it is coming from the minds and hearts of young people. so often they are the brunt of what is being dealt with, but we seldom ask them to be involved in the solution process. one of my mentors is in the house. dr. ben. he was part of the wilmington 10. who was part of the 10. he understood that no matter what, they had to move and act in a way he thought was necessary. and i've seen he and others work with young people all over this country, ha even when they're angry, give us insight on some of the direction that we need to take. and so as we're talking about community policing, as many of those young people are the ones being policed i hope that as we talk about solutions, one of those solutions is ensuring that we don't ever have a conversation of any kind without young people being at the table in the room, and part of the

solution. if we do, we continue to talk about them as opposed to continuing to talk with them. apt so i hope that we take that as one of the solutions. thank you, gentlemen, so much for your insight. [applause] >> and i'd like to say thank you to both of the organizes that been involved to come together to pake this panel a reality the memorial foundation as well as the law enforcement museum -- law enforcement museum -- it is foundation. i didn't want to put foundation because i was going to say y'all need to give them money. i thought you would agree with that. but these organizations do need to be supported and i appreciate the fact that they have come together because there are many people that want to have this discussion but don't want to bring people together that aren't normally involved in the discussion, and so we should

continue to support that. hopefully we can make this digital goal on the road and be involved in part of the discussion that has the exclusions all -- solutions all over the place. thanks so much for letting me be your moderator and have a fantastic evening. [applause] >> let me just close by saying how proud i am that we were able to partner tonight with the national law enforcement officers' memorial fund which the national law enforcement is part of and with the memorial foundation, the group that build the martin luther king memorial and what a wonderful tribute to a great man that is. what i loved about this evening is that we are in a unique position to bring together some of law enforcement's top leaders in nation. when we ask people like chief striker and dr. alexander to come and have a discussion on an issue that's very relevant today, they dropped what they

were doing and they were here. and just as, hairy you were so kind -- harry, you were so kind to give us jever and researched watson and you have so many great leaders in your organization, if we could simply partner up with the great people in law enforcement that i've had the privilege of meeting over the last 30 years, these are people that want to help people that want to bring their community together. and given the chance, they will do that. but we've got to have conversations like this. i love the ideas that were shown here -- spoken here tonight. i think the philosophies were seemingly on the same page. ases the reverend said, we've got to continue this discussion. it's got to be setting goals and working toward those goals and making sure we have the right leaders to do so. i think between our two organizes, we can make that happen. so thank you for being here. jeff, fabulous job. thank you to all our panelists and have a good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

[applause] >> yerm today the president called mr. carter one of the nation's national security leaders during an announcement this morning at the whowlings. it's expected that he'll will easily confirmed. we'll show the president's announcement tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. ashton carter has served at the pentagon. he's also taught at harvard and has degrees from physics from yale and oxford. he's also written books.

in response to his nomination senator majority leader hear read says "dr. cart's experience will make him an effective leader. it is my hope that the senate will work swiftly to consider and confirm." we'll keep you updated on the c-span networks. here are some of the programs you'll find this weekend on the c-span networks. saturday at 11:00 a.m. memorial service for former washington mayor, marion berry. and anne compton who retired as abc news out when correspond ent. university of navepl nam assistant professor jason sokol. and sunday at noon, hour live three-hour conversation with author and american enterprise

institute arthur prooks. with your phone calls,le e-mails and tweets. on american history tv on c-span 3, tonight at 8:00 on lectures and history, university of michigan professor jones on female slaves and the layoff. and president george h.w. bush's former secretary of state james baker. find our complete television schedule at c-span.org and let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us. e-mail us, or send us a tweet at c-span hawg . >> tomorrow, a look at the november jobs report and the overall health of the u.s. economy. then princeton university

professor discusses president obama's executive action since the 2014 election and how they compare to previous presidents in their final years in office. and details about genetically modified moods foods and their use in the u.s. we'll be taking your phone calls and facebook comments and tweets. washington journal live tomorrow and every morning at 7:00 eastern here on c-span. earlier today we found about white house efforts to restore public trust in police officers. this conversation is about 50 minutes. >> joining is richard beary, who is the president of the international association of chiefs of police. he previously served for in years as a police chief, university of central florida, chief of police for lake mary florida as well and started with the altamonta springs police department.

chief beary is there a dis connect between the public and the police today? >> it kind of depends on the community in the united states. we see some parts of the country that have incredible long-term community relations between law enforcement and the public, and then there's some areas that don't. so to try to cast it with a broad net is very difficult. is there room for improvement? absolutely. everywhere in this country there's room for improvement. there are a lot of communities that have good relationships and they need to continue working on those in advance and forge ahead. >> what is one of those communities and why are they successful? >> well, there's communities across the country. some of them have been pilot programs for the community-oriented policing services program in the united states government. and again, there's so many large and small communities radios the country that have been doing a great job of community policing for many years. and again, you know, unfortunately in this law

enforcement world, you know, sometimes one or two major incidents tend to draw the focus and everybody thinks that's the way it is across the country. and it's just -- that's not true. and each individual community needs to look at what their goal is from their law enforcement agency and they need to help guide that. that's what makes us successful. >> community policing, what does that mean? >> it's more than a unit that goes out in the public. it's really a philosophy that has to be adopted not only by the law enforcement agency but by the government that that agency works for. quite frankly if the government entity does not support that community policing function they're not going to have the funding they need to do those jobs. so what's happened over the last 10 years with the downturn in the economy is we've seen budget restraints and some disappear. what we've seen is unfortunately law enforcement has gotten into this going call to call instead of being as proactive as we used

to be. and when those things happen, here we are today. the other thing that happens -- and again it's a commitment of the city council, the county government whichever, you know, type of organization in place many your community. the other thing that happens is generally speaking the first thing that gets cut when budget funds become scares is training. as a professional trainer, i agree to train train, train. sometimes the perception is training is fluff money and it's the first thing to get cut. that's very dangerous. >> should cops walk a beats outside of their cars? in a per world absolutely. law enforcement tends to get guided and steered by different commissions that happen and different scientific studies. cops used to walk beats a long time ago in this country.

some study says we can decrease the cost if we put them in cars. so law enforcement did that. now here we are rethinking that position and we need to get back to that. but i'll be honest with you it costs money. >> videotape of eric garner being taken down by the police, videotape of that mere rice being shot by a policeman in cleveland, when you see those videos what's your visceral reaction? >> anytime anybody loses their life, that's the first thing that jumps out at you. you know there's a lot of issues right now about videotaping. i support videotaping, because i think what you'll find is 98% of the time, cops do a great job of doing the job they do under very difficult circumstances. and that's a pact. so i support the use of video. the challenge is with video is it's going to be after the fact. so even though we're going to

have a nice record of it, how about we train in advance and try to give people the skills, the tools and the equipment they need to keep from getting into that bad situation? i think there's a balance. but i think we really need to focus on providing those things that the cops immediate so they don't end up in that bad situation. >> richard beary is our guest, international association of chiefs of police the president of the organization. shawn is calling in from lakeland florida, your home area. shawn, you're on "the washington journal." >> yes. gork to you. how y'all fellows doing over there? i'm just talking to you. my thing is the system itself, in my opinion, is broken, and people have no trust in the system of -- the thing is like it's about perception. a caller called in earlier and

his thing was people don't perceive things in a certain way. you all have your point of view. what nobody looks at is why are these people having interactions with police? you know what i'm saying? police people in a community where everything is good, people have jobs. that's the real problem here. this guy that got killed, he got killed because he was trying to get money. you know what i'm saying? nobody really wants to be a criminal. you have a certain extent of people who just love crime or get the thrill almost like a thrill seeker in a sense, but in the most point everybody's involved in these so-called crimes is just trying to get money. if these people had jobs, if these people felt like they could go out and work and make $40 a year and not have to worry about trying to scratch and crime just to find something to eat, they wouldn't have to go out and sell loose cigarettes to make extra money so they can get

their child something for christmas. >> ok. shawn. in lakeland florida. chief beary? >> i appreciate those comments. what we're seeing is all the focus seems to be on law enforcement. and the fact is law enforcement is just one piece of the. on behalf of international association of the chiefs of police we're being asked to do a complete overview. there are a lot of other pieces of the system that need to be addressed. much of it is it is about jobs and opportunity. we tend to be the ones that draw the attention when in fact it's a system-wide problem and i agree with those comments. >> he also mentioned -- shawn -- or that caller also mentioned the per seppings issue and this summer a study came out from u.s. -- or from pugh, i should

say saying that by 2-1, americans think that police departments nationwide don't do a good job in holding officers accountable for misconduct. >> well, and i again i think that's a locale to locale. one of the things about local government and about local law enforcement sthag agency works for the community and, you know, this isn't popular with some of my piers all the time. if you're un-- pierce all the time. if you're unhappy, you have a government that hires and fires the chief of police. if you don't like the service they give, get another one, get another chief. it's just that simple. when you're a local police chief, generally meeting when you have city commission meetings you're up to be hired or fired. so if you don't like it, change it. as an american, i firmly believe that. >> next call comes from brenda in tallahassee. hi, brenda. >> hi.

first of all i want to say whenever i see a chief or a sheriff, i always stop and say "thank you for your service, i appreciate you." i think everybody should do that because right now they're feeling so unappreciated. but i hear a lot of black people say the problem is that there's not enough black cops, that there's too many white cops and there's not enough black cops. i would suggest that since we have areas that are high in blacks why don't they put all the black cops in the black areas and put the white cops in the white areas? your thallingts, please? >> well, you know, we always try -- the international association of chiefs of police, our position is your demographics should be representative of your community. that's a great lofty goal. sometimes trying to get people through the hiring process is not quite as easy as we hope for. but the thoughts of trying to

hire and recruiting in the democrat dwrasks of your location is certainly a goal that every agency should espouse to and we do believe that. the thank you part, thank you for that. not only am i a cop but i have two children who are deputy sheriffs. they're both young deputy sherks and right now is a tough time for men and women who are on the streets of law enforcement. they're both college educated. they need a choice to come -- made a choice to come into law enforcement. it makes a difference. so a thank you taufpk here and there goes a long way so i appreciate that. >> there a disconnect between african-americans arched police in our country today? >> in some areas yes. again i don't want to cast that big net but in some areas there are. you know, on the other side, the men and women of law enforcement come in a whole variety of different colors and shapes and

genders, so, you know, i think the more that we can be representative of our communities the better we're going to be. so i think you'll find most progressive law enforcement agencies, that is their goal and they're working towards that. so part of the challenge right now is with the negativity towards police if you're a 19, 20, 21-year-old young person are you going to want to get into law enforcement? and that's problematic for us. we have to improve that image. but the public has to help us, and help us bring those people in. like i said, right now if i was a 22-year-old college graduate that i'd want to run right out and be a police officer for $30 40,000 a year with the negativity we get. >> barbara, the caller. >> good morning. three points please. the very first caller made an important point. we have a terrorism plan here in new york called see something, say something. well, i've made up my mind, if i

see smrks i'm not calling the cops so that they can come and lure into the scene jump out of the cars with their guns already depraun and shoot the first brown person they see. i don't want that on my conscious. secondly the next time i'm called for jury duty when the judge says can not soshe with good conscious, i'm going to put both hands in the air. i would say don't bring your tourist dollars here. this is a violent nation and you should not i'm here for vacation. >> barbara, have you always had this opinion or is it recent events? she's gone. sorry about that. so see something, say something, jury and don't come because we're a violent nation. >> well, you know, it's also interesting. i've been in law enforcement 37 years and our mission has changed dramatically over those 37 years which is one of the reasons that our association

wanted to try to get this commission going 20 years ago. you know when i started, we didn't have -- we weren't responsible for terrorism. now we're terrorism experts hazmat experts, community policing experts mental health experts. experts on a lot of things. and somewhere in there there's law enforcement and sometime those messages get blurred. sometimes see something, say something does work. but without the community trust and without the calls, we cannot be effective and we recognize that. again, it's a difficult time for law enforcement, because the challenges that we feas and the responsibilities we have just don't meet the staffing levels that we have. >> tom is in tip city, ohio, democrat. tom, you're on a washington journal. >> well, where it comes to prg or investigating police

officers, the grand jury system doesn't work. i know prosecutors like it because they can control it, but that's the problem. and those police officers that choked that guy how many of them had tasers on their belt? was there an alternative to choking him? and as far as money for police officers take all that military equipment they're getting, cash it in and get -- put it in training programs. >> thank you, syrup. richard beary. >> well, we'll look at those things. a grand jury system, again, when you're in the law enforcement system you are aware of the fact that you don't make the laws. you just enforce. them. those are legislative issues. we deal within the framework that's established for us. you know, i don't know if they

had tasers there. i can't answer that question. but, you know, we certainly -- we endorse the use of tasers. any nonlethal force that's out there, we endorse. but sometimes bad things happen with those things, too, regardless of whether it's pepper spray or tasers, something those things, bad things happen because of health issues. >> in the meeting with president obama the other day we had this discussion, and 96% of the military equipment that goes to law enforcement has nothing to do with you know, mraps and bearcats and those kinds of things. most of it is communications devices and other things that keep things running. there are positive things coming out of the things we learn from the military. my goal this year is to roll out trauma equipment. we save lives using trauma kits that are a military-issued piece of equipment.

we're saving lives out there gunshot and traffic crash victims. we tend to be fleereds trying to save lives and do good things for the community. sometimes, unfortunately bad things happen. we're still going to continue to go out there and do the zwhroobs we're sworn toe do. >> do local police departments need those riot tanks or do they need the all weapons that some police officers have -- police departments have received? >> let's start with the weapons. you know, one of the things that i am very familiar with is the threat of difficult shooters. from my experience, we -- at -- active shooters. we had a situation last year with a shooter on campus. at florida state university a couple of weeks ago, they had a situation. unfortunately, with the situation in america with gun violence unfortunately, the law enforcement officers need those weapons to be able to address that threat. if not i can only imagine what a community would say if five to

eight, 10, you pick the number, of people died because the officers didn't have the weapons that they needed to stop that situation, then we would be criticized with knowing the equipment you need, knowing that it's available, how could you in good conscious not have that equipment available? so there's a fine line. on the heavy military equipment i think that goes back to local government. if the government entity, the mayor and the city commission thinks there's a need for igs, they should probably have it. i watched the situation unfold in canada a few weeks ago. i noticed the armored vehicle pull up that tried to get all those hostages the people in danger out. so there is a difference between an armed vehicle with a weapon on it and an armored vehicle which does not have a weapon on it to try to get people out safely. it's a balancing act. i throw it right back to local government. you get what you accept andyou want changes, then really, you

know, the majority of law enforcement in the united states of america is done on a local level. get involved and have a voice. >> chief beary mentioned meeting with the president. he is serving on the 21st century policing task force that the president has set up. next call comes from john from haughton louisiana. >> good morning. i live in a parish down here, which is is -- a county to most people. the chief touched on a good point, the involvement of the ballot box. as i understand in ferguson it was like 7% of the blacks voted. and you get what you vote for. i'm glad i live in a parish, because unlike a police chief, we get to vote on our sheriff, and we've been very fortunate in the last 30-something years we've only had three sheriffs down here and they're doing a good job. the other observation i've been

watching this video of the incident with the black man selling the lucys. and -- looseys. i seriously doubt if all the police officers showed up exactly at one time and started what was doing -- somebody called in, as i understand, in the timeline and officers responded. it seems like there's three officers in there that are dressed different than the rest. it sounds like we're walking into a movie in the middle of the movie. you don't know what started all of that. i'd like to see the video from when the individuals on the street violating the law and the police officers didn't wry the law. the state legislature, as i understand, in the state of new york wrote that law. i don't want a police force whether it's municipal police force of a sheriff's department deciding that's not a law that we're going to enforce.

i want them to enforce the laws on the books. if i don't like the law on the book then i'll get involved and say get that law off the books. so -- >> thank you john. richard beary? >> i think he's right, you get what you get. if you don't get involved in the political process, you're going to have to accept the style of law enforcement that is given to you. so i think those are very accurate. the other interesting thing with video is we deal with this a lot. of course, with the limited air time some of the media stations have they'll only show 15 seconds of a situation that was 20 minutes. as a police chief you have to try to offset that and try to explain how those things happened. again, it's a communication piece, too and not being afraid to get on there and put it out there and say here's the whole story. >> chief beary, can you share an experience you had while serving on active duty where you had to pull your weapon, felt

threatened, etc.? >> actually, numerous times. you know, anything from armed robbers, bank robbers, burglars, you know there are high-risk situations every single day that law enforcement responds to. i think the other thing worth noting is when you think of the millions of contacts that happen every single day between law enforcement officers across this country and the citizens, actually, the use of force rate is very low when you consider the entire picture. and i think that needs to be pointed out. unfortunately, again those cases that weave seen here in the last several months, they draw the headlines. the vast majority of law enforcement sit consistence' contacts result in no use of force whatsoever. >> i'm sure you've heard the phrase driving while black. we had harris call in this morning from michigan saying he would get stopped going from his job at 1:00 or 2:00 in the morning, simply, in his view, it was because he was black.

is that something that police officers discuss? >> as agencies we do discuss it. in florida, and other starktse it's mandate story training. we call it safe and legal traffic stops. we believe and i certainly believe that there should be no stops based solely on any type of race, gender, or any of those other situations. so, you know, wufts things that we do see sometimes is people assume that they were stopped because i'm black, because i'm young. sometimes, no, you didn't have your seat belt on you were speeding. any kind of racial profiling as far as i'm concerned and most law enforcement agencies across the country is unacceptable. that's the way it has to be. >> richard beary is president of the international association of chiefs of police. and danielle is in toledo. you're on "the washington journal." >> good morning, chief beary.

>> good morning. >> i want to make a comment concerning the situation. i totally understand what you were saying the video to the other gentleman that called in regards to the difference in the clothing of the officers. but my thing is, even this gentleman was selling loose cigarettes how come they're not going to all of the stores that they know are selling loose cigarettes? how come they're not a chokehold? >> again, i wasn't there. i don't run the new york city police department. we don't pick the cases that we necessarily want. when we get told that this is a problem and we need to address it we're obble dated to go out there and address it. again, i don't know if that was a planned mission or how that went about. again, sometimes enforcing

we read an editorial this morning that prosecutors and police are too close, too cozy, that maybe the process needs to be opened up. do you have thoughts on those issues? guest: prosecutors really stay at arms linked. they are highly educated. they are all attorneys. i've seen them to be very conservative, looking at the facts, making sure they have a good case going forward. that is a generalization. the grand jury system has been around for a long time.

that will be a state legislature decision to change. the question is, do people feel like the system is in fair, and i think that is the underlying question, and again, i think some of that might be, law enforcement, we have part of that, and so do prosecutors's, but it out there. if you want to change the legislative procedure, then that has to be done through the state legislatures. host: tim is a state police officer from chantilly virginia. caller: good morning, chief. you have the comment about young officers not wanting to be a officer, and i disagree with that. the department has a perception because of the fact that cheats on down do not hold police

officers accountable. i agree that we do a great job out there, but we are the one or 2% out there that do not get held accountable for their actions, and that is just -- it is the one rotten apples oil siegel lunch. and to that point -- it amazes me, and i am a law enforcement officer, it amazes me how everything gets tamped down when it pertains to the acceptable use of force. a lot of these officers are not being properly trained ok, and they are not being held accountable for what they are doing. a baby with a pacifier, he thought it was a gun, a one-year-old. that is not a black-and-white issue, i agree with that, but the bottom line is, some of these officers should be hired.

everyone who was in a blue uniform does not necessarily warrant being in a uniform because they do not have the mentality or the training. host: thank you sir. guest: i absolutely agree. in any occupation there will be some who do great jobs and i absolutely agree that some people do not do the job and they should be gone. sometimes as a law enforcement executive, that becomes very challenging with labor unions and i agree -- if you do not measure up, you should be gone. and we should all be held accountable. host: as we mentioned earlier, he's the chief of the task force and the cochair is the former d.c. police chief, charles

branson, -- charles ramsey, who joins us on the phone now. what was your goal with this task force? caller: my goal is to present actionable recommendations for how we can change policing in the united states. bill stronger relationships dive into our training, the policies that need to be in place, and so forth. that 90 days -- which is not a lot of time, i think we can come up with some solid recommendations for that. the easy part is riding the recommendation. the hard part is implementing something. i think we will have something on his desk within the timeframe he would like to see it. >> what is a policy change that

you have made up their? >> -- up there? caller: use of deadly force. fireman automobiles. we put that in place. that is one that comes to mind. i started something back in 1998 when i was chief in washington dc, working along with the u.s. holocaust museum, helping them to understand their role in the democratic society. we have a philanthropist here who is supported in that endeavor, but i think it does an awful lot toward helping police officers understand the unique role they have in our society.

host: chief, ramsey, i ask this question -- when you view the video of what happened to eric garner, of what happened to 12-year-old tamir rice in cleveland, what is your reaction as a police officer? guest: when i saw the video of the garner situation, it is obviously troubling is that i do not know all of the information available to the grand jury. obviously they had access to more than i did watching the clip on television, but certainly it is troubling especially when you consider it a relatively minor offense. in the first place, but the person was resisting. i think one thing people have to realize is, taking people into custody that do not want to go into custody is not a pretty sight if you see it on tape.

you need to know all of the facts and circumstances surrounding it. in the cleveland situation, the first thing that crossed my mind was poor tactics, because they pulled right up on the person, the young man, which is something basic training will tell you not to do, because you have no time to really take cover, to react, to give commands, to do anything when you pull up right on someone. that was not a good situation in terms of the tactics used. it started off on a very bad footing. host: chief, ramsey when can we expect an additional report from the task force? caller: 90 days is what the president asked for, and we will leave it up to the white house when to release publicly.

i'm sure they will, but that is their decision, not mine. host: you have been a police officer for a long time. have you changed your mind, have you changed your view on policing over the years? guest: sure. i started my career in 1968. a whole bunch of things of changed. this notion of community policing. nobody talked about that in the 1960's and 1970's. community to you was simply eyes and ears. if you have a problem, call us. so yes, it has changed a great deal. in terms of the profession and me personally, coming to have a deeper understanding of what it means to be a police officer and our responsibility includes protecting the constitutional

rights of people. i can't say i felt that in 1968, but i certainly do now and i have for some time. so, yeah, we all of all, change, grow. host: cochair of the 21st century policing task force, thank you for your time. caller: -- www.c-span.org --guest: thank you. host: anything you want to respond? guest: i agree with chuck, law enforcement has evolved. if not for law enforcement, dna never would have come about. law enforcement is constantly looking for new, innovative ideas. we need to look at some of things we do to make the system better.

host: let's take some more calls. edith in arkansas, democrats line. caller: good morning. i am a grandmother of about 20 grandsons, and they were all raised in pasadena california. me, as a mother and a grandmother, we have always worked in the community and i would say to any community, get involved. we know our police officers there. i am back in arkansas now. i see a lot of things i do not like. i saw a lot of things in pasadena, but overall we have a good police department. we have a good chief there. their children will raise up with my children. if you did not know your police

officers, if you do not know your chief of police that works in your community -- i was 18 team football and baseball mother for many, many years. here, i am back in may very because i was born and raised in arkansas and i love it here and they have a macho attitude. no, i did not like what i saw happened to the young man, because he saw the video, and all these people are getting paid by taxpayer from money. in order to see what your dollars are doing, get involved. get involved with your chief of police, your community police. yeah, you're going to have some bad apples. my sister's son was killed in the 1990's by a chokehold.

that is the family very hard. we need police officer's. they need better training. get involved with your schools know your community, and thank you for listening to me. you are doing a good job and keep the good works up. encourage all of our communities across america to get involved. we are the text. -- the taxed. we vote. i did not agree with the man in louisiana and the lady who came on it and said put white police and white community some black police in black communities. no, we need diversity. host: thanks for calling in. guest: first of all,

congratulations on 20 and children. your comments are right on the mark on being involved with your community. you need to be involved with your community, federal government, and law enforcement. sometimes some of the best advocates for a host of issues, whether it is mental health or drug situations are police department's. most police departments spend a great deal of time and money being advocates, bringing resources together to make their communities better and it works exceptionally well when these citizens get involved. the more involvement, the better the level of service, the better delivery of service, when people are part of the solution. host: chris is in brooklyn.

caller: i have seen the whole video. mr. garner was a street hustler, ok? he was selling cigarettes to underage kids, avoiding the ta x. that is how the encounter started. one way this could have been avoided, if that 46-year-old man had stopped his street hustle and the police say you are under arrest -- you are under arrest. the main thing to remember is this. no one wants eric garner on your block. if you go out your door and this guy is there you have got people was lynette women -- listen there is crime and eric garner and his street hustling

friends -- there is the center of it. i'm sorry died. he said, this stops here today. challenge the police to a fight. 46 years old, arrested 31 times, a convicted felon. he took a street stand with the police, and it was a black female surgeon there who said take him down -- sergeant there who said take them down. host: chief? guest: i think chris pretty well laid out the factual basis as he knows it will stop law enforcement does not get a lot of trees in a lot of these matters. if there is an issue and we are told to address it, that is what we do.

it can be a host of things. years ago, when the death rate was through the ceiling, the national highway transit safety board said, we need to bring down the totality, injury rate on our highways, and law enforcement responded. whenever serious crime, violent crime starts happening citizens go to government and elected officials say we want you to go out there and drop the crime rate will stop law enforcement has the job of responding. sometimes bad things happen. but again, i think the if ice there was good. if an officer tells you you are under arrest the place to fight that is not on the street. it is not on the street, it is in the courtroom. generally it minimizes those negative contacts. host: a liberian tweets in -- d

fwlibrarian tweets in -- guest: that is a state-by-state situation, but if it is a lawful command, you should comply. the key word being a lawful commands. host: i think you kind of said this -- do you support by cameras on all policeman? guest: i absolutely do. body cameras are great. there are challenges, and those are privacy issues. if i call you to my house and i just want to talk to about my son, my neighbor, something, do you want that information being released? there are also victims being

recorded. there are a host of issues that we have to have some work through on that. the other piece of that is who is going to pay for all that? we have very open public records, and someone has to handle those requests, redact the information. it is not a simple solution. will it help transparency? absolutely. but there are unintended consequences. they are great. they have a place. it will not change law enforcement overnight. it is just not going to happen. host: you are on with richard beary. caller: i have an aggregate

statistics from a guest in your program several years ago. every bureau, every department in every agency as a systemic superiority complex, and i am not talking about the dmv eight, which we can all relate to. it is beyond a reasonable doubt that these people were saying -- those lame stupid taxpayers could not do this task if their life depended on it, so i am the only one that can get out there and do this stuff. it is their attitude. host: who is they? caller: every bureau, every department, every agent the. host: that was a guest on the program? caller: i remember you were not the host at the time. i just took it as, yeah, it is

the same kind of ego from the gentleman we are hearing from today. host: all right, maybe we can hear from the chief and maybe you can tie and on what edith said about the macho fact that she has with this -- witnessed? guest: like anyone work, you have some people into a great job and some people who need help. our society tends to be shipped by what we see on tv and in the movies, and sometimes what i have seen, our new recruits sometimes think that that is the way they are supposed to act and we have to get that ego checked at the door and teach them, no, you are still a human being. you are still a public servant and at the end of the day 90% of what law-enforcement does is service, and 10% is enforcement. as they grow and as we train the

better, we see a better product, that ego tends to get checked at the door and they go out and serve the public. tv and media does have an effect on our employees. host: a few minutes left with our guest. ike in georgia. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. caller: i was an army engineer. we had rules engagement. we cannot just shoot one of them and as an excuse say, i was scared. we have the constitution -- what are the rules of the game for police officers? a man is sitting there saying, i do not want to be arrested. i know it is a black guy in new

york. what are the rules of engagement for police officers? the only thing we can do is sit back and listen to the police tell us, hey look, it is a hard job, we have bad apples. no you have bad apples with guns. host: let's let the chief respond. guest: first of all, thank you for your service and thank you for going overseas. those are difficult deployments, so thank you for that. those statutes guide us. 's law enforcement of -- is law-enforcement above the law? absolutely not. if they go out and violate the law, they should be held accountable, so i am not going to argue that point if you -- argue that point with you. one of the other interesting

things people do not take into account though -- -- and never police officer, citizen counter, there is a gun. in many cases, people tried to disarm the officer, so there is always that concern on behalf of the officer, there is a gun in every confrontation, so again, it is training. you are teaching tactics. -escalate the situation, and i think that gives us a better law enforcement officer at the end of the day. you are teaching them how to de-escalationcall for chief beary comes from gregory in montgomery, alabama. caller: good morning, sir. three very quick points. i'm a military person as well. everyone in the military knows you serve in the military as an extraordinary privilege. i think a lot of police officers need to remember and be reminded that their fellow citizens --

that they're fellow citizens with an extraordinary amount of power they wield. i'm an african-american male. it's difficult for me to hear people totally dismiss an experience and say it is not racist. we should be mindful of that. third and last, there is something on the mentally wrong when you have a law-abiding citizen who is fearful of any -- something fundamentally wrong when you have a law-abiding citizen who is fearful of any police even when they haven't done something wrong. anybody in our great democracy should be very careful about unchecked power. i just want that -- everyone to know that as we had this conversation. thank you again for your time. guest: again, thank you for your military service. again, it's a huge commitment. the -- i agree. people should not be afraid of the police.

and we got to work to regain that trust. it's not going to happen overnight. and i think that we are making the right steps. i think we are seeing the engagement of law enforcement executives across the country. i think that president obama and his initiatives are going to go there. one point of correction, i'm not a member of the task force. i was there at the white house when they created the task force. we don't know who all the members are going to be yet. that's just a correction. we have to get back to that time where we are not afraid of law enforcement. i also have to tell you, as a parent when my kids were growing up, i told them about how to handle encounters with law enforcement. the law enforcement officer doesn't know who you are, what your background is. some people say we shouldn't have to have that conversation. i think, as a responsible parent, we have to. with people in general, how you deal with people -- our young people tend to do everything electronically. we need to teach them some interaction skills.

i do appreciate the comments and, hopefully, we will get that feeling back, where there is trust and we can all move forward in a positive direction. host: i apologize. i put you on that committee. that was my mistake. >> earlier today the president announced ashton carter as his pick for secretary of defense. it is expected he will be easily confirmed by the senate, with hearings expected to begin early next year. we will share of president's announcement tonight on c-span at 8 p.m. eastern. outgoing secretary chuck hagel said --

and national journal reports on secretary of state john kerry the headline trying to stall the release of the cia torture report as the secretary is reportedly asking the senate to wait to release the report on the bush era use of enhanced interrogation techniques, saying it could jeopardize fragile u.s. security interests in the middle east. he called the chair of the committee, senator dianne feinstein, this morning. >> and compton on her more than 40 years covering the white house and the administrations of gerald ford through barack obama . >> you see the group of second graders go through their drill

and he whispers to them -- nobody interrupts the president, even in front of second graders. they then discovered that the planes were down. they were in the parking lot they said, stay right here. he did not want to scare the children, but he did go into that cafeteria. he said there has been a terrorist attack and i must return to washington area -- to washington. and the pentagon was hit. >> sunday night on c-span's "q&a."

>> when the house and senate return, they will face a deadline and our correspondent joins us, a senior political reporter with politico. let's start with a report on the muddy details. what is the current status of this legislation? >> they are looking at a bill to fund most of the government through the next fiscal year, which in september of next year. the idea is it would allow funding for every single federal agency except immigration enforcement agencies, and that is a concession to republicans who want to fight on immigration next year when they take control of the senate. that is a condition for agreeing to a larger spending bill.

there are larger issues that need to be worked through as well. how much money will this be agency by agency? and in the spending bills, will there be restrictions on what the administration can't do? those are fights happening behind closed doors and they could become very controversial. the devil is in the details and we will be watching very closely. the larger question -- do they have the votes to pass the house? if they do not do that, then they will look at a short-term continuing resolution for the entire government, probably until mid-february.

next week is a critical week. >> what are you hearing about house republican leadership efforts? >> they are really relying on democratic votes here. it looks like there are advisable number of conservative republicans who want to have much tougher restriction against the president's executive action on immigration. they view this spending fight as critical for stopping the president's immigration moves. the house republicans leaders and senate republican leaders do not want to go down that path. they are worried about a government shutdown. they will probably lose several dozen potential conservative republicans when it comes time for a vote, and as a result john boehner is going to have to rely on democratic votes to get that through. that means he will have to make concessions to get democrats on board.

that's a big question going forward. how much does boehner move forward to get that support through the house? where things are still hammering out behind closed doors. >> and nancy pelosi talks about flexing her muscles. what is she telling democrats, let's not rush into supporting republican efforts? what is her aim? >> hurricane is to use the democratic leverage on this issue. she says, we tell republicans we're not quite sure we will support this, and the republicans will move closer and closer to their direction, maybe the spending on certain programs as well as get rid of certain policy writers democrats do not like. the longer they hold out, the more boehner will have to give to them. at least that's what they believe. there's also an issue by the democrats to run to a short-term

continuing resolution to find the entire government, because some say that democrats want to have the big fight over spending at the start of a new congress to prompt a government shutdown, something the republicans will get blamed for. i am we will go that direction but certainly nancy pelosi believes holding out as long as possible will help at the end of the day. >> and we're coming down to the wire. what i'm the senate side will they have to do to get this past? >> the senate is a much more difficult institution, as you know. it takes longer to pass bills unless all 100 members agreed to speed up consideration by unanimous consent, which is not always an easy thing for controversial matters such as this. the democratic senate will need cooperation from republicans can the republicans --

conservative republicans to not put down the spending bill. so that is one big consideration. there are other bills. they agreed the senate majority leader wants to get done, like the defense authorization bill the big $550 billion or so of spending for military programs trying to get that out of the senate next week. republicans want more time to debate that. there is the year-long extension expired tax breaks something that is awaiting senate action. in addition, a lot of nominations -- dozens and dozens of judgeships and executive branch nominations that democrats want to get confirmed in their final days in office before mitch mcconnell, the republican leader, controlled the senate next year. it is going to be very hard without republican support.

potentially they could see the senate calendar going into the final week, which is something all senators want to avoid. >> you can follow him on twitter. thanks for joining us. >> thank you. >> earlier, nancy pelosi briefed reporters on efforts to find the -- fund the government through the next fiscal year. she began by mounting protests across the u.s.. this is about 25 minutes. >> good morning, everyone. >> good morning. >> all across our country, communities are demonstrating their grief over the deaths of eric garner, sameer rice, and of course michael brown. most demonstrations have been

peaceful. we hope that they remain so, but the voices that are speaking out will be heard of course. our thoughts, our prayers, our hopes are with their families, and we take our leave from their guidance for peaceful demonstrations as well. i support president obama's calls for measures to increase trust between law enforcement and communities and attorney general holder felt calls for several investigations. it's very sad. all lives matter. i see the sign saying all lives matter. it should be a given. let's hope that it is. today we have some good news with the jobs report, 321,000 jobs added in november the 57th consecutive month of job

creation. unemployment is now under 6%, five point 8%. average monthly job creation this year, including today's numbers, 241 thousand new jobs created. you recall when the president took office in terms of the impact of the bush policies and the great recession losing $800,000 -- 800,000 jobs a month. now we have gained 240,000 jobs per month. more jobs created in the 11th month this year in any calendar year since the late 1990's. we have to do more. we have to do more. also good news on the affordable care act, which is, as, a main concern of mine. quality and patient safety improved in the following way.

1.3 million fewer hospital-way or conditions. this is an important part of legislation to stop infection and hospital conditions that make people worse and resulted in saving 50,000 lives. not only were people safe from the infection, but from the condition. and save $12 billion in health care costs. because this funds were not needed for the intervention of quality. if there were no other reason to pass the affordable care act the sustainability of cost demanded we do it. small business corporate

america, cost to local, state and federal government. these rising cost swear unsustainable. we are pleased to note one important figure that has come out is there is only 2% increase and benchmark health plans. the rising cost of premiums that people never knew what their premiums were going to be next year and how significant they would be -- 2%, an average of 2% increase the benchmark for the health care plan, which is the benchmark that we use. another figure -- household spending grew by 3.6 percent, which is the lowest annual increase since statistics began to be collected in 1960.

3.6%. this, of course, has a big impact on reducing out that the dust on reducing our deficit. 2012, 2013 2014 are the three best years for reducing our national health expenditures on record. in terms of quality, care, in terms of cost to the individual and to the federal government. the news is very good. yesterday, we had a disastrous bill on the floor of the house. it even has a conference of the ships, which are usually supportive of much of what republicans do, had urged a strong no vote on the legislation, and i took the occasion to quote president reagan, which i can do again, if you wish me to, in 19 for in the

lead up to the passage of the immigration bill that would follow, he said "to have compassion and to support those living legally in our country we're going to make them legal. his quotes are beautiful and i could read them to you for a long time. a complete contradiction of what the republicans put on the floor yesterday. i do not know if it will rear its ugly head again, the so-called hybrid bill they may be putting forth. we have extended a hand of friendship once again to the speaker to say, let us help as we did to open up government. we will keep it from being shut down, as we did to lift the debt ceiling, as we did to implement the budget in the continuing

resolution last year. we haven't heard back. we have not seen the bill. there are some very destructive writers -- riders in it, which i think would be very destructive to the american people. when it comes to lowering standards for school lunches to bringing clean water to our communities. they can't take the light of day and have this debate in full view of the world, and it shows a big distinction and who cares about the nutrition of our children, clean water for our families. and also these are earmarks for

industry. that is what they are. workplace standards would be lower, making the workplace less safe for our workers. again, whatever you may think of them, let's debate it outside an appropriations bill. so, we are eager to see what that will be. we look forward to finding common ground. it's really important being republicans not be fretless once again about -- frivolous once again out of shutting down government. they either have to have all the boats or they want ours. they needed presidential signature. they talk a lot about transparency, but we still have not seen the bill. it was supposed to be posted by monday evening.

hopefully we will see it before then so we can find our common ground on the bill. any questions? >> [indiscernible] >> what you let him do this all the time? [laughter] i did not know whether he was a ventriloquist or wives. -- or what? [laughter] critics -- >> lay out for us -- is it d.c. marijuana? what are these things that democrats cannot abide? >> i have expressed concerns about treating the district of columbia in a fair way respecting home rule.

we have agreed on the top line numbers, so that is not up for debate. how that money is divided is interesting. the national institutes of health. the issues that relate to the nature of the bill -- let's just see what form it takes. a couple days ago it was going to be march, now is ever wary, and now i do not know -- it is really a national security issue. a heavy short-term continuing resolution, when it comes to our national security, is not a responsible thing to do. again, let's look at the full package. i am not telling anyone it is a dealbreaker, but there is an array of concerns that we have.

fairness to the district of columbia, how the topline line dollar is allocated in the legislation, and like i said, we bring the values of our caucus to the table, but we should not be talking about many of these because they do not belong on an appropriations bill. the structure of the bill, i think they have a sense of responsibility about our national security and hopefully the short-term extension will not be as harmful as it could be, but we do not know because we have not seen and language -- the language. >> [indiscernible] >> it is not questioned. if they have the majority, they have the votes. if they go forward, so be it but if they make it worse to get

118 votes, that is a disservice to our country. and we gave them the votes to keep government opened. we gave them the votes to open up government. we gave them the votes to support the ryan-murray continuing resolution figure that did not have the votes. we gave them the votes to lift the debt ceiling. only 28 republicans voted on the full faith and credit of the united states out america earlier this year. we stand ready. they did not like the bill. it was their bill, but it was more important to open up government. again, we have stood ready to support initiatives that were not pleasant -- i am not saying full faith and credit.

but when over 200 republicans vote not to lift the debt ceiling, to have an impact on our credit rating and go out and use it as a campaign issue, it makes it really more of an issue of courage on the part of our members. we stand ready. that is what i keep reminding our members. let's find the common ground. we talked about that yesterday. just get it done. just get it done. >> some of your members are urging there be a reassessment of strategy to keep the government open. [indiscernible]

and take the consequences, which might be to dire, in your view. what do you say to these members? >> when it comes to shutting down government, call us responsible. that should not even be something in the mix. not honoring the full faith and credit of the united states america, that should not be something that is in the mix. let's debate the initiatives and the priorities. i am not saying they would shut down the government again. everyone knows it is harmful to our economy. it is harmful to our veterans. we have responsibilities to our people. we have to try to find our

common ground. we did not like the nine -- the 988 number they came up with last year. i tell you all the time -- they would not go for 1058. last year, they said they would not go past 988. our members railed against it. how could it be? their own german said 988 would not -- their own chairman said 988 would not allow them to honor their obligations to the american people. chairman roger said that. the president of the united states said we will accept it. house democrats that we would accept it. and we said to the speaker, mr. speaker boehner, we have the votes for you. all you need or 20 votes and you do not have to shut down government. the only people who did not accept the republican house

budget number were the republican house members. so they shut down government for 17 days. when it came time to open up government again they overwhelmingly voted to keep it shut down, and it requires -- i have the numbers here. a massive number of democratic votes but that was our responsibility, even though we did not like the number. that was until december and december we have the boat on the -- the vote on the ryan-murray number. and at that time, they still did not have the votes for the ryan-murray number and we still have to supply the votes.

if the risk is to shut down government, we are just not going to be a party to that. they have the votes. if the bill is anything we can support, we will, but we're not going to be a party to shutting down government. >> what impact do you think the economy might have on policymaking in the next year? [indiscernible] >> you'll have to ask them what they might knowledge. i certainly would not speak for them. the fact is, the policies implemented by president obama when he became president to take us out of the very deep ditch the republicans have driven us into are beginning to bear fruit

. they have been for a while. we are asking for swift, bold action. the house passed the american recovery and reinvestment act and that was responsible for saving are created 3.5 million to 4 million jobs. however we were able to do that with some republican votes in the senate. you needed 60 votes. after that, any jobs bills we sent over, the republicans rejected, because well, all kinds of things were going on in terms of the 60 votes. there are only 60 votes in the senate for about six months, and then that was gone. putting that aside directly to

your question, i would hope the republicans would see how we got to where we were in september 2008, when the great recession and the financial meltdown of our financial and additions was announced -- financial institutions was announced, they would understand we cannot go back to the policies that god is into the deep -- that got us into the deep ditch to begin with. and that is the political debate, the electoral debate in our country. i would hope it would not be partisan, political, but that the public should understand what the choices. -- what the choice is. i do not care if it is democrats or republicans, but they support people who will take us forward rather than the policies that contribute to the meltdown of 2008 and contribute to the

income disparity in our country. it is a paycheck. it is a paycheck. and what ever republicans may think of the 47%, they are consumers, and we are a consumer economy and we have to have fairness and the way we award work and i would hope they would recognize that without just saying these are the so-called job creators, the 1%, the one to benefit our policies. they create jobs, let it trickle down. at the time we're having these discussions -- if they create jobs, so be it. if they don't, so be it. >> [indiscernible] the economy was booming, and they cut taxes and created the children's health insurance initiative.

are there win/win out there? >> you have to remember in 1993 the economic package that we passed on the floor, a great many members of congress put their seats on the line, but it was worth it. we had to do it. we had 26 million new jobs created. that was very positive for our economy. it will to encourage to do what we need to do, but i believe there is enough common ground in common sense to go forward with the initiatives, to invest in education, to keep america number one. that there would be initiative to recognize we have to have good paying jobs in the united states and you cannot reward companies with tax recs to send jobs overseas. -- with tax breaks to send jobs

overseas. you have to invest in the infrastructure building of our country. that has never been partisan. it has never been a partisan issue until recently. and hopefully in the clarity of prioritizing -- which is what we have to do, we can make our case to the public and return to a nonpartisan approach. as we grow the economy that we would also recognize the importance of education, that we would also go to a place that recognizes the value of work and does not have the bottom line of corporate america. we have the expectation of the worker in terms of their

compensation. i do think -- in the past we have had common ground on many of these issues. president bush signed a minimum wage bill. infrastructure issues have never been partisan in the past. [indiscernible] >>[indiscernible] is not going to let the party attach language regarding president obama's immigration proposal to the bill. [indiscernible] there is a rule of a larger majority next year? >> i would hope so. the bill, whatever it is called, , undermining the present's policy on immigration making it a short-term homeland security

bill. it is about border security. it is about fema. it is about many innings -- many things. the tea party to go to that place. we will see what it says. i don't know about you, but i like to know what i'm talking about in terms of what the bill actually is. one good piece of news where we had strong bipartisan support is tim wall's bill, the veteran suicide legislation. it will come to the floor in a bipartisan way. on tuesday, my understanding. hopefully it will be signed by the president in time for the holidays for our veterans and of course we oh them so much, and they suffer when they shut down government. when i was speaker, i was pleased to pass the legislation

so they did not get caught in all of the kinds of fights, the shutdown of the government was a separate thing. but this legislation, under the leadership of tim wall, supported by the iraq-afghanistan veterans is so well thought out and so needed and urgent and that is something that will have a strong bipartisan support. last question. i have to get back to work. we are getting ready for the new congress, which hopefully will be exciting. in the meantime, we will keep you posted on what we see when we see what is in the bill. my inclination is obviously to be hopeful that the legislation will be something we can accept and support. thank you very much. >> earlier today president

obama named ashton carter to run the defense department. he called him one of the foremost national security leaders. it is expected he will be easily confirmed by the senate with hearings beginning next year. and you can watch the announcement tonight at 8:00 p.m. east during on c-span -- eastern on c-span. ben from "the wall street journal" looks at the overall health of the economy. and then professor zelizer discusses president obama's executive actions. and your phone calls, facebook comments, and tweets, all on "washington journal" at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span.

here are some of the programs you will find this weekend on c-span. saturday at 11:00 a.m., coverage of the memorial service for mayor marion barry. and sunday evening at 8:00 on q&a, and compton, who retired after 40 years as abc news white house correspondent. and on c-span2 assistant professor jason sokol on the northeastern u.s. and sunday at noon, our conversation with author and american enter prize president arthur brooks. and on c-span3 tonight at 8:00, professor martha jones on female slaves and the law. and sunday at 8:00, george h.w. bush's former secretary of state

on the fall of the berlin wall and the liberation of eastern europe. find our complete schedule at c-span.org. let us know what you think about the programs we are watching -- you are watching. call us, e-mail us, or send us a tweet. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. >> next, a look at the response to a and the challenges ahead with dr. anthony fauci. and response coordinator for the white house ron klain. this is one hour. >> over the course of the last year, we have been engaged in a conversation regarding the future of the university. how in the face of a set of new disruptions that are really changing the ways in which

higher education is understood and perhaps delivered, we have been wrestling with what it means for us. what do we need to protect and embrace? what do we need to respond to in terms of some of the challenges? as we thought about our history and we have thought about what it means, the idea, the purpose of the university, we have identified three interlocking elements, three characteristics that to serve as the underlying framework in which we do all of this work. they are inextricably linked they are mutually reinforcing elements. we are committed to the formation of our young people. to the inquiry, the scholarship and research of our faculty and as a university community, to contributing to the common good wherever and whenever we can. the issue we are going to

discuss this morning, the a bowl a crisis that has unfolded over the last 12 months, is one that has engaged our university community in each one of those dimensions. we sought to ensure our young people had the opportunity to understand the implications and the background, the history, the ideology of the degree -- of the disease. and also to understand what kinds of responsibilities we have in moments like this. our faculty have engaged in a variety of efforts in exploring and research and scholarship the nature of this disease. and we gather here in moments like this, we have throughout the fall, trying to understand the nature of our shared responsibilities to one another. we have an extraordinary opportunity to be with two people who are more than any in the country responding to this

challenge. it is a privilege to be in conversation with them. i'm going to start off. we will go a half an hour with some questions i will ask and then we will bring a microphone and we'll take another half hour of questions from all of you. let's get started. tony this is a disease we have known about since 1976. we have seen other iterations of it over these course of these last 40 years, 25 different experiences we have had dealing with this as a global community. over 12 months, we have seen an intense experience syria can you give us a sense of the ark, the narrative, we are engaged in now as it relates to ebola? >> thank you, jack. ebola is a disease in animals

it is not a disease that has adapted itself evolutionarily to humans. it is in animals and then and jumps into humans and spreads by well-defined ways. in 1976, and it likely existed before then, it was first recognized almost simultaneously in the democratic republic of congo and sudan in which there was an outbreak controlled by the way we are controlling it identification, isolation, contact tracing, and keeping people who are sick away from other individuals, or if you are taking care of them, in a way where you are protected. every one of the epidemics jack mentioned, all 24 of them ranging in size from two people, to the second largest one in uganda in 2000, which had 400

people. they were all able to be put down in the sense of controlled. the ark jack is talking about is something that is unprecedented because of what i referred to when i talk about this as the perfect storm. the perfect storm is you have a disease that is an emerging infection that jumps to humans that has been able to be controlled because prior outbreaks were fundamentally geographically restricted in areas that, the bad news is that it was remote and tough to get people there. the good news is that it was remote because it was easy to isolate. the perfect storm is that you have an outbreak in an area of africa, west africa, that has not historically seen ebola in a highly populated area with

porous borders, where even though the artificial borders that were made, that people have relationships across borders. they are constantly going from one country to another. when you look at west africa, ginny wraps itself around sera and liberia. and we have the issue in big cities. so we have an out rate that percolated a bit in the very early part of the spring and then started to explode to the point where we now have an extraordinary situation. 17,800 cases. 6700 deaths, likely an underestimate, with waves of the epidemic. it looked like liberia was the worst one month ago. got some better control, even that we do not claim victory because their matey be

outbreaks. and now sierra leone more cases last week than there had been in liberia. the issue of the arc is doing this in sierra leone, this in liberia, guinea is kind of like this. that is the way ebola works. it comes in waves. even though we are making progress, we are still in a critical serious situation. the thing about ebola, unlike other diseases, when the trajectory goes down, almost by itself, it will disappear. ebola, if there is one case, one case can ignite another explosion. it is one of those unusual diseases that you have to really put every ember and every spark out. we are far from that right now. >> thank you, tony. ron, tony has spent his career

engaged in engaging infectious diseases. you were minding euro business when the president called you and said we need you to help us develop your national response. what was it like in those early days? how did you come to terms with the challenges you faced in this new role? tell us about the learning curve and how you were able to close some of that and what have been your impressions, your experiences in the six weeks on the job? >> well, so, when the president asked me to come do this, i was minding my own business. i was teaching a course at georgetown. i see several of my students in the front row. but i think that the president asked me to do this based on my experience coordinating other interagency projects we've had in the federal government, most recently the recovery act

almost a trillion dollars in the first two years of the administration. his request was to try to coordinate what we call the whole of government response. every single agency working on some element of fighting ebola at home or overseas. and for me, you know, i have been able to climb the learning curve thanks to experts like tony fauci and tom friedman and various other experts. my major objective in the job is just to make sure that all of our agencies are working together, we are identifying problems and reallocating resources. we are getting decisions to the president for him to make about our response and making the difficult policy choices that need to be made. the thing that has been -- not surprising, but humbling every day is the vast array of people who are acting selflessly to fight this disease every single day. we are sitting here today my

favorite spots on planet earth and while we are sitting here, there are hundreds of volunteers health care workers in ebola treatment units in care centers in library and sierra leone government employees who have taken voluntary leave reassignment to fight this disease on the front lines putting themselves at risk doing the most important work that can be done to battle this epidemic. and the chance to meet with those folks and do whatever i can to facilitate their work is the most humbling part of the job and the most important part of the jump. >> tony, take us into the perfect storm. why west africa? why are things appearing to stabilize in liberia, but on the increase in any and sierra leone -- in guinea and sierra leone? what explains some of the phenomenon? >> what this really brings out,

and i hope, if there is something good that comes out of this, the realization of how, when you do not have a minimum modicum of health care infrastructure, how vulnerable you are to so many things. and then when something as cataclysmic as a highly lethal disease inserts itself into the community, do you realize how that lack of infrastructure and ability to do just minimum health care type delivery can be destructive to a society. what i hope comes out of this is a realization by the countries themselves, but the world the wealthy countries, the organizations realize how we can build sustainable

infrastructure. you've heard ron and i and tom friedman and sylvia burwell say not in a cavalier way, that it is highly unlikely -- you do not say impossible, because you never say that in biology. unlikely we would have an ebola outbreak in the united states. the reason is because we have a health care system that will not allow that to happen. so one of the things that is so important for the world to realize, that we will end this outbreak in collaboration with our west african partners. but this would be a terrible thing if we let the opportunity go by without saying we need to leave an infrastructure, or the beginning of a direction to an infrastructure, to prevent ebola, and what about malaria? what about tuberculosis?

there are some things that can be addressed just with a modest turning of the knob. it is amazing how many people who we are following that we want to make sure they do not have ebola, that have malaria. it really hits you between the eyes that malaria is taken so for granted and yet it kills close to 700,000 people each year, almost all of which are african babies. so this has got to be a shake the cage moment to realize that. >> i think building on what tony said, one of the other tragedies of the ebola tragedy is the collapse of the health care systems, such as they were in these countries. immunization has plummeted to near zero. i had the sad duty of speaking at the funeral of dr. martin soviet last week who was a

missionary physician who was not treating ebola patience, but died from ebola because the level of infection in the health care system is so high. when we count of the number of deaths from ebola in these countries, we also need to count the other kinds of human loss in these countries from the rise of other health care problems. that is one point. the other thing is, and i am sure we will talk about this, the president has submitted a funding request to the congress, which has been getting favorable consideration. we are grateful for their response to this. part of that request is investment in an agenda to build the capacity to detect outbreaks like this earlier in other countries and to get on top of them earlier so we do not see the kind of escalation hopefully, we saw in these three nations. >> just building on that point

the first death i believe was one year ago tomorrow. and as we were describing earlier, through the course of the spring and summer, the numbers began to climb. what have we learned about our global governance, our capacities for global governance on issues like this? it did take some time for us as a global community to respond. >> ron mentioned the global health security agenda. if we had a functioning agenda, to be able to recognize those first cases in guinea in december of 2013, i would say with some degree of confidence we would not be where we were right now. we would have been able to do the kind of identification and contract -- contact tracing that could have put that out. >> what are the tools we have

available to us for constructing a global public health security agenda? what kind of resources or institutional structures, where do we go to put this in place? >> we have to work with the w.h .o. and other organizations. i think that in this case, america has to lead. it has. and i think it has led for three reasons. first of all this is a health problem for the united states. as long as there are people getting ebola in west africa, we are going to have people get it in the united states. not an epidemic, but occasional cases. health care workers will come back infected. this is a problem for us. secondly, it is a national security challenge to see this kind of devastation in west

africa. that is something we have to respond to. it is a humanitarian crisis to see this of a station. united states has led this response. we've had great partners. we are seeing a great response from the united kingdom, france, even china has mobilized its largest health response, in response to this crisis. we have doctors from cuba working right now. so it has been a global response. our leadership has been critical and is something the american people can take pride in. >> if there were other elements in the current structure for addressing a challenge like this, are they needed? or are their existing elements that need to be used more efficiently? >> well we need to expand what we have,. you can't underestimate what it

means to have a country be able to do it themselves ultimately. i think the classic example of that, and it was really almost a foundation for so many other things including when we developed have far, there are many people who do what paul farmer did in haiti and rwanda where you do not just go in and help people and get out. you go in and you train people and you make a situation where they will stay and they will teach others and it will become a self-sustaining issue. you train someone, they do it and train someone. we have that experience, 30 years ago when i became director, we set up a unit of exchange back-and-forth in mali.

we had trained people who were actually global health students who came from mali to nih. that turned out to be an interesting model because it started off focusing just on malaria. now the people who were trained there and who trained people, in that area, they have an infrastructure that made it very easy when the case went to mali, they never would have been able to do that if they did not have that. so we really need to continue to make it sustainable in the countries involved. >> there is a bit of a mismatch, 17,000 cases in west africa, 11 in the u.s., and yet the public discourse here in the u.s. in the days before your appointment, what have we learned about how difficult it is to communicate, to engage in

public communication about risks like this? >> jack, it is understandable when people hear about something that is new and dangerous that we've never experienced before, to react with trepidation. the best thing we can do in the face of that anxiety is to respond properly with an aggressive response, but one based on science, medicine, and the best possible learning we have. so i think our country was very lucky to have someone like tony fauci a person who won the highest civil honor six years ago, and is still fighting this fight every day. to have his leadership and wisdom and voice has been a critical part of that. i also think we simply, people had to experience our success in managing this disease to have confidence we could manage this

disease. the fact all eight of the patients with ebola have been treated successfully, all survived the experienced and are with their families now, has been a reassuring thing. something people could not know when they heard it had a 70% death rate. a combination of a great communication from experienced leaders, policies based on science and evidence and medicine, and proven success in identifying and treating cases have been the key things in bringing the public anxiety down. >> tony, as ron said, you have been at this for a wild. 20 years you have been leading the institute. you will be remembered in our nation for the leadership you provided during the most difficult and challenging moment when we were confronting hiv

aids, trying to sort that out as a nation. are there things you are bringing from those experiences things you're bringing from those experience in the 1980's and 1990's, as you wrestled with the hiv-aids crisis, to this one? >> there are several. one that you alluded to is the idea of consistent, honest, open communication of what you know and what you don't know. don't ever be afraid of saying you do not know balanced against trying to seem like you are smart and you know when you don't and then your credibility goes down. the other thing is to try to communicate in a way that is always science and evidence-based. you may not get it across the first time you say it, but you've got to say it over and over again.

that is the issue of risk and probability. to try to explain to people that the risks of things are there. we've got to accept that. we had a lot of anxiety, as ron mentioned, understandable. you never put anxiety down. it is understandable. the way you counter that. the way we did with hiv is by scientific facts over and over again. i bring the analogy, because it is striking. i have been involved in both, we are trying to communicate to the people that this virus is transmitted by direct contact with bodily fluid, blood feces vomit, things people don't like to talk about, which is the reason why health care workers are the ones that are most at

risk. they put themselves, they run into the fire, not away from the fire. that is why we have the risk translated into infection. that gets extrapolated by the american public when they see ebola. they think somehow everyone is at risk and you got to keep telling them the scientific facts. i remember so clearly being on a couple "nightline" trying to explain to someone arguing against me that the risk -- this was 1982. they said, why don't we not allow gay waiters to wait on tables in greenwich village? because we know a substantial portion of them are infected. what happens if they have a cut on their hand and put a plate down and you have a cut and you

pick the plate up? people were actually focusing on that. you had to see the scientific evidence, is that possible? yes. it is more likely that you will get hit by a car as you walk out of the restaurant then it is summit a you hiv that way. and then finally, when all of the scientific data was in, people believed it. that is how you counter. you've got to be called. never be pejorative of people who actually disagree with you. even though you think they are unreasonable. keep countering it with scientific-based evidence. and it works. >> in georgetown, i think the key to this response is a unique combination of science and faith. science, as tony indicated being medically aware and having

the best policies based on the best science and the kind of information tony talked about. as with the hiv-aids crisis, the role of the faith community preaching about passion -- about non-stigmatization, about service, that is part of the response. there were faith leaders from all faith denominations that were sending people to volunteer to west africa. dr. can bradley, who has become a face of recovering ebola cases in united states and has generously donated, he was there on a mission in west africa. sometimes in places like georgetown we wonder how the faith and science go together, how we reconciled these two things and the ebola crisis is a crisis that joseph we need both these things all helmets other sponsors, all omens of