Reo. Jeb Hensarling, R-Dallas, said images of the cordoned-off Village apartments reinforces the crisis nature of the Ebola cases in Dallas. Above, cleaners in hazmat suits walk into Amber Vinson's home at The Village apartment complex after a third case of Ebola in Dallas, Texas October 16, 2014. (Nathan Hunsinger/The Dallas Morning News)
WASHINGTON — As some of his House colleagues grilled top health officials in an Ebola-focused committee hearing on Capitol Hill, Rep. Jeb Hensarling offered a hometown perspective from Dallas.
“I am sitting here in Dallas, Texas and literally just drove by the Village apartments and saw that area cordoned off,” he said, answering a few questions about Ebola before moving on to the subject of a previously arranged interview. “I have driven by Texas Presby several times, so it’s a sobering reminder of this crisis — a word that is used all too often in Washington, but I think certainly we have to admit we may have one on our hands now.”
He said he and other Dallas residents are concerned that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention protocols for treating Ebola may be inadequate — a point his colleagues have been discussing all morning. He also said the Administration should look seriously at imposing a travel ban on anyone traveling to America from Ebola-hit nations in West Africa. But he also stopped short of joining explicitly calling for such a ban.
“So there is great concern that CDC is not employing the right protocols and great concern — and serious questions have to be answered — about a possible travel ban,” he said. “So I’d like to hear the answers that will come forward from this committee hearing. My constituents in Dallas are very concerned about it. I am concerned about it. I work in Washington, but i live in Dallas. A lot of serious questions have to be answered.”
Two weeks ago, the chairman of the holding company for British Airways told me that from the point of view of airlines, such bans aren’t necessary.
“British Airways was flying into Liberia and Sierra Leone, which we stopped in early August,” Walsh said. “The reason we stopped was that demand on the route was obviously effected by outbreak of Ebola, so it was very much a commercial decision.
“All of the medical advice we received was that there was no risk to us, in fact we were criticized by some government and health agencies for stopping flying because they felt it was an unnecessary decision on our part.
“I am not a health expert but I probably know more about Ebola than I have ever known. … The situation today is clearly a tragedy for the countries involved, Liberia and Sierra Leone and the people. … The experience we have flying into the region and since we stopped flying there, is that the risk is very very low. This is a disease that can only spread through contact, direct contact with bodily fluids or secretions. … There has been no advice from any of the medical authorities stopping flying.”
Doug Parker, chairman and CEO at American Airlines, added that he felt at the time there was no additional steps that airlines neede to do screen passengers. Very soon afterward, federal authorities announced that additional screening would be required — though only at five major airports, where 94 of the passengers from the West African nations dealing with the most numbers of Ebola cases arrive.
Asked if the European experience should give lawmakers’ pause about insisting on a travel ban, Hensarling said he wasn’t sure yet.
“I don’t know the answer to that yet,” he said. “I would hope that better screening could prove to be the right solution. But with more cases breaking out, you would rather act too cautiously rather than with insufficient caution.”
As bureau chief Todd Gillman notes, the Administration and many Democrats in Congress have pushed back against calls to impose a travel ban. On Wednesday, a spokesperson for the State Department said a travel ban is unnecessary, but brushed aside a reporter’s follow-up question asking if a more limited precaution, such as limiting the issuance of brand-new visas to those in nations where the Ebola crisis is worst, would make sense.
QUESTION: Also on this, there are calls that are growing on the Hill for travel bans, that kind of thing. I understand that the White House has already spoken to that saying no, you’re opposed to it. But apart from that, and this is a State Department issue, there are also calls for visa operations to be at least temporarily suspended in the most affected countries. I – you said before, I think earlier this week, that they’re still operating as normal. Is that going to continue? They will continue operating as normal? You don’t plan to reduce or even suspend visa issuance?
MS. PSAKI: Well, we’re constantly evaluating, Matt. So we’ll see if anything is – required to happen in the future. But the reason why is the same reason why our health officials have recommended against a travel ban and said it would be counter-productive. And that’s because affecting – or closing the borders, in the view of health officials, would make it much harder to stop the epidemic or preventing individuals from traveling.
QUESTION: But – well, but stop – if you halt visa issuance in these countries, it doesn’t stop anyone from going there to help and it doesn’t stop anyone who already has a visa from coming in. But it would prevent new people who are newly getting visas from leaving the country. And I’m not – so it’s a separate issue than closing off the border.
MS. PSAKI: I understand. There is no planned changes at this point in time that I’m aware of, Matt, to that. And we obviously work with health officials to determine what steps need to be taken and we constantly evaluate that.