2 testsection to test -- the court laid out. judge wynn: my understanding is helpful, to specifically indicate the claim that you are talking about. are you talking about section two results, or the general claim? i get your point in terms of the overall view. in terms of the analysis that we take here and what was presented on the other side, at least from my perspective, to get the position on those. mr. farr: yes sir, your honor. i am talking about the section two claimant this point. judge wynn: you're talking about section two results? if i get to that, i will talk about your but i think

if you read the brief, there has been no case issue by any court with facts similar to what we have found by judge schrader that was found guilty of intentional discrimination. the court found that the legislature followed its procedures. the court found the legislature excepted minutes fairly significant one related to establishing a benchmark for the number of hours that can be used for early voting. the court found that the general assembly adopted a two-year roll up. -- rollout period recommended by that president carter have proposed. the court found the general assembly mandated an extensive educational campaign. and other findings related to the argument with the 14th amendment or section two,

vcmpare this case to the case where i do not think that the facts were favorable to the state as they are here in the north carolina case. for example, the texas statute charged a fee for the federal id when it was enacted. and despite having a less favorable record for the state, even the panel was found that the texas id was illegal overruled the lower court's findings that texas had been guilty of intentional discrimination. here we have a more favorable record for the state and we have detailed factual findings by the district court that intention of discrimination did -- intentional discrimination did not take place. i think it is clear that the judge's findings on unintentional discrimination are not clearly erroneous. judge wynn: i get your point. i agree, i think the similarities from section two and intentional determination

with 14 is similar there. and section two as a result. in terms of intentional discrimination, there are some facts here that bear at least some, in terms of the timing of the enactment of the expanded bill on the same day that the shelby case came down in terms of some of the comments previous to that in terms of evidence that was presented, why this was presented, for purposes of intentional this commission, -- discrimination. would you adjust those? -- address those? mr. farr: my first reaction is that the court analyzed these facts and did not find them persuasive as a matter of factual findings of the issue of intentional discrimination. i think that the court may be referring to the statement by one legislator, no doubt and -- a discriminate one, and senator abbott dhaka the said we can go forward with this full

bill. i would refer you to the d.c. court where they go into detail saying, relying upon the statement of one senator to find intentional discrimination by an entire general assembly is a very slim read to rest a faster finding on. -- rest your finding on. however, your honor, if senator apodoca had given counsel, why would it not be prudent to agency with the supreme court was going to do with the shelby case before deciding how to move forward with legislation. one thing i point out is almost all of the provisions that have been challenged in this case have been filed previously, it was not like they just dreamed them up after shelby county was issued. judge wynn: let me ask you a question because this is somewhat muddled. you are dealing with a case and certainly politics can be the basis for you moving forward on

it. in the intent of this termination case id maintain that the state can use race as a basis for effectuating a partisan goal? that is to increase the representation of one or the race being the basis , of it, knowing that a particular minority vote, group vote a certain way, in an effort to suppress that vote, and if the partisan advantage is aces -- basis for them doing it. not the race, is that legitimate? mr. farr: it may be, but we have not made the argument. the cases you are referring to , and even i have had this discussion recently in a case where the court found that the district was not racially gerrymandering. judge wynn: that is why i brought up gerrymandering, so that we can differentiate between gerrymandering. my question goes to buy the maybe argument or not but i think something is there at

least, i feel something is there that the question comes up, at least from the plaintiff perspective, that race was used here as a basis for suppressing and minority vote that you knew would vote heavily, democratic in this instant. is that a legitimate basis on an analysis of intentional discrimination of the 14th amendment, section two? mr. farr: my honor -- your honor my answer to that question, it , -- is that the state did not make that argument. i want to point out that in this case the plaintiffs have quoted , and i thinkision justice kennedy said there was a troubling mix between race and politics. lulac was a vote dilution case. judge wynn: i want to make sure that i got a question. i am not saying that you made the argument. i am saying of the plaintiff makes an allegation that race was used in this instance, the

basis to effectuate a partisan goal, is that -- what is your argument to that? what is your statement to that? this is not your case, you are defending it. i'm asking what is your reaction? mr. farr: my reaction is the evidence does not show that that happened and the district court found that that did not happen. judge floyd: there is more compelling language in lulac and what you just disclosed. undermining the progress of a racial group that has been under discrimination and has become increasingly clinically active in cohesive, there is a warrant for potential discrimination. mr. farr: i am unaware of that language. that language was brought up in the context of a vote dilution claim where there was injury to the plaintiff's because they had

preconditions. they shown that they were a compact, and minority population sufficient to be a majority and a single-member district and they could not elect candidates of choice without -- because of racially polarized voting. that language you quoted would not in relative if they had not established that they had been injured by the districting plan, because of the preconditions. that is where that comment came from and it must be viewed in context. judge wynn: what is the point you are making regarding vote dilution. i am trying to understand it. you can help me with it. thoughi understand it, dilution is still under section mr. farr: yes, but it goes to whether there is injury, your honor. judge wynn: it is the same provision. mr. farr: but in the lulac case were the statements were made, the plaintiff showed they had been injured. here, there is no injury. this goes back to the section

two result test. you redirect to judge schroeder, law had ae discriminatory burden needs members of opportunity and members of, other members participate in the process and elect candidate of their choice. if you read the briefs that the other side has filed, they drop from their citation to your -- of your text the phrase "less opportunity than other members to participate in the political process" don't get to the jingles factors are the societal conditions part of your second test until the plaintiff proves the first part, which is that the challenged election process imposes a burden that results in less opportunity for members of the protected class. and judge schroeder applied

that tested made detailed findings that plaintiffs had failed to carry their burden. in a section two results test, your submission is that you have to demonstrate more burden than you would, section two intent case for example. a pre-constitutional case, because tied into -- you do not have that direct evidence and you need the indirect evidence. isn't that your submission? mr. farr: no, your honor. i strongly denied that the general assembly engages in intentional discrimination. even in an intentional discrimination case, you have to prove injury. judge motz: i understand it but you need to prove that the injury elements is stronger when you have a result test and you are trying to prove the results test. it has to be stronger or maybe , you do not think it does.

but i thought that was part of what you are saying, otherwise you are saying you can result here when you're talking about injury and the injury you have to show in a result test has to be stronger because you cannot point to this in the results test evidence of termination. -- discrimination. mr. farr: i have to apologize in answering this question, because there is not a lot of guidance by the supreme court on these vote denial cases. the best thing -- cases. judge motz: believe me we are , aware of that. [laughter] mr. farr: so what we can only do is look at the vote issue in the case and see what we can discern from vote dilution cases. you still have to prove discriminatory results. if you go back to the city noble case, but you have to prove purposeful discrimination. mr. farr: i was just trying to line up. if it was exactly the same, you

would never have -- there would not be any difference to them. mr. farr: i think the difference would be for the 14th amendment, section two, intentional dissemination claim, they've have to prove purposeful discrimination claim. for the section to results claim, you only need to prove the results. judge motz: why would you ever do an intentional discrimination claim? you would always go to the results claim. mr. farr: not if you would want to do what only happened once in the country, working on the back, but effective preclearance requirement of the plaintiffs are seeking in this case. they don't get that simply by proving the results claim. they need to prove an intentional dissemination claim to put north carolina back under the supervision of the district court where they would be flexibly be in a preclearance situation again. that is the reason why the plaintiffs brought it. mr. farr: judge motz: i understand why you

think they brought it. what i am trying to do is see why congress would enact it and i do not think they would have enacted a statute in which they were exactly the same elements except you had to prove annexed -- an extra thing with one. it doesn't make any sense. in other words i was trying to -- mr. farr: i apologize if i am not clarifying this as well as perhaps it might. i would say in an intentional discrimination case you don't prove purposeful discrimination plus injury. i was saying is you have to show more injury for the impact if you're doing other section two claim. i would have thought that would be the argument. mr. farr: that sounds plausible to me. [laughter] judge motz: i need better than plausible. mr. farr: then i would defer to the words, the court cost interposition on the issue. judge wynn: i understand what you are saying is potential

discrimination is injury. purposeful to dissemination injury. you have to show injury. the question she is posing as what is the difference if you don't have two different claims? mr. farr: the lifting i can say is if you prove purposeful discrimination that puts you in line to get his other remedy no longer aate is preclearance obligation to the district court. that is the benefit to the plaintiffs for purposeful dissemination. and i would say that there is precious few cases where purposeful discrimination has has -- has been found by district court in these types of cases. much less where the district court has found where there is not purposeful discrimination relying upon extensive factual findings, that it would be reversed by the appellate court.

intentional discrimination is the quintessential issue of fact and that relies upon the credibility of the witnesses. judge motz: i agree with you on all that. ok. mr. farr: i apologize if i did not answer the question. judge floyd: for this record, if you had evidence there was a surge in african-american registration 10 years prior and laws changed and they claimed that they were adversely affecting them which would , protect your own political interests. it means in this case that the republican party got control of the house and senate and the governorship, and the opportunity came to change those pretty liberal voter

registration provisions in shelby and it was the same day shelby was decided. it looks pretty bad to me in terms of purposeful discrimination. mr. farr: your honor, i hope that i can persuade you that it thing. a nefarious certainly judge schroeder found it was not. and there are couple of premises in your question that i need to challenge. there is a correlation between same-day registration and 17 days of early voting and out of precinct voting and preregistration and an increase in the black registration rate in terms of 2008 and 2012 elections. i have never been a trial where there are more experts, they came from m.i.t., harvard, every university in the country.

in all these zealots have one -- done with a call a cross state analysis where they showed the , increase in registration. none of them, and they have all done them, at the primary injection stage, none of them done a cross state analysis to try to determine if these practices an increase in registration. thatwere all put on notice there were states like north carolina, has -- such as virginia where the black registration rate went up in virginia did not have same-day registration, precinct voting and early voting. it was our contention of the preliminary injunction states that they had failed to prove any causal link between these repeal practices and the

increase in participation by african-americans. then we went to trial. and we had the benefit of the 2014 election. the plaintiffs said, you cannot use that election but it was the only election we had. after we had the 2014 election, -- judge floyd: is it something you can rely upon? i understand this gets intertwined we talk about results. but we are kind to going back and forth. i think the question going back to judge floyd's initial question, but the legal issue deals with the arlington heights standard and the question whether this record applies the did you play, or correctly to rational basis review. what is your reaction on that? mr. farr: he went down all the

arlington heights factors and he relied upon the facts to conclude there was no purposeful dissemination. judge wynn: video play voter standards to arlington heights? mr. farr: i'm not sure what he means by motor standard. judge wynn: was there a basis review? tell me the standard he applied? mr. farr: in the intentional discrimination claims he followed arlington heights. judge wynn: what is that standard? mr. farr: he looked at did they follow the normal procedures, which they did. despite the arguments that were made, that they did not follow their own they adopted , amendments that softened the elected -- alleged impact on the protect group. they adopted a significant minute proposed by democratic he -- theein where original bill dropped a number

of days from 17 to 10. founde as judge schroeder under the prior law, there had , been gamesmanship about the location of the early voting sites. they were placed in areas that favored democratic voters and judge schroeder mandate -- made a factual finding on that. the reason why the legislature cut the days was they wanted to have equal treatment in all counties, but early voting centers, saint-day, same judge hours. wynn: isn't that closer to a rational basis type review as , opposed to the actual motive review, engaging in actual motives under the arlington heights standard? mr. farr: with due respect of think the rational basis issue is a completely different question. judge wynn: that is what i need. i need you to articulate. i am not trying to make the case one way or another. but that i think is critical,

incredible determination is what did the judge do in applying the law? if he didn't apply the law correctly then we have a , problem. a problem outside of one of the fax with clear error. my question to you is addressed the standard of review because it does seem to meet that it is more in a rational basis review. and if it was, what does that tell me? was applying rational basis review, would that have been or was it correct? mr. farr: i think it's a different question. judge wynn: let me ask that question. maybe i'm not asking my question. my question is, what would be correct in assuming that the, to the trial court to apply a rational basis review? mr. farr: it would have been

proper for him to look at issues like that when he got to the arlington heights factor about tenuous this of the policy behind the statute. that is about fifth on the list. judge wynn: would it have been proper for him to apply rational basis review? mr. farr: it would have been proper -- rational basis goes to win you analyze a statute that is not impacting the suspect class. under arlington heights, the issue is where the rational reasons for the legislature's decision. in fact, your honor, they did articulate rational reasons for the decision in the legislative history. for example, for early voting. i've already talked about that. they decided that they were unhappy with the gamesmanship that was being done by less of -- less than majority votes by

, the county board of elections and the state board of election as far as early voting sites. so they decided they wanted to have all sites in a single county treated the same way and they wanted the days reduced to , reduce potential for gamesmanship. then senator stein offered an amendment suggesting that despite the reduction of days of early voting, that each county be required to keep the same number of hours that they had use of the most analogous recent election. in 2014, they had to use at least the same hours the county had used in 2010. 2012, same number as 2016. this required and will require that the county boards open up more sites, extend the evening hours, extend weekend hours. judge motz: but there is a

waiver provision? mr. farr: there is. but unlike the prior system, where whoever was the majority on the county boards could dictate what the plans would be. under the new system, it required a unanimous vote. north carolina has two republicans and one democrat on the county board of elections, they have three republicans and two democrats on the state board of elections. the county board cannot reduce the number of hours unless all three county borders agree in all five of the state board members agreed. judge motz: there is a county board for each county in 100 counties? and they are all aligned that way? mr. farr: yes. judge motz: two republicans and one democrat? mr. farr: the governor decided to his in the majority. judge motz: two republicans and one democrat now.

mr. farr: right. for the benefit of the public, when there was a democratic governor, that governor decided. judge motz: maryland has something similar. judge wynn: why did this statute specifically exclude public id? mr. farr: your honor, i can't really answer that question. judge wynn: i'm getting more back to the intentional discrimination aspect of it. we know that those are typically used more by minorities and others. if you do not know, you do not know. judge schroeder did not give an answer either and i thought maybe you might give me one today as the white he would exclude public system ids from the road -- the legislator. mr. farr: i have to confess, i do not know if that was suggested to anybody. it may have been. i don't know. judge wynn: suggested it was excluded? it was clearly excluded. mr. farr: i am sure that the

plaintiff's counsel will say so when they have rebuttal. judge wynn: i thought they were excluded. mr. farr: yes, your honor, but i don't know if there was a vote to recommend the statute to allow public assistance ids. judge wynn: i don't want to be argumentative. the question is not, why did you put it back in. the question is why did you take it out? that is my question. mr. farr: it was reason for them to get most of the responsibility for the creation of ideas to the department of motor vehicles, which had offices all over the state for people to go get an idea. -- id. for all this bashing of the division of motor vehicles throughout this case, and the facts -- judge wynn: i want to deal with the division of motor vehicles. in an acting the statute to the legislature specifically request

racial data? mr. farr: yes, your honor. judge wynn: you don't ask me questions. i understand. we've been together a long time. let's keep it the way we are. i'm asking a question. i will live with what you give me. my question is simply we know that racial data information was requested as part of the issue. the legislature did so knowing how it would affect minority voters. i simply ask you to respond to that? mr. farr: i would say it would be not prudent not to ask for that data knowing that these laws could be subject at the time of the day was passed. the state was under section five, but even after section five went away, it was under section two, so it would be only

prudent for the legislature to ask for that information. in fact, judge schroeder asked the justice department of one of our hearings if it would be worse or better for the state of north carolina not to ask for that data and the justice department said they could not answer the question. we don't know if the answer is. so if you are concerned about complying with the laws and we laws that prohibit discrimination against minorities it is prudent to find , out some degree of what the racial demographics are. judge wynn: and if that democratic information -- you may have legitimate reason for asking for it, but once you have it that information informs you certain patterns of behavior. the early voting is more likely to be used by african-american in the first week, for example. or voter id's more likely not to be possessed by them, or out of precinct voting maybe used because of lack of transportation because, is that

the type of information, my question is, that the legislature had before it before everycted -- mr. farr: case, whether it's intentional discrimination of section two or section five, every court has said evidence of disparity does not prove anything. so, that is the first point. secondly, there is no evidence, is onenor -- judge wynn: of those every courts the united states supreme court? mr. farr: absolutely. it with the alleged disparate use of a practice. judge wynn: i'm trying to get to before the evidence

legislature before it enacted, or whether in informed the decision or not, i don't know. it could go either way. i just want to know at the time it enacted this, did it have this information sort of by an example, information that the use of these particular procedures was higher in a minority community than they were in nonminority? they had your honor, knowledge that the state board of elections report indicated they were unable to match african-americans at the same rate as whites. there is no indication they did not possess photo id, just that they could not match them. the state board of elections said the report was inflated because there were also problems associated with national therts, and in fact, evidence shows that it was inflated. the state took that information

and they adopted a two-year riod before they decided to enforce to id and they found an unprecedented educational campaign to try to educate people on photo id and get them a photo id. the got the information and took appropriate deaths to try to do something about it. judge wynn: thank you. mr. farr: thank you. >> thank you, my honor. i amt please the court, alexander peters of the north carolina attorney general's office. i think it might be simpler conceptually -- what i want to the court is aware of -- the general election is 20 weeks from today. i want to make sure the court is aware of what will happen in those 20 weeks. i think it might

be simpler if i take it by each of the mechanisms we are talking about, pre-registrations, out of precinct procedural voting, voter id, and early voting area what the counsel for the said is partially right, but partially correct. the plaintiffs do not administer elections, so it would be understandable they don't have quite the information. when it comes to preregistration, same day registration, out of precinct balloting, voter id, all of those things are handled in the state election information management system suite of applications. there is testimony about that in the record below. be in place in the form it is going to be used prior to the beginning of absentee voting at the beginning

of september. it has to look like what it is going to look like a early two late -- a early to late august. there are a number of tests and mock elections that have to be run to make sure everything is working properly and it's going to do what it is supposed to do on election day. we are at the point where it is very difficult, if not impossible, to start recoding new information into four to into seims in- order for to work for the general election. judge motz: so there is no point in us issuing an opinion at all? mr. peters: no, that is not wine

saying. it is too late to have seims setup up to deal with preregistration and have it in place higher to the beginning of september, which is when it would need to be an place. for the purposes of that, this election, that doesn't have the effect it might seem, because onone who would the 18 november 8 can register now. so, the fact that there is not preregistration built into the system at this point would not prevent anyone who will be 18 at the time of the election to register, if they haven't already, because they may have registered to vote in the primaries. judge wynn: i'm thinking preregistration is something you have to do in addition to what you have done -- what you are it he have. it seems that they are already there -- it may be easier to subtract event to add. same-days:

registration because of this court's order that those are to stay in place pending a decision of this court, same-day registration and out of precinct provisional voting are already in seims. seims can handle them and will handle them. the same thing with voter id. the ideal would the, if we were not going to have any of those things, would be to pull them out of the system, but you can't messingwithout risking up other things you don't intend to mess up. so what the state board would have to do if the court were to issue a decision that either said no same-day registration in november, no out of precinct november,l voting in state no photo id -- the board would have to make sure

not toe county boards no use those in november -- know not to use those in november. county board members and states, county elections officials are expected to attend training, the training that they use to train workers in the counties. that training is set and has been set for months for august 8 and night, which is seven weeks from yesterday -- august 8 and august 9, which is seven weeks from yesterday. that is when county elections officials will be trained of what the rules are for the election and given the materials to take to their counties and use for training. if any changes are made after that date, then it becomes an issue, not just of educating people what the rules are, but people.ting all --

it's not what you have already been told. it is going to be this. it also means redoing -- there is testimony and evidence in the trial court about what is called the station guide. that is the big resource manual, essentially that every poll worker has in their station do their work. redesignedhave to be for accurate information to be available to county poll workers. judge motz: what does it currently now say? currently these motions are joined? mr. peters: currently it tells them how to do -- how to implement photo id, how to do same-day registration and how to do out of precinct voting, because those things are all in place for this election as it stands now.

so, it seems to me it would be pretty easy to strike those -- i used to represent election boards in my youth. id --ters: four voter four voter id becomes much harder. there are so many aspects in terms of the process coming in. i would point out that videos and the like have been prepared. the bottom line is, if we want to make sure the elections are implemented uniformly and county elections have the best information available to them, really, the state board would

need to know what changes need advance,e well in weeks or months in advance of the training, so they could make sure that all of the training materials are accurate. counsel also mentioned the voter guide that goes out to every household in north carolina 4.5 -- under thet contract with the vendor printing that guide, it has to be at the vendor, at the printer by august 5. again, we are talking about in early august date, by which things will be going to print. county board officials will be educated in terms of what the rules are for the elections. if we get after that point -- it becomes an issue of reeducation with regard to the rules.

with regard to early voting, it's important to remember it is the counties that implement that. it's true the county board of elections has the ability to tell other public buildings in the county -- we intend to use that building on these days for early voting. deadline for-day that. if it were increased to 17 days for early voting they would need 22give that notice by july in order to use that. a bigger issue for counties might be poll workers, because they are going to be working with budgets that, for all the counties, our july to june budgets. are ingets are set now, the process of being set over and to expand the early voting time, they may not

have the budget to handle it. the reality is, as counsel -- i'm sorry? judge motz: i thought they had the same hours prevention -- provision? mr. peters: there is. judge motz: what would there be an increase? mr. peters: it would depend whether they could spread things out more or whether they were adding more time to what they have already planned for. but it is, i think, important to under the old statute, the only requirement for 17 days of early voting was that the county board of -- early voting within the last hours of the last saturday. so if the county is told they need to add seven days, they might do that simply by offering early voting of the county board of elections office, which would be consistent with the old statute. if you have other questions i

would be glad to answer them. youe wynn: we hate to see leave the department of justice it there, because i'm not sure anybody knows this as well as you do. mr. peters: unless you know something i don't -- [laughter] judge motz: thank you very much. >> i want to reply to some of mr . farr's substantive points and then some of mr. peters' and limitation points. honor, there is no case like this. there is no precedent for the rollback that house bill 589 created in impairing voting rights across the state. it represented the first major constriction of access to the polls in north carolina since

1965, and north carolina picked up where history left off in 1965, right after shelby county came down. the district court for legal errors were numerous. so, to your point, judge wynn, it does matter. the distinction between is the court looking at actual motive versus rational basis is an important legal distinction. judge wynn: what was used here? riggs: it was rational basis. judge wynn: how do you know that? i did not get that answer. ms. riggs: the exact language of the district court. it said it would not have been unreasonable for the north carolina senate to wait to see how shall be county came down. that is not actual evidence. that is the district court coming up with a rational basis. the senate was not sitting on a voter id bill, waiting to see if it could avoid the

administrative burden of going through preclearance -- it pneumatically expanded the scope of the bill, and contrary to what mr. farr said, these are not all bills for going somewhere else. the previous version that came out of the house did include public assistance id's. post shelby, they take that out, for no reason, and the district court recognizes -- surmisedhey could have it would have affected -- judge motz: [indiscernible] right, absolutely. these are not actual reasons. these are rational basis systems. if you don't look for pretext and don't look or actual motive, you collapsed the rational basis . it commit legal errors, you make the wrong conclusion. mr. farr also implied the language we have cited about the -- that youterplay

to stymie an emerging political power is something that only applies to a different case. that's not true. the u.s. supreme court used the same language. it is intentional dennis -- discrimination, shutting out a portion of the electorate based on how much it they -- on how they vote. it's not constitutional. it is not a vote dilution case. mr. farr also mentioned somewhat incredibly there is no showing of injury here. evidence of injury -- respectfully, that is not what the record shows, and it's not what the district court found. the district court talked about the hundreds of voters actually

disenfranchised in 2014 because of house bill 589. and it is there. it is throughout the opinion. i'm pretty in a commit knowledge, i want to make clear on alle record does show levels the legislature looked for data in the post shelby consideration and it got that data. that is on page 26 -- judge wynn: that data could not have been requested for preclearance? ms. riggs: for shelby. it's a relevant point, it also goes to the knowledge that the legislature was enacting -- judge motz: are you making an

argument that the legislature could not have requested the information legally? ms. riggs: no, no. post shelby though, they were the obligation post section five. they went through each one of the provisions. there are tons of election law provisions that get filed every year. the ones that got pulled into shelbyill 589 post disproportionately impact minority voters. judge motz: all of these provisions were in the hopper, just not combined in one legislation? >> i'm actually -- ms. riggs:

i'm actually not aware there was an out of precinct build. i could be wrong on that. there were bills wanting to eliminate pre-, bills wanting to cut early voting. judge motz: where were they? how far have they been advanced? ms. riggs: none had been heard. they had been filed. judge motz: in the house? ms. riggs: correct. that is in the ja. there's a legislative amount of material tracking other bills. one other error -- i'm jumping around a little bit, but i want to emphasize that this court in 2014 emphasized the district court committed legal error by dismissing as minimal the number of voters disenfranchised by certain provisions. the basic truth is even one disenfranchised voter, let alone thousands, is too many. of the district court, the facts that they

actually found demonstrated there were thousands of voters disenfranchised. votericing enfranchisement of the altar of bureaucratic inefficiency or under resourcing is not acceptable and this goes to the remedy that mr. peters was just talking about, which is the state board of elections may have set training. that training can be moved. they may have to contract to get proofs for a guide. holds thatl court these laws are racially discriminatory and unconstitutional, i think this court's ruling trumps that. there is ample time to make sure north carolina can vote in november. thank you, your honor. judge motz: thank you very much. we well take the case under advisement. we will ask her clerks to take adjournment and we will come down and greet the lawyers.

>> did you miss any of the republican or democratic national conventions? now you can go back and watch every moment. go to www.c-span.org to find every speech from both conventions and watch a time you want. here is out. at the top of the homepage, click on the republican or democratic national convention where you will find videos. you'll also find convention highlights are the top. you can browse through each speaker. click on each speech you want to orch and you can make clips share with social media or e-mail. c-span -- created by cable, offered as a public service by your television provider. >> on friday, the director of the national institute of allergy and infection diseases said local cases of the zika virus and florida are not unexpected, but a widespread is unlikely.

he spoke at the bipartisan policy center for about an hour. >> thank you very much. it is a pleasure to be here with you to talk about what i don't think i need to convince you is a timely topic, something i have described -- if the first slide is on, as a pandemic in process. that is not made up. if you look at what has happened the last several months, last week to yesterday, this is indeed a pandemic in process. i became very interested in this early on when we started to see the fact that we were seeing zika infections and the americas, namely in south america predominantly. i wrote a paper early on in the , andning of this process

another point i want to put in the general context -- because we are focusing on one disease right now, zika, is the cause , we the last several years have seen something we have not virusesore -- transmitted by mosquitoes and in this case, the mosquito in question is a mosquito very much and dimmick to the area where we are. to the area where we are. all of these viruses, we have seen west nile, another virus, we see zika.ow this is a process of emerging infectious diseases, which happen all the time. sometimes it is a blip on a radar screen, other times it is a very important thing, something that impacts us globally.

that is the background. i have to talk about each of the four bullets shown on this slide to talk about where we are and where we might be going on this. we start off with a discussion of the background. given the attention by the press, there is probably not a -- but letbout zika me make a few points that may put this in perspective. it is a virus. it is a single-stranded rna virus. the important thing is the second bullet. family flahe viviridae and the genus flavivirus. emphasize this, it's not a strange iris like hiv that came out of nowhere. with yellowrience

fever, japanese encephalitis, dengue. the bad news is it is here. the good news is we have done things with viruses like that, including making vaccines. a couplensmitted by different types of mosquitoes. what about the history? one of the things reporters have asked them the very beginning -- when did this all start? you say, it was first isolated in 19 seven. the next question is, why were you not prepared for that? an1947, this was essentially inconsequential infection. it was discovered in the zika forest of uganda, hence the word zika virus. it was first in effecting a nonhuman primate, a monkey, and 1952 when theil first human cases were reported in nigeria. it went under the radar screen.

an occasional case seen in africa and southeast asia. no major outbreaks that were recorded. there many outbreaks that we missed in sub-saharan africa or asia? possibly. but no recorded big outbreaks until the outbreak on the islands of yap in the state of polynesia and french in 2013. this is an epidemiologist's -- i do not want to say dream, because that would imply a disease that makes you feel good. epidemiologist's red flag, the kind of thing you teach in textbooks on public health. you can see it work this way. look at the dates on the slide -- across the pacific. went from the yap islands,

french polynesia, the east islands, until it landed in a place that had the right ingredients for a major breakout -- a big country, crowded in certain sections, plenty of mosquitoes, tropical to semitropical. and importantly, they never had -- experience ideology glee tiologically -- it was the perfect storm for an outbreak. what about zika as a disease? this is the thing that tends to confuse people. if you just look at it in a vacuum, for someone who is a 30, 40-year-old man, let's say -- what happens when you get bit by mosquito? and, forlly is a mild

many years, seemingly inconsequential disease. 80% of people get no symptoms. the 20% that do get relatively mild symptoms. ache, aoint and muscle redeye or conjunctivitis. it usually goes away in seven to 10 days and you're done, that's it. -- whywhy no ascension no attention can do that. we will get back to the reason are allof a sudden we paying attention to this. let's look at the mode of transmission, shown here on this slide. the overwhelmingly major modality of transmission flies around, by few, if i'm infected, there is a chance -- not 100% chance, but a chance you will get infected.

bees.toes are terrible i show you this somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but not really. it's probably the world's deadliest animal. if you look at the number of deaths per year resulting from an animal, seven of the joint 5000 deaths per year due to a 725,000 -- 700 -- deaths a year from a mosquito. for every person a shark kills, 72,500 people. they are really rather nasty animals in our environment. capable ofquitoes aedes andng our

egypti are the villain. we are working on a vaccine. i will get that in a moment. insecticides,e removing standing water -- the aedes aegypti is a very resilient mosquito. it's really difficult to clear up the environment. screens and air-conditioning. they bite day and night, indoor

and outdoor. you have to keep them out of the house and make sure screens are in good repair, which we are trying to do in puerto rico and other places. proper clothing and insect repellent, particularly deeds, up to 30%. we need to get over thinking that insect repellent is toxic to us. it's not. aining insect repellent is not, even for a pregnant woman, which we will get to in a moment. transmission -- obviously it's transmitted from a mother to the baby, to the fetus, and we know that for the terribly tragic situation we have seen now, which started in brazil, but is another countries of babies who now have severe congenital abnormalities, particularly in the very recognizable because of multiple pictures we see in the media of a baby with microcephaly. we will get back to that in a bit. sexual transmission.

this is an evolving thing. i said in epidemic in process. this is what we mean. if you have 10 cases and and it happensns -- you start to see things that are more common than you think. there is no doubt it is transmitted sexually. predominately from a man to a woman. we thought it was only a man to a woman because we were able over many days following recovery of infection that zika virus was found and isolated from the seammen. remember, under most circumstances, you get bit, seven or 10 days later, you clear the virus and you are done. your good. except, in men it can

for a longeremen time. except 80 days -- that is where we get into the idea of guidelines for sexual transmission. we will get back to that in a bid. then all of a sudden we found, well, it is not only from a man to a woman, but in very cases, there is transmission from a woman to a man. it has been well documented now in new york city. we do not see a lot of that, but that's a reason you have to pay attention and carefully follow to make sure you pick up the rarities, the outliers, the oddities. blood transfusion -- this has become relevant as of last night as some of you may have read what has gone in a florida and i will get back to that in a moment and it may be in the question period. clearly, if someone has active viremia and they donate blood, in the blood supply.

which is what we have blood screening, which is going on now. 3% of blood donors in the french polynesian outbreak were asymptomatic at the time they gave blood. so it may be that there were many more in the population able to show they were demonstrating zika biomolecular assay called pcr. there are others. what are others? outliers, that we pay attention to them. in heard about a lab worker pittsburgh who was accidentally infected with it. that happens all the time. me in the past when i was in the laboratory -- not with zika, but you get stuck with things that get you into difficulty. son of a utah man -- that was one case of an elderly man in utah who was very ill and have the highest level of iris

you have ever seen, 100,000 times higher than anything we had seen -- why that happened with this man, we don't know. it happened that his son, a privately healthy young man, took care of his father. the father died, but he had in tents exposure to body fluids. the sun got infected. we don't see that a lot and we don't want people to be fixating on transmission from one person to another cause we have hundreds of thousands of situations where people come zikadirect contact with and there was no transmissibility at all. we do want to pay attention to it. let's move on quickly. what about the current outbreak in the caribbean and latin america minus puerto rico? we will get back to her to rico in a minute. at -- to puerto rico in a minute. there are over 50 countries and territories with active zika

virus transmission. 32 of them are in the americas. of thend our part country -- often you look at what is going on in africa and backyard. is in our if you look here, people looking -- living in areas that are environmentally suitable for zika transmission -- what do i mean by environmentally suitable? iny have mosquitoes that are robust enough populations they could be transmitting. there are 300 million people, and 5.4 million would be pregnant in that 5.4 million births occur a year in these areas. of anes the perception historically insignificant -- in consequential insignificant

disease go to something of concern? that is the marked increase seen brazil andhaly in other countries in south america as well as people travel and come back. -- as a market increase -- marked increase. we saw ruggedly nothing in previous years, and all of a sudden this. this is a picture of a scan of a normal baby next to a baby with microcephaly. microcephaly in its classic form is an interference with the development of the brain. the brain develops in the fetus over the first 18 or 20 weeks it starts to develop, and with the brain develops, it pushes up the skull and gives the skull and nice, smooth, correct size contour. if you interfere with it, the brain does not push the skull up and you have a small head.

hence you see the pictures of the babies in the newspapers and on tv with microcephaly. the virus can also directly attack brain tissue and sometimes the brain starts to develop normally and then you get the structures of the brain and it collapses and that some of the pictures you have seen of the folds of the skin on babies brain sometimes on the pages of newspapers. led to this question mark we still don't know. we are doing a major, major study that will take a couple years funded out of nih in which we will look at pregnant women, but a study done by the cdc showed that women who are infected in the first trimester, to 12% chance the baby will have microcephaly. that is the tip of the iceberg. that is a grossly visible

abnormality. what you have also are other calcifications, hearing loss, visual abnormalities, a variety of other things including joint involvement. i have hundreds of pictures of these. i wanted to show you one of something that is not the classic. if you look at the baby's hands curled up like that, that is joint involvement as a abnormality. that is the baby. if you are not pregnant and you don't get in fact did is there any other danger to you? the answer is yes, but it's really, really rare. example, a postinfection neurological system characterized by paralysis that is usually reversible. we have seen it in influenza, we have seen it after infections, we know the studies that are ongoing now that there is an

with guillan barre. it is a rare event, but it's not zero. i cannot say as a public health official there is no chance -- there -- the chances are over whelming that if you're not pregnant you could have a very mild disease but there are risks for other, complications. let's take a look at zika in the united states. the united states, i am including as a territory first, puerto rico. there was a major outbreak evolving importer rico. the last reports from the cdc, 1% of the population a week getting infected. the reason we are concerned

about puerto rico, the mosquito that transmits sica is the same -- transmitsto zika is the same as the mosquito chikungunya.s the locations with chikungunya. ,4%. infected with chikungunya which tells us unless there is very, very aggressive mosquito abatement, and even if there is good mosquito abatement, a lot of people in puerto rico are going to get infected by zika. let's look at the cos

continental united states. the potential for imported cases -- i did not realize the numbers were as dramatic as these numbers are. in any given year, over 200 million passengers take journeys from the united state to and have zikans that transmission. 9 million by air, see -- 173 million by land. these are the maps, shaded in blue and in gray, concentrate on the one in the left, because that is the more relevant one. the aedes aegypti mosquito is seen very clearly along the southern part, particularly the gulf states. which is why we know historically when there was local transmission of

chikungunya and local ue,nsmission of deng hardly anyone paid attention to it. but it happened in florida and it happened in tech this. very aggressive mosquito localls prevented the transmission of those two infections becoming disseminated. i bet no one remembers reading major stories about dengue and texas,unya in florida or but it happened. how do you get local transmission. transmission when you realize what travel related means. travel related means somebody is here in the united states, goes to a region in south america, puerto rico, gets infected, and they get sick. they get sick in the united states, what we call conus

continental united states, but they really got infected someplace else. or they got infected someplace else and moved it to the united states. that's a travel related case. related case, i'm sitting here in washington, d.c., never having left the continental united states, and a travel related case comes, bites that person, then writes me, i'm a local transmission because it's not travel related. let's look at the numbers. 1700 travel related cases in the united states -- several hundred of them are in florida, ok? that's travel related. in puerto rico, there are over 3500 cases. if you look at the number of

women who are pregnant, who have ,een infected during pregnancy pregnantclusively zika --fected with wisely to happen to them, obviously phone it very closely -- there are four to 22 in the territories. what's going to happen. some of you have heard me in the press saying when the accumulation of travel related cases were occurring, i was saying sooner or later, it's almost inevitable, we are going to see local transmission of zika, because we have the mosquitoes, it is summer, and we have a lot of travel related cases, and sure enough, miami has reported first a travel related case. soon thereafter, within days to a week or so, as of yesterday and this morning's press

discussion, the department of health of florida, it is confirmed by the governor, they are infecting -- they are examining cases of local transmission. today i am almost certain we will see more. -- if youal issue aggressive mosquito abatement will prevent, we hope, it from becoming sustained and disseminated. we know it's local. we just want to make sure it does not spread. since it is spread by mosquitoes, we want to make sure that is the situation that we pursue in controlling mosquitoes. let me close. we obviously have a lot of

questions. let me tell you a little bit about the role of research and development. i want to tip my hat to the cdc. with hhs iship multiple agencies in hhs -- nih, the assistant secretary for prevention and response -- the cdc is doing an extraordinary controlrying to help and support public health measures. they need support we hope they get very soon, the same way the means support to do what we do, which is mainly research. how does the virus work? importantly developing countermeasures -- vaccines, therapeutics, diagnostics, etc. i want to talk very briefly, and then i will stop at, about two

major initiatives going on right now. with ouritiated called zip,lleagues infancyands for zika in and pregnancy. we will follow the women, we will follow the babies, and perth, six months, a year. the reason we need to do that, at baby could be born looking normal, but have settled the subtle if they -- defects if they get infected. visual abnormalities, abnormalities, intellectual compromise. that is what we are going to do. there are number of programs and projects. that seems take a while to

p.velo we put this on a fast track. on the left.dates the first one on top is a dna vaccine candidate. we will be going into phase one trials in humans within the next couple of weeks, sometime in .arly august stay tuned for that. we will do that right here in the washington, bethesda area. we will do it with about 80 individuals, normal people from 18 to 35 and that is what you do with vaccines. you have the response, and then you move on to a phase two or phase three study. you,eason i showed this to to realize we are on very much a fast track for vaccines. i'm going to end with this last slide, which is kind of a bookend to one of the first slides, when i said yet again,

another virus challenge, because we are dealing with an emerging infection, one of many emerging affections we have had to deal with, and i wrote a commentary with my colleagues at nih and i entitled it a perpetual challenge. the reason i did, this will not ever go away. continually challenged by emerging infections and it is up to us as we needy to build what to build to be prepared so we can respond in an expeditious manner. i will stop there and i am pleased to answer any questions. thank you. [applause] yes. i could -- dos if you want congress to come back immediately to deal with this? and do you think enough is being done to test the blood bank?

dr. fauci: ok, i cannot comment on telling congress what they should do with regard to their sessions, but what i can do is reiterate what i have said many, many times in briefings, with members and staff of congress, within a couple of months now, saying we really do need the money. in the activities we initiated early on, months ago, we had the clinical trial -- that did not start yesterday. the cdc has been working for months on things. a thatok money from accounts normally we would be spending on other things and put it on our zika activity so we would not

slow down what the cdc is doing, slowing down vaccine development. we are getting to the point very soon when we borrowed from ourselves. we need the money right away. how we get that, what congress does, i can't speak to that. that's not within my purview. but i can emphasize what i have been doing all along, we really need the money. >> [indiscernible] dr. fauci: what the fda has done is quite prudent. i don't know whether you followed it. given the local transmitted cases in florida, what the fda ultimately, hopefully soon, we will test the blood the way we test for other things to keep the blood supply safe. it will take a while to implement testing. in order to be really safe and to not take chances in the two areas where there is local , they are closing

down and not accepting blood donations so you can't contaminate, but as soon as they get the implementation of the testing or the mechanism whereby you can decontaminate the blood, then they can start collecting the flooding in. what they did was a prudent thing. >> i think there will be quite a few audience questions. i want to lead and with a couple questions i think will be common and maybe we'll will get with three or four and i want to open it up to the terrific audience we have here. i think the first question is certainly focused on miami, florida. again, this is not unexpected. for the media, this is breaking news this morning. florida governor rick scott, some reports confirming, some saying it is highly likely the first cases of locally acquired zika virus transmitted by native mosquitoes are now there and this is not unexpected. we could have protected this and dengue and chikungunya

previous history -- but if you can explain to the audience a little bit more what the implications are here and is this the start of a new phase in our response? dr. fauci: when you say new phase, what is happening right now is the kind of implementation that went on with -- yougue, chikungunya mentioned correctly, this is not unexpected. it is not unexpected that when you get a certain number of ,ravel related cases particularly when you look at florida where there are a few hundred of these, the chance of a mosquito biting one of those and biting someone who never traveled gets greater and greater as you get more travel related cases. so, as we started to see the travel related case number going up -- i had to revise my slides twice a day, literally, as it was going up -- it became clear the ingredients were there. aedes aegypti mosquito,

summertime, areas where you do not necessarily have the opportunity to spend in an air-conditioned place like this, do not have good screens -- it's going to happen. the cdc was doing it before, that is when you have very aggressive mosquito abatement. that has succeeded in the past. given the history of our country as a broad nation it is unlikely we will have the same sort of disseminated outbreak they haven't brazil or importer rico -- they have in brazil or in the rico. officials,ic health we assume that could happen and that's the reason that you give very aggressive trying to event it. if you ask me to i think it is going to happen? no, i don't think so. that does not mean we can relax. we have to be very aggressive to

prevent mosquito transmission. you get rid of the mosquitoes, you get rid of the breeding space and you have the population, particularly if they areen, living there to protect against mosquitoes. there are multiple ways to do that. it seems obvious. they are there. they endorse. indoors. fix screens that a broken so mosquitoes can't go in. make sure when you go out to the extent it is possible with comfort, wear clothes that cover most of your body, and the part ear insect, w repellent, particularly deet. a we do that, we can have major impact. >> can i ask a question on vector control, mosquito control, one item i did not see on your slide, genetically modified mosquitoes, are these

technologies ready for prime time or investigational? dr. fauci: that's a very good question. you ask are they ready for prime time? some say they are definitely ready for prime time. others say, no, you have to make sure before you really something into the environment that there are no unintended consequences. there is a lot going on and companies that are doing it, as research we are supporting to look at ways that you can directly impact the mosquitoes to help us stop transmission, --etically modifying them using an element that does not allow the virus to get to the point inside the mosquito where he can be transmitted. there's a lot going on. i think there is promise for mosquito manipulation without necessarily killing them by genetically modifying them. there are a lot of concerns

among some about and our mental issues. >> i want to get to be political battle. i think it caught many by surprise. i think back 10 years, we had h1 n5, h1n1, ebola -- in all of these cases, sure, there were deliberations, discussions in congress about what to do in the funding needed. this is been different. impression ofyour the deliberations and are you optimistic there will be a funding agreement when congress comes back in september? dr. fauci: well. there are multiple questions. i will take them one at a time. let's look. back in february, the president called us, myself, tom friedman, and others with a variety of and asked what you need to address this

epidemic. it was multi-agency. it was not just in h. -- it cdc and usaid was $1.9 billion. that was kicked back and forth in congress -- the senate came in with $1.1 billion, the house came in with $622 million. the came together again and made a proposal of $1.1 billion, but they started adding things onto it which was very frustrating to us who are nonpolitical people like myself and the cdc saying, you know, let's get over this. we really have got to get this money. i don't know how you were going to do it, but let's get the money appropriated. for one reason or another, it did not get appropriated. it did not get appropriated before the fourth of july. when they went out before the haveh of july recess, they the convention, and now they are out for the summer. it's frustrating. we are going to run out of money

pretty soon. topics,umping around but i want to come back. given the olympics in rio will happen in a matter a few days, one week from today, can you please summarize your views for the audience on how the olympic may or may not impact of the trajectory of the pandemic? i think back in may there was some scientific discussion in the community -- i think there is probably more consensus now -- if you just touch on that and also u.s. travelers and the next few days, going to rio, what advice do you have? ok, again, multiple questions, but all good questions. areas in south america, including brazil -- brazil had a massive outbreak in january, february, in their summer, which was our winter.

we are now in their winter, which is our summer historically, during the month of august with him it had a lot of credit for historically genuine inside were it only seems to go down in august. the same with other diseases. right now the infections with zika are at a very low level in brazil. that's point number one. nonetheless, if you are a pregnant woman, might be pregnant, think you could be pregnant, do not travel to brazil because brazil is still a place where there's active transmission. do not travel to places that there's active transmission. so i needed to get off because i'm going to tell you can that the risk to someone who is not pregnant is really low. as i said it's a relatively mild disease with the few outlier

exceptions that i mentioned. you can't go down and say there's absolutely no risk. nothing in life is risk-free but the risk is very low if you're an otherwise healthy person and you're not pregnant to go to brazil. that's the traveled there. the also asked will have an impact on the infections in the rest of the world. there's a lot of discussion, if all of these people come to brazil and they all get infected and they go out to different countries where they come from, will we be helping to disseminate this throughout the world? the answer is very unlikely. if you look at the number of people that come back and forth to south america anyway, notwithstanding the olympics, if you compare that to the additional people who come to the olympics. the delusional factors such about it is not a very much bigger percentage of people that travel. that's something people don't realize. they think you have this may be

this desolate place that don't when the olympics come give millions of people come and they spread, i mean, the traveled back and forth to south america is -- or dengue. >> i want to get one more question in and it will open it up and then again we can come back to all these subjects. you have advised the last five years president. with respect to zika if you were to advise the two current presidential candidates on how they could exhibit leadership on the zika, and we don't have to limit it to the presidential candidates, political leaders today on how they could exhibit leadership on zika, what advice would you give our political leaders? >> it's something we've been talking about for some time right now. it would be first of all the obvious that we have a public health challenge like we do, do whatever you can to get the resources that we need. in this case with the zika. but the other thing i would say

is that we need a different way of responding to public and global health emergencies. so just the last couple of years from 2014-16, with ebola in the zika, has shown is we can't be chasing the problem. we have to be prepared for the problem. my strong suggestion, i hate to use advice, but suggestion would be that we have a global public health reserve fund just like you have a disaster fund for an earthquake or for a hurricane. where if you need to move quickly, you don't have to go through something which in most circumstances is a very good process. the appropriations process. you present the budget, you discuss it, a coast to the house, a ghost to the senate, it goes through congress and goes to the president that it gets

signed. sometimes you take them in and do what you need to do with the. i think we need to do that in the public health arena and stop trying to chase something after it happens. that would be my suggestion. >> there is some promising progress and that bipartisan agreement that we do need some sort of theme back like public emergency fund like the, so knock on wood. maybe they will heed dr. fauci's advice but let's open it up to questions. we can cover some of these issues more in depth or other questions that those in the audience have for dr. fauci. we have roaming microphones so please state your name and affiliation if you would like an question. >> my name is alan ross and one affiliation is u.s.a. track and field.

i was on the board for 10 years and still try to stay active. i look at the issue in brazil, and you have the brazilian health ministry saying what you just said. used the term always lower in august. well, i researched it and that's not the case. and 2012, there was more dengue in rio then there was in february, march and april combined. just happened to be a little different that year. so what is the risk? risk probably is a low but it could be fairly high. he gets into the '90s in their winter to the average height is 78 degrees and it often doesn't go below the '60s. it stays in the '60s. you have an environment where mosquitoes can do pretty well. there is a risk, and it's been misstated now, even the world

health organization has an advisory to assess its very low in august. the other thing is that nobody talked about anything else you can do to protect yourself other than what's in the literature abnormal literature. the are some things you can do but the government doesn't get behind us. and those are, people may have heard me say this before, it's vitamin d. you will find it works on viruses. it's not going to be 100% but it's going to be significant, worth taking. the same with vitamin c. that also can kill viruses. so it's not something that is easy to communicate because we don't have fda trials that have been approved for this. but they are there and it should be encouraged. if they're going to do some good, it is public or the. if you look at the downside

there isn't any. he might say there is and where these studies to show for it. there isn't, there aren't. there's no science behind people who say you take too much, you will be in trouble. i can go into great detail on that. i sent out an advisory to the u.s. olympic committee, to the athletes, and others through my network. i have an advisory. is somewhat like a copy of the >> i don't know, dr. fauci, on the olympics. >> first of all when you look at outbreaks, i never say there's no risk ever. so anybody who says i said that has never listened to me. the risk is diminished compared to what was in the winter. there were thousands of cases per day reported in january and february. the are a few hundred at a

reported mail, ok? silverbacks on that there's less zika now in brazil than it was in january, period, fact. that's the first thing. the second thing is that sure, we have an outbreak that peaks . that's the outbreaks are. we had a massive explosion in brazil and what we are seeing now going down is the natural evolution. when you have a disproportionate amount in an unpredicted season, it's because in in the season where you shall have bound it never really peaked and you had a late peak, the same way we see every once in a while a strange distortion when you have a new influenza outbreak like we saw in 2009. so just to reiterate, the risk is much less now in brazil than it was in january but it's not zero and that's the reason why, i'll say it again, if you are a

pregnant woman, you should not travel to an area in which there's an outbreak, and that includes brazil. >> there was an excellent modeling study in the internal medicine saying exactly what dr. fauci just mentioned. yes, please. >> go back to the basics on the blood supply. if you're a normal healthy male and you get, then you're better for a while. is that person's blood likely to be safe or because it can remain in the sperm for 80 days, what do we think? with the test show once they had it you would've been disqualified? >> i don't want to make a definitive test on that but if, in fact, you were infected you would not be giving blood anyway. so whether it's gone from your

blood and in the semen, you would not be if you were infected. so they will be testing for the virus very soon. they're testing for in puerto rico. [inaudible] >> right. [inaudible] if you're asymptomatic -- i understand the question now. 80% of the people are without symptoms. 20% of the people have symptoms. it is very reasonable to assume that if you're asymptomatic the virus is not going to stay in your body any longer that if you weren't symptomatic of you very rarely examined an asymptomatic person because they don't have any symptoms of are not going to come in. but we do know that in the regular run of the symptomatic

person, the virus stays in the blood for seven to 10 days and stays in the urine or an extra week. that's one of the reasons why we are leaning more towards when we screen people, screening they virus because it gives you a longer window to see who was infected. >> thank you. yes. >> thank you dr. fauci. i'm with "congressional quarterly." has the lack of congressional action so far endured the administration's response? do you think the new locally transmitted cases in florida to put additional pressure on congress to act when they come back in september? >> you know, i can't speak for every agency so i will only speak for the national institutes of health, of which i am responsible. i have moved a fair amount of money from other accounts to do what i think is a very proactive

full-court press on the research. therefore, nothing has substantially slowed yet. i am preciously close to the point where i don't have any money at things are going to start slowing. let me explain what i mean. we are going to start a phase one trial in august. it will be finished by the end of 2016. in order to smoothly go into a phase two trial in the beginning of 2017, which will be done in the countries, plural, that have active transmission, i need to prepare the site but i need to prepare the clinics, repair the laboratory, trained people, get everything ready to do the trial. i have to start that now at the

end, the beginning or end of august if i don't get money so i'm going to delay the preparation which means what could happen is that we finished the phase one at instead of smoothly transitioning into the phase two we will have to delay the vaccine. so we have not delete anything up till now but if we don't get money so it's going to have a ripple effect down the pike. >> next question. in the back. >> i'm with pandemic and emerging threats. my question, could you speak about the use of aeros break him to go in puerto rico, what your views on that? also some upcoming strategy. i know dr. freedman mentioned you could tell a while ago and maybe something we could look at any future? >> obviously the use of aerial sprays has been done right here in this country and it was one of the mechanisms that was used

in mosquito abatement when we had the dengue and the chikungunya outbreak. the sprays that are used, the material that are used, are approved by the environmental protection agency. the situation in puerto rico's been somewhat problematic, as you well know otherwise you would not have asked the question, that it is a reluctance on the part of the puerto rican authorities to spray, aerial spray. i can't get into that discussion because i'm not there with them talking about it, except to say that the aerial spraying that has been done has been done safely with some effect. >> question all the way in the back. >> there's a microphone coming. >> i am the ceo of america's blood centers of our our members provide over half of what's what in the united states.

one of our members, one blood is a provider of blood in south florida. i wanted to let you know we've been in touch with him and he did it in testing today. they received a close look at what did the statement from the fda yesterday, so implemented the testing which is under investigational testing approval. and so i wanted to make it clear, business as usual. they're testing and collecting the blood in south florida. i also want to make into the previous speaker as far as asymptomatic donors and that concern, that the fda also some months ago provided guidance, and we modified the question that we are deferring donors which means they can't donate if they traveled to the area within a certain period of time or if they have symptoms or if they have had sex with someone who's gone to those areas in a bit of time. the fda has reacted very quickly with guidance to the blood community spirit and getting that test out quickly.

just for a second i want to get back to your question because she's no major question very clear. i'm in a symptomatic person that i was infected, and ago to donate blood. if the blood come to the virus has been i don't know if i'm infected and the person that's going to stick the needle in me doesn't know i'm infected. if i go there, asymptomatic am if i do a virus in my blood, the test will say you can't give blood. if i don't have virus in my blood, there's no problem. so the problem is solved. once you get testing you solve not only the problem of symptomatic ones, you solve the problem of asymptomatic ones. [inaudible] >> it doesn't make any difference. attests is do do you have virus and you know? if you don't the blood is safe.

>> would you mind commenting on the role of contraception in preventing microcephaly in endemic areas? >> that's an interesting question. yeah, if you have contraceptives you don't get pregnant and if you don't get pregnant then you don't have a microcephalic baby. your question, she people to lay pregnancy? there are considerations for that and there are areas in which even the health officials recommend people delay pregnancy during the major part of an outbreak. it's a difficult question but it's a good question because that is what state and local health authorities do.

the cdc doesn't come in, it helps him with it and gives them funds so they can do it because many of these states and local health authorities don't have the resources to be able to do the mosquito abatement that is necessary to do the kind of control. it is very much on the local and state health authorities to do it. the reason we have disparities in getting done is that there isn't uniform distribution of resources which is the reason why the gentleman asked me about what impact it might have if you don't have money to help the state and local health authorities with mosquito abatement. that could have a deleterious effect on the entire effort. >> removing standing water and breeding grounds are absolutely critical. last question.

>> mike webb, i just just have a question that's twofold. one shouldn't be deep be doing more and what have we learned in terms of other pathogens? >> that's a good question. that's what we have been trying to do on a broader scale. a couple years ago we got into a situation where you have a global health security network. the word security is because it involves all the country and this is something that we have been working on and involved multiple agencies, the cb cdc who, we want to have the capability of the local level of seeing something that involves at the time it evolves opposed to when it becomes an outbreak.

the only way you do that is if you have the distribution of resources among countries, even poor poor countries that have the capability, that have the health systems in place that can recognize the kind of things because you are not, we, the global community, is not going to be able to prevent all emerging infections. that's just part of the connection between the microbial world and ourselves. it has always happened and it will happen. what we can do is respond in a more timely way. your question is very relevant. what can we do to respond and that global health security network is one of the ways that we can do that. >> on behalf of the bipartisan center, i want to thank you for spending time with us today. i know you are in demand as we speak. if you have questions for him, he may have a couple minutes but he is going to have to run. thank you for your leadership as well as your service to the nation. thank you.

[applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

one republican member of the houses calling for federal funding to combat the zika virus. in his tweet he called for congress to pass a bill. his district is near the area where zika cases been reported.

the donald trump and hillary clinton made the national conventions a must-see on television and we will show you many of the most talked about speeches. will see democratic speeches from michelle obama, bernie sanders, bill clinton, joe biden, michael bloomberg, tim kaine, president obama, chelsea clinton, and hillary clinton. sunday morning, republican speeches by rudy giuliani, donald trump, tiffany trump, chris christie, ted cruz, mike pence, peter sealed, ivanka trump, and the acceptance speech by donald trump. , the c-span radio lab and c-span.org. now, i discussion on u.s. foreign policy toward nato and russia with former u.s.

ambassador to nato. from today's washington journal, this is 30 minutes. continues. host: joining us now to talk about the u.s.'s policy toward nato and russia is kurt volker, a former u.s. ambassador to nato between 2008 and 2009, and executive director for the mccain institute for leadership. caller: thank you for having me. you start by telling us what exactly is nato and what is its organization? caller: it is -- guest: it is an alliance of countries that work together to protect each other. an attack on one is considered an attack on all. if there is such an attack, everybody is supposed to respond and the idea is it would deter anybody from doing it. it was founded in 1949.

and world war ii largely maintain their capacity to work together. they became concerned about the rise of the soviet union so 12 canada, western european countries banded together to form nato in 1949. 1980's,ined in the germany and the 1950's, turkey and greece. after the fall of the berlin wall in 1989, countries in central and eastern europe who had been occupied by the soviet union decided they wanted to be democracies, market economies, and they wanted to be secure so they petitioned to join nato. 1997 theywhile but by let in the first three. in 2002, about seven more baltic states.

it still serves the same purpose today, due to her any threat two deter any- threat from anybody. in --the ethnic cleansing and it still deters any threats from any central attackers. donald trump has been very vocal about his thoughts on nato. here's a little bit what he had to say. to makep: we are going our country still strong and renegotiate our military deals. i am taking a lot of heat. we have 28 countries and nato. there are five that are paying their way. the others -- because you do not get it straight. they say donald trump does not like nato. i said it is obsolete. wolf blitzer on cnn asked me a

question, he said what do you think of nato? said, nato is obsolete because it is not covering terrorism. and everybody smiled, laughed, thought it was funny and three days later they were saying trump is right. it is not covering terrorism. , check out theer wall street journal. the front page, nato to open up terrorism division. i said, great. host: we are speaking with kurt volker, a former u.s. ambassador to nato and also now works for the mccain institute on leadership. what are your thoughts when you hear that clip? he sayson of the things have a pretty solid basis in u.s. policy.

by complaining how much nato countries spell on -- spend on defense, that is what we have heard for the last 20 or 30 years. gdp is said to target 2% of to be spent on defense and as he said, not every country meets their target. we would like to see a lot more countries spend more on defense. host: here is a chart we have from publication defense one that shows how much countries spend on their own defense, nato members. the united states lays the way at 3.6% of the budget. greece, poland, the united kingdom, and estonia are 2% and the others are lagging. guest: he is talking about terrorism a lot in that clip, that nato does not do a lot

about terrorism. the only time that nato invoked its collective defense guarantee, what were you -- what we were talking about, was after september 11. after the u.s. was intact -- was attacked nato said they wanted to support the united states in supporting these terrorists, and ended up running the mission in afghanistan. there are ways that nato has dealt with terrorism for the last 15 years already. when you talk about national intelligence on a domestic basis where countries are watching what is happening inside their countries, when you talk about counterterrorism units operating inside nato territory, as are not things nato is doing but by individual member states, not as a collective nato activity. nato is looking outward at external threats for the most part rather than looking inward.

host: you can join in the conversation with kurt volker. democrats, your line is (202) 748-8000 if you want to call in. republicans, (202) 748-8001 and .ndependents, (202) 748-8002 you can also send us a tweet. if nato is primarily an external facing organization, is donald trump right it is sort of obsolete? guest: i do not think it is obsolete at all because just because the soviet union has gone away does not mean the ofeats to security democracies in europe and the united states have gone away. we still have lots of threats, and nato is a very important vehicle for bringing all of those countries together, coordinating our efforts, and making a stronger in how we respond. of course we would like to see the load balanced out