strong did the same areas. they believe on a the future of artificial intelligence and self-driving and great technologies coming down which will make our lives better. are we talking about the president? are we talking about the people who actually do policy? i have to say the last is to administration we have had terrific people with a terrific policy agenda. >> the president and ceo of the consumer technology association talks about online free, antitrust, and broadband access on "the ♪

>> t minus 16. guidance internal. t minus 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, four, start, three, 2, 1. [engines firing] >> on her way to space with her first human crew. go, jeff.

go, mark. go, wally. >> the company's first flight with people on board. amazon founder jeff bezos started the company and was part of the crew. tonight at 8:00 eastern, we will show the rocket going three times the speed of sound, the separation in the upright landing, followed by a news conference with the crew after the landing, all tonight here on c-span. >> we are back with john lawson, here to talk to us about recent flights into space by private individuals, and the potential impact on space travel. john, good morning. you are the founder and longtime director of the gw space policy institute, george washington university space policy institute. what is the significant of jeff

bezos and richard branson conducting private flights into space. >> the reality is, the significance is not that great. these were not journeys into orbit, just up and down, quick, suborbital flights. but symbolically, i think there were significant. look at all the attention. because these are private citizens going into space on systems developed by private citizens. it is announcing the arrival of opening the access to space to paying private citizens. jesse: what is the impact of those private flights, not only on tourism, but on the commercial spaceflight industry? does this mean we are now going to see several companies touting

themselves as intergalactic companies, where they can take people who can afford it away from the planet earth, is that a new industry we are going to see? john: well, perhaps. we have to put into the mix the company called spacex owned by elon musk, which has a system that can carry people into orbit. neither blue origin's new shepard nor virgin galactic's spaceship ii can go into orbit. the spate -- the flights are necessarily short. mosque's -- musk's ambition is to move large

numbers of people into deep space. elon's stated goal was a million persons on mars. and to move heavy industry into deep space, and have thousands of people working in space. jesse: now, there has been quite a bit of criticism of jeff bezos and richard branson, with the whole rich guys who can't afford to go to space, or through their largess can bring anyone they want into space, with them owning their own companies and billionaires -- and being billionaires. there is no limit to what they can do, but not all of us are billionaires. what you think of the criticism that they are using their money to go into this next frontier, places that other people who can't afford to, can't go?

john: i think the criticism, while understandable, is a little unfounded. nobody criticizes a billionaire for buying a big god. they are allowed to use their money as long as they are not injuring anybody else. they are not philanthropists particularly, they are people who put their own money into creating this, and it is understandable that they want to use it. jesse: have these companies brought anything new to the spaceflight industry? are they coming up with innovations that can be used by nasa in the future? or are they only doing what they can do because of innovations that have been brought about by nasa? john: i think nasa, now 60 years

plus old, has developed in the united states the various technologies involved in spaceflight, propulsion engine, environmental controls, so certainly virgin galactic and a blue origin are benefiting from what nasa has done over the years. but these are there innovations, putting that all together into systems for their use. not only to contribute to the broader capability of spaceflight, this is what they do. jesse: our columns can take part in the conversation about the use of private industry going into space. where going to open regional lines, regional lines. if you are in the eastern or central time zones, we want to hear from you at (202) 748-8000.

if you are in the mountain or pacific time zones, your number is (202) 748-8001. keep in mind, you can text us at (202) 748-8003 and we are always on facebook, on twitter at c-spanwj and on instagram that c-span -- instagram at c-spanwj. john, can nasa learn from what is being done by bezos, branson and elon musk? what can the government learn from what is being done now by private industry? let -- john: let's take one step back. nasa has nothing to do with these spaceflights. they are regulated by the

federal aviation administration and the department of transportation, which has to issue a license for these flights to take lace. again, there not making contributions to the nasa program. they are starting new businesses . they hope to make money with these businesses, and the regulations associated with them coming out of the department of transportation. jesse: is there anything being done by these private companies that nasa may want to emulate in the future? john: no, i don't think so. nasa has the capability -- has had the capability of putting humans in orbit since john glenn's flight in 1962. at the first two flights of project mercury, alan shepard and gus grissom, there were like these lights. just up and down. jesse: what is your comfort level right now in letting

private industry seemingly take the lead in the space industry that is going on? john: this is one niche segment of the space industry. there is a $300 billion space industry, mainly private, but also government -- things like communication satellites and earth observations on lights. so there is a thriving private business in space already. i don't want to trivialize it, but it is a bit of a sideshow. jesse: let's let some of our viewers take part in the conversation. let's start with steve, calling from montgomery, illinois. steve, good morning. caller: good morning. morning, john. i want to do a shout out on your book, "after apollo" for all the

viewers, it was a great book on how the space industry changed after apollo. i have a two-part question. how much more of the commercial market can spacex acquire, like towards arian space? and my second question, the nasa administrator has said that china is our main competitor to get to mars or deep space. how much more can the government stay out of the way for a company like spacex, to leave a path for america to get to mars or the moon before china? i will hang up and listen to your response, thank you. john: thanks for the comment on

the "after apollo" book, part of a series of books i have written up about the space decisions of john kennedy, richard nixon and ronald reagan. i enjoyed doing that work. china is the country, together with the u.s., that is the units developing capabilities for journeys into deep space. there is currently a . there are capabilities to eventually go to the moon and journey to mars. the u.s. is ahead of that competition with the artemis program. but it depends on whether we maintain that current lead, competitively over time.

it takes many leads -- he takes many years and sustained support from the government. that being said, elon musk and spacex are developing a new spaceship called star liner linr , which is supposedly going to fly soon, in the next few months, and eventually be able to carry a large number of people, tens or maybe 100 people to the moon, and eventually to mars. and the united states, the government is not competing with spacex. it is elon using his profits. you mentioned spacex competing with area on, the european company, and they have contracts to launch communications satellites, to launch them on their own.

-- used to launch them on the road and spacex has been extremely disruptive in this launch market with reusable boosters and a price point that undercuts its competitors. again, virgin galactic and blue origin at this point have nothing to do with that competition. jesse: you brought up the elon musk star liner, which brings up this question. you said the government is not competing with these private companies. do you think, however, that the push for private companies to get into space in any way diminishes nasa plans for manned spaceflight? john: good question. let's divide it into two parts. one is human access to low-earth orbit, 200 50 miles up or so, where the international space

station is operating. nasa has said it would like to get out of the business of working in low-earth orbit, and that over to the private sector. because in a sense, it is almost a commodity, a risky commodity, but we have done lots of lights in low-earth orbit without her nonsupport. and nasa said we would like to stop doing that and concentrate our efforts on going places, not just in circles around the earth . going back to the moon and beyond, eventually. and it depends on how much you believe the spacex claim that it is going to develop that capability. if a starship crew can be

developed better than a nasa system, i think the government should be in partnership. it is not a for-profit partnership, it is to go new places and see what is there. i think it is going to be government-lead for a long time, but if the private sector can contribute, why not? jesse: in a recent presentation, nasa administrator bill nelson laid out spaceflight efforts, including going to the moon. i wanted to listen to what bill nelson says. here is nasa administrator bill nelson. >> we are assembling the rocket at this very minute down at the kennedy space center. it will pave the way to return american astronauts to the surface of the moon. that rocket is the space launch system. it will launch our orion

spacecraft and cargo on missions to lunar orbit and beyond. and soon -- i mean like days -- we are starting to stack that massive core stage between its two boosters in the vehicle assembly building at ksc. it will be the most powerful rocket in the world -- 8.8 million pounds of thrust at the launch. all this means we are on our way to land the next americans on the moon. and this time, we are going to learn how to live and work on another world. america's long-term presence at the moon, robotic and human, will help develop the experience and capabilities we need to eventually send the first astronauts to mars. jesse: john, i want you to react

to bill nelson's comments there. john: well, he describes accurately what nasa is currently doing. the sls is now stacked within the vehicle assembly building at kennedy space center. the first flight is scheduled for later this year or early 2022. this will be a flight without humans. we will send the orion cap seal around the moon. but it is a test flight the second flight was scheduled for 2023, will carry a crew, but will not be landing. at the hope is that the third flight will carry a crew with a landing system, which has yet to be done, to return to the moon by 2024. i think that is a very optimistic schedule.

but this is the program nasa is carrying out at the cost of multiple billions of dollars a year. jesse: let's let some viewers take part in the conversation. sharon is calling from hanover, pennsylvania. good morning. caller: thank you. many of us view this entire thing as extreme human hubris, ego. these projects certainly require resources, fuel. they pollute a lot. the so-called missions may involve things like minding the moon, an idea brought up by newt gingrich, of all people, long ago. and it also serves to distract

the population from urgent problems, certainly double among them is climate crisis. all of this, to many of us, is immature, egocentric, wasteful, polluting and outrageous. i am not a religious fanatic, but all of this is godless. thank you. jesse: what is your response, john? john: clearly this is an active hubris, of human ambition, of human pride, to go explore other worlds. whether that is a good thing or a bad thing, well-meaning people can disagree. sharon thinks it is the wrong thing to be doing, and she is certainly entitled to her opinion. others see it as part of

creating a future that has optimism associated with it. mining the moon, yes, the resources of the moon will help support this undertaking in the long-term. is the moon a pristine wilderness, or a resource for humans to use? there is clearly human ego involved in that. nasa doesn't cost much money, less than one half of 1% of the federal government. so there is lots of money left over for addressing issues like limit change, -- like climate change, which nasa is very much involved in with its earth observation satellite. so to me, human observation of the solar system is the kind of activity we should be doing, as a window to the future, while we address the problems here on earth. jesse: john, can we judge yet

what the biden administration's commitment to space travel and nasa is? we are still in the first year, can we judge how they feel about space travel? john: the indication is that they are very positive about it. the first indication is mr. biden having a piece of the moon placed in the oval office as part of his redecoration as he assumed the presidency. he has requested a budget for nasa that represents a significant increase. but basically, he said we are going to continue the plans that were set out by the trump administration for a sustained program of space exploration. so every indication is that the biden administration is very supportive of the current direction. jesse: let's go to michelle, who is calling from arcade, new

york. michelle, good morning. caller: hello. i have one question. what about that van allen radiation belt? thank you very much. john: from this news you may not know what the van allen belt he is, it is a belt of captured radiation that surrounds the earth. it was discovered by the space scientists van allen in the late 1950's. you would not want to put an orbiting station in the van allen belts because that would be unhealthy for anybody aboard, and we don't do that. but passing the van allen belt on the way outward from earth, you are not exposed to radiation

for long enough to have it have any effect. the negative effects from space radiation are much more from cosmic rays that can act like radiation bullets on astronauts, which is a very serious worry for long journeys out to mars. not so much for three-day journeys to the moon. jesse: we have a question from one of our social media followers. they want to know, what is the extent of the carbon footprint from these additional space launches? are they significant contributors to global warming? john: that is a good question. at this point, we are only talking about a few launches a year. i think blue origin said they are planning to more launches this year.

and the virgin galactic schedule, i don't think has been made public. at that level, carbon emissions are insignificant. if we got to the point of a launch a day or a very high-frequency of lodging, then i believe there is an issue, not a major issue, but an issue in terms of carbon emissions. but compared to air traffic, automobiles and other carbon emitters, i don't think it is going to be a very significant impact. jesse: let's go to fraser, calling from houston texas. good morning. caller: hello. i am asking about spacex's starship. it has no launch ability system.

is it safe and responsible? john: you know more than i do about the technical design of the starship. i would expect that there is some form of abort system or some form of safety for people on board. it uses a system that can land, and there are two parts. there is a super heavy booster to get the spacecraft off the earth. that has yet to be tested. i think it has been fired once. and then there is the actual spacecraft, which would hopefully be able to land. i think it would be irresponsible and suspect it would not get a government license to launch without some sort of safety system for the people aboard. jesse: since you brought it up, i will ask you this -- what

regulatory part does not so with the government play when it comes to private space ventures? are they regulated by the government? do they have to follow government safety protocols, or are they making it up as they go along? john: nasa is not a regulatory agency and has nothing to do with these flights. the regulatory authorities with the office of commercial space transportation in the federal aviation administration under the department of transportation. that is a mouthful. and these lunches are licensed by the faa, and they have to meet a whole set of criteria to gain that license, including not posing a danger to third parties, anybody on earth.

so there are some very specific regulations. the hope is that the regulations are not so strict that they discourage the private sector from trying this sort of thing. but there is protection for us on earth in terms of government regulation. jesse: let's go back to our phone lines and talk to julius, calling from chicago heights, illinois. julius, good morning. caller: i would like to ask the professor, isn't the speed of light unattainable? and isn't the speed of life to slow -- speed of light to slow for space travel? and all this is ridiculous because there is nothing worth going to the moon and there is no reason to go to mars, so what is this all about? caller: let me break that down.

the speed of light, 180 6000 miles a second -- 186,000 miles a second. so a light year is 7 trillion miles of distance. unless einstein was wrong, of course. this is derived from einstein's general theory of relativity. so it is extremely much faster than anything sent into space thus far. there is an effort by a group called the breakthrough foundation to take a very small spacecraft propelled by laser propulsion up to close to the speed of light, to journey to the nearest star, alpha centauri, four light-years away.

and that effort has been quietly ongoing. again, it has nothing to do with human journeys to the moon or mars. why do we do them? because we could. kennedy, in his 1962 speech at rice university, said why do we do these things? why does rice play texas? they are demonstrations of human capability that are intended to inspire us to think about what humans working together can do. and eventually, some think we need a planet b so that the human species will survive if we succeed in destroying ourselves through either climate change or nuclear weapons. i don't particularly subscribe to that as a major reason to send people to other places in

the solar system. but some very serious people including stephen hawking do subscribe to that theory. jesse: john, i want you to react to this social media post that has a pretty down view on private companies going into space. "the privatization of space is one of the most horrifying things to ever happen in the history of our species. instead of being motivated by scientific discovery and the joy of exploration and the possibilities, we are going to commercialized space. we'll ruin it." do you agree or disagree? john: first of all, space has been commercialized since the 1960's. most of the money spent on space is from private companies launching satellite, particularly forms of communication satellites, but

also earth observation satellites to deliver services to people on earth. so i don't think the privatization of space so far has ruined space. there is a very successful coexistence between government-sponsored in private-sponsored space activities. i see no reason why that can't extend to private human activities in space. there is a legitimate concern about private people going to other celestial bodies and disrupting them, messing up the sites where the apollo missions landed, boiling the pristine character of mars, and we need

to make sure that that doesn't happen. there is an outer space treaty of 1967 that's is no country or citizens of a country can claim sovereignty over the moon or other celestial bodies. so the united states during this six times it went to the moon on apollo, did not claim the moon as ours. that would be a violation of international law. but as the expectation of deep space proceeds, certainly there is a need for new norms of behavior, new rules and regulations to say what is permissible and what is not. jesse: which brings up the question, if someone like jeff bezos or elon musk wants to build a city on the moon, who gives permission, or do they

have to even get permission? john: i'm not a lawyer. and this is the first of -- the furthest thing space lawyers like to debate. my impression is that there is no permission needed to build an outpost on the moon. you can go, you can land and establish an outpost. it will be a long time before we have settlements on the mode, but that on the moon -- settlements on the moon, but not so long before we have bases and maybe mining operations. and i think there is a need for rules for that, and they don't just exist. but i don't think there is any particular permission, except

for the suggestion of so-called keep out rules, so that a government tour company can operate in a particular area and not be subject to interference from somebody else. jesse: are there already keep out zones on the moon, such as where neil armstrong set foot? john: i think the u.s. has set up legislation to make landing zones equivalent to national parks or national monuments. but that is only u.s. law, not international law. so on an international basis, the answer is no. jesse: freddy is calling from dover, florida. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for having me on. great conversation with the professor. my statement was regarding an earlier comment about how the billionaires can build yachts,

go to space, but they are also providing great jobs for stem folks and scientists, and also support personnel who operate these launch sites. and also the fact that there has been some innovation in terms of reusable boosters by spacex. that is my comment. i will take my answer offline. john: well said. these are new businesses, and businesses contribute to the economy, create jobs, have enough innovations to do the jobs they want to do, so in economic terms, things like blue origin and new shepard and virgin galactic are economic pluses. because it is not government money being used fund these

things. jeff bezos said it is profits from people who buy things off amazon that funded blue origin. so it is indeed the reusability of rockets pioneered by spacex that is a disruptive innovation that makes space access much easier than it has been historically. so i think there is a net positive in economic terms from these undertakings. jesse: we have a question from a social media follower who wants to know, are there any regulations, rules, responsibilities for the billionaire space club, adding to the already existing issues of space debris? john: well, they are subject to

the same guidelines. they are not binding laws about creating orbital debris, which is a real problem. these two ventures, blue origin and virgin galactic, can't create orbital debris almost by definition. but every launch into orbit has the potential for failure and potential for creating debris, and there are guidelines on how to avoid that that they are subject to. so i don't think they add to the problem in any significant way. jesse: let's talk to chris, calling from pittsburgh, pennsylvania. good morning. caller: good morning. i guess on the surface, you

could say these programs appear to be wasteful by nasa and spacex and new origin and virgin galactic. but you know, when you watch people working together, drawing in young people who are attracted to working in science and technology, working with older people who have been there and laid the ground and who are mentoring them and also focused on a goal, it is just such a relief to see this type of energy working on solving problems, and doing something together. and i think it is wonderful to watch. john: that was very well stated. clearly, one of the side effects of these undertakings is to create a sense of motivation for technical excellence. one of the people on the virgin

galactic flight was one of our former students at george washington university. it was not very long ago that she was in a classroom studying space policy. now she has gone into space, maybe not into orbit. there is the motivating impact and what they are undertaking, and inspirational impact. we still use the image of the american flag on the moon and buzz aldrin standing next to that flag, as a symbol of american capability. it is part of ou -- part of our heritage to have done these grant thanks. there is inherent risk in space exploration in particular and they are creating a sense of, i

can do that. i think that has a very positive impact on society. jesse: we know these new companies like spacex and virgin galactic and blue origin are leading right now. what roles do longtime firms like lockheed and -- like boeing and lockheed martin have on future space efforts? professor logsdon: there are companies that do their space activities 90% plus on government contracts. so they are partners in government space exploration, space science programs, but they are not investing their own money in creating, -- in creating these new capabilities to do new things. lockheed martin is developing a

new launch vehicle, but it is mainly for lodging -- for launching commercial satellites and for government contracts. neither of those companies -- boeing is talking about a commercial space lighter as art of its future ambitions -- spaceliner as part of its future ambitions. entrepreneurial companies are the ones i think are leading the way for private activity in space. jesse: we have another question from a social media follower. nasa has contributed to our daily life in countless ways. velcro, flame retardant clothes and enriched baby food formulas, to name a few. what are the spaceflights by bezos and branson contributing? professor logsdon: a sense of possibility that i, someday, can

go to space also. if i spend a lot of money. that is not what these flights are for. i will say it again, they are business ventures, trying to create something people will pay for, and they eventually turn a profit. they are entrepreneurial space ventures that are businesses, not social programs. jesse: we would like to thank john logsdon, professor emeritus at george washington university and founder of the space policy institute, for being here with us to talk about private ventures into space. john, thank you for your time. professor logsdon: happy to be with you. >> t -16, guidance control. t -10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, command

engine starts, to, one -- 2,1. [engines firing] >> on their way to space with our first human crew. go, jeff. go, wally. >> private space company blue origin fluids new shepard rocket on tuesday. it was the companies first flight with people on board. -- it was the company's first flight with people on board. tonight at 8:00 eastern, we will show the rocket going up 66 miles at three times the speed of sound, separation and the capsule' is upright landing, followed by a news conference with the crew. all tonight, here on c-span. >> today on the communicators --

>> the white house office of space science policy under obama, trump and not president biden have been very strong in the same areas. they believe in the future of artificial intelligence and all these great technologies which are going to make our lives better. as much as we say about the white house, are we talking about the president come are we talking about the people that do policy and get things done and i have to say the last three administrations, we have had terrific people with a very consistent policy agenda. >> gary shapiro, president and ceo of the consumer technology association, talks about tech policy, free speech, antitrust and broadband access today on the communicators today at 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. ♪ >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government.

we are funded by these television companies and more, including charter communications. >> broadband is a force for empowerment. that's why charter has invested billions building infrastructure, upgrading technology, and powering opportunity in communities big and small. charter is connecting us. >> charter communications supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers, giving you a front-row seat to democracy. jesse: we are back with my barnett, contributor to noble magazine and a uc santa barbara assistant professor, with us this morning to talk about how u.s. health care can be improved with community health workers. good morning. >> good morning, thanks for having me. jesse: tell our viewers what "noble magazine" is and the

topics it covers. >> "noble magazine" is seeking to make scientific knowledge more accessible to individuals. it is associated with the annual review publications that tends to have rather dry articles academics rate. but we want opportunity for everybody to read it. it is about science and how it relates to [indiscernible] jesse: so in addition to the more than 600,000 covid casualties we have had so far, did the past 18 months shed additional light on our current health care system, and flaws? miya: absolutely. the u.s. health care system has been tasked, for many years, and i look at the mental health care

system, we know we have had workforce issues in health care and mental health for a long time. there is enough -- there is not enough doctors, psychologists, social workers, nurses, to meet the need. covid has made this worse. there is also challenges with finance and insurance. at one thing i am most interested in is how the health care system is not able to serve all. there is real disparity based on where you live. if you live in rural locations, your socioeconomic status and communities of color. so we know that racial or ethnic minorities are less likely to receive quality health care. and all these have gotten worse during covid, vast disparities in care and challenges in meeting the needs of all. jesse: you wrote a piece in k

nowable magazine that says community health workers can help. define a community health worker and their training. miya: community health workers are trusted members of the communities they serve. that means they come from the same neighborhood, culture, racial or ethnic background, for example, as the patients that they are working with. and they serve in roles to increase access to health and social services to increase equity and improve the quality and cultural competence of services. so they can really help bridge how complex our health-care system can be to navigate, especially for individuals who might have a harder time due to poverty or chronic diseases they are facing. jesse: what would be the

difference between a community health worker and a nurse or nurse practitioner or dr.? miya: great, thank you for that. something to think about is, community health workers don't necessarily have the same of health care education that you would see with a nurse or physician's assistant or a doctor. they are more likely to be having less education in that field, even though it is possible they might have it. their role is more specifically in this bridging role and providing support. community health workers potentially have received some of these types of backgrounds if they were in a different country before they moved to the united states, or even here, but it is not that they are providing those professional health care needs, they are more helping with access. jesse: are community health workers page, and if so, by whom? miya: great question.

this is so important. the answer is, both. some community health workers serve as volunteers through networks in their own community. a lot of times, a community health worker, before they even associate with one of these networks, are already individuals who people are turning to for advice, you know, my kids have this issue, what can i do for this? and they are going to navigate that. some of the positions are paid in hospital settings, health care settings, and something that has been challenging is that often those payments are made through grants or foundation funding. they very rarely are reimbursed, although states are starting to pass different legislation to make sure community health workers and services can you cover by medicaid, for example. that is a really important step

to increase what committed to health workers are able to do and how much you might get to see them in your own community or within your own health care setting. jesse: are community health workers already being used in the united states and if so, how many are there? miya: that's a great question about how many there are. i don't have the numbers for that. there is a call from the national association of community health workers to do a survey to get a better sense of the workforce of community health workers, because they are volunteers are called by many different names like wellness navigator, patient navigator. there is not certainty about the number that there are, but they definitely exist in the united states. there is a national association of community health workers, which is an organization looking

to uplift the voices of community health workers. and they have been prevalent here in the united states for a long time, doing work often unseen, 20 make sure that the communities they live in are getting the best health care and mental health care and social support they need. jesse: our viewers can take part in this conversation. we are going to open regional lines, regional lines. if you are in the eastern or central time zones, your number is (202) 748-8000. if you are in the mountain or pacific time zone, your number is (202) 748-8001. we are going to open a special line for community health workers. we want to know what your experiences are, what you are seeing on what life is like as a community health worker. if you are a community health worker, call (202) 748-8002.

keep in mind, you can text us at (202) 748-8003 and we are on twitter@c-span wj, on facebook, and you can follow us on c-span atw c-spanj. -- at c-spanwj. jesse: what was going on with community health workers during the pandemic, what were they doing? miya: they have been a vital part of the workforce during covid-19 across the world. community health workers are part of the workforce in other countries, low and middle income countries but the world health organization has recognize their importance, but here in the u.s., they have been serving important roles to increase contact racing, let communities know about testing and vaccines,

and addressing social needs that have been so much more prevalent -- food insecurity, housing, unemployment. now, it is critical to recognize the challenges that health-care workers have faced this year. having to adjust to telehealth, the trauma of seeing so many individuals get ill and die, and recognize that community health workers from underserved communities are also more likely to experience the effects of covid. we know that racial and ethnic minority communities have higher rates of covid-19, and were more likely to lose individuals to the pandemic. there were higher rates of unemployment and poverty. all those challenges, being a health care worker and living in communities that were most impacted due to structural

changes -- structural disadvantages in our society, really has put community health workers in a hard position. and they have been on the front lines helping to make things better. the american rescue plan included $330 million for community health workers, recognizing the importance they are going to have in helping our country overcome this. >> dr. fauci, knowing it is a crime to light the congress, do you wish to retract your statement where you claimed nih never funded gain of function research in wuhan? dr. fauci: senator paul, i have never lied before the congress. and i do not retract that statement. this statement that you are referring to was judged by qualified staff up and down the chain as not being gain of

function. let me finish. >> you take an animal virus and you increase transmissible ability to humans and you say that is not gain of function? dr. fauci: that is correct. and senator paul, you do not know what you are talking about. let me say that officially. you do not know what you are talking about. senator paul: this is your definition you guys wrote. it says scientific research that increases transmissibility among mammals is gain of function. they took animal viruses and increased their transmissibility to humans. how you can say that is not gain of function -- dr. fauci: it is not. senator paul: you are dancing around this to scare responsibility for 4 million people dying around the world from a pandemic. dr. fauci: now you're getting into something.

if the point you are making is that the grant that was funded as a sub award to wuhan created sars-cov-2, that is where you are getting -- let me finish. senator paul: i don't know. all the evidence is pointing it came from the lab. there will be responsibility for those who funded the lab, including yourself. dr. fauci: i resent the lot you are now propagating, senator. because if you look at the viruses -- i resent the lie you are now propagating, senator. because if you look at the viruses in the annual report that were published in the literature, it is molecularly impossible. senator paul: we are alleging gain of function research was going on in the lab, and nih funded it.

it meets the definition and you are up the skating the truth. senator paul: let me finish. if you look at those viruses, and that is judged by qualified virologists and evolutionary biologists, those viruses are molecularly impossible to rep your kate -- impossible to replicate. senator paul: we are saying they are animal virus that became more transmissible in humans and you funded it. >> your time is expired. i will allow the witnesses that come before this committee to respond. dr. fauci: and you are implying that what we did was responsible for the deaths of individuals. i totally resent that. and if anybody is lying here, senator, it is you. >> president biden's chief medical advisor, dr. anthony

fauci, answering questions about the origins of covid-19 testified tuesday along with cdc director rochelle walensky. they also answer questions about the delta variant, booster shots and social media information about the virus. you can see the hearing tonight starting at 9:30 eastern on c-span. ♪ >> c-span's washington journal. every day we are taking your calls live on the air on the news of the day and will discuss policy issues that impact you. coming up sunday morning, the daily wire senior editor on her recent piece entitled to get ready for a woke olympics. and other news of the day. and michael bender, white house reporter for the wall street journal, talks about his new book, frankly we did win this election: the inside story of how trump lost. watched c-span's washington journal live at 7:00 sunday morning and be sure to join the discusswi