Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Susan Monarez Testifies on Capitol Hill; Dr. Debra Houry Testifies on Capitol Hill After Resigning in Protest. Aired 10:30-11a ET

Aired September 17, 2025 - 10:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[10:30:00]

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: All right. We're monitoring this important hearing of the Senate Help Committee. They're monitoring what's going on. Deb Houry, the former CDC chief science and medical officer, just had her opening statement. She was fired as well as Dr. Susan Monarez, who was the CDC director, who was fired after, as she pointed out, only 29 days in office because she wanted scientific evidence to prove what's going on, not politics.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: Yes, and it's notable because she was before this committee not that long ago, Wolf, being confirmed for the role of CDC director. And then just under a month there, she was fired. She's defending herself, saying she was holding the line on scientific integrity. Let's go back and listen in to this hearing.

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT), RANKING MEMBER, HEALTH EDUCATION, LABOR AND PENSIONS COMMITTEE: -- rules, we did not swear in Secretary Kennedy. He appeared before this committee on two occasions. And to change the rules right now in a highly politicized moment seems to me to be extremely unfair to Dr. Monarez and Dr. Houry.

SEN. BILL CASSIDY (R-LA), CHAIRMAN, HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR AND PENSIONS COMMITTEE: But she is suggesting that we would do it for the HHS officials that came.

SANDERS: We have not done it. I think it is unfair. You did not swear in Kennedy on two occasions. I don't think you'd change the rules right now.

CASSIDY: OK. I will note that it's against the law to lie to Congress anyway.

SANDER: That's right.

CASSIDY: And so, but I do think putting people under oath sometimes makes them more believable.

SANDER: And we can discuss that for future hearings and maybe go along with that, but not right now.

[10:35:00]

CASSIDY: OK. Dr. Monarez, I just entered into the record the op-ed from the secretary and your report. And both of those suggest that you and Secretary Kennedy were actually pretty aligned upon CDC priorities. How many times did you meet with the secretary in your 29 days? Be brief. I've got five minutes. Are you on?

SUSAN MONAREZ, FORMER CDC DIRECTOR: Yes. Can you hear me? I met with him twice. When he swore me in, he was in the room. He swore me in. And then I met him again on August 11th when he came down to tour the buildings that had been under the gunfire. And we chatted briefly.

CASSIDY: And then you met the 25th as well.

MONAREZ: And then the 25th. That's correct. Yes.

CASSIDY: OK. And how many meetings were during around the period of the 25th?

MONAREZ: We had three distinct meetings that day.

CASSIDY: OK. And what did he tell you to do?

MONAREZ: Briefly. In the first meeting, he asked me to commit to firing scientists or resign. He asked me to pre-commit to signing off on each and one of the forthcoming ACIP recommendations, regardless of whether or not there was scientific evidence.

CASSIDY: And what were those recommendations? Did you have a foreshadowing of what they would be?

MONAREZ: I did not. We did not get into any substance about what those --

CASSIDY: But he wanted you to approve them.

MONAREZ: He just wanted blanket approval.

CASSIDY: OK.

MONAREZ: And if I could not commit to approval of each and every one of the recommendations that would be forthcoming, I needed to resign. I did not resign. And that is when he told me he had already spoken to the White House about having me removed.

CASSIDY: Did he ever communicate he was going to change the childhood vaccination schedule?

MONAREZ: In -- not until that very day. In that morning meeting, he said that the childhood vaccine schedule would be changing starting in September, and I needed to be on board with it.

CASSIDY: Did he ever suggest that the president was -- that he was speaking for the president?

MONAREZ: In that morning meeting, he did say that he had spoken to the president. He spoke to the president every day about changing the childhood vaccine schedule.

CASSIDY: OK. Did Secretary Kennedy ask you to speak to anybody outside of HHS?

MONAREZ: He did. In the second meeting that day, he indicated that one of his colleagues or collaborators, I don't know what the relationship is, was coming into town the following week, and he wanted me to meet with that person.

CASSIDY: Who was that person?

MONAREZ: The person was named Aaron Seery.

CASSIDY: Aaron Seery. Is he the trial attorney who want do -- get rid of the polio vaccine, allegedly, and President Trump slapped him down and said he couldn't do that? Is that the same Aaron Seery?

MONAREZ: I don't know the second part of that, but I do know that there were public reports that he is the individual who had suggested getting rid of the polio vaccine.

CASSIDY: OK. Now, Secretary Kennedy told the Finance Committee that he did not ask you to pre-approve, but that you are biased against the new ACIP, and he just asked you to keep an open mind. Did he cite any data or science as relates to the potential ACIP recommendations to persuade you to support them?

MONAREZ: He did not have any data or science to point to. As a matter of fact, we got into an exchange where I had suggested that I would be open to changing childhood vaccine schedules if the evidence or science were supportive, and he responded that there was no science or evidence associated with the childhood vaccine schedule, and he elaborated that CDC had never collected the science or the data to make it available related to the safety and efficacy.

CASSIDY: To be clear, he said there was not science or data, but that you still expected you to change the schedule?

MONAREZ: Correct.

CASSIDY: OK. Dr. Houry, Dr. Monarez has just said the Secretary directed her to accept vaccine recommendations without seeing them and for which there is no science. Related to tomorrow's ACIP meeting, who decided what would be on the agenda?

DR. DEBRA HOURY: So, I don't have great visibility into that. I know the senior adviser and HHS counselor worked with our staff and the designated federal official and proposed items.

CASSIDY: OK. And who is the senior counselor?

DR. HOURY: The senior counselor -- the senior adviser is Stuart Burns, and the HHS counselor is Reyn Archer.

CASSIDY: And those are political appointees answerable to the secretary?

DR. HOURY: Yes.

CASSIDY: Is that the way the -- does it normally the cabinet secretary or political staff set the agenda for a scientific meeting?

DR. HOURY: Not for the past decade I was at CDC.

CASSIDY: So, this is the first time that's been the case?

DR. HOURY: Yes.

CASSIDY: And in preparing materials for the meeting, were you told to disregard science or to enhance science, or how was -- what were you supposed to do?

DR. HOURY: For the last meeting, we had to --

CASSIDY: I'm talking about this meeting coming up.

DR. HOURY: So, for this meeting, we didn't have work groups other than one for COVID. So, CDC scientists were being asked by ACIP to develop questions and recommendations. I did suggest additional questions that the Hepatitis B work group look at so that they could look at differences in age groups.

[10:40:00]

The senior adviser was concerned that could bias moving away from a birth dose. I asked how asking questions and providing data could do bias if we didn't have the answers yet.

CASSIDY: Wait. Bias against moving away from -- you're suggesting that they wanted to move away from the birth dose, but they were afraid that your data would say that they should retain it?

DR. HOURY: Correct.

CASSIDY: That's -- OK. Senator Sanders.

SANDERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Monarez, at a September 4th hearing in the Finance Committee, Secretary Kennedy called you a liar for stating that you were fired because you refused to pre-approve vaccine recommendations. Is that accurate? Are you a liar?

MONAREZ: That is not accurate.

SANDERS: Why did you believe it was so important for you to refuse to rubber stamp vaccine recommendations without seeing them or the evidence behind them? What did you fear was the worst-case scenario if you had agreed to doing that?

MONAREZ: I refused to do it because I have built a career on scientific integrity. And my worst fear was that I would then be in a position of approving something that would reduce access of lifesaving vaccines to children and others who need them.

SANDERS: OK. Dr. Monarez, the American Medical Association's largest physician group in America, 270,000 physicians. The American Academy of Pediatrics, over 67,000 pediatricians. The American Academy of Family Physicians, representing over 125,000 doctors. The American Osteopathic Association, representing over 200,000 doctors. And the American College of Physicians, representing over 160,000 doctors. They believe that vaccines are safe and effective. Do you agree with them?

MONAREZ: I do.

SANDERS: And what is your concern? What are the long-term implications for the well-being of our kids and the future of our country if faith in vaccine science is undermined?

MONAREZ: I believe preventable diseases will return. And I believe that we will have our children harmed for things that we know they do not need to be harmed by. Polio, measles, diphtheria, whooping cough. I worry about the ramifications for those children in illness and in death. I worry about our school systems. I worry about our medical institutions having to take care of sick kids that could have been prevented by effective and safe vaccines. I worry about the future of trust in public health.

SANDERS: Would you agree with me in suggesting that the overwhelming body of scientific and medical thought believes that vaccines have been a major public health advance for the people of this world?

MONAREZ: I absolutely agree with that.

SANDERS: OK. Dr. Houry, during your testimony, you talked about fears for the future. Several years ago, as everybody in this country knows, we went through a terrible pandemic, worldwide pandemic. We lost over a million people. What are the -- if trust in vaccines is diminished, if moms do not take their kids in to get vaccines, older people don't get vaccines, what will that mean in terms of our ability to save lives if, God forbid, another pandemic takes place?

DR. HOURY: So, we're already beginning to see that as we're seeing childhood vaccination rates decrease, for example, measles is down to about 92.8 percent, that leaves over 200,000 kids now at risk for measles. So, we are at risk for measles outbreaks. And for the next type of pandemic, a novel pathogen, with some of the staff cuts we have faced, we have less ready responders, we have less visibility into global pathogens at this time as well.

SANDERS: What would have happened to our country, and in fact the world, if -- and I don't agree with President Trump very often, God knows, but if we had not developed Warp Speed and developed that COVID vaccine, did that, in your view, save millions of lives?

DR. HOURY: Operation Warp Speed absolutely saved millions of lives and was such a godsend for our country.

SANDERS: And if we don't have the capability to do that in the future, the implications will be?

DR. HOURY: We won't be able to have vaccines to save lives and protect people. We won't have that technology development. We won't have that platform. And we won't have people willing to accept vaccines. [10:45:00]

SANDERS: And that will impact not only our country, but people throughout the entire world.

DR. HOURY: Absolutely.

SANDERS: OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CASSIDY: Senator Paul.

SEN. RAND PAUL (R-KY): Dr. Monarez, I agree with you completely that we need to restore trust in public health. But in order to do so, we have to have a discussion about the actual science. And we can't have a discussion of this -- you know, about all vaccines are good. All vaccines are bad. This is about specific vaccines. It's about specific age groups. It's about specific policies. Does the COVID vaccine prevent transmission?

MONAREZ: The COVID vaccine can reduce viral load in individuals who are --

PAUL: Does it prevent transmission?

MONAREZ: When you have reduced viral load, you will have reduced transmission.

PAUL: But in other words, it doesn't prevent transmission. You can still transmit the virus if you've had the vaccine. In fact, there's been reduced ability to interfere with transmission over time. And what we've found is the most recent one since Omicron is down around 16 percent reduction if there is a reduction. Does the COVID vaccine reduce hospitalization for children under 18?

MONAREZ: It can.

PAUL: It doesn't. The statistics are inconclusive. And the reason you can't prove that it does is there's so few people under 18 that go to the hospital. The numbers are extraordinarily small. There's like 76 million kids under 18 in our country, 183 died and a few thousand went to the hospital in 2020 and 2021. And since then, the numbers have dropped precipitously. And the idea -- and the issue needs to be discussed. But the COVID vaccine is not reducing hospitalization. It's not statistically significant.

Does the COVID vaccine reduce the rate of death for children under 18?

MONAREZ: It can.

PAUL: Once again, it can. That's a ridiculous answer. No, it doesn't. And there is no statistical evidence that it does reduce the death rate. These are statistics. We've looked at it. When they approved it, they had this discussion at the vaccine committee that we've been talking about. During the discussion, they acknowledged that there was no proof of reduction in hospitalization or in death. So, what they did is they said, what can we use to try to make people take this vaccine? They came up with this. They said that if we give you a COVID vaccine, you make antibodies.

So, really, the whole recommendation for having a COVID vaccine from six months up is not based on hospitalization data, not based on deaths. It's based on whether you make antibodies or not. And what people fail to see from this is I can inject you with a foreign protein every week and measure antibodies, you'll make antibodies every time. It just means immunology work has nothing to do with whether you should get a vaccine every week.

So, when we're discussing the science here, we have to discuss what is the science in favor of giving a vaccine to a six-month-old and what are the benefits from that. And there is no benefit of hospitalization or death. And then what would the risks of the vaccine be? We have large population studies of the risks of the vaccine in younger people. And it turns out that you don't see this as much if you look at the general population. But once you start isolating in by age group, which you have to do in COVID because there's such a disparity among age group, you find that there is a risk of myocarditis, a significant event. It's somewhere between six and eight in 10,000. But that's much greater than the risk of hospitalization or death, which are not even measurable because they're so small.

So, you resisted firing people who have this idea that the COVID vaccine should be at six months. That's what this is about. You didn't resist firing the beautiful scientists that are career people and unobjective and unbiased. You wouldn't fire the people who are saying that we have to vaccinate our kids at six months of age. That's who you refuse to fire.

MONAREZ: So, that assertion is not commensurate with the experience that I had with the individuals who are identified to be fired.

PAUL: Did any of the people you refused to fire --

SANDERS: Is she allowed the answer the question?

PAUL: Did any of the people you refused to fire believe that we should change the vaccine schedule and no longer force six-month-old kids to take it? Every one of them was adamant we should keep it at six months. Everybody's alarmed we're going to change the childhood routine. Well, we should. There is no medical reason. What is the medical reason to give a hepatitis B vaccine to a newborn whose mom has no hepatitis?

MONAREZ: So, none of the discussion points that you just brought up were ever --

PAUL: That's changing the childhood schedule.

SANDERS: Would you allow her to answer the question.

CASSIDY: Regular order. Regular order.

PAUL: You have your time, Bernie. I got mine. Look, this is the debate over changing the childhood schedule. The hepatitis B vaccine on the schedule is given to newborns. What is the medical scientific reason and proof for giving a newborn a hepatitis B vaccine if the mom is hep B negative?

MONAREZ: I want to go back to the assertion associated --

[10:50:00]

PAUL: What is the medical reason for giving a hepatitis B vaccine to a newborn? See, everybody's like blithely going along, we can't change the childhood. You're somehow terrible if you want to change the childhood. We should be discussing what is the childhood vaccine schedule, and you should be -- the burden should be on you. You want to make all the kids take this? The burden is upon you and the people you wouldn't fire to prove to us that we need to give our six-month- old a COVID vaccine and that we need to give our one-day-old a hepatitis B vaccine. That's what the debate ought to be about, not whether all vaccines are good or whether we live in Alice in Wonderland.

MONAREZ: I actually agree with you, and I was open to the science. I just would not pre-commit to approving all the ACIP recommendations without the science.

PAUL: Untrue.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Is the witness allowed to answer that question, or do I have to use my time?

CASSIDY: She answered it. Did you have more to say, Dr. Monarez?

MONAREZ: I just -- the last thing I wanted to say about those scientists, we had never discussed any of their thoughts, considerations --

CASSIDY: We being we. Who's we?

MONAREZ: Me and the scientists that I was being asked to dismiss. As far as I know, they had never said that they are pre-committed to maintaining any of the decisions that had been made. All of us had agreed that the science evolves, and we need to see the data and the evidence to ensure that we are protecting our children.

CASSIDY: OK. Senator Murray.

BROWN: All right. You've been listening to the ousted CDC chief testifying there on Capitol Hill about her firing. She just had a bit of a testing exchange with Senator Rand Paul, who was pressing her on the childhood vaccine schedule.

I want to bring in Dr. Sanjay Gupta. Sanjay, what stood out to you about that exchange?

DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, she wasn't really allowed to answer the questions.

BROWN: Yes.

DR. GUPTA: So, I don't know that it was an exchange as much as a sort of a statement from Dr. Paul. He is a doctor, by the way. I think what he was sort of getting at was the idea that what does the data show on the efficacy of vaccines for children? And he focused on COVID. He focused on Hep B. But again, she wasn't allowed to answer some of those questions.

There is evidence to show that people who receive the COVID vaccine reduce their likelihood of hospitalization and death. That benefit is lower as people become younger because they're less likely to get very sick in the first place. But there's still benefit, much of which we reported on for years, frankly, after these vaccines rolled out. But again, it would have been great to hear what she had to say.

Other things that sort of stuck out to me was this ACIP meeting that's going to take place tomorrow and Friday. The agenda for that was set by political appointees, according to Dr. Monarez, something that has not been done in at least a decade, probably ever, but at least a decade. Also, the changing of the childhood vaccine schedule, which really seems to be at the heart of all these discussions. It appears that there was no data or science provided to Dr. Monarez when she was asked to sort of rubber stamp or pre-approve some of these changes.

So, there was -- it was just -- she didn't see anything. She didn't hear what the recommendations were. She didn't see any of the science that might dictate some of those future recommendations. So, that was a little confusing. And I think the last thing it sort of jumped out at me, she said that that Secretary Kennedy had been in regular communication with President Trump, who agreed, at least according to what we just heard, that President Trump agreed to changing the childhood vaccine schedule. That's something we had not heard before.

BROWN: Yes, that was really interesting to me. And you're right, when it comes to Senator Paul, he was the one that was being testy. She was very calm and trying to answer his questions on the issue. But just to follow up with you on this, it really did strike me that she emphasized that when she was asked about, you know, changing the childhood vaccine schedule, that she wasn't given any science or data to support that. And that's pretty alarming, frankly.

DR. GUPTA: Yes, it is alarming because, you know, I mean, she was asked to, again, approve recommendations that she had not yet seen made by panelists who had not yet been appointed without any science or evidence to back it up. I mean, that's what she was -- again, according to her testimony, which I just heard, that's what she essentially is saying.

And, you know, he was asking, for example, about hepatitis B. And I think where she started to answer but kept getting cut off was that there is this risk of babies getting hepatitis B, usually maternal to child transmission. Mothers can be screened for hepatitis B ahead of time. But, you know, sometimes those screen, about 10 percent of the time, you'll get false negatives with regard to that sort of screening.

[10:55:00]

So, what do you do in that situation? Do you do you do you provide the vaccine? Do you not provide the vaccine? Keeping in mind that hepatitis B can be very significant, especially in a baby whose immune system is not fully developed. Ultimately, untreated hepatitis B can lead to liver cancer later on in life. So, you know, these are the things that she probably would have said. But again, we just didn't we just didn't get to hear her answers.

BROWN: And she said she was open to whatever the science showed.

DR. GUPTA: Right.

BROWN: Right. I mean, she made that clear. Just really quickly to follow up on the childhood vaccine schedule. I thought I heard her also say that she was told that when the schedule was changed for vaccines, there wasn't science or data then. Did you -- did that strike you at all?

DR. GUPTA: I think that's what she was saying that Secretary Kennedy was saying in order to validate the reason. Because she was saying, look, I'm not seeing any science or data. And he basically -- it sounds like he countered, well, there's never been any science or data.

BROWN: Right. What did you make of that?

DR. GUPTA: Well, that's not true. I mean, it's simply not true. I mean, look, I think -- you know, as I said, when we heard Secretary Kennedy's hearings before, I think the American people would be very confused by what they're seeing right now, whether or not -- like who to believe, because you're hearing two completely opposite things. And frankly, there's hardly any accountability for these points of view because people don't even get to finish their sentences.

BROWN: Yes. No. And that's fair. And it's interesting, too, because RFK Jr. testified that he fired her because she said she wasn't trustworthy. We heard her side of the story. And she said, look, I told him I'm not going to do these things without evidence, these demands. And if he doesn't trust me, then he can fire me, right? So, it is really important that that we're hearing her side of things. Thank you so much.

DR. GUPTA: You got it.

BROWN: As always, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, we appreciate it.

BLITZER: And she opened up her testimony -- her opening statement by saying today should not be about me, she said, today should be about the future of public health. And this issue is so critically important right now when kids, for example, should be immunized, should they be required to be immunized for certain diseases when they start school and all of that? So, it's a huge issue right now that the country is watching. And we'll stay on top of this. We'll have much more coming up all the day's important news right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:00:00]