authority to do it today. >> from the point of view of cdc, we are willing to consider anything -- >> have you considered an have you ruled it out, or have you not considered it at all? have you had conversations with the white house about a travel ban? it is a yes or no question. have you had conversations with the white house about a travel ban? >> we have had discussions on the issue of travel from west african countries. >> have you ruled it out? if you are in those conversations, maybe they had their own conversation about you, but if you were involved in conversations with the white house about a travel ban, did they rule it out and are they still considering it? >> we will consider anything -- >> are you going to answer the question about your conversation with the white house? is the white house considering a travel ban? >> i can't speak for the white house. >> have you had conversations with them about it?

as we discussed -- >> we discussed the issue of travel. >> i would urge you, if you do not think it travel ban is the right way to go, a lot of people disagree with you, at a minimum, you ought to look at -- you can travel in the united states from liberia. have you all considered that were discussed it or ruled it out? >> at cdc, our authority is to core and teen individuals or two acquire the isolation of individuals. >> but you said you do not think there should be a travel ban. what about at least looking at extending visas to non-us citizens? >> the cdc does not issue visas. >> but you can make a recommendation to the white house that you think would be in the best interest of the american people to have that kind of suspension issued. can't you?

are you not aware of that? >> we would certainly consider anything that will reduce risk to americans. >> do you have a high level of confidence that our u.s. troops that are over there right now, through activity are already in those countries. up to 3000 troops will be sent over from president obama. do you have a high level of confidence those trips are protected so they will not contract ebola? >> we work very closely with dod on the protocols. i would not say there is zero risk there in those countries, but they are not participating in high risk activities. >> who establishes protocols in that case? >> they are following cdc protocols, but they follow their own. >> let me ask you about the protocols. i have heard reports that some people of some of the other organizations that have been there for a while, you have got a group, a showman by the name

of shawn kaufman, who is involved with some of the doctors over there that got infected. they have been working for decades in some cases. he said he warned your agency that the guidelines you had on lax, and his response was "they kind of blew me off. " " i don't know that that occurred. >> i hope you go find out. there is a real concern. i've talked to a number of medical professionals in my district. they are concerned they have not had consistent protocols. there have been at least four in

the last few weeks were the protocols keep changing. with the first nurse that was infected, you personally said the protocols have been breached. have you back away from that? you said the protocols were breached. were they breached? yes or no? >> our review of the records suggest that in the first few days -- >> if you did not know for a fact -- do you still stand by the statement that protocols were breached? >> there was a definite exposure -- >> i yield back. >> the ranking member and the chairman have a final two-minute wrapup. >> would it be fair to say that it looks like the first nurse, pham, was exposed in the

first couple of days before the diagnosis came in. >> that is our leading hypothesis. >> thank you. have you now see in my chart from the new york times about protective gear? do you know which types of protective gear health-care workers were wearing in the last few days? >> the second garb, folks would have been wearing the first picture, folks from the cdc. >> thank you. it is your testimony, you do not really know how either one of these nurses were. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> i want to say one last thing. we have had a lot of discussions today about a lot of issues. my takeaway, i will make a statement and i will ask you to comment. it seems to me, beside from trying to stop the ebola from africa, the things we can do here, number one, better

training to people in our emergency rooms, and our first responders, and not just send them out e-mails and bulletins. number two, we can have more robust protective gear at the early stages someone looks like he might have a risk for ebola. number three, it might be useful to have cdc on the ground earlier. they did not come down to the dallas hospital until after the diagnosis. there was two days, people were moving in and out of mr. duncan's room and we do not know exactly what happened. can you comment on that? >> i do not agree completely on .he training area an we are looking carefully at the equipment issue. we consult immediately every time. there have been more than 300 -- only mr. duncan was confirmed to have ebola. we can't be everywhere.

we will do our part. we will do everything we can to support the front lines. >> i would ask for both this protective gear chart, and the map of flights to be included in the effort. i would also ask all of our witnesses if they would continue to keep this committee updated procedures andn developments are made. i ask unanimous consent to put these statements in the record. >> i previously asked for unanimous consent but i do not think we ever agreed to it. >> it is so ordered. i now recognize for another two minutes. having listened to all of your testimony, couple things stand out for me.

i appreciate dr. daniel varga's statement of honesty. that we made mistakes. i did not hear that for many of you and that troubles me. because what has happened here is your protocol depends on everyone being honest 100% of the time. i am not a medical expert. i study behavior as a psychologist. people are not honest 100% of the time. secondly it relies on tools that , take temperatures. one in 21 chance that they may register something. that is not helpful. we also have to recognize human behavior, the protocols may not be followed. watch you put it on and watch it taken off and do things. the example of how this failed was there was an assumption, you said cdc granted travel. the assumption that the nurse

used all the right protective gear, but we looked at this and you are not aware of what she wore. to this extent, these are my recommendations. i believe we need an immediate ban on commercial and nonessential travel until we have an accurate screening process to treat the disease. a mandatory quarantines order for any american who has traveled to or return from the ebola hot zone countries. because of an assumption and without this assumption of what they were was donned and remove properly. number three, through training for health care hospital workers for personal equipment used in the treatment of ebola patients, and number four, identify and -- those trained. number five, identify gaps in the statutory language to take more aggressive and immediate

action to protect public health in ebola. or any other action congress needs to do to facilitate your needs. number six, accelerate on development and clinical trials investigations on drugs and diagnostic tests. number seven, acquisition of vehicles capable of examining military personnel who may have contracted ebola in africa to return to the united states beyond the current capacity. number eight, additional contact and testing for public health agencies. number nine, to provide for congress and the resources needed to assist health interventions, aggressive health interventions, in africa so we can stop people of their. i appreciate the members coming back today for the hearing and i especially appreciate the testimony of the panel.

i ask unanimously that these documents be entered into the record. >> yes. the office of and specter general, and the photographs i demonstrated earlier today? >> so ordered. they will be demonstrated in the record. >> mr. chairman, i want to knowledge -- to acknowledge -- >> we will follow up and notify participants and when that will be. i ask that witnesses plea agreed to respond properly paired with that, the hearing is adjourned. with that this hearing is adjourned.

>> says that hearing, president obama has picked ron klain as the ebola defense coordinator, and he has served as an advisor to vice president joe biden and vice president al gore, as well as a former guys are to vice president gore and

former advisor to attorney general janet reno. he will report to national security advisor rice. here are just a few of the comments that we have recently received from our viewers. localave been battling my cable provider here in new jersey for over 18 months now to start or bring c-span into high definition. anything never done like this before, but i thoroughly enjoyed this program. i like the history channel. i live in naples, florida. i think it is absolutely and really magnificent. i was glued to my chair for the full hour. i will continue to turn back to this program again.

>> i just wanted to first start off by telling c-span that i do not watch any other channel on my cable selection besides this and 3 and i, 2, really want to show my appreciation for this and for your services there and your ability to really keep it mixed up and really lively. >> and continue to let us know what you think about the programs that you are watching. 2.626.3400.20 conversation,n like us on facebook or follow us on twitter. >> here on c-span, newsmakers is next with planned parenthood guens,resident dawn la

a," with richard norton smith discussing his new biography >> we are talking to the executive vice president of planned parenthood. begin with how much planned parenthood plans to spend and is spending in this election cycle and which states? -- thebudget this year planned parenthood action fund -- the organizations that work to protect the work of planned parenthood and elected champions are want to defend and promote that work -- our spending is in

the range of $15 million to $20 million. >> which states? >> the senate is our primary focus. programs areiggest in north carolina, colorado, iowa, new hampshire, alaska, also worsening in florida, wisconsin, and some governors races as well. >> i wanted to ask you about north carolina. that is where you seem to have spent the bulk of your money, especially early on. hagan does have a slight advantage. what makes you focus on that state early on, and you can talk about what things you have been doing in the tar heel state? >> north carolina is a great example of where this issue around women's health and reproductive rights really has changed over the last few years and become prominent in terms of

swing voters and being motivational to women who may not normally vote in midterm elections. -- this year the elections are about the turnout. you can do a turnout operation or field operation that you can rent tv ads and things. we had to get in their early and build out the offices informing counties there. we also had to make sure that we were part of the effort to fight from the get-go. >> were kind of things have you been talking about? >> tom tillis, the opponent to kay hagan -- kay hagan is an amazing champion for women, with women's economic and health access -- which are related and tied. she understands that connection. she has been a great person out there. tom tillis -- you may have heard

of the motorcycle vagina bill. he has been a supporter of personhood, once to repeal the preventive health benefits that women are taken advantage of in the affordable health care act. of particular record that would roll back some of the gains that women have made. a great contrast there. we get there on the message front. we have been part of the moral mondays that are happening there. being in north carolina -- we say go into -- we have health centers, and action fund on the into fourso we went main counties in north carolina with a turnout that looked like it needed to be shaped and an interesting program that we are doing that no one else is doing. there is a whole theory about turnout called "sexual pressure." the obama campaign used it to

get you to vote, and me to get my friend to vote. we have been recording people in their own voice talking about why it is in port and to vote. -- why it is in portent to vote. -- important to vote. it is the first time we have ever been used. we recorded hundreds of thousands of women in north carolina this way. --the real political junkie what counties are you focusing on? by our is being driven talented staff on the ground, there is one that has a big presence. we have recently doubled our ability to do turnout. the planned parenthood action fund has 1500 working full-time on the elections this year.

>> mobilizing people to get out the vote? >> yes. >> will be the difference on the ground? >> the way i approach an election -- an united states, there are 300 million people, about 100 million of them are eligible or likely to vote. about 300,000 people will really determine the outcome of the elections for the senate does your. you keep sifting down to that level. 30,000 people in north carolina can make the difference. i don't know every one of them by name, so i have to guess who they are. we build a program that might 300,000, and then we relentlessly focus on those people through phones, mail, doors, and a of course the message environment. we do have some television, radio, and digital ads.

>> i want to talk to about colorado. the incumbent senator there has stressed abortion, birth control , the proposal of personhood that would treat the fetus is a person. he has relentlessly attacked the republican candidate for his opposition to abortion rights. i am wondering if you think he might have gone too far. at an endorsement of cory gardner -- i will reader couple of sentences. rather -- his of not just one issue campaign is an assault -- insult. i want to get your response to that. >> it looks differently from where i sit. of course, first of all, i went back and reviewed the list of all the people that were

endorsed and did not win. that is the first reassuring step that i took. secondly, it is not that mark udall -- through his record, he has made this the issue. i think a couple of things are going on in colorado. they are talking about a lot of issues. this one has risen to the top is the third time it has been on the ballot. it has been beaten before, twice. it will be voted on again in november along with the senator and governor's race. senator udall has been a total champion, whereas cory gardner, who came in with the tea party wave in 2010 and was part of the group that was planning to be fun planned parenthood's services, wanted to roll back obamacare, and wanted to remove prevented services bill, seems not to be able to remember which bills the action supports.

he will see this as a decoder ring about what your character is, number one. and what you believe about women and their ability to make decisions, and how you see these issues linked. socially and economically for women and families. i actually think that the reason that race is still close is because of this. chuck saidi'm sorry, that if the senators win, it female because of the far wall, not in spite of it. i feel certain that these are the issues that are inspiring more women and men to come out and vote in some of the notoriously difficult polling you see in a state like colorado or alaska, under representing the number of women, and that they don't take into account the turnout operations really have on the ground. >> in colorado, to follow up on

that, what is interesting to me is that gartner has tried to neutralize this issue. several other republican senators followed suit. the democrats have not had a good response to that. how do you -- how should democrats be answering republicans on that too? does this cut into democrat independent -- >> are these issues working? the fact that they're trying to backpedal from the record and find something to say to these women about issues shows how critical and effective they are for this race. ,ver-the-counter birth control first of all, being a plant turn hood -- planned parenthood voice -- we support it.

like the red sox rooting for the yankees, not believable. what we find with over-the-counter birth control is that when you combine it with the fda says it is not possible wants to repeal the preventative services benefit that right now covers women's access to all forms of birth control. of course, you can't go into cvs and get an iud or other forms of birth control. that could cost women in colorado and across the country, not just hundreds of dollars, but in some cases thousands of dollars to lose that benefit. the other thing is that the personhood bills are actually formsat outlawing certain of birth control, fertility treatments, and absolutely ban abortions in all cases.

it does not ring true. i think all of the data that i have seen from focus groups that i have participated in, women and colorado are not being full. that is why he is not making any gain. >> democrats have been really effective in the last couple of of cycles and hitting these issues hard. this is the first election we have seen where republicans try to respond back as aggressively as they have the cycle. in fact, they tried to turn the table. michigan, there was a candidate who accused the democrats of not paying their staff equally or having their own problem's with women's issues. when you make of these counterattacks? it is a sign that your attacks are working, but they have been managing to neutralize these issues. definitely not terry. polls and back in the not going to do well in that

election. a little more competent in alaska, where this is one of the many issues that they are debating in terms of the campaign. there was an interesting -- i was a democratic media consultant before i came to planned parenthood for years ago. i remember people running from these issues on the democratic ledge- the liability, the herhich was working against women health candidates, access to abortion candidates. that has really flipped. 2000 12, we watched president where hethe stage mentioned the words plan -- planned parenthood five times. we see this really shift for the first time in the eggs of polls. they showed that more people had ,oted for terry mcauliffe

women's access to health care, seemed thatl -- it the power of the issue has shifted and it is now a wedge issue on the other side. yes, i think that they got the message. you remember the republican national committee posted an event on how to talk nice to ladies. the message.got you have got to start talking about this stuff. the problem is that what they talk about and vote for don't match up. that is where the opportunity in this case is to show that what they're saying and what they're doing are not the same thing. an interesting state. i know you are spinning a lot of money there. it does not see my can fits the same old as north carolina or another red state. we did a story looking at how as ansn't maybe antiabortion state as you think it is.

i know your president was up there campaigning. how do you see the women's issues -- are more people receptive? i was also interested because you see some centrist democrats backing a 20 week abortion ban. have you see that playing into the race? >> he is a man of wisdom and conviction to delve into these issues and understand them deeply, and then take a position. that that is a political ploy, and one that is washington speak and cooked up in a conference room here or in some think tank, but it is not the expense of real people need health care, especially in a place like alaska. one of the things that we find is that because alaska -- the

s, people are tuned as to what it takes to have access to health care, contraception, and your own decision-making. they do have a varied strong libertarian streak when we look at polling nationally. we see that seven out of 10 americans believe that roe v wade should be the law of the land. no matter how you define yourself personally, pro-choice, pro-life, that is not what people think when it comes to the policy environments. that is of a strong feeling and a state like alaska, and i think colorado as well, new hampshire another one. >> what kind of work are you doing in alaska? now it seems like dan sullivan has pulled into the lead. >> again, big field programs

everywhere. -- the planned parenthood action fund is running the largest turnout operation on the ground in alaska of any independent group. we have shipped a bunch of our staff -- they are basically living in alaska. we have hired folks from alaska who are working day and night and talking to people. one of the most difficult places to pull. none of these polls take into account the massive turnout operations that are being built they can't project how much we can or cannot change turnout. it seems reasonable to think 2% is possible in some states. when you look at the data, people say republicans are more enthusiastic -- those are all national data. they are not specific to these