and prohibiting a recount the state court was appropriate han following state rules. citizens united was bad enough. but the judgment was bad enough. >> and why was bush vs. gore think it gave the public the incorrect impression that the courts are political institutions rather than doing their best job at trying to figure out what the law is. >> and you've written that early in your career while on the 7th circuit you had a decision very much like your decision in bush vs. gore. >> that's true. a case arose out of the senatorial election in indiana between two candidates, and recount had been ordered in the three-judge court.

i dissented from my two colleagues who thought the recount actually increased the risk anner own youse count of ballots which i thought was quite wrong. that case was reversed by the was on the court of appeals. >> if the recount had continued to probably wouldn't have altered the election. >> there have been some studies that indicate that's the case but the thing that may have roduced the result was the ballots they had in palm beach county if i remember correctly some of the details that patrick buchanan was on the seed a large number of ballots in an area that probably would have voted democratic. there is a belief gore lost more votes to patrick buchanan than to his opponent.

that conceivably could have made a different. but it was just a very strange ballot form they had. it was hard for the voter to use. >> time for one more question. >> i wanted to ask about your thoughts on the equal rights amendment. i know it wasn't addressed in your book and i was wondering if you could talk a little bit about if you think it' been an effective means for change in the women's rights. >> state your name please >> shawlon. >> you have to repeat it for me. >> so the question is, in your book, you don't talk about the equal rights amendment >> that's right >> so should the equal rights amendment have been adopted and what difference would it make?

>> well, that was an issue when i went through the confirmation process. i made the i guess tactical error saying i did not think the equal rights amendment was necessary because i thought if the equal protection clause was properly construed that gender discrimination could be curtailed. and that the national organization for women opposed my nomination because i took that position. that wasn't the only reason. they also oppose mead for some opinions i had written and the fact that i wasn't a woman. and that was a good reason by the way. but i really don't think it would make much difference if you had the equal rights amendment adopted now. >> you believe the case law

would still be the same. >> i think so. i think ruth ginsberg was not on the court and i think actually did not make the oral argument but in the case that berger wrote involving a decedent's estate holding that it was irrational to hold, disqualify women from the job as executor, that's a ground breaking case. i don't think warren berger is given enough credit for that decision. they didn't rely on any particular tiers of scrutiny. he just basically said this is a lot of nonsense. >> this is terrific. and looking at your confirmation proceedings, should the other concern that was raised was people were concerned about your health. >> that's right. >> and whether you -- i think

you've proven them wrong. >> well, i had just two years earlier had a heart bypass operation. it was kind of a new procedure at that time. it's very common, a very common procedure. >> i have to say in the weight of history the fact that you were nominated and confirmed, it's an extraordinary moment in the history of the country in terms of the irpterptation of the constitution and for more than 30 years on the bench you were an extraordinary champion of the rule of law and justice and integrity and we're all really privileged as our students are starting their legal career to be able to listen to you. so on behalf of the entire georgetown law community, i first of all would like to present -- we have ties but we don't have bow ties. so i can't give you a georgetown law bow tie. that can give you a clock

commemorates this occasion. it says to justice stevens on the occasion of the first inaugural conversation to the first year class. so it's a pleasure to be able to present it to you and, please, a big round of applause and thanks. applause] > thank you. >> here are just a few of the comments we've recently received from our viewers. >> i would like to see you guys do a story on the effect of the long-term unemployed. it just seems like everybody is forgetting about us now. >> i'm watching "washington journal." you have on a topic "state of u.s. economy." you have two guys here. they're both on the same page.

regarding ideology. there is not a discussion going on between them. i thought the idea of having the discussions to have opposite view points to make it more interesting. >> c-span, great job. just a request in terms of issues of health and health care and food and super foods and how it helps improve health. a discussion on that. i hardly ever hear anything. >> continue to let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us at 202-626-3400. e-mail us at comments@c-span.org or send us a tweet at c-span 12 comments. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. >> next a d.c. district court of appeals hears oral argument challenging a law that bans federal contractors from contributing to political campaigns. after that white house officials hold a briefing to

discuss the u.s. response to ebola. then our campaign 2014 coverage continues as kentucky senator rand paul campaigns in north carolina for republican andidates. on tuesday the d.c. circuit court of appeals heard oral argument in a law that bans federal contractors from contributing to political campaigns. the case is wendy waggoner vs. federal election commission and involves three independent contractors for various federal agencies. they argue that the ban violates their first amendment free speech and fifth amendment emegano withdrawal protection rights. this is about an hour and ten minutes. >> before we begin i want to indicate for purpose of the audience judge henderson is here in spirit. she is very sick today but is listening in as we're going forward with the argument.

>> may it please the court. the fundamental problem with section 441-c, whether viewed through the prism of the first amendment or the equal protection clause is a complete lack of fit between the purpose of the statute and the means by which it is carried out. the purpose is to avoid the appearance of impropriety and possibility of corruption and it simply is not there. >> are you then saying we don't need to look at this under the equal protection clause? are you abandonning that? >> either or both. >> the pierce amendment analysis would be less sweeping, couldn't it? the supreme court hasn't used the equal protection analysis at all. it had a chance to do so in davis and didn't. why would we venture where they refused to go? >> well, your honor, they did use it in austin.

of course austin was overruled on the merits but in austin the court first considered whether the statute at issue of michigan there was under inclusive or over inclusive. it rejected that and went on to analyze the equal protection claim that unincorporated associations were treated better than corporations. so it did reach the merits on the equal protection claim and treated them separately so we have some history. as far as whether one is more sweeping than the other, your honor, i suppose it depends on how you look at it. in one sense if we prevail on the first amendment argument then incorporations are allowed to make contributions at all which of course they are not under 441 b at this time. they would also be forbidden, be permitted to make contributions as contractors. on the other hand if we prevail on equal protection the question of whether 441 c could be amended to protect, preclude individuals or corporations from making contributions would

be left for another day. so i guess it depends on how you view the question of whether one is more sweeping than the other. >> mr. morrison i have sort of a general perspective question for you about the fit. as i read these it occurred to me this case is actually quite different from other contribution cases. you know, there is no risk here that congress is trying to accomplish some nefarious purpose like leveling the playing field or limiting the amount of money in politics or even protecting incumbents. this law is focused on government corruption, not even general corruption but corruption just in the procurement process and its focus only applies to people participating in that process and only while they're participating. so it seems that the fit is actually quite snug and it doesn't raise all these concerns that lurk behind the

other contribution cases. so i'm wondering whether you think that's a fair description of what we've got or not. >> well, i would first agree with your honor that this statute is different from all the rest because it's an absolute ban. every other statute -- >> that wasn't my question. i'm curious to your reaction about the context i try to put the case. is it different from other cases because of this >> it is but i think it is different in another way and that is if you go back to the legislative history of this the reason this was put in, in 1940, it was put in at the time when we had the view that the government could forbid anyone from becoming -- if you wanted to become a policeman you were essentially a second class citizen and the theory at the time was that if you were a government employee or in this case a government contractor, the congress could forbid you from making contributions as a condition of you becoming a

government contractor. that is no longer the law. it's clear that accepting money from the federal government as an employee, as a contractor, or a -- >> i agree with that. >> so if we are talking about some sort of suspect motive that's the suspect motive. but i don't think we have to show suspect motive. i think we just have to show it is either under inclusive, over inclusive under the first amendment. >> the pickup on judge tatel's question while the holmes view is not the current view it is still the case that the government has authority to regulate its own work force more fully than it can regulate private citizens. >> i agree. >> and there is a tradition of ethics rules on government employees and contractors that are much more stringent. why isn't this case better viewed as really a government ethics case than a kind of campaign finance case that we've seen in recent years? >> if the analogy is to federal employees rblings of course

federal employees are not limited in contributions. >> i understand that. >> sitting here at my left are entitled to make contributions in any amount except members of congress. >> there is a different package on ethics rules on government employees as you well know and on contractors but the basic point is in terms of government ethics regulation government employees traditionally, this is not some novel or outlier law, traditionally have been subject to much more stringent ethics regulation and so, too, contractors to some degree as well. and that history seems to be something we should pay particular attention to. >> i agree government employees and federal contractors can inappropriate cases be subject to more strict regulation. we would apply to ordinary citizens. but cases like nteu show there are plainly limits on what federal employees can be made to do or not permitted to do and the question here is, is the fit close enough? i suggest to you that it's not.

>> mr. morrison, you're looking at ten or maybe 11 government employees who could not make a contribution of any kind to any federal employee, to any federal candidate or campaign committee. is the code of conduct which bars each one of us from making contributions unconstitutional? >> i have not considered that question, your honor. i think it -- >> now is your chance. >> first i would say, your honor, it doesn't make you a felon if you were to do that. >> i didn't take it that you were -- >> of course the court pointed that out on several occasions your honor. justice kennedy recently citizens united made an important point of that being a felony. >> now that's what you rely on, that's the difference? >> no. i didn't say that, your honor. i guess i would have to ask a question. i would say that the appearance of giving money to federal candidates or persons before whom you may appear is --

>> well there is no corruption issue, there is no chance anybody we give money to is going to help with the corruption since we all have lifetime appointments so what the real purpose behind the ban on our own giving is one judge kavanagh just mentioned which is the importance of the judiciary and like wise the civil service to appear nonpartisan and to not be appearing to be contributing to campaigns. o isn't that yet on top of the -- in addition to all the things judge tatel said which makes this different than the usual case this is also different from the usual questions about whether bans on campaign contributions are first amendment problems in that they apply as judge kavanagh said also to government employees. so we have not only the concern about quid pro quo corruption and the appearance thereof but also the concern about the neutrality of the civil service. >> i agree your honor that the

neutrality of the civil service and the judiciary are very important and would sustain it. congress has made a decision with respect to the neutrality of the federal service that banning contributions is not an essential element. >> well, it has done other things which may be more strict with respect to federal employees as you know under the hatch act. so there's a different kind of balancing here. it's given them the protection of the merit systems protection board which is not available to the independent contractor. so congress is, if you're saying congress has made this determination and we should defer to it you've pretty much talked yourself out of court haven't you? frpblts well, your honor, if congress had actually sat down with the federal election campaign act in mind with the very many changes in the federal contracting process that have taken place from 1940, and it actually sat down and said, this is the balance we're striking, as it did with the hatch act in 1939 and again in 1993 when changes were made,

we might have a different situation. >> but they did that. this law was precipitated by scandal in the 1940's. >> yes, your honor. >> congress banned all contributions by contractors and since then the only major change is that the government contracting has become a far larger percentage of government work. if anything, it's a much greater concern isn't it today than it was many years ago? >> well, your honor, i would point out two things. first, there was a major change in 1976 when congress amended section 441-c to expressly permit corporate contractors to establish pacs which must be established under their own name. they are funded by the corporations who are contractors and those pacs can make the identical contributions that my clients cannot make. in addition, corporate officers can make contributions. corporate shareholders can make

contributions. >> that could be a problem. i know you're arguing for strict scrutiny but there isn't any precedent, is there, that contribution limits should be reviewed under strict scrutiny. we look at this under a closely drawn analysis. >> yes, your honor. i would agree there is no supreme court precedent on strict scrutiny under the first amendment. but i would point out, your honor, that the most recent case, mccutcheon case, while not directly on point, demonstrates clearly that the closely drawn standard has great teeth as the court said in that case. that it was requiring an objective because there was a substantial mishatch. -- mismatch. >> in mccutcheon you were regulating speech of the general citizenry. as you know it's been discussed, this is a particular type of regulation of individuals who are in close working relationship with the government working for the government under contract and it applies only during the time

they try to acquire that contract or are serving under that contract. what i'm trying to figure out is how do cases like board of county commissioners resume there building on the pickering standard for regulating employee speech factor in? do they influence the closely drawn scrutiny in a way that would give greater deference to the government or should we be applying those standards instead of the more closely drawn? how do those two lines of authority interact in this context, which is very different than the factual context of mccutcheon? >> i agree with your honor that there are many strands of supreme court jurisprudence at issue with this case and this court requires, this case requires the court to deal with the intersection of them. i think that in the campaign finance area, because it's first amendment and as we say also equal protection the court has been very solicitous of the right to make any contributions

at all. and so as the court said in the beaumont case, while we don't apply strict scrutiny, we will look at the nature of the activity being regulated. we'll see how broadly it sweeps. we'll look at other alternatives. in beaumont the corporate pac could make the contributions. here -- >> when have they been solicitous of contributions by individuals either working for the government or under a contract with the government, any more solicitous beyond the balance struck in inbear? >> i agree your honor that the court has not faced the question because under the hatch act as far as employees are concerned they are permitted to make contributions. >> with contractors not employees >> i know of no case. the nasa case which we cited in our brief the court said with respect to background investigations since contractors and employees are alike we should treat them similarly. that is what we're asking for here. treat them the same as the employees. yes, there are differences. yes the merit system protection board protects employees. but there are provisions in the government contracting laws that give contractors who think

they have been treated unfairly the right to go to court to make protests and they're not exactly the same because they aren't the same. >> citizens united, which is obviously a pro free speech decision specifically carves out from your perspectives carves out letter carriers as a precedent that it's approving of and letter carriers of course was a case that said federal service is different in a line quoted as federal service should depend on meritorious performance rather than political service. that seems to be exactly what the government is relying on here. that's cited with approval in citizens united. >> but of course there was no ban on employees making contributions in letter carriers. and the general proposition that employees could -- >> a ban on various first amendment speech and association activities. >> yes, your honor. >> a different kind of speech and association but the basic

principle is still cited there with approval in citizens united. >> i don't disagree that there is authority for the congress to regulate the activities of contractors and employees differently from what they would regulate activities of ordinary citizens. >> do you think congress could ban federal employees from all contributions? >> i do not believe so, your honor. >> why not? >> because i don't think the justification is there for it. if we are talking low level federal employees somebody who work as a custodian or secretary to maik contributions it seems that would be excessive under the first amendment. it would be overly broad and of course we would look to see whether it is under inclusive as well. examinations that this court and the supreme court has insisted on making when regulating speech and the first amendment. >> could i ask about under inclusive because some of the things in your brief had to do

with this question you started to talk about with respect to corporate officers. part of the argument is it makes no sense to draw the line in the way the statute does because it includes contractors but it doesn't include the officers of corporate contractors. >> and also the political commitees which are required to bear the same name as funded, so forth. >> one question i had about that, though, is there is something a little bit odd about a doctrine that says that this is a violation of the first amendment or the first amendment through the equal protection clause because it doesn't restrict enough speech. and in particular i looked at the green party decision. i know the parties we're both familiar with from the sect circuit and that involves a contribution ban that did extend to corporate officers. what was interesting about the analysis is the court sustains it but barely and they say it seems like it's almost overbroad in order to sweep within this corporate officers but we'll hold on those and sustain it. now it seems kind of strange to say that was barely constitutional but it turns out

it was actually constitutionally compelled. >> the green party case as i read it, your honor, stands in part for the proposition that it was sustainable because they closed the loop hole. that the green party said, it would make no sense, the court said, to allow -- to ban corporations from making the contributions but to allow the owner of the corporation who has the same name as the company -- >> i didn't read the decision that way. i thought what they said was that it might well make sense. we are very troubled by the extension of a law to cover corporate officers as well because it restricts more speech. but because the legislature gets substantial leeway in this area we're going to sustain it. but the flip side it seems to me is the legislature should have freedom to decide it doesn't want to restrict more speech by extending the law to corporate officers. >> well, of course, there is a -- another distinction in that case and that is that the law at issue there was in response to a series of scandals. the legislature sat down and

consciously drew careful lines, precisely the kind of considered legislative judgment we don't find here. >> still doesn't go to the question of under inclusiveness. the classic statement of the closely drawn rule, which -- test -- which comes from buckley and is repeated in mccutcheon says this. may be sustained if the state demonstrates a sufficiently important interest in employees means closely drawn to avoid unnecessary abridgement of associational freedoms. to the extent that the statute is leaky and allows more first amendment freedom it does not appear to be inconsistent with the test that the courts employed for closely drawn. and in blount we specifically said that under inclusiveness counts only if essentially doesn't serve the purpose at all. well, of course, the courts for both buckley and mccutcheon are not cases in which anybody was making an argument there

was under inclusion of persons similarly situated such as we have here with grantees and ambassadorships. >> yes but the cases that talk about what you are essentially raising is an equal protection argument, as far as i can tell, ones in which there was a concern about what the court repeatedly says was, quote, inindividual youse discrimination where you have some reason to be suspicious that congress is favoring incumbents over nonincumbents. you don't actually think what's really going on here is that congress is trying to benefit corporations over individual contractors. there is actually no evidence vidious kind of in discrimination. there may be a mistake and leakiness. >> i would agree with your honor. but i think the first amendment on an equal protection clause require more that if it is discriminatory in fact or vastly under and over inclusive

in fact that that is enough. that in the area we're dealing with first amendment, fundamental rights -- >> why under inclusiveness? i get your point about over inclusiveness but if the purpose as was pointed out in the green party case is to avoid unnecessary or more restrictions, why doesn't the statute that just doesn't yet include those restrictions, isn't that a better statute from the first amendment point of view? >> the under inclusiveness, your honor, is there as a check to be sure that the legislature has carefully considered the question and is not doing things inadvertently. to be sure that the asserted purpose is actually being carried out. >> can i ask you, one case that wasn't mentioned a lot in the briefing but seems to bear on it is broderick. in broderick, which was the state law burying of the hatch act as you know the decision came down contemporaneously

with letter carriers there was an equal protection clause in that case that said the state provisions were under inclusive because they only encompassed classified employees and didn't encompass unclassified employees as well and the supreme court dispensed with that in a footnote and basically said there is an equal protection claim but the legislature has to have substantial leeway in dealing with it and it would seem strange to restrict even more speech and the legislature should be given freedom not to go the extra mile and restrict ny more speech than necessary. now you have a supreme court decision that addresses the claim in an analogous context. i am wondering what might be the distinction between the mode of analysis the court applied in that case and what you want us to do here. >> i don't make the argument that the under inclusive as petke is as significant as the fact that the statute is overly broad. i also recognize in broderick there was no ban on the activity we're dealing with here which is the making of

contributions. furthermore of course at that time the statute had been recently enacted. >> banning a lot of things in broderick though. >> yes. but most had to do with activities being conducted by civil servants while they were on the job. this activity here is off the job. the irony of this is that the fec says well you know your first amendment rights aren't completely restricted. what you can do is hold a fundraiser at your house. you can have a fundraiser and invite anybody you want. you can have them raise hundreds of thousands of dollars. people can be there seeking to get ambassadorships and you could spend a thousand dollars of your own money often invitations, food, and it doesn't have to be reported. that seems to me to give lie to the notion that this statute is really all about appearances. >> you think there is secretly something going on here? i do appreciate the role of

strict scrutiny in ferreting out the true motives of congress. you don't think their true motive, however, imperfectly they've attempted to resolve it is preventing corruption and appearance? >> i agree that is what they were trying to do but the method is a blunder bust. >> you keep saying ther putative motive, their stated motive as if you don't believe that was really what their motive was. you don't actually think there is a suspicious inindividual use motive here do you? >> no. i agree they were trying to stamp out corruption. the question is whether the first amendment allows them to do this in this manner and i say the closely drawn standard certainly does not commit as the supreme court has interpreted in all of its recent cases. >> let me ask you a related inclusiveness argument about llc's. an individual contractor can create an llc, right? >> yes. >> and spend as much money as

he or she wants, correct on political contributions? >> the answer is if the contractor was a person like wendy wagner who was essentially a part-time consultant for a government agency or an expert witness or someone like that could create an llc, the persons like mr. beller and mr. brown almost certainly could not have done this through the llc or if they had done it through an llc if the agency would have allowed them they would have had a substantial sacrifice. that is as individuals they have the agency paying the employer's share of their federal tax, fica tax, and medicare in addition they get vacation benefits and sick leave which obviously a corporation could not take. >> excuse me. the equal protection question, your point is in the equal protection side i take it this

llc is a realistic option. >> that is correct, your honor. >> switch to the first amendment side for a minute. doesn't that hurt your first amendment case because it is creating an llc is not a realistic option for employees and, you know, then that doesn't undermine the legitimacy of the government's profit interest here. you don't have a lot of private contractors creating llc's and making political contributions. you don't have that kind of under inclusiveness. >> i agree your honor that the inability of individuals who are essentially working as employees to be llc's in that capacity does not affect my first amendment argument. >> thank you. >> could i clarify -- >> go ahead. >> mr. morrison, you say in your brief that the term committee in this law could extend to the nra or, you know, emily's list or these other groups. is that really in play in this

case? >> well, we believe it is. it demonstrates the over breadth of this law, for example, the preston case from the fourth circuit. they upheld the ban on a lobbyist's contributions but there was an out. they could make contributions to a political committee. those are obviously examples. there are others. for example, minor parties, candidates for the green party or new parties that had no chance of getting elected at all. >> that is a slightly separate question. but the term committee had been consistently interpreted to refer to only groups that have the major purpose of electing a candidate. >> yes. >> and you sort of throw another wrench in the works that makes it seem like it has a very different sweep. >> i want to be clear about that, your honor. there are two kinds of commitees that might come into play. one are the independent commitees that make only independent expenditures sometimes known as super pacs.

less so when smaller. those are not at issue here. none of my clients wants to make a contribution to them or anything like them. but there are other commitees that the nra for example has a pac. it is not a corporate pac. it is not a contractor pac. the nra committee makes contributions in elections. that is the kind of committee to which my clients might want to make contributions and it is banned. >> is that a super pac? >> no >> it's not? >> i believe the term super pac is not defined in the statute. my understanding is those are pacs that make independent expenditures and can do so without limits based on citizens united. >> i only ask because in the district court, the district court said you expressly said your clients do not want to make contributions to super pacs. >> that is independent expenditures. they neither want to make independent expenditures themselves, they don't want to take out ads in newspapers and they don't want to give money to organizations they're taking

out ads in. >> what exactly do they want to do that relates to independent commitees? >> they want to make contributions to candidates, to political parties. >> what about commitees? >> they have said they may wish to do that. they have not done so. >> may wish to? from what was said in the district court and in your brief, that issue isn't before us. you say in your brief that you don't, your clients don't want to. and in district court you told the district court the clients don't want to make contributions to super pacs so what exactly other than political parties and individual politicians, what -- >> there may have been some miscommunication between us and the district court on that. my clients did not expressly indicate they wanted to make a contribution to an organization like right to life committee or the nra or planned parenthood that makes direct contributions. that is a political committee

that's covered by 441-c. miller. >> mr. miller, who is the only surviving plaintiff here, does not mention commitees. the other two, who now appear to be moot and whose standing is not really defending do mention commitees. miller just says i would like to provide financial support for candidates running for federal offices and/or their political parties. so i understand that you have an argument that there was not a way of relieving the over inclusiveness by giving to an issue pac and then contribute but i don't understand that you ave standing or that your -- your clients have argued that they have any intention of contributing to the kind of things you're talking about -- emily's list, nra, whatever

you're talking about which then would recontribute to candidates. is that right? >> that is correct. we believe first there is an over breadth argument we are entitled to make in this context. second, your honor, i would say on the standing of both mr. brown, who is temporarily not a government contractor but may well be a government contractor -- >> mr. brown, the statement you've sent in says something like it's possible. >> he is going to look for employment, your honor, and he's been there before. it's in january. it is certainly a possibility he may be again and the same with professor wagner. >> those are almost always the trigger words for us saying no standing. >> mr. morrison, are you saying, i mean i know he would be out of the case but you really put a lot of emphasis on the analogy between contractors and employees. but it seems that in fact some of your clients illustrate exactly one of the big differences which is that contractors tend to be in and out, in and out of service.

d that is really, it exacerbates the risk of pay to play. just the kind of quid pro quo corruption that is really at the heart of what this provision is about. somebody who has a short-term contract and then turns around d gets work again, that is the dynamic at the heart of this. >> with respect to both mr. miller and mr. brown, your honor, i see my time is about to expire. may i answer the question? >> of course >> both of them were of course long-term employees and then many years under contracts. they were hired not because of anything they did politically. they were hired because their employers knew who they were, appreciated their work, and wanted them brought back on the job. professor wagner was hired not because she put in a bid but because the administrative conference of the united states went out and found her. >> i understand. >> and asked her to do that. >> i understand the facts of the case. >> but of course i want to be

clear that there are multiple variations on these statutes, that the government has hundreds of thousands of contractors. usaid has 700 people -- >> would you acknowledge that the ban is a better fit when it comes to contributions to candidates than it might be for contributions to political parties? >> well, of course, it depends which candidates we're talking about. if we're talking about a minor party candidate who has no chance of being elected to office, if we're talking about incumbents sitting on the armed services committee that would be a better fit. but the problem here is unlike this court's decision in s.e.c. a, where the s.e.c. carefully fit the pieces together and made a considered judgment as to where the real dangers were and were not. this statute doesn't come close to satisfying the court's test that there be a substantial matching of the goals and the means chosen to effectuate them.

>> any other questions from the bench? okay. thank you, mr. morrison. > thank you, your honor. >> mr. chief judge, and may it please the court, government contractors pose an acute danger of corruption and partisan disruption of efficient government functioning. could you start with a standard review? i am particularly interested in your brief where you say that, you cite beaumont and you say our standard of review is relatively complacent. >> yes, your honor. >> how do you square that with mccutcheon? >> that is as compared to strict scrutiny. >> are you accepting then, you're not arguing we are to do something other than the standard set forth in mccutcheon? >> that's correct. it is narrowly drawn scrutiny,

which the court has indicated is a lesser degree of scrutiny than strict scrutiny and to which courts defer to legislative judgments. >> in your judgment what does that leave us free to do that we could not do under strict scrutiny? in your, in this case? what does that give us the freedom to do here? >> the sourt koss nt need to assess -- the court doesn't need to assess whether congress employed the least restrictive alternatives. instead it must determine whether it is substantially mismatched with the end served. >> you say mismatched is what we're looking for or not? frpblts it is what you look at. >> or you determine that it is close. >> right. there has to be a reasonable fit, proportionate to the interests served. and the interests only need to be important interests. it is a rigorous review, right? >> yes, your honor. >> okay. all right. >> are we allowed to consider in i other government purposes

beyond corruption and appearance of corruption? i mean, you're arguing that there are other purposes at play here, you know, the merit based selection, etcetera. but can we really consider that under governing supreme court precedent? >> yes, judge wilkins. it is true the supreme court has said on a number of occasions that when implementing campaign contribution limits that the appearance of corruption and corruption are the only interests that can be served. but those we're addressing general liam basketball contribution -- generally limited contributions across the board. but there are limits for imposing that on that class. the other important interest of a merit based work force is appropriate and as judge kavanagh indicated in citizens united which was one of those cases where the supreme court indicated that generally when restricting campaign funding

appearance of corruption and corruption are the only interests that can be served, the court specifically noted that the letter carriers mentioned in interest in the, in effective government functions and that the congress has a right to ensure that those functions can be served without partisan -- >> isn't it a little bit different from mccutcheon, letter carriers, kind of a pickering analysis with more consideration of governmental interests, is that where you also rest your case? or not so much? >> i think the closely drawn crutiny is comparable to the approach so closely drawn scrutiny as we saw in mccutcheon there has to be important government interests and congress does have to employ them in a means that permit some expression of the employee just like in the approach for contractors in

pickering for employees. there does have to be -- congress does have to take into account the rights of employees and they have to have some ability of expression. so i think the closely drawn scrutiny, i think the court can easily harmonize the closely drawn scrutiny in the campaign contribution limited context when it is assessing the trgs of not allowing coercion of employees, contractors, and merit based work force. i think that the two are similar. >> is there any evidence that parties and commitees are somehow involved in the awarding of contracts sm >> there is a sense of evidence that they can be involved in quid pro quos. for example, the very scandal that led to the passage of what i refer to as 441-c though it has been recodified involves the democratic national committee. in the 1930 elections party agents went around the country armed with lists of contractors. >> how do you respond to the

mccutcheon argument there and that is that things have changed, that we have a completely new regulatory land scape that affects that in a significant way. what is your response to that? >> this isn't a case where intervening changes in the law have made it so that the function of section 441-c is no longer being served in any meaningful way. there has been some, congress has paid a lot of attention to this. there have been some measures to make sure contracting in some instances is done through competitive bidding and by professional contracting officers. but a large portion of the contracting work force does not occur through those competitive processes. and the incidence of contracting is a growing phenomenon. >> the 1940's scandal, do you have any other examples where perhaps parties and commitees have been implicated in the award of contracts? >> yes, your honor. there's been extensive experience within the states and states have responded.

for example in connecticut governor roland who was -- >> and at the federal level? the arguments at the states are definitely situated that the contract officers there are more political than at the federal level. i'm talking about the federal level. any federal experience where parties and commitees, political commitees are involved in the awarding of contracts? >> well, there is less evidence at the federal level. >> is there any? frpblts there is. i should point out and congress and the court instructed it should be taken into account. the ban has been in effect since 1940 so the same kind of evidence. we would not expect it to happen at the federal level. it has to happen in more indirect ways and it has. for example, one of the most notorious scandals involving jack abram off and congressman -- abramoff and congressman nay. a foreign government gained a contract to install the wireless service in the united states house of representatives and that money was funded

through a contribution to a charity run by jack abramoff and abramoff used those funds -- >> wasn't that a corporate contract? i'm talking about an individual contractor here. that is the point before us. >> it was. but the danger can happen in either case. so it's not the case that the congress -- >> it can happen but i'm asking has it happened. >> certainly at the state level. for example -- >> but not at the federal level. >> at the federal -- well, not necessarily the actual contractor because there are a lot of people that personally associated with the contractor. for example, congressman randy cunningham another one of the most nor tore youse scandals. money was funded by him to several candidate commitees by a defense contractor mitchell ade and other individuals to go to randy cunningham and other candidates and party commitees. so you're not going to find an

example of the person who was the actual contractor at the federal level having given a contribution to a party committee for a noncandidate committee. but again at the state level governor roland, some of the money that was used to get him to award a government contract went not only to his candidate committee but also to political party commitees. >> do you think congress could ban federal employees from making con trib ewings consistent with the first amendment? >> i do and it has. federal employees were not allowed to make contributions to incumbent members of congress until 1993. so if congress decided to reinstitute that ban of course the court would need to actually look at the existing evidence and build a record in the way -- >> how about grant recipients? same answer there? >> i'm not sure. it is something that, again, they would -- there would have to be some evidence of danger. so there hasn't been a record

--. >> why, there are lots of mismatched questions here. i don't know that that dooms your case but for example the contractors, the individual contractors are still allowed to raise money and bundle money and you know and i know that the people who bundle and raise money are much more valuable to the parties and the candidates than one individual contribution. what do we do about that seeming gaping hole in the statute? how do we approach that? >> well, i think congress attacked forcefully the most direct danger. that is money coming from the person who is actually receiving the contract being used to make a campaign contribution. so it is true that other means of expression were allowed including making money for candidates without spending money to do so. but that was consistent with congress's charge here which is to make it closely drawn and not go beyond further than --.

>> judge kavanagh's question, that raises the other side of the llc problem. in response to the plaintiff's equal protection argument, the fec said setting up the llc is not onerous. so under the law all of these contractors could set up llc's and then go and make all the political contribution they want. doesn't that raise some serious questions about what this ban is actually doing? >> i don't think so, judge tatel. and it is true that perhaps congress could go further. >> that wasn't my question. my question was, so the commission's argument is we need to prevent government contractors from making political contributions. >> according to your theory,

and the record of this case introduced by the commission, any independent contractor can willy nilly make any contribution he or she wants simply by setting up an llc. and the record also shows that agencies are indifferent to whether or not they're contracting with the individual or the llc. so doesn't that raise serious questions about the legitimacy of this claim if it can be -- if it can be end rounded so easily? >> i don't think so. hat notion challenges the very atus of separate corporate personhood. so while it does permit a person to set up a separate entity enter into the contract that means that there are some consequences for that.

so that entity is the one that has to pay taxes. >> you say it's relatively -- not onerous to do this. that's your record. the other side says it's difficult. >> yes. >> in the equal protection clause. they said it's expensive. you didn't say that. said that it's easy. >> it's easy but there are some consequences. so congress has attacked the most dangerous possible exchange and that is the legal person who actually is getting the money from the government cannot make the contract. and by permitting persons to set up llc's, that permits -- so that at least the person that actually could be offering the legal person who actually ould be offering the ex-quid exchange for the quo can't make the contribution. >> if i'm a contractor i can set up the david tatel llc and

contract with a.i.d. through the david tatel llc and i can make all the contributions i want in my name. >> yes. so -- but that doesn't mean that congress, the ban that congress put in place is not serving any purpose at all. >> just makes you wonder if it is this easy to escape it what the ban is accomplishing. >> as i said it does attack the most dangerous exchanges. >> the problem with the statute i think is that it doesn't just attack those most dangerous situations. it's a very broad categorical an on donation of even a nickel to even the nra committee or right to life committee or any of those types of organizations and so on the one level you have congress coming in saying, there is a

real problem here or a real -- real risk of bad appearances. and so we have to come in full bore with a comprehensive ban. but it's easy to get out of. and so that's what's hard to reconcile. you can't on the one hand say they're getting their worst thing when in fact they got an awful lot more than the worst thing and then go, it's okay to have this technical distinction. that's a hard, very hard thing for me to reconcile. how do i deal with that under the ly drawn scrutiny like articulated -- in mccutcheon? >> so congress attacked one part of the problem very forcefully but left the scope of the statute, approached that in a very measured way. so in the buckley case and the blount case of this court this under inclusive analysis made clear that congress doesn't have to go as far as it could. so provisions addressing people

who own the corporate contractors or have shareholders or substantial owners, legislatures have included provisions. the green party case for example. the blount case did include some of those provisions. a lobbyist case included some family members. and those were upheld. so congress could have gone that far. >> suppose that congress says, we think these two situations rate the same problem with respect to the appearance of impropriety. the two situations being the stuff that we're covering, contractors, and the layer around contractors, say officers of corporate contractors. we think they made the same issue with respect to appearance of impropriety but nevertheless we're going do cover the first one. there is no explanation or even attempted explanation or even after the fact explanation by the lawyers seeking to defend the law as to how you could

draw that line. is your position that it still okay for congress to do that because they can decide not to restrict more speech always? they can decide to stop short and attack it one step at a time even a second step for the same problem? >> well, i think it could -- it would all be struck down if the provision, as this court said in blount, cannot be fairly said to advance any genuinely substantial government interests. i don't think we're at that point. we probably wouldn't all be here, right, if the individual contractors here, if it was that easy. and that position, that argument today, in fact, some contractors can just set up llc's. they're expert at that position. >> does that make it better or worse? we have a subset that can't do llc's and everyone just like them that can do llc's is going to under this statute and we'll just pretend there is really no real problem if the donation to

congressman so and so on the armed services committee comes rom patricia millet, llc rather than patricia millett, contractor. >> like all these questions, it is always going to cut one way or another, right? but those options are not some to of, congress is going bump up against one or the other. it has a reason to set reasonable restrictions. >> i understand. >> doesn't this go to the question of whether it is closely drawn? in other words, if you can work your way around this by simply being in the corporate form then why do you need a complete ban? why wouldn't a limit be good enough? green , because as the party case said, any dollar amount can raise an appearance

of corruption concern. so any dollar amount from the legal person actually making the contribution does raise appearance concerns. but the fact that there are, i setting up ion that llc's completely undoes the regulation would be an attack on the very notion of corporate personhood. i mean, once you set up a separate entity the individual is no longer reliable for all the misconduct. there are rules, you know, taxes are paid by the llc. the -- there isn't really a difference in this context that would make it that separate legal personhood so unique here that it means the government is not serving any substantial government purpose whatsoever. >> the under inclusiveness is a little concerning, you know, one form of quid pro quo you give and give and then you get your contract. and that's not covered, right,

because you aren't covered if you are already negotiating for or under a contract? isn't congressional interest in combating corruption? >> if contracts occurred at some previous time. >> a one of the contractor and i think, who is in power and has influence? give iniceholder give, one application goes in and i call the constituent services and say can you put in a good word for me and i get the contract. not under negotiation for that contract, i am not covered, right? >> yes.

that a contribution would serve the interest even more and congress does not have to go to the logical ends of the interest. there have been a provisions like that and have been upheld. under all of these interests, the further you go, the danger is being struck down for over breath. -- breadth. the more risk you potentially run of find it is not -- not a substantial fit a because it covers too much. >> doesn't the fact that in their souls under inclusiveness fatally gut any argument that this is really directed at actual corruption because there is so many exceptions like the

one that the judge just --tioned that do not apply would not prevent actual corruption? couldly think we could consider it to be the parents of corruption. is that where we are? >> i do not think so. it prevents quid pro quo's. >> what is the record here on the llc? is a limited record. i think both parties agreed in some cases it is a permissible option for individuals. >> is there any evidence when theress acted it knew that ban could easily be avoided through llc so there was some [indiscernible]

action?ess' i have a not personally found that in the case. in mccutchen, the supreme court seemed low to speculate about the shenanigans that might be engaged in. that thisom evidence was ongoing and a problem. theell, i do not think in 1940 debates that issue was discussed specifically, not to 100% sure about that. honestly, our time has passed and probably more frequent occurrence today. >> no discussion in 1994? >> that was a change to federal employees can make. >> there was no such thing as an

1940? 1940 -- llc in >> i do not think so. fec. is fc -- isn't that the right? regulationr specific but to have a definition of persons. , not aatutory definition regulatory definition. i was just asking. the definition of person which does not extend -- it would to isgest -- in which suggests, a regulatory definition? >> i do not think it is a definition of person and the statute. >> [indiscernible] it every see that says -- is

it that f ec that says [indiscernible] believe there is a regulation specifically to that fact. >> where do these llcs come from? everybody said you can state the statute by setting up an llc. >> they come as an operation of state law. if people are setting up separate persons under state law, then the definition of person does not reach them. think the court had a right on this question the fact that unless it chooses on one quid render aoes not

challenge to the credulous. there are separate persons engaging does not mean that the purpose goes further in some sense. they, the corporate ban, do not have that same opportunity to set up an llc. part of the equal protection claim is that contracts are worse off, but that is not clear. and some ways they are better off and some ways they are worse off. >> one of the ring is that the challengers said the solution is to regulate the awarding of contracts before you take the speech,infringing on how do you respond to that argument? >> conjures -- congress has andessed corruption

interest on a merit-based workforce and multiple flanks. i think congress has done both and it is permitted to do both. it is not evidence of that in those provisions have completely noe the interest in congress longer serving any interest whatsoever. for example, in new jersey, a state contractor made a number of contributions to try to win a business to debate the motor vehicle system. rewarded on a competitive contract. $400 million. they use their contributions and distort the awarding of the system through the competitive process. it was overturned -- it was over budget and had to be scrapped within weeks. a situation where the actual contractor, the corporation, had

written a $1000 check to the senate leader the day after they has grabbed the proposal. they had the person introduced their representative. just submitted their bid in response to proposals. from the actual contributor. even though in that situation, the formality had been set out to prevent that sort of evidencen, there's not that those sorts of formalities make the interest in fighting corruption and ineffective government functions of being served by the contribution ban. new jersey change the rules after that. in the last 10 years, a number of states have, new jersey, ohio, hawaii. even though there are processes for making bidding.

>> can i ask one real-world practical question? how many individual federal contractors are there roughly? millions? >> congress has not been able to get a handle. a lot. many are formal federal employees i would imagine. someonehe question is, has been a federal employee and is contributed and becomes a contractor and keeps contributing without knowing the applications,orld does the government warned contractors that they are now subject to a ban on contributing? not, i imagine there are a lot of unintentional violations out there. believe it is mandatory ethics training for employees.

>> i know for employees but not contractors. entities, not individuals. >> persons as well. i do not a there is clear evidence in the record by believe there he is. measures taken to help contractors comply. law, not knowing the know it -- is not a knowing the law a defense to the full a new charge? felony- defense to the charge? you say i do not know the law prohibited that. >> no, your honor. criminalection, violation, it would have to be a known and willful violations in some >> the support says willful

requires the law. >> correct. to know. >> i wanted to clarify it were not to be drawn into it. i would imagine and there's not i haved in this case and been thinking about it. one concern is completely unknown violations that could land you in a person's >> that would not be a criminal violation. -- that collate you in prison -- that could land you in prison. -- >> that were not be a criminal violation. >> is a different person making the contribution. >> how does and direct work without going through someone else? you are going through someone else.

>> they could be through someone actually set up a separate legal person i do not think that's what the statute was addressing. individual.or the >> it would not be direct at all. [indiscernible] the individual starts writing checks. two members of congress or politicians, right? >>as they are from that -- they are from the llc. >> you just confused me. seeking an llc, contract with the government and that llc cannot make contributions? chris the individual makes contributions. >> [indiscernible]

>> it is a different person. figuringaving trouble out where you get to this. i understand there is nothing in the statute supporting the proposition. and the statute, a federal regulation you are interpreting about llc's is inconsistent with the statute. the statute, even the regulation, the plaintiff's side talks about individual members of associations and corporations but it talks about them in the plural. fecthere fcc will links -- rulings or are we playing with a shadow? >> is there are not in the context. statute that says a person cannot make a contribution in

which the fec has ruled that ofividual is the sole member an llc can make it. be, we canthere may submit something if you would like. i think there might be some indication of that. but ithe advisory context am not wanted to percent sure. -- one edge percent sure. >> -- 100% sure. -- >> it you are arguing equal protection case? [indiscernible] llc can make contributions, is that correct? >> the individual who has set up

-- [indiscernible] >> that is part of the debate, yes. >> at no further questions. -- >> no further questions. we'll give you another two minutes. >> thank you, your honor. >> i think that llc answer is are subsets of corporations. the more poignant example because there is no difference between llc and person. declaration page. the second point i want to make is just cap announced unable to determine how many federal ,ontractors -- justice kavanagh unable to determine how many federal contractors.

as was the democratic national convention -- that having a large number of personal services? >> and yes, it's partially responsive to congress executive . they hire contractors who are doing the same thing as 2 of my clients are. the scandal in 1940 is concerned, that scandal could instead ofy because the owner taken the contribution the business owner would make the contribution and that is exactly what is allowed and what the most of the scandals are about. the $1000 in japan -- in new jersey, anybody who has -- >> if you are concerned about them being similar to employees, it is the case in the state political parties have -- and

try to figure out subtly made clear that a low level employee has to give money to the party if they want to keep their job, right? andf that discourse should forbidden by law -- >> and that rcion forbidden by law. >> and so is quid pro quo. that's not enough to make limits. we have to look for something close because we are not likely to find at the supreme court said the exact corrupt pardon. isn't that a very similar being from the state of illinois, springs is has two opinions. vur -- burns, the democratic party subtly made sure that only employees who made contributions could be

hired by the sheriff. in 1970 six. the republican party did exactly the same thing 15 years later for the state government. parties have an incentive to try to make money even small amounts for large numbers of employees by looking at who contribute and who does not. if that is the case and we take whycap off, the limit off, don't we think it will happen at the federal level? >> we are dealing with parties and employees and these are parties and contractors and second -- chris though parties are only permitted to make the same contributions my clients are not. >> a whole new group of people available to get contributions for political parties and if we them,f the cap off of

what makes us think that in the parties will not take advantage? >> i am sure the parties will contribute and will not get a lot of money from contractors like my clients here, your honor , but they can solicit from much bigger contractors now. can i read it for one second from the government's brief on page 32, most americans lack for millionaire -- a familiarity and easily view and contribution by contact with suspicion at that's , recent by the political pac's the officers of corporate contras, the chief procurement officers at llc's and that is what is wrong with this. there is no explanation as to why the other protection and the federal election campaign act are not sufficient to take care of those interests and given the substantial mismatch we have here, we ask the court to declare the -- declare it

unconstitutional. >> thanks to both sides. >> coming up next, white house officials holding a briefing on the u.s. response to the ebola outbreak. coverage continues as rand paul campaigns for republican candidate in north carolina. a conversation with retired supreme court justice john paul stevens on his career and life on the nation's highest court. >> on a new speakers, jerry moran. he talks about the 2014 election landscape around the nation including a campaign office fellow kansas senator. "newsmakers" at 10:00 a.m. at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on c-span.

store take --city the's tour takes it on road. book is about> my a large animal that in ancient times or american history was called a beast, a mountain lion. what is really a garden, that is colorado. natural place.ly it has been altered by human. when you get to this wild animal coming into the artificial landscape, you can cause changes and the behavior of that animal. a mountain lion's favorite food is venison. they eat about one dear a week. this lush city where we have irrigated gardens and lawns, the city attracted the deer.

the lions moved back in the area. they discover their where deer in town. lions.r lured the the lions realized they could eat docs and cats in the lions were learning and they have learned that this is where they will find food. there's food up there, too, but there's lots to eat in town. -- >>it is a rich treat it is a retreat for entertainment and coming together. the people who were intended to be the audience were the middle class. -- at mosts and most were similar. speakers over the day and also a variety of what we might consider highbrow and lowbrow entertainment. , and, classical music

probably what will be considered the vaudeville of the day. >> watch all of our activities tvm boulder on c-span 2'book and american history tv. >> in a white house briefing on the administration's response to sayebola epidemic, experts u.s. has infrastructure to deal with it. among those taking place is andetary sylvia burwell chief of infectious diseases at the national institutes of health. this is 45 minutes. andprotect our homeland

stop the epidemic at its source. with that working for many months to assure the united states is protect them, cdc since our first guidance on july 21 and has been followed by six additional sets of guidance and the latest was just issued yesterday. in addition, we have enhanced our surveillance and laboratory testing capacity in states to make sure that they're able to detect cases. been in regular and contacts with state officials and health departments including developing guidance and tools for departments to conduct public health investigations. we're continuing to provide guidance for flight crews, emergency medical service units at airports, and customs and border patrol officers about reporting ill travelers to the cdc. we're continuing to work with hospitals and health care workers around the country to prepare most effectively both in detecting symptoms and then responding appropriately. as we saw just a few months ago,

almost two months ago in carolina's medical center in charlotte, north carolina, and at mount sinai in new york, hospitals and health care systems reacted and took appropriate steps. fortunately, in those cases the cases were not positive. we saw emory's ability to handle the first cases that returned from west africa followed by the nebraska medical center's ability to do the same. in dallas, the public health system is now handling the case with the protocol that we know controlled this disease. we recognize the concern that even a single case of ebola creates on our shores. but we have the public health system and the public health providers in place to contain the spread of this disease.

we have taken a number of precautions to prevent the spread. we've instituted exit screening procedures in west africa to prevent those who have been exposed to ebola or sick with ebola from traveling. the department of homeland security is in the process of advising all travelers returning to the u.s. from country with ebola outbreaks in west africa to monitor their health for 21 days and immediately seek medical help if any symptoms do develop. the centers for disease control stands ready as it has in dallas to deploy expert teams when needed. finally, our scientists at the food and drug administration and the national institutes of health are working tirelessly to develop new vaccines and treatments for ebola. we remain focused on working with our partners on the ground to stop the epidemic at its source and we're continuing to take the necessary precautions across the united states government to prevent the epidemic from spreading further. and i'd like to now turn to dr. tony fauci, the director of the national institute of allergy and infectious diseases at the

nih to talk a little bit about epidemiology. >> thank you very much, secretary burwell. i'd like to provide some basic but important facts about ebola and its transmission. although ebola is an extremely serious viral disease with a high fatality rate, it is not easily transmitted. specifically, the ebola virus is not easily spread like a cold or influenza. you must come into direct contact with the bodily fluids of a sick person or through exposure to objects that have been contaminated with infected bodily fluids. ebola is not a respiratory disease like the flu and so it is not transmitted through the air. this is important. individuals who are not symptomatic are not contagious. in order for the virus to be transmitted, an individual would have to have direct contact with

an individual who is experiencing symptoms or who has died of the disease. we have considerable experience in dealing with ebola both in controlling and in preventing outbreaks. this is based on experience with almost two dozen outbreaks in central africa since the virus was first isolated in 1976. the key elements to that control and the prevention of outbreaks when ebola rises in a community is to first identify cases, isolate them, care for them under conditions that protect the health care workers, and, importantly, perform contact tracing. people in direct contact with a sick ebola patient should be monitored for symptoms for at least 21 days. if no symptoms arise, the individual is cleared. if symptoms arise, the person is

appropriately isolated and cared for. this formula has worked very well over many years. the situation in west africa has been very difficult, largely due to the lack of an adequate -- of an adequate health care infrastructure to deal with the outbreak. i want to reiterate what the secretary said. our health care infrastructure in the united states is well equipped to stop ebola in its tracks. as the secretary said, in addition to managing the issues associated with containing the situation in dallas as it exists today and addressing the very dire situation as it exists in africa today, we are working very aggressively and energy etically to test a vaccine, to prevent ebola and therapy to treat it. now i'd like to introduce the administrator of usaid, dr. shah.

>> thank you. i'd like to take a moment to describe the effort in west africa which has been noted includes a major effort to control the disease, includes specific actions to deal with the secondary impacts of the crisis in several west african countries including making food, water, and government support more available, and the effort to build out an international coalition as lisa previously discussed. our response in west africa started in the spring and accelerated dramatically over the summer. this coordinated civilian response included the largest ever disaster assistance response team from usaid, the large eliot -- largest ever more than a hundred persons centers for disease control capability deployed to liberia, sierra leone, guinea, and countries throughout the region, and

efforts partnering with our department of defense colleagues to more than double the laboratory and diagnostic capacity in west africa to ensure that cases could be identified and positively confirmed. since that time, we've helped deliver more than 120,000 sets of personal protective equipment, build out ebola treatment units, provide technical assistance for airport screenings throughout the region, and increase the basic capacity of what has been a weak existing health care infrastructure to deal with this disease. as the president noted in his comments at the centers for disease control a few weeks ago, our strategy now is clear. first, we are investing in a strong, incident command system at the national and local level throughout the region to identify cases and trace contacts. second, we are building out ebola treatment units so that enough bed capacity exists for as many positively identified patients as possible to receive isolation and treatment. we are on path to put in place the w.h.o. plan of more than

2800 beds in liberia according to their thrines and in the past several days have seen significant new ebola capability come online including the largest treatment unit in liberia the new island clinic which we helped build and staff. third, we're engaging in an extensive community care strategy that includes a ten to 20 bed community care units that are placed throughout rural communities and help isolate patients in those communities and support the distribution of hygiene and protective equipment kits so families can protect their patients and their families. we've distributed more than 9,000 of those kits together with unicef and the world health organization and are on path to have about 10,000 arriving country -- arrive in country and be distributed through liberia on a weekly basis. in recent days we've been successful in scaling up the effort to identify, reach, and in a safe and dignified manner deal

with bodies of patients who are deceased from ebola. we now have more than 50 safe burial teams with full protective equipment and careful protocols in place. we're noting that more than 3/4 of all bodies this liberia of positively identified patients are now being cleared safely within the 24-hour period. this is critically important because that is an important existing mode of transmission. i further note that the scale up of centers for disease control and u.s. aid efforts through june and august was quite significant but the complexity of building out ebola treatment units and providing the logistics support in terms of protective equipment and medicines required the significant additional resources brought by the department of defense and announced by president obama. so i'm pleased to introduce general david rodriguez, the commander of africa command to

describe those specific efforts. thank you. >> thank you, administrator. as we deploy america's sons and daughters to support the comprehensive united states government effort led by the united states agency for international development, we'll do everything in our power to address and mitigate any potential risk to our service members, civilian employees, and their families. as director shah or administrator shah mentioned, the areas that we're focusing on are command and control and that is to help support and coordinate the efforts of both usaid and the international community. we are also working on training the people who man and manage the ebola treatment units. we're supporting the engineering efforts to build out the ebola treatment units and we're also doing an effort in the area of logistics, which this is a tremendous logistics effort as the administrator pointed out. for our soldiers prior to deployment, we'll provide them the best equipment and training that

we can. we are assessing risk based on the service members' mission, their location, and their activities in execution of their operations. we're implementing procedures to reduce or eliminate the risk of transmission, as service members go about their daily missions, including the use of personal protective equipment, hygiene protocols, and monitoring. prior to redeploying service members back home, we will screen and identify anyone who faced an elevated risk of exposure and take all necessary steps to minimize any potential transmission in accordance with the international standards that our medical professionals have given us. in the end our equipment, training, procedures, and most of all the discipline of our leaders and our force will help us to ensure that our team accomplishes its mission without posing a risk to our nation and our fellow citizens. thank you. >> thanks very much, general

rodriguez. first i want to thank our -- the folks who are with me at the podium. but most importantly, the dedicated military medical and development professionals that they represent and who are working so hard on this problem. i think with that we're happy to take your questions. >> ms. monaco? >> yes. >> you talked about these ebola country. why not do more active screening, like ask people have you had a fever, have you been in contact with people? that's been done at least in some countries and other circumstances. on the face of it, it would seem a reasonable thing to do. >> i think this goes directly to what dr. fauci talked about and secretary burwell. we are taking steps to address the source, the people coming from the source countries and we think those are the most effective steps we can take. the temperature testing, the questionnaires, testing for

fever, and making sure that people who are symptomatic and as dr. fauci said and dr. tom friedman has talked about this repeatedly, you cannot get ebola other than from direct contact with bodily fluids of somebody who is at that time symptomatic. so the most effective way to go about controlling this is to prevent those individuals from getting on a plane in the first place. i think it is important to remember that since these measures have been in place, dozens and dozens of people have been stopped from getting on flights in the region. >> but we now know people have gotten on planes anyway, so why not have the u.s. customs and immigration people ask them, clearly, it's not effective to do it merely on the african side. >> i think what we've seen is we've had an individual in texas who did come to this country and later became symptomatic. that person is now being

isolated and dealt with and significant contact tracing is being done. your question about passive versus more active screening is i think understandable. but as secretary burwell indicated, we've taken a number of steps to ensure customs and border patrol individuals are, teams are trained to identify a symptomatic individual and where they do present people who may be symptomatic, they have instructions about what to do and how to handle that. that is all of which is to say that we are constantly going to evaluate what may be the most effective measures we can take. secretary johnson is constantly evaluating that with his team and in consultation with the medical professionals. right now the most effective measures we think are focusing at the source countries and taking the steps, the very concerted training and precautionary measures and notification measures that we've taken with the cdc folks here on the receiving end.

>> talk kind of in broad terms about hospital procedures here and obviously in dallas and break down a couple points. i'm wondering specifically lessons from the dallas situation. and while we have you here, maybe you can tell us what the u.s. knows about the latest state video we've seen with the hostage and another american as well. >> on the latter issue, julie, let me just address that and then ask secretary burwell and dr. fauci to address the medical measures in texas within the constraints that i'm sure you understand safely operating. if it in fact proves to be authentic it is a demonstration of the brutality of isil and our hearts go out to the british aide worker who we believe is in

that video and the remaining hostages and their families. this is again yet another just very clear example of the brutality of this group and why the president has articulated and is moving out in a comprehensive way to degrade and destroy isil. let me now turn to my colleagues on the latter part of your question. >> with regard to the efforts that the cdc is pursuing and we've been pursuing, as i mentioned, we've had the efforts in charlotte we saw and we saw it work in mount sinai. we have a case here actually i think everyone knows howard and the question there. and so the systems are in place. we continue to communicate.nue d instruction. i think it is important to reflect on whatever lessons we learn, we build and incorporate. as i said, we've issued the seventh of these health alert network notices to make sure if there are any lessons learned as we go forward we will continue to incorporate those.

>> can you repeat what the lessons learned from some of these failures in dallas were and how you may be changing or modifying -- >> what we know are the critical steps that we have said throughout the process. and that is about identification. identification at the point at which there is actually a temperature and as dr. fauci said, when something can be done. what we are doing is making sure that hospitals, health workers across the country know that when they see that, what steps to take, how to isolate, and what to do immediately when they see those steps. and we'll continue to do that and make sure we are responding to the questions that we're getting from the community. >> what about the potential case at howard university? is there any new information about that? and to dr. fauci, if it doesn't spread like the flu or cold, why is it spreading so quickly? are you confident we won't see an outbreak in the u.s.? >> with regard to the nigeria

case haven't seen the results of the test yet. i think that is the most definitive and important thing. what you see is people taking precautions because the symptoms are malarial but it could be this. i think everyone is taking the appropriate steps. we believe that is the right thing to do. cdc gets contacted. we make a determination and work with the community and the health center. in this case to do the test. when we get that definitive as you know in each of the cases we make public as quickly as possible what we know about that. >> are you being informed of all of these suspected cases? >> let me answer the question here first. you were saying if it is only transmitted a certain way -- right, but why is there such an outbreak? if one goes to liberia or sierra

leone or guinea, you will see the conditions that make it very, very clear that coming into contact with bodily fluids, the most efficient way of transmission is unfortunately the very thing that holds families together. someone gets sick, they take care of them, they touch them. if they are not aware of the fact that you cannot come into personal contact without having the proper protective equipment. funerals are another way as well as preparing the bodies and customs, the long-range traditions that have gone with the funeral. the mechanism of transmission, which we've all said, direct contact with bodily fluid, amply explains what is going on right now in the west african countries. >> you're convinced it's not a significant outbreak in the u.s.? >> the reason there is an outbreak now is because the health care infrastructure and system in those countries is inadequate and incapable of actually handing the kind of identification, isolation, rapid treatment, protection of the people who come into contact and contact tracing, and that's something we have very well established here.

we have a case now, and it's entirely conceivable there may be another case, but the reason we feel confident is that our structure, our ability to do those things would preclude an out right. >> are we being notified of cases? this goes directly to what the doctor just said -- we have an infrastructure that is in place. we have a public health alert system through which cdc has distributed information from and established a laboratory network for testing. when there are potential symptomatic individuals who present themselves a medical facilities, those precautions are immediately taken, this test are undertaken through a network of laboratories that cdc has validated and provided a clear guidance to, so we have the

structure in place when we identify potential cases to resolve those, and if there are actually confirmed ebola cases, as we have seen one of in texas, we take the immediate steps to isolate them, provide treatment, undertake the contact tracing, and our infrastructure works to make sure we are aware of those cases and take the steps. >> we had a case at howard, but it was not said -- a potential case, i'm sorry -- but did not say there was another potential case at shady grove, and the hospital has already put out a warning. >> you have indicated and talked about the potential case at howard. we will see the resolution of that as secretary burwell discussed.

those reports as they come in will be addressed. those tests will be undertaken. the public health infrastructure is reacting and is taking the steps necessary to isolate that individual. every hospital in this country has the capability to isolate a patient, take the measures, put them in place to ensure that any suspected cases immediately isolated, and the follow-ups that have been mentioned -- the follow-up steps that have been mentioned are immediately taken. >> to what degree have you debated internally, and are you ever going to be prepared to recommend to the president what some have suggested today, a travel ban for these countries? general, how do you think you're deployed assets are as far as

catching up with what you intend to do, and do you think it is time at some point to have military medical people actually involved in the direct care as opposed to setting up the infrastructure? >> i will take the travel ban question first. i know that has been an issue that has been raised. i take note of dr. frieden's comments in this remark, just to say that right now, we believe those types of steps actually impede the response. they impede and slowdown the ability of the united states and other international partners to actually get expertise and capabilities and equipment into the affected areas, and as we've said and stressed from this podium and others, the most important and effective thing we can do is to control the epidemic at its source. what we want to be able to do is make sure we are getting the assistance, getting the expertise, and getting providers into the affected region and not impeding that.

>> before you go, many americans might say half a ban, not getting there but exiting? are you considering that? >> as the measures are being taken to screen individuals who are departing from the affected countries, and we have spoken to that, cdc professionals have provided the assistance and the training and advice to airport officials in liberia, guinea, and sierra leone, and as a result of those measures and those screenings, of steps that have been undertaken, many, many people -- dozens of people have been stopped from traveling, so we see those issues -- those steps actually being effective. general. >> for us, the speed with we are moving out is really focused on the ebola treatment units. that will take us several weeks. we are working with the armed forces of liberia, working with contractors, and we are working

with a logistics chain of events to get the materials there as fast as we can we are also doing some of the ones in some fairly isolated areas, and those will take us the longest. we are not certain military personnel will be treating people. that will be a decision made in the future. >> you do have folks capable of doing that, don't you? >> yes, we do. there are three labs operating out there done by military medical professionals right now, and that's doing a great job identifying who has the disease and who does not. >> have you considered a waiting period between issuing a visa and travel? >> i think we're going to move around a little bit. >> help me understand -- something you talked about in

terms of preparedness here in this country, the conversations with hospitals, coordination with local authorities and all seems very dissident, i think, two people in the country who look at basically the first case or one of the first cases and see that the whole thing broke down. every step of the way, there were breakdowns. it broke down, as the person back there was saying, when he lied on the form. it broke down when the hospital turned him away. it broke down when the materials that were in his apartment have not been thrown away. it broke down -- i mean, it feels like -- two americans, like you guys are up here talking about "we have this great imperfect system that's going to be able to contain this virus because we done all this preparation," and yet, it does not look like it's working. how should the regular or average person have confidence that whether it is the case and howard or some case somewhere else in the country at the

moment that somebody is not being turned away there, that somebody did not get -- or their temperature got taken in africa but did not get caught, so they are on a plane as we speak? where's the distance between your confidence and the fact that things do not seem to be working. >> i think the american people should be confident for all the reasons that we stated in the president has spoken to, and that's because the public health infrastructure we have here is so expert, so extensive, and is considerable. the situation in liberia, sierra leone, and any could not be more opposite in terms of the public health infrastructure and the ability of officials to immediately isolate an individual case. what you are seeing in texas is the isolation of that patient, the contact tracing being done meticulously by cdc and local

health professionals. the other thing i would say to your question is -- it is true, we had a case in texas, the howard case that has been mentioned. it is a potential case, and i would defer to the medical professionals at howard to give the definitive view on that, but i think it is very important to remember this outbreak again in march -- began in march of this year. since that time and since the screening measures we discussed from this podium began over the summer, there have been tens of thousands of individuals who have come to this country from the affected regions, and we've now seen one case, and it is entirely possible we will see another case. however, i would point you and others to the fact that we have now seen tens of thousands of people in the time since march to the current day, and we now

have this isolated case in texas, but we have a public health infrastructure and medical professionals throughout this country who are capable of dealing with cases if they present themselves and as dr. frieden has said, we are confident that we can stop this and other cases in its tracks. >> can you explain within that public health infrastructure what the lines of authority are? once you have a confirmed case, for example, in dallas, does the cdc -- is there a federal authority? is it up to the local health department -- who is in charge at that point? >> when any test is done, it is reported to cdc, so we have a network, and we want the tests to be able to go quickly. part of the preparedness we did was we created capability all around the country for the test

to occur so that they could occur quickly. however, when that test occurs, cdc is alerted to the test occurring, and the results of the test. with regard to who controls the patient, i think, is the question, that is done at the local level, and we supported matt. 10 people would on the ground from cdc immediately -- i think you all know -- in terms of supporting the local health departments in doing contact tracing and any other issues they have, whether they are issues of the testing, whether they are issues of the contact tracing. we stand ready to do that. while the local health officials -- because this is a local issue, and that is really a big part of how you are going to do the contact tracing, and they make the decisions on the ground -- we are there hand-in-hand in support, had 10 people on the ground and work hand in glove with them. >> are people in dallas concerned about being isolated in a highly congested apartment area?

>> protocol that could be repeated in other communities, but the contract tracing is that they are isolated, that's the best place to keep them in an environment where it may be a high-density apartment? >> that gets to the earlier question with regard to how local officials are handling their case specifically. when you have not had a high risk exposure, what needs to happen is basic temperature taking two times a day on a regular basis. high risk exposure creates different needs. how a local official -- how local officials choose to implement that -- we work in conjunction, and we have given the guidance out in terms of what we do, but those are decisions made at the local level. i have to move around, i think is the rule.

>> a very quick follow up -- is no one concerned that there were these breakdowns in dallas? are you confident there will not be a breakdown elsewhere? >> when i spoke to the fact that we continued to work on our education and continue to work with locals and put out more and more information, we put out more information and updated information. whenever there's anything we see we can do a better job of communicating, we will do that. as i think the general mentioned, too, we are going to learn every time and every step, but i think what we are confident about his these processes work. if you look at what happened in nigeria in terms of the cases in nigeria, what happened is we quickly activated -- and cdc was a part of supporting the country of nigeria, both at the state and federal level to put in place the things that it needed

to put in place. it is about detect, isolation, treat the patient due to contact tracing. those are the steps, and now we see where we are in nigeria in terms of the cases and them having moved through, so we believe that as we take these steps, these core fundamental steps, and we are in the middle of that in dallas in terms of the contact tracing and making sure that the people that should be taking the temperatures are doing that, so that is how and why we believe that this is going to work. >> islands of the vaccine question in a second, but i just wanted to make the point that you were making. there were things that did not go the way they should have in dallas, but there were a lot of things that went right and are going right. if you look at them, the person is in isolation being properly taken care of, and the fundamental core basis of preventing an outbreak, contact tracing, is now going on, and that is the important thing, and that's going on very

efficiently. the cdc sets down very clear guideline and protocols on how to do that, and that is being done. although certainly it was rocky to the perception of people in reality, but the fact is the reason i said there would not be an outbreak is because of what's going on right now. even though there were missteps, there were good is that happened also. with regard to the vaccine, i don't know who asked the question about the vaccine -- obviously, we would hope that vaccine could be a part of the response, even the public health infection control is still the core of getting this under control. we have a vaccine, a couple of candidates -- the one that's most advanced is the one we announced just a while ago, the first person in a phase one trial received a vaccine on september 2 at the nih in bethesda. that's the first of a multiphase trial to develop a vaccine. it's called phase one because

its primary endpoint is safety. if we determine it safe and looks good so far and also that it reduces a response that you would predict would be protective, which we will know probably by the end of november or the beginning of december -- when you get through that phase, then the next phase is a phase two, which is many, many more people conducted in the environment where you could prove its efficacy, and that would be west africa. the next phase, sometime likely in the first quarter of 2015, we will begin a trial to determine overall long-range safety and importantly, whether it works or not. >> i understand the -- as a medical professional and dr., what concerns you most about this outbreak and this particular disease now that it's in the united's rates? >> now that it's in the united

states, the concern is that i do not ever like to see people get sick and people suffer and die, but as a medical professional who has witnessed and experienced a whole 38 years since 1976, i never say i'm not concerned because that is interpreted as taking something lightly. i take nothing lightly, but i'm convinced by what we have all said today that the system that is in place with our health care infrastructure would make it extraordinarily unlikely that we would have an outbreak, and the reason we know that is if we look at the situation and nigeria, as the secretary mentioned, is a classic example of that -- the reason we're having this devastating, painful, very difficult situation in the west african countries is because they don't have the system to be able to contain it. if they had the system, we would not be seeing all the suffering