the south carolina primary is saturday. join us to hear the candidates' reaction to the results. live coverage saturday evening starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, on demand at c-span.org, or listen live on the free c-span radio app. centers for disease control and prevention director dr. robert redfield and other federal officials will testify on the coronavirus response before a house subcommittee. watch that live at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3, online at c-sp c-span.org or listen live with the free c-span radio app. we want to welcome back to our table jan schakowsky, democrat of illinois. the headline from "the

independent," trump official refuses to say that coronavirus vaccine would be affordable to all. what did you hear from the secretary? >> the secretary said in no uncertain terms that he could not ensure that the coronavirus -- that the vaccine would be affordable although they would work to make it happen, because we had to rely on the private sector. he's talking about big pharma. and understand, i made the point that the taxpayers have really done the research, the bulk of the money has been from every one of us. and yet he's saying that we can't assure that it's going to be affordable. imagine, we're talking about the potential of worldwide pandemic, saying, well, we can't do anything about controlling the private sector, big pharma. >> why -- well, is he right, if

taxpayer dollars aren't being used for that? >> no, but taxpayer dollars have been doing all the basic research, about 80%. and you would think that the government would have some control over the price. he says price control won't help us, the priority is to get vaccine and therapies, but we can't control the price. really? the united states of america, where we want to protect -- this is a matter of national security -- cannot guarantee that if there are therapies and there is a vaccine, that it can't be affordable to the american people? we're under the control of pharma and their profits that they want to make? i don't think so. >> could these vaccine therapies go to the highest bidder, then, for example china and other countries, saying, we'll give you more money for whatever you're developing? is that possible? >> well, it's unclear right now

exactly how it's going to relate to the worldwide outbreaks of coronavirus. but certainly they ought to be able to stand up there and say we will continue to work for a vaccine and we will make sure that it's accessible to all americans. we can't -- you know, one of the big issues in our country right now is the cost of prescription drugs. and are we just at the mercy of the profits of big pharma? certainly not in this case. that should never happen. >> we want our viewers to get involved as well so republicans, 202-748-8001, democrats 202-748-8000 and independents, 202-748-8002. congresswoman schakowsky here to take your questions about the coronavirus outbreak.

is the president right that we rely too much on other countries for our supply chain, that he has said from the beginning of his campaign that we need more manufacturers back here in the united states? >> there's no question that we have a reliance now on a huge percentage, like 80% of the component parts of the drugs, the things that go into making the drugs, are from overseas. we do not have manufacturing plants in the united states of america. the reliance on china is really great. i mean, that's a lot of it, is china. it's not a good thing. and so the president is absolutely right that we ought to be able to manufacture drugs on our own here in the united states to make sure that we aren't dependent on countries like chain where we are seeing supply chains for everything break down because of the coronavirus. >> what is your reaction to the president appointing the vice

president as the lead on the u.s. response to the coronavirus? >> well, i understand that secretary of health and services azar was unaware that that was coming. he has really been in charge of the team that has been overseeing our response to the coronavirus. and i -- certainly somebody needs to be in charge. i thought it was the secretary who was in charge and apparently he did too. but, you know, i don't know what exactly that means in terms of progress. >> faith in california. >> i have a few comments. i would like to say that cargo containers sometimes hide illegal chinese immigrants. and i think that people dealing with that should be well-protected. there's comments that people can't get to hospitals and i think that illegal immigrants always get to the emergency

room. they can't be denied coverage. and i think also that masks are ineffective and when we had that barack guy in the white house to force everyone to have health care for something like coronavirus, i think that was communistic, to find $695. >> well, we have to make sure that everyone is protected when it comes to the coronavirus because anybody could catch it, then. so if we make the statement that we shouldn't provide health care to immigrants, illegal immigrants, people who aren't here, on the other hand you certainly don't want to be infected by anybody who may have the virus. so we are checking people, for example there are no non-citizens that have come from abroad right now being allowed into the united states of

america, especially from china. so we are doing everything we can to protect ourselves from anybody that would come and bring it with them. but if someone is here, then we need to treat them regardless of their immigration status. >> should president trump have travel restrictions on people traveling from south korea, iran, the middle east? >> we're certainly checking those people when they come in. but if they are noncitizens, they are not being allowed into the country because of the presence of the virus. so we're guarding ourselves in that way. >> glenn in pottstown, pennsylvania, independent. >> caller: yes, good morning. >> good morning. >> caller: i am calling on the president, nancy pelosi, chuck schumer, to restore, and the

president, mitch mcconnell, to restore the cdc. could you imagine if there was a major breakout, the cd krchc, c we restore the cdc please, miss, i'm calling on you to ask the president to restore the cdc. >> got it, glenn, restore the funding for the cdc. >> you're absolutely right, glenn. we have seen kind of the hollowing out of the agencies that are supposed to protect us in the sense of cuts in funding and in fact, the amount of money that has been designated now for the coronavirus, $2.5 billion, most of the health care experts think that's far too little. and about half a billion dollars was taken out of the ebola fund. and by the way, there is still ebola outbreaks, particularly in

congo. and so we're putting ourselves at risk again. you know, this is a national security issue, just as much as war, as defending us through the military. and we have to make sure that we are cutting back on health care that protects us. so i agree with you 100%. >> james is watching in liverpool, new york, a democratic caller. >> caller: hi, am i on? >> yes, you are. >> caller: so i've been in the country for a long time, i do think the travel ban was a good idea, it did help prevent what could have been worse. in terms of, from my understanding, my parents actually have been in phone contact with people over there in wuhan, and even their own people do not believe that the numbers the government is producing is accurate. when it comes to manufacturing masks, my understanding is

there's a german company out there that has a machine that does it and foxconn was able to acquire these machines so they produced masks for their employees in china. i figure that's something that the u.s. can perhaps look into. >> congresswoman? >> certainly the united states needs to look into our own ability to manufacture the drugs that we need. this turns out not to be only about the coronavirus and a particular -- hopefully a vaccine for that. but we rely on china for a lot of the drugs that we get and manufacture. and so i think that we are definitely put at risk in the united states of america, and we need to understand the vulnerability we have when we rely on other countries. >> why does the cdc and the

other health agencies responding to this need more than $2.5 billion in your opinion? >> let me give you an example. cities and counties and small towns and big towns all over the united states now are spending a great deal of money, and the city of chicago, my city, $150,000 a week is going just into these prevention things. i asked the secretary if there was going to be some reimbursement, and he said that yes, there was going to be some help for states. so this is a much more expensive -- chuck schumer has called for over $8 billion to be allocated. i think we are going to boost up that funding, even the president said, oh, you want to give us more money, give us more money. but it didn't take into account any of the surveillance that we need to do to make sure we know where these cases are. so i think that there's pretty

much consensus in the medical community that that is not enough money. to take from ebola is not a good idea either. >> we'll go to joel in spring, texas, a republican. hi, joel. >> caller: good day, ma'am. i wanted to point out to the representative that it's democratic policies under the obama administration that supported the exporting of our pharmaceutical manufacturing capabilities. and that's why we don't have industrial capability at this point. and would she talk about that? >> well, you know, let's blame the obama administration that has been gone, it will be four years. and this is not the first time there's been concern about the drugs and the fact that they're manufactured overseas. and there certainly has been a

long time that we have during the trump administration, that big pharma has been pretty much gouging, actually the president used that term once, price gouging on the cost of prescription drugs. so it's time now that we all understand, we've been under the trump administration, and we just need to respond responsibly now to the need that we have. it has shown up the shortcomings in the pricing of pharmaceuticals, in the manufacturing of pharmaceuticals. so let's learn from this coronavirus problem and beef up our national security with the drugs that we need. and it's time to stop blaming the obama administration for the problems that we're facing right now. >> what are you hearing from hospital and health care workers

in your district about their ability to respond to patients? >> yes, i raised that question too with the secretary of health and human services, because we're hearing from health care workers to make sure that there are special -- that they can be protected, that they have the equipment that they need, the masks even that they need to be able to keep themselves safe. they are probably the most at risk. but i do want to point out that we are in a different situation today, having heard about the first case in california where there is no known source. this is not a person who has gone to china, who has been connected to someone who came from a place where there was the virus. and that is a disturbing finding. of course they're looking into what could possibly -- does this mean that now we're going to see it spread to people who haven't

had any connection? and where is it coming from? >> tom in adams, oklahoma, independent, you're next. >> caller: yeah, big pharma having as much power and control as they control as they do over anything and anything they do is just a small example as to other corporations that take advantage of the power that they take advantage of. 2.5 million, or $2.5 billion, i think it was, is what you said, that taxpayers are paying for on big pharma, having to put their foot in on this virus, on this cure, or whatever it is that we're coming up with -- >> tom, let me stop you there. >> what is the actual number that taxpayers are paying for the research into the vaccinations? >> that already, we know of about a billion that has already gone into that kind of work. the $2.5 billion is going forward to deal with the potential of an epidemic.

but we know that about 20% of the r&d has been done by the private sector, by pharmaceutical companies. but you're absolutely right, that the, the highest health official in the country would say, well, we can't guarantee you that once we have a vaccine, that it will be affordable, i just think that is completely outrageous, when the world health organization has said this is, could be an international pandemic, when the united states of america has declared it to be an emergency situation, that we're going to have to depend, and we don't know if pharma is going to overcharge us, that they're going to see it as an ability to make profit on preventing, who knows how many americans, contracting and perhaps dying of a virus. >> tom, go ahead with your

question. >> caller: yes, i think taxpayers dollars should be more than enough to handle that and we shouldn't have to pay out-of-pocket. in the case, or in the event of a pandemic, on our, you know, on our soil, we're already paying taxes for millions of other things, ridiculous tax rates, and just to be told that we're going to have to pay out-of-pocket for something that's life-threatening. >> well, that's right. especially if you've already paid for, because of the, you know, the taxpayers are paying for this research and development, and then have to be charged whatever in order for the pharmaceutical companies to make a profit on it. i think it's really immoral in fact, to say that we're going to let them charge what they will. >> robert in waldorf, maryland, independent, good morning to

you. >> caller: good morning. if we're all really concerned about a pan dem nick this country, it is a very simple solution. shut down the borders, stop all international flights and shipping from coming into this country. but no democrat would ever do that. if you were really that concerned about it, for a congresswoman to sit there and complain about all of our job, pharmaceuticals, being shipped overseas, she's voted for all of that numerous, numerous times, she has voted against the american worker, to ship these jobs overseas, now for her to sit there and complain that our pharmaceutical companies may make a profit on something that these congressmen calls this problem by themselves, and for her to sit there, and act like she didn't have her hand in it, that's why, take a drink of that, every time you voted against the american worker to ship their jobs overseas, you are now complicit in this. >> let's get a response. >> well, actually i certainly have all of my time in congress been fighting to protect jobs in

the united states of america, and you can check my record on that. i'm not shipping jobs or the ability to provide us with what we need overseas. that has not been, in fact, it is really the opposite that we have seen companies go to cheap labor places, like china, and shut down our factories. so clearly, we need to bring not only the products but the jobs back to the united states of america. and when you talk about the pharmaceutical companies making a little profit, that profit, for private corporations should not be part of the discussion here. we need to be talking about how the united states of america itself, and its taxpayers, are able to get the medicines that they need, to prevent some sort of a pandemic, an epidemic here

in our country, and that ought to be the focus. not saying oh, well now that you've paid for all of the, or most of the research and development, now we're going to charge you to get the drug, and if you can't afford it, what, you're not going to get it? that's impossible. >> quickly, i'm guessing the caller was referring to legislation like nafta. how did you vote on that? >> i was not here for nafta. i would, i went public though and said i absolutely would have voted against nafta. i helped negotiate the current trade agreement with a focus on making sure that there is enforcement that is not going to end up like nafta, to make, to let jobs go away. >> roger, troy, michigan, republican. >> caller: hi, this message, this conversation is for jan, and this is a clear understanding that if i have

somebody who voted for the obama health care, okay, and that gave you legal, for people, insurance, which they were not entitled to, my grandmother's, my mother's 92 years old, should she have to pay for an illegal immigrant's health care here in the united states, but jan, she supported it, she supported all of obama's health care, which hurt the people of the state of michigan, including me, including my sons, but she sits there, drinks a cup of coffee, thinks that she's a glorious woman in the world, and she was out there with nancy pelosi and railroading everybody in the united states with this false health care. >> okay. gop got your point. >> so i proudly voted and work to support the affordable care act. is it perfect?

absolutely not. but for the first time, people with pre-existing conditions were assured, and that, i maybe, maybe you, possibly your son, if not now, at some point, the guarantee that you wa not be, that you would not be cut off by the insurance company who says oh, no, you're too expensive, we're not going to pay for your health problem or your diabetes, no, you can't get insurance. there are 135 million americans with pre-existing conditions that are able to get health care. >> how does the aca help in your opinion, help in this situation with the coronavirus? >> well, absolutely, it does. i mean first of all, we want people not to be vulnerable to be open to catching the flus, or this horrible coronavirus. the accessibility to health care is a national security help for us, to make sure that people are

not vulnerable. >> peyton, springfield, new hampshire, democratic caller. >> caller: yes, hi, first, thanks for c-span, you guys are true national resource, thanks very much. the comment and a couple of things, one, i think you need to get politics as far away from this as possible. you know, you have a 2% fatality rate, it looks like, and normal flu is like 10.0, 0.1, so that is 20 x, so you have a wave of events that really might start tress testing our government and our hospitals and we need to be really honest and get expertise and functioning government into place here, and so i think that's the real comment, because maybe we've been sort of lucky to sidestep some of this with a lot of the political rhetoric that we've had over the last let's say 20 years, that have discharged and sidestepped all expertise of a functioning

government but we're going to need to get really active about that, and this wave is coming and i would say the people need to prepare for that. >> well, i agree with you, that this coronavirus has really been an alarm that says are we prepared to deal with the kinds of health threats that we may find, even today, and do we have to beef up our system to make sure that we protect ourselves. and so i think there's, we follow a number of polls, although having said, that i think it is important to say, the president is wrong, it is not 15 cases, there are 60 cases here, that the united states has actually been doing pretty well, compared certainly to some other countries where we're seeing, for instance, in italy, so many cases, just springing up overnight. but it does put a burden on our health care workers, and we have to make sure that there are

sufficient employees to be able to take care of us, from doctors, down to home care workers, are under stress right now. >> william, massachusetts, an independent. good morning to you. go ahead with your question or comment for our congresswoman. >> caller: good morning, i have a look at the $2.5 billion, so i mean you've got sars and all of these other names of all of these viruses and all of these infections, and the cdc has money, and just because there's a new name, we need $2.5 billion, and yet flint can't get their water fixed, so where does all this money go? who profits from it? >> well, we're talking about, for example, having testing kits. right now, there are a limited number of these testing kits around the country, so if someone is suspected of having the virus, it has to be sent to,

i think now, there are 12 centers around the country, but for a while, there was only one, because a lack of capacity of local places to test the patients, to see if it is the coronavirus. so there are a lot of things just physically that we have to get ready for, just in case, and to make sure that we're able to evaluate what's going on out there. and we do want to make sure that we have enough health care providers, that our hospitals are equipped for isolation, and so this is a very expensive endeavor to make sure that we're kept safe. but as i say, the health care experts are saying that it is, some are saying it's even more like $15 billion, and you know,

in the scheme of things, i think this is the kind of investment that we need to be ready to make. >> are you concerned about a recession? >> as a consequence of this? well, let's face it, the supply chains for so many things, including technologies, all kinds of things that we import to our country from all over the world, but in particular, from china, you know, i think, well, the stock market is already telling us that there is some problem here, and hopefully, because china now is controlling, the increase is down, we're seeing that china is getting this under control, we hope, so let's hope that it is short-lived. >> moody's analytics, according to the "new york times" predicted a 40% chance that the virus would grow into a global pandemic, that would push the united states and the world into a recession.

jerry in new jersey, democratic caller. >> caller: boy, you know, greta, it sounds almost excited about that, it's a shame, i don't know why you bring up the recession, it hasn't happened yet, but it sounds like that is what you're rooting for, so that's fine. the other thing i want to make a comment, you know, you notice that the people that have the virus are getting better. >> yes. >> so can somebody tell me how this is happening that they're getting better, and they're going home, without this new vaccine we're talking about, so i'm not quite getting what the panic is. our people are going home. i mean they're going home. so evidently we have a great medical system here. now the countries that are having a problem are the ones that don't have that kind of medical system, and we have no control over that. that, over there, is there. us over here is here. we are doing a great job so far. our medical, it looks like our

hospitals, our medical, are doing a great job. like i said, these people are all going home. there's no deaths here. so i don't understand the panic yet here. i understand the global, with the trade and all, and i love what trump said yesterday, because he said two things, one, he said, as far as travel goes, we have a beautiful country here, so people can travel within our own country to go on vacation, and see beautiful places. and he is absolutely correct. so people don't have to go out of the country right now to travel. number two, trade. he's trying so hard to make everything in the usa, so we are not dependent on other countries, for our wealth, so he is, everything he has said has proven to be true so far, to try to get this country to prosper, and closing the borders is another thing, so he has been right on the money. >> okay, jerry, we have to leave it there because we're running

short on time. i will just add cnn is reporting that markets right now are near correction in response to the coronavirus. >> yes, i certainly agree with you that we have one of the best systems in the world to take care of a pandemic, and to prevent it, but there are still millions and millions of americans that don't have access to health care in this country. i am talking about citizens of the united states of america who can't afford it. and so we do have to do better. but in the meantime, i do want to say that we don't need to panic, but we need to prepare. we need to be ready. and the experts that are forecasting that it could be a problem here in the united states of america, we need to be