[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE URGENT NEED FOR A
NATIONAL PLAN TO CONTAIN
THE CORONAVIRUS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CORONAVIRUS CRISIS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 31, 2020
__________
Serial No. 116-109
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Reform
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on: govinfo.gov,
oversight.house.gov or
docs.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
41-909 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York, Chairwoman
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of James Comer, Kentucky, Ranking
Columbia Minority Member
Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri Jim Jordan, Ohio
Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts Paul A. Gosar, Arizona
Jim Cooper, Tennessee Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia Thomas Massie, Kentucky
Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois Jody B. Hice, Georgia
Jamie Raskin, Maryland Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin
Harley Rouda, California Gary Palmer, Alabama
Ro Khanna, California Michael Cloud, Texas
Kweisi Mfume, Maryland Bob Gibbs, Ohio
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida Clay Higgins, Louisiana
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Ralph Norman, South Carolina
Peter Welch, Vermont Chip Roy, Texas
Jackie Speier, California Carol D. Miller, West Virginia
Robin L. Kelly, Illinois Mark E. Green, Tennessee
Mark DeSaulnier, California Kelly Armstrong, North Dakota
Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan W. Gregory Steube, Florida
Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands Fred Keller, Pennsylvania
Jimmy Gomez, California
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
Katie Porter, California
David Hickton, Select Subcommittee Staff Director
Russ Anello, Chief Counsel
Senam Okpattah, Clerk
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
Christopher Hixon, Minority Staff Director
------
Select Subcommittee On The Coronavirus Crisis
James E. Clyburn, South Carolina, Chairman
Maxine Waters, California Steve Scalise, Louisiana, Ranking
Carolyn B. Maloney, New York Minority Member
Nydia M. Velazquez, New York Jim Jordan, Ohio
Bill Foster, Illinois Blaine Luetkemeyer, Missouri
Jamie Raskin, Maryland Jackie Walorski, Indiana
Andy Kim, New Jersey Mark E. Green, Tennessee
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on July 31, 2020.................................... 1
Witnesses
Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, Director, National Institute of Allergy and
Infectious Diseases
Oral Statement................................................... 8
Admiral Brett P. Giroir, Assistant Secretary for Health,
Department of Health and Human Services
Oral Statement................................................... 9
Dr. Robert R. Redfield, Director, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention
Oral Statement................................................... 11
Written opening statements and the written statements of the
witnesses are available on the U.S. House of Representatives
Document Repository at: docs.house.gov.
Index of Documents
----------
Documents entered into the record during this hearing and
Questions for the Record (QFR's) are available at:
docs.house.gov.
* Admiral Giroir Correction Letter.
* Letter from the Association of American Medical Colleges to
Chairman Clyburn and Ranking Member Scalise; submitted by
Select Subcommittee Chairman Clyburn.
* ``Dr. Anthony Fauci says large protests taking place across
the country are 'a perfect set-up' for spreading COVID-19'',
article; submitted by Rep. Jordan.
* ``Dr. Fauci voices concerns about coronavirus spreading amid
nationwide protests'', article; submitted by Rep. Jordan.
* ``Researchers Say Protests Didn't Increase Covid-19 Spread-
But Republicans Are Still Blaming Them'', article; submitted by
Committee Chairwoman Maloney.
* NBER Report, ``Black Lives Matter Protests, Social
Distancing, and COVID-19''; submitted by Committee Chairwoman
Maloney.
* Questions for the Record: to Dr. Fauci; submitted by Rep.
Raskin.
* Questions for the Record: to Dr. Redfield; submitted by Rep.
Raskin.
THE URGENT NEED FOR A
NATIONAL PLAN TO CONTAIN
THE CORONAVIRUS
----------
Friday, July 31, 2020
House of Representatives
Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis
Committee on Oversight and Reform
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:11 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. James E. Clyburn
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Clyburn, Waters, Maloney,
Velazquez, Foster, Raskin, Scalise, Jordan, Luetkemeyer,
Walorski, and Green.
Mr. Clyburn. Good morning. Let me welcome everybody.
Today our select subcommittee is holding a hybrid hearing
where some members will appear in person and others will appear
remotely via Webex.
Since some members are appearing in person, let me first
remind everyone, pursuant to the latest guidelines from the
House Attending Physician, all individuals attending this
hearing in person must wear a face covering. Members who are
not wearing a face covering are not permitted to remain in the
hearing room and will not be recognized to speak.
Let me also make a few reminders about hybrid hearings.
For those members appearing in person, you will be able to
see members appearing remotely on the two monitors in front of
you. On one monitor you will see all the members appearing
remotely at once in what is known as Webex grid view mode. On
the other monitor you will see each person speaking during the
hearing when they are speaking, including members who are
appearing remotely.
For those members appearing remotely, you can also see each
person speaking during the hearing, whether they are in person
or remote, as long as you have your Webex set to active speaker
mode.
If you have any questions about this, please contact
committee staff immediately.
Let me also remind everyone of the House procedures that
apply to hybrid hearings. For members appearing in person, a
timer is visible in the room directly in front of you. For
those who may be remote, we have a timer that should be visible
on your screen when you are in the active speaker with
thumbnail mode and you have the timer pinned.
For members who may be appearing remotely, a few other
reminders. The House rules require that we see you. So, please
have your cameras turned on at all times, not just when you are
speaking. Members who are not recognized should remain muted to
minimize background noise and feedback.
I will recognize members verbally, and members retain the
right to seek recognition verbally. In regular order, members
will be recognized in seniority order for questions.
If you are remote and want to be recognized outside of
regular order, you may identify that in several ways. You may
use the chat function to send a request. You may send an email
to the majority staff. Or you may unmute your mic to seek
recognition.
Obviously, we do not want people talking over each other.
So, my preference is that members use the chat function or
email to facilitate formal verbal recognition. Committee staff
will ensure that I am made aware of the request, and I will
recognize you.
As members of the committee are likely aware, we expect
votes to be called in the middle of this hearing. Out of
respect for members' and witnesses' time, and because of the
long duration of each vote during this public health emergency,
I do not plan to recess the hearing at any time.
Committee members, including those who are recognized for
questions while the vote is ongoing, will have sufficient time
to step out of the hearing, cast their vote, and return to the
hearing.
We will begin this hearing in just a moment when they tell
me they are ready to begin the livestream.
[Pause.]
Chairman Clyburn. We are having some audio problems with
the livestream and we're trying to get that straightened out
before we begin.
[Pause.]
Chairman Clyburn. Good morning. I think we've gotten it
straightened out.
Ladies and gentlemen, our Nation is in the midst of a
public health catastrophe. As of this week, more than 150,000
Americans are dead from the coronavirus, by far the most of any
country in the world.
As the virus is still spreading rapidly across our country,
it took nearly three months for the United States to go from
one infection to 1 million. Now we are at more than 4 million,
with at least a million Americans infected in just the last two
weeks.
Hospitalizations and deaths are unacceptably high.
Hospitals in some states are at risk of running out of beds,
and some hospitals have reported that they may be forced to
choose which patients to treat and which to send home to die.
On our current course, experts predict another 150,000
Americans could lose their lives from the coronavirus by the
end of this year.
My goal today is simple: to hear from our Nation's top
public health experts on what steps we need to take to stop the
unnecessary deaths of more Americans.
To improve our response, we need to identify and correct
past failures, especially those that are ongoing.
Regrettably, nearly six months after this virus claimed its
first American life, the Federal Government has still not yet
developed and implemented a national strategy to protect the
American people.
The administration has failed on testing. While they were
given warnings, including from this committee, that millions
more tests were needed, at least 11 states, including my home
state of South Carolina, are currently conducting less than 30
percent of the tests they need to control the virus.
The state cases are surging. States now face severe testing
shortages, wait time results are a week or longer in many
places, and some states have been forced to ration scarce
tests, limiting them to only the sickest patients.
Without widely available rapid testing, it is nearly
impossible to control the spread of the virus and safely reopen
our economy.
Yesterday it was reported that back in April the
administration considered implementing a national strategy to
coordinate the distribution of test kits and contact tracing
infrastructure, but it decided not to do so because at the time
the virus was primarily spreading in blue states.
Since the earliest days of this crisis, the Trump
administration has also refused to call on Americans to take
simple steps to stay safe, like wearing a mask and social
distancing. Instead, the President has downplayed the severity
of the crisis, claiming the virus will disappear, sidelining
government experts who disagree, and seek to legitimize
discredited remedies.
When the public health agencies contradict the White
House's political message, for example, when the CDC warned
that fully reopening schools presented the highest risk for
spreading the coronavirus, the White House pressured the agency
to change their advice.
The result of these decisions is that the virus has
continued to rage out of control and our Nation's economic
misery has continued.
That brings us to today's hearing. It is clear that the
administration's approach of deferring to the states,
sidelining the experts, and rushing to reopen has prolonged
this virus and led to thousands of preventable deaths. In fact,
the United States' response stands out as among the worst of
any country in the world.
My question is, where should we go from here? Today I am
calling for the administration to finally give America a
comprehensive national plan that prioritizes science over
politics. That plan should include buying and distributing
enough tests and protective gear for every American who needs
them, and it should include clear public health guidance to
every American to help curb the spread of the virus.
I am looking forward to hearing from our panel what
commonsense steps we can take as a country to control this
virus and how the administration plans to accomplish this goal.
Today's witnesses have long, distinguished careers under
both Republican and Democratic Presidents. Public health is not
a partisan issue, and I hope that all members of the committee
will join me in seeking the best health advice for the American
people, not fighting partisan political battles.
We do not need to lose another 150,000 American lives. But
if we do not make drastic changes now, this tragic outcome is
well within the realm of possibility.
The chair now recognizes the distinguished ranking member
for his opening statement.
Mr. Scalise. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank our
witnesses for being here.
Before I open, I do want to mention, Mr. Chairman, this is
our first meeting that we've had since the passing of our dear
friend and colleague, John Lewis. I know you personally were
friends with him for roughly 60 years. And we all feel that
loss. Very fitting tributes yesterday.
He was a dear colleague, but he was also a key, important
part of the movement that has made America an even greater
Nation. It's very fitting that our country has been paying such
great tribute to a dear friend and an icon in the civil rights
movement, our friend, John Lewis.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, too, for having this
hearing.
I want to thank the witnesses. And I also want to thank
your teams, because you represent what is on the front lines of
President Trump's plan to combat the coronavirus crisis.
For anybody to suggest that there's not a plan--in fact,
when you look at the title of today's hearing, ``Urgent Need
for a Plan,'' that's not the title of a hearing. That's a
political narrative, and a false political narrative at that.
You wouldn't even be here today if there wasn't a plan,
because you are the people tasked with carrying out the plan.
In fact, if you were sidelined, you wouldn't be here either.
And I know some people want to suggest that, but maybe they
haven't spent time reading different components of the plan.
These are just a few, by the way, a few of the documents
that your agencies have published to show states how to safely
reopen, to show schools how to safely reopen, to show nursing
homes how to care for their patients--which, by the way, if all
Governors would have followed those guidelines, thousands more
seniors in nursing homes would be alive today, if just five
Governors would have followed your plan that was developed by
President Trump and is being carried out by you and your teams
effectively every day.
So, again, let me thank you on behalf of the millions of
American people who are alive today that wouldn't be alive if
you weren't carrying out President Trump's effective plan to
keep Americans safe as we learn about this virus, as we work to
get a cure for this virus.
And, by the way, the cure, Operation Warp Speed, is part of
President Trump's national plan. I think we've all seen just
how close we are to a vaccine, which is revolutionary,
revolutionary in modern time to be this close to a vaccine. We
wouldn't be here that close to a vaccine without President
Trump's leadership and without the work of you and your teams
to carry out that plan.
So, again, I appreciate the work that you continue to do.
Every day we learn more about a plan. Like any plan, whether
it's a military plan or a football plan, you start the first
play with a plan, and then the plan has to change as things
change along the way, and we're seeing that play out daily.
When you look at the work that's been done, I think we talk
about different parts of the guidance. We've not always been in
agreement on each part of them, but we've had a number of
hearings where we've talked through how to improve testing. In
fact, one of the first hearings we had in this committee on
testing was back when America was maybe conducting less than
200,000 tests a day.
Today, because of the work that you all have been doing and
because of the President's plan, we're at over 800,000 tests
per day, and that number continues to grow.
Nobody is stopping. Nobody is resting on their laurels. But
when you look at that trajectory, again, going from a virus
that no one even knew about just six months, that China lied
about during that period, where we could have learned a lot
more, where we could have saved more lives while China was
lying--I wish we would have hearings on that, because that is a
real fact. That's not a political talking point.
We all know not only did China lie, they corrupted the
World Health Organization, and they were perpetuating that as
well, and it made it harder for us.
I remember being in a meeting at the White House with Dr.
Fauci months ago, before it was a global pandemic, and we were
talking about the desire to get some of our medical experts
into China to find out what was really going on, and they
wouldn't let you in. The Chinese Communist Party wouldn't let
you in when President Trump wanted to send medical experts into
China before it spread into the United States, and that cost
lives.
Why aren't we having a hearing about that?
Clearly, we talk about some of the other different things
that were done to stop the spread. This President actually did
develop an early plan called ``15 Days to Stop the Spread.'' It
was one of the first real organized plans to encourage states
to pull back.
It wasn't an easy plan for the President to have to issue,
but it was necessary. In fact, there were meetings in the White
House. I think Dr. Fauci and Dr. Birx were there as that plan
was being carried out that you determined maybe we need to go
longer, to go 30 more days, and, in fact, by going 30 more
days, you could save 1 million, maybe 2 million more lives.
Then President Trump announced that plan and did save those
lives.
The Trump administration then released a plan called
``Guidelines: Opening Up America Again'' on how states could
safely reopen. It's this part of the plan, by the way. Maybe
some people are so busy reading tweets that they haven't
actually read the plan. It's really good guidance issued by
some of the most recognized international experts on disease
prevention. Some of you here today represent parts of this
plan.
So, in ``Opening Up America Again'' it showed how states
could safely reopen. The plan was developed by public health
experts. Some complain that President Trump didn't have the
power to force states to reopen. So, the administration
actually released guidelines so that states had discretion.
Each state, we all understand how the Tenth Amendment
works, each Governor is in charge of their state. Nursing homes
are actually regulated by the states, not by the Federal
Government. But we give guidance, and it's been really good
guidance. In fact, that guidance has saved lives.
We hear cities, we hear people talking about the cries of
the need for testing. So, let's talk about what HHS has done to
lead on testing. Zero tests--again, go back a few months ago--
zero tests to now over 800,000 tests a day. In a matter of just
months, over 52 million tests have been conducted nationally.
Again, nobody is slowing down. We are actually increasing
that number. We will be over a million tests a day. Maybe we
will have a hearing on how much progress we've made there, and
we want to continue to make progress.
I know Dr. Giroir was in Baton Rouge with me just a few
weeks ago with the Vice President talking about what we're
doing to increase testing, even to limit the number of days as
a goal to get below seven days for anybody to get results.
And that number has narrowed dramatically. Now more than
half of America--half of Americans who get tested get their
results in less than 24 hours because of the rapid work that
this team has done carrying out the President's plan.
Testing is not just about numbers. It's about targeting
testing to the right people at the right time.
To that point, the Trump administration has begun
distribution of rapid point-of-care tests to nursing homes.
I've talked to nursing home heads recently who said that
decision by the Trump administration, to purchase an actual
testing kit for every single nursing home in America, over
15,000 nursing homes, each of them will have their own 15-
minute test, that will save lives. That's part of this plan.
On May 15, 2020, President Trump announced Operation Warp
Speed, again, part of a very direct and national plan to combat
this deadly virus. Operation Warp Speed is a public-private
partnership between several Federal agencies to accelerate the
development, manufacturing, and distribution of a COVID-19
vaccine, as well as therapies, diagnostics, other things to
direct the specific goal of delivering 300 million doses of a
safe, effective, FDA-proven vaccine for COVID-19 by January
2021.
And we're seeing that happen at remarkable speed. In fact,
we're not just going to wait for FDA approval. They are mass
producing those vials right now so that if there is one of
those vaccines approved by the FDA, it's ready to go. We don't
start manufacturing at that point and cost us more weeks, we're
actually ready to go.
By the way, some of that money was money that we passed in
the CARES Act that President Trump has used effectively to be
ready as the vaccines are being developed in testing phases.
Dr. Fauci, I look forward to learning more of the stunning
progress that we've seen researchers make on cures and
vaccines. I know you've been involved in researching some of
the most awful deadly viruses that we've known in the history
of the world, HIV, Ebola, of course now corona. We still don't
have a vaccine for HIV. There has been over 10 years of work.
You have done remarkable work to at least give therapy so
that people can extend their lives. But not a proven vaccine
for so many of these diseases years and years later. And here
we are six months into corona, and we are this close to a
vaccine.
So, you look at where we have seen the Chinese Government.
We hopefully will get into conversations about how costly it
was, how many lives were lost because the Chinese Communist
Party lied to the world, not just the United States, but the
world, getting the World Health Organization to give false
information in those critical early days.
But why don't we now talk about moving into August. A lot
of work is being done to talk about how to safely reopen
schools. In fact, more guidance was just given as part of this
plan by CDC to safely reopen schools.
We saw, of course, the American Academy of Pediatrics gave
great guidance on how to safely reopen schools and went further
and talked about the damage to children when you don't reopen
schools. So, much damage being done to our children in those
systems where they are talking about not reopening.
Hopefully we can shine some light and show those other
school systems how they can safely reopen and serve those
children, millions and millions of children who are counting on
us to get it right. Those school systems have to get it right.
There's money, by the way, still available at every state
for sanitizer, for masks, for all the things you would need to
safely reopen. It's not about money. It's about the will, the
desire to do it.
We have the will. You've had the will. You have been
carrying out the President's plan. Every day we will learn
more. Every day we will continue to strive to address the new
challenges. But let's not forget the things that have already
been done as part of this plan that have saved millions of
lives.
We mourn every loss. But let's also recognize the lives
that would have been lost if you weren't on the job carrying
out President Trump's plan to contain this, to find a vaccine,
which we're on the brink of, and to help safely reopen our
economy, safely reopen our schools, so that we can get back to
our way of life as we combat this deadly virus.
With that, I will look forward to hearing from our
witnesses.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Clyburn. Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member.
I would now like to introduce our witnesses.
Today the select committee is pleased to welcome Dr.
Anthony Fauci, the Director of the National Institute of
Allergy and Infectious Disease at the National Institutes of
Health.
We welcome back Admiral Brett Giroir, the Assistant
Secretary for Health at the Department of Health and Human
Services.
And, finally, we welcome Dr. Robert Redfield, Director of
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Thank you to all of our witnesses for being here today.
Will the witnesses please stand so I may swear them in?
Please raise your right hands.
Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to
give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
so help you God?
You may be seated.
Let the record show that the witnesses all answered in the
affirmative.
Without objection, your written statements will be made
part of the record.
Dr. Fauci, you are recognized for your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF ANTHONY S. FAUCI, M.D., DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES, NATIONAL
INSTITUTES OF HEALTH
Dr. Fauci. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Ranking
Member Scalise, members of the committee. Thank you for giving
me the opportunity to discuss with you today the role of the
National Institutes of Health in a research endeavor to address
COVID-19.
Our strategic plan, which we put together several months
ago, embarks on four separate points.
The first is to improve fundamental knowledge of the virus
and the biology of the virus and the response to the virus.
This has led to a delineation of the Cryo-EM structure of the
famous now spike protein, which is the target of virtually all
of the vaccines that are being produced today.
In addition, to delineate the nature of the receptor in the
body to which the virus binds, very important in understanding
the pathophysiology and pathogenesis.
In addition, a number of natural history studies, including
a study that was started in May to understand better the role
of infection in children and what role they play in spreading
the virus.
In addition, we've been involved in the second component,
which is the development of diagnostics and assays, one of
which, I will point out to you, is the NIH Rapid Acceleration
of Diagnostics, referred to as RADx, including that that is
deemed aimed at underserved populations, with a very large
investment of money to develop point-of-care diagnostics to
facilitate even more our diagnostic capability.
Next is the characterization and testing of therapeutics.
It is well known now that over the past several weeks there
have been two therapeutics that have passed randomized placebo-
controlled trials for individuals late in the course of
disease.
One of these is Remdesivir, a trial run by the NIH, which
showed a statistically significant improvement in the time to
survival in individuals who were hospitalized with pulmonary
disease. That has now been part of the standard of care in
individuals with moderate to advanced disease.
In addition, a placebo-controlled randomized trial of
Dexamethasone showed an improvement in death rate in a highly
significant manner in individuals on respirators, as well as
those requiring oxygen.
Then, finally, the development and testing of effective
vaccines.
Several months ago we put together what we call a strategic
approach to COVID-19 vaccine research and development. And the
reason we did this is because there are multiple candidate
vaccines that are moving along at a very rapid pace, and we
wanted to make sure that they learned from each other.
So, we made standardized protocols, common data and safety
monitoring boards, common primary and secondary end points, and
common individual laboratory tests.
There are three separate platforms that are being pursued
with government help, nucleic acid, including the mRNA of
Moderna, viral vectors, such as adeno vectors and VSV, and
protein subunits.
One of these is a trial that started last Monday, this past
Monday, the 27th, the beginning of a Phase 3 trial. It's a
trial that will go over several months involving 30,000
individuals. We hope that at the time we get into the late fall
and early winter we will have, in fact, a vaccine that we can
say would be safe and effective.
One can never guarantee the safety or effectiveness unless
you do the trial, but we are cautiously optimistic that this
will be successful, because in the early studies in humans, the
Phase 1 study, it clearly showed that individuals who were
vaccinated mounted a neutralizing antibody response that was at
least comparable and, in many respects, better than what we see
in convalescent serum from individuals who have recovered from
COVID-19.
As I mentioned, the Phase 3 trial has already started;
30,000 individuals we're already starting to enroll.
I might also conclude, members of the committee, to point
out that there is a website called
CoronavirusPreventionNetwork.org, where individuals can
actually indicate their willingness to participate in the
clinical trials and to make sure that we have a diverse
representation. Already, as of last night, there have been over
250,000 individuals who have registered their interest in being
in these trials.
And I just want to use my last couple of seconds to urge
anyone who is listening who wants to participate to please go
to that website and register so that you can be part of the
solution of this terrible scourge.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Clyburn. Thank you very much, Dr. Fauci.
We will now hear from Dr. Giroir--or Admiral Giroir.
STATEMENT OF BRETT P. GIRIOR, M.D., ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
HEALTH, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Mr. Giroir. Both are fine.
Chairman Clyburn, Ranking Member Scalise, and distinguished
members of the committee, it is good to see all of you again.
Testing is an essential component of America's public
health response to COVID-19. Testing enables clinical
decisionmaking. It heralds impending outbreaks. It informs
resource allocation. And it assists in minimizing economic and
social disruption.
But we cannot test our way out of this or any other
pandemic. Testing does not replace personal responsibility. It
does not substitute for avoiding crowded indoor spaces or
washing hands or wearing a mask.
A negative test does not mean that you won't be positive
tomorrow. A negative test does not substitute for avoiding
crowds or wearing a mask or protecting the vulnerable with your
actions.
All of that being said, as of this morning, the Nation has
performed over 59 million COVID-19 tests, now averaging over
820,000 tests per day, up from 550,000 tests per day when I
appeared before this committee just earlier this month. Since
March 12, we have increased our daily testing over 32,000
percent.
Half of these tests are done in either point-of-care
technologies, with results in 15 minutes or less, or at local
hospitals, for which the turnaround time is generally within 24
hours.
Because of unprecedented demand, large commercial labs that
do approximately half of the Nation's testing have become
strained. But because of expanded capacity and newly authorized
techniques, like pooling and novel extraction methods,
turnaround times are definitely improving. This week LabCorp
announced turnaround times of two to three days.
But numbers don't tell the complete story, because this is
not only about numbers. It is about getting the right test, at
the right time, to the right person, with timely and actionable
results.
So, we will continue to execute in accordance with our
national testing plan. This plan was initially outlined in the
testing blueprint ``Opening Up America Again'' and the addendum
to that blueprint. It was operationalized in the Federal
requirements for each state's testing plan. Our plan was
further detailed in the administration's testing strategy
report provided to Congress on May 23.
In short, we are, one, identifying newly emergent outbreaks
early to facilitate swift community action; two, diagnosing
COVID-19 rapidly in hospitalized patients to accelerate receipt
of those proven treatments; three, protecting the vulnerable,
both the elderly and high-risk racial, ethnic, and
socioeconomic minorities; four, enabling identification and
isolation of those who are infectious, coupled with contact
tracing; five, advancing state testing plans to achieve overall
national objectives, as well as state-specific goals; and, six,
supporting safe reopening of schools and businesses through
surveillance testing that does not impinge upon the clinical
diagnostic system.
With the limited time I have remaining I want to highlight
two of these objectives.
Protecting the elderly has been, is, and will continue to
be a foremost priority for this administration. So, on July 14
we announced that every single nursing home in the Nation would
receive a point-of-care instrument and enough tests for their
residents and staff to be tested.
We are delivering on this promise. By the end of this week,
we will have delivered, according to schedule, nearly 1 million
point-of-care tests to 1,019 of the highest risk nursing homes,
with another 664 nursing homes scheduled for next week.
My next point is about surveillance testing. We should
separate the clinical diagnostic system from the public health
surveillance system. Diagnostics are for those who are
hospitalized, symptomatic, or with high-risk exposures.
Surveillance testing can be for college students, or
potentially students in K through 12, or workers in
environments that are not high risk, or other similar
situations.
This type of surveillance can occur in non-CLIA labs, like
university research labs or veterinary diagnostic labs, outside
of the FDA authorization system at low cost and very high
throughput. We are working closely with states and universities
to implement this type of system, and many of them, like LSU,
already have.
We have all of the tools, the supplies, and the regulatory
framework to enable a robust surveillance system throughout the
Nation.
In closing, we know how to flatten the curve, slow the
spread, and save lives. Wear a mask. Practice physical
distancing. Avoid crowded indoor spaces. Practice good hygiene
by washing your hands frequently. If you feel sick, stay at
home. And protect the elderly and vulnerable populations of all
ages through your actions.
I look forward to your questions and thank you for the
opportunity to provide these remarks.
Chairman Clyburn. Thank you, Admiral Dr. Giroir.
Dr. Redfield.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT R. REDFIELD, M.D., DIRECTOR, CENTERS FOR
DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION
Dr. Redfield. Good morning, Chairman Clyburn, Ranking
Member Scalise, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for
the opportunity to be here today with my interagency
colleagues.
On behalf of CDC, I want to extend our deepest sympathies
for the loss of our Nation's esteemed Georgia Congressman and
your colleague, John Lewis. Our Nation will remember him for
his courage, his conviction, his patriotism, and his commitment
to equity for all.
CDC also remembers him as a fierce advocate for public
health. Working together, we are positioned to honor his
lifelong commitment to social justice by advancing health
equity and mitigating the negative impacts of racism on public
health in our Nation.
The three of us here today are united in delivery of
critical initiatives to stop the spread of COVID-19, to gain
the upper hand on this pandemic in the United States, and to
protect all Americans, while dedicating even greater attention
to overcoming the health disparities experienced by populations
at increased risk for this disease.
We are seven months into this global pandemic, and it is
with great humility that I share with you this is the most
complex public health response this Nation has undertaken in
more than a century.
This virus is indiscriminate regarding whom and when it
strikes. We continue to learn its characteristics, its
behavior, and its effect on Americans across the socioeconomic
spectrum. We are operating in a highly dynamic environment. We
are adapting evidence-based strategies and pushing for
innovative solutions to confront this unprecedented public
health crisis.
While I am optimistic and look forward to discussing the
promise of the COVID-19 vaccine, I want to strongly emphasize
that we are not defenseless now. We have powerful tools. And if
all of us, not just some of us, but all of us embrace these
tools, we will get a handle on this pandemic.
I am appealing to all Americans to be part of the public
health solution. Wearing a simple mask properly, it's critical
to limiting the transmission. Be smart about social distancing
and being in crowded spaces. Stay six feet apart from others if
possible. And be vigilant about hand hygiene. Together, we can
turn the tide of this pandemic.
With emergency funding, CDC has distributed more than $12
billion to the state, tribal, local, and territorial health
departments to begin building the public health infrastructure
this Nation needs--but, more importantly, that our Nation
deserves. This system has been underinvested in for decades and
needs to be put on a path for sustained funding now.
Data monitorization is underway to ensure real-time actual
data and data analytics and to include predictive data
analysis. Public health labs are restructuring, instituting the
necessary resilience to rapidly respond to emergencies. Public
health talent is being hired to enhance lab capacity, deploy
cutting-edge technology solutions, and conduct effective
community-based contact tracing.
A legion of public healthcare workers are deployed on the
front lines of this pandemic and working 24/7 to protect the
health and safety of Americans. CDC staff are on the ground in
communities across the Nation supporting public health partners
with an array of technical expertise.
Our state and local partners are committed to advocating
and educating about the needs to embrace public health
strategies that best serve families in their communities, and
essential workers, first responders and healthcare
professionals are steadfast in their service, sacrifice, and
commitment to save lives.
Please take note and please tend to them as they are
attending to us. We cannot afford to do it without them.
As I recently told a group of CDC aspiring leaders this
week, we are in the arena. We're dedicated and committed to
doing our best. And I am confident that, united, we will emerge
a better, stronger, and more resilient Nation.
Adversity requires all of us pushing harder, thinking
differently, being innovative, and perhaps most importantly,
always seeing the possible of what we can accomplish when we
unite and work together.
This pandemic has challenged us with its persistence, its
uncertainty, and its unpredictability. And yet I am confident
that, together, we will prevail over this virus. But we must
lead together in the best interests of our children, our
grandchildren, our great-grandchildren, and our Nation's
generations to come.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
Chairman Clyburn. Thank you very much, Dr. Redfield.
And thanks to all of you for your testimoneys. And as I
said earlier, you submitted to us full testimony and they all
are entered into the record.
Now I will recognize myself for five minutes for questions.
On January 31, 2020, exactly six months ago today, the
Secretary of Health and Human Services declared the coronavirus
outbreak, and I quote, ``a public health emergency for the
entire United States.'' But rather than immediately bringing
our Nation together to tackle the problem, the Trump
administration downplayed the crisis, ignored scientific
experts, and deferred to states and the private sector to lead
the response.
Dr. Fauci, on March 11 of this year you testified before
the Oversight Committee, saying, and I quote, ``It's going to
get worse.'' I regret to say you were right, it did get worse.
On March 11, the country had confirmed just over 1,200
cases and 31 deaths. Today, we have confirmed more than 4.4
million cases, and we have just reached 150,000 deaths.
There's a chart that I have up here. This chart compares
the number of new daily coronavirus cases in the United States
with those in Europe. It shows just how much worse the outbreak
has been in the United States.
Here is Europe, the line here, the European Union; here the
United States. And here is where we were on the way. We started
going up while the European countries, European Union,
plateaued and has gone down.
Dr. Fauci, can you help us understand why, while Europe has
largely contained the virus, the United States has seen a
continued rise in new cases?
Dr. Fauci. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The answer to that question is really somewhat complex, but
I will try maybe to very briefly go through what I believe are
at least some of the factors that were involved.
If you look at what happened in Europe when they shut down
or locked down or went to shelter in place, however you want to
describe it, they really did it to the tune of about 95-plus
percent of the country did that.
When you actually look at what we did, even though we shut
down, even though it created a great deal of difficulty, we
really functionally shut down only about 50 percent in the
sense of the totality of the country, which means when we
reached our peak as they did, they came down almost to a low
baseline as you have shown very clearly. But take a look at
what happened to our baseline. We came up, down, and then we
plateaued at about 20,000 cases a day.
So, we started off with a very difficult baseline of
transmission that was going on at the time that we tried to
open up the country. And when we opened up the country, what we
saw, particularly most recently in the southern states, was an
increase of cases to 20, 30, 40, 50, and a couple of weeks ago
it was up to 70,000 per day, and now it's down between 50 and
60.
The reasons for that are complex. There were some states
that did it very well, and there were some states that did not.
And when I say ``did not,'' I mean, you know, we put out, as
Ranking Member Scalise mentioned, the guidelines of a gateway
Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3. Some were followed very carefully
and some were not. In those situations in which you were not,
that led to the surging that you are showing on your chart
there.
And one of the reasons is not doing some of the things that
Dr. Redfield mentioned in his opening statement: universal
wearing of masks, avoiding crowds, physical distancing, et
cetera, et cetera.
So, it's a complicated reason why those charts are that
way. And, hopefully, as we're going forward, we can turn those
around, and I do believe we can, Mr. Chairman, by doing some of
the fundamental things that we're talking about, five easy
things to do that were mentioned by Dr. Redfield.
Thank you.
Chairman Clyburn. Thank you very much, sir.
At the risk of going over my time, because the vote is on,
what I am going to do is yield to you, Mr. Ranking Member, for
five minutes. When Ms. Waters gets back, I will let her get in
the chair so we can go vote.
Mr. Scalise. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, again, I appreciate all of you being here.
I know when we talk about President Trump's team that he
has been relying on to help put together this plan, and, like I
said, this is just a small part of the plan, there are
thousands and thousands of more pages online of various aspects
of President Trump's plan to combat the coronavirus.
But we have, of course, Dr. Fauci, Dr. Giroir, Dr.
Redfield, we see Dr. Birx. There's a whole array of doctors,
medical experts, best in the world, that are helping work with
President Trump to develop this plan.
Is that correct? If I could ask any of you all. Is that
correct?
By the way, were any of you sidelined from coming here? I
know some people try to use that term. I haven't heard of
anybody sidelined. But if any of you were sidelined, please
share it, because I haven't seen it. Good to see all of you
here.
Dr. Fauci, let me ask you about some of the decisions that
you worked with President Trump on and the whole team did. I
know when you go back to the beginning of this, the China ban
was very heavily discussed. Were you involved in working with
President Trump on deciding to ban flights from China?
Dr. Fauci. Yes, sir, I was.
Mr. Scalise. Do you agree with that decision?
Dr. Fauci. I do.
Mr. Scalise. Do you think that decision saved lives, Dr.
Fauci?
Dr. Fauci. Yes, I do.
Mr. Scalise. Do you agree with the decision, when
ultimately we saw spread in Europe and then the President
recommended that we extend that to Europe, did you participate
in that discussion?
Dr. Fauci. I was actively involved in that discussion, sir.
Mr. Scalise. Do you agree with that decision?
Dr. Fauci. Yes, I do.
Mr. Scalise. Do you think that decision saved lives?
Dr. Fauci. Yes, I do.
Mr. Scalise. Eventually, then, we saw the United Kingdom
have an outbreak, and there had to be a tough decision made, do
we extend that to the United Kingdom? Were you part of that
decision?
Dr. Fauci. I was.
Mr. Scalise. And do you agree with that decision as well?
Dr. Fauci. I do.
Mr. Scalise. Did that decision save lives?
Dr. Fauci. Yes, it did.
Mr. Scalise. When you look at the 15 days to slow the
spread, initially it started at 15, were you part of the
decision to implement that decision?
Dr. Fauci. I was very much involved in that.
Mr. Scalise. Did that decision save lives, Dr. Fauci?
Dr. Fauci. I believe it did.
Mr. Scalise. Then when President Trump met with you and Dr.
Birx to extend that another 30 days, do you agree with that
decision that President Trump made to extend that?
Dr. Fauci. Yes, I was very much involved, and I agree with
it.
Mr. Scalise. Did that decision save lives, Dr. Fauci?
Dr. Fauci. I believe it did.
Mr. Scalise. So, I know we've heard a lot about
disagreements. Clearly, there were many decisions made. In
fact, there are many very respected international doctors that
are involved in each of those decisions. Is that correct?
Mr. Fauci. Yes.
Mr. Scalise. By and large, would you say that you and
President Trump have been in agreement on most of those
decisions?
Mr. Fauci. We were in agreement on virtually all of those.
Mr. Scalise. I appreciate that.
Now I want to ask you, Dr. Giroir, Admiral Giroir, on the
testing that you have been involved in to help carry out parts
of President Trump's plan. You just talked about over a million
testing machines, 15-minute machines, that will be brought into
nursing homes across this country. I know ultimately it's going
to be 15,000--I'm sorry, over a thousand machines that are
going to be delivered already.
Is that plan in place and moving forward based on President
Trump's guidance?
Mr. Giroir. It is.
Mr. Scalise. And that money in part was taken from the
CARES Act, the bill that we worked with President Trump to pass
in a bipartisan way through this Congress. Is that correct?
Mr. Giroir. Yes, sir, that's correct.
Mr. Scalise. And I've heard specifically from nursing home
directors who have hold me that this decision will save more
lives in nursing homes. Have you heard the same?
Mr. Giroir. There is no question. I don't think any single
decision has had more positive feedback than that one.
Mr. Scalise. And I know early on CMS put out guidelines
back in March. These were just part of the many guidelines that
CMS put out on guidance to prevent COVID spread in nursing
homes. We know that 45 Governors followed this guidance.
Five Governors did not follow this guidance. And we saw in
those states tens of thousands of seniors in nursing homes died
who shouldn't have died.
If this guidance was followed by those Governors, do you
think they would have saved more lives?
Mr. Giroir. As I have testified here before, I think it's a
very concerning practice to send an infectious person back to a
nursing home.
Mr. Scalise. Well, thank you. And I wish those Governors
would have followed the guidance that President Trump's team
put out as part of a major overall plan.
Now, Dr. Redfield, I want to talk to you about reopening
schools. I know you have been very involved in this. CDC has
put out multiple documents of guidance for safely reopening
schools. Here, checklist for parents, checklist for teachers,
guidance for K through 12 school administrators on the use of
cloth face masks in schools.
I know some people want to make that controversial. This is
part of President Trump's plan, part of his plan to safely
reopening school, talked about the use of masks.
Here you have got school decisionmaking tool for parents,
caregivers, and guardians.
Are these all parts of the President's plan to safely
reopen schools?
Dr. Redfield. Yes.
Mr. Scalise. Have you been involved in developing that with
President Trump?
Dr. Redfield. Yes.
Mr. Scalise. Do you think that schools should safely reopen
this fall with in-person learning?
Dr. Redfield. Yes. I think it's important to realize that
it's in the public health best interest of K through 12
students to get back in face-to-face learning. There's really
very significant public health consequences of the school
closure.
Mr. Scalise. Well, for example, they lack the ability to
detect child abuse that occurs and is detected often in
schools. Do you know how much child abuse will not be detected
if children aren't returning to the school?
Dr. Redfield. Clearly we're seeing less reporting of it,
and, again, I think it's a direct consequence of the school
closures. 7.1 million kids get their mental health service at
schools. They get nutritional support, as we mentioned, from
schools. We're seeing an increase in drug use disorder, as well
as suicide in the adolescent individuals.
So, I do think it's really important to realize it's not
public health versus the economy about school opening. It's
public health versus public health of the K through 12 to get
these schools open. We have got to do it safely, and we have
got to be able to accommodate----
Mr. Scalise. Well, I appreciate that, and I know we're out
of time. I hope that these school systems follow President
Trump and these great medical doctors' guidance and help those
kids by safely reopening.
With that, I thank our witnesses.
And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Clyburn. I thank you the Ranking Member.
The chair now recognizes Mrs. Maloney for five minutes.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Mr. Ranking Member.
And I want to thank all of our witnesses today,
particularly Dr. Fauci, who was born in the great city of New
York, in the beautiful borough of Brooklyn.
New Yorkers are very proud that you were a New York-raised,
a New York doctor before you became America's doctor.
And I must say that, as the chairman mentioned, when we had
our hearing on March 11, which I was privileged to chair, when
I asked you how is it going to go, you said it's going to get
worse and worse and worse. The next day everybody started
closing down, sports clubs, museums, and treating it with the
seriousness the disease had to be treated with.
And at that hearing, when asked about testing, you said,
and I quote, ``that we're not really geared up to do what we
need right now.'' In fact, you said--and you called it failing.
Now it's five months later. Where would you rate us now in
our efforts? I know my city and other cities have worked
diligently trying to respond. Where would you put us now with
testing? What do we have to do to continue to get better?
Dr. Fauci. Well, I think you can get a more detailed
response from Admiral Giroir, but I'll comment.
I think that things are considerably different and improved
now than it was several months ago, both for the numbers of
tests that have been improved, as well as for the efforts that
are going into to expand our capability; in other words, to
more prudently have screening testing done in one segment, as
well as testing to determine diagnosis and followup on others.
But Dr. Giroir is much better qualified to give you the
details of that.
Mrs. Maloney. But I would like to now move to vaccines.
That's the challenge now. And I recall reading one of your
reports on AIDS, and you said: I will never retire until we
have a vaccine. We still don't have a vaccine for AIDS. Ebola
took five years.
How realistic is a vaccine? Is it dreaming, or is it a
reality? Are the protocols as safe as they possibly could be,
as we've always had for vaccines? Could you give us an honest
assessment of where our country is in vaccine development?
Dr. Fauci. Yes, it's reality, Congresswoman Maloney. I
believe it will occur. I think the difference between HIV and
coronavirus is so different that I don't think you can compare
them because the body does not make a very good immune response
against HIV, so it made vaccine development very difficult.
Whereas the body does make a robust immune response against
coronavirus, which tells us that I believe that we can get to
that goal.
I know to some people this seems like it is so fast that
there might be compromising of safety and in scientific
integrity, and I can tell you that is absolutely not the case.
The rapidity with which we're doing it is as a result of
very different technologies, in getting from the time we
recognized this pathogen in the beginning of January, to the
time we were able to get into a Phase 1 trial, to the time we
were able to do Phase 2, and then, as I mentioned, just this
past Monday we started a Phase 3.
That was not reckless rushing. That was technology and
doing things in a way that does not compromise any of the
steps.
So, I believe it is realistic, as I mentioned in my opening
statement, that the early data from the Phase 1 trial shows
that this candidate--and I am sure other candidates will do it
also. This is not the only vaccine. There are more than one.
There are about a dozen, five or six that the Federal
Government is actively involved with, is going into Phase 3
trials over the next few months, as I mentioned, one of which
is already in.
The response that was induced was really quite favorable.
And as I've said often, and I will repeat it for the record
now, there's never a guarantee that you are going to get a safe
and effective vaccine. But from everything we've seen now, in
the animal data as well as the early human data, we feel
cautiously optimistic that we will have a vaccine by the end of
this year and as we go into 2021.
So, I don't think it's dreaming, Congresswoman. I believe
it's a reality and will be shown to be a reality.
Mrs. Maloney. That's very good news.
The second step is, how do we distribute it?
And also, reports are that China and Russia are involved in
their tests and that they have advanced tests across the world.
They are testing in Brazil, Indonesia for their vaccines.
Should they develop one earlier, would we manufacture it
here?
When we develop it, how do we plan to distribute it?
We also have to think about the world, because if we don't
cure it in the world, then we haven't cured it, too.
Dr. Fauci. Right.
Mrs. Maloney. So, the steps forward after the vaccine is
developed.
Dr. Fauci. Sure. There's a couple of questions there. I
will try to answer them quickly, Congresswoman.
So, the first thing is I do hope that the Chinese and the
Russians are actually testing the vaccine before they're
administering the vaccine to anyone, because claims of having a
vaccine ready to distribute before you do testing I think is
problematic at best.
We are going very quickly. I do not believe that there will
be vaccines so far ahead of us that we will have to depend on
other countries to get us vaccines. I believe the program that
is being sponsored by us right now and being directed and
implemented by us is going at a very rapid speed, prudent but
rapid.
Now, with regard to distribution, already right now there
are plans, as was mentioned, I believe, by Ranking Member
Scalise, that we're taking at risk, financial risk, not safety
risk but financial risk, the development of doses of vaccine
right now, as we speak, so that they will be ready by the time
we do show safety and efficacy, we will be able to distribute
it.
And it will be done by a number of mechanisms. The standard
mechanism, working with the recommendation by the ACIP,
together with the CDC, now being complemented by
recommendations from the National Academy of Medicine, and in
collaboration with the Department of Defense and the CDC
working together. It will be distributed.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you. My time has expired.
Chairman Clyburn. Thank you very much, Dr. Fauci.
The chair now recognizes Mrs. Walorski for five minutes.
Mrs. Walorski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, thank you for your service. Thank you for being
here today.
I think that, arguably, the most important thing the
Federal Government is working on right now is ensuring--and I'm
an optimist, and listening to you this morning, I'm still
optimistic that we're going to use the term ``when'' and not
``if'' when it comes to getting a vaccine, shown through trials
to be safe and effective, that we have manufacturing and
distribution capabilities to go and get it across the Nation
quickly. I believe that.
President Trump has already announced Operation Warp Speed
to achieve the goal of delivering 300 million doses of an
approved vaccine by January 2021. It's leveraging the full
strength of the public and private sectors. The partnerships
that are there and becoming partnerships is unprecedented in
this country, and I salute that.
AstraZeneca told the Energy and Commerce Committee a few
days ago that this deal with the Federal Government stipulates
that it will sell 300 million doses to the government at no
profit. Johnson & Johnson similarly said it will provide its
vaccine at a not-for-profit price. Other companies working on
vaccines have also promised low prices.
Dr. Fauci, between the promises for low prices and existing
government programs that cover the cost of a vaccine, is it
safe to say that every American will be able to get a vaccine
once it's approved?
Dr. Fauci. Given what you've mentioned, which I agree with,
the promises of the company about hundreds of millions of
doses, I believe ultimately, over a period of time in 2021, if
we have--and I think we will have--a safe and effective
vaccine, that Americans will be able to get it.
I don't think that we will have everybody getting it
immediately in the beginning. It probably will be phased in.
And that's the reason why we have the committees to do the
prioritization of who should get it first.
But ultimately, within a reasonable period of time, the
plans now allow for any American who needs a vaccine to get it
within the year 2021.
Mrs. Walorski. Right. And that is the plan.
Dr. Fauci. Right.
Mrs. Walorski. Staying on the topic of vaccines, Dr. Fauci,
it's my understanding that Operation Warp Speed enabled
clinical trials for the most promising vaccine candidates to be
run simultaneously, which will get a vaccine to the market much
faster than normal.
My understanding from listening to you just a few minutes
ago, we have eliminated no safety steps in the vaccine approval
process, correct?
Dr. Fauci. That is correct.
Mrs. Walorski. Correct?
Dr. Fauci. That is correct.
Mrs. Walorski. Again, just to be clear, so the folks that
are watching this are hearing this clearly, concisely, and
truthfully from you: The FDA is not compromising safety
standards in order to speed up the vaccine process approval,
correct?
Dr. Fauci. Well, I would say it a different way.
Mrs. Walorski. OK.
Dr. Fauci. We at the NIH are doing the vaccine studies with
the companies. The FDA will look at that data and, on a
science-based decision, will make a determination as to the
safety and efficacy and whether or not it will be approved. So,
the FDA is a science-based decisionmaker. We do the----
Mrs. Walorski. But as far as you know in that--I agree--the
FDA is not compromising safety standards.
Dr. Fauci. No.
Mrs. Walorski. No way, no how. No way, no how is the FDA
compromising safety standards.
Dr. Fauci. No.
Mrs. Walorski. And their answers and their approvals are
based on science.
Dr. Fauci. Yes. Historically, the FDA has based their
decisions on science. They will do it this time also, I'm
certain.
Mrs. Walorski. I appreciate it. Thanks for your assurances
that we'll have a safe, affordable, and widely available
vaccine for the American people.
All of America is praying that one of these promising
candidates comes through. That's why I'm so disappointed that
we've seen some on the other side of the aisle speculate aloud
that the administration might rush an unsafe vaccine to the
market before the election to help President Trump politically.
This irresponsible rhetoric only serves to plant irrational
fears in the minds of Americans. I'm worried that enough of
these types of attacks could result in people avoiding an
approved vaccine when it does come to market, when it is
available for Americans.
Dr. Fauci, can you address this once and for all? Would the
administration approve a vaccine that's not safe? And do you
share my concern about the danger of undermining faith in the
vaccine development process?
Dr. Fauci. The Commissioner of FDA, Dr. Stephen Hahn, has
assured me and has spoken publicly that he would make sure any
decision on the part of the FDA will be based on sound
scientific data proving the safety and the efficacy. He's told
me that, and he's been very public about that.
Given that, I think the American public should be assured
that in the process of determining the safety and efficacy the
proper steps have been taken to determine that, and when a
vaccine becomes available it's important for their own health
and for the health of the country to take that vaccine.
Mrs. Walorski. I appreciate that.
Thank you, gentlemen.
I can't let this moment pass without bringing to all of our
attention, again, and to the chairman, that just last week the
Justice Department indicted two Chinese nationals for hacking
companies that are working on a vaccine. We sent a strong
message to China this will not be tolerated.
I'm glad the administration took action by naming and
shaming those involved, as well as closing down a Chinese
consulate that was a hub for intellectual property and trade
secret theft.
We must hold China accountable, Mr. Chairman. We have to.
Mr. Chairman, before I close, can you commit to holding a
hearing on the threat of Chinese espionage on vaccine
products--vaccine producers? Mr. Chairman, whoever is sitting
in for Mr. Chairman?
Ms. Waters.
[Presiding] The chairman----
Mrs. Walorski. Will you promise me that we will hold a
hearing on the threat of Chinese espionage on vaccine
producers?
Ms. Waters. The chairman is not here to answer the
question. You have a few seconds left. Your time has expired.
Mrs. Walorski. Mr. Chairman, this is a grave threat. For
the record----
Ms. Waters. Thank you.
Mrs. Walorski. Mr. Chairman, this is a grave threat to our
country and the world of China's hacking our companies.
Ms. Waters. The lady's time has expired.
Mrs. Walorski. I seriously hope the chairman will take my
recommendation. I yield back.
Ms. Waters. Thank you very much.
I will now recognize myself for five minutes.
On July 10, the Trump administration ordered hospitals to
change how they reported hospitalization rates, testing
numbers, and other data related to the coronavirus.
Instead of reporting to the CDC, which hospitals have done
for more than a decade, they were instructed to start reporting
the data to the Trump administration directly; specifically,
the Department of Health and Human Services. They were given
just two days to prepare for this drastic change.
Leading health groups warned that the changes in data
reporting will, quote, ``worsen our ability to mitigate,
suppress, and recover from our national public health
emergency,'' unquote.
Other experts are concerned that this decision may have
been made so the Trump administration could control and hide
data it finds politically inconvenient.
Dr. Redfield, when did you first learn that the
administration planned to move the data from CDC to a different
portal run by HHS?
Dr. Redfield. Well, Congresswoman, we weren't directly
involved in the final decision. But what I can say is that CDC,
then and now, continues to have access to all data, does all
data analytics. So, there is no restriction of any of the data,
and that data we continue to forward face to the American
public.
Ms. Waters. Dr. Redfield, when did you first learn? When
were you first told?
Dr. Redfield. Again----
Ms. Waters. When were you first notified?
Dr. Redfield. Again, as I mentioned, I wasn't involved in
the decision.
Ms. Waters. So, you were never----
Dr. Redfield. I don't remember the exact date.
Ms. Waters. Am I to understand--reclaiming my time.
Dr. Redfield. I don't remember the exact date.
Ms. Waters. Am I to understand that you were not told at
all?
Dr. Redfield. Well, I was told actually once the
Secretary's office made the decision that that was the
decision, and we worked together----
Ms. Waters. So, how long was that?
Dr. Redfield. I don't remember, but I can get back to you
the exact date.
Ms. Waters. OK.
Dr. Redfield. But we can work in cooperation----
Ms. Waters. All right.
Dr. Redfield [continuing]. To help make sure that this was
done in an effective way.
Ms. Waters. Reclaiming my time.
Did you agree with this decision, Dr. Redfield?
Dr. Redfield. Again, I think it was an important decision
in light of----
Ms. Waters. Did you agree with the decision?
Dr. Redfield. Yes. I said it's an important decision----
Ms. Waters. Thank you.
Did you discuss this change with Vice President Pence or
with Secretary Azar?
Dr. Redfield. Not directly.
Ms. Waters. Indirectly?
Dr. Redfield. I talked directly with the individuals
responsible within the Secretary's office.
Ms. Waters. So, did you discuss it with Vice President
Pence?
Dr. Redfield. No.
Ms. Waters. Did you discuss it with Secretary Azar?
Dr. Redfield. No.
Ms. Waters. Who told you about the reasons for this change?
Dr. Redfield. Well, I think we collectively understood the
reasons--if I can answer--is there were substantial
advancements in therapeutics with Remdesivir, which made it
really important to be able to understand who was newly
hospitalized in real time that day so allocations of Remdesivir
could get to that hospital----
Ms. Waters. I thank you very much for that.
So, you developed the reasons, no one dictated the reasons
or told you the reasons for the change? You came up with the
reasons?
Dr. Redfield. Congresswoman, yes. I think it was important
that we were able to, in real time, be able to know where
Remdesivir needed to go. And the system that we had developed,
the National Healthcare Safety Network, that we do for----
Ms. Waters. So, were you told about the changes, why they
were being done, or did you and others develop the changes? Who
told you----
Dr. Redfield. We work together cooperative----
Ms. Waters [continuing]. About the changes?
Dr. Redfield. We work cooperatively together, members of
HHS and CDC, in recognizing the importance of these changes.
Ms. Waters. OK. I only have so much time.
The Trump administration has threatened to cutoff the
supplies of Remdesivir to hospitals that do not follow the new
reporting mandates.
Dr. Redfield, this is the only drug known to successfully
treat the coronavirus. Should a patient be denied access to a
potentially life-saving drug like Remdesivir because a hospital
was unable to comply with the sudden change in HHS reporting
requirements?
Dr. Redfield. My understanding is we continue to do
everything to make sure Remdesivir gets to all patients that
would potentially benefit from it.
Ms. Waters. But you do agree that they may not be able to
get them to patients because of the way that the information
was given and the timeframe that it was given in?
Dr. Redfield. Congresswoman, I would disagree. I think the
reason the changes were made was to ensure that individuals
could get access to Remdesivir in a timely fashion.
Ms. Waters. Would you agree that we basically--well, this
is the only drug known to successfully treat the coronavirus.
Should a patient be denied access to a potentially life-saving
drug like Remdesivir because a hospital was unable to comply
with the sudden change in HHS reporting requirements?
Dr. Redfield. And, again, I'm trying to say I think the
intent and the consequence of what was done was to ensure that
patients aren't denied access to Remdesivir, to make sure we
get timely distribution to the hospitals where these patients
are.
Ms. Waters. Thank you very much. I've exhausted my time.
Next, we will hear from Mr. Foster, I believe.
Mr. Luetkemeyer is next?
Thank you. You are recognized for five minutes, Mr.
Luetkemeyer.
Mr. Luetkemeyer. Thank you.
And thank the witnesses for being here today. I appreciate
your testimony and your expertise.
Dr. Redfield, on Tuesday, July the 14, you stated that,
right now, ``We're seeing, sadly, far greater suicides than we
are deaths from COVID. We're seeing far greater deaths from
drug overdose that are above excess that we had as background
than we are seeing deaths from COVID.''
Since the pandemic began, alcohol sales have increased by
more than 25 percent, and suspected drug overdoses have climbed
18 percent.
I've said this almost every hearing: We need to make sure
we're looking at both sides of this healthcare issue. We're
targeting our approach right now to take care of those with
COVID, but we also need to make sure that we're looking at the
severe unintended consequences, like substance abuse, domestic
violence, child abuse, that are occurring due to the economic
shutdowns that took place across the country, because these
instances will likely be around far longer than the virus
itself.
So, Dr. Redfield, do you believe that the blanket shutdowns
happening throughout the country are contributing to the
drastic increases in substance abuse and suicides, the lack of
cancer screenings and treatments and operations and other
things like that that we've sort of left out of the picture
here as a result of our total focus on COVID?
Dr. Redfield. Congressman, I thank you for the question.
I think it is really important as we reopen America now
that we're much more surgical about those situations that are
curtailed.
So, as you mentioned, there clearly are consequences for
the decrease in immunization in children. There were clearly
consequences for the lack of cancer screening. There clearly
were consequences for delayed surgeries that were elective that
now are semi-elective. There clearly are consequences,
substance abuse and mental health services.
So, it really is important as we reopen our Nation that we
really ensure that there are not these unintended consequences
that I think the reality is did occur during March, April, and
May.
MR. Luetkemeyer. You know, there was an article that
appeared in one of the local magazines with regards to trying
to quantify that figure, and they did, and they came up with a
figure of around 65,000 people per month that were dying
because of the lack of healthcare that was either being
postponed, denied, waived, whatever, versus our total focus on
COVID.
Dr. Fauci, I have watched a number of your press
conferences, and I have seen you articulate a lot about COVID,
but I've never seen you talk about this other part of the
healthcare spectrum that we need to be considering also.
Would you like to comment on that and give me your position
on that, please?
Dr. Fauci. Yes. I actually have commented on that when I've
said, most recently talking about schools, that I think that a
default position, despite the fact that we have to have
flexibility, would be to try, as best as we possibly can in the
context of the safety of the children and the teachers, to open
the schools for the very reasons that I think you mentioned and
that Dr. Redfield mentioned, because of the negative
consequences on children from a psychological standpoint as
well as the downstream unintended consequences on families.
Mr. Luetkemeyer. You know, one of the things--one of the
problems that we all have here on this committee is we're
sitting here looking at the consequences of a problem that we
have with COVID, we're looking at the consequences we have on
not attending to the healthcare needs of the rest of society,
and we have to sit here and figure out: How do we manage this?
How do we look at both sides of this? How do we, from 30,000
feet, make sure everybody is taken care of?
In our position, what would you recommend, Dr. Redfield, on
how we should approach this problem?
Dr. Redfield. Again, I just want to echo what Dr. Fauci
said earlier. We think that, if you do five things, we can
accomplish as much as we did shutting down this Nation. Wear a
face covering----
Mr. Luetkemeyer. All those things will be able to put us
back----
Dr. Redfield. We can put us back.
Mr. Luetkemeyer [continuing]. And we can address the other
part of this as well, then?
Dr. Redfield. We can get back without these unintended
consequences. The face masks, the social distancing, the hand
hygiene, staying smart about gatherings, and staying out of
crowded bars and crowded restaurants.
If we did those five things--we've done modeling data--we'd
get the same bang for the buck as if we just shut the entire
economy down.
Mr. Luetkemeyer. OK. Now, you've commented quite a bit this
morning already on the school openings, and your comment was
it's not about the economy or public health, it's about public
health versus public health.
I've got some grandkids, and I want them to go back to
school. I think, for their own health, we need to be doing
that. I think you've made the comment you have grandchildren,
you'd like to see that happen as well.
Would you like to comment on the other part of this, again,
the unintended consequences of the problems with child abuse
that's not being reported? Because most of it--a lot of it is
reported by teachers. We've seen that go down. We've seen
emergency cases in emergency rooms go up as a result of this.
Can you comment on some of that, please?
Dr. Redfield. Congressman, thank you. I just want to
reemphasize, because I don't think I can emphasize it enough,
as the Director of the Centers for Disease Control, the leading
public health agency in the world, it is in the public health
interest of these K through 12 students to get these schools
back open for face-to-face learning.
Mental health service, 7.1 million kids get it in school.
Nutrition we talked about. Reporting of child abuse, sexual
abuse, mandatory in schools. The isolation that these
adolescents are feeling that now is associated with increased,
as you mentioned, increased drug overdose deaths, and now
increased suicides.
I think it is really important. As a grandfather, 11
grandkids, I want these kids back in school. I have one
grandchild with cystic fibrosis. I want it done smartly, right?
But I think we have to be honest that the public health
interests of the students in this Nation right now is to get a
quality education in face-to-face learning, and we need to get
on with it.
Mr. Luetkemeyer. And one of the words I always use----
Chairman Clyburn. Thank you. The gentleman's time has
expired.
The chair now recognizes for five minutes Ms. Velazquez.
Ms. Velazquez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member.
Gentlemen, it has been six months since this crisis began.
Yet new infections are still climbing in many states, many
hospitals are at capacity, and thousands of Americans are
dying.
I am concerned about widespread delays in test results are
contributing to this problem.
In Arizona, the test positivity rate is over 20 percent,
but test results there have been delayed by up to 16 days.
In Florida, many hospitals in the state are near or at
capacity, but results can take over a week.
In Georgia, some companies have reported average processing
times of five to ten days.
Dr. Fauci, you said in a recent interview, and I quote,
``If you're going to do contact tracing and the test comes back
in five to seven days, you might as well not do contact
tracing, because it's already too late.''
Dr. Fauci, if a five-day testing delay is too long, then is
it fair to say that a 16-day delay is absurd? What are the
consequences from these delays?
Dr. Fauci. I believe you can get a more detailed answer
from Admiral Giroir. But as I said before, that is a delay that
would interfere with the effective contact tracing, and we're
trying to decrease that.
But the exact numbers of the delay, I believe that Admiral
Giroir has more precise information on that.
Ms. Velazquez. Yes, sir, Admiral? What are the consequences
from these delays?
Mr. Giroir. Yes. Thank you, ma'am.
So, as I talked about, about half the tests are done either
at point-of-care or within hospitals, which are pretty rapid.
The current data we have from the large commercial labs are
that 59 percent of all tests are reported within three days, 76
percent within five days. And I am sure there is an outlier at
12 to 16 days, because that happens, but that's very atypical.
And in the cities you talked about----
Ms. Velazquez. Sir, that is not what we are hearing from
places like Arizona, Florida, and Georgia.
Mr. Giroir. So, I get the data every single morning from
every single state and can tell you specifically what that is.
And we have surged testing. We have brought Federal resources
to massively surge in Phoenix, and that's why it's totally
going down; in Miami, totally going down; Jacksonville.
Ms. Velazquez. Reclaiming my time.
Dr. Redfield, I would like to turn to you. Does the CDC
have comprehensive information about the wait times for test
results in all 50 states?
Dr. Redfield. I didn't quite hear you. I'm sorry.
Ms. Velazquez. Does the CDC have comprehensive information
about the wait times for test results in all 50 states?
Dr. Redfield. I would refer that question back to the
Admiral.
Ms. Velazquez. Sir?
Mr. Giroir. Yes. We have comprehensive information on wait
times in all 50 states from the large commercial labs.
Ms. Velazquez. And do you publish this data?
Mr. Giroir. We talk about it whenever--always. I mean, I
was on----
Ms. Velazquez. And you don't think that it would be
important----
Mr. Giroir. I was with 69 journalists yesterday, and we
talk about that frequently. So, if you would like to see that,
I'm very happy to do that.
Ms. Velazquez. Well, it would be great so that those that
are making decisions at the state and city level, we have
access to that information----
Mr. Giroir. They do.
Ms. Velazquez [continuing]. Because it is important to
understand the trend.
Mr. Giroir. They do. They have that information. In fact,
from the commercial labs, when they place an order, they're
told exactly what the expected wait time is for that order.
Ms. Velazquez. So, we cannot expect to reopen the economy
safely if the virus is spreading unchecked. Testing, contact
tracing, and isolation will be not be effective unless we cut
the turnaround time for tests. And I don't want to talk about
Puerto Rico. That's another story.
Chairman Powell said this week that the path of the economy
is going to depend to a very high extent on the course of the
virus and on the measures that we take to keep it in check. He
said also that the Fed will use its full range of tools to
steer the economy out of recession.
Gentlemen, is the Federal Government using its full range
of tools to get the virus under control like other countries
have? Many states are reconsidering their reopening plans after
experiencing a shocking increase in new cases and being unable
to stop the spread.
Dr. Fauci, what roles does the lack of sufficient testing
and contact tracing play in states' inability to control the
virus?
Dr. Fauci. Testing and contact tracing is one of a number
of tools that I used to control the kind of surging we've seen.
But I would also like to point out, Congresswoman
Velazquez, to reemphasize again what I said in my opening
statement, that we could do a really good job of controlling it
if we paid attention to five fundamental principles, one of
which is what we're doing here----
Ms. Velazquez. Right.
Dr. Fauci [continuing]. With masks, crowds, distance, bars,
washing hands. That is critical. Testing is absolutely an
important part of it, an important part of----
Ms. Velazquez. I understand that. But the largest and most
important pulpit is the one on Pennsylvania Avenue. It doesn't
matter what you say if you what you said is undermined by the
President of the United States.
Chairman Clyburn. The gentlelady's time has expired.
The chair now recognizes for five minutes Mr. Jordan.
Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Fauci, do protests increase the spread of the virus?
Dr. Fauci. Do protests increase the spread of the virus? I
think I can make a general statement----
Mr. Jordan. Well, half a million protesters on June 6
alone.
Dr. Fauci. Yes.
Mr. Jordan. I'm just asking, that number of people----
Dr. Fauci. Yes.
Mr. Jordan [continuing]. Does it increase the spread of the
virus?
Dr. Fauci. Crowding together, particularly when you're not
wearing a mask, contributes to the spread of the virus.
Mr. Jordan. Should we limit the protesting?
Dr. Fauci. I'm not sure what you mean. Should--how do we
say limit the protesting?
Mr. Jordan. Should government limit the protesting?
Dr. Fauci. I don't think that's relevant to----
Mr. Jordan. Well, you just said if it increases the spread
of the virus. I'm just asking, should we limit it?
Dr. Fauci. Well, I'm not in a position to determine what
the government can do in a forceful way.
Mr. Jordan. Well, you make all kinds of recommendations.
You've made comments on dating, on baseball, on everything you
can imagine. I'm just asking--you just said----
Dr. Fauci. Yes.
Mr. Jordan [continuing]. That protests increase the spread.
I'm just asking, should we try to limit the protests?
Dr. Fauci. No, I think I would leave that to people who
have more of a position to do that. I can tell you that----
Mr. Jordan. Government is stopping people from going to
church, Dr. Fauci.
Dr. Fauci. Yes.
Mr. Jordan. Last week, in the Calvary Chapel case, five
liberals on the Supreme Court said it was OK for Nevada to
limit church services. I mean, Justice Gorsuch said it best. He
said there is no world in which the Constitution permits Nevada
to favor Caesar's Palace over Calvary Chapel. I'm just asking,
is there a world where the Constitution says you can favor one
First Amendment liberty, protesting----
Dr. Fauci. Right.
Mr. Jordan [continuing]. Over another, practicing your
faith?
Dr. Fauci. I'm not favoring anybody over anybody. I'm just
making a statement that's a broad statement that avoid crowds
of any type, no matter where you are, because that leads to the
acquisition and transmission.
And I don't judge one crowd versus another crowd. When
you're in a crowd, particularly if you're not wearing a mask,
that induces the spread.
Mr. Jordan. But it's a simple question, Doctor. Should we
limit the protests? Government is obviously limiting people
going to church.
Dr. Fauci. Yes.
Mr. Jordan. And, look----
Dr. Fauci. I'm not----
Mr. Jordan [continuing]. There has been no violence that I
can see at church. I haven't seen people during a church
service go out and harm police officers or burn buildings. But
we know that--I mean, for 63 days, nine weeks, it's been
happening in Portland.
Dr. Fauci. Right. Yes.
Mr. Jordan. One night in Chicago, 49 officers were injured.
But no limit to--no limits to protests, but, boy, you can't go
to church on Sunday.
Dr. Fauci. I don't know how many times I can answer that. I
am not going to opine on limiting anything. I'm just going to
tell you----
Mr. Jordan. You've opined on a lot of things, Dr. Fauci.
Dr. Fauci. Yes, but I've never said----
Mr. Jordan. This is something that directly impacts the
spread of the virus, and I'm asking your position on the
protests.
Dr. Fauci. Yes. I'm--well, I'm not going to opine on
limiting anything. I'm telling what you it is, the danger. And
you can make your own conclusion about that. You should stay
away from crowds, no matter where the crowds are.
Mr. Jordan. Government has stopped people from going to
work. In fact, just in New Jersey, four days ago, Ian Smith and
Frank Trumbetti were arrested for opening up--for trying to
operate their business, their gym. They were arrested.
But my bet is, if these two individuals who owned this gym
were outside just in front of their gym, and all the people who
were working out in their gym were outside protesting, they'd
have been just fine, but because they were in the gym working
out, actually running their business, they got arrested.
Do you think that's OK?
Dr. Fauci. You know, I'm not going to opine on who gets
arrested and who does not. I mean, I--you get where I'm going?
I'm telling you, as a public health official, I say crowds----
Mr. Jordan. Do you see the inconsistency, though, Dr.
Fauci?
Dr. Fauci. There's no inconsistency, Congressman.
Mr. Jordan. There is no--so you're allowed to protest,
millions of people on one day, in crowds, yelling, screaming,
but you try to run your business, you get arrested, and, if you
stood right outside of that same business and protested you
wouldn't get arrested? You don't see any inconsistency there?
Dr. Fauci. I don't understand what you're asking me as a
public health official to opine on who should get arrested or
not. That's not my position. You could ask----
Mr. Jordan. So, you've advocated----
Dr. Fauci [continuing]. As much as you want----
Mr. Jordan. You've advocated for certain businesses----
Dr. Fauci [continuing]. And I'm not going to answer it.
Mr. Jordan. You've advocated for certain businesses to be
shut down. I'm just asking you on your position on the
protests.
I mean, I haven't seen one--we've heard a lot about hair
salons. I haven't seen one hair stylist who between haircuts
goes out and attacks police or sets something on fire. But
we've seen all kinds of that stuff during protests, and we know
that protests actually increase the spread of the virus. You've
said that.
Dr. Fauci. I said crowds. I didn't say, specifically, I
didn't say protests do anything.
Mr. Jordan. So, the protests don't increase the spread of
the virus?
Dr. Fauci. I didn't say that. You're putting words in my
mouth.
Mr. Jordan. No. I would--I just want an answer to the
question. Do the protests increase the spread of the virus?
Dr. Fauci. I don't have any scientific evidence of
anything. I can tell you that crowds are known, particularly
when you don't have a mask, to increase the acquisition and
transmission, no matter what the crowd is.
Mr. Jordan. So, you don't have a position on whether the
protests increase the spread of the virus or don't increase the
spread of the virus?
Dr. Fauci. I'm saying that crowds, wherever the crowds are,
can give you an increased probability that there is going to be
acquisition and transmission----
Mr. Jordan. But do you understand Americans' concern?
Protesting, according to--particularly according to the
Democrats--is just fine, but you can't go to work, you can't go
to school, you can't go to church. There's limits placed on all
three of those fundamental activities----
Chairman Clyburn. The gentleman's----
Mr. Jordan [continuing]. First Amendment activities, but
protesting is just fine.
Dr. Fauci. You know----
Chairman Clyburn. The gentleman's time has expired, but
I'll just ask the gentleman to just think about his question
and put it in reference to crowds that gather in political--at
political meetings, at fundraisers, without masks, on an oil
rig in Texas, nobody wearing a mask, nobody social distancing,
but a fundraiser. Would that be problematic?
With that, I'll yield five minutes to Mr. Foster.
Mr. Foster. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Fauci and Dr. Redfield, I'm a scientist, as you are,
and so you know how important it is that, when a great
scientific breakthrough reaches the public, that the proper
credit is given, not to just those who show up and claim credit
at press conferences, but to the long list of federally funded
researchers who have made these breakthroughs possible. And
also, to the enlightened Federal employees and the politicians
who funded that research.
I remember back when, a few years ago, when we had
newspaper headlines about all the miraculous cures in cancer
immunotherapy, where I gave a floor speech on the U.S. House
saying, yes, this was great, but equally great were the decades
of federally funded research and the researchers who made those
clinical breakthroughs possible.
Also, frankly, that some of the credit goes to the
Democratic and Republican Members of Congress who resisted the
proposals for massive budget cuts to science that were proposed
by Republicans for years in the Paul Ryan budgets and by the
Trump and Mulvaney budget cuts since then.
Now, in the case of the mRNA vaccines that have been so
much in the news this week, the story does not start with
Operation Warp Speed. It does not even start with the historic
63-day sprint from the publication of the viral genome to the
first patient injected by the mRNA test vaccines.
The sprint, I believe, began when President Trump--when
President Trump--well, this sprint actually began when
President Trump was still ridiculing the idea of the pandemic.
The sprint actually started when dedicated employees at NIH and
Moderna, who understood the danger of COVID-19 and began
working day and night.
The story of Federal investments in mRNA vaccines actually
starts, I believe, back in 2009, when President Obama, who was
at the time unhappy with the speed of response to the H1N1
swine flu epidemic, convened his scientific advisory panel,
PCAST, which they did back in those days, and famously asked
them: If you guys are so smart, how come you still make
vaccines with chicken eggs?
OK. So, one year later, in August 2010, PCAST put out a
report on reengineering vaccine production for pandemics, which
emphasized the potential of new technologies to make vaccines
and therapeutics available far faster in a pandemic.
Heeding the advice of his scientific panel, which they did
back in those days, in 2013 the Obama Administration awarded a
$25 million DARPA grant to a startup called Moderna to develop
their mRNA vaccine platform for pandemic response.
This was followed in 2015 by a $125 million investment by
BARDA, so that by the end of the Obama Administration Moderna
had mRNA vaccines and therapeutics under test in both animals
and humans.
So, why is it that the Obama Administration prioritized
mRNA vaccines and therapeutics? Well, first off, it's their
speed of development, which we saw realized in the 63-day
sprint. It's the speed of manufacture, which has to do with the
high yields of in vitro transcription reactions and their
potency.
Scientifically, the exciting news of the last few months is
that a potent human immune response can come from doses as low
as 30 micrograms of mRNA vaccine.
So, 30 micrograms, what does that mean? What it means is
that this 1 liter bottle, if it were full of mRNA vaccine,
would contain over 30 million doses. This is enough to
vaccinate every one of America's doctors and first responders,
or all of its seniors over 75 years old.
That is why the Obama Administration invested in mRNA
vaccines and therapeutics starting back in 2009. And without
those investments, frankly, Project Warp Speed would not have
squat.
Now, Dr. Fauci, would you agree that when there are great
medical breakthroughs, that the public needs to be reminded
about the long line of Federal R&D that's led to vaccine and
therapeutic successes that we're anticipating?
Dr. Fauci. Yes, Congressman, and it even goes beyond what
you're saying. Everything you say is very well taken.
And I think maybe it's a good time to recognize the fact
that the generosity of the Congress through multiple
administrations, both Democratic and Republican, and whether or
not the Congress was controlled by Democrats or Republicans,
the support for biomedical research that goes back decades,
leading to everything that you're talking about, but even
before then, some of the monoclonal antibody work, some of the
work that's being done with the molecules that are directly
antiviral molecules.
I think we often forget that when we think of the product
and often forget, as I think you have appropriately pointed
out, that a lot of important things----
Mr. Foster. Well, what are the scientific investments we
should be making now to ensure that we are better prepared for
future pandemics? And how can we support those investments with
the kind of science budget cuts that we are seeing proposed by
the--in the Trump and Mulvaney budgets?
Dr. Fauci. Well, I mean, I hope we don't get cuts. But, in
fact, we have been very----
Mr. Foster. But they've been proposed. They've been
proposed again and again.
Dr. Fauci. Yes.
Mr. Foster. OK.
Dr. Fauci. Yes.
Mr. Foster. Anyway, it looks like my time is up.
Mr. Jordan. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, over here.
Chairman Clyburn. I'll yield to the gentleman.
Mr. Jordan. Yes. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the
record a story from June 5, 2020, underscoring what Dr. Fauci
wouldn't answer today.
Dr. Fauci says: Large protests taking place across the
country are a perfect setup for spreading COVID-19.
So, he said that a month ago even though he wouldn't say it
today. So, that's a story from Business Insider.
But I also ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a
June 12 story. Dr. Fauci tells ABC's ``Powerhouse Politics''
that attending rallies, protests is risky even though today his
position seems to have changed. Obviously, his position has
changed on many things many times over the last several months.
But I'd ask to enter those two articles for the record.
Dr. Fauci. But----
Chairman Clyburn. I will yield to Dr. Fauci.
Dr. Fauci. Like I said, any crowd--any crowd--whether it's
a protest, but any crowd in which you have people close
together, without masks, is a risk, and I'll stick by that
statement. It's a public health statement. It's not a judgment
on why you're there in the crowd. It's a statement related to
the fact that you're in a crowd.
Chairman Clyburn. Thank you, Dr. Fauci.
Mr. Jordan. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Clyburn. And, without objection----
Mr. Jordan. Mr. Chairman, I didn't ask him a question, and
you let him respond. I was making a unanimous consent.
Chairman Clyburn. And I'm going to run this meeting.
Mr. Jordan. Well, but I would like a chance to respond to
what he said.
Chairman Clyburn. Just remember, I'm going to chair this
meeting.
Mr. Jordan. No, I understand you're the chair.
Chairman Clyburn. Now, without objection----
Mr. Jordan. That's why I said Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Clyburn. Without objection, your statements,
whatever you've got there, will be entered into the record.
Chairman Clyburn. And, without objection, any gathering,
whether you're protesting or whether you're politicking, any
gathering would be risky. And that's what the man has said, and
so----
Mr. Jordan. Yes, but that's not--that's not what's
happening. That's my point.
Chairman Clyburn. Oh, well, you're telling me that a----
Mr. Jordan. There are limits--people can't go to church,
can't go to work, can't go to school.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, that gentleman is out of order.
Mr. Jordan. But they can protest all they want.
Chairman Clyburn. That goes for the Democrats and
Republicans. I'll make the decision as to who is out of order.
I'm going to be as gentlemanly as you would allow me to be, OK?
Mr. Jordan. I appreciate it, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Clyburn. Well, thank you. And with that, I'll
yield five minutes to Mr. Green.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Chairman, Ranking Member, and
witnesses for your amazing service to our country. Thank you.
First, Dr. Fauci, there was a bit of an uproar about a
picture of you at the Nationals game without your mask on. I
think you were seated with your wife. You had a close friend
there with no one else nearby you. And that gentleman who was
with you had his mask on. I think you have said in the press
since you took it off to take a drink of water.
I just want to point out, according to an article in the
New England Journal of Medicine, and I quote, ``Significant
exposure to COVID-19 means face-to-face contact within six feet
with a patient with symptomatic COVID-19 that is sustained for
at least a few minutes, and some say more than 10 minutes or
even 30 minutes. The chance of catching COVID-19 from a passing
interaction in a public space is therefore minimal,'' end
quote.
The science seems to be pretty clear. We should absolutely
wear masks when we're in close contact with those outside of
our household. I think that was just the conclusion of that
discussion. It's not a crime to pull your mask off to take a
drink of water in 100-degree temperature when you're seated
next to your wife and someone else is there.
I guess I make the point to show how the media has created
all of this hype, which has led to some officials across the
country making decisions that are not based on science, and
there are real consequences to those. So, I mean, if people are
hot, they shouldn't get heatstroke and not take their mask off.
I'd like to move on to some other troubling actions that
were done this week. This week, the chairman of the committee
sent four letters, all to Republican Governors in red states,
demanding extensive documents related to coronavirus response.
The White House Coronavirus Task Force report has 21 states
listed in the so-called red zone.
This isn't about transparency. It's about ridiculing four
states, including my home state of Tennessee, and it distorts
the truth. The letter signaled--or singled out--four GOP
states. But what about the other 17 states? Why didn't
California get included in the letter? They've seen an
explosion in positive cases. They're in the spike. They're in
the 21 listed red zone states.
Targeting only Republican Governors when clearly 17 other
states, many of whom are Democrat, are also experiencing the
spikes and in the red zone shows this effort has nothing to do
with getting answers and is, as the chairman has said in his
opening comments, politics over science.
No scientist who wants the truth samples just Republicans.
Honestly, it's a laughable partisan strike.
It also compounds the insult to all Americans for the
failure of this committee to look at the real culprit. As I
said in previous testimony, a Columbia University study showed
that 66 percent of American deaths could have been prevented if
China had spoken up one week earlier. That's thousands of
American lives that could have been saved.
So, instead of addressing the cause of 66 percent of our
casualties, the Select Committee on the Coronavirus picks on
American businesses, the Trump administration, and now four
state governors, all Republican, when we know other blue states
are in the exact same situation.
This is the definition of partisanship. But I can hear it
now. Didn't the right send a letter to certain Governors? And,
yes, we did. We sent it to every single Governor who refused to
follow the Trump plan--emphasis on plan--and sent COVID-
positive patients back to nursing homes, killing patients. We
didn't select just a few of those.
I applaud Congressman Foster, who approached me as a
physician and asked me to join a bipartisan partnering with the
administration to assist in the execution of Operation Warp
Speed's plan. That's how we should be functioning, that kind of
bipartisan action.
Finally, on a positive note, I wanted to mention the
Swedish study and then ask Dr. Fauci some questions about that,
because I think it really illuminates some of the exciting
findings in science.
T cells are a type of white blood cell. They regulate
immune response. The Swedish study found that many people with
mild asymptomatic COVID demonstrate so-called T-cell immunity
to the coronavirus. The study further found that twice as many
who tested positive for antibodies had T cell immunity. So, we
know there are tons of people out there with immunity that we
aren't testing.
And I'd love for you, sir, if you could comment, educate
America, educate all of us a little bit on T-cell immunity and
what the ramifications are to the plans.
Thank you.
Dr. Fauci. Thank you very much, sir. I'll very quickly try
to answer that.
So, there are two limbs of the immune response. One is an
antibody, which is a protein that is made by the cells of the
body to bind to the virus, and is usually the hallmark of
protection against infection.
There is another limb of the immune response called the
cellular immune response of T cells, and those T cells have the
capability of essentially suppressing or killing cells that are
infected and preventing the cells that are infected from making
new viruses.
So, there are two parts of it. Even though one is generally
felt to be protecting against the initial infection, the other
is an important complementary.
And you're right, the Swedes came out with a paper, and
also a paper from NIH grantees from La Jolla just came out in
the journal Cell showing the same thing; that, in individuals
who were infected and recovered, they had T cell responses,
but, importantly, there was T cell reactively also detected in
nonexposed individuals, which means that maybe there is some
memory from other coronaviruses that are benign cold viruses
that you were exposed to that might--and I say might--explain
why some people, even children, might be protected, that they
had exposure that's not measured in antibody, but measured by T
cells.
This is work that we really need to pursue. We're just at
the cusp of understanding the importance of this type of
response in COVID-19.
Thank you.
Mr. Green. Thank you.
Chairman Clyburn. The gentleman's time has expired.
And as I yield to Mr. Raskin for five minutes, may I
address the letter, which I have responded to? You have an
answer from me.
Mr. Green. Oh, I haven't seen it. Thank you.
Chairman Clyburn. You have not seen the answer?
Mr. Green. No, sir. I'm sure it's in my office.
Chairman Clyburn. OK. Well, just to be sure, since you put
the letter on the record here, let me put my response on the
record.
My response had to do with the four states that have
refused to comply with the critical recommendations from the
task force, and all four have Governors who have publicly
stated that they do not plan to comply.
In contrast to that, we did not send the letter to those
states that did indicate that they were--will comply with the
task force, and that's--three of those states had Republican
Governors, and they did not get a letter from us.
So, this has nothing to do with partisanship, but the
political response, rather than responding to the science, and
I responded to it.
With that, I yield to Mr. Raskin for five minutes.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this
hearing on the urgent need for a national plan.
A stack of paper is not a plan. A large and unwieldy stack
of paper is not a plan. A plan is a comprehensive and
coordinated strategy for victory, and we haven't seen anything
like a plan. No one has shown us anything.
Blaming other countries is not a plan. Blaming China is not
a plan. Blaming China is not even a good excuse for the lethal
incompetence and disinformation of President Trump.
China's early cover-up of the disease only deepens the
responsibility and complicity of President Trump who, on 37
different occasions, as I've demonstrated by submissions to
this committee, defended and excused and praised the Chinese
Government and President Xi.
A plan is a plan, and we haven't heard what the plan is,
and this is what has bedeviled us from the beginning.
Mr. Chairman, we've got 4.4 million cases. We lead the
world in case count. We lead the world in death count. More
than 153,000 Americans are dead right now. Fifty-four million
people filed for unemployment benefits. We've seen a one-third
drop in GDP--a one-third drop, unprecedented in economic
activity.
The chart behind me demonstrates the astonishing and
terrifying growth of this disease. It took us 98 days to reach
1 million cases. It took us 44 days to reach 2 million cases.
It took 26 days to reach 3 million cases. And it took us only
15 days to reach 4 million cases.
Director Redfield, when do you estimate we're going to get
to 5 million cases? What's next?
Dr. Redfield. Thank you, Congressman.
I think one thing I've learned about this virus is it's not
predictable.
I will say one thing that's important, that what happens
next is really dependent upon if the American public fully
embrace what we've asked. If they fully embrace those five
steps, we'll get control of this pandemic.
Mr. Raskin. Well, I thank you for that, and I thank both
you and Dr. Fauci for restating the absolute imperative
importance of everybody wearing their masks when they're out in
public and everybody maintaining social distance and following
the other public health protocols.
But the public health officials have been subjected to
harassment, and we've even seen some today, have been subjected
to ridicule, and have been subjected to ludicrous, absurd
contradiction.
So, I want to go through some of the propaganda and
disinformation quickly just as a public service announcement,
because America is watching you.
And, Dr. Fauci, why don't I start with you.
Are children almost immune to the disease? Just yes or no,
because I've got a lot to get through, please. Are children
almost immune to the disease?
Dr. Fauci. I'm sorry. You really have to--be a little bit
more precise. You mean almost immune. Do children get infected?
Yes, they do.
Mr. Raskin. Have hundreds of thousands of children been
infected?
Dr. Fauci. Yes.
Mr. Raskin. Hundreds of thousands of children infected. So,
children are not almost immune to the disease.
Is COVID-19 going to magically disappear, Dr. Fauci?
Dr. Fauci. I do not believe it would disappear. Because
it's such a highly transmissible virus, it is unlikely that
it's going to disappear.
Mr. Raskin. Does wearing a mask give people COVID-19?
Dr. Fauci. Does wearing a mask give it? No.
Mr. Raskin. OK.
Dr. Fauci. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Raskin. All right. Is COVID-19 a hoax?
Dr. Fauci. No.
Mr. Raskin. Should people take hydroxychloroquine as a cure
for COVID-19?
Dr. Fauci. The overwhelming cumulative evidence of properly
conducted randomized controlled trials indicate no therapeutic
efficacy for hydroxychloroquine.
Mr. Raskin. Can people cure themselves of COVID-19 by
injecting themselves with disinfectant----
Dr. Fauci. No.
Mr. Raskin [continuing]. Or bleach? I'm sorry?
Dr. Fauci. No.
Mr. Raskin. Are you safe from the disease if you go to one
of the aforementioned large assemblies, crowds, demonstrations
without a mask on and not observing social distancing if you
sign a waiver that you won't sue the sponsor of the event?
Dr. Fauci. I'm not so sure those things are connected, but
I'll repeat what I've said multiple times, that being in a
crowd, particularly without a mask, is a risk for acquisition
and transmission.
Mr. Raskin. OK. But signing a waiver doesn't confer any
kind of immunity on you from being infected by the disease?
Dr. Fauci. No. Of course not.
Mr. Raskin. OK. All right.
Dr. Fauci, the European governments are in a completely
different place. They've got the disease on the run. In fact,
the Asian countries have the disease on the run.
I saw some remarkable figures. Almost every other country
on Earth is doing far, far better than the United States,
except for Brazil, whose President has followed President
Trump's policies.
But we have 153,000 dead. Canada, our next-door neighbor,
has less than 9,000. We have 17 times the number of deaths from
it. China, which of course is much larger than the United
States, has lost 4,661 people. We've lost 153,000 people. Our
rate of death is 36 times higher than China. And on and on.
Do we have the financial resources and the scientific
expertise in America to do what other governments have done to
bring the infection rate down to something manageable so the
end is in sight of this nightmare?
Dr. Fauci. I believe we do have the tools, and certainly
there has been a considerable degree of financial investment.
Mr. Raskin. So, what is the difference? Why are all of the
other countries defeating the disease and we're not? Why do we
not have a plan, a strategy for victory, to win, to beat COVID-
19?
Dr. Fauci. Well, I believe I addressed that in not only my
opening statement, but also in response to the question of one
of the Congressmen, and that is that, when you look at the
comparison between Asia and Europe, as is shown by the
chairman's poster up there, that when they shut down they shut
down to the tune of about 95 percent, getting their baseline
down to tens or hundreds of cases per day. Whereas, when we did
it, we got it down, but, unfortunately, our baseline was 20,000
a day.
Mr. Raskin. All right. So, we're getting somewhere. But
would you agree with me that the critical difference is either
the presence or the absence of social cohesion and political
leadership to actually develop a plan, execute it, and stick to
it?
Dr. Fauci. I think there was such a diversity of response
in this country from different states----
Mrs. Maloney.
[Presiding] The gentleman's time is up.
Dr. Fauci [continuing]. That we really did not have a
unified bringing everything down.
Mr. Raskin. Yes.
Mrs. Maloney. The gentleman's time has expired. But, Dr.
Fauci, if you'd like to add more to his question.
Dr. Fauci. No, I think I just answered the question.
Mr. Raskin. I mean, the end of it was essentially, do we
need to stop these disgraceful attacks on public health
officials?
Mrs. Maloney. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you. I yield back.
Mrs. Maloney. I now recognize Mr. Kim for five minutes.
Mr. Kim. All right. Thank you.
Thank you to the witnesses for coming out here today. I
appreciate it.
I wanted to just start with a question, a quick question of
the three of you, of yes, no, if you're able to. It's a
question that comes from a constituent of mine, and the
constituent asked me, and I wanted to ask you, and I'll start
with you, Dr. Redfield, would you assess that our Federal
Government, the CDC included, is doing everything possible to
respond to the coronavirus crisis? Dr. Redfield?
Dr. Redfield. I think we do have a comprehensive response.
The one comment I want to make is the complexity is, as I
mentioned before, for over five decades we've underinvested in
the core capabilities of public health. And hopefully we've
seen now the consequence of that.
Mr. Kim. But with our capabilities right now, would you
assess that the Federal Government is doing everything
possible?
Dr. Redfield. Within the capabilities that we do have, but
recognizing the core capabilities have not been invested in
effectively over the last five decades.
Mr. Kim. OK.
Admiral, same question to you. Is our Federal Government
doing everything possible to respond to the coronavirus crisis?
Mr. Giroir. It's a very broad question. I do agree with Dr.
Redfield. I think, within the capabilities we have, we are
doing that.
Mr. Kim. Dr. Fauci, do you agree with your colleagues here?
Within the capabilities of the Federal Government, are you
doing everything possible to respond to the crisis?
Dr. Fauci. Right. I can only speak very cogently about the
agency that I'm responsible for, and I can tell you,
absolutely, that the National Institutes of Health is really
doing everything they possibly can.
And it's really an all-hands-on-deck approach not only for
the institute that I direct, which is the National Institute of
Allergy and Infectious Diseases, but the Director of NIH
himself is spending most of his time right now on this even
though he's responsible for a lot of other institutes.
So, I think we are doing about as much as we possibly can.
Mr. Kim. Well, I appreciate that, Dr. Fauci.
Admiral, I wanted to turn back to you. I just got a text
message from a constituent today that follows up on this type
of question. And she, Laura, says, ``I got a COVID test 10 days
ago at a drive-up testing site and still do not have the
results.''
I know you mentioned before that 76 percent of tests are
coming back within five days, but that also means that about a
quarter of tests in this country are taking more than five days
to be able to get these results back.
So, I wanted to ask you, would it be possible for our
Nation to have results for all COVID tests completed and
returned within 48 and 72 hours? Is that a possible benchmark
that we can achieve?
Mr. Giroir. It is not a possible benchmark we can achieve
today given the demand and the supply. It is absolutely a
benchmark we can achieve moving forward.
Mr. Kim. Now, I guess a question. And so, as you said, the
demand and the supply. Now, the demand is something that you
don't have an ability to control, but in terms of the supply,
when I asked you that question, are we doing everything
possible to be able to address the needs of the coronavirus
crisis, what would you say to Laura here? Is the Federal
Government doing everything that they can possibly to be able
to try to get that testing timeline down to 48 to 72 hours?
Mr. Giroir. I do believe we are. We talked about just the
raw numbers of things, but we're investing in a number of
technologies that will greatly expand point-of-care testing.
And I think that's the future, to move more and more to point-
of-care testing. We're doing that with existing technologies,
with new EUAs.
Dr. Fauci talked about the NIH's efforts, and I think there
will be a lot of announcements from them this morning as well.
So, that's where we're pointing, because point of care
gives you a result in 10 minutes.
Mr. Kim. Well, I was really interested in what you said
earlier in this hearing, which was about trying to get point-
of-care testing to nursing homes and long-term care facilities.
I agree with that greatly. And that feels like it's a place
where the Federal Government is stepping up with additional
resources, I'm guessing because the states have been unable to
be able fulfill something of that nature. Is that correct?
Mr. Giroir. We always wanted to do that, but we did not
have the physical technologies that were available. With the
recent approval of a second point-of-care instrument and the
manufacturing, we were able to do that. We were not--and it's,
literally, as soon as that happened, we put that into gear.
And I just wanted to correct----
Mr. Kim. Well, what interests me about that is that this is
a situation, again, when it comes to testing I keep hearing
that this is states' responsibility to kind of take the lead on
this, but with the long-term care it seems like this is a place
where the Federal Government is stepping in and trying to surge
resources.
Mr. Giroir. So, this has always been a collaborative
relationship, right? So, the Federal Government buys all the
swabs and tubes and media. We deliver that to the states. We
buy 40 percent of Abbott ID NOWs, deliver those to the states.
We make affirmative actions for nursing homes, because that's
where 40 to 50 percent is.
And everything else is really a collaborative interaction.
There is part state, there is part Federal. We really do work
together on that. We do not defer everything to the state. If
we did, I wouldn't be spending 24/7 with a team of 50 people
since March 12.
Mr. Kim. Great. Thank you so much.
My time has expired. I yield back.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you.
Without objection, I would like to place two reports into
the record. One is from Forbes, and it's entitled ``Researchers
Say Protests Did Not Increase COVID-19 Spread, but Republicans
are Still Blaming Them.'' This is one report.
And I have in my hand here, I have a report and a study
from the National Bureau of Economics Research that was
published last month, and this study found that there was no
connection between Black Lives Matter and protests in recent
months and increased spread of the coronavirus.
So, without objection, I would like to place both of these
studies into the record.
Mrs. Maloney. We will now go to a second round of
questioning. I'd like to ask the panelists, would you like a
five-minute break before we begin the next line of questioning?
Yes. OK. So, we are taking a five-minute break, and we will
be back in five minutes for more questioning.
Thank you.
[Recess.]
Chairman Clyburn. The meeting will now come back to order.
I understand that Admiral Giroir will have a hard stop at
11:45. That's only about 25 minutes from now. We will go into a
second round of questionings, but we will recognize that you
will have to leave, and we appreciate that.
Mr. Giroir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Clyburn. I think that everybody got their first
round in, and so I am going to begin the second round,
referring to--well, I'll yield myself five minutes. OK. Thank
you.
Now, President Trump has just tweeted out a statement that
I'm going to quote. In reference to my chart about comparing
these cases, he says that the United States has far more cases
than Europe--and I'm quoting here--because we do much more
testing than any other country in the world. If we had no
testing or bad testing, we would show very few cases.
Now, Dr. Fauci, do you agree with the President's
statement, or do you stand by your previous answer that the
difference is caused by multiple factors, including the fact
that some states did not do a good job of reopening?
Dr. Fauci. I stand by my previous statement, that the
increase in cases was due to a number of factors, one of which
was that, in the attempt to reopen, that, in some situations,
states did not abide strictly by the guidelines that the task
force and the White House had put out, and others that even did
abide by it, the people in the state actually were congregating
in crowds and not wearing masks.
I might also just bring something that I thought about and
mentioned to you before, Mr. Chairman, that, when we talk about
crowds and masks, it's always better outdoors than indoors, and
being in crowds indoors is always worse than crowds outdoors.
That's the case because of the circulation of air. So, we
should avoid crowds under any circumstances, but wearing a mask
is the critical issue.
Chairman Clyburn. I agree with that. And I think that I
will go to restaurants who allow me to sit outdoors----
Dr. Fauci. Right. Yes.
Chairman Clyburn [continuing]. And not indoors. Because
I've been following the science and I've been agreeing with all
three of you as to how we ought to conduct ourselves.
But let me just say--and I feel very strongly about this--
that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution
means a whole lot to me. I'm sitting here as a result of a
protest. We opened up this meeting today, many of you, Dr.
Redfield most especially, and you, Mr. Ranking Member, talking
about our great friend, John Lewis, with whom I enjoyed a 60-
year relationship. We met protesting, trying to get off the
back of the bus, trying to integrate schools, trying to be able
to shop in a 5-and-10-cent store and not be arrested for
trespassing. Fine for us to get school supplies out of that
store, but you can't sit down and eat a hamburger. I'm glad the
government did not limit our protests.
So, the First Amendment has constraints. The Supreme Court
has told us that. You can't yell ``fire'' in a crowded theater.
But you can peaceably assemble to redress your grievances. You
can do that.
Mr. Jordan. I agree with that, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Clyburn. Well, I don't think any of those people
who were marching out here on this plaza that's now called
Black Lives Matter Plaza--they were not carrying guns. They
were not disturbing anybody. They were peaceful. They were
peaceful.
When John Lewis went across that Edmund Pettus Bridge,
nobody had any weapons. They were peaceful. They were met by
weapons. I don't want us to get confused here.
So, I'm going to close out my five minutes here by asking
whether or not this disconnect that seems to be between what
the White House is saying publicly and what they are sending
out to the states privately--and, as we mentioned early, in the
letter, several of these states seem to be reacting to the
public statements from the White House and not following the
recommendations of the task force that's being sent to them
privately.
Now, this week, a bleak White House Coronavirus Task Force
report paints a very different picture. I've got the document
here. This was sent out to the states and those states in the
red zone are refusing to comply, as you heard from us.
So, I'm not being partisan here. We're trying to save
lives. I started my professional career as a public school
teacher. I have a daughter who's spent 25 years in a classroom,
and she's telling me every day how concerned teachers are about
returning to school without the safety precautions that so many
school districts have asked us to do.
That is what my concern is. It's not about going back to
school. I know the value of going to school. I know what it is
to represent a school district where thousands and thousands of
children do not have the internet and cannot receive online
learning. I want them in a classroom. I want them to be
educated. But I want them safe. That's what this is about.
And I'm not going to ask for an answer to that. I've gone
over my time. But I'll yield back--I'll yield to the ranking
member.
Mr. Scalise. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
And I'll start my questions with where the gentleman from
South Carolina ended, and that is with safely reopening
schools.
I first want to point out that this is a report from the
United States Department of Treasury. As of June 30, based on
the CARES Act and the $150 billion that we in Congress, working
with President Trump, sent to the states for various COVID-19
recovery issues, every state still has billions of dollars
remaining in those accounts.
And I would urge any school system--because we don't want
any school system to open up without safety precautions. In
fact, the American Academy of Pediatrics lays out really well
how to safely reopen schools. The Centers for Disease Control
lays out very clearly how to safely reopen schools. And that
includes masks, sanitizers, other supplies.
Any local school system that wants to claim they don't have
the ability to do that, go straight to your Governor. Your
Governor has billions of dollars in their account that we
appropriated, sitting there waiting for you to buy supplies.
It's fully eligible. We don't need to change a law. Billions of
dollars. Every state has money for supplies. If you run out,
give us a call. But, right now, there is money in your state's
account to buy supplies, masks, sanitizers to safely reopen.
But now let's talk about why it's so important to safely
reopen. And I'll ask you, Dr. Redfield, because I know you've
done a lot of work in this.
We see, for example, the District of Columbia is currently
saying that they're not going to reopen with in-school
learning. There's not been a single death, not a single death,
of anybody under the age of 19 in the District of Columbia. In
fact, in Virginia--you're seeing northern Virginia take this
same close-minded approach--not a single death in the entire
state of Virginia of a person under the age of 19 from COVID-
19.
But now let's talk about the danger, the detriment that
this is doing to those children. I want to dig deeper into the
studies I've seen on some of the things you talked about mental
health, a lack of screening for child abuse.
I've seen maybe 14,000 cases of child abuse are reported in
schools every year. That's not happening. And for those
children that are in those home settings where the parents are
abusing the children, nobody's getting reported because the
children are sitting at home. They're not, right now, in many
of these cases, going to be allowed to go into the school,
where it can be detected.
And it is detected every year. I know we don't talk about
it a lot. It's an unfortunate part of our country's society,
but it happens. Children are abused. And, in so many cases,
it's detected in the school. That's not going to happen if
these schools don't open.
Can you talk about those numbers? Have you seen some of
that data?
Dr. Redfield. Well, Congressman, I can just reemphasize
what you've said. And it's obviously one of the more disturbing
consequences of the lack, now, of that reporting, not just at
schools, which have been so responsible for mandatory reporting
child abuse, but the other place that sometimes it's recognized
is obviously in the clinical setting. And, as we know,
pediatric visits have been curtailed in a lot of clinical
settings.
I mean, it is a highly significant situation now. And you
can imagine what it must be like to be one of those currently
abused children that has sort of lost their safety nets.
Mr. Scalise. Well, thank--and I apologize. We're running
low on time.
I would just urge any local school system that's making
their decisions, go look at the CDC guidelines, go look at all
of the data that's out there for teachers, for students, how to
safely reopen. You can do it.
You owe it to those kids. Fifty-thousand kids in the
District of Columbia, over 50 million children are counting on
us to do this right. It can be done. You have to go do it. You
owe it to those kids. They're being denied that opportunity.
Don't deny them.
If you need money, there's billions of dollars sitting out
there for the supplies to keep the schools safe. Go make it
happen.
Dr. Fauci, I want to talk to you about Operation Warp
Speed. And, first, I want to thank you for, in your opening
statement, talking about that over 250,000 people have signed
up for those clinical trials. What's that website again if
somebody in America wants to be a part of this trial?
Dr. Fauci. CoronavirusTreatmentPrevention.org.
Mr. Scalise. Thank you.
Now, to ask about--and I know a lot of people don't really
know the details--and, again, of all of these plans that are
out there, these are plans--I know some people, including some
people in this room, disagreed with President Trump's decision
to stop flights from China, for example.
As you testified earlier, it was the right decision, and it
saved lives. I guess they were OK if more lives would've been
lost. But that decision saved lives. It was part of a plan.
They might not agree with the plan, but the plan saved lives.
When we talk about Warp Speed, I do think it's real
important to note--because some people are concerned that there
might be some cutting of corners to get to a quicker vaccine.
Clearly, that's not the case.
But what President Trump really has done is removed red
tape so that agencies like the FDA can laser-focus on putting
their efforts behind finding a vaccine. President Trump's
worked, for example, to make sure that clinical trials can be
run simultaneously on the most promising candidates--a very
targeted plan to quickly find a vaccine that's safe.
So, if you want to talk about Operation Warp Speed, how
safe it's been, and how that is helping us to move forward. It
is red tape being removed by the plan that President Trump has.
Dr. Fauci. Yes, it is, Congressman.
In fact, as I mentioned and I'll just reconfirm it right
now, is that the speed is not all at the compromising of safety
nor of scientific integrity. Getting from the sequence to the
vaccine production was record speed. Had nothing to do with
safety, had nothing to do with cutting corners.
From the vaccine to the Phase 1, again, was in record
speed, only because red tape was really avoided. And as we got
into Phase 3, the same thing----
Mr. Scalise. And have you seen concerns about China trying
to steal that information? I understand NIH has an
investigation going on.
Dr. Fauci. Yes----
Mr. Scalise. We've seen cases where China's trying to steal
this information. Clearly, they're a threat that President
Trump is taking on.
What have you seen, and what is the threat?
Dr. Fauci. Yes. I have heard that there's been trying to be
hacking into the websites and the online components of certain
of the people who are developing vaccines. I've just heard
that; I have no proof of that.
Mr. Scalise. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Clyburn. I thank the gentleman for yielding back.
The chair now recognizes for five minutes Ms. Waters.
Ms. Waters. Thank you very much.
Let me first say that I was pleased to hear the very, very
warm comments about John Lewis this morning. We have been
memorializing him in so many different ways, but, you know,
between the press and everybody else, we've been doing him
justice for the sacrifices that he has made.
And let me just tell you, this virus is not Democrat or
Republican. I am going to send my condolences to the family of
Herman Cain, who was a Presidential candidate, who was a good
friend of the President, who happened to have been at the rally
in Tulsa June 20, with no mask on, with a group of people
around him with no masks on. And he's dead. He died.
I'm told that he was in good health and that he, of course,
contracted the virus as a result of his attendance without a
mask there. So, my condolences to his family, because, like I
said, this is not Democrat or Republican.
I just want to remind the committee that I spoke earlier
about the manipulation of hospitalization data, what the
President has done, basically ordering hospitals to change how
they report hospitalization rates.
I drafted an amendment to H.R. 7617, one of the Fiscal Year
2021 appropriations packages that includes the Department of
Health and Human Services. My amendment, which prohibits any
funds from being used to require hospital laboratories and
acute care facilities to report COVID-19 data under
requirements imposed by the Trump administration's new rule,
was adopted. I look forward to preventing a harm that I believe
will lead to senseless and avoidable suffering.
Let me go further and say that I am alarmed about the way
that the President is handling so-called information about
children and their ability to return to school.
This is a President who first called the pandemic a hoax.
This is a President who said it was going to just disappear.
This is a President who said you don't really need masks. He
didn't believe in them. He's gotten religion in the last few
days. This is a President who disregarded social distancing.
This is a President who recommended hydroxychloroquine as a
cure. And this is a President who went so far as to say
disinfectant could be used.
So, now, this President, who expects us to believe him
rather than the medical experts, is saying children are almost
immune.
Is that an expert medical conclusion, Dr. Fauci, that
children are--whatever that means. What does that mean,
children are almost immune from this virus?
Dr. Fauci. Well, generally, when you say a person is
immune, that they're protected from getting infected. And
children do get infected.
Ms. Waters. So, this is not an expert medical conclusion
that we have had documented somewhere?
Dr. Fauci. Well, I mean, if you're talking about a
conclusion that children in general are immune, that children
do get infected. We know that, so, therefore, they're not
immune. I mean, they----
Ms. Waters. OK.
Dr. Fauci. I must just say, Congresswoman, that when
children get infected, that when you look at the deleterious
consequences, they generally do much, much better. Because if
you look at the hospitalizations, that children have a much,
much lower rate of hospitalizations than adults. In fact, the
curve goes way up as you get older and older. And when you get
to the age group of children, they generally do not get serious
disease as much as----
Ms. Waters. I understand that, and I've been listening, and
I did understand what you just described. But what I was asking
really was about this President's latest comment, that children
are almost immune. So, I think I got the answer to that.
But let me just say to Mr. Scalise that this billions of
dollars that you're talking about in every state, I don't know
where they are. But you keep referring to supplies.
It's more than about supplies. It's more than about being
able to wash your hands. It's about space and whether or not
all of the schools have the space to do the social distancing.
It's about whether or not children are going to wear masks and
how that's going to be enforced. It's about how you keep
children from gathering. It's about how do you feed them. It is
about more than the fact that they need some supplies----
Mr. Scalise. Would the gentlelady yield?
Ms. Waters. Yes, I'll yield.
Mr. Scalise. Clearly, that is all part of what is laid out
in CDC guidelines, in the American Academy of Pediatrics
guidelines. They lay out those guidelines for how to do all of
those things.
Ms. Waters. OK. Reclaiming my time----
Mr. Scalise. A teacher is usually 10 feet----
Ms. Waters. Reclaiming my time----
Mr. Scalise [continuing]. Away from the students.
Ms. Waters. Reclaiming my time, let me just say this: that
all of the professionals are saying that this is a decision
that must be made by parents in the communities with the
educators, et cetera, et cetera. You cannot hand down an answer
from the Federal Government that, you know, would absolutely
protect these children. One decision by the Federal Government
is not sufficient to force these schools to open.
I yield back.
Chairman Clyburn. I thank the gentlelady for yielding back.
Before I go to Mr. Jordan, let me say to Admiral Giroir, I
understand that you need to leave in four minutes. Would there
be anything you'd like to enter into the record before leaving?
Mr. Giroir. No. The reason I'm leaving is because we have a
meeting, virtually, with all 6,100 of the Commissioned Corps
officers, whom I have the honor to lead, along with Sergeant
General Adams.
We've done over 7,200 deployments of 4,000 individuals. And
let me tell you, the other 2,000 are hard at work taking care
of people at qualified health centers or the Indian Health
Service or in the prisons.
So, I mean no disrespect by leaving, but this is a crunch
time for our officers on the front line of the pandemic, and I
really appreciate the opportunity to recognize them and also to
be with my brothers and sisters in uniform.
Chairman Clyburn. We thank you for your service, and we
thank you so much for that.
I think you might find me to be the biggest booster in the
U.S. Congress for federally qualified community health centers.
I consider them to be the ultimate safety net in healthcare.
And I have been that way since I've been in the Congress. I go
back over 50 years with community health centers, and I believe
in them. And thank you so much for bringing them into the
process.
Mr. Giroir. Thank you.
Chairman Clyburn. And, with that, I'll yield to Mr. Jordan
for five minutes.
Mr. Jordan. The right to protest is important, Mr.
Chairman. I have engaged in it with fellow citizens, peacefully
assembling to talk about important public policy issues. My
guess is everyone on this committee, probably everyone in the
U.S. Congress, has done the same thing.
But I think all of the First Amendment is important.
Democrats seem to think it's just the right to protest. I think
all of it--if you think about the freedoms we have in the First
Amendment--freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom
to assembly, freedom to petition your government, freedom of
speech--all of them are important.
And what's interesting to me is the very first one the
Founders mentioned was your right to practice your faith. But
government's putting all kinds of limits on Americans' ability
to do that, and Democrats are just fine with it. In fact,
Democrat mayors and Governors have been sued over limiting
people's right to freedom of religion.
I want consistency. That's what I want. In fact, I'm
concerned about the whole Constitution. Democrat mayors and
Governors have limited Americans' right to exercise their
Second Amendment liberties, closing down stores that allow
people to exercise and purchase firearms and exercise their
Second Amendment liberties.
I think it's important that Americans get an education, but
we've got Democrats who say, can't go back to school. Kids
can't go get what they need to put them on the path to
achieving the American Dream, but, boy, they can protest.
Everyone can protest.
In Portland, in fact, the teachers union says, we don't
want to go back to school, we don't want to teach kids, but
they've actually encouraged teachers to go protest. The nine-
week protest going on in Portland, where they burn the city
every single night, where just last weekend three officers were
blinded by the lasers that some of these ``peaceful''
protesters use.
So, I'm concerned about Americans--all rights. All kinds of
Americans right now aren't permitted to go to work. Maybe it's
a small business they started, put their entire life savings on
the line, started this business, have a number of employees
whose families are counting on them running their business. And
what does government do? What do Democrat-led governments do?
They arrest them if they want to run their business. Just ask
Ian Smith and Frank Trumbetti, who run a gym in New Jersey.
So, the ability to engage in your livelihood, the ability
to have your kids get an education, the ability to practice
your faith are just as important, in my mind, as protesting. I
just wish the Democrats would look at all the rights we enjoy
as Americans and make sure that they're dealt with in a
consistent fashion.
This idea that we're limiting what people can--practice
their faith, run their business, employ people, engage in their
livelihood after they've poured their entire lives, their
families' resources into it, is just wrong.
You know who else has to go to work? You know what? You
know who else has to go to work? Law enforcement has to go to
work. Are you guys tracking what's happening to law enforcement
at all at these protests?
And I'm not talking about the 49 police officers who were
attacked two weeks ago in Chicago. I'm not talking about the
three who were blinded this past weekend in Portland. I'm not
even talking about what the Seattle chief of police said, when
she said she can't deploy--she had to do an adjusted deployment
for her police officers because the protests were so bad and
the defunding concept that is happening around our country in
these cities. Chief Best said she had to do an adjusted
deployment; told the citizens, ``We're not going to be there.
You're on your own.''
But where they are out there, these police officers, are
you guys tracking what's happening to them? Not talking about
the violence, but the exposure they have to the coronavirus?
Dr. Fauci?
Dr. Fauci. I'm sorry, sir. What was the question?
Mr. Jordan. Are you tracking what's happening to the police
officers and their exposure to the coronavirus while they're
out doing their job?
Dr. Fauci. I don't do tracking of the infection. That's
probably more of a CDC question. I've not tracked----
Mr. Jordan. Is that a concern? You talk about Park Police
have been under siege. You're talking about law enforcement in
our municipalities that have been attacked. But I'm just
talking about the exposure to the virus, as well, when people
are yelling and screaming in their face. Are you concerned
about that?
Dr. Fauci. As I said before, I'm concerned about any
crowds, particularly people who don't wear masks. I'm concerned
more about indoor crowds than I am of outdoor masks. But crowds
without masks are a problem.
Mr. Jordan. Dr. Redfield?
Dr. Redfield. We continue to look at a variety of first
responders in some of our surveys, looking at antibody to try
to understand what the virus attack rate is. We do have that
for some cities. I don't have it for the West Coast right now,
but we----
Mr. Jordan. So, you do have that information on some law
enforcement in some cities?
Dr. Redfield. First responders. For example, we've done New
York. We've done Detroit. We're doing Rhode Island right now.
And----
Mr. Jordan. Well, that'd be information that would be
helpful to this committee.
When I think about what our law enforcement is having to
endure, particularly at these protests, not just the violence
but the exposure now that they're getting to the virus from the
protestors--and, frankly, I would--I wish we would get
something from the other side.
The silence on what's happening at these protests and the
impact it's having on our law enforcement I think is just
unfortunate. I hope they join us in speaking out against the
defund-the-police concept and everything that's happening to
law enforcement around the country.
Chairman Clyburn. The gentleman's time has expired.
And as I yield to Mrs. Maloney, I will say to the
gentleman, I'm sure enough waiting on you to tell me the
differences between a first responder and an essential worker.
Just think about that for a moment.
Mr. Jordan. All workers are essential.
Chairman Clyburn. With that, I'll yield back--I'll yield
five minutes to Mrs. Maloney.
Mrs. Maloney. I thank the chairman and the ranking member
for this incredibly important hearing and for all of our
participants, our witnesses.
I have two questions that I think are especially relevant
that have not been discussed very much.
And one is, what is the task force doing in relation to
safeguarding elections?
We are going to be all voting in November. Some states have
vote by mail; other states do not. And many people prefer to
vote in person. And we have guidelines that say social
distancing of six feet, but possibly could it be changed to
three feet if it's going to be more of a hurried participation?
But I think it would be helpful to the American public if
the task force considered and came out with clear guidelines
for the professionals working in the board of elections across
the country and the people participating in voting.
So, I'm making that request. You may want to comment on it
now, Dr. Fauci, or get back to us.
Dr. Fauci. I'd be happy to get back to you on that. We
could discuss this at a task force meeting, if you'd like, and
get back to you, Congresswoman Maloney.
Mrs. Maloney. And to the public, I would say.
Dr. Fauci. Yes.
Dr. Redfield. Congresswoman, if I could just comment. CDC
did in March and updated in June guidelines for polling
facilities, and we'll obviously be looking at that to see if
they need to be updated more.
We do have an MMWR coming out this week, looking at the
primary results in Wisconsin. So, this is an area we're trying
to make sure that the polling centers and people who go to
polling centers to vote understand the importance of the
guidance we can give.
Mrs. Maloney. That would be very, very helpful.
Second, as a former teacher, I'm concerned about the
contradiction in messaging. Now, as a teacher, we're taught to
get your facts straight and then communicate it very simply and
directly.
So, the task force will come out with very important,
relevant information, and I try to follow it all religiously.
But then it's countered by other leaders. And this, I think,
underscores--or undermines the ability of the public to
respond. And maybe you could get back to me on that.
But I also want to talk about something that I think is
very important, that people are really not discussing, and that
is the turnaround time on testing.
And, in New York, we are working very hard not only in
supplying the tests, but we're also trying to trace and
isolate. And the professionals working in this area say they
have to wait so long, especially if it's a private test, like,
from Quest or something. The turnaround time is, like, a week
or 16 days in some cases. So, then they can't really trace,
because, by the time they get the results of the test to start
tracing and isolating, it's too late.
So, I'd like both of you to comment on it. This is
something that my city is working very, very hard to respond
professionally to everything you're recommending, but they tell
me they're having a terrible time trying to implement the
tracing and the isolation. And they nail it on the turnaround
time from the test is too slow.
Dr. Fauci. Well, thank you for the question, Congresswoman
Maloney. Admiral Giroir had actually addressed that, but maybe
I could just summarize what he had said both in his opening
statement and upon response to a question.
There's no doubt--and I've said that myself--if you have to
wait multiple days for the result of a test and the test is
done in the context of contact tracing, that it, in many
respects, obviates the whole purpose of doing it. Because if
you have to wait that long, a person has already been out in
the community for that period of time.
One of the ways to kind of prevent that and mitigate that a
bit is that, if a person goes in for a test, they should assume
that it might be positive and should essentially isolate
themselves before they go back until they get the result of the
test.
But in response to that, as Admiral Giroir had said, the
reason for that is that there's such a surge of demand for
tests, that they're trying to overcome that by trying to
separate the testing for surveillance and give it, for example,
to one group and let the testing that has to do to determine if
an individual is infected, to be able to cut that down. He
explained that, but, as I said, he's much more capable of
giving us the precise numbers.
But it is an issue if you can't get it within a 24-to 48-
hour period.
Bob.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you.
I yield back.
Chairman Clyburn. I thank the gentlelady for yielding back.
The chair now recognizes Mr. Luetkemeyer for five minutes.
Mr. Luetkemeyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
One of the words I use to try and discuss this issue, the
COVID problem, with people is always ``perspective.'' Try and
keep in perspective the disease, the solutions, the other
things that are out there. And this is why I asked the question
a while ago with regards to attention on COVID and the seeming
lack of that for a while on the rest of our healthcare needs.
Another situation that I think is concerning is, as we open
up our schools, one of the things that--you know, we look at
the damage and concern we have for the children's healthcare,
but yet--I did a little research on football injuries. We're
almost in the same neighborhood with the deaths, not taking
into account the other severe and lifetime injuries that are
sustained by young men playing football in high school, versus
the total deaths that would be anticipated from opening and
reopening our schools. And I don't see and hear an outcry about
that.
So, perspective, to me, is always something we need to
consider.
One of the things that concerns me also is--I wish that
Admiral Giroir was here. I asked this question of him last time
he was here, and we didn't have enough time to continue our
discussion on it. But with regards to the sort of perverse
incentive for the medical folks to claim that somebody died of
COVID versus, if it was an automobile accident, for instance,
as long as you have COVID in your system, you get to claim it
as a COVID death, which means you get more money as the
attending physician, hospital, whatever.
And he acknowledged that the statistics he's getting from
the states are overinflated. We found that the Governor of
Colorado, who is a Democrat, actually did research on this and
found he had to get rid of 12 percent of the deaths that were
recorded in the state.
Dr. Redfield, would you like to comment on that a little
bit, about the perverse incentive? And is there an effort to
try and do something different in the way that these deaths are
recorded so we actually have better records and better numbers,
better data to go with?
Dr. Redfield. Thank you, Congressman.
I think you're correct, in that we've seen this in other
disease processes, too, really. In the HIV epidemic, somebody
may have heart attack but also have HIV. The hospital would
prefer the DRG for HIV because there's greater reimbursement.
So, I do think there's some reality to that.
When it comes to death reporting, though, I mean,
ultimately, it's how the physician defines it in the death
certificate. At our National Health Statistics Group here in
Hyattsville, we review all those death certificates.
So, I think it's probably less operable in the cause of
death, although I won't say there are not some cases. I do
think, though, when it comes to hospital reimbursement issues
for individuals that get discharged, there could be some play
in that for sure.
Mr. Luetkemeyer. Well, the Admiral certainly acknowledged
that the last time he was here, so I think that's very
concerning.
You know, Dr. Fauci, one of the things--you made a comment
a while ago with regards to hydroxychloroquine. And I have an
article here that quotes the Henry Ford Health System, who did
an extensive study on hydroxychloroquine, and they say that it
significantly reduces the death rate of COVID patients. The
study was highly analyzed and peer-reviewed, unlike many other
studies.
I'm quoting the executive officer, who said, ``As doctors
and scientists, we look at the data for insight. And the data
here is clear: There was a benefit to using the drug as a
treatment for sick and hospitalized patients.''
And in talking with a lot of older doctors who have been
around a while and I trust their judgment and their use of
hydroxychloroquine, they say that the initial studies didn't
really use zinc with it. They say that zinc is an enabler to be
able to help hydroxychloroquine actually do its job of going
after and reducing deaths in patients. I had a long
conversation with a doctor earlier in the week, and he said,
yes, as long as zinc is there, it really definitely does work.
Without it, it's minimally effective.
Would you like to comment on that?
Dr. Fauci. Yes, sir. Thank you for that opportunity to
comment.
The Henry Ford hospital study that was published was a
noncontrolled retrospective cohort study that was confounded by
a number of issues, including the fact that many of the people
who were receiving hydroxychloroquine were also receiving
corticosteroids, which we know from another study gives a clear
benefit in reducing deaths with advanced disease.
So, that study is a flawed study. And I think anyone who
examines it carefully sees that it is not a randomized,
placebo-controlled trial. The statement----
Mr. Luetkemeyer. It said it was peer-reviewed.
Dr. Fauci. It doesn't matter. You can peer-review something
that's a bad study. But the fact is, it is not a randomized,
placebo-controlled trial.
The point that I think is important, because we all want to
keep an open mind: Any and all of the randomized, placebo-
controlled trials, which is the gold standard of determining if
something is effective, none of them have shown any efficacy
for hydroxychloroquine.
Having said that, I will state, when I do see a randomized,
placebo-controlled trial that looks at any aspect of
hydroxychloroquine, either early study, middle study, or late,
if that randomized, placebo-controlled trial shows efficacy, I
would be the first one to admit it and to promote it.
But I have not seen yet a randomized, placebo-controlled
trial that's done that. And, in fact, every randomized,
placebo-controlled trial that has looked at it has shown no
efficacy.
So, I just have to go with the data. I don't have any horse
in the game one way or the other. I just look at the data.
Mr. Luetkemeyer. Thank you very much.
I yield back.
Chairman Clyburn. The gentleman's time has expired.
The chair now recognizes for five minutes Ms. Velazquez.
You want to yield to Kim?
Mr. Kim is now recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Kim. Thank you.
I just wanted to start here picking up where I left off.
You know, I started my last question line asking each of you if
our Federal Government was doing everything possible to be able
to respond, and each of you said within the capabilities of our
government that we were.
The reason why I want to address this is, when we talk
about a national testing strategy or greater coordination on
personal protective equipment, what I've heard over and over
again is that, you know, it's about where the responsibility
is. Is this the responsibility of the Federal Government or the
responsibility of states or localities? And.
When I talk to the people in my district, what they want to
know is about capabilities, and they really don't want to just
see this kind of blame game between different parts of our
government. And the main thing they want to ask is, are we
doing everything humanly possible to be able to address this
crisis, and is every level of government, including the Federal
Government, doing everything they can to do this? And if we are
not, the American people deserve to know why.
So, Dr. Fauci, I wanted to go back to you here, because,
just to be clear, when I asked you this and you said that
within the capabilities that we were, I wanted to ask you,
would you say that our response at the Federal level to this
crisis, would this be considered--in your mind, drawing on all
of your expertise, is this the gold standard of responses that
our Federal Government can do?
Is there nothing else that you can think of, from your
expertise and experience, that we could be doing or should be
doing that we're not already doing?
Dr. Fauci. I think I just have to repeat what several of us
said, that within the context of what we have, what's available
to us, we're doing everything that we possibly can.
And I'll just repeat what I said. Clearly, the thing that I
am responsible for, we are doing everything that we possibly
can. Absolutely.
Mr. Kim. And within what you see with your position on the
task force, for instance, are you confident in the level in
which we're using the Defense Production Act to be able to
bolster production?
Dr. Fauci. You know, that's something that's really out of
my realm, Congressman, about the extent and the implications of
the Defense Production Act.
Mr. Kim. What about when it comes to, you know, we have
these federally--we had federally backed test sites that we had
stood up, like, 41 across the country----
Dr. Fauci. Right.
Mr. Kim [continuing]. But they've been handed over to
states. Are you confident that that was the right move, that we
shouldn't be standing up more federally backed test sites that
are run by the Federal Government right now?
Dr. Fauci. I'm sorry, what? The question--I'm----
Mr. Kim. The federally backed test sites that we had stood
up, 41 of them across this country, we've been handing them
over to the states instead----
Dr. Fauci. Yes.
Mr. Kim [continuing]. Of continuing this in the Federal
Government's control. Do you feel like that's the right
decision?
Dr. Fauci. Yes, I don't think I could give a really good
answer to that, because that's not something that I get
involved with.
So, I don't know, maybe, Bob, do you have any further
information about federally funded testing sites? Because
that's out of the purview of what I do.
Mr. Kim. Dr. Redfield, do you have any thoughts on this?
Dr. Redfield. Well, I think it was important, as the
chairman alluded to, to begin to enhance and transfer this
capacity to these federally funded health clinics and to
increase that capability. It is a partnership, so I think that
these were appropriate moves.
I do think when you ask are we doing everything that we
could do, there's two things I'd like to say.
One is, don't miss this opportunity to realize how
important it is to make the investment in the core capabilities
of public health for the future. Because, clearly, we were
handicapped when this outbreak started, and we don't need to
have that happen again.
Second, I don't underestimate who ultimately is the most
important in helping us beat this pandemic, and that's the
American public themselves.
Mr. Kim. Look, I get that, but I find that to be a
frustrating narrative too. Because certainly all individuals
have to take on some responsibilities to be able to do this,
but that feels like we're pushing it off to them, and it feels
like that responsibility is now being pushed to the American
people coming out from that.
And, for instance, as you know, Congress, we passed
legislation back in April that includes $25 billion in
additional funding for testing and tracing. I'm still hearing
that a lot of that hasn't been used.
So, I wanted to ask you if you have knowledge of how much
money has been--hasn't been spent on this and whether or not
the OMB or any other part of the government is holding up
access to be able to do that so we have the capabilities and
the resources to be able to increase our capabilities.
Dr. Redfield. It's important, Congressman. Of that money,
of that $25 billion, which is a significant amount of money,
$10,250,000,000 came to CDC. And we got that money out to the
states, Tribes, local and county health departments literally
within two, three, four weeks. And that's been all distributed.
Now, how they've used----
Mr. Kim. Just one last question here, Dr. Fauci. Do you
have thoughts on using rapid antigen testing or Respi-Strip
testing, things like that that could create more point-of-care
response?
Dr. Fauci. Yes, I can answer that one. Sure. Anything that
gets us a quicker, more rapid, more scaled-up capability of
testing is something that would be desirable.
In fact, that was one of the things I mentioned, very
quickly, in the third component of the NIH strategic plan, the
RADx, which is about a half a billion dollars to try and
develop exactly the kinds of tests that you're talking about--
rapid, point-of-care, highly sensitive, highly specific.
Mr. Kim. Well, let's try to work on that together.
Ms. Waters.
[Presiding.] The gentleman's time has expired.
Mrs. Walorski, you are recognized for five minutes.
Mrs. Walorski. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Dr. Fauci, for hanging out with us. Really
appreciate it.
I think the one question that I have left today--and I
think it's a question the American people want to know; my
district certainly wants to know in Indiana--is it your
opinion--do you believe that China covered up the origins of
the crisis?
You are in this closer than anybody else in our country,
and the American people listen to what you have to say. I've
been asking lots of questions since this committee was created,
because I think China needs to be held to a much higher
standard than we're holding them.
But do you believe China covered up the origins of the
crisis?
Dr. Fauci. You know, Congresswoman, it really depends on
what you mean, ``origin of the crisis''----
Mrs. Walorski. The beginning of the pandemic----
Dr. Fauci. Yes. OK.
Mrs. Walorski [continuing]. The disease itself----
Dr. Fauci. OK.
Mrs. Walorski [continuing]. As it broke on TV and we saw
it.
Dr. Fauci. Right. Well, I think, from what we know--and I'm
sure Bob can also comment on that--from the conversations that
we had early on, it was led to believe that, early on, that
this was jumping from an animal to a human in the context of
the wet market in Wuhan and that it was inefficient virus that
just jumped from an animal to a human and didn't necessarily
spread very well from human to human.
At a time when it was clear that there was at least a few
weeks and maybe more of transmission from human to human that
we didn't know about, and then when we finally found out that
it was a highly efficient transmitter from human to human, it
would've been nice to know about that sooner.
Mrs. Walorski. All right.
Do you think China is a threat to the American vaccine
research that we've been talking about for the past three
hours?
Dr. Fauci. Did China do what with the vaccine?
Mrs. Walorski. Do you believe that China is still a threat
today to the American vaccine research after we----
Dr. Fauci. No. No, I don't think so at all.
I think one of the things people need to understand, that
what we do is really transparent. We publish it, we announce
it. So, if they want to hack into a computer and find out what
the results of a vaccine trial are, they're going to hear about
it in the New England Journal of Medicine in a few days anyway.
Mrs. Walorski. So, you know, when I testified earlier, I
was talking about the fact that, just a few days ago, that our
country indicted by the Justice Department two Chinese
nationals for hacking the heroes that are working on a vaccine.
China has obstructed every single thing that we've done,
turn that we've made, place that we go, starting all the way
back with PPE. And I was very involved in my district in trying
to get PPE, and China was obstructing every single part of the
way. So, I think, you know, my fellow folks in my district and
in this country believe otherwise.
I think, you know, the American people want to make sure,
when we're talking about safe vaccines and we're talking about
the FDA and we're not short-cutting safety and those kinds of
things, I don't know how in the world that we can stand there
and say, ``No, I don't think China is a threat to the vaccine
production in this country'' when we just indicted two people,
and not just two--but I think that question is so important.
Madam Chairwoman, I think it's so important, I want to re-
ask my question. I see our chairman is not here, but to you,
Madam Chairwoman, I think we need to investigate that answer on
cybersecurity. We've already indicted more than two people, but
just two people in the last couple days ago. Why can't we have
a hearing in here?
And I understand the chairman has said before, well,
there's other committees having hearings on the role of China.
But nobody is having a hearing on the role of China versus the
producers in America and the vaccine process that we're looking
for, the heroes that are trying to save lives. That would be
appropriate for this committee.
Can we get a commitment, can I get a commitment from you,
sitting in for the chairman, that we will actually have a
hearing and look at this?
Ms. Waters. This committee is chaired by Mr. Clyburn.
Mrs. Walorski. Right now it's chaired by you, Madam----
Ms. Waters. I do not intend to give you an answer to a
question about how to run this committee in his absence. You
may address him when he returns, not me.
Mrs. Walorski. I appreciate that answer, and I will.
But I think for the record, I think we still are owed an
answer as to why we can't look at that in this committee.
There's no other committee set up to look at the vaccine
process of oversight than this one, especially having you
gentlemen here today.
So, I would yield back my time and add that for the record.
And thank you, Dr. Fauci.
Ms. Waters. Mr. Foster, you are now recognized for five
minutes.
Mr. Foster. Thank you, Madam Chair, and to our witnesses.
Well, first off, I'd like to second the comments of my
colleague, Representative Dr. Mark Green, on the letter that
was recently sent from this committee providing for ongoing,
real-time, bipartisan oversight of Operation Warp Speed by the
Government Accountability Office, the GAO, with Dr. Green and
myself as the bipartisan points of contact directing the GAO of
points of interest to the committee.
You know, in my time in science, I was involved in billion-
dollar research projects that were subject to GAO oversight.
And they would bring in outside experts, they'd ask hard
questions, and they report back to Congress the truth as they
see it, you know, both from a technical and scientific point of
view and also a project management point of view, which can
often be critical.
GAO is fastidiously nonpartisan. They will give us real-
time briefings, staff briefings and Member briefings, and
periodic reports on the progress of vaccine and therapeutic
manufacturing under Operation Warp Speed. But they will only
give us briefings on a bipartisan basis, which I think is very
valuable, because it will be crucial that people believe, when
vaccines and therapeutics become available, that the process
was not politicized, that we actually have bipartisan agreement
that reasonable decisions, you know, free of conflicts of
interests or political intrusion are being made. And the GAO is
intent on not becoming a tool for partisan advantage, which
really helps our government work better.
So, an example of the sort of thing that I'm interested in
having them look into is something that I was discussing with
Dr. Redfield over the break, which is monoclonal antibody
therapeutic manufacturing.
You know, a lot of the good news is that there is, in fact,
a strong immune response to this virus by the human immune
system. Well, this means, among other things, that vaccines are
more likely than not to work, and it also means that antibody
therapeutics are more likely than not to work, as they have
against recent viruses.
So, we may be in this position where, yes, there's a
miracle cure that can then prevent or cure COVID-19 but we do
not have the manufacturing to meet the demand, especially given
the ongoing flare-up of COVID-19 in our country. So, then you
can imagine the politics of that will be extremely fraught,
rapidly, when we have to decide how to dispense these
potentially lifesaving therapeutics.
It's also a circumstance in which aggressive project
management may be crucial. You know, you can imagine, if you
want to produce the maximum number of antibodies, you may say,
OK, we are going to choose the most effective antibody from
company A, we are going to produce it using the optimized cell
lines from company B, and we're going to use the high-volume
production equipment of company C. This will require things
like the Defense Production Act being used at their fullest to
just leapfrog around issues of, you know, things like
intellectual property. You know, already, the parties that are
optimizing cell lines are getting into patent fights and so on.
We don't have time for that.
And so, one of the things I would like the GAO to look into
is to make sure that we have in advance the sort of project
management--you know, that the contracts that are being made
with all of these companies anticipate this, or that
discussions for the applications of the Defense Production Act,
you know, are actually taking place ahead of when they'll be
needed. It's just one of many examples there.
I just want to encourage, you know, both of you and HHS
generally to greet with open arms the GAO oversight. They can--
you know, it's not always fun being subject to GAO oversight,
but their questions actually make the projects better.
Also, I think you've probably been involved with projects
that have been involved with GAO oversight. So, there's a
career-long association of the GAO personnel and the agencies
they represent, so that, you know, it's not like you're getting
a letter from Congress where you just kind of roll your eyes
and try to do the minimum. You know, these are serious
questions by professionals.
So, Dr. Green and I intend to use that to provide real,
bipartisan information to this committee and to Congress and to
the American people about what's really happening. And I think
that will be crucial.
So, any of you, do you have any comments on other things
that we can do to really make the public confident that the
right decisions are being made for the right reasons in this?
Dr. Fauci. Well, thank you for that, Congressman Foster.
Yes, I mean, the fact is that we are very transparent in what
goes on in Operation Warp Speed. I have been----
Mr. Foster. Well, but there have been public comments by
the scientists------
Dr. Fauci. Yes.
Mr. Foster [continuing]. The ACTIV collaboration, which was
set up by HHS. Some of the scientists involved in that said, I
have no idea what's behind one of the Operation Warp Speed
decisions.
Dr. Fauci. Right. So, in direct answer to your question, I
think you've brought up a good point about the monoclonal
antibodies. We didn't get an opportunity to mention this in any
of the questions, but monoclonal antibodies--just this week,
there were two trials that have been initiated, one on an
outpatient basis for early patients, one on an inpatient for
more advanced patients, which we really have a lot of
anticipation that that is going to be something that is going
to be an important tool in the armamentarium of how we treat
COVID-19 patients. So, I wanted to get that in, because I think
that's really important.
Regarding the scrutiny of the GAO or otherwise, I have
been, in the many years that I've been doing this, had many
GAO looking into the things that I have done. In fact, I
have found it in many respects very helpful.
Mr. Foster. Thank you.
I yield back.
Ms. Waters. The gentleman's time has expired.
Ms. Velazquez, you are recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Velazquez. Thank you, Chairwoman.
I want to get back to the delays in testing.
Researchers of the University of Pennsylvania recently
found that testing sites serving communities of color in big
cities are fewer in number, have longer lines, and often run
out of tests faster when compared to sites in Whiter areas in
those same cities.
As formal Federal Reserve Chairs Ben Bernanke and Janet
Yellen told the select committee, nothing is more important for
restoring economic growth than improving public health. Yet we
have a President that says: Slow down testing, please. And the
most vulnerable among us are being impacted--frontline workers,
small businesses that cannot reopen safely, and Black and
Latino populations.
So, I have some questions along these lines.
Dr. Fauci, I have a simple question for you. Do you
attribute this inability to control the virus to the delays in
testing and contact tracing?
Dr. Fauci. Control of the virus is clearly a multifaceted
process that involves many things, the most important of which
is what we were just speaking about before, about testing--
about masks, crowds, outdoor versus indoor, distances, et
cetera, et cetera. We've been through that multiple times
during this hearing.
Testing is a part of the process, but the process of
controlling infection--when you're talking about contact
tracing, obviously, you need testing, and you need testing back
within a reasonable period of time. And the concern that you're
expressing is for the days that it takes. And Admiral Giroir
has addressed that several times during this hearing. But
testing is a part of the comprehensive approach, not the only
thing----
Ms. Velazquez. Sure.
Dr. Fauci [continuing]. But is part of the approach.
Ms. Velazquez. Thank you.
South Korea had rapid results for testing and tracing, and
the virus is essentially contained there or gone. Do you agree
that what they did with respect to testing helped those
countries get the virus under control?
Dr. Fauci. Virus under control of some of the Asian
countries were due to a number of factors: their ability to
shut down almost completely, as I mentioned in a remark before,
to the tune of 90-plus percent----
Ms. Velazquez. Did they rush to reopen the economy?
Dr. Fauci. No, they shut down. They had the capability,
because they got down to a very low baseline, to do adequate
identification, isolation, and contact tracing.
Right now, they are trying to reopen. It's going to remain
to be seen how successfully they do that.
Ms. Velazquez. So, for the record, does testing result in
the U.S. seeing more COVID-19 cases, or are other factors
causing the spread?
Dr. Fauci. I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.
Ms. Velazquez. Does testing result in the U.S. seeing more
COVID-19 cases, or are other factors causing the spread?
Dr. Fauci. I'm sorry. I didn't quite get it. It's my fault.
I have a problem----
Ms. Velazquez. OK. So, are we seeing more COVID-19 cases in
the U.S. because of the testing results?
Dr. Fauci. I'm sorry. I get it now.
Well, obviously, if you do more testing, you're going to
see more cases.
Ms. Velazquez. OK.
Dr. Fauci. But the increases that we're seeing are real
increasing in cases, as also reflected by increasing in
hospitalization and increasing in deaths.
Ms. Velazquez. And why is it that professional sport
leagues can get testing turnaround times within 24 hours but we
cannot do it for all Americans?
Dr. Fauci. Well, some of the sports clubs have been using
the rapid test, which is really very different from the test
that requires extraction of DNA and takes time in a different
machine. So, they have bought a bunch of machines that allow
testing to take place where you get a positive back in five
minutes and you can declare negative in
15 minutes.
Ms. Velazquez. Dr. Redfield, do you support the fact--do
you agree with the fact that there is a disproportionate
testing going on among Latinos, Blacks, Native Americans?
Dr. Redfield. I wish the Admiral was here to answer it, but
I've heard him answer this before--and Tony may comment--that
he has set up, disproportionately, these testing sites in areas
that have indications of more complex socioeconomic status--I
don't remember the exact number, maybe Tony does, but more than
70 percent--intentionally trying to target areas that may be
more disadvantaged.
So, I wouldn't agree with that statement, but I would like
the Admiral to be able to get back to you with the specifics.
Ms. Velazquez. So, you haven't seen the long lines in the
urban cities and also in states where we have large population
of----
Dr. Redfield. Yes.
Ms. Velazquez [continuing]. Latinos and Blacks?
Dr. Redfield. I've seen the television lines.
Ms. Velazquez. Uh-huh.
Dr. Redfield. What I was trying to say--when you said, was
it specifically disproportionate for Hispanic/Latino or African
American or Native Americans, and I'm not comfortable
supporting that comment. I would rather get the specific data
from the Admiral, which--I do think the system has really gone
over the other way, to try to make sure we've enhanced the
community health centers and these federally assisted testing
sites in areas that are specifically more disadvantaged.
Ms. Velazquez. Uh-huh.
Chairman Clyburn. The gentlelady's time----
Ms. Velazquez. I yield back.
Chairman Clyburn [continuing]. Has expired.
The chair yields five minutes to Mr. Raskin.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And if you're trying to still figure out why the
administration and our Republican colleagues cannot formulate a
plan of action, look no further than the disgraceful diversions
and distractions of some of our colleagues today.
I want to address the First Amendment line of questioning
first.
Our distinguished colleague from Ohio keeps raising, for
some reason, the Supreme Court decision in South Bay United
Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, which rejected his position, just
about six weeks ago, in a five-to-four decision.
There, a church said that the restrictions limiting the
number of people who could go to church to 100 were perfectly
constitutional because that was the exact same rule that
applied to lectures, concerts, movies, spectator sports,
theatrical performances, political party gatherings. And so, in
other words, there was no religious discrimination taking
place, which is why the Supreme Court rejected the claim.
And there is no religious free exercise exemption to public
health orders, as you were indicating, I think, Dr. Fauci. So,
the parties in the case cited numerous cases of church
gatherings with people unmasked, singing, chanting, and so on
that became super-spreader events. There is no religious
immunity to this disease, and there is no free exercise
exemption to universal public health orders.
Now, as for protests, let us not confuse the issue. Whether
your protest is a right-wing protest, like Boogaloo and Proud
Boys and anti-public-health-order protesters, like the ones who
threatened the life of Governor Whitmer and tried to shut down
the Michigan legislature and succeeded in doing so, or it's the
nonviolent assemblies of millions of people with Black Lives
Matter across the country, the kind endorsed by our late
beloved colleague John Lewis, the champion of nonviolence, the
same rules must apply. If a jurisdiction has a 6-foot rule and
a masking rule, which I assume and hope every one of them does,
it applies equally to everybody.
And the preliminary results suggest--and I know, because
I've been to a lot of the Black Lives Matter protests--is
people are not getting infected there as much because they are
observing those rules. Obviously, when you go to an anti-
public-health-order, anti-masking protest, like the kinds that
shut down the legislature in Michigan, most people are not
wearing masks and are not observing the public health protocols
they have come to try to destroy.
So, if you're really concerned about the protests and
people getting sick there--and we should be--then we have to
look at the use of tear gas and pepper spray. Everybody saw the
secret Federal officers who were assembled by Attorney General
Barr in Oregon remove the mask of a Naval veteran and spray
pepper spray right in his face. That's extremely dangerous, to
remove someone's mask and then to have them sneezing and
coughing and so on. So, it's the use of those chemical
irritants, I think, which is the real danger.
But, Admiral Giroir, what I wanted to ask you was about the
role that Jared Kushner has played in developing the
administration's approach to--is he still with us, or is he--
oh, he's gone now. OK.
Well, Dr. Fauci, let me turn to you then. Are you aware of
the role that Jared Kushner has played in developing the
administration's approach to diagnostic testing?
Dr. Fauci. I have no knowledge of that, Congressman,
because I've not been involved in that. It's really been
Admiral Giroir being involved in that.
Mr. Raskin. OK. Well, then I'm sorry I missed Mr. Giroir in
this second round.
But, yesterday, Vanity Fair reported something astonishing,
which is that Jared Kushner recognized that there was no plan,
and he formed a secret working group at the White House in
March and April to develop a national testing plan, which
operated in a, quote, ``bubble,'' and did not coordinate with
other experts at HHR--rather, HHS.
And they actually came up with a very detailed and
potentially effective national testing plan--one person
involved said it wasn't rocket science but it was a real plan--
in which the government would coordinate the distribution of
test kits and an aggressive program of contact tracing across
the country.
But the White House reportedly dropped the plan, according
to this article, ``How Jared Kushner's Secret Testing Plan
'Went Poof Into Thin Air.' '' OK? The White House dropped the
plan on the political logic that the outbreak was going to be
limited to Democratic states--this was back in March--in New
York and New Jersey. And you remember, there was a lot of talk
about how this was a blue state disease and there was somehow
some kind of political or ideological immunity to getting it.
So, they thought it would be a better strategy just to pit
the states against each other in that vicious free-for-all for
equipment and materials and then blame the Governors when
everything went wrong. And we've seen the shocking, devastating
results of just letting it go and not having a plan at all.
With that, I'd yield back to you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Clyburn. I thank the gentleman for yielding back.
I think we're finished our second round of questions, and I
would like to now yield to the ranking member for any closing
statement he might want to make.
Mr. Scalise. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, again, I want to thank our witnesses for coming here,
including Dr. Giroir, Dr. Fauci, Dr. Redfield. You are on the
front lines, as well as the teams that are behind you, working
to implement President Trump's plan to combat this virus.
In fact, Dr. Giroir left to go address thousands of people
who work under him. He talked about 7,000 deployments that have
been made under President Trump's command to have men and women
in uniform going on the front lines to help at the state and
local level.
We've seen so much work being done in this plan. And I keep
going back to it, because I know some people want to deny that
this plan exists, of course, at the same time that they're
criticizing components of the plan.
You know, part of this plan--again, there's thousands more
pages online. This is just a small part of President Trump's
plan to combat the coronavirus.
Part of the plan included stopping flights to China, which,
as Dr. Fauci testified under oath, saved lives. That was
President Trump's call. He got criticized from it. In fact, he
got criticized from some of the very people who say that he
doesn't have a plan, yet they criticize parts of his plan, and
that plan worked and saved lives.
I know, Dr. Fauci, you testified under oath about some of
the other decisions that were made by President Trump, working
in conjunction with you and the rest of the team, these
internationally respected medical doctors, that saved lives.
Thank God President Trump keeps his focus on carrying out this
plan every day while people are literally trying to disagree
with it and then deny it exists at the same time.
And so, when you look at now where we are with Operation
Warp Speed--and this is something that is so incredibly
important, working to find an actual vaccine for the disease.
And, again, Dr. Fauci--I know, Dr. Redfield, you talked about
this, but I appreciate you giving out the website again. Over
250,000 Americans have now signed up to be tested for this
virus. It might be one of the most tested trials for a new
virus in American history, probably the quickest time that
we've been able to get a vaccine for a disease we knew nothing
about even six months ago because China lied to us, because
China still to this day is trying to interfere with our
ability.
While we're working feverishly to get the vaccine, China is
working feverishly to try to steal the vaccine. We ought to
have a hearing on that, Mr. Chairman. I know Mrs. Walorski
talked about that and brought that issue up.
You know, when you look at the incredible work, as Dr.
Giroir is doing on testing, to get those testing kits into
nursing homes, that's part of President Trump's plan, and, in
fact, it is saving lives.
If those five Governors who did not follow the Federal
guidelines would've followed the Federal guidelines, again, as
testimony under oath confirmed, thousands of deaths would not
have happened. I wish they would've followed the guidelines.
I wish they'd share the data. They're still hiding the
data, those five Governors. We've asked them, those of us on
the Republican side. If just one member on the Democrat side,
Mr. Chairman, would join us in asking those Governors to share
the data that they're hiding from the American people, they're
hiding from the families, the sons, the daughters, the
grandchildren of those who died in those nursing homes--they're
hiding that data, and they won't give it to us. They said they
don't have to give it to us because not a majority of this
committee has asked. I wish, Mr. Chairman, you'd join us in
asking to get that data. What's wrong with asking for the
facts?
And so, then you look at opening schools. You want to talk
about saving lives--and this is one of those untold stories,
unfortunately. There are 50-million-plus children across
America who are counting on us to get it right. The good news
is the Trump administration has laid out a plan for how to
reopen schools safely.
You know, just right here, you talk about school
administrators on the use of cloth face coverings. CDC suggests
that all school reopening plans address adhering to behaviors
that prevent the spread of COVID-19. They go into detail on all
the things you should do, as we talked about--washing hands,
all of that. You can socially distance. You need to socially
distance.
You can do it; in fact, you need to do it. But to say you
can't do it is a cop-out. This is America, for goodness' sake.
We put a man on the Moon. You can follow basic guidelines.
If you don't want to trust CDC, go to the American Academy
of Pediatrics, for goodness' sake, who put out really good
guidelines for how to safely reopen schools.
And they went further and said the danger to children.
You're hurting kids by not reopening schools, as Dr. Redfield
testified. The thousands of kids that aren't getting diagnosed
with things like child abuse, which is happening,
unfortunately. It gets discovered in the schools. That's not
happening. The nutrition programs, the mental health programs.
There are drug overdoses happening today that wouldn't be
happening if those kids were going back to school.
You have to get it done, and don't say it's because of
money. You can't say it's because of money. Here's the--every
state in the Nation's got money. We put over $150 billion out
there. Do you know that, based on this list, about $100 billion
of money we in Congress appropriated, President Trump signed
into law, about $100 billion still available in every state.
And this money, without changing the law, could be used to
provide all of those supplies that the experts said you need to
reopen your schools safely. It's all there for you. If you run
out, give us a call. But the money is there. Don't use that as
an excuse.
We all owe it to the kids. If there's never been a better
time to make the argument for school choice, for goodness'
sake. You've got some of these unions that are saying they
don't want to go back to school. Then, as Mr. Jordan pointed
out, they're encouraging people to go to a protest, where
you're not socially distanced. But they say you shouldn't be
able to safely reopen the school. But they want to take the
money.
How about, if there's another school system that's willing
to safely educate your child, shouldn't the parent be able to
do that? Why deny parents in low-income communities the ability
to have the same choice that other people that aren't in low-
income communities have? That ought to be on the table too.
Because there are systems all across this Nation that have
figured it out. Again, you don't need to reinvent the wheel.
It's all there in the President's plan. President Trump has
laid this out. You can go to the websites to get it. Call me,
I'll give it to you. But it's there. If you don't like it, you
put a better plan on the table. Of course, they haven't done
that.
But, in the meantime, don't deny those children the
opportunity to seek the American Dream that everybody else has
deserved over the history of our country. And that's what will
happen if they don't follow those safety guidelines and safely
reopen the schools.
So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I again thank the witnesses.
Appreciate the work you're doing. I wish we could followup
on some of the other issues, like Mr. Jordan--police officers
that are being attacked right now and being put at risk to
coronavirus. We had a hearing in this committee on our
frontline healthcare workers, and it was an important hearing.
I'd like to see us have a hearing on those law enforcement
officers who are being put at risk by the attacks on them that
we're seeing all across the country.
And then, of course, China, the role that China has played
from the beginning in lying to us, hiding information, now
trying to steal our information every step of the way. We ought
to have a hearing to hold China accountable too.
So, appreciate the work you're doing. Please continue to go
do that. Tell all the men and women that are sacrificing to
help combat this virus, working with President Trump, we thank
them on behalf of all Americans who want to see us get behind
this and get back to the things that we used to do.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Clyburn. I thank the ranking member for his
closing statement and for yielding back the time.
Let me begin by reminding him that we did have a hearing
for essential workers. And if my memory serves, police
officers, law enforcement officers were included.
Mr. Scalise. Mr. Chairman----
Chairman Clyburn. They are essential workers.
Mr. Scalise. In relation to the attacks we've seen on them.
That's a new development since that hearing.
Chairman Clyburn. Well, I suspect that the protesters that
my friend Mr. Jordan seemed to be so preoccupied with have had
some state-sponsored attacks made on them, much like those that
we remember from a not-too-distant past.
But, this week, a leaked White House Coronavirus Task Force
report indicates that there are 21 states in the so-called red
zone, and, for some strange reason, the report says that they
were communicated with privately. And I'm kind of troubled that
the administration would hide this from us.
And so, I don't know that--this is not for questioning, but
I'm going to ask Dr. Redfield if he would respond to us in
writing on this. Because I would like to know whether or not we
can depend upon, going forward, these kinds of reports to be
made public rather than be issued to these states privately.
Because it seems to us that, while the White House is
maintaining a public statement as it relates to this virus,
they have been sending some stuff to states privately. And I
would hope that this could come to an end.
Now, I would also like to say to my friend who seemed to be
so concerned about kids going back to school, Mr. Ranking
Member, we all want to see our kids go back to school. I'm the
grandfather of two schoolchildren that I want to see in school.
Though they are privileged enough to have the internet
available to them, their classmates--many of their classmates
don't. And, therefore, many of their classmates are not going
to be allowed to go to the next grade. Those same classmates
are going to be subject to losing another year of school. We
all want them back in school.
But I want to refer, since we are talking about the
American Academy of Pediatrics--they have followed up with us.
The American Federation of Teachers, the National Education
Association, School Superintendents Association, they all
joined together in issuing a statement on July 10. And, to me,
here's for this operative.
``Public health agencies must make recommendations based on
evidence, not politics. We should leave it to health experts to
tell us when the time is best to open up school buildings, and
listen to educators and administrators to shape how we do it.''
I represent a congressional district that is about half and
half what we might call rural and urban, though even the urban
part of my district would be looked upon as being rural by some
of my friends here on this panel from New York and California,
so maybe I just do have a rural district.
All I want to say is, it's different in rural America than
it is in urban America. So, I don't know that we can, up here,
come up with a one-size-fits-all. We should delegate to the
professional superintendents and the principals of these
schools to determine how best to reopen schools. We want them
to reopen and arm them with all the resources they need to do
that.
So, this whole notion of just telling people to go back to
school, that is one thing. Give the principals, the
superintendents, the states, give them the resources they need
and the guidance they need. And let them work with those rural
communities that are different from urban communities, where
they don't have the internet available to them and they can't
do online learning.
And they've got to be able to space. They've got to have
masks. I represent families that cannot afford to buy masks
every day. Many of them can't afford to buy the books. So, we
ought not be putting that burden on them.
And so, we have resources up here that we ought to get out
to these school districts. And I know--I hear from teachers
every day who go in their own pockets to pay for material for
their students. That's happening every day, and they're
preparing to go back to school with budgeting to do the same
thing.
Now, before we close, I want to enter into the record--I
have entered--another letter from the American Association of
Medical Colleges. And I'm asking unanimous consent that this
letter be entered into the official hearing.
And, without any objection, so ordered.
Chairman Clyburn. I want to thank Dr. Fauci, Dr. Redfield,
and Admiral Giroir for being here today. We appreciate the
expertise you have shared as we work to end this terrible
pandemic.
As we heard today, a comprehensive plan to reduce the
spread of coronavirus would save lives, but every day that
effective action is not taken more lives are lost.
Today's hearing has made clear that the Trump
administration must put aside partisan concerns and work with
public health and medical science experts to craft a
comprehensive plan to defeat this virus.
The plan must prioritize public health over perceived
political expediency. The plan must ensure states have the
testing they need. Give Americans clear public health advice,
and follow the advice of legitimate experts like we have here
today, even if their assessments are difficult for
administration officials to hear.
Much of this is inconvenient to the public. Nobody feels
comfortable getting up every morning looking for a mask, and
nobody feels comfortable riding around all day with a mask.
It's inconvenient for everybody. So, it's uncomfortable for
everybody.
But the plan must include guidance and support for state
and local governments, health departments, schools, and
community organizations.
I come from a part of the country where no education would
have been available to my parents had it not been for churches,
because the states did not sponsor education for them. My
father was not allowed to graduate high school because no high
school was available to the students in the county he grew up
in. And so, we have got to bring local communities in this. The
churches, temples, synagogues all need to be involved in this.
This is not excluding any religion; we are trying to bring
religious organizations into this effort. And we've got to
protect our students and our teachers and not go rushing into
reopening schools.
Finally, the plan must address the grave inequities this
virus has inflicted on minority communities. Our Black and
Brown communities already faced health and wealth disparities
before the coronavirus--that's what Ms. Velazquez was getting
to in her last line of questionings--but particularly when we
are dealing with this contagious virus.
In the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., in his letter
from the Birmingham City Jail, which I happen to believe--most
people may not agree with me on this, but the Bible, to me, is
a timeless document, and I believe that King's letter from the
Birmingham City Jail is a very timeless document. He said in
that letter, ``Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice
everywhere.''
Dr. King also said, and I quote, in that same letter,
``Time itself is neutral.'' You may recall, he is responding to
a letter that he had gotten from eight non-Black ministers who
said to him that they agreed with him but the timing was not
right. King, in his response, says, ``Time itself is neutral.
It can either be used destructively or constructively.''
And then he went on: ``More and more, I feel that the
people of ill will have used time much more effectively than
the people of goodwill.''
This destructive virus, while it has no will, has used the
past six months to spread more than 4 million of our fellow
citizens--spread to more than 4 million of our fellow citizens.
To prevent more lives from being lost, people of goodwill,
including those who are here today--I consider you to be among
the people I respect most in our government. People of goodwill
must use their time constructively to combat the virus much
more effectively than it has been to this point.
Irrespective of how many tests we may give, irrespective of
how we may shape up to the rest of the world, the question for
us is: Are we using our time constructively? People of goodwill
must correct past mistakes, embrace the science, work together
in a bipartisan way to defeat this grave threat to our country.
And if I might quote Dr. King once more, ``The time is always
ripe to do right.''
Without objection, all members will have five legislative
days within which to submit additional written questions for
the witnesses to the chair, which will be forwarded to the
witnesses for their response.
I ask our witnesses to please respond as promptly as you
are able.
. And, with that, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:47 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]