Has profoundly impacted Public Policy initiatives around the world. These policy briefings provide an opportunity for you to hear from our nations top scholars on the pressing issues facing the world during this time. As we all unite to confront the challenges of the pandemic, conversations like this have never been more important. We will be taking audience questions, so i encourage you to submit yours using the button at the bottom of your screen. Todays briefing is from condoleezza rice, the senior fellow on Public Policy at the Hoover Institution. Staterved as secretary of , the second woman and first africanamerican woman to hold this post. Also president george w. Bush is National Security advisor. Look forward to dr. Rice being the next director of the Hoover Institution this fall. Sec. Rice good morning. Dir. Gilligan you are an expert in the International System. How do you think the International System is responding to this pandemic . Sec. Rice welcome to everyone here. I think the real story is that the International System is not responding. It is individual countries responding. If ever we have seen the triumph of sovereignty, we have seen it now. When people are frightened or there is something unusual or we dont have any experience, people tend to go back to what they know best. Leaders thatcted they can hold accountable, so the response has been country by country. We see it in things like travel bans. We see it in the fact that individual come countries decide the pace and rate at which they are going to tell people to shelter and place shelter in place. The National Healthcare person or expert that is there next to the Prime Minister or the president. International system really hasnt been on point. It has been individual countries. That cuts against the grain of the way that we thought about globalization and particularly a cuts against the grain where they have tried for decades to create a borderless territory in europe, where there is one path forward, people move easily from country to country. Now we see that when it starts in italy, it spreads quite quickly. You see individual countries trying to clampdown. Dir. Gilligan lets stay with this topic for a little bit. Thele have commented that on the role bun is playing, the World Health Organization. We have a question here, should the u. N. Be doing more . Is that a realistic expectation . Thats ok. Right now the responses that countries are trying to take care of their own. They are doing so by making sure that they get their citizens back home. It is one interesting response. Lets get out get all of our citizens back home. There responding with travel bans and airlines are a sickly not flying between countries. I do think the time should come relatively soon when we see, i would hope, International Institutions playing a bigger role, particularly the g20, which is the 20 largest economies. Take a role in helping to coordinate an economic response in the way they did after the financial crisis of 2008 2009. Certainly when we think about the effect of this pandemic on developing countries, it is going to be important to leverage some of the work we have done over the last couple of decades to improve the Health Care Outcomes in those countries. One interesting approach the United States can use is, we have a huge network builtup because of the president s emergency plan for relief, starting with president bush, going to president trump. We help developing countries build Healthcare Systems and Distribution Networks to be able to distribute antiretrovirals even out in the countryside. Those of the kinds of things i hope countries will aband together. 9 11 countries realized that terrorism was a borderless threat. That you had to share information, you have to share intelligence information, we had within a very short. Of short period of time financing across borders. Hopefully when we are through the really frightening part of this, countries will start to band together to think about how to get a response and also how not to let it happen again. Dir. Gilligan timing is important . Sec. Rice timing is important. It is understandable that Prime Ministers, residents are going to concentrate on what is happening at home. Dir. Gilligan lets talk about the role of the u. S. Response in the world right now. [indiscernible] should be doing more to lead the global response. What do you think of the United Statess response . Sec. Rice the United States is trying to save new york. It is worrying about what is going on internally. That is understandable. It is not as if we have done nothing. The administration has made available several hundred Million Dollars for covid19 response in developing countries. I am quite certain that out at our embassies and places like that we are trying to help other countries with their response. We also, as i mentioned, we have Emergency Aid Network that helps developing countries. In time i think the United States will take a bigger leadership role. For now the foreign assistance should be welcomed and it is not going to help right now to call together a big conference to talk about response to the virus. It is not going to be helpful. It will be helpful in a few months to do that and also to try to help the world planned better for the neck plan better for the next time around. Dir. Gilligan i am tom gilligan and this is the Hoover Institutions briefing with condoleezza rice. You are National Security advisor during the sars outbreak. What are the similarities or differences . Of thece one unfortunate similarities was also hard to get information out of china during the sars outbreak. We knew that something had happened. It was very hard to get answers out of china of what had happened. That is unfortunately a recurring pattern this time around. It is probably the most troubling aspect of this crisis. It is in the nature of the chinese system, an authoritarian system that controls information. Control of the narrative is power. We shouldnt be surprised that when this outbreak happened in wuhan, they silenced the young and medical students who were trying to sound the alarm. Could you imagine those people being silenced in the United States or any country, in germany or brazil . Somebody would have picked up the story. It would have been known. The chinese did what authoritarians do, they gathered , they silenced those who were trying to sound the alarm and they wanted to have time to develop the narrative that would be blessed by the communist party of china, which means they probably had to go all the way to beijing before you could say anything. It is in the nature of the system, but it was a real problem. They are due for a reckoning. The population which was angered by a lack of communication, and certainly the international community. Dir. Gilligan let me push you on that. All of the questions are about china. Asks, what sanctions and how should china be held to account . Roger says, in your opinion what is the measured response to china and the leadership who clearly held information . Sec. Rice there is both a public part of this and there is a private part of this. The public part of this i think over the next month is just to let it be known that china responded in the way that did. Or didnt respond, let me put it that way. The chinese are going to try to create, they are going to try to do a counter narrative. We got on top of it, look at how quickly, through social distancing and quarantine, look how quickly we recovered. By the way, weve been helping the rest of the world by sending ppe and by sending help and aid to all of the world. Theyre going to try to shift the narrative from their initial responsibility for not messing up to, we gotng on top of it and then we helped the rest of you. We have to have an honest assessment of how this happened, where it started, when it started, when the communist party new, and why they did not get out there. The private part is, you have to go to the chinese and say, you cant keep doing this. You have to be a more responsible partner, a more responsible power given your weight now. Your people travel. Your people work in other countries. There are a lot of Chinese Workers in italy at the time. Was that the transmission . We dont know for sure. If we are going to get a handle on how this thing moved, the fact that china is such a big player and as people travel, is a big part of the story. I think there is both a public acknowledgment of what happened, and also some private conversations with the chinese about how dont let this happen again. Dir. Gilligan interesting. A natural question that arises, is jawboning enough to get them to have a more correct attitude toward the World Health Organization . Sharing Scientific Data that has an impact on the rest of the world, or do you have to couple it with sanctions or tariffs or limiting trade . How do you as former secretary of state think about Something Like that . Sec. Rice i would certainly try to be persuasive first. If you keep the focus on how this started and chinas role in it, they will actually be embarrassed by that. If you let them shift their narrative to all they have done with sending out the ppes, you probably are not going to good progress. Call a meeting and dont try to veto anything that comes out of it. Eisai the United States will share the information. Maybe this is where you can bring the europeans and other along. We have to share the information on how this started. I would try that campaign first. I dont really think the u. S. Economy, everybodys economy will be trying to recover. Dont think we want to shock the system more with more sanctions, more trade wars, and the like when it is time to recover. I would certainly try that method first. Namesjust call it calling and sending a message that what they did was an acceptable. Dir. Gilligan yes. Here is an interesting question that i think is about deterrence and how our adversaries use the circumstance. She says, i am a government student at the university of texas at austin. What do you think russia is learning about how the u. S. Handles this kind of crisis . Sec. Rice very good question. Early on, the russians were saying, we have done this so much better because initially the numbers were apparently relatively low. The numbers have started to go up. You are not hearing that so much anymore. Starting toy are get stayathome orders and all the things you are seeing in the rest of the countries. I am told they are being assured by the mayor of moscow and the Prime Minister. President putin has decided to take himself out of the bad News Business of this. And that eventually come of course i can tell you when it is over, he will take credit for whatever happens. But i think the russians, who initially said our system is better, that their system is not that much better. Russiase two different of course. One rush out of city goers to circulate, travel. Isre is also a russia that in villages that will probably see none of this because people do not circulate. It has to be a little bit also which russia you are talking about. Are are you talking about . Dir. Gilligan this pandemic is bound to have a lot of longrun impacts. Tell us what you think will be the impact on globalization, Global Supply chains, the Free Movement of people around the world, and just the trust that is necessary to sustain a system like that. Sec. Rice you just said the essential word, which is trust. Are people going to trust that it is safe to circulate again . And that may take some time. It may take some time before people want to travel outside of their own country. We are learning we can do an awful lot through virtual means. We can do a lot online. You might see for a while that all of those conferences we are used to going with huge numbers of people, that does not take place for a while. But i certainly hope that in time what we have built over decades and decades and decades that people do travel, that they do circulate, that they do study together, as we see in universities. That we are not going to see the putting up of walls because we had this particular experience. That may be an initial response, but here is where leadership by the United States and leadership by the other Major Economies through Something Like the g20 could start to send signals that despite what we have had to do in this initial phase, where we had to shut down for very good reason, we dont want to stay this way. We want to see the opening up of andle doing Business Congress across boards. We do want to see the students studying in Different Countries so that we keep continuing to get to know each other better. Those messages are going to be important. Im concerned about what the United States will experience in terms of foreign students. It is not just stanford and harvard that have foreign students. If you go to small liberal arts colleges in the midwest, you have big state universities. There are a lot of foreign students. We will have to send out a message that we want them to come back, even if they have gone home. That we want them to come back. Those are the places the messages will be extremely important. I think you will see an impact. Congress already in several bills about china and the supply chain. The first is going to be about china indent we are on the pharmaceutical space. What are the ingredients for the fact that a lot of generics are made there because of cheaper conditions, or how dependent Major Pharmaceutical Companies are on assembly and manufacture in china . There are those who think we need to bring that capacity back to the United States because it has been shown to be strategic now. It has been shown to be a matter of National Security that we control our own supply chain on the pharmaceutical and medical side. That will be difficult to do, but i think you will get a lot of pressure. On broader supply chains, that has been going on for some time anyway because of the extended trade war. Companies have been reevaluating their supply chains. I saw that peter navarro, the president s advisor, said the other day we may even give Companies Huge benefits to be able to bring their manufacturing supply chains back home. Stay iney may not china. The likelihood is they will go to other places. Maybe vietnam. India has been a beneficiary. I think we will see some major reordering of how Companies Think about supply chains. This will have to turn out to be very secure and they will have to take that message. ,ir. Gilligan david asks taking a minute of the covid19 crisis to a advance their own interests. If so, what are the dangerous threats to consider . Sec. Rice one of the things you worry about his bad actors will try to take advantage of a distraction. All major leaders are now focused on covid19 crisis. Or maybe just not paying attention. I will tell you that after 9 11, the very first thing that i did when i got to the bunker was to get the state department to send out a table to every host in the world and say the United States of america is functioning. That is a message to your friends but also a message to your foe, dont try anything. It is a different situation, but i am quite certain that our r defensence agency, ou agency, the pentagon, they may not be on high stages of other, but they are on higher stages of vigilance to make sure nobody will try to take advantage. Watching the North Koreans like a hawk. I am sure they are watching the iranians like a hawk. Because you dont want anyone to take advantage. While others are worried about this crisis, we certainly have people who are trying to make sure that no bad actor takes advantage of us. Dir. Gilligan tell us a little bit about the developing world. What is going on there . How was the pandemic going to affect them and our relationships with them over the years to come . Sec. Rice the biggest impact has been in big cities, again, where people circulate. Places like in south africa, which is an economy that is very integrated into the International System and where people move around a lot. But i think people get a little surprised at the fact that you have not had an explosion of this virus in a lot of the developing world. Now, it may well be that it is the lack of testing or the lack of reporting that is the reason for that. But there are some other theories, and i caution that they already was brewed for instance, is it because the populations in the developing world are typically younger . So youy be asymptomatic, dont have a catastrophic effect of the virus because we know it affects older people more than it does very young people. These are very young populations. They have been through a lot of pandemics. Is there some kind of something building up there in terms of their system, maybe in terms of immunity, that we do not fully understand . Another theory. I really do think that the one thing we should be focused on is through the president s emergency plan that president bush started and other administrations have continued, we really helped a lot of developing countries build up a pretty Good Health Care system. We helped them build up a pretty good distribution system. Even for places that work quite far away from the cities to deliver antivirals. To the degree that those are still in place, we ought to be encouraging countries. We were not the only ones. But a fund did some of this. Some of the g20 countries, some of the European Countries helped build the health care system. We should be helping mobilize them now just in case you get a pandemic outbreak in the developing world. Dir. Gilligan interesting. Henry kissinger wrote in the wall street journal last week, predicting the world order would change dramatically. Lauren has kind of a more pointed version of that. After the world watched our response to the pandemic, and with china power,g as an economic political power, is this crisis marking the end of the western fragility on earth . Sec. Rice i think we have had that for quite some time. There is an old saying that the United States finally gets it right after it tried everything else. There have been a lot of times when we started slowly. World war ii, we started slowly. But pretty soon, the great capacity of this country to churn out war materials, to put women to work when the men had gone to war, the ability of individuals, the private sector to really step up and mobilize, that is what made us able to alternately defeat the german war machine. See some element of that now. I saw a very interesting little piece this morning that people are making masks. Anybody who is making a sewing machine is making masks now and selling them on various sites we could have more masks than we ever want. Not medical masks, but people who want to go out for a walk. The ability of a decentralized system to respond t what looks like chaotically but ultimately effectively is something that we should not underestimate. To asked to china, we have go back to this narrative they are trying to build. System should have responded to the people trying to sound a warning alarm early, like that young dr. Them,d, they silenced they threatened them, they arrested them. That is what caused the thing to spread. If we let them turn that into a giving outwe are now masks around the world, yes, it will have an effect. But there is some backlash to this diplomacy by sending out supplies. And it is coming from people who are reminding them they might not have needed those masks had this not started in wuhan. I go back. This is not the first time we had this problem with sars as well. We had it with avian bird flu. Be ais going to have to time when there is a reckoning for china as well. If you are the United States, right. Fauci is we should have responded much more quickly. But now that we are responding, we are seeing some of the strength of our decentralized federal system. Dir. Gilligan a lot of questions about china and the World Health Organization and taiwan. John asks the following very specific question. Do we now have some leverage with the chinese relative to their isolation of taiwan . Sec. Rice this is a very important point. It is something we really ought to press. When i was secretary of state, we spent a lot of time trying to get the chinese to at least allow taiwan to be admitted to the who because we said it is a health organization. We dont have to suggest that taiwan is a separate country for wanting to be part of the Health System of the world. They would not budge. You are seeing the kind of back story to why the World Health Organization shut down the young woman who was try to question about taiwan. One of itsade it most important efforts to make sure taiwan never gets represented in anything that might suggest that it is not a part of china. The World Health Organization was sort of responding to that in the way that they answered that question. Yes, it is time to have that discussion. I am fully of the view we need to take a look at whether the World Health Organization has been politicized here. It has not responded particularly well. It seemed to accept initially the chinese argument that there was no human to human transmission with this disease. But of course, a lot a people thought there was not a human to human transmission. But it happened. To my mind, a very Effective Response is an important look at it. By the way, there are u. N. Organizations that seem not to get as politicized. Unicef has been an organization that i think has been very effective at not being political. And therefore being able to operate in all kinds of places no matter what the circumstances. We need to take a look at maybe the who can do that. Dir. Gilligan i think we are all puzzled about why the United States was not prepared for this pandemic. Robert asks the following question. President george w. Bush called for the country to prepare for a pandemic in 2005 at the National Institute of health. Why was moore not done . Help us understand in your experience what happened. Sec. Rice it is interesting because president bush read a book about the 1918 pandemic and then he Read Everything he could about pandemics. He came back and said, we have got to get prepared because it will come one way or another. Theolleague at the time was National Homeland security person and said, i am dealing with terrorism. Please, do i really have to do with pandemics . But he was right. What happened is what often happens. When we have Something Like a there is ake sars, Quick Movement to mobilize and then we forget and we return to where we were pretty maybe we need to learn from terrorism. E did with we now have the National Counterterrorism sector which institutionalized that ability to deal with a system similar to systems in other countries. After this is over, we need to look at whether we need some more permanent structure on the pandemic side. I have colleagues in biology who will tell you that we are going to continue to experience this. Not just this kind of pandemic, but a friend of mine who often says the bugs are winning. Maybe we need some more permanent type of structure. I will be a little bit sympathetic with those who are in positions of leadership right now because you can never quite plan for what you actually experience. So if you had said this is a pandemic that is not going to affect children practically at all, you would not have thought that. And so the next crisis, the next pandemic will be different. But i do think some more permanent structures to deal with it may be necessary. Dir. Gilligan we have already in the newspapers and reports about the uncertainty associated with the origin of the virus. So there is a question that kind of gets to that and says, is there an inkling at all that this could have been other than an unfortunate natural biological event . Sec. Rice well, i dont believe it was intentional in any way or form ofwas some bioterrorism. I dont think there is a reason to believe the chinese would have done that to their own economy and their own population in that way. There are some inklings out that that there was a lab was engaged in experimentation to try to prevent the next sars pandemic. So it was for good reasons that they were doing it. News report today out in one of the major papers that some people in the state department who were serving in china visited a lab near there and said, boy, the practices do not look good here. So there are inklings here and there. But i dont think we know. Again is a conversation to have with the chinese and to put together the testimony of people who might have been around and watched the transmission. Was that market really the place that happened . This is a place the chinese could really come clean and help a lot, but i dont think it was intentional. Might it have been something other than a wet market . That remains to be seen. Dir. Gilligan connie asks a question which ask you to refer to your experience as secretary of state, and i do not think she means it to assess secretary pompeo either. If you are currently the secretary of state, what would you recommend as the first steps to get the u. S. Economy going again, especially as it relates to our relationships with other countries . Sec. Rice the question of when the u. S. Economy is going to be going again of course is one that the president and governors are going to have to weigh the health care advice as they are getting and the advices they are getting from their Health Systems and experts against the continued shutdown of the economy, which is starting to have a huge effect on peoples lives. I dont have anything particularly to add to that except to say that everybody is going to want to see the economy get going again, and it will affect the u. S. Leadership how quickly become out of the economic recession that is now being predicted by any number of people. But i will say that the signals we send about how we intend to come out of that crisis are important signals. That we are going to engage in more trade wars with people . Do we signal that there are more sections coming . These would be elements that i would think would actually fasten the sentiment for economic recovery in ways that we dont need at this particular point in time. It is another reason that and i keep mentioning the g20, because the g20 is the 20 largest economies. They actually did get together during the financial crisis of 2008, 2009. They put out some principles about not engaging in protectionist measures. To be fair, some are still engaged in protectionist measures, but there were those signals about how to come out of this together because the truth of the matter is the u. S. Economy cannot really fully recover in isolation given the nature of globalization. And so just sending a signal that we are not going to engage in trade wars, even if we want supply chains to come home, even if we want manufacturing to come home, i think that can be an Important Message to the world. If you could pretty early on start some discussions about or tradee policies agreements you might we start with the u. K. Or others, that would also be a very good signal. Dir. Gilligan here is another question which ask you to again rely on your experience, but this time as a leader in the education sector. This is someone from the u. K. Who wants to know, what do you think the impact of the pandemic will be on Higher Education and the Higher Education system . Sec. Rice this is really a question we need to give a lot of thought to as leaders in the economy. We have known for some time that Online Learning was coming in ever larger people were engaging in ever larger numbers. We have known for a long time that our students are much more proficient at the Virtual World than we are, those of us who teach them. So we are really going to have to now that we said we can learn online essentially as well as you can learn in the classroom, particularly with larger classes, what do we want the role of all my learning to broadere context of a educational experience . How much do we want students to be in huge classrooms where actually in some of the disciplines, they might be better off to be able to do personalized learning where they can learn at their own pace . I know i would have benefited from personalized learning and geometry because i never got it. Maybe going back over it four or five times online i would have gotten it. I think it is up to educators to say, all right, we told you to study online. Lets now really understand that experience and see how it fits into the broader educational experience. They cannot replace the one on one or the 20 on one small seminars, we dont think. But students are very adept at this Virtual World. Universities cannot tiptoe past the graveyard here. This will change how we deliver knowledge, and i hope we are ahead of the curve, not behind it. Dir. Gilligan you are a student of liberty and governance and democracy, and there are a couple of really interesting questions i want to ask about. Katrina asks, do you think this virus will have a negative impact on the democratic processes in developing countries . I presume she means there is more tendency to deal with it. In the u. S. Help mitigate this . Sec. Rice absolutely, there will be authoritarians who will try to take advantage of this and say, see . I am able now to control these circumstances and you will do better to control this environment, try to control the knowledge people get. Yes, there will be that. But i really do believe authoritarians generally a lot of them are not good at governing. And that their people will see that. Thee of us who care about spread of democracy across the world, those who care about those people who want the same rights we have should be preaching that message. And we should be shoring up Civil Society to help deal with some of the problems these countries are going to face. In a lot of these places, Civil Society is the last bastion against complete authoritarianism. Those are the people who in their small groups or at election reform or womens rights or for environmental sustainability in these countries where is the kind of last line of defense. And so major efforts to try to shore up Civil Society would be helpful. What the person who asked the question is actually right. There will be authoritarians will try to use all the tools, whether tracking or otherwise, Contact Tracing, for instance, who you have been seeing. In the tracing is in th hands of a democracy is one thing. Contact tracing in the hands of authoritarians is another. Dir. Gilligan what might the longterm impact on u. S. Liberties be . Will some of the instructions imposed by agencies now be in place after the spread has diminished . So Contact Tracing, you mentioned it. Use of technology, google, facebook, etc. , to trace people, find out what they are doing, what the temperature is. The ability for state and local officials to tell people to stay home. I discovered something about the our democracy and the power of governors. Will that continue . Sec. Rice it will continue for a while. I think if you asked a great majority of americans, they are brought entirely willing for the time being to be told what to do. That will only go on for so long. It in a crisis like this, has always been the case that we look to authorities. And we are more willing and at other times than at other times to limit our individual rights and liberties. That is what we are doing right now. That will not last forever. That governorsn are starting to think about what relief valves can they use to give people the feeling they have control of their lives again . When it comes to things like Contact Tracing and google and what facebook is doing, a lot of that will be voluntary. You can say, you cannot take my temperature. But i can say, then you cannot go in because you may potentially infect other people. Some of it will be voluntary. About thet all permanent loss of our liberties given the measures we are taking right now because we have so many institutions and so many levels and a free press and Civil Society that is going to be a check on how long these authorities can control what we do. It will. It is already a conversation about whether certain liberties are being abridged. That is our great protection. In authoritarian systems, nobody is having that conversation. In our system, you will have it. I will make one other point. We balance security and our liberties across institutions. The presidency is always going to be, as the commanderinchief is the protector of the country, more concerned about the security side. Congress will have laws to determine how much of it stays in place and how much doesnt. Ultimately, we have the courts. I can guarantee you that somewhere along here, somebody is going to take it all the way to the Supreme Court if they think their Constitutional Rights have been violated. And so we have the protection institutions that i think will function just fine. For now, though, let me be clear. For now. We are doing something quite amazing. And thererder people are penalties for not following the orders. We are basically asking 300 million americans to make good individual choices on behalf of the greater good. And i have to say i am pretty proud of the way we are doing it right now. Dir. Gilligan thanks for your comments today. We reached the end of the hour. I just want to close by just maybe putting some pressure on you. You served in government doing some tough times, 9 11, sars, the great recession. You have learned lessons about resiliency from that, about governing in conflict. In closing, what can you share with us about our current times . What kind of optimism can you leave us with as we close today . Sec. Rice i can say that i have resilience in the United States first and foremost because we have so many sources of resilience. Whether it is individuals who have taken on responsibility of making sure the person next door, who might be elderly, is getting their groceries without risk. Whether it is those people who are making masks and selling them on the internet. Whether it is the people who are in Health Care Workers and to take theirs lives and their own hands and serve and work. We owe them under normas gratitude and the best protections that can be given. They are there. The volunteers from Health Systems around the country who went to new york to help under the circumstances. The government cannot order that. That is the resiliency that comes from within. Individual citizens helping individual citizens permit we have the resiliency of innovation. The multiple efforts not to get a vaccine, to get therapeutics that may treat the disease for those whom it is more catastrophic. Ad yes, the resiliency of federal system that does not put all the pressure on washington but where governors and local healthcare care officials are trying to make good decisions for their citizens. So i have seen the resiliency before, and i want to repeat something i said before. Sometimes it takes is a wild to get going. The private sector gets involved in the way that they are. This is a pretty resilient society, pretty resilient country because we have so many, so many sources of resiliency. And finally, when we get through this, i think we are going to go back out into the world and help others to be resilient, too, which is the lesson of the compassion that we had in dealing with the aids epidemic, in dealing with ebola, and i think we will be there to do it again. Dir. Gilligan sec cspan has roundtheclock coverage to the federal response of the coronavirus pandemic, and it is all available on demand at cspan. Org coronavirus. Watch white house briefings, updates from governors, and state officials, and track the spread throughout the world with interactive maps. Watch ondemand anytime unfiltered at span. Org coronavirus. The senate has pro forma sessions scheduled for the next two weeks. House members have been notified that a vote is possible this week on a new Coronavirus Relief package, with consideration as early as wednesday. Follow the floor action from the house on cspan, and the next Senate Session will be live monday starting at 2 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan2. Good morning. Do you have a quick second, sir . How are negotiations going . Good. We are making a lot of progress, as i just said. I am hopeful we will conclude a bipartisan deal today. It will go to the senate tomorrow in the house on tuesday. The president can sign it on wednesday and we will open up the program again. We are focused on the money for the ppp. That is our priority. There is a lot of support for sba disaster loans