tv FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX News September 20, 2020 11:00am-12:00pm PDT
when the middle of nowhere... is somewhere. the all-new chevy trailblazer. ♪ chris: i'm chris wallace. a historic showdown over a supreme court vacancy with just 6 weeks till election day. >> it says the president is supposed to fill the seat, right? that's what we are going to do. we are going to fill the seat. >> voters should pick the president and the president should pick the justice for the senate to consider. chris: death of justice ginsburg sparking a fierce debate in the race for president over the future of the court. senate majority leader mitch mcconnell vowing president trump's nominee will get a vote while democrats say selection of a new justice must wait till
next year. we will talk with gop senator tom cotton who is on the president's short list for the supreme court and chris coons, key member of the senate judiciary committee and part of joe biden's inner circle. then we will ask our sunday panel how justice ginsburg's death reshapes the presidential race. plus, bill gates foundation spends billions on public health around the world, gives his take on how the u.s. has handled the coronavirus pandemic. all right now on fox news sunday. ♪ ♪ chris: and hello again from fox news in washington. with 6 weeks till election day, the stakes got just a whole lot higher. the death of justice ruth bader ginsburg leaves vacancy in the supreme court and adds big issue for the race to the white house. president trump says he will
nominate a new justice, a chance to create a solid 6 to 3 conservative majority on the court, but the democrats are crying foul saying voters should get a say, electing a president and a new senate before a justice is named to the court. in a moment, we will talk with two key players in this fight, republican senator tom cotton and democratic senator chris coons, but first let's bring in david spunt at the supreme court with what looks to be a bitter nomination fight in the final days to have campaign, david. david: hi, chris, mourners began to come to the steps to honor second woman to sit on high court. the president is pushing hard to fill a third woman on the high court as soon as possible. >> i will be putting forth a nominee next week. it will be a woman. [cheers and applause] david: president trump making it clear a battle over the future of the supreme court is
underway. several thousands paid respect by candlelight to 87-year-old justice ruth bader ginsburg a champion of woman rights. across the street from the court, battle to fill the seat is just beginning. president trump's nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the united states senate. senate majority leader mitch mcconnell said in a statement, a single sentence giving progressives heartburn. senate minority leader chuck schumer telling democrats in a caucus call, if leader mcconnell and senate republicans move forward with this, then nothing is off the table for next year. in 2016 following the death of justice antonin scalia, then president barack obama nominated judge merrick garland for the high courts but mcconnell denied garland a hearing. the senate majority leader now fending calls of hypocrisy saying this time is different. since the 1880's, no senate has confirmed an opposite party president, supreme court nominee in a presidential election year,
he said in a statement. former vice president joe biden now fighting for the president and senate elected in november to choose the new justice. >> i should do this with full consideration and -- and my hope and expectation of what will happen. david: the court is in summer recess. next term begins 2 weeks from tomorrow, chris. chris: david spunt reporting from the supreme court, david, thank you. and joining us now republican senator tom cotton who as we mentioned is on president trump's short list of candidates for the court. senate majority leader mcconnell as we noted has said flatly that the president's choice, new choice for a justice will get a vote on the supreme court. senator cotton, are you talking about a vote on this justice before the election 6 weeks from tuesday? senator: good morning, chris. let me express my condolences to
justice ginsburg's family and my regard of life-long dedication of public service. as for your question, the president said he will submit a nominee probably as early as this week and the senate will exercise our constitutional duty, will process the nomination, will conduct hearings, will be thorough and deliberate and careful just as we were with the nominations of justice gorsuch and justice kavanaugh. we will move forward without delay. chris: does that mean that there will be a vote to confirm before the election? senator: chris, there will be a vote. there's been some cases like justice ginsburg herself in which the nomination and confirmation process took less than 44 days and there's been other cases where it's longer. we will move forward without delay. chris: so you're suggesting that you might have the confirmation vote before the election but the -- but the hearing rather before the election but the actual vote after.
let's take a look. you raised it at how long it's traditionally taken a senate to confirm a new justice. let's put this up on the screen. since 1975, average is 40 days from when a president nominates a justice till the senate holds its first hearing and 70 days for nomination to senate confirmation. we now have 44 days until the election and there has been no nomination by the president yet. why the rush to judgment? senator: chris, we are not going to rush. we are not going to cut corners or steps. we are going to move forward without delay and as i said, there have been some cases in which it has taken fewer than 44 to include justice ginsburg's nomination herself. we will move forward without delay and deliberate fashion and process the president's nominee and i will be we will confirm the nominee as well. chris: back in 2016 after justice scalia died, president
obama named federal judge merrick garland as his new nominee to the court and as you well know you were part of the senate then, senate republicans blocked the choice of garland. here is what you said at that time. senator: in a few short months we will have a new president, new senators that can consider the next justice with full faith of the american people. why would we cut off the national debates about the next justice? why would we deny voters a chance to weigh in on the makeup of the supreme court? chris: now, garland was nominated 9 months before the election and you were saying then 9 months before the election it was wrong to deny voters a chance to weigh in. so if it was wrong then, 9 months before the election, why is it okay now 6 weeks before the election? senator: chris, in 2014, the
american people elected -- a republican majority in the senate to put the brakes on president obama's judicial nominations. in 2018 we had a referendum on this question. just a month before the 2018 midterms, we had the vote on justice kavanaugh. there cannot have been a clear mandate because the american people didn't just reelect republicans but expanded the majority. they defeated 4 democratic senators who voted against justice kavanaugh, they reelected the one democratic senator who did vote for justice kavanaugh. so we have a clear mandate to perform our constitutional duty, that's what the senate majority will do now. that's what we did back in 2016 as well. chris: you really don't think there is any hypocrisy at all in saying we need to give voters, because you can parse the 2014 election, the 2018 election any way you want but you stated a pretty firm principle in 2016 about merrick garland. it's wrong to deny voters a chance to weigh in. you don't see any hypocrisy between that position then and this position now?
senator: chris, the senate majority is performing our constitutional duty and fulfilling the mandate that the voters gave us. in 2016 and especially in 2018. chris: i just want to -- i promise this is the last question on this particular subject. let's do a thought experiment, you're a lawyer and you did hypotheticals when you were in law school, let's assume that president trump were to lose in the election 6 weeks from now, if the senate were to change hands so that it went from the republicans to democrats in a lame-duck session, would a president who has been defeated and a republican majority that was about to be out of office, some would say the lamest of lame-duck sessions. are you saying you think it's still proper to vote to confirm president trump's nominee to the court? senator: chris, as i said, we will move forward without delay and they'll be vote on the nominee. but to the point, donald trump is going to win reelection and i believe the senate republicans
will win our majority back because the american people know that donald trump is going to put nominees up for the federal courts who will -- who will apply the law and not make the law. joe biden is not going to do that. joe biden still refuses to even identify who he might nominate and joe biden and senate candidates like theresa greenfield in iowa need to put their cards on the table and say what they will do in this kind of nomination. chris: okay, let me ask you one other question about this. republicans now have a 53 to 47 vote majority, so you can only afford to lose 3 republican senators assuming all the democrats oppose the president's nominee and still get -- we can say she, because the president says it'll be a woman confirmed, with mike pence breaking the vote, but let's look at the tally of where republican senators stand at this point. in recent days senator susan collins and lisa murkowski
expressed doubts and chuck grassley has as well. so the question is how sure are you, senator, that republicans will actually have the 50 votes plus vice president pence to confirm a trump nominee? senator: well, chris, i will let the senators speak for themselves and make a decision on their timeline. as mitch mcconnell said, they'll be a vote. i don't think we should discount democratic voters either. the one democrat that voted for justice kavanaugh was reelected. i know the democrats are saying radical things right now. democrats are threatening to riot in the streets, democrats are already rioting in the streets and they were threatening to pack the court, they were already threatening to pack the court. democratic senators can look at what happened in 2018 when four of their colleagues lost reelection a month after voting for justice kavanaugh and the one who did voted for justice kavanaugh got reelected. i wouldn't discount democratic votes either.
chris: i have a couple of minutes left. i want to get to the actual issues at stake here because there are a lot of issues at stake. you say, you're on the record as saying that roe v. wade should go. do you hope and do you expect that if a trump nominee is confirmed that she will vote to end a women's right to choose? senator: chris, i'm pro-life and my views on this are well known and there's no need to restate them at length here, but what president trump has done is assembled a highly capable pull of jurists on his list that understand that their job is not to make the law and job is to apply the law. i can't apply hypothetical cases years down the road. chris: but you do support the idea and i assume you would support the idea of a justice voting to end roe v. wade? senator: again, chris, my views on roe are well known and they
are long standing. i believe roe v. wade was wrongly decided because it took the question away from the american people acting through their state legislatures, but beyond that, i can't speakulate about -- speculate about a case yet that hasn't been started. chris: let me tell you about a case that has been started and the court will hear this term. there's a lawsuit to overturn obamacare. would you hope that a justice appointed by donald trump would vote to end, to overturn the affordable care act? senator: well, chris, i think that the supreme court got the case wrong 8 years ago especially on the so-called individual mandate which fined americans for not being able to afford health insurance. the federal government made it unaffordable in the first place. that's one of the reasons i led the charge to repeal the individual mandate which fined more than 7 million americans. that case, however, is being decided -- argued i should say right after the election. it's not clear to me whether we will have a new justice confirmed, so i can't speculate
on how the court will rule on that particular case or if this nominee will be seated in time to rule on that case. chris: so finally, i was going to ask you since you are on the president's short list, whether or not you would accept his nomination to the court given that he now says it's a woman, do you want to ask him to reconsider or are you okay with a woman on the court? [laughter] senator: yeah, chris, we can break news that i'm not under consideration since the president is going to nominate a woman and i've already communicated to the white house that now is not the time to have me under consideration. i'm in the ballot under arkansas law and so i'm looking forward to looking with the president to confirm the nominee, campaign for reelection myself and to reelect the president because it's about more than just this single nominee, it's about nominations to the supreme court in the future as well. chris: senator cotton, thank you, thanks for your time. always good to talk with you, sir.
oh, i will rescue you >> tech: when you've got ...safelite can come to you. >> tech: and you'll get a text when we're on our way. >> tech: just leave your keys on the dash and we'll replace your windshield with safe, no-contact service. >> tech: schedule at safelite.com. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ noand if you're troubledan a lifby falls and bleeds,ers. worry follows you everywhere. over 100,000 people have left blood thinners behind with watchman. it's a one-time, minimally invasive procedure that reduces stroke risk--
chris: when president trump nominates a new justice the senate judiciary committee will hold hearings on the pick. democratic senator chris coons is a key member of that committee and also part of joe biden's inner circle. senator, what's wrong with president trump and the senate going ahead and confirming a replacement for ruth bader ginsburg? i understand you won't like their choice, but there's nothing in the constitution that
curtails their powers even if it's just 6 weeks before the election. senator: well, chris, thanks for a chance to be on with you again. first, we should start by offering my condolences to the family, the loved ones of justice ginsburg. she spent 27 years in highest court and someone who fought for gender equity, her dying wish dictate today her grandmother as she passed on rosh hashanah was that the voters should choose the next president and the next president should choose her successor, that's because she understood deeply our constitution and the significance of the supreme court and its legitimacy. for the republican majority just 44 days before the presidential election to rush through a new justice in a partisan confirmation process will further divide our country, will further challenge the legitimacy of the court and i think would
dishonor justice ginsburg's legacy chris: but in 2016 when president obama nominated merrick garland as we just discussed to tom cotton in the court and republicans decided to block it, you were outraged, you wrote this, now all 100 members of the senate must do our jobs by providing advice and consent on the president's nominee. you wanted the senate to go ahead and vote on merrick garland. i understand 9 months is longer than 6 weeks, but, sir, the principle is the same. senator: well, here is two key differences if i might, chris, first in 25 states across our country, half of our states americans are already voting for the next president. we are not ten months or 9 months away from an election. we are just 44 days from an election and in election where half of states votes are being cast. second, the republican majority set a new precedent and set it
in 2016. they fought hard for it. in fact, the chairman of the judiciary committee lindsay graham restated in 2018. so if they were going to set a new precedent that in an election there shouldn't be a hearing, meeting, votes, they should live by it. one of my friends murkowski would oppose any nominee. fair is fair, i frankly think the republican majority should live with the precedent they set in 2016. chris: all right, let's get to the bottom line here because some people would say this is really about power, who has the votes, much more than it is about principle. if president trump goes ahead as he says he will and nominates someone to the court and if the senate, senator mcconnell says it will goes ahead and decides to have confirmation hearing and confirmation vote, bottom line, is there anything democrats can do to stop it? senator: well, chris, it
shouldn't come to that, and so i've been appealing personally to my colleagues the republicans and independents to reflect on how this, and we are already divided enough and there's already enough important issues on the ballot this november. health care is on the ballot. as you just said with senator cotton in your previous interview, the supreme court is hearing a landmark decision on just a week after the election in which president trump and 18 republican states attorneys general are trying to takeaway health care from 1008 americans and there's 6 million americans who have been infected, meaning they have new preexisting conditions. chris: i don't mean to interrupt, senator -- senator, i understand all of that. i asked you a direct question, though. is there anything that democrats can do to stop it?
senator: well, the republican majority is going to be responsible for what we do in the next 44 days, we ought to be delivering relief from this pandemic, we ought to be taking up and voting on a package that will help schools open safely and support more vaccine research and support state and local governments. mitch mcconnell hasn't done that work in the 6 months since we last passed a relief package. chris: i understand. okay. during a call with all of the democratic senators yesterday, your leader chuck schumer said this, i want to put it up on the screen. if republicans move ahead to confirm a justice, quote, then nothing is off the table for next year, nothing is off the table. does that mean, senator, that if democrats take back the majority in the senate next year that when you say nothing is off the table, that you will end the filibuster for legislation, does it mean that you will pack the court, that you allow enough
justices so that democrats, again, have a majority on the court? senator: well, i will let senator schumer speak for himself, but here is what i know. joe biden said i think yesterday that everything is on the table for this election, meaning the consequences of this election for health care, for women's rights, for equality, for equity, for clean air and clean water are profound and we should let the voters speak in this next election. i will remind you again, half of our states are already voting for the next president. we should honor justice ginsburg's last wish and let the voters pick the next president, the next president pick the next justice. we shouldn't be racing through this partisan process which will further divide us in the senate and i frankly think further undermine the legitimacy of the supreme court and institution our democracy badly needs to function. chris: let's focus and we are running out of time so i'm going to ask you to be brief here, sir, if president trump does get his nominee confirmed to the court either before the election
or in a lame-duck session, what's at stake here? what does it mean for the court? senator: there's a huge amount at stake here, chris. that's why justice ginsburg made this her dying wish. the legitimacy of the court would be harmed by further politicization just 44 days before an election when the republican majority just 4 years ago when justice ginsburg's closest friend scalia passed away insisted on keeping the seat open for nearly ten months, i think it further suggests to the american people that this is all about politics and not about principle. i'm going to be working this weekend, this week to reach across the aisle and see if i can't persuade some friends to respect tradition, to respect the precedent they set in 2016 and to let the voters decide. chris: finally as i noted earlier, you're a member of joe biden's inner circle. how do you think -- let's assume and i think every reason to
assume, we heard from the president, we've heard from mcconnell and tom cotton today, they are going to go ahead with this, how does this reshape the race for president? senator: well, i think it further focuses the american people on what's at stake. i will remind you justice ginsburg fought relentlessly for gender equity and that's why there were thousands of people in the supreme court steps and peacefully mourning her passing. the affordable care act prevents discrimination based on gender by insurance companies. there's a case in front of the supreme court where president trump with the support of 47 republican senators is trying to take that away. that's what's at stake in this election. that's what's at stake in terms of who fills the seat left vacant by the tragic passing of justice ginsburg. chris: senator coons, thank you, thanks for your time this weekend. please come back, sir. senator: thank you, chris. chris: up next we will bring in our sunday group to break all of
i'm leah and that's me long before i had moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis. i've always been the ringleader had a zest for life. flash forward, then ra kept me from the important things. and what my doctor said surprised me. she said my joint pain could mean permanent joint damage. and enbrel helps relieve joint pain, and helps stop that joint damage. ask about enbrel so you can get back to being your true self. enbrel may lower your ability to fight infections. serious sometimes fatal events including infections, tuberculosis, lymphoma, other cancers, nervous system and blood disorders and allergic reactions have occurred.
tell your doctor if you've been someplace where fungal infections are common. or if you're prone to infections, have cuts or sores have had hepatitis b, have been treated for heart failure or if you have persistent fever, bruising, bleeding or paleness. don't start enbrel if you have an infection like the flu. visit enbrel.com to see how your joint damage could progress. enbrel fda approved for over 20 years. keeping your oysters busihas you swamped. you need to hire. i need indeed indeed you do. the moment you sponsor a job on indeed you get a shortlist of quality candidates from a resume data base claim your seventy-five-dollar credit when you post your first job at indeed.com/promo beware of telephone scammers
pretending to be government employees. real social security employees will never threaten you. callers threatening you with arrest or other legal action and demanding money, are not from us! if you receive a call like this: hang up! do not provide them with any form of payment or information. report the call at: oig.ssa.gov >> so we win an election and those are the consequences, it's called fill that seat and that's what we are doing. >> let me be clear that the voters should pick the president and the president should pick the justice for the senate to consider. chris: president trump and joe biden on the stakes of appointing a new justice in the supreme court on the final days to have election and it's time for our sunday group, gop
strategist karl rove, fox news at night anchor shannon bream who covers the supreme court for us and mo elleithee of georgetown's university institute of politics and public service. panel, i've done reporting on this and here is what i have been hearing from a source, a top source close to the process, republican senators and white house officials are pressing the president to announce his nominee before the first debate next week, a consensus seems to be developing in the senate to hold confirmation hearings, confirmation hearings before the election before delay a final vote till a lame-duck session after november third to protect vulnerable republicans who are up for reelection. as for the nominee, the early focus in the white house, not settled yet but the early focus on amy coney barrett of indiana and barbara lagoa of florida.
karl, what's your sense of where this is heading? karl: well, i think you outlined it. i think the president is prepared to make a quick nomination. i suspect that the senate is ready as soon as the fbi does its background check. one of the things about doing both -- doing either one of these two appellate judges is that they were confirmed by the senate in recent years so the fbi background check will only need to be sort of an update and not a complete new deep dive, so the process is on its way i suspect in rather rapid fashion. chris: do you think the confirmation hearing happens before the election but the actual vote happens after, they hold that for the lame-duck? karl: i wouldn't be surprised the committee hold hearings and maybe even vote before the election but i don't expect that just over 42 days, 44 days i guess it is, that it'll be possible to -- to bring this all
the way to the floor before the election. chris: okay. one more question for karl, i promise to bring the other two of you in. in the end obviously this comes down to votes and speaker -- rather senate majority leader mcconnell sent letter to gop colleagues on friday night. i urge you to keep your powder dry. this is not the time to prematurely lock yourselves into a position you may later regret. i guess the question, karl, with murkowski and collins saying they have real problems doing this before the election, how confident are you that -- that mcconnell will have 50 republican votes plus the tie breaker from pence and if he doesn't have the 50 votes, do you think he still goes ahead just to show the base they are keeping faith with that? karl: yeah, i think he's likely to have the 50 votes. as a matter of fact, i think he will have more than 50 votes to take this matter and bring the
nomination to the floor and in need be before the election, although i think it'll be after the election. do i want to quick i will say, i love the flip-flop we had tom cotton taking senator coons' view of years ago and senator coons taking cotton's view of years ago. it reminds me of political scientist captain lou ranough. i'm shocked there's politics going on here that we have one president at a time and one senate at a time and constitutional powers to nominate and in the case of the senate to either give advice and consent or give advice and consent. chris: it's not really about principle, it's about power. let me bring in mo, this obviously beyond the question of the court injects a big new issue into the presidential race
which is now as we say 6 weeks away. let's take a look at our most recent fox news poll which is -- we asked people about this. who do you trust to do a better job on supreme court nominees, 52% say biden, 45% say trump and support for biden is especially strong wrong seniors. i can see this either way, conservatives care more about the court so they'll be energized, joe biden has enthusiasm gap and this will fire up democrats to vote for him. how do you see this playing out in terms of the presidential race? mo: yeah, it's -- that's always the conventional wisdom, right, that republicans and conservatives get more animated by court discussions and i don't know that that's true anymore. in 2018, right, i mean, a lot of women were turned out -- suburban women turned out and helped flip the house in part because of the court. you know, yesterday i took my kids to the supreme court to pay
respect and there was a really beautiful tribute down there. you showed images earlier in the show. a lot of the handwritten messages written in chalk on the sidewalk were not just honoring her as a trailblazer but also talking about her fight, her record of fight to go protect health care. health care voters now have a reason to be more animated and if democrats start pushing a message that, look, you're seeing republicans in the senate rush back with a sense of urgency on the court that they don't have on -- on covid relief in order to pack the court or stack the court or add a new person to the court in time for the next aca, affordable care act, that's a message that i wouldn't be surprised democrats leaning into. chris: mo -- rather, shannon,
let me bring you in here. here he was president trump talking about what's at stake with new supreme court justice and this was even before he learned about the tragic death of ruth bader ginsburg, take a look. >> that will totally change when you talk about life, when you talk about second amendment, when you talk about things that are so important to you, you're going to be stuck for 40 years, 35 years, a long time. chris: shannon, if the president replaces ruth bader ginsburg with a solid conservative, what's at stake here and i find it especially interesting, you heard it from chris coons, you hear it now from mo, democrats not focusing so much on abortion as they are on what it will do to the affordable care act? shannon: and there are other critical cases already on the fall term which kicks off in a couple of weeks. i think this would be a seismic shift for this administration to be able to pull off something like replacing the late justice
ginsburg with somebody like amy coney barrett or barbara lagoa, it's not what we have seen in nominations appointing republican appointee with republican appointee. this is replacing what is the loudest strongest leader for the last couple of decades with somebody who would have completely different philosophical and judicial ideas about the way you interpret the constitution, the text of laws, just a completely different philosophy, so it would be substantively a massive shift to the court to replace the one seat. of course, pretty evenly divided on some very big issue, chris. chris: yeah, we are not talking about with roberts as the swing vote, we would be talking 6-3, so roberts could do anything he wanted and you'd have 6 reliably conservative justices. speaking of robert, shannon, is this chief justice roberts worth nightmare to have the court an
confirmation injected in the final days of a presidential campaign? shannon: you know that he tries to make the court apolitical as possible. she doesn't -- he doesn't want it to be viewed as democrats or republicans, there can be appointees but they don't then have loyalty to a specific party or ideology. judges have supposed to be neutral. he said empires calling balls and strikes. for him there are a number of long-term and short-term issues and you think about this, if we are at 8-8 going into a very divisive election where we are going to have fights or mail-in ballots and other extended deadlines, you don't want a case toned up at the supreme court that would decide the presidency with a potentially split down the even tide court, chris. chris: we have about a minute left. karl, i just want to ask you a basic questions of fairness. do you worry at all that there
could be backlash from undecided voters who just say, it just doesn't seem fair for the president to nominate someone and for the court to go ahead and confirm someone just days before the election? karl: i think that's a legitimate concern. i think a lot of this is going to depend upon how the american people perceive the nominee herself. if they look at it and say this is an accomplished individual, i'm willing to accept. i would remind you on november 13th, 1980 after being defeated for reelection, president jimmy carter nominated steven breyer and it was approved less than a month later by 83 to 10 vote. if he were not appointed to the first circuit within lame-duck appointment unlikely he would be on the supreme court today. so these things have a way of working out. it all depends on the nominee. chris: of course, the circuit court is different than the supreme court, but thanks for
chris: for 20 years the gates foundation has led the fight against poverty and disease in the developing world. each year they detail the strides they've made but not in this year of the pandemic. earlier i sat down with bill gates to discuss the terrible impact of covid-19 and to get his assessment of how the u.s. has handled it.
bill, welcome back. each september you release what you call your goal keeper's report giving what progress has been achieved on your main goals of fighting poverty and trying to improve public health in developing countries but the news this year is that there hasn't been progress, things are worse, not better. how much worse? bill: because of the pandemic we've had huge setbacks, you know, in some cases erasing literally decades of progress, and so it really underscores that we've got to bring this pandemic to an end, not just in a few rich countries but the entire world and then we will have to take special efforts to build back so we are back on the positive track that we normally this time of year are getting to talk about and thank the voters for generosity with the foreign aid that plays a key role on all that progress.
chris: how has covid reversed what's been a 20-year streak of progress in places like africa, for instance, how has covid caused such a dramatic increase in extreme poverty in developing countries? bill: yeah, so the actual death toll in the poorest countries including most of africa is actually not super high and the population is very young and other than south africa the numbers less than forecast. sadly, though, the fragility of their system, people can't go out and get vaccines, children are at risk of diarrhea and malaria and so both the vaccination rates have gone down by over 14%, which take us back in time over two decades, and the extreme poverty which is another one that has been going down constantly has gone up and have 37 million people back in
extreme poverty. so the breath of the negative impacts, mental health, education, economic and other health things not just covid directly are much greater than i expected before we started to pull the report together. chris: now, the gates foundation has committed $650 million to fight covid which is the biggest contribution by any independent foundation. where is that money going and what success have you had? bill: we have high-skilled diagnostic things coming online but the biggest story has been on the the vaccine, helping seed r&d money and then making sure that when we get a vaccine it's not just for the rich countries, that we take factories of many companies including high-volume manufacturers, some of which are in india, bring them in which is completely novel and as soon as
something is approved, we get going so that the pandemic isn't just constantly coming back to the united states. so vaccine has been the biggest part. of course, we are going to give more, by the time we get organized, it'll be a billion dollars. chris: you have put a lot of the money in what you call covid-19 therapeutics accelerator, where do we stand on a vaccine which, of course, everybody is waiting for? there's a lot of talk by the end of this year. is that realistic? bill: r&d is going full speed. even the companies that have offered to do on break-even basis, if it wasn't for the donated money, they wouldn't be able to do that. so that's helped a lot. the place the u.s. is not shown up is on the issue of helping to buy the vaccine for these developing countries and we are hoping if there was going to be a supplemental bill, there was a
chance, billions to the vaccine would have been in there, the vehicle doesn't look like it'll come to fruition, so, you know, maybe the continuation resolution -- we are hoping to get that organized. i believe that by early next year, you know, of the 6 leading vaccines, the ones that are furthest along in the west, that probably 3 or 4 of those will show efficacy and safety and that's when the challenge will be okay, how do you allocate it. the way to answer the challenge is to get so much volume that you're not having to make really terrible trade-offs. we show on the report that if you distribute equitably, you have half as many deaths than if you just give to only to the rich. chris: when do you see anything close to a return to normal in the u.s. and what you call the rich world, when do you see a return to normal around the rest
of the globe and developing countries? bill: yeah, if a vaccine approval comes by early next year as i expect, then by next summer u.s. will be starting to go back to normal and by the end of the year our activities can be fairly normal. if we are also helping the other countries. the end of the epidemic best case is 2022 but during 2021, the numbers we should drive them down if we take the global approach. you know, thank goodness vaccine technology was there, the funding came up, that the companies put their best people on it. that's why i'm optimistic this won't last indefinitely. chris: you say that ever since you were a teenager you've tackled a new problem the same way. you ask who is handling it well and what can you learn from them. so direct question, how well has
the u.s. handled the coronavirus? bill: well, unfortunately we did a very poor job and you can just see that in the numbers if you compare the asian countries, like south korea and australia. you know, the key was the -- getting the testing going, and what happened was that 40,000 people came out of china because we didn't ban the residents and citizens from coming in. we created this rush and we didn't have the ability to quarantine those people and the disease -- the ban probably accelerated that the way it was executed, and we just didn't go to the commercial providers and get the tests ready. fda made it harder and so we are -- even today people don't get their results in 24 hours which is outrageous that we still have that. chris: i just want to pick up on that, you're saying that the travel bans made the situation
worse and not better? bill: yeah, when you have people realize that the flights will start to get canceled and if they don't, the citizens and residents, if they don't come right away, you get a rush. that's when you really need to do south korea, australia did, take those people and you task them -- test them and if they test positive, put them in quarantine. we didn't do that. we didn't have the scale of testing that would have acquired providers and in march we saw incredibly explosion of the west coast coming from china and then the east coast coming out of europe, and so even though we've seen china and europe, the testing capacity and clear message of how to behave wasn't there and that's led to us not just having a bad spring and we've had pretty tough summer
and because of seasonality until we get the new tools, the fall is looking to shape up as pretty tough as well. i do think, you know, we need to own up to the fact that we didn't do a good job, you know part of the reluctance to fix testing system now is nobody wants to admit that it's outrageous that the access to the test depending on the more wealthy get access and you have the delays where you're not seeing any answer within 24 hours which you just -- that should not be the case. the u.s. has more of these machines, more capacity than other countries by a huge amount and so partly the reimbursement system is creating provers incentives. but, you know, looking back, you know, my main focus now is let's get the tools right and let's get the testing right now.
we will have time to look at those mistakes which in february or march were really super unfortunate, but, you know, we can't pretend like we are -- we get a good grade even today. chris: finally, i want to end where we started. you talk about the fact that as a result of covid the efforts that you make, that other people make in the developing world and that you've been involved in for decades to fight malaria, polio, hiv and poverty have been setback for years, that you lost years of progress that you had pain-stakingly made. how long is it going to take for the developing world to get back to where they were just at the start of 2020 and on a personal level, how frustrating is that for you? bill: well, i'm always optimistic, you know, we will get back on track and we will get on those positive trends, but a good example is polio.
you know, polio which rotary has been behind the eradication since the beginning and it's been this huge setback and, you know, the partners in this, cdc, w.h.o., figuring out, are we going to be able to work together and stay committed against this eradication. there's a lot of uncertainty about that. i want to redouble our efforts and even though get delayed, get polio done. yes, it's a little frustrating, if the pandemic, if it hadn't come we would be further along. we did get africa declared of -- free of polio but there's little progress. if we pay attention to the poor countries which, you know, we are south centered right now but
if we do that eradication will energize people and energize all the global health work. chris: bill gates always a pleasure to talk with you. thanks so much. hopefully next time better news to discuss. bill: great, thanks, chris. chris: sadly the gates family lost its patriot this week, bill gates senior passed away at age 94, a prominent lawyer and he launched gates foundation and served as cochair until his death. his son bill, jr. credited his father with much of his own success saying he was everything i tried to be. i will miss him every day. and we will be back with a final word okay! safe drivers save 40%!!! guys! guys! check it out. safe drivers save 40%!!! safe drivers save 40%! safe drivers save 40%!!! that's safe drivers save 40%.
it is, that's safe drivers save 40%. - he's right there. - it's him! he's here. he's right here. - hi! - hi. hey! - that's totally him. - it's him! that's totally the guy. safe drivers do save 40%. click or call for a quote today. saf- [announcer] your story doesn't have to end. as an organ donor, the good in you can live on. in fact, you could save up to eight lives through organ donation. sign up to give the gift of life after you're gone. you'll be happy you did. just maybe, someone else will too. sign up online today as an organ, eye, and tissue donor at organdonor.gov. it saves lives.
>> techand your car., we're committed to taking care of you >> tech: we'll fix it right with no-contact service you can trust. >> tech: so if you have auto glass damage, stay safe with safelite. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ chris: please keep it here on your local fox station and fox news channel for coverage of the death of supreme court justice ruth bader ginsburg and the push to name her replacement. and now this program note, fox
news sunday will come to you from cleveland next week as part of fox news coverage of the first presidential debate. and that's it for today, have a great week and we will see you next fox news sunday church. maria: goo >> good sunday morning, everyone, welcome to sunday morning futures. i'm maria bartiromo, flags across the country are at half staff this morning to honor the life and legacy of justice ruth bader ginsburg who passed away on friday at the i believe of 87. take a look at growing memorial outside of the supreme court, flowers, candles and signs blanketing the steps to mourn the feminist pioneer and liberal icon who was the second woman confirmed to the high court bench. president trump celebrated ginsburg's 27ns years of service calling her a trailblazer and inspiration to all americans as we remember her this morning we are reminded als