kids? >> that's the question everyone will be asking across the world in the next couple of days. in the large part for much of the history of the civil war, children have been off-limits. she was shot by the taliban, but you didn't hear about major attacks against students and children. the pakistan military has been conducting a substantial military operation for the last six months against the militants. they are now getting more desperate, lashing out in any way they can to cause as much bloodshed and brutality against most innocent victims. host: who are these taliban militants? what is motivating them? this is believed to be

carried out by the pakistan telegram. a group of militants -- pakistan taliban. bayer group of islamic militants that forms in the aftermath of 9/11. they say they operate independently of the afghan taliban, but there is coordination. they live and harbor on that same border reasonableon, the afghan and pakistan border, but the focus is more on pakistan's government and the military. over the years they have been responsible for killing tens of thousands of civilians and pakistan military officials. host: any reaction yet from the pakistani government? guest: it's just really horrified. the prime minister has

strengthened the country's resolve to take the battle to the taliban and try to eradicate this problem. but as we all know judging from the u.s. experience in afghanistan, this is a very complicated, very long battle and effort that is unlikely to resolve any time soon. host: tim craig, here in the u.s. we saw what happened, different situation, but still a terror attack in sydney, australia. should we be concerned about the taliban here? guest: over the years the f.b.i. and others have raised concern that the pakistan taliban could be capable of carrying out an attack outside of pakistan borders. it has not been much evidence so far that they have been willing to do that or that they are capable of doing that. they have been sort of under siege in many ways. u.s. drone strikes against the

taliban as well because they are viewed as a threat. the broader concern for the u.s. and western nations is that as we saw in sydney, australia yesterday, in canada a few weeks ago, there could be copycat attacks, lone wolf attacks of militants who take it upon themself to carry out repeat attacks. host: finally, this is of course -- guest: schools not only here but schools everywhere have always been viewed as we see from school shootings in the united states, are vulnerable targets. whether this causes a wholesale re-evaluation of school security, remains to be seen. schools by their nature are opened and accessible. host: let me conclude with this question. the investigation in the early hours and still a lot more to be learned. what are you looking for? what questions do you have moving ahead? >> the only question we have

right now is what -- how many people have been killed. the day began there was supposedly 1,000 students and teachers inside the school. many were rescued or escaped. 132 confirmed dead. but there are feared the death toll could be far higher. as we move forward and find out the final death toll, the question is what will be the pakistani response. it's hard to fight a war within your borders. you are targeting in many ways your own areas of the country. so by its nature it's not an easy battle to fight. but i think everyone across pakistan is realizing they have to do something. they cannot allow this to continue and allow this to go on without a firm response. host: tim craig is the pakistan bureau chief of the "washington post." he's joining us live with the very latest on this tuesday morning. thank you for being with us. donald trump says he is

seriously considering a 2016 presidential run and plans to make a decision by this spring. he also talked about his large into the washington, d.c. business community. the economic club of washington host yesterday's event. hosted yesterday's event. >> can everybody please quiet? thank you very much. we are very pleased this evening to have as our special guest donald trump. i usually go through elaborate introductions because i have memorized them and figure i should basically show everybody i have done the research. in this case, i don't really know he needs as great an

introduction some of the guests i have done. i think this will to say he is one of the best-known business developers, businessmen, real estate host, golfers and all-around well known person in the united states. i thought it would be interesting for everyone to hear from donald trump. so i want to thank you, donald, for coming this evening. >> it is my pleasure. thank you very much. >> let me start by asking you this. it is rumored you may go to iowa soon to do some exploratory work. why would you consider a job that has a smaller home than you currently have? >> that's a very good question.

first, i would like to say, it is such a privilege to be here. so many great friends. one is david blassi. he said, would you do it? and i have great respect for david and what he represents, so i agreed to do it. it is going to be a great event. like this is your biggest sellout crowd, and i think we'll have the biggest sellout crowd in iowa, too. i'm going the night before, a real estate dinner in iowa, done by a very big company, a terrific company, and they asked me to be the keynote speaker. >> let me finish that up. are you considering getting into politics as a candidate or are you not sure yet? >> if you did not think we did a good job, i would not be her tonight.

-- here tonight. we have done a good job. i'm considering it very strongly. a lot of people think i have fun with it. but the country is in serious, serious trouble. we just broke $18 trillion in debt largely to different places like china and others. i am considering very strongly. >> when do you think you might make a decision? >> sometime after the beginning of the year. probably march, april, or may. >> so you would not start a little bit lower than the top job, governor, or something, just to get experience? >> i have dealt in politics all my life. i support a lot of people. i am a republican. i will support people that i

think are going to be good. i think we need something very fast orry pas we are going to be in big trouble. the torture report. do we have to announce the torture report? they paid $80 million to come up with the process. there are so many things i see in this country whether it is common sense or whatever and i have a big voice. i have millions and lines of followers on twitter and facebook and when i say something, some people don't like it, but most people do like it. whether it is a job, to think i like best and the thing i think i'm best at is the economy, and how to put people to work. >> campaign is typically to your -- a two-year process.

>> i have a great company with tremendously talented people. some of those people are sitting right here. i also have children and three of my five children are in the company. they have done a fantastic job. four years ago i was leading in the polls, beating everyone. i just really was loving what i do. i would rather do what i'm doing than run for president. but i also left the country -- love the country more. i just think unless i see somebody that is outstanding, would very much be inclined to do that. >> i don't think we can make any more news than you just made so -- [laughter] so let's start back at the beginning if we could. your father was a pretty harm in -- prominent real estate developer in

queens. as a young boy, you were aggressive and you were sent to a military academy. >> i was. my father said, you could use a little discipline. you are sort of tough to handle. they sent me to a military academy where we had some very tough people working up there. i was supposed to be a smart person, but i was on the aggressive side. they were terrific. these were drill sergeants. we had one major -- he used to be sergeant tobias. later he was a colonel, now he's retired, but he was tough. you could not talk back to him. you just didn't talk back to this guy or it was bad, bad trouble. today, they would call it harassment, it would be on the front page of every

newspaper. but it was a good place, it was a tough place. i ended up graduating at the highest rank. so i acclimated. you have a climate. it wasn't my climate, but by the time i finished, i graduated at the highest rank. i learned a lot about leadership, and i learned a lot about a lot of things. >> you were an athlete? >> i was. >> you were captain of the baseball team? >> yes. >> did you ever think of being in professional baseball? >> i loved sports. i was on the football team, the wrestling team. not a good wrestler, not a good basketball player. i did not have good jumping ability. i was not able to get up there. i guess i was a good baseball player. i was recruited, and they wanted me to go to major league. it was different. in those days, you made $3. there was no money, no anything. ultimately, my father had a business in brooklyn, mostly brooklyn, new york, as a real

estate developer. ultimately, i did that for a lot of the right evens. -- right reasons. it became a lot of fun. i wanted to make it more exciting. i always loved show business and i loved other things, but i think we put some show business into the real estate business. >> you went to warton after the military academy? >> right. i majored in finance. i liked finance, but i did well, and i loved the wharton school of finance. i thought it was a great school. >> i read at one point you went into the film business. >> it's true. >> what took you away from that? >> it is sort of an interesting story. i applied to u.s.c. where they said they had a great school of cinema. when i applied, there was a man who was having troubles in real estate, and he came to me. smart guy. he said, can you help me? i was only 19 years old. i gave him a lot of advice.

this guy was a top broadway producer. i kept talking about movies. he said, i tell you what, you just saved my life. you really know about real estate. you have to be crazy to go into show business. it really affected me. i went into the business with my father. i went into the business with my father and i did some really good deals with him. he was very happy with me. he was a tough guy. he had a great heart. he was a good man, but he was a tough man. he would never let anyone sign checks for any reason. today they sign them by computer. but today you press a button and everybody gets paid. whatever it is, if it's a mistake, they never find it. he would sign every check and study it. he would call the people, you are getting too much money. this is a little different than what we have today. so i continued that practice.

i sign many, many, many checks. the company has gotten so big it is hard, but i like signing checks because i see what's going on much better that way. >> you went to your father, and you said, daddy want to go out on my own. what did he say? >> he really respected it. we lived in queens, and we would look across the east river and i would see those big tall buildings, and i said, pop, that's what i want to do. i want to build those buildings. i went to be there. i love it. i got to be there. he sort of said, that's not our territory. you don't know anything about that. let's stay in brooklyn. my father started building family homes and then apartments. almost all middle income apartments and some lower income using federal subsidies, the 236 program. a lot of different programs. section 8.

we had a section 8 program. it was amazing. they gave you the money for nothing. it was a good program for a developer. it also allowed people to live at a very low rent. we did it well. but i said, you know pop, i want to go in. i started with the grand hyatt. i took an option. it was originally the old commodore hotel. interesting how my life progresses where we go from that to the o.p.o. >> you were 28, 29, and you bought a hotel near grand central station called the commodore and you put in almost no money? >> almost no money. >> how did you manage to do that? >> it was run by pen central railroad. it was run by very good people. it is very interesting. he happens to be a very good man. it was victor palmari & company. one of the people was john coscanin. does anyone know him? he's the head of the i.r.s. he's a very good man. while i'm a strong republican,

he did a very good job running victor palmari. i made a good deal with them and took options to the building. after i took options to the commodore, i went to the city. the city was in deep trouble. i was about 28 years old. i said, look, you are going to have to give me tax abatement or this won't happen. then i went to hyatt, i said you put up the money and i'll get the approvals. i got the approvals. we built the hotel. we were 50-50 partners. it became very successful. then i did the convention center and lots of other jobs. >> let's talk about one of the other famous buildings you did, trump tower. >> right. >> how did you get the rights to build that piece of land and how did you finance that? >> that was owned by a company named conseco. originally it was genesco. that was from nashville, tennessee. it was run by a father and son. it was a public company.

they were fighting like cats and dogs. unlike your children and my children, by the way, so far. we're going to keep it that way. but they were fighting like cats and dogs. i loved reading the papers. i saw the trouble that they were having, that genesco was in deep trouble, and i knew they owned a department store. so i called the head of genesco, and i went to nashville, tennessee. i have a warm spot in my heart for nashville. i made an amazing deal there. i took an option on the site. as soon as that option was announced, every developer in the world went there. 57th and fifth is the best site. but it was too late because i already had it signed. they tried to get out of it. they saw it was more valuable than what i paid. then i dealt with a great man, walter hogan, who was head of tiffany's. he took tiffany's from troubles to great levels.

and i bought the rights to tiffany's and some other companies, and it turned out to be a tremendous success called trump tower. when i bought the rights to tiffany, i had the right to call it tiffany tower. i went to a very street smart guy, stein, and i asked him. i said, i can use the name "tiffany," but i want to call it "trump." what do you think? he said, when your name is "tiffany," change it to tiffany. [laughter] even though i had this incredible right to use the name tiffany, but i called trump tower. >> if your name had been rubinstein, do you think it would have worked as well? >> michael bloomberg has done very well, right? >> when did you realize putting your name on something you would put a higher price on it. >> a lot of people think -- i had this brilliant strategy of

naming. honestly, it just happened. it started with trump tower. i did the grand hyatt first. that was my first job. i did the jacob javitz convention center. nobody knew that much about me. then when i did trump tower -- i never thought at a young age, like 30, i would have the best piece of land in the world. it never changes. that piece of land was the best then and it's the best now. we signed a lease with gucci that's one of the greatest retail leases ever signed, as you understand. i never really knew. when i called it trump tower, a lot of things happened. because of the prominence of the location, i was able to get it zoned. a lot of people said, you'll never get it zoned. you will never be able to build an all glass building. the architectural critic gave it phenomenal reviews.

later on, herbert vuchamp of the "new york times" gave it phenomenal reviews. it morphed into other things. then i ended up writing "the art of the deal" and that pame a -- became a bestseller. >> you live in new york? >> i do. >> do you think there are enough billionaires for all these big buildings in new york? >> that is your second big story of the night. too many big buildings. >> park avenue? have you seen this? >> and friends of mine are doing it. they had the advantage early on. they are very good people. i think they are going to do ok because it is early. but the ones coming on line, there are so many of them. i look at the plans. i study them. i know which story is available five years before the lease comes due. i look at all the plans in

manhattan, and i don't see anyway. russia has been taken out of it, over the last year, as you know. a lot of russian that is were buying these apartments are no longer buying these apartments. they have bigger problems. frankly, i don't see anyway they are going to do it. now that's an opportunity for you. and it's an opportunity for me. a very well known developer came to build a site to build a 100-story building on the site. i don't love the site, but it is good. the great always works. the good doesn't always work in real estate. he had a 90 story building, 100 story building. he wanted to sell it to me. i've been through great, great times, but i had to fight like crazy to keep everything going. i said, you know, you do it because i don't have the guts any more to do it. he said, i promise i won't tell anybody you said that. but it is true. i see the market will be over-saturated.

>> let me ask you. when you were having this success, you are building trump tower, other things. you bought an airline, the shuttle, and then you got involved in gaming and atlantic city. then the economy collapsed, and many people thought you would not be able to survive. how did you end up getting ahead? >> i wanted to continue living my lifestyle. i liked planes and -- in those days i wasn't married, and i liked planes and beautiful women, and i didn't want to lose my lifestyle. >> how did you -- >> what happened with the shuttle, in the airline business, it was the best asset. so the market had totally crashed, but the banks came to me and people came to me and i made a deal where it was a great deal to sell the shuttle, even in difficult times. i made a great deal to buy the plaza.

i made an unbelievable deal in getting out of the plaza. it worked out really well. other things i did -- actually david and i were speaking before, and i said, you know, the crazy thing about atlantic city, i was there during the boom time when it was -- then atlantic city changed. i fought like hell. they built the civic center in -- convention center in the wrong location. they did not to the airport properly. the politicians took over atlantic city and absolutely destroyed it. but atlantic city for me has been a great experience. i got out seven years ago. again, i made a lot of money. i do play the bankruptcy laws. not individually, but corporately. other people do, too. you look at cesar's is going to go bankrupt.

i buy a building. the building is in turmoil. it's got a big mortgage, the bank is being vicious and ruthless. i buy the building. i call up the banks. they are not nice. i throw it into a chapter, i beat the hell out of them, and then i get huge reductions, and then i make a lot of money out of the building. when i buy the building, i use it as a tool. the enemies -- i call them the losers and haters. i call them that on twitter. i call them the losers and the haters. i use that as a business tool. many of your friends, you look at who, whether it is sam dell, leon black or carl icon with t.w.a. we use the same names, however when i do it to my advantage, they say trump went bankrupt. if david does it, they don't say that. so that makes you smarter than me. >> i doubt that. >> he wants to get off the

subject. >> in a number of interviews i've read, you filed for bankruptcy. >> i never went bankrupt. >> one of the deals you did, i would say you stole the property, but legally. you bought moralogo. it was for about $8 million. today it is probably worth $200 million. how did you buy that when it was pretty cheap? we go live to capitol hill from remarks -- full remarks from the party lunches. >> i think it might be appropriate to look ahead to next year. starting next year with a job creating bill that

enjoys significant bipartisan support. item up in the new senate will be the keystone xl pipeline. it will be open for amendment. i hope that senators on both sides will offer energy-related amendments. there will be no effort to try to micromanage the amendment process. we will move forward and hopefully be able to pass a very important job creating bill early in the session. any questions? [indiscernible] feeling?our

>> i would rather look forward. all of you are quite familiar with the events of the last few days. i don't have anything to add. >> do you have any comment on jeb bush? guest: i always tell all the candidates for president that the best day they will have is the day before the announced. there is not anything harder than running for president. i wish them all well. we believe we have a great chance to elect a republican president in 2016. it has been a long, challenging eight years. the american people seem to have indicated last november that they have had about enough of this crowd. i'm optimistic that whoever the nominee is will have a good chance to win it. >> [indiscernible] >> we will announce the next item after keystone a bit later.

the keystone pipeline has been around six years. senator hogan has been single-minded in his pursuit of this job creating bill. the notion that building another pipeline isn't somehow threatening to the environment is blind by the fact that we across have 19 pipelines the mexican border or the canadian border. multiple studies over and over again showing no measurable harm to the environment. people want jobs in this project , highreate well-paying wage jobs for our people. it certainly does enjoy a lot of bipartisan support you saw that on the boat that was held a couple of weeks ago. we are optimistic we can pass it and put it on the president's desk. --why did you vote against >> i'm not going to go back and

rehash the events of the last few days. you all have written about them. you know exactly what happened over the weekend. we are where we are. i'm hoping we will wrap it up today or tomorrow. thanks a lot. >> that last question scared him away. [no audio]

live on capitol hill from what we call the ohio clock. we just heard mitch mcconnell looking ahead at the senate agenda. he becomes the majority leader in the 114th congress after dissident gavels out, which is expected sometime tomorrow. congress will return on tuesday, january 6. [no audio]

it appears we are not expecting any further senators to come out to speak here after the weekly party lunches. we will move on. you can see live coverage of the u.s. senate as they continue today on our companion network, c-span2. this morning's washington journal where we talked about

the federal government spending package that was approved over the weekend by the senate. the $1.1 trillion on the best that was passed and the provision that uses the dodd frank rules on derivatives. y. emily stephenson, thank you for being with us. good morning. host: the debate over the spending bill includes easing on the regulations of dodd frank. is in this legislation, this law, and what impact it has on law. in response to the financial crisis does a range of things to clean up financial systems. it creates the financial prospective -- protection bureau and requires banks to rely less on harrowing to fund activities.

it has a range of requirements to clean up derivatives trading. is a wide ranging response to the financial crisis. derivatives are risky trades that you saw come up in aig. we are talking about the swaps push out rule. if you do certain types of these risky trades, you cannot do it within the bank. that is where you are accepting consumer deposits and you are backed up high fdic insurance. the push out rule says you have to push it out into separate units. warren adamant

this was the wrong way to go. this is a headline you have -- wall street scores a win and eyes more victory. guest: there is a wish list of things they would like to scale back in. frank and you have seen a lot of these things pop up 2010.the law passed in they want changes to the focal rule.- to the volker all of these things are things that they are going to push in the next congress. as republicans who have been critics of dodd frank, you will see more of these things coming up. own stocks, why should this be of concern? guest: this is the response to

the financial crisis. to scale back to make things safer work to restructure of the bureau that was created to look out for the consumer financial interest will be relevant to you. it wallat is on street's target? guest: along with the swap provision, there is the volker rule. banks cannot make risky trade with their own money. regulators have finalized the rules, but they expanded some of the exceptions to the rules. this is the bank's strategy, giving investments fathered in.

that is what they will push for. they want to see changes to the bankruptcy code. republicans and banks have made an argument that the bankruptcy code is not set up to deal well with banks when they start to fail. you will see pushes to make changes to make that work more smoothly. host: senator warren opposed the bill. it did pass the house and the senate. she is very much opposed to what lawmakers put into the plan. [video clip] this provision would repeal a prohibition against

federal government bailouts. on wednesday i came to talk to democrats, asking them to strip this provision and protect taxpayers. on thursday, i came to the florida talk to republicans. republicans said they did not like bailouts either. i asked them to vote the way they talk. thiscould take out provision that puts taxpayers right back on the hook for bailing out these banks. today, i am coming to the floor, not to talk about democrats or apublicans, but to talk about third group that also wields tremendous power in washington. citigroup. years, many institutions have inserted extraordinary influence in .ashington

citigroup has risen above the others. its grip over economic policy making in the executive branch is unprecedented. host: last week, senator elizabeth warren. how much support did she have within the party? she got a lot of democrats to oppose the spending bill, which takes some of the negotiators in the white house by surprise. it was in question for a couple of days about how democrats would vote for the bill. it has been around since dodd frank passed. into other put bills. it was part of the appropriation negotiation for several months.

the senaterd from appropriation negotiators was that republicans came to them frankix or seven dodd changes. this was the one they could handle. they let it stay in the bill. host: let me ask you about another player. , the chief executive at j.p. morgan, wall street wins a round in the fight. guest: he was calling on lawmakers to vote for the spending bill. where up a funny parallel president obama and jamie dimon were within votes for the same bill. the white house supports dodd frank. they do not want to see changes to dodd frank. they felt the provision was

narrow enough and not central to dodd frank, so they felt like they could support the spending bill and deal with the provision. host: why such a dichotomy? part of the reason they walked back on it was because a lot of regulators have come out and said they are not sure this provision makes the financial system safer and that it would cost banks a lot of money. is it necessary? host: in a sentence or two, dodd frank does what? guest: it cleans up the financials after the financial crisis. host: good morning, ray.

give us a history in the dodd frank in the last part of clinton's term. how being current stem threatened banks to get out these loans and mortgages. to lend out the people which caused the downfall in the crisis. put a halt on these ,oans without anything down without verifying income. they caused the meltdown and they came up with the regulations to fix it. you ought to discuss the things they did prior to this. they are millionaires and they have good jobs. one of them is employed by the banking industry. you can talk a good game, but do your history.

host: thank you. initially, there were rules that said banks and investment banking had to be split up. away at those rules over time until they were allowed to form these big institutions and that was a thing that was criticized in the financial crisis, how big they were. one of the things you are getting at, this is a strategy that wall street has used before. they chip away at these regulations over time. that is what liberals are concerned about. banks willncerned chip away at dodd frank until the things we did to respond to the financial crisis are gone.

there is also criticism and the claim of revolving doors antonio rice and facing opposition including from senator warren, who has minced nomination.ce his >> senator warren has really met the charge for antonio rice. -- antonio weiss. at that criticism for a while, that we have a tendency to bring people into wall street and red -- wall street and regulate wall street. door has of revolving gotten criticism. another part of the criticism thebeen over his work with burger king tim hortons deal, considered a tax inversion, and tax inversions have come under a

lot of criticism in congress this year. trying to fight these on the one hand, and giving people government jobs who worked on these deals on the other hand. you have to understand where the bodies are buried. an insider would be a person who can do that. how do you respond? guest: several people who held a job in the past have come up in support of the nominee and said exactly where -- exactly what you are saying. you need to know where the bodies are buried. host: the wall street scores a win in washington with the inclusion of easy regulations in dodd frank and a spending plan the president will be signing. ,y guess is emily stephenson and cj's on the phone from wyoming.

good morning. really just as return to the baseline again, prior to the crisis. that we not to say should not, but this is the .hing we set up before i love the little dance they did by trying to obscure it amongst and torture release at the same time. that was a sweet twist to the whole matter. this is really getting us the next hit on what has amassed over the years. i think what he had on is what senator warren and liberals

are concerned about, that banks will keep chipping away at the regulations until they're gone. 1.i have not made yet and i made this point in the story i mentioned earlier, is that the dodd frank law will not be repealed. nobody's really pushing for that. of doddant portions frank are probably not going anywhere anytime soon. if you think consumer financial protection bureau is going anywhere, you are misunderstanding how much support senator warren has in congress. these kinds of new rules that regulators are enforcing that banks have to rely less on debt to fund themselves and rely more on share holders, those are not going away anytime soon. over time, is that the banks keep lobbying at the rules that are there. quantitative easing, hey

c-span, -- we expect to hear more from the fed chairman next week our interest rates are going, but a lot of people are thinking we are just artificially pumping up the market. >> that is really not my area. i cover bank regulations. the fed has been involved in forcing dodd frank and in writing the rules that implement -- dodd frank. host: greg, independent line, good money. caller: -- good morning. caller: good morning. gentleman was pretty much blaming the crisis on clinton the gob.e signed

is, why don't we implement glass-steagall? quinn was cornered. it was a republican rule. a republican legislation. he was impeached. politician, -- so, my question is, why not just three implement? -implement? actually, i think you will see a lot of lobbying against dodd frank in the next congress, but i and there is a populist strain, especially on the senate side, of both democrats and republicans who are skeptical of the too big to fail banks, who will push for more regulation and i think you will see a push for breaking up

the banks. the reason this push out for vision has been a concern for a lot of people is that it says you cannot do certain types of trades within the deposit taking banks that you have to push it out to another unit. that is sort of a step in another direction. that is one of the reasons you saw a lot of concern about the spending bill. the practicality of the spending bill, does it mean there are fewer regulators, your regulations question mark guest: -- regulations? , and doesrolls back not entirely repealed. it just sort of scales back the derivatives. we have not yet really seen substantial regulations the removed. but you do see exemptions thing,g and that kind of which people think weakens the rules. let's go to chris from

connecticut. good morning. caller: hello, if i could just make a couple points. thank you very much for bringing up this topic. i think it is very important. derivatives is 700 trillion, nobody really knows. so how well could they be regulated? the collateral, there is not enough money in the world to cover with derivatives. this is very dangerous. i also want to warn people that oil is collapsing right now. it is down about 50% a barrel. currencies are collapsing right now as we speak here, any derivative contracts are tied commodities, currencies, we do not know. idea.e no the federal reserve, are they supposed to be doing a backdoor regulation on these things? they never have, they are

obviously not doing it now. what is wrong with the federal reserve? how come they are not regulating these markets? the important thing to say is there is no difference between republicans and democrats on the banker legislations that go through there. they play good cop bad cop. the buck stops at barack obama. foreign currencies? caller: they are regulating the they're making on commodities, on currencies. those that are laid down, and there is no collateral, 101 collateral contracts back and .orth a very dangerous time right now. >> thank you for the call. the headline this morning, the

ruble is trying to shorten a, vladimir putin raising 50% in russia. click something i did want to workers this week spoke for someone who didn't work for lincoln, who pushed out the provision for dodd frank in the first place and that person said, the push out was a good idea how much blood was not derivatives regulation dodd frank. this is not -- there are provisions that require more , at least checking them out and making sure they're ok. there is a rule that says he will do it with more trading and cannot do with your own money. there is more focused on reporting derivatives, so we know what is going on with derivatives markets. it is a good point.

please explain how and why jarvis cause insurers such as guest: it happens in other situations where banks make big and they wind up getting in trouble. we saw this recently in the jpmorgan london wales situation, where they were making big bets in their london went that. i spoke to some democrats this week who had previously supported scaling back the frank anda of dodd against the spending bill they do not want to scale back that provision now and they said part of the reason they changed their mind was because of the jpmorgan

situation because that sort of's vote the lawmakers about they do not wantderivatives tr. host: explain what that is. guest: it is complicated, where you are trading -- i am to have to get all into it. host: you are making a bet to gain money am obviously. aig made this bets. joining us from ohio. caller: good morning. as an older person among the millions that lost money, and and itnvestment i had, has not come back, why in the world am i sending my tax dollars so that the billionaires, the lobbyist's, and the banks can make this money? we are financing them and they

are getting all the benefits. gruber said we are stupid. we are stupid. why are we sending our tax dollars to them? so they can make all this money and there are billions of people out here hungry. what is the problem? what country are we? host: thank you. guest: that speaks to the frustration a lot of people have about the big banks after the financial crisis and we saw this in the occupy wall street movement. people feel like the big banks have not been taken to task for what they did. regulators rot numerous enforcement actions against these banks and they pay money to settle some of these accusations of wrongdoing. but you have not seen a wave of people going to jail that you might have expected him and that is in john -- senator warren has

been critical of about the response to the financial crisis. a lot of people feel that way. they feel like there has been a legislative response and the regulatory response you do not see an impact of as a person sitting at home. cannot really tell how much the financial system has changed. the response you hear from the people who wrote dodd frank and the people in congress now is that there are a lot of things in place to make the system safer for you, particularly for americans who feel like they lost money in the financial crisis, there is a new protection bureau that is supposed to look out for you and make sure you're not object to scams. who are thems of regulators, who else? fed is a big regulator, the office of the comptroller regulates big banks.

the commodity futures trading commission oversees driven is. soup is a whole alphabet of regulators overseeing different parts of the financial system. if you lose money in the market, it is your loss. let's go to bob in jacksonville, florida. in morning. caller: good morning. let me get one line across here. the bill was, no more bailouts. the actual creation of the team party was the bailouts. breakdown, bute i watched a whole segment and i republicanr any speak against the bill. evidently, the tea party is changing and therefore bailouts

-- and are for bailouts. which is it? what do you think? >> he will get a response. >> that is actually a good point. a good question to rain -- raised. there is a populist strain in the republican party that is skeptical of big banks. you did see some folks, some republicans, come out against, including the provision in the spending bill. i river in louisiana in particular, he came out and criticized rolling back the provision. even though on the whole, we say republicans are critics of the frank, a lot of republicans are who,skeptical of big banks i think, was a certain provisions of dodd frank talk to stay in place, even if you want to rethink the way the majority of the law works.

host:host: it costs in the housd senate. let's go to greg in michigan. morning. callerare you with us? we'll t >> american came to the -- we seem to be let everyone else rule everything for us and then cry about it later. needs to really wake up. the rich are getting so much richer. you keep voting for the same puke all just because you hate the color of one man. the whole country is just falling apart. deserve.actly what we

when you do nothing and did not ask for anything to be done, then you get what you deserve. >> thank you for the call on the democratic line. lines you along those have the voters who have told of theible for the state economy. a pretty tough election for democrats. i think a lot of people are still being held responsible. saw last weekso that democrats want to make sure they are coming across as not weakening for the financial system. if you're concerned about a primary challenge, you want to

make sure you are fighting for americans. warren is seenor as signing for the every day person's financial interest. >> i want to go back to the implementation of dodd-frank. are there particular institutions hit hard by the regulations? hardlot of it really hits at this. actually last week the federal reserve the federal reserve proposed a new rule that says eight of the biggest banks, j.p. morgan and citigroup and bank of america and some of those really , there are requirements to rely less on borrowing and more on capital, shareholder equity and that kind of thing. the toughest requirements now applied to the global banks.

dodd-frank cracks down on those guys. >> alex is next on the republican line. caller: i completely agree with the caller earlier talking about connecticut -- from connecticut. the derivatives have to be regulated. this was affected by greenspan in 1999. then the other one was a caller from north carolina. he was great talking about reimplemented glass-steagall, i completely agree. the question for emily is fail and under the glass-steagall act , it is my understanding that

when banks default or go bankrupt, they will now accuse depositors money to offset losses, whether then bail out. could you talk about that? >> thank you. frank has a whole new system for how we deal with this. the reason is the fdic, the of lots and lots of banks in the country has always the process for when a smaller bank fails, they seize it and restructure its, and they have a process for dealing with failed smaller banks. when we got into the crisis, he relies there was no process for dealing with a gigantic global or non-bank financial institution like aig. tries to get at that. what they say is they have to write living wills.

it is their blueprint for if they were to fail, how they could be guided through bankruptcy. also, the process that the fdic takes over, which is called authority.uidation what it says is it creates a process for the fdic if a gigantic think is failing to go in and seize control and sell off pieces and restructure it. so one of the things --

>> travis hopkins has pulled the program together, a special and lidiasheriff andins for merck and judas and partnership conrad from international institute of health, all who has pulled principles here today to be with us. we have pulled together a very impressive assembly of speakers on a very important topic today. grateful to them for joining us. anthony fire chief, director of the national institute of .llergy and infectious diseases a representative from glaxosmithkline, chairman of vaccines. .lobal therapeutic area head infectious diseases and vaccines. research and development of johnson & johnson pharmaceutical gerba dean,your lee

president of mark vaccines, former director of cdc. director of policy and analysis at the access campaign. please join me in welcoming all of them were coming here, many of them a long distance to be here with us. we are at a pivotal moment unfolding in the ebola crisis as 2004 comes to a conclusion. this is a critical moment to talk about the efforts on the way -- on the way on a next celebrated basis to bring about andlopment of the vaccines to discuss today what lies ahead in 2015. we will not be dealing too much today with diagnosed -- diagnostics and hope to revisit that in the new year. in the midst of the fluent and

dangerous ebola emergency exceptional things have begun to happen. at a point early in the fall i would argue perceptions changed fundamentally in diverse experts working on ebola began to argue, newn to realize technologies, vaccines and therapies, some of which had been in development for some time, that these would be strategically essential to bringing about conclusive control, a resting the runaway ebola of the government. that implied there would have to be in next ordinary effort undertaken on an expedited basis. and they would be added to the from line of essential public health interventions, which we have heard about and will continue to hear about today. the effort to isolate, contain, carrier contract and introduce

effective communication to build trust and confidence. triggered an accelerated mobilization across many different institutions and a high sense of urgency. that includes the leadership of liberia, serious -- sierra -- sierra leone and new guinea. it included multiple u.s. agencies dedicated to research and development, to delivery of programs. nih, cdc, department of defense, usaid -- multiple key industrial sk, johnson &om g johnson and merck represented here today. ambitions became important players. bill and melinda gates foundation, hewlett foundation, international organizations.

the vaccine alliance, just pat thursday. the board of gaby committed to up to $300 million for purchase of the vaccine once approved along with $90 million in rollout and support and strengthening the main of immunization programs. side, a standout true hero of the response over the notse of 2014 and the saga, surprisingly have jumped forward to assist with trials of and possibly a vaccine later in the 2015. this mobilization has been remarkable in several ways. and theusual speed flexibility and cooperation that we will hear more about that we will hear more out across the different institutions.

there was a pivotal meeting october 23 posted by who which , industryd donors revised upwards projected manufacturing capacities, a certain pragmatism and debate opening about whether it is possible to adhere to classic randomized control trials versus less rigorous, but still very important efforts. regulatorymonstrated flexibility. a lot of effort to begin to prepare communities. a number ofven by factors. i think the urgency behind the threat, the potential for significant return people felt there was a certain optimism and determination that enters the equation and commitment to operating in good faith for a common cause. , the degree to which these

different institutions begin to think in longer-term to prepare beyond the emergency and think ahead to even the second generation of technologies than what were going to be required. a shared recognition of the security threat and the need for u.s. leadership, both prior -- private and part -- private and public and in partnership with other institution. money, interestingly does appear to be less of an obstacle that might otherwise have been the case or what might have been predict this. that is unusual and very favorable position to be enough this point. does not mean sustainable funding is not an outstanding question. emergency funding and on the miss bill passed by congress a short time ago terribly important in bringing forward several hundred million dollars in additional resources and accelerating and developing and

deploying and delivering technologies. eu, ekoned gabby, the and others. remainpside is there uncertainty and obstacles that we will talk about here today. first and foremost is the epidemic itself, and the continued uncertainty around the trajectory. as it pertains to the new technologies, there is a few thegs continuing to be at center of the debate, and one is the science and we will hear more about the ability to generate safety, thermal stability and related to that, the ethical challenges in terms of what types of field trials will be possible, and what sort of access will be possible. of discussion around delivery, manufacturing

.tockpile, cold change a lot around coordination. so many moving parts we see here today, and the question of how to coordinate those. who will be at the center of the effort? who inexpensively should carry the responsibility and has in certain moments to carry the water but operates with diminished capacity. there is a question that about how to build it back in a more effective way to be relevant. thinking ahead strategically, we will hear more about that today. we need to be thinking about a second generation, greater thermal stability and fewer doses and sustained funding. care -- take take care today to take stock of what has happened in the past few

there a busy month and look ahead optimistically and realistically to what may unfold in 2015. i am convinced 2015 has considerable promise to be a trialsed, not without and difficulties. so we will begin with a sequence of opening remarks. followed by johnson & johnson and julie gerberding. bios.ve their i have introduced them briefly. i will not go into great debt. these be patient. hourafter, we will have a for conversation. they will close at 5:00, a conversation among the group" opens eu and please come forward. there will be folks with microphones. orwill bundle together three

four comments or questions at a time and come back to the speakers. please identify yourself and keep interventions various of synced. -- the sink. i would like tony to come forward and roll through his presentation. thank you very much. >> is it just the next one jack ?ro >> ok. we sent the slide. you wouldhat, ok, so

at least have them. that is what i get to do. >> we received them. glitch, weeen some will work that through momentarily. >> why don't i just start without them. this will go to show you i do not really need them. take 10 or 12 minutes and i am going to outline for you just to set the stage. ofst of all, the seriousness the epidemic come out right now as you all know the history started with a single case in guinea, under the radar screen for a few months until march when in earnest the three borders of sierra leone, new guinea and liberia made it for what i have spoken about, written about as the perfect

storm of so many reasons. explosivet we have an -- epidemic that is more out of control in this history of this particular micro, virus. we had a total of 2400 people affected. 18,000 infections and 7-8000 deaths now, which is likely somewhat of a modest undercount, this pandemic or things in africa in general has really been extraordinary in that it is more than anything we have seen combined over that time. now the effort that have

contained these other outbreaks varietyast have been a of things that are essentially fundamental good infrastructure, good response, good ability to identify, isolate, contact trace and protect health care workers. this was not easy, but relatively easy when one thinks of the fact that in terms of you have very few situations of traveling back and forth. if you look at the original the outbreak of the democratic of the congo, they were all ultimately controlled. something that we're making progress because when one looks at liberia from a variety

of governments, the united states has been heavily involved in liberia, the u.k. and the sierra leone, and there have been a variety of agencies involved, things like safe burials,etc. -- safe etc. here we go. so this is where it started. thank you. so it started here. in july things really got bad. in september and october my life changed and turned into medicine, which translates to getting no sleep when you are involved in a very intense situation. the november and december. here is what we are seeing right now with the sierra leone cases

essentially overtaking considerably the cases in liberia. i mentioned the public health responses that were involved in keeping these things in the affected countries under control. everything without looking at things like ebola-specific there appear to ask and certainly not a vaccine, education, hygienic cactuses, a aggressive supportive care, i mentioned the united states getting involved with the construction of the bullet treatment units, the playing a of defense major role when the president brought in the ability to do the engineering, command the control veryhe setup became important. the cdc did an unprecedented job with usaid in a number of people they have deployed to the area so an external area effort.

however, we are asking the , in that well we need interventions in the form invaccines forth therapeutic the current outbreak that is entirely possible because until you completely snuffed out every case in west africa as we know , until all of the embers are out, there is always a threat of an outbreak. we have seen that and know it is very important. vaccine to put down this epidemic, and even if we don't get one in time or do not prove it is effective, will we need it? the inevitable outbreaks occurring. why am i telling the audience this, because it will be very whether the know

vaccine works, because the things you do not want to do is deploy the vaccine that may be harmful or you may assume works and then the next epidemic you have a problem. that will be the tension i hope we get a chance to discuss about the design of a vaccine trial. is thing a vaccine that already in phase one or phase three. would make it 2.5 or three. three you will hear about, not that they are any less in quality because we do not know about quality. they have not yet gone into phase one trial. get -- get asked, is this the prioritization of the vaccine? yes and no. trialg it into a finance

but not necessarily predictive on whether it will be better, which is why at a meeting at the we movedther day, strongly for many candidates to be in play of the same time. let's focus very briefly on the two most advanced, and that is is airst vaccine, which champ vector into which we inserted the gene of the glycoprotein. this has gone to phase one trial. chimpanzee studies have indicated a very favorable protection using this particular candidate. that is good news. phase one was relatively uneventful. we did it right there at the nih.

tested.een and alsois in the u.k. tested in africa in mali and other african countries. this was a medical paper that came out literally a couple of weeks ago that we are now setting up for testing again in the advance trial using this. is the virus into which has been inserted the ebola glycoprotein gene. fully enrolled. this in collaboration with the department of defense. we're doing it at the nih. the united states army again. now in collaboration also with

merck. new rank company is the company evolved and originated in the public health company of canada. d.o.t. and mh id and public phase trials enrolled. hold because of arthritis. people get confused about that. there were four individuals with what was clear info -- inflammation. does not mean it was a vaccine by any means. significant proportion of people. the question is, what will that mean, and that is why your phase one trials, so you can investigate that pretty usually. are too.sed task

this has been in very close collaboration with the library and department of health officials, the plan of a randomized double-blind trial in liberia and a step-wedged trial in sierra leone with at least and possibly one or maybe two in sierra lyons. we are working with the cdc to talk about that. i want people to really appreciate none of these have been shown to be affected. they have been given on compassion use and we do not know if any of them work. way theyigure out a may work or not but we'll never know whether they work or not. we will never get the chance to discuss the distribution in which not everyone gets a distribution. different when dealing with the vaccine you are giving to an

absolutely healthy percent, compared to therapeutic when you are giving it to someone that maybe drastically scale -- ill. when you think about the design of trial, that is why the discussion is a bit different. it has been given to people on compassionate use. they are a phase one trial ongoing. analog,the nucleus which protects monkeys against ebola. developed for other viruses but shows to have activity against ebola that has now been used with malvern but not yet with ebola. --s is an intimidator inhibitor that protects mice.

the reason i am showing this, you can argue there is potential. use in acompassionate phase one trial, does not mean they work. the critical need is to balance therapeutic with a desperately ill percent and the need to show it works. the other is convalescent plasma. first trials have been kicked off just a couple of days ago in new guinea and sierra leone, which will be determining whether the antibodies in a person with plasma would be dissected. inhave begun with people emery, as well as nebraska, and -- and adaptive travel designed to take a look at the couple of therapeutics with the design

being enhanced care. fluid and electrolyte balance. it is not a placebo because it is different in which a situation in which you are given a vaccine. i will stop there and handed over. i was in my 12 minutes. [applause] >> thank you very much, tony. i am sorry for the glitch. also on the supply, manufacturing supply of approved vaccines in a partnership.

and we're very happy to be part of these endeavors and ebola outbreaks. team and whatnih you are doing and driving the community to participate getting in the tragic situations. and the impact not only on western african cultures but on a worldwide basis. to talk would like about three things. one is the program. two is key enablers that have been and are very important in helping us. the other is to get incentivize and participate in the effort. share some learning on how we can better be prepared in the future to situations like these.

in terms of the status that has been completed and the data has been published, i think they're satisfactory in the safety and the response of use. we also have three fully enrolled phase one studies being conducted in the u.k.. data including the immune responses will be available the second week of january. i say this with precision because the perspective is we need to integrate the trials to help them decide the best storage to use in the phase three trials. start tore planning to includingafrica, one almost 3000 subjects and one in the children involving data.

they will also start around the middle of january. and to phase three trials, one where we have a commitment to the nih to participate in the trial design that was briefly described and potentially participate in the cdc trial in sierra leone. those are the trials we have planned. also collaboration and discussion with j&j to see how we can not only have a good vaccine that can protect the short term but the same protection over the long-range by providing a booster vaccine the j&jning our vaccine is developing. quite the comprehensive effort that should deliver data and information on the effectiveness of the vaccine before the middle of the year. if all goes well and the trials

as we hopefully will -- they will, then we would like the best to keep them together. during the trial, it cannot happen unless you manufacture the vaccine. over the past four months we have dedicated enormous we takes to make sure this process to manufacture the where we canlevel start producing a large amount of the vaccine. we are planning to release this before the end of the year. and then we will continue to produce these to the tens of thousands. this will grow to the hundreds of thousands.

participate into the destination programs if they are to be important. and this will continue to face us and the production of the vaccine. and the conditions required for the vaccine are very challenging to achieve without derailing other vaccines that are very important and established vaccines or others. partnerships as you have alluded to the regulatory agencies to ensure we have the highest standards, at the same time the fastest possible track to the release of the vaccine and making them available for usage. of the on the status vaccine. on the enablers, two very

important points. first, this would not have been possible for anyone the vaccines without being developed without partnership, whether it is ,artnership with nih partnership with the pharmaceutical companies. i think it is really key at the director meeting that the company here has really worked together toward achieving. that is one. i think the second thing that is really important is to think forward about access and making the vaccines available. i think the third i mentioned has been the critical meeting that took place at who.

this is very difficult to have that many countries come to a singular conclusion. mark was there. many countries. than two. was more they have been outlined in the right direction. enablers and simple one. there is liability and immunity for all of the stakeholders involved in this and other. part of my concern is when the vaccine is introduced, whether in clinical trial or mass vaccinations in a country where many diseases exist, malaria, rotavirus -- you name it, number

of virus infections, it has happened in the population. it would happen with any vaccine. how are we going to be decipher which of these are immunizations and which are the backgrounds is a major focus that we need to have on sequences around the ability to really tackle. extend theision to prep asked to the ebola vaccine is very important to the countriesand all the to materialize and take such action. >> delivering briefly on the future perspective, this is in the past four or five years, the

thought at least, major violent threat, the pandemic stars, anthrax, ebola. every time the community is taken by surprise where we have whether itesources is discovering vaccines or manufacturing vaccines. to do on the emergency situation. manufacturing vaccines work celebrate like we do here dramatically the development of the vaccine. we think, and we are discussing with various parties, that we should have a more active approach to this. we should set out to have an organization and infrastructure prepared that can be

various technologies for immunization and vaccination to be highly accelerated for a .articular mean when unfortunately the need arises. this is various existing routes of potential threats. having the ability to manufacture them. abouting to be cautious the opportunity these events represent for the industry. this is also very important for public health. in other instances our companies are 100% committed to making the vaccine available to work with all of the stakeholders, all of the companies.

investmentreturn of but assuming a shared responsibility. will be able to combat this and future outbreaks. >> thank you. in the you are boundaries. this one. >> ok. >> thank you very much. i am very pleased to be here today to get you an update on the vaccine. echo whatuld like to was said. that throughear this devastating disease, i really see a lot more secrecy and working -- across -- working together across shareholders.

we really want to join efforts to make this successful. without all of the stakeholders joining efforts, we would not have been able to be where we are today. johnson & johnson is a global health care company. this is a powerful crisis and this allows the mission of mobile families for organization, we really wanted to have the ability and know-how internally to fight the disease. today i will focus on vaccines, and also we have heavy investing in the idea of developing treatment, looking at the objective of the files and in terms of diagnostic. trials thate are 60 will be important to have diagnostics that allow you within maintenance to know the

patient you are confronted with and fight the ebola virus or not. active.e very beyond that, very active in the effort and have for several ngos. when we look to the vaccine, and as was mentioned before, we have been working on this. over the years we have been working several generations of vaccines, and we actually adjusted the vaccination schedule that was shown to be 100% protected. what you see here is actually there were three vaccination regimens that turned out to be 100% protected.

one of the platforms we have fully in-house, the other was the nda or boosting vice versa. see below, they are alive today. in view of the emergency, we decided that we really wanted accelerated development. we knew very clearly that if we were focused on single data vaccine, the ebola strain, that it would go fast. in addition by our self focusing on one of the vaccines and seeking a department that could use another one, we felt we could shorten the timeline sickness the cantley, and that is indeed what we have achieved.

have is theally vaccination schedule itself imposed of two doses. one being given with an additive factor in the boost. you also needis optimal best protection and protection you can get for prime dose and a booster dose. useof this is a platform we and the bolt have been used extensively in the clinic but also commercial products. this is useful and there are more than 7000 subjects vaccinated today. safety profile, and also, other factors have shown to be well tolerated in the different programs we have today , tuberculosis, and malaria. we actually select the dose. based on past experience

is known to get immunity. we will have to do this once we conduct the trial with the specific insert. one partnership we see in this is the work we have invested over the past years has helped to optimize the manufacturing process. just to give you an example, two times in the latest. this is at least 150,000 doses. so we already have a substantial amount of vaccines in the freezer that can be released by march of next year. production is ongoing as a fake. expert in line with haitians, such as we are confident we will be able to release 500,000 doses by early march of next year. also is the aspect formulation work has been

conducted for the vaccine in the ,ast, and i guess -- and yet the data using the platform, we have seen this table. this to a degree and nba's up to one year. logistically we will be allowed to dispatch the vaccine and a frozen way that locally could be using the classical distribution channels for the vaccines that already have to be in an increase. schematicst as scheme for how it looks. the important factor is the boost. one reason is that you avoid muchity, but certainly more complex immune system behind it to bring the benefit. where we are today is we actually and coincidentally also

december 23 next week, and we ,re in discussions in oxford and we really want to have the generally.nt dosed everything is aligned to make it happen, and we will accelerate the weed out of those. the data should become available some time by mitch february so that we can start thinking around participating to allow us to fix it. with regard to production, the government thinking implants are to produce a million doses next year but recent evaluation and based on recent yield if need we dosesgrow up 5 million which would be more in the order to the of 20 million. that is actually what pfizer wanted to say. i would like us to add as most of us indicated, we will present

that we should go beyond the borders of companies here and should work together with all stakeholders to be successful, and also hope when i see how the partnership for stakeholders works now and how it has helped it also teaches us a lesson going forward that we can compete in other areas. thank you. >> thank you. [applause] >> julie gerberding, president of merck vaccines. you for you and thank hosting this and my coat analyst for the contributions and partnerships as we try to work through this. i thought what we would try to do is put more contact around the things we were talking about as we open this up for conversation. i reflect onings

is that this is a project to both the prize. this is not predictable disease. it emanated with probably bats that harbored the virus and it spilled over to other species. sometimes directly into people. we have known about this system for a long time. we did not know it had reached the west coast of africa in quite the way it did, but it is there now and no reason to believe we will not see this again, so we have to be fully prepared for the possibility that even if we are able to quench the particular outbreak, that this is not the last time with ebola. i think it is very important to have the longer-term perspective on what lies ahead of us with respect to the diseases and this one in particular.

to think about the issue of plausibility. from emory -- everything you have heard and everything in the pre-with -- preclinical and early studies going on, creating a vaccine is biologically plausible. that gives me a great deal of optimism that even the 1.0 vaccines we're working on today do not prove to be the best vaccine or ultimate, we need to it isoing, because plausible to develop a safe and the vaccine that can prevent infections either pre-or post exposure come and that is something we need to stay the course to stick to insult. with respect to the vaccine merck is partnering with, these are early days. this is a virus that is designed so there are active cycles of replication of the vaccine but your when it is in the human

host and that has the advantage for prompting a robust immune system fast. we have to watch carefully for side effects. was particular worrisome but that is why we do studies and phase one and phase two studies so we are alert to things that could signal something that would harbinger -- be a harbinger of more serious issues down the road. i think we also anticipate the creation of a solution will have to be pragmatic. lives are at stake today while we're sitting here having the scientific conversation, and we cannot move at the pace we are used to moving at. to speak to myow colleagues in the other are anturing, but the us incredible disruptor of business as usual, because we have to be pragmatic.

we cannot take conference calls on.meetings and on and we cannot do things in series, we have to do them in parallel. we have to be willing to work faster. mobilize more people. inside the company let alone what is going on with incredible partnerships we are experiencing outside the country. i think you said it really well about the disturbance of other important pharmaceutical work that would otherwise be going on. this insights the passion of people in the vaccine business. we are passionate about this. we know we have something to contribute to know we cannot do it alone. full are leaning into the opportunity to be a part of the process. at the same time we did not

budget for this, we do not structure our company for this. as a suddenong requirement and we have to step up to the plate and do our share but comes at an opportunity cost that is something we feel we have concerns about. does not change our commitment but something we have to factor into it. something we need to plan better for into the future. facing isenge we are also about unprecedented partnership that i think we are always talking about private partnerships and a buzzword. there are very special partnerships going on here. is the partnership between people that are aaditionally competitors, but much more robust that a partnerships happening between pete all who may share a broad agenda, but who are not used to

working for each other. the transnational government partnership coming even in the u.s. government, the incredible partnership inspired at the leadership with the nih, cdc. how wonderful this is. already making a wonderful relist -- commitment to make sure this will be available to the people who need it most by creating a macro investment commitment to bring it forward. the beauty is underlying this kind of glaring public health requirement is the trust that has been developed the past several years as we work together on other problems, so we have developed an understanding of how we work and who has been under state -- mistake and what and who is able to build on this and the partnerships even when there is

enormous uncertainty about where this will land and where we will ultimately wind up. the last thing was poignancy. the fact that this is 18,000 people who have had ebola, about 35% are no longer with us but also the way in which they live and share their lives and families and memories and loved ones, people who have suffered from the tragic outbreak in the poignancy of being where we are today in the context of a predictable surprise and not being able to do more faster to really contain the outbreak. and make their lives more secure and reduce the incredible human suffering that surrounds us, not just for the directly affected people but the people in the community who did not have health services and whose lives have been so disrupted and

economies and potentially democracies will be so disruptive. the other poignancy to me, and because i do not work for the government anymore i can say of havinghe poignancy been here and done this before. we do not have to keep reinventing the wheel. how many sars outbreaks we need to have? how many public health infectious disease outbreaks on a global scale to we need to experience before we recognize we cannot have an off-topic response. we need a sustained commitment and have to stick with it, even problem wasr the goes away. to me, that is the ultimate poignancy and i really share with you your final or marks about we need to lean into the future here, create new avenues, be tools, partnerships to

able to sustain the effort over the long run, because i do not want to sit on the panel like this again, as much as i have enjoyed it. thank you. i thank you. very elegant. >> i really appreciate being invited to join the panel today. the medical frontier has been responding to the outbreak since the start. for more resources, especially in terms of teams and infrastructure. very early on we realized as we often do with the emergencies that we simply do not have the tools we need. so we have taken a pragmatic approach to deal with the outbreak in a way that health and the affected communities can get the best outcomes. quickly to talk about some of the things we're doing through trials. we will launch at least two of the trials before christmas this

year for some of the drugs that tony has had to put on this line. we also will run a third trial using convalescent plasma. this was based upon whatever safety nets and data we have and the supply one thing that i have been involved in is to ensure that we can use of these drugs for compassionate use for other patients. we don't want to have eitherntial outcomes within the trial or within the community. we are certainly also concerned about the issues if a trial proves to be successful that we can continue to ensure that it is viable for the patients.