WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), a member of the U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, on Thursday questioned Dr. Francis Collins of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Dr. Gary Disbrow of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) on the administration’s novel coronavirus response during the first HELP Committee hearing since COVID-19 became a pandemic. Murphy specifically pressed both witnesses on the importance of testing, and why it is so critical that the United States join the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) in creating and distributing a COVID-19 vaccine as fast as possible, while also working on our own efforts at home.

On the importance of national testing capacity, Murphy said: "If we had a president who truly prioritized testing, this effort would have been launched the minute that we heard about the prospect for coronavirus coming to the United States. And instead, literally in the middle of the epidemic, when some of our states have actually gotten through the worst of it, we are now launching this initiative. It shouldn't be lost on us how far behind we are on testing. And frankly, it's not an accident.”

On the need to run our own COVID-19 vaccine efforts while also working internationally with CEPI, Murphy said: “Why not also make sure that we have a seat at the table when it comes to the biggest international effort to develop a vaccine. And maybe just my question is this because it's not necessarily your policy decision as to whether to join. We could do both, right? We could be developing, leading our own efforts to develop the vaccine, and also be a member of this international group, which by the way, all of our allies are part of, the Europeans are part of it, the Saudis are part of it, the Japanese, the Indians, the Australians, the Canadians, everybody is working on a vaccine together. We are not part of that effort, which is just really hard to understand.”

This week, Murphy delivered remarks on the U.S. Senate floor blasting the Trump administration’s response to the COVID-19 crisis and detailing what Congress should be focused on moving forward.

Full transcript of Murphy’s exchanges with Dr. Collins and Dr. Disbrow is below.

MURPHY: “Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being here today. A comment and then a couple of questions.

“We are just so grateful for all the work that you're doing and your efforts to inform us as to some of these innovative partnerships. But of course, you are only as good as the direction that you are given by the President of the United States, and what you have effectively told us today is that this new effort to try to find a widely available point of care test was launched eight days ago. Largely at the urging of members of the Senate. If we had a president who truly prioritized testing, this effort would have been launched the minute that we heard about the prospect for coronavirus coming to the United States. And instead, literally in the middle of the epidemic, when some of our states have actually gotten through the worst of it, we are now launching this initiative.

“It shouldn't be lost on us how far behind we are on testing. And frankly, it's not an accident. It's not an accident. The president told us early on that he didn't want to bring folks to the United States from a cruise ship because it would drive up our numbers, not because of any public health risk.

“And then just yesterday, he said this: ‘by doing all this testing, we make ourselves look bad,’ – that is the president's belief, that the testing makes us look bad. And if you don't think that perception is important to this president, you haven't been paying attention for the last three years.

“And so, we are playing catch up. And so, the question is how we do that most effectively. And so, Dr. Collins, let me ask you a question. Not so much about the new diagnostic project but ACTIV – which is the project to try to develop a vaccine and treatment. Appreciate the fact that you've reached out to our European partners to be a part of this effort, but there already is an international effort designed to try to develop a vaccine, CEPI. In fact, it's been working on pandemic vaccines for three years.

“And on Monday of this week, or maybe it was last week, the partners, our European partners all got together to try to rally the world to put more money, not into ACTIV, but into CEPI.

“And so, my question is this: we should be running our own efforts to try to develop a vaccine, but why not also join CEPI? Why not also make sure that we have a seat at the table when it comes to the biggest international effort to develop a vaccine. And maybe just my question is this because it's not necessarily your policy decision as to whether to join. We could do both, right? We could be  developing, leading our own efforts to develop the vaccine, and also be a member of this international group, which by the way, all of our allies are part of, the Europeans are part of it, the Saudis are part of it, the Japanese, the Indians, the Australians, the Canadians, everybody is working on a vaccine together. We are not part of that effort, which is just really hard to understand. We could do both, right?”

COLLINS: “So, I actually was present at the founding of CEPI at the World Economic Forum in Davos and that has been a wonderful contribution to try and to prepare for pandemics, which we're now in the middle of. And while we were not present in a direct way at this recent fundraising effort to try to put together additional support for vaccine development in Europe, we're certainly connected in multiple other indirect ways.

“For instance, the companies that are part of ACTIV, many of them have strong European connections, some of them are in fact European companies, and CEPI is in a position also to contribute to the development of some of the vaccines that we're actually talking about getting into this master protocol this summer.

“So, it is, I think you're exactly right, this is a global crisis. We should approach it globally, wherever the resources are and not get too wound up about what obstacles are in the way. I'm a scientist. I want to see this project succeed.”

MURPHY: “Mr. Disbrow, one quick question. You referred to the allegations that Dr. Bright made as a personnel matter, but it's not a personnel matter. He didn't get fired for showing up late. He alleges he got fired because he was trying to talk to his superiors about a culture of corruption in which industry players and non-scientific input had influence over the decisions that BARDA was making. That's not a personnel matter. That's a public policy matter.

“And so would you agree that getting to the bottom of the allegations that he makes is important for you as the temporary or acting head of this agency? And do you have any opinion as to whether outside industry groups have too much sway inside this operation?”

DISBROW: “So, I do think it's important, and I’m sure there will be an investigation.

“You know, I stand by, I've been at BARDA for 13 years. All proposals that come in have to go through a scientific review. The review is based on science, technical merit, the feasibility of the actual program, and the ability of the company to potentially do the work. We review those, they're done by interagency partners through the technical evaluation process, they're then reviewed, and then we make awards.

“And so I'm still confident in the way that we make our investment decisions, that they're based on science, and based on the best technology that we can bring forward.”

MURPHY: “Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.”

###