort of turn your head.

and we knew this was going to become an even bigger problem in other areas. essential will he in africa. there was an outbreak in the russian prison system. we fought for years, four or five years it must have been, to convince the world health organization and other public health bodies to say, okay, we've got to treat this in deveping countries. what happened here i think was the sense that, gee, you know, these countries don't have any of these capacities. so, gosh, can we do this? can we do that? instead of saying, oh, my god, this is happening, what is the adequate response to this epidemic? safe burials. identifyeople right away. provide treatment so you're not putting them into quarantine to die. i think it took time to get over the sense that you couldn't do it in these three countries. there is no sense like that now. there is no sense that we can't do it. only, how on earth are we going to do it and what are the things

we do right now? what are the things we do later? we're now on emergency footing. we're now on a war footing. but it took us a long time to get there. and i think my own sense is that a part of it was a sense of sort of hopelessness you can't do anything in these three countries. so, i hope that's over. i fear it's not, scott. that's why we want to put these financial mechanisms in place. when the finance ministers begin to not that, oh, my goodness, the downside risk to the global economy, to my economy, are huge, then i think we can make some progress. it's always been -- it's always been the wish of global health people that they could have conversations with ministers of finance, so now that's my job. part of my job is to have conversations with ministers of finance. i think we can put together mechanisms that don't require huge amounts of up-front investment, but that could protect us from outbreaks in the future. >> this has been fascinating. thank you for doing it, sir. we really appreciate it. >> thank you.

>> look forward to having you back. >> thank you. >> one thing nigerian finance minister said that was critical in containing ebola is use of their mobile phone network to communicate not only the fear and the risk addressing fear and c contagion, i don't mean to hold you up, but is there something that could be done in term terms of a mobile phone drop, voice mail for dealing with the dead, et cetera, teaching about practice of dead burial, et cetera? >> my understanding is the u.s. and uk are putting into place extenders for the cell phone networks. there wasn't a huge amount of penetration of smartphones in these three countries. my understanding, and i don't

know where they are right now, but a bunch of philanthropists have also been trying to work to help extend cell phone coverage and then build those systems. that's the understanding now. so, they're trying. president obama is in china today. and he announced that the u.s. and china would start granting visas to each other's citizens valid for up to ten years. the president arrived in beijing for summit and attending a trade pack, including china. part of a week-long foreign trip for the president. he'll meet with china president xi jinping and the trip will wrap up in australia. president also expected to deliver a major policy address there.

health and human services secretary sylvia burwell will discuss her department's efforts in ensuring the readiness of healthcare.gov. c-span will have coverage of her live comments starting in about 15 minutes at 1 p.m. eastern. with live coverage of the u.s. house on c-span and the senate on c-span2, here on c-span3 we complement that coverage by showing you the most relevant congressional hearings and public affairs events. then on weekends, c-span3 is the home to american history tv with programs that tell our nation's story, including six unique series. the civil war's 150th anniversary, visiting battlefields and key events, touring museums to discover what artifacts reveal about america's past. history bookshelf with the best known american history writers. the presidency, looking at policies and legacies of our commanders in chief.

top college professors delving into america's past. and our new series, real america, featuring government and educational films from the 1930s to '70s. c-span3, created by the cable tv industry and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, "like" us on facebooknd follow us on twitter. the u.s. supreme court heard oral argument last month in a case pitting prison officials against religious rights of prison inmates. the court is considering whether an arkansas inmate to allow him to grow a beard in accordance with his muslim beliefs. over a next hour, a look at that oral argument. >> we'll hear argument holt versus hobbs. >> mr. chief justice, it may please the court, 40 other

prison systems permit beards without a length limit, yet arkansas per prohibits even half an inch. in their brief -- so what they really seek is absolute deference to anything they say just because they say it. and that would be to repeal this statute de facto. they may be deference to prison officials but there must be concrete limits to that deference. >> if this prisoner wanted to have a full beard, would it require that the prison administration allow him to do that? >> well, some courts have said yes. there's very little in this record about full beards and whether they're safe or dangerous, but the 40 states that permit them suggest the state would have a difficult burden of proof, but that question's not permitted here.

>> the problem i have with your client's claim of religious requirement is the religious requirement is that he grow a full beard, isn't it? let's assume i'm in a religion that requires polygamy, could i say to the prison well, okay, i won't have three wives, just let me have two wives? i mean, you're still violating your religion, it seems to me, if he allows his beard to be clipped to one inch, isn't he? >> well, the religious teaching is a full beard. he testified that religiously half an inch is better than nothing and he explained that in terms he referenced. he's in a very difficult situation. i don't think he should be penalized for being reasonable. >> religious beliefs aren't reasonable. religious beliefs are

categorical, you know. god tells you. it's not a matter of being ream. god, be reasonable. he's supposed to have a full beard. >> he's supposed to have a full beard but a partial than none a just in secular terms but in religious terms. >> you think on the record that's what his religion would require if he can't have a full beard. >> that's correct, your honor. >> you're really just making your case too easy. one of the difficult issues in a case like this is where to draw the line, and you just say, well, we want to draw the line at half inch because it lets us win. the next day someone, leer wi w here with one inch, and maybe it will be here. you can't avoid the legal difficulties by saying all we want is half an inch. >> most of the cases seek a full beard and sooner or later you will have to decide one of those cases, but this case, he made a pro se decision to limit his --

>> but we have to decide this case pursuant to a generally applicable legal principle and that legal principle is one it seems to me that demands some sort of limit. if you're unwilling to articulate a limit to the principle itself, it becomes a little bit difficult to apply it and say, well, we don't know what the limit is because you're only asking a half inch. we'll apply a theoretical legal structure and say you fall within it. >> well, i think, you know, the limit has to be determined on a record and a case that is seeking a longer beard. i think, you know, the larger issue than just half an inch that this case presents is how do you administer -- the legislative history suggests deference to prison officials in the context of a compelling interest standard. >> maybe this was improvidently granted. i don't want to do these cases half inch by half inch. let's take a case that involves a full beard.

the next case will be one inch, then one and a half inches, two inches. >> they're not going to come in that order. the next case is going to be most likely the next case is going to be a full beard because that's the great bulk of the cases. this case has a limited question presented and has a serious question of statutory interpretation. the courts below essentially applied the constitutional standard that gave essentially unlimited deference to the prison official. >> what has this court said about the standard with reference to prisons? that the prison has to show it's least restrictive alternative in order to meet the requirements of strict scrutiny and it's the prison's burden is that proposition established? >> well, your only prison case is cutter, and that was a constitutional challenge. >> do you think it displaces turner as the right standard? >> it was clearly intended to

replace turner. it textually replaces turner. >> and what is the test in so far as you're concerned? >> the test is compelling interest and least restrictive means and deference must be administered in the context of that standard, not instead of that standard. so if it's a close case on compelling interest, they may well get deference. if they give a reasoned and well considered and informed explanation, they deserve for deference. more deference would be due. cutter says they get due deference, but cutter had no occasion to decide how much deference is due or how that should be administered. the textual standard is clearly compelling interest and least restrictive means. >> could you put your answer in practical terms? the chief justice asked you what's the legal principle that you want us to apply, and you announce it as give them the right deference. it's a little bit circular, the answer, in my mind.

looking at what the circuits have been doing, which one do you think articulates the best approach and what courts should be doing? >> maybe judge gorsic's opinion in the tenth circuit, but i'm not sure any circuit has given a fully elaborated candidate of deference in the context of a compelling interest test. we think the more reasoned and informed their explanation, the more deference is due. do they give concrete examples of specific harms, do they treat similar risks the same way, do they take account of solutions that have been found to work in other jurisdictions? do they take account of of the religious needs of prisoners or do they just reflexively say no. >> the standard is other similar risks the same way, then what about a quarter inch rule because that's what they allow for people who have

dermatological problems. >> they allow a quarter inch for medical beards. they don't allow even a quarter inch for religious beards. but the quarter inch i think for medical beards i think fatally undermines their claims they can't administer a length limit and it somewhat undermines all their other claims about a half inch weird. this is in some ways like the case justice alito wro et in newark on the third circuit. the medical exception undermines all the alleged reasons for not allowing a religious exception. >> there are some religious practic practices, i think that the sikh practice of not cutting hair ranks as a religious practice, so not cutting hair and wearing a turban consistent with what you say is the standard. could a prison say we won't allow that because it is too

easy to hide contraband? >> that may be. i don't know what the evidence would show about sikh hair wrapped in a turban, but that's clearly a much more serious issue than what's presented in this case. sikh hair wrapped in a turban may well be difference but we don't have any evidence about it in this case. we don't really have a way to know on the record in this case. >> mr. laycock, you're relying on this case really on felt intuitions that this couldn't possibly advance the state's interest but for the most part in these cases, there will be some incremental gain with respect to the interests that the state has. so whether it's a full beard or whether it's long hair or whether it's a turban, there will be some ability to say even though it's just teeny tiny, there is some increase in prison

security that results from disallowing this practice. and i guess i want to know, and this really fits in with several of the other questions that have been asked you, is how do we think about that question in the context of this statute? >> i think they have to show material -- the phrase in the government's brief and i think it's helpful -- a material effect on their security situation. any teeny tiny risk, however small, is another way of de facto repealing the statute because you can always imagine some teeny tiny risk. even in turner the court said the test into zero risk. even in turner the court said you have to -- >> teeny tiny isn't enough, but how about, you know, measurable although small? or at what point does it become something that we say, yes, you have to take that into account? >> well, i think material or significant may be the best we can do. they say, for example, that in

2011 they confiscated 1,000 cell phones. i don't think a half inch beard would change that number but if it wasn't to 1,001 and or 1,010, i don't think that's material. if it goes to 1,100, that's a significant increment. they have to show some material effect on their security situation and here where they allowed beards for many years where 43 states allowed beard, there should be plenty of examples if it were a problem. and, you know, this is not something that's so dangerous no one has tried it. so there should be plenty of examples, and, in fact, they have no examples of anything hidden in beards and certainly not in a very short beard such as half an inch. this idea of deference comes from legislative history, and that very same legislative history said exaggerated fier d mere speculation are not enough, and it's for the judiciary to

distinguish the two. i think what we have in this case is exaggerated fears. >> well, the problem with deference, i think, is that if you accept the fact that there is a point at which it does become a problem, full beard with the turban, then there's the question of how you draw the line, and drawing the line, it strikes me, may be the point at which you will consider deference to the prison administrators. you take deference entirely out of the equation by saying, look, we're only asking for half an inch. >> well, we haven't taken deference out of the equation but when we only ask for half an inch and when they offer so little evidence and no examples and no consideration of solutions elsewhere, they haven't done anything to deserve deference. they haven't shown expertise, and even with deference, even with some degree of deference, it doesn't make out a compelling

interest on these facts, and that's the question presented. >> could you -- you know, we seem to be arguing rules. they say no beards. you say half inch is okay. and then the question begs itself how about 3/4 of an inch, how about an inch, or a full beard. what are we measuring this against? are you seeking to establish a rule that every prisoner has to be permitted to grow half inch beard and no more? or are you asking for a rule that applies just to your client and then articulate why for your client? >> no. we think a reversal here would establish a right to a half inch beard for all prisoners on this record unless some other state made a very different showing. all prisoners --