tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN October 27, 2014 12:00pm-2:01pm EDT
dold: what i think we need to do more than anything -- schneider: it is a yes or no question. dold: now we need a bipartisan plan. this doesn't need to go down without a single republican vote and what we have right now when nancy pelosi says we need to pass it to find out what's in it that isn't something we need to put healthcare on the line for. i'm committed to fixing the problem because it needs to be fixed. when people say i can't see my oncologist or women are not able to see their doctors or go to their pediatrician when they thought their relationship with and when small businesses go down to the mailbox that is a problem and that is a problem for the american public and something i am going to fight for the people in the district. schneider: is that you said you would vote to repeal it again. dold: you legislate as well as the listing. >> moderator: you have a chance to read that at this time schneider: its bid and the it did end the medicare guarantee. that isn't me saying that.
it would end as we know it. i voted to protect the affordable care act. $700 billion from a day care. schneider: and they said the affordable care act doesn't cut medicare benefits. you try to save medicare advantage was cut by 150 billion that is absolutely false. >> moderator: we are going to move on and another viewer related question this isn't from an individual bible to you it is a comment we have heard from many viewers that have written to the facebook page and it has to do with the tune of campaigns specifically but it goes beyond that it has to do with the negative tone in terms of the political ads that are being run and my question for you is what do you see as the impact on
voters are they disillusioned or how are they supposed to respond? dold: let me start by saying me saying we have for adults with regard to our campaign and every single one of the most positive. we are trying to tell the voters what we want to do in our vision going forward and i think think that is inherited. we want to give people an opportunity to go to the ballot box and vote affirmatively. there's 20 of reasons not to vote for my opponent. i focus on the reasons to vote for me which is why i'm pleased to have gotten the endorsement from "the chicago tribune" and the daily harold and i think the american public and to those in the tenth district will take a look at those ads we put out, they are positive. >> moderator: they may not come from the individual campaigns. schneider: i think what the voters want to hear is the records come in on just the rhetoric that the records in congress, would i vote for, what did mr. dold and vote for in congress. but what we see and this is across the country the citizens
united ruling in the court allows outside groups to spend unlimited quantities of money, anything they want and not being held accountable. i really do believe it is having a negative effect on our electoral process. you can have the groups say anything they want about either of us or any other issue or any other candidate. you don't know who they are but you have individuals like john john bernard spinelli and dollars into this campaign for mr. dold. guests -- yesterday we saw another one. you you have this happening all over the country where individuals, wealthy individuals can put money on a candidate and what happens down the road when the candidate is talking to this individual and they know that just as easy as someone can support a candidate they can oppose. we need to fix the decision and help support legislation that will do just that and we need a constitutional amendment that will take the elections and put them into the hands of the people and voices of the candidates. >> moderator: you have a
question. i want to go back to something which mr. dold he alluded to a few moments ago saying or implying that you are just a pawn, my word on the, on the houston record of party leadership. when if ever have you broken with minority leader pelosi? schneider: i'm a proud proud democrat i don't be beat either party has a monopoly of the good ideas. i'd i said always been committed to working with anyone with an open-minded and a willingness to come to the table to solve our problems. but i have stood with my party at times to defend the affordable care act and protect our environment, clean air and water to make sure women have the right to make their own choice about their own body. i did break with my party on the medical device tax and i broke with my party a year ago last summer to extend the penalties on the affordable care act and i broke with my party last year during the shutdown on the
government. i opposed the shutdown and i thought it was irresponsible and reckless but when others were saying that if the republicans to day care hold i was willing to go time and time again. >> moderator: dold you watched the house in session during the past year. what issues would you have broken with house republican leadership's? dold: the people i work for are the citizens of the district, those are the people we are going to put first. if you look at my record which is important because that's the measure. ranked as one of the most independent in the congress and i think that is exactly what the people in the tenth district are looking for. my opponent tried to hq's knee time and time again saying we are a vote for the republicans yet when we laid out on a sheet all the people voting with their party the most i was one of the least interested up to the party and others because it was i believe the right thing to do on a particular vote to represent
the people in the tenth district would be a woman's right to choose or the environment. i have before and i will again if it's the right thing for the tenth the tentative strict and the american public i will absolutely speak my mind and put people before the party every time. >> let me follow up if you are elected, you will have to serve the next term with barack obama in the white house. how do you think that he's doing? dold: we know about the jobs deficit and fiscal deficit. no one is talking about the leadership deficit and i think that leadership is critical as we look around the world. >> moderator: how did you think that he's doing? dold: the american public don't believe washington is working. i haven't found anybody that thinks washington is working or working well and i think it is incumbent on the tenth district to have the police to hold the administration accountable but with the work to solve problems that means coming with
bipartisan -- >> moderator: what do you think? schneider: but me follow up on the first question because i think only in washington and a reliable public of the votes against a woman's right to make her own choice including the funding of planned parenthood votes 200 times against the environment and who votes 28 times against the affordable care act including the repeal and for the ryan budget but not only ends the medicare guarantee that makes it harder for the families to pay for college and for the families living on food stamps by $134 billion. only in washington could that be deemed independent. >> moderator: i want to ask both of you a policy question we are facing challenging times on the globe that we have russia involving ukraine and now we have ice us and the islamic state group taking action is urea and also northern iraq and to begin with mr. dold the question is simply this. the president has taken a stand
in terms of using u.s. air power at this point to port this terrorist organization. at what point do you believe it is necessary to be involved in the fight against isis on the ground? dold: we have to take a step back and look at the leadership deficit and i will not take things off the table when america's national security interests are at stake. one of the roles is to make sure that we are protecting our citizens and our interest and i think what's interesting is we've seen time and again whether it be my opponent for others using the political judgments to cloud the domestic foreign-policy decisions and i think that is a problem so whether it be groups on the ground we will never know because we don't know what tomorrow may bring. nobody wants to put the groups on the ground about if it is going to be impacting the national security whether the secretary believes that isis is a national security threat we
need to have all options on the table and not take them off. >> moderator: is very time that you see that it would be necessary to put the troops on the ground? schneider: we have seen times in history but in specific the only way that isis will be defeated is if the people living under the rule rise up and break the shackles of the ideology. isis is a clear and present danger to the people living there but also the people in the region and the rest of the world. you only need to look at the brutal beheadings of the u.s. journalists into the british aid workers so we need to contain and push it back. it has to be the way that it's going to now where we work with the people living there. i voted for authorizing the department of defense to train and arm rebels and to send them back to fight with isis. we can provide close ground support and work with our allies to do that but we need to make sure there's people living there to take back their country.
but the more important threats in the world is a nuclear capable iran and n-november 24th is the deadline for the negotiations to make sure that iran has no pathway. >> moderator: my next question i would like verification from both of you because you claim to be pro-choice in your positions and there seemed to be a lot of ads attempting to cloud one person's position versus another so i'm going to ask you to tell me what specifically is your stance and please be specific in terms of your support as it currently exists. dold: i don't believe roe v. wade should be overturned and i think that is simply by most standards pro-choice. i thought for the title x of funding and i will continue to do so. and i believe again there are things we should be doing and things we shouldn't for instance i don't weaken federal funding that's been a high demand and in a long-standing tradition.
something that again when the democrats were in control something that they passed as well, so i don't be late when you're talking about eight months or eight and a half months that's not something i would encourage. schneider: i'm 100% pro-choice and mr. dold voted to defend planned parenthood and that would allow hospitals on their decision to deny a life-saving termination irrespective of that woman's choice seven times the women of the tenth district and people deserve someone in congress who they know will be there fighting for the woman's right to make their own choice on hundred% of the time. that's why planned parenthood gave me the score and begin to resent. >> moderator: it's time to sum things up. the closing statements you will have a minute each of you to do this and congressmen you are up first.
dold: this is about we continue to grow out, it's about to do we continue to fight for our children's environment for their future for education where every child regardless of where they live at the opportunity to a quality education to get the skills they need to succeed long term in a global economy. to invest in innovation and infrastructure do we make the decisions that will put our country first or people first and help middle-class families find a way to provide for their children and at the same time secure their retirement. i'm proud of the fact and i believe that we have a generational commitment just as our parents gave to us the idea that each generation will have a future that's more prosperous and secure the future is at risk if we don't break through the gridlock in washington and i'm committed to do that and i hope you will give me one more chance to continue my work in congress.
>> moderator: mr. dold:? dold: people are sitting around kitchen tables great they are falling behind. the cost of food, the cost of higher education and the uncertainty around retirement at the cost of insurance in essence the policies being put in place are making it hard for families to succeed than they were five years ago and i think we ought to be making it easy for families to succeed succeed and for that business is to be able to grow their businesses and invest and hire more people. when we look at what's going on right now, my opponent voted against small business 70% of design and manufacturing 70% of the time. i'm pleased to have gotten the endorsement of the tribune and the daily herald who says i'm actually the candidate that will end the gridlock. i'm ranked as one of the most bipartisan members in the congress and my opponent is ranked one of the least effective that the endorsement i'm looking for is yours. this is an important election i
ask for your help and more importantly for your vote. >> moderator: thank you very much it's great having those of you here. in the tenth congressional district and the point of this is to enlighten you and if you've been watching this hopefully you will have a better idea when you go to the polls where you're going to be casting your testing your vote. on behalf of my colleagues and the league of women voters thinks for watching. once again, vote on november 4.
tonight on the communicators, meredith atwell baker president and ceo of the wireless association. >> if you remember i was at the commerce department, and this is repurposing the spectrum from the department of defense. and this process, the lessons learned have really been learned. it's going wonderfully. and of the spectrum is paired and internationally harmonized. it is 65 megahertz. we are so excited and then we are going to turn around and have the broadcast incentive
options. i think that discussion is really going well. i think that we have the rebirth of the fcc put out that i'll use the spectrum. those numbers turned the discussion from the policy discussions of a business decision which is where the discussion needed to turn to so we are excited about those options into certain that our carriers are going to come at them with big checkbooks and it's going to be a win-win situation for everyone. until then a look at the judicial elections and the impact of outside groups and outside money. this is from today's washington journal. >> host: we are joined by james oliphant, the white house correspondent for national journal and the author of an extensive piece on the campaign of state judges throughout the
country in the piece titled when judges go courting. you looked at in particular the races of north carolina for the high court judges there but more broadly the judge is running for reelection particularly in the appellate level. what did you find? >> guest: this is the front end of american politics. we are seeing the judicial races becoming increasingly like the congressional and congressional counterparts. money is flowing into the races in places like a small county in missouri or states like north carolina or montana, ohio, texas they are increasingly partisan and what we are seeing is the same kind of forces shaping the politics nationally are shaping the traditional races. >> host: you covered a judge in new york -- north carolina
rather. tell us her story in what she is facing which he is facing this year as opposed to the previous years. >> guest: justice beasley was appointed by the then democratic governor and she is fighting an uphill battle to keep her seat. she's facing a well-funded republican and i should mention that the race in north carolina is nonpartisan but on the ground nobody b. visa to be the case ended in fact both the democratic's are endorsed by the respective parties and nobody is fooled by what's going on so in justice beasley's situation these are races where the voter has little recognition. she is underfunded and so her challenge is to reach as many voters as possible and afford ads to get onto the bridge and and she is doing it on her own.
i spent a day with her and i joke in the article i drove her car it was just me and her. she had no staff and she told me she had driven up 40,000 miles on her car from events to events so she's basically a one-man band trying to hold onto the seat could >> host: how much does she have in the campaign bank? >> guest: these numbers are old but she was in the low six figures. her opponent wasn't much higher but he's part of a group of republicans working together so they are all being sort of funded iowa didn't by wanting to stay out of the same pot but they are running ads together. her opponent is basically from winston-salem north carolina. >> host: this is from the report in terms of dollar figures. 2011 and 2012 the report 56 billion spent in 2011 and
2012, 33 million on tv ads and outside groups paid 50 million for ads and those outside groups included the republican state leadership committee, americans for prosperity, the nra and american vote progressive group. what's happened in terms of the special interest groups? >> guest: many of them played in the primary to try to end he did the justice robert hudson. and it almost worked but in fact she beat back the challenge and one of the reasons was people cite an ad that was run by this outside group called justice for all which accused hudson of being soft on child molesters and supreme court opinion which was defended and many observers be lead but actually backfired and increased her name recognition and voters were outraged and that helped propel her through the primary but now
she's facing a challenge as well and we are seeing these groups play in the races across the country they pumped into hundred thousand into the county race in missouri. they haven't shown back up as far as i know in north carolina. >> host: the idea of electing judges is as old as the country. what changed? why he has so much money been devoted and is into so much drawn into these races? >> guest: that old bugaboo of the citizens united which opened the door for the unlimited corporate spending and so i think it was a sort of natural outgrowth of the kind of spending that we've seen in the congressional races. another thing there's been a slow loosening overtime of the standards for how the judges should operate as candidates. again, the supreme court about a decade ago said that the candidates had free-speech rights just like any other candidate and so they are now
allowed to express certain positions or say that they agree or disagree with the supreme court opinion when i was in north carolina one of the candidates mentioned how he opposed the court's decision in the affordable care act which tells you exactly where he stands. so that's another factor. another is like the rs lc and others and that it's important to have a certain amount of influence in the judicial branch as a legislator. and they formed what is called at the judicial fairness initiative where it is basically trying to guarantee outcomes are trying to align the conservative justices with the conservative legislators. resolve is the summer in wisconsin where the supreme court upheld the controversial labor reforms that governor scott walker passed a few years ago. >> host: james oliphant is the guest and white house
correspondent for the national journal should talk about the impact of the state electing judges and in particular the higher level of the justices and the supreme court to hear that to join the conversation if you are a republican (202)585-3881. the democrats (202)585-3880, and for all others to 025-85-3882. of course you can join us on twitter at c-span c-span w. j., facebook.com/c-span. i have a picture on the piece that you did of judge beasley carrying her own campaign signs out to an event which you covered. is she supporting -- you mentioned the republican report support by republicans for the slate of justices of north carolina. is she supported by the democrats of north carolina? >> guest: when she ran for the court in north carolina she took advantage of a program that called for public financing of the judicial candidates to take
the fund raising pressure on the candidates like her. she started as a public defender and never developed the context that would allow her to have a lot of connections in the rally or a great fundraising base. so she is someone that could take advantage of the program but when the gop took advantage of the legislature in north carolina a couple of cycles ago they did. >> host: when was she first elected? >> guest: in 2008 and then the supreme court by governor perdue in 2012, so she's been on the bench about 20 years. >> host: in north carolina how many justices on the court? >> guest: said income and there are four seats left now making it into two. >> host: so electing the justices in the states we'd love to hear what you are seeing in terms of on the ballot and tv ads.
we'll show you a couple in a bit but first let's go to calls. lawrence in san francisco. democrats whine. welcome. >> caller: good morning, c-span. nice of you to take my call. looking at the major influence and the major results that have occurred political or otherwise, one i recollect is bill simon who was a gubernatorial candidate running against incumbent davis who was the governor at the time in which one of judgments about $305 million. no one has ever heard of bill simon state and in politics or
commentary or barnstorming were doing anything anymore. the subsequent effect of that judgment and then the election of arnold schwarzenegger as a conservative governor in the lock and step into bush administration and dick cheney's energy energy policies had all that kind of stuff that were very sick and second. -- very significant. so we know what can be done from every state on the standpoint of the economy cometh from the decisions of the judges properly placed improperly used and then the political ramifications. >> host: we will get a reaction. >> guest: your talking about the reaction the court can have on the affairs of the state.
i think that gets lost a little bit because there is so much focus on the federal system but what we see state after state and this is what i was talking about before you how you need a judiciary to serve as a rubberstamp of the legislature and i should mention that there is a recent study either constitution society that shows that the judicial candidates or the sitting justices who received over half the contributions from business tended to side with those interests two thirds of the time so we see a relationship and donations and outcomes. >> host: this may be the peace that the campaign ads may influence the judges and they write in the city is paying off the professor that wrote the report that justice examined the data involving 270 justices had 32 states and compared with the data on the ads over the same thing. though collected by the brennan center for justice and in that
research and the subsequent analysis they concluded that the criminal defendants declined as the number of campaign ads increased and in the wake of this the screen court 2010 citizens united ruling report also shares outside spending as we talk about in the judicial race has also been on the rise. not only do you mentioned favorable rulings but unfavorable for the criminal defendants. >> guest: there is a chilling effect as a mentor to justice hudson had these ads run against her in the primary and that's because she was in the electronic monitoring of child molesters. there's a great concern if a justice shows her or his independence or goes against the grain or supports a constitutional right of a defendant of that material is going to be used against them in
a campaign. >> host: we have a couple of ads in the north carolina justice race. let's take a look at those. >> we want judges to protect us when china blusters sued to stop electronic monitoring of their locations, but wall that would've struck them near schools, playgrounds, day care centers, robert disinvited with a predator -- fought a predator and took the side of convicted letters. justice robin robert and how does it not tough on china blusters and not fair to victims. >> host: that is the one that you were referring to. how did she fight back against them? >> guest: she had to raise a lot of money for one thing. it was a lot of newspapers editorialized against the ads that thought it but thought it was unfair because the issues involved in what we call the ex post facto law and basically applying the punishment
retroactively to those that already served their time. she felt the entire affair boosted her name recognition. it had the reverse result. name recognition is the name of the game and most of these races. even telling voters who you are and you are on the ballot, we see a phenomenon where people will vote at the top of the ticket and leave the spaces for judicial candidates blank because they have no idea who they are. money plays a role in influence. host: let's hear from maryland. welcome. c-span.thank you for thank you for your writing. i want us to just ask if you are familiar with justice o'connor's
position on justices running for election. reports on judges running for elected office. finally i just wondered if alec is involved in any of these judicial elections.he >> host: hannibal alec, american legislative counsel is that who you're referring to? >> caller: yeah. >> host: thank you for your call. >> guest: as far as i know alec is not involved. i think they work with developing legislation. to your point about the question about justice o'connor, she was part of a majority in a case in minnesota that judicial candidates have free speech rights. she later regretted being part of that decision. it led to a lot of stumping and politicking i think she now find distasteful but i think as long as we have the current majority on the u.s. supreme court we'll see a further trend toward
deregulation of campaign financing. >> host: did in i of the current supreme court justices have to run for a state election to yout knowledge? >> guest: off top of my head i can't think of anyone. justice o'connor was a elected official. >> host: right, right. >> guest: i think on current court, don't hold me to that, i think they come from traditional legal -- >> host: montgomery county,land maryland, you to vote for the judge and circuit court, judicial court. two highest courts in maryland, among the highest courts, appeals court. this is different, you vote for continuance in office. there is no candidate running here but a judge, whether or not the judge, justice stays in that, on the bench. >> guest: this is alternative to system to straight elections, what people call merit selection or retention elections. basically, on the front end the judge or judicial candidate is
screened by a board, bipartisan board, basically in terms of qualifications and fitness and i'm not speaking specifically to maryland but generally. and then those candidates refer to the governor or legislature. they are appointed to the bench. eventually they stand for re-election with the voters but they don't start that way. so it is a way of maybe trying to take a little money out of the front end of this but there is a race in illinois where there is justice up for retention and money is pouring into that race. >> host: up-or-down vote? >> guest: there is no opponent. but that hasn't stopped third party groups running ads, basically opposing his retention. >> host: myrtle beach, south carolina, don, welcome. >> caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. the reason i called you started the show was all about money and who backed who as opposed to what were some of the rulings that got people upset and i
think, when we talk about politics today, it is all about money, money, money, money. there is reason behind people giving money. they're upset over a ruling. take for example, gay marriage. majority of the states that voted for marriage between and a man and woman, the judicial system all of m sudden says, no, it is, it is okay to have two men marry. and that is not what the people wanted. so you can understand why they getup set. >> host: and a lot states back you might remember in 2010, three iowa supreme court justices, there was huge campaign against them for their, when they were standing for re-election based on their support for same-sex marriage. >> host: did they lose their seats? >> guest: i think they did. i think all three of them did. correct me if i'm wrong. i think that was successful. but that, what we're getting to is the idea, and this is what disturbs a lot of advocate, out
come-based judging, basically, that money will basically put a proxy on the court for a specific interest or specificrt point of view and, you will basically guaranty an outcome, if you have the right majority on a court. this goes against basically the traditions of judicial independence. each case coming to a court finding a case as it comes to it. it is of great concern to people who watch these things. >> host: one of the plaintiffs iner the citizens united case, james boch said this, there is no perfect system. the balance the need for judicial independence to faithfully follow the law and held accountable if they do not follow the function. their function and become an activist. what is he getting at there? >> guest: it is the idea that courts should be accountable. that if as caller noted, if voters are upset with a certain ruling they should have the right to unseat a supreme court
justice. i think a lot of people wouldn't necessarily disagree with. that i don't think anybody is talking about taking the vote completely away from the people. it is the idea of how much, how much do you want it to resemble the rest of the politicalyo process?rese >> host: in north carolina's case, the supreme court justices are appointed initially or do they run for the seat? >> guest: they run.at about 90% of our appellate judges run on some level. so, in north carolina, in fact, judicial candidates can openly solicit for money. that is only true in a handful of states. they are as the justices lamented to me, they're on the phone 15, 20 hours a week, dialing donors. these donors are typically lawyers, law firms, business groups. it is not, it is not sort of the grandma at home running -- writing a $50 check. it is people who will be before these courts that are giving donations to these candidates. >> host: is the court in session
year-round? >> guest: it is. there are session where they're off long periods of time. >> host: the caseload is consistently heavy? >> guest: it is not huge. a lot involves turning down appeals from the lower courts. they may not issue decisions every year but they have big impact. >> host: caller from north carolina. paul in north carolina. paul, hello. >> caller: good morning. how are you, sir? >> host: fine. >> caller: i want to know, why don't they put the r or d or i behind these judges? because i'm like he said awhile ago, most people look at it, there is nothing there. we don't want to waste our vote. i feel like, i don't know about anybody else, some people i wouldn't vote for if i don't know what they are. so i justw ab wonder if you havt an answer to that. thank you very much, i will get off the phone listen to it. >> guest: you make a great point, it is the gap between the fantasy that we have that these
elections are non-partisan and the reality. the truth is, you know, ideally in north carolina and other places these candidates should not have political agendas. they should basically be there to apply the law to a given set of facts in the case but reality, as i noted at beginning of the program, you have a group of candidates on one side backed by the republican party, another group backed by democrats and i it mayr gr not be so bad for vos looking to find some idealogical identification with a candidate to know which side, to actually declare i'm a republican or i'm a democrat. because ace noted before, theren is so little information about who these candidates are and where they come from. >> host: houston, texas, robert on the line, democrats line. >> caller: good morning, i have listened to your program and what i'm concerned about is that the whole judicial system beginning the supreme court hase
gotten so political, that there is too much influence by people on judges opinions. you know, you were talking about the justice o'connor. don't ever forget that justice o'connor voted to allow the state of florida to shut down the recount. r and she wanted to make sure that there was a republican president who would nominate a republican to replace her when she retired to take care of her husband. so this whole business about non-political justice system is so much hot air. and i don't know what you can do about it but supposedly, the justice system is not supposed
to be political. and, i don't know where you go from here, but, something needs to be done about it. and, when i filled out my ballot the election in texas, most of the paperwork involved selecting judges. i >> host: really? how much judges do you get to vote on there in your election area? >> caller: there was two, i fill out a paper ballot, okay, and mailed it in. there was two pages involved and most of the first page was judges, left and right. >> host: do you feel like youht knew what you were doing? >> caller: , no. i didn't know what i was doing. and frankly i guess, when it comes to that kind of thing, i'll vote democratic. i won't, i won't republican.
>> host: robert, thanks for the call. some of his experience there. >> i think he brings up a great point. that is, when we talk about alternatives and look at the federal system which is appointment-based, it can be as rife with politics as anything else. if you look at the supreme court or federal appellate courts, you can almost predict an outcome based on a panel or group, which side appointed that judge or justice. you know we see on the u.s. supreme court with crt with thet that you know, you can generally see how they're going to line up. republican or conservative majority. that in the appeals courts all the time. and so, you know, presidents will always say that they want to keep politics out of the process but the truth is it is e is impossible to do it. next time we have a supreme court vacancy we'll see it all over again.th this fillers down to the state level too. so a anybody, if a governor has the power to appoint some to the
supreme court or someone to the appellate courts, that is closed-door, back room process that can involve connections and maybe donations and things like that, stuff that may happen out of the public view. so there is no way to completely sort of sterilize this processw from politics. >> host: the view from burt brandenburg, justice at stake organization. they have been critical of some spending in judicial races. he says, left unchecked the tidal wave of judicial campaign cash will upend justice in america by pressuring courts to answer to political influence. turning judges into fund-raisers and convincing disillusioned citizens that justice is for sale. this is issue addressed on state by state issue because we have no, correct me if i'm wrong, no federally elected judges? >> guest: no, we don't. it will be up to individual state legislatures to, either pass reform or on their ballot measures.
there is a ballot measure in tennessee would move the state toward more of a merit selection system. f reform will have to be state by state and at some point it will have to be the public that gets concerned about the flow of w money into these races. >> host: our guest, james oliphant, white house correspondent for "national journal." his feature piece in "national journal," when judges go courting in states like north carolina, supreme court candidates have become more like partisan politicians. find that at nationaljournal.com. back to calls. lafayette, indiana. terry, hello there. >> caller: good morning. i want to talk about a race we're having up here in lafayette, indiana. the gentleman's name is wantingh to work two jobs for thiske election thing and he, will keep his other job but -- on elected
job and i was in, he works at boys & girls club. i went in there and i was talking to the person at desk there, telling them, talking to them about the drug war and i said, just like the drug war is like prohibition of alcohol. before they passed that law there were no murder russ alcohol banks until they passed that law. >> host: he is running for justice judge opinion in indiana. >> caller: repealed alcohol law 13 years after they passed it and broke up the murderous outlaw gangs. >> host: we're focusing on judicial races in states. milton, pennsylvania, democrats line. >> caller: thank you for taking myou call. i'm not so sure what we exactly should do about the judiciary because the federal system has problems, just look at u.s. supreme court the way they rule. that you have election law and judges in states that run.
but then they have to campaign. so, and in philadelphia we have a traffic court judge whoic accepted gifts which is illegal. then you have or state supreme court justice castillo, goes on junkets paid by people that come before him. then you have the federal system where you have supreme court just at thistests like clarence thomas, goes on trips paid by lobbyists too. maybe we should have public financing where judges are notis allowed to accept gifts. where their campaigns are publicly funded. so that way when they get on a bench, they won't be beholden to anybody. and they will have to run on their record as lawyer, whatever. that is my comment. thank you. >> guest: as we noted before there was a public financing regime in place inre north carolina that was repealed by the republican legislature. this also happened in wisconsin. but there c are some problems wh that just legally because the supreme court a couple years ago looked at a public financing scheme in arizona and struck it down as violation of qualpro
technician. it gave unfair advantage to certain candidates. so i'm not quite sure. there is probably a way to do it where it passes constitutional muster. but, it is a challenge for, you know, republicans will tell you, or conservatives tell you they don't like public finance because they feel like it is using tax dollars to fund, you know, candidates with partisan positions. basically you don't have a choice as a taxpayer, if you're a republican in north carolina and your money goes to justice beasley, and you would have never given a donation to her on your own, they see that as unfair and basically a distortion of the tax system. so, to their point, public financing it may be something that, whose time has already passed. >> host: picture in your "national journal" piece online, nationaljournal.com, someone may be familiar to a lot of political fans. judge sam irvin iv son or
grandson. >> guest: grandson. >> host: why is he in your piece? >> guest: he run for the court a second time. comes from well-known political family. he has aom great deal of same recognition inside the state. that is the greatest advantage yet he didn't win in 2012 because outside groups like rlslc, pardon me, the acronyms, other groups threw a lot of third party ads against him and ads, very famous ad in support of his opponent who is now on the court, and this was an ad where basically guys in black clothes ran across a field being chased by dogs while the nair tore played a banjo and talked about how tough, how this guy was tough on crime. ervin told me before those ads started to run. he was ahead in the polls. once the ads hit the airwaves he
was behind and he lost. going back to the public financing point. he was taking advantage of public financing program. that limits ability to raise money privately.that so he didn't have enough moneyis to fight back. he is running again now and he is dedicated much of his time now to fund-raising. he told me is one who told me spends 15 hours a week dialingpr people. as he told call time me. he doesn't like it. but he, that is what he has got to do.oes >> host: you write about that a littlet, bit. judge ervin in particular, but others are, their personalities are not politician personalities. >> guest: that's, these people are lawyers. they went to law school. and you know, did it usual lip for a reason. that reason was not to press thh flesh. go to fund-raisers, back slap and call people for money. they did it because they love the law. they love the idea of sitting and studying cases and writing and applying the law to the facts.
all of this, nine times out of 10 these people are not natural politicians. so it is, even, judge ervin told me, i'm an introvert. i don't like to do it. i have to force myself to do it. he wants to be on the court so that is the price he wants to pay. >> host: next doo to north carolina, knoxville, tennessee, linda on the line. >> caller: john grisham 2008 novel, the appeal, deals with this issue. sometimes fiction applies 6 plies better than reality can. >> host: give us note how thisam applies. >> caller: i'm cutting this down.ut politics has always been a dirty game, now justices too. to continue a crowded room in mississippi a jury returns a shocking verdict against a chemical company accused of dumping toxic waste into small town water supply.
the company appeals to the mississippi supreme court whose nine justice one day willpr approve the verdict or reserve it. againusti condensing. or the chemical company is owned by a wall street predator named,t p doesn't matter. with judicial elections looming he decides to purchase himself a seat on the court. the cost is a few million dollars, a drop in the bucket for a billionaire like mr. trudeau. to finish, if you really want an illustration of how this could work a itself out in practice, both on statewide level and individual county with a simple liability claim, john grisham, "the appeal." >> host: thanks for the call. you talk about in north carolina issue of electing judges and money in races. any worst in the any region, south or midwest? >> guest: i don't think so. i think it depends how open the system is. i did mention north carolina is place where judges can ask for money. that is not the case in most
states. might be a little worse there. i wouldth point out, i think its important to mention, when i was in north carolina and i attend ad cowell of candidate forums that to a person these candidates said i'm not for sale. i can't be bought. it is not going to be $500 or $1,000 into my campaign isn't going to influence me. so they're pushing back on the notion that campaign donations will guide their decision making. >> host: right. >> guest: i would point to studies that show correlation and donations of these interestt and outcomes. >> host: harold, ponte vedra beach, florida. >> caller: i practice in the state system and southern system at great length. i want to compliment the federal judges. i thought they were incredible. i was in quite a few of them. they were just fantastically honest and very, very talented. i will say also in the state system, you have some very, very
good judges but what the young man is talking about concerning the effect of money and some of the other judges that get elected, that's all true. i can tell you story after story about some of the state judges. and again, primarily they're ethical and honest and very talented but not quite up to the standards of the federal system. >> host: all right. we showed you earlier a look at ad in the hudson campaign from earlier this year. we wanted to show the ad, one of the ads in the eric levinson, he is one of the justices running against justice beasley, correct? >> guest: he is running against hudson in that race. >> host: let's look at judget levinson's ad.s >> tough by fair. judge levinson started as felony prosecutor putting murders, drug dealers and sex offenders in jail. he served on the court of appeals he made sure rulings
were face. he went to iraq and helped establish courts to prosecute terrorists. whether puttingoupr criminals bd bars or fighting terrorism, eric levinson, tough, but fair. for north carolina supreme cours >> host: judge levinson's ad in the north carolina race. get a couple more calls n we go to louise in lexington, nebraska hi, louise, go ahead. >> caller: hi. i think mostly i have a question on my ballot it shows eight different judges for different, from county to district to, district to county and workers comp. it is all a question of should the judge be retained. now, does that mean that no one has filed for any of those seats other than the person that is already there?
or, if they're there and they keep getting endorsement? does that mean that they essentially have these positions for as long as they wish to hold them? >> guest: well i think what you're describe something retention system. i'm not familiar completely with the system in nebraska but how these things typically work isib that the voters have the opportunity to retain the justice or the judge and if they don't, then the system starts over again.dg so it is not like they can hold a seat as long as they want. they hold the seat as long ashe voters let them keep it.on >> host: we've been talkingg a lot about spending in north carolina. we'll look at 2011 and 2012 years in terms of the spending this is broken down to a number of states and i think you refer to 39 states that have elected judges. in north carolina the candidate fund raising in north carolina was some $173,000. this is again, 2011-2012. as opposed to expenditures by
interest groups which was atst some $3.8 million. so far outweighing what individual candidates raised. so they really absolutely relied on the outside groups for the spending? >> absolutely. the dynamic now we'll see escalation on both sides. more outside money there is with third party groups the more m pressure it puts on candidates to raise money. so it is, it will keep going up on both sides. i honestly think this is the beginning of the process. that as more and more outside groups and billionaires and realize they can play in these elections and have impact and maybe disproportionate impact, i think in next several cycles we'll see more and more of this. >> host: just overall to give you reference here, look at the washington wire just on friday in terms of spending. their headline was, at 4 billion, talking about overall midterms, at 4 billion, 2014 is most expensive midterm ever. to south bend, indiana, andrew
on the democrat as line. >> caller: hello? >> host: you're on the air. >> caller: thank you. i have two comments, the decisions seem to be like a dog chasing their tail. so i would suggest the election, the state election fund be used to counteract outside money and that state fund be indexed somehow with local governors race against, for the state legislature. that way you have some separation between theha legislature and the judicial where one camp influenced the other. my second point is, that anyone that has to go to court will often stretch the story, whether they be a defendant or a plaintiff and then, their attorneys will have permission to have a vigorous defense which also stretches the story. i would suggest that every case,
everybody has to go underneath the oath of office just like the witnesses and the crime. thank you very much. >> host: in terms of the public financing, because you talked about north carolina getting rid of their public financing office, public financing system are, other states relying on that? >> guest: i think we're seeing fewer, in fact i'm not aware of any regimes currently in operation although i could be wrong of the trend is to move away from them along with complete deregulation of campaign finance across the board. >> host: another caller from north carolina, fayetteville. hello. >> caller: good morning. does this guy claim to beer: impartial or non-partisan? the reason i'm asking is, the judges that he is advocating for in north carolina, they're all liberals. and it is destroying the republican judges. also people that go to the polls and they don't know who to vote for because they don't have r or
d or i beside their name, they need to be educated before they go to the polls. that is why we have obama as a president. >> host: jeff, in north carolina, does the ballot have an r or d next to the judge's name? beg your pardon? >> caller: not for judges. >> host: okay. >> caller: people need to do the research before they go vote, you know? but, that's all i have, appreciate it.ar >> host: get to thech houstonvei caller said he didn't know what he was doing choosing judges. >> guest: there is a point to be made here another good way of state money for voter guides.o it sounds trite. any information that can be put into the public marketplace about who theseey judges are and their background and -- >> host: some cases and decisions? >> guest: that is exceptionally helpful. part of this too, not to get on the soapbox but as we see local journalism declining and local
news coverage getting smaller and smaller, there is less public information about races like this and so, again, ads, whether they're fair or whether they distort, can have a disproportionate effect on aer race. >> host: what got you interested in theat story? >> guest: this idea. i cover r come from affairs background. -- legal affairs background this is creep money into sector we haven't seen it. to be fair this has been going on for years. i don't want to act, don't want to suggest this is a new phenomenon. and it is not, to the caller's point it is not just conservative issue. trial lawyers and unions also pour money into these races and and so, citizens united and a lot of other factors completely transformed the landscape. now there is just no check on the amount of money that can go into these. g >> host: our guest with a law degree from ohio state.
. .s joe. it morning on our democrats line. caller: they give for having me. i had a couple of comments and i want to get your guest's impression about the following thought. the thought is, to some degree, it really does not matter, in this one area, it does not really matter what justices you get, with all the mandatory really kind of ties the judges hands from saying, ok, i want to weigh the evidence and i'm looking at the case, and i think it's a be the most a punent. >> and i'd like your response on that. as to a couple of comments, one, because i watch so much of the debating on c-span, i've watched, you know, a hundred debates, i've watched probably 95 of them. over and over again, they're tying the democratic candidates to obama. i just want to remind everybody
on the other side, that's a trickle down republican that's following george bush all the way. and here's my last comment, if you'll be patient with me, it's very short. it's a suggestion for c-span. if you will make an announcement today that you will install a lie detector on the show, there won't be another republican show up. thanks, guys. >> host: thank you. any final thoughts, james? >> guest: i was just delighted -- [laughter] by that proposal. no, the caller is right -- >> host: tough to get guests from that point. >> guest: yeah, getting into constitutional rights and things like that, but he does make a good point. at the trial court level, there's not a lot of -- but when we talk about the constitution and matters that we're all familiar with like health care and gay marriage, they can have a great impact.
>> host: nationaljournal.com. he's also on twitter and covering the white house for that publication as well. thanks for being with us this morning. >> guest: great to be here. >> and here today at the white house brady briefing room, we're live for the daily briefing. it was scheduled to start at 12:45 eastern time, not uncommon for it to get pushed later. expecting to hear more on the u.s. response to ebola. we could hear about the new restrictions put in place by governors in new york and new jersey. and as we wait for that briefing to begin, we'll take a look at how the midterm elections could affect the defense department. [inaudible conversations] >> host: joining us for this last segment of "washington journal" is molly o'toole, politics reporter for defense one. and specifically in the last 45 minutes here, we're going to look at the work ahead on capitol hill. once the election is over,
congress has to get done in terms of the defense arena and the jobs that await. you write for defense one, molly o'toole, tell us about that publication, first of all. >> guest: it's part of the atlantic media group focused on national security, foreign policy but looking at the future of the way we're going to protect this country, the way we fight wars and the policies and politics that all intersect to go into those ideas. >> host: and your job is to cover what goes on behind us on capitol hill and the white house and washington in terms of the policy of spending for the military. >> guest: right. it's a pretty big beat. [laughter] >> host: let's take a look at what is ahead for congress when they come back. they're, obviously, the election is next tuesday, the 4th, and congress won't be back until five days -- excuse me, eight days after that. i think they come back the 12th. >> guest: the 12th. >> host: so they have a trillion dollar plus omnibus spending bill. in terms of defense
appropriations, there's -- they have to get done, the national defense authorization bill, they have to get, they have to authorize the programs for training the, training and equipping the syrian rebels. and all of this has to be done by when? >> guest: yeah. well, there's some must-do legislation that has to happen when they get back. so they get back november 12th and, obviously, they have until the end of the session to get that done, but the lame duck is also intersected by thanksgiving and the holiday cans, so on -- holidays, so on the hill the idea is that they would like to get everything done by december 12th so that they can then go home for the holidays, is kind of what's been swirling around. that really doesn't leave them much time to get done a whole slate of must-do legislation, the ndaa, the authorization act, all of the appropriations bills have been left until after the election, so i believe that's 12 appropriations bills that will
likely go, be wrapped up into a giant omnibus bill. congressman mccarthy over the weekend indicated that's what he would like to do, and that would fund the government through the next fiscal year so we don't have, constantly have these continuing resolutions that only continue the previous funding for just a set short period of time. >> host: lots to talk about in terms of defense spending with molly o'toole, so we'll open up our phone lines for your comments. 3881 for republicans, democrats, 202-585-3880, independents and ores, 3882, and you can also send us a tweet @cspanwj. congress gaveled out at the end of september, early october. since then a number of things have happened. we have ramped up our response to isis in the middle east, the president ordering airstrikes. since then we have ordered 900
or more troops -- 3d 00 troops to west africa. how are these things covered under current legislation? how are they going to be paid for? >> guest: right. well, for the time being, so, the continuing resolution locked things in at the prior fiscal year spending levels. so that's about, i think it's about -- that puts the overseas contingency operations funding, which is the war fund or -- >> host: so like a catch-all? >> guest: it's kind of a catch-all. some members of congress have criticized it as a slush fund, but that was supposed to cover the drawdown in afghanistan, but what it's also done is funded some of the operations as we've ramped up against the islamic state. so for now the previous year's defense bill and o to co have been -- oco have been covering that, but the secretary of defense, hagel, and joint chiefs of staff dempsey, they both have suggested they're going to need to take another look at that,
possibly need to make a supplemental request in order to cover these operations as we're talking about the fiscal climate looking forward because those funds may not be sufficient. >> host: what are you hearing? do you think the chances are pretty good they're going to ask for more money for isis spending, more money, perhaps, for the ebola response? >> guest: well, they've already as early as october, so congress is at recess, but they already redistricted some -- redirected some funding towards the ebola effort, and they're in discussions with the appropriate committees now. they've indicated they're talking about asking for more, so it hasn't really been clear. members of congress have said they're waiting kind of on the pentagon a little bit to have an idea what that number looks like, but the pentagon is in touch with the appropriate committees on the hill to determine how that funding will be asked for, and it's likely that will be part of the overseas contingency operations request. >> host: i think we all kind of get what a spending bill is. talk about the ndaa, the
authorization bill. what does that do? >> guest: right. so that distinction is a little hard to parse out sometimes. the appropriations bill, that determines the funding. so the authorization bill is supposed to kind of set the policy. >> host: right. >> guest: and they can give a ballpark for what that funding might look like. the appropriations bill is the funding bill, the ndaa is supposed to set the policies around it. >> host: last year among the debate in the authorization one of the issues in terms of policy was sexual harassment in the military. that was certainly a contentious and contested issue and debated on the authorization bill. >> guest: right. i think that played a little bit -- >> afternoon, everybody. happy monday. do a quick announcement, and then we'll get to questions. we discussed at some length on friday the president's meeting with the advanced manufacturing partnership steering committee, so i thought i would bring a little information about it --
[laughter] just to let you know exactly what it is. i learned a little bit myself as i looked into this. the president's advance ared manufacturing partnership steering committee is part of a council of 19 leading ceos, labor leaders and university presidents assembled by the president with the recognition that industry, academia and government must work together to revitalize our manufacturing sector. the president's view is that manufacturing sector here in this country is central to the foundation of our economy, and the united states manufacturing sector is as competitive as it has been in decades as muched both by investment and new jobs -- as measured both by investment and new jobs. since february of 2010, the manufacturing industry has added more than 700,000 jobs which is the fastest pace of job growth in the manufacturing sector since the 1990s. and in the context of today's meeting, there were three new, substantial -- three new executive actions that represent substantial investment by the
federal government into research and technology that could boost the advanced manufacturing sector moving forward. and i think this reflects the president's ongoing commitment to insure that creating good middle class jobs is critical to the success of our economy because it reflects the president's view that our economy is strong and dynamic when the middle class is strong and dynamic, and the strength of our middle class is predicated on good middle class jobs being available to american workers. so this is a core component of that, and i know that we put out a fact sheet about some of these announcements this morning, so i would commend that fact sheet to you in your spare time, if you're interested. with that, mr. kunin, do you want to get us started? >> thank you, josh. i'll leave it to the fact sheet to answer our questions on manufacturing and go directly to ebola. we've had over the past couple of days a number of states
leading with new york and new jersey taking steps to quarantine returning travelers from the affected ebola region. but more significantly, today the pentagon is applying those same kind of quarantine measures to troops including general daryl williams who has returned from the region to italy. does the white house support the pentagon move? and does the fact that these various states and now the pentagon are taking these steps suggest that the white house, that the administration has been, the steps it has taken have been inadequate so far given these are taking these more aggressive positions? >> there's a lot i want to respond to, so let me unpack one at a time. the department of defense has not issued a policy related to their workers that have spent time in west africa.
i know there was a decision can made by one commanding officer in the d. of defense, but it does not reflect a department-wide policy that, i understand, is still under development. i'd refer you to the d. of defense for additional details on what consequences that could have for their personnel. the second thing is the announcement from new york and new jersey that was followed by announcements from a couple of other states was specifically related to health care workers. not just returning, not just people who were returning from the region. and that distinction is important because it continues to be the view of this administration that stopping this ebola outbreak in its tracks in west africa is critically important to our national security and to the safety and health of american citizens. as we've said many, many times, the likelihood of a widespread outbreak in this country of ebola is exceedingly low.
but the only way that we can entirely eliminate that risk is to stop this ebola outbreak in it tracks in west africa. in order to succeed in stopping this outbreak in west africa, we're going to need doctors and nurses traveling to west africa to treat ebola patients. sadly, tragically even, this ebola outbreak in west africa has occurred in countries that have little to no modern medical infrastructure. and that is the reason that we have seen this ebola outbreak spiral so quickly. in a way that has claimed so many lives. so we want to make sure that whatever policies are put in place in this country to protect the american public do not serve as a disincentive to doctors and nurses from this country volunteering to travel to west africa to treat ebola patients.
the first is that it is, you know, it reflects a commitment from a doctor or nurse to travel to west africa reflects a generosity of spirit and a concern for common humanity that is worthy of praise. it also reflects a commitment to the ideal that stopping the ebola outbreak in west africa is the only way we can entirely eliminate the risk to the american people from the ebola virus. and what you will -- and i guess this is the last thing i want to say about this, jim. you will hear from the cdc later today some additional information about guidelines that they believe should be in place to, as it relates to protocols for returning health care workers or health care workers who are returning from west africa. so we'll have additional guidelines from cdc. they'll make that announcement later on this afternoon. but ultimately, it's the responsibility, in fact, the authority is vested with state
and local officials to make decisions about how best to protect their citizens. >> doesn't that kind of create a patchwork of policies that can confuse the public, might even encourage people to game the system, lie about what they encountered when they've been in west africa when you don't have an overarching federal policy that -- [inaudible] >> well, i mean, we were talking about this a little bit earlier, jim, anticipating your question. some of this is -- in some ways, you can sort of take this up with james madison, right? we have a federal system in this country in which states are given significant authority for governing their constituents. that is certainly true when it comes to public health. at the same time, i think you have seen a strong working relationship between states across the country and the federal government. what we believe is important -- and i think this is a view that
is shared by governors and local officials across the country -- is that these kinds of policies should be driven by science, and the best scientific advice that is available. we have experts at the center for disease control and at hhs that have been dealing with ebola outbreaks for decades now, and there is a body of medical science and research that should guide the implementation of these policies. and we're going to work closely with states and localities to do exactly that. i think the best and most recent piece of evidence that i can point to to illustrate this ongoing coordination is this morning's announcement that casey hickoks, the nurse who's recently returned from north africa, will be discharged from the hospital in new jersey and will be traveling via private transportation to her home in maine. >> let's take the case at the pentagon, you talk about how the administration has been aware, has acted on the ebola outbreak
since march. and then shouldn't these, shouldn't the policy have been in place when you decided to send troops to west africa, shouldn't how you were going to treat those returning troops have been a matter of protocol then rather than what appears to be made up on the fly as we go? >> well, jim, the commitment of department of defense resources was something that the president announced, i believe, just last month. and this is, this is an ongoing effort by the department of defense to use their logistical expertise in west africa to assist those, essentially, first responders who are actually treating ebola patients. we have been clear that the role of military -- american military personnel in west africa will not be to render medical assistance to the people of west africa. instead, it will be the logistical expertise of the american military will be deployed to assist those doctors and nurses and other public health experts from around the
world who are responding to this urgent situation. that was a commitment that was made by the president just about a month or so ago, and that is -- we are already seeing important work that's being done in west africa by our american military personnel. and, you know, as needed they will continue to put in place policies that they believe best protect members of the military and the members of the public back here in the united states as well. okay? roberta? >> so is the white house concerned that the decision made by one commanding officer in the case of -- [inaudible] is sending a mixed message to people about the need for these types of policies? >> no. we believe that, i mean, it's clear, and if it wasn't clear before, it is now that i've helped make it clear that the department of defense policy has not been settled and implemented yet. and they will, ultimately, that will be a decision that's driven by a variety of operational
factors. what we are, what this administration's working to do is to coordinate with state and local officials across the country to put in place the policies that scientific experts tell us are in the best interests of the american people. and that's what we believe should guide the policy decisions that are made in this country. >> i'm confused though because, i mean, we've known about this outbreak for some time. we're going to hear a decision from the cdc later today, guidelines, protocols for returning medical workers which we knew they were there. why haven't -- and the pentagon, too, in the case of these people who are being housed or semi-quarantined in italy. why went these kinds of decisions made earlier? >> well, i think this reflects a commitment by this administration to regularly review the guidelines that are in place to make sure that they, that they reflect what's necessary to protect the american people. and we should not lose sight of the fact that whatever guidelines and policies are put in place should not unduly burden those health care workers
that, in fact, are operating in west africa in very difficult situations. they are putting themselves at risk to try to meet the needs of other people. that is a pretty remarkable show of charity. it also is an effort that is clearly in the best interests of the american people, because we know that the only way to entirely eliminate the risk from the ebola virus to the american people is to stop this outbreak in west africa. and there are american citizens who are using their own medical expertise in pursuit of that goal. these individuals are heroes, and their commitment to their common man and to their country is one that should be respected. and we believe that we can both show them the respect that they have earned while also insuring that we have protocols in place that protect the american people. >> just one quick one on the transportation d. is reviewing how -- department is reviewing
how problems like faulty airbags and defective ignition switches, does the white house have secretary fox conducting this investigation, is the white house satisfied with nhtsa's performance? >> well, roberta, i can tell you that nhtsa has been aggressive in responding to the situation related to defective airbags, and they have sought to move forward aggressively to protect the american people once they had data to indicate that action was needed. there have been some issues that have cropped up around the announcement of the safety advisory last week, and the department of transportation review that has commenced is the right step to make sure that everyone is focused on learning from the situation and strengthening the response. >> did the white house ask for that review? >> this is something that is being led by the department of transportation, so if you have a
question about their review, i'd refer you to them. jim? >> josh, the cdc guidelines that are coming out later this afternoon, will the states be compelled to follow those guidelines, or could they still chart their own course when it comes to quarantine? >> yeah, that's a great question. state and local officials have broad authority to impose quarantine policies in their own states and localities. so the role for the cdc is to martial scientific evidence. as i mentioned, centers for disease control has extensive experience in dealing with ebola outbreaks. there is a body of medical science that's been devoted to understanding how exactly the ebola virus is transmitted. that science tells us the likelihood of a widespread ebola outbreak in the united states is exceedingly low, that the risk to the average american citizen is exceedingly low. i think dr. fauci yesterday described it as vanishingly low -- >> there is potential for different states to have different protocols. >> well, there are, there is the
potential for governors and mayors in specific jurisdictions to exercise the authority that they have to impose a quarantine policy. what the obama administration -- >> [inaudible] different states with different guidelines -- >> well, as i mentioned to jim, i guess he can take that up with james madison. the fact of the matter though, jim, is we have a strong working relationship from the administration to, a strong working relationship between the obama administration and states and cities all across the country. and, again, i think the best ed of that -- evidence of that is something that was announced today which is that by working with cdc, the state of new jersey has determined that it's appropriate to release her from the hospital where she has been in new jersey so that she can travel home to maine. i think that reflects ongoing discussions between the centers for disease control and public officials in new jersey. and, again, i think that
reflects a decision that was made by new jersey officials that was driven by the kinds of scientific expertise that resides at the centers for disease control. >> speaking of casey hickoks, what did the white house make or what did the president make if he had an opinion on it of seeing her in that tent in that hospital where she was required to be for some time? and does the white house believe that her rights were violated in any way? >> well, jim, i have not spoken to the president about this, so i, i'm unaware of what his personal reaction is. i think that the reaction that many people across the country had -- and i think it was shared by at least some people here in the white house -- is that the service of somebody like casey hickoks is something that we should honor and respect. again, she traveled to a west african country that is dealing with the outbreak of a contagious, deadly disease.
she didn't travel over there because she was getting a big paycheck. presumably, she's not going to be inducted into the nurses' hall of fame for it. she did it out of concern for her common man, and she saw an opportunity to serve people that are clearly not as fortunate as we are to have a modern medical infrastructure. and, ultimately, because of her hard work we are going to stop this disease in its tracks in west africa, and that is the only way that we can eliminate the risk that this disease poses to the american people. so her service and commitment to this cause is something that should be honored and respected, and i don't think we do that by making her live in a tent for two or three days. >> so the white house disagrees with that confinement, her being con finded in that tent? -- confined in that tent? >> well, again, jim, i guess i'm trying to answer this in a couple of ways. the fact is it is the state and local authorities have the authority to make these kinds of decisions about how to implement quarantine policies --
>> so states put people in tents, they can do that? >> well, subject to the laws of these individual states. what we hope and what we think has been true in the vast majority of circumstances is that these kinds of policy decisions should be driven by science, and there is a body of scientific work out there that helps us understand exactly what kind of risk we face. again, dr. fauci said yesterday on some -- it might have even been on your network where he indicated the risk that was facing the average american is vanishingly low. and the only way we can drive that risk to zero is to stop this outbreak in its tracks in west africa. and the only way we're going to stop this outbreak is if there are brave individuals like casey hickoks who are willing to put themselves at greater risk to try to stop it because it's in the best interests of the american people. again, her service and commitment is something we should celebrate. >> and folks are wondering where is ron klain in all of this, he's supposed to be the ebola
response coordinator. it seems you have the need for some coordinating here. >> jim, i -- i'll say a couple things about that. the first is, again, the state of new jersey made a decision in consultation with the cdc earlier today to release miss hickoks from the hospital where she had been staying so that she could travel home to maine. that was a policy decision that was made by new jersey officials exercising the authority that they have in consultation with scientific experts at the cdc. that is evidence that the ongoing coordination between the obama administration, state and local officials continues, continues successfully in this case. >> and did the white house get a heads up from new york and new jersey before they -- >> on what? >> on those quarantine policies that were announced? was the white house or the obama administration notified before new york and new jersey went forward with these quarantine policies? >> well, jim, i can tell you that the white house and administration officials, the cdc and hhs and dhs and other relevant agencies have been in
close coordination with state and local are officials in these states for some time now, for weeks, months even. and i'm not going to be in a position to detail or draw a timeline for all of those conversations, but those intensive conversations continue as state and local officials exercise the authority that they have under their own state law to protect their citizens. again, what the science tells us is that a really important step for us to take in terms of protecting the american people is to stop this outbreak in west africa. >> i apologize, i'm taking too much of my time here and everybody else's time, but it seems like you sort of danced away from an answer to that question. was it a surprise to this administration when new york and new jersey came out with their policies on these quarantines? is that a yes or a no in terms of whether or not the administration was told in advance? >> what i'm telling you, jim, is i'm not going to be in a position to detail all of the phone calls. but administration officials at a variety of agencies including
hhs, cdc and the white house have been in regular touch with state and local officials in new york and new jersey and elsewhere as they deal with this ebola situation, okay? stephen. >> what do you suppose did drive the decision to impose these medical quarantines? if the federal guidelines or protocols -- [inaudible] overturned by science, what drove the decision last week in new york and new jersey? >> well, i understand governor cuomo and governor christie have been answering a variety of questions about the policies that they put in place, so i'd encourage you to ask them. it's their authority they're exercising, and they're the ones making the decision. >> do you suppose it was driven by fear or irrational -- >> again, you'd have to ask them. >> the federal government also has the power, the cdc, the president has the power to issue mandatory quarantines to restrict people from traveling over state borders or imposing other kinds of public health rules and regulations. will the announcements that the cdc will be announcing today, will they be mandatory
guidelines or merely advisory? >> yeah. we'll wait until those announcements are made, and you can ask them, okay? [inaudible] >> thanks. a while ago you mentioned some of the aid workers that are going overseas to west africa, and no one's going to argue with you about their courage and dedication in doing so. but could this be overcome, could it be contained in west africa without americans going there? >> that's a good question. there's probably somebody that has some more public health expertise to better assess that country. >> well, can you quantify how vital -- >> look, i think some of this goes back to some of the discussions we've had over the course of the summer about the indispensable role the united states of america plays in the world, that we have the kinds of resources and infrastructure and expertise and values that guide us to play a leading role in difficult situations like one. those are the kinds of values and the commitment that guided the president to make a commitment of department of defense resources to deal with the situation in west africa,
and i suspect it's those kinds of values that are driving medical workers in this country to place themselves at some risk, to volunteer their time and travel to west africa to seven those who are less fortunate. again, that is a commitment and a reflection of the kinds of values that should -- that's worthy of our respect. >> absent a halloween seance to take it up with james madison -- [laughter] you're saying nothing the federal government can do to compel states at this point -- >> i'm not giving legal analysis, i'm just observing what is a basic -- >> the white house understands what power it has in situations. >> yes. >> and what is that power? >> well, again, i would encourage you to consult a legal expert here. look, the role that this government is playing is one we have played for some time in terms of this response which is making sure we are martialing the best scientific evidence and expertise that is available and
working closely with state and local officials to put in place policies that protect the american people. that is, essentially, the bottom line when it comes to this policy making process, protecting the american people. we need to understand as we're putting in place those policies that the only way we can entirely eliminate the risk from the ebola virus to the american people is to stop this outbreak at the source, and it's why as we're putting in place these policies we should be mindful of not placing undue burdens or in some cases even outright disrespecting health care workers who are making a commitment to go and serve those who are less fortunate in west africa to try to stop this outbreak at the source. >> very quickly, did you over the weekend, did the white house speak directly with governors cuomo or christie to get them to reverse this decision? >> again, i think this is similar to the -- >> i'm not asking about the whole totality of the conversation, just this one particular conversation. >> again, i'm not going to detail specific conversations, but suffice it to i say the white house, cdc, hhs and other
relevant agencies have been in touch with officials in new york and new jersey, and we have been for some time. ed? >> putting aside the government, where is the white house itself in terms of policy making in terms of a 21-day quarantine? we were told by dr. fauci on the record on friday that it was at least being considered by the white house. is that off the table? a federal quarantine, again, putting aside the governors. is that possible, or is that off the table? >> well, what the president has indicated will guide him in all of these policy decisions is protecting the american people. and the president continues to be open-minded about suggestions people may have about the best way to protect the american people. those sorts of decisions are going to continue to be driven by science and by a priority that reflects the need to make sure that we're not placing an undue burden on those health care workers that have volunteered their time to go and try to stop this quote break at the source. >> you've said several times
being driven by the science and seem to suggest that the science believes a 21-day quarantine might not make sense. why would president still be considering it if he's driven by the science? >> well -- >> is it still evolving? >> no, i don't think it's evolving, what is evolving is the situation on the ground in west africa. that's something that we're closely monitoring, and, you know, we made a significant commitment of resources to try to stop the spread of this terrible decide. i think this is analogous to the question that was asked of the president recently about a travel ban. that it's the view of this administration that a travel ban is not in the best interests of the american people at this point. if circumstances change, you know, we'll consider it because it's not something that he's philosophically opposed to. i think an answer about a quarantine would be along the same lines, which is to say it's something that we do not believe is necessary right now, but it's not something we're necessarily philosophically opposed to, and we'll keep an open mind about. >> there was one commanding
officer in the army who was undergoing quarantine, but we're told it's broader than that. late last week the joint chiefs recommended formally to defense secretary hagel that all troops, not just this one commanding officer, who are in the hot zone should, when they come back, have a 21-day quarantine. i think you were asked that by jim, but i didn't hear an answer. does the white house agree with the joint chiefs? >> it would ultimately be the responsibility of the defense secretary -- >> so the white house is not going to be involved? we've been through this with keystone and other decisions. i get the pentagon is ultimately going to announce it, but you're saying the white house is not involved in talking to secretary hagel? >> no, i think what i said is the secretary of defense will announce this decision. he ultimately will be the one who's driving this process as he's making the decision about the policies in place to protect his troops. i wouldn't rule out coordination with the white house on it. >> sure. my question is what is the president's view about whether
returning troops should be in a 21-day quarantine? >> again, we will let the department of defense make an announcement about what they think is the -- >> how can the commander in chief send u.s. troops basically into the hot zone without a policy on when they come home, whether or not they're in quarantine? how could that have not been decided before? >> because what we are seeing here, ed, is we are seeing this administration put in place the policies we believe are necessary to protect the american people and to protect the american troops. and we're going to let science drive that process. and as soon as we have a policy to announce on this, we'll let you know. >> if you watched "60 minutes" last night, you heard the nurses who first treated mr. duncan saying despite the talk from the cdc that protocols were in place, that they were not followed in the initial hour, and these nurses were in a horrific situation. we heard from the beginning the troops were going in, and they were going to help, and you mentioned the heroes, and they're doing heroic work, but how could they not have a plan
in mace before and -- in place before and during that heroic work? it seems like we're still waiting, we're still studying, we're still trying to figure out -- these troops are in the hot zone now. >> well, let's be clear about one aspect of this. there are a couple of things about what our troops are doing in west africa. the vast majority of them are actually not in countries that are affected by ebola. there is an air bridge that's being constructed in senegal which is neighboring country to try to assist the logistical effort to get supplies and resources and personnel into the affected areas where they can do their important work -- >> [inaudible] health facilities. >> some of them are in these countries where they're building health facilities. none of the, no department of defense personnel is responsible for actually medically treating patients. so it's important for people to understand and, again, dr. fauci talked about a little bit yesterday too. it's important for us to assess risk in a detailed way, and, you know, clearly the risk
associated with being in a neighboring country is different than the risk that's associated with being responsible for directly treating patients. okay? major. >> in other words, you don't know the risk yet -- >> no, i think we do know the risk. what we know is there is a different can amount of risk associated with being in a neighboring country and spending several weeks at a time in the bush treating patients with ebola firsthand. >> a lower risk, is what you would theorize. >> i'm not a medical expert, but i think common sense would indicate you have lower risk than those who are treating ebola patients firsthand. >> so it sounds at least based on what the white house knows so far, its recommendations in coordination with the pentagon would be not to go down this road of a 21-day quarantine. >> well, i'm not going to get into what sort of advice is being shared between the white house and the secretary of defense, but again, we do want this process to be driven by science, and science would mandate close examination of the
risk that's associated with all of these different activities. >> do you -- jim asked this before, and i just want to give you another chance. do you believe there were legitimate issues at stake in casey hickoks circumstance and that was something the administration in coordination with the governors want to avoid, litigious -- outbreak of litigation over someone being warranteed who believes they have rights -- quarantined who believes they have rights violated in the here and now? >> what's the question? >> is that something the administration is trying to prevent as it coordinates with governors, what to do with people returning from the hot zone? she got a lawyer, she's filing a lawsuit to say, look, you can't keep me here. this is a basic violation, and i'm asking is that something in the entire process that you're dealing with, the story has many components, you're trying to minimize? >> well, i don't think that -- i think she was expressing her concern about a state-implemented policy.
so i'm not sure that she or her lawyer was considering action against the federal government -- >> i'm not saying they were either, but all of this is being absorbed by a public that's trying to understand what's actually going on; what's their risk, procedures, how should the elected leaders in their states proceed. and i'm just wondering as you talk to the governors and try to work through all these things, ron or someone else here might say, look, we don't want lawsuits popping up all over the country about people who are in a tent at an airport because their rights are being violated when we're trying to talk about public health and other aspects of this contagion? >> well, you know, our top priority here has been the protection of the american public. and that is what's driving these discussions. what we believe should be driving the policies is the body of scientific work that indicates what sort of risk individuals face. and, again, in this case the american people should understand that the risk they face from the ebola disease
based on the likelihood of a widespread outbreak in the united states is exceedingly low. that's very unlikely to occur. and we know that based on the science surrounding how ebola is spread and based on the modern infrastructure we have here in this country. and we believe and we're going to continue to work with state and local officials as they implement these policies that these policies should be driven by science. >> is it fair to say that the white house take over a decision by governors cuomo and christie was they acted irrationally? temporarily stigmatized this health care worker? >> well, i don't know if that was the effect, but we certainly believe that any policies that are in place should be driven by science and should reflect the significant commitment, in fact, heroism of some of these individuals who are volunteering their time to operate in the very dangerous environment both to serve their fellow man, but also to serve the american people. >> and their decision was not consistent with that. >> well, again, and i think i did say this pretty clearly to jim's question that, again, somebody like casey hickoks who
are making a commitment to volunteer her time and travel to west africa and work intensively and closely with highly contagious ebola patients is service deserving of praise and respect. and having her sit in a tent for two or three days doesn't exactly do that, okay? go ahead, john. >> let me ask, and jim asked -- i didn't hear an answer from you -- on casey hickoks' case. she said her rights were violated. she was locked in that tent against her will. do you agree with her that her rights were violated when that was done? >> i -- it's hard for me to render a judgment on that, john. i'm not steeped in new jersey quarantine law. what i do know, however -- >> this is a human rights issue. i mean, this is, you know, goes beyond jersey law. she was -- >> right. i think i've been pretty clear that about the praise and respect i think she's entitled to. >> you mentioned that u.s.
military personnel are not directly treating ebola, those suffering from ebola in africa. the bulk of them are in a neighboring country, not even in the countries that are affected here. if the major threat here is what's happening in those countries in west africa, why not? the united states military has some of the, you know, the best medical personnel in the world. why are we not more directly engaged with getting control of this disease at ground zero where it's happening? >> well, john, what we feel like right now is what the president has concluded is that the best way to leverage the expertise and the resources of the american people many this instance is to -- in this instance is to offer up logistical support from the department of defense and that we have seen a significant response from the international community both foreign governments, nongovernment organizations dedicating resources and personnel to trying to stop, to trying to stop the outbreak in west africa. >> you don't have -- there's
nowhere near enough medical personnel in those countries -- >> there is more than is needed. i can tell you the american military commitment has galvanized the international community to ramp up their response, but there's no doubt more is needed. >> what about the message we send when we say our personnel will not be allowed to treat those actually suffering from the disease? >> well, i think what it says is the best way the department of defense can help is by offering logistical expertise to speed the transfer of supplies and personnel and equipment into the region. and i think it is certainly fair to say that there are a large number of american doctor cans and nurses who are volunteering their time to trying to confront this outbreak, to stop this outbreak. again, both because they believe that it reflects a commitment to their common man to try to meet those basic medical needs of those who are less fortunate, it also happens to reflect what science tells us is in the best
interests of the american people. stopping this ebola outbreak at its source is the only way we can eliminate the risk. >> okay. flipping to an entirely different subject. we are eight days out from midterm elections that could be highly consequential for this president, why is he here without any public schedule at the white house, why did he spend the entire weekend completely outside of public view? how can he is not out campaigning with and for democratic candidates this these races? >> those who are interested in seeing the president campaigning will have ample opportunities to do so over the course of this week -- >> josh, you know what he is saying. he is has not been out on the campaign trail. >> the president's looking forward to his trip to wisconsin tomorrow. the president will be traveling to maine in support of democrats there on thursday. he'll be spending some time in rhode island on friday, and he's going to ramp up even further his activities over the course of this weekend doing two stops on saturday and two stops on
sunday. i think that reflects a commitment by this president to supporting democrats on the ballot. did somebody ask where? >> yes. >> there's so many stops i have to look up exactly where the president's traveling. where are they. so we've got the president traveling to mill withdraw ceerks as i mentioned, on tuesday, traveling to portland, maine, on thursday, the president will be in rhode island on friday, then to michigan on saturday and then he's going to travel to philadelphia and, i believe, connecticut on sunday. so, again, a variety of stops where the president will be actively campaigning in support of democratic candidates. >> you're not going to stand there and tell me the president's been actively campaigning in these midterm elections. >> i think any examination of the president's schedule would indicate a serious commitment to supporting democratic candidates on the ballot. >> how many senate democrats has he campaigned with in this election? >> there are a number of democratic senators with whom the president has appeared, so certainly he's looking forward
to his event with mr. peters on saturday. the president has appeared in public, for example, i know that he traveled with senator franken where they were discussing some issues that were important to middle class voters in minnesota. i don't think there are any campaign events that were associated with that specific trip. but what you've seen the president do is dedicate his time to doing what he can to support democratic candidates, and he's spent a lot of time raising must be for them -- money for them, and that reflects, i think, a significant commitment of this president's time and energy to supporting democratic candidates. >> you don't agree the president's been considered politically toxic to many of those democrats running -- >> it won't surprise you to hear i do not agree with that assessment. stop the presses. jared? >> josh, you seem to be going up to the line but not yet criticizing directly the actions by the new york and new jersey governors. when state policies differ from the cdc's science-based policies and you're alluding to the fact that it might create a
disincentive for health care workers, does the administration believe it's a bad idea to go beyond the cdc's science-based policies? is it a bad idea? >> well, what we, what we believe, jared, is that science should drive these decisions, and science should drive how these policies are implemented -- >> characterize when the policies are driven or go beyond what the cdc requires -- recommends, that's a bad idea. >> well, i think that it's difficult to sort of encounter at that specific hypothetical. >> it's not a hypothetical, these are actual policies that have been put in place. >> which policies? >> the ones in new york and new jersey. >> there's two. is there one you'd like to choose? >> let's go with new jersey. [laughter] >> what would you like behind door number one? what's your question, jared? [laughter] >> the state policies, are the
state policies -- i'm sorry, somebody's not going to get that. are the state policies in new jersey, and just new jersey for the sake of this -- because i don't think federalism limits your criticism -- do the state policies of new jersey hinder health care workers, and does this administration view them as a bad idea? >> jared, what i can tell you is that the administration from the cdc and hhs to even up here at the white house has been in close touch with new jersey officials as they implement the policies that they believe are in the best interests of the people of new jersey. this administration believes that policies that reflect the scientific expertise of medical experts who have been tracking this disease for four decades now should guide the implementation of those policies. and we're going to continue to work with officials in new york and new jersey and states all across the country to make sure that those, that those policies do reflect the science. and that'll be an ongoing
process. as i guess ed noted, there has been on occasion the need for the federal government to strengthen the guidance that we're putting in place based on changing situations on the ground in west africa, based on updated scientific protocols. so we're certainly open to working closely with state officials to tailor the kind of response that's necessary to protect the individuals in their states. all of that is mindful of the fact that what science tells us is that the only way to eliminate risk from the ebola virus is to stop this outbreak at the source. >> the cdc's policies are not superseding state policies at point and since ron klain's role has been ebola response coordinator, can you tell me what, what areas are under his purview? is it the federal response only? is it the federal response and the state response? is it the federal response that includes the military component like what we've seen in italy, or is it to be determined?
>> jared, we've tried a couple of times, i think, to describe what mr. klain's role is here, he's responsible for coordinating the whole-of government approach that the president has suggested is necessary -- >> role of the federal government. >> yes. yes. april? >> josh, a couple of questions on a couple different subjects. i want to go back to the issue of the president and midterms. michelle nunn, the president in atlanta talked about how we, if we go to the polls meaning young people, blacks, latinos it could put -- keep the senate, basically, in democratic hands. so michelle nunn, apparently, has a three-point lead, basically tied. what does this white house feel about this? do you feel that the president made an impact on some of those voters to help possibly a win? >> well, april, let me just say
as a general matter that the president is very interested in supporting democratic candidates on the ballot who are interested in promoting policies that benefit middle class families. that's what's at the top of the president's commercic policy making agenda, and he's interested in having partners in congress, in the house and the senate, who will work with him to make progress in support of middle class families. and the president has done a number of interviews to encourage voters to be engaged in the midterm election process, and he's worked hard to elevate the attention around issues that are affecting the middle class. and, you know, i guess we'll find out on election day the extent to which democratic candidates benefited from that advocacy. >> also what's the timeline for the administration since you're saying that you want to attack it at the source, the e ebola situation at the source, what is the timeline for this
administration as it pertains to the medical infrastructure in west africa and the u.s. military? what is your timeline? because i talked to a retired general who was the head of africom. he said it could take you six months literally to help build -- if you were serious about it -- to help build the medical infrastructure over there. >> april, i don't have an updated time frame. i guess i'd have to refer you to the cdc, hhs or maybe even the state department on this. i think that reflects the number of agencies that are engaged in this process. but we believe, again, that the only way to byerly eliminate the risk to the american people from the ebola virus is to stop this outbreak at the source. and you've seen a significant commitment of resources from the department of defense to supporting the infrastructure that's necessary to move supplies and equipment and personnel into the region to do exactly that. >> and i hear you, but i understand there's a great need for this infrastructure, but if
it's so urgent, why not have a timeline to help build this infrastructure to stop it at the source. >> >> well, again, i think you may be conflating two different things. i'm not suggesting the united states is going to grow in and construct a medical -- to go in and construct a medical infrastructure for these countries. i'm suggesting this virus is raging out of control in these countries because there isn't a modern medical infrastructure in place. >> but you're not going to support the building of a medical infrastructure? >> what we're hoping to do is to put in place an infrastructure that will allow supplies and personnel and equipment to get to this region of the world so these medical professionals can treat those who are afflicted with this deadly disease. i'm confident it's going to require more sustained, longer term investment in this area of the world to build them kind of medical infrastructure that's needed to prevent these kinds of outbreaks in the future. what we're focuses on right now is trying to stop this outwreak. >> and lastly, there's a conversation going in this room about the situation in new york and new jersey. what's the thought of this
administration when it comes to colleges and universities in this country who have a lot of college students that come from africa, particularly west africa? sierra leone, guinea and liberia? and they're imposing tougher travel restrictions op their students -- on their students, particularly when it comes to the holiday season. what is the administration saying about that? >> well, there is -- there are policies or that are in place to guide this, april, which is there are screening measures that are in place in west africa, and there are screening measures at airports in this country to make sure that individuals who have recently traveled to west africa, when they get off the plane, their temperature is checked, their personal contact information is collected so that the government can stay in touch with them, that information is then transferred to state and local authorities who can monitor the health of these individuals once they return. and, you know, we believe that's what -- that the science tells us that's the best way to insure the safety of the american
public. >> about the science, to universities and colleges when they're imposing tougher restrictions? >> well, i don't think it's -- i can't speak to my restrictions being put in place by colleges and universities. what i can speak to are the restrictions that are currently in place, i mean, the screening measures that are currently in place at airports in west africa, at airports in this country and then the kind of active monitoring that state and local officials will be responsible for doing when you have individuals with a travel history of being in west africa that appear in their states, okay? kristin. >> does the president -- [inaudible] >> kristin, as i've mentioned i think a couple of times now, the members of this administration have been in close touch with state and local officials in new york and new jersey over -- >> i understand -- [inaudible] >> kristin, i'm telling you that i'm not going to detail specific conversations other than to say that there are a range of conversations that have to occurred from white house
officials, officials at hhs and dhs and cdc with state and local officials in new york and new jersey and a variety of other -- >> officials actually spoken to the governors? the reason i asked that is because as late as yesterday evening, governor christie said he hadn't spoken to the white house. has someone from the white house reached out to governor christie directly? >> i'm just not going to be a position to -- [inaudible] individual conversations. >> on the point of ron klain, he was appointed to be the ebola czar, whatever term he uses -- >> that's not one we use. >> what has changed hintz he started -- since he started his job? it appears this week there's more confusion than there was last week given what we're seeing in new york and new jersey and more sort of differences between how the states are dealing with it. so what's changed, has he accomplished and is he accomplishing what he was appointed to do? >> kristin, i will, i think the record should reflect that mr. klain started one week ago
today, and in that time we have seen a significant number of announcements related to the whole-of-government approach that the president has ordered. we've seen a commitment from dod not just to invest resources into west africa, but also to put together a team of medical professionals that can be on standby in this country and ready to respond as necessary. we have seen a significant commitment of resources from federal governments around the world to the broader effort to stop the outbreak at its source in west africa. we've seen beefed-up protocols that were issues by the cdc to guide the precautions that medical professionals in this country should take when they're dealing with an ebola patient. we've seen the cdc stand up and actually deploy a s.w.a.t. team from atlanta to new york when there was the suspicion that an ebola patient had been identified in new york. there have been a whole series of training and outreach programs that have been
performed by cdc officials in consultation, obviously, with state and local public health officials. this came in particularly handy in new york where there were thousands of health care professionals that were trained at the javits center in new york just days before this ebola patient turned up in new york city. there were additional screening measures that were implemented by dhs to insure that individuals who'd recently traveled in west africa were now traveling only to those five airports in this country. i see you want to interrupt me, i've gone on for quite some time, but i think it's important to reflect all that has happened and all that has been announced in just the last week. you know, obviously, some of that mr. klain was closely involved with. some of it he wasn't because it reflected work that had been done before he arrived. but i i do think what you see here is intensive coordination among a range of federal agencies to respond to this very difficult challenge. >> and yet wasn't part of his
task to streamline the response all across the country? and i understand what you're saying about different states, james madison. but, still, picking up on where some of my colleagues have left off, the fact that you're seeing this different response in new york, new jersey, florida fuels panic, i think, and misunderstanding about the disease. so doesn't there need to be more of an effort to get everyone on the same page? >> well, i don't think that -- i don't think it fuels panic, because i think people understand the fact facts. and to the extent there is panic, if that's what you've observed, maybe it's important for me to restate the basics one more time. it's important for people to understand you cannot catch ebola by drinking the water, eating the food in this country. it's not spread through the air like the flu. the only way that ebola is transmitted is by coming into close contact with the bodily fluids of an individual who is already displaying symptoms of ebola. that's why the only two situations in which the