quick student to c-span alive currently 2024 national political convention. start with the republican four-day event in milwaukee on july 15. next up catch the democrats as they convene in chicago kicking off august 19. stay connected to c-span for an uninterrupted and unfiltered glimpse of democracy at work. watch the republican democratic national convention alive at this summer on c-span. c-span now free mobile video app and online@c-span.org. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. powered by cable. quick c-span is your unfiltered view of government. funded by these television companies and more including spark light. ♪ the greatest town on earth is a place you call home but spark light it is our home too. right now we're all facing our greatest challenge but that is

why spark light is working round-the-clock to keep you connected. we are doing our part so it's a little easier to do yours. >> spark light support c-span as aublic service along these other television providers. giving you a front receipt to democracy. >> doctor david lawrence top advisor to doctor anthony fauci. he appeared for the house subcommittee on the coronavirus pandemic to address accusations of deleting e-mails related to the origins of covid-19 but lawmakers also questioned him on his use of government and private e-mail accounts. and his contact with president eagle health alliance which has been linked to the chinese research facility has been at the center of speculation regarding the origins of the pandemic. >> select subcommand the coronavirus pandemic will come to order. i want to welcome everyone.

at the discretion of the chair pursuant to an agreement with the committee on energy and commerce, the chairman and ranking member of the committee on energy and commerce, subcommittee on oversight and investigation, mr. morgan griffith and ms. kathy castor or participate in today's hearings for the purposes of questions. and give three-minute opening statements if they so desire. that objection the chair might declare a racist at any time by wrecking us myself for the purpose of making an opening statement. good afternoon everyone. doctor lawrence, you wrote in an e-mail you have never said anything that you would not be happy to defend before a congressional committee. today sir, is that day. the committee has been thoroughly investigating u.s. government response for the coronavirus pandemic. years long investigation has been conducted to both understand the actions of our public health agency institutions and officials

sprayed the actions taken so that we can learn and ingrain proficiencies but we are learning from experiences and developing better pathways for processes, responses and ways forward. the next time there's a public health emergency such as the pandemic, our response will meet the high standards the american people expect, deserve, and pay for it. this is not mccarthyism. this is not stalin. this is not a witchhunt. as you, have the so eloquently labeled it before. this is seeking truth, justice, and the american way. while conducting this investigation the committee uncovered extremely concerning behavior by doctor anthony fauci senior scientific advisor the witness before us today.

accordingly the select subcommittee announced a subpoena for doctor lawrence for documents related to covid-19 pandemic. specifically those found on his personal e-mail accounts which she had been using to communicate with other nih officials and eagle health president doctor peter. government officials hiding from we the people, is not the american way. extensive review of communications and documents produced under subpoena by doctor lawrence. the information contained on these 30,000 pages of e-mails are deeply concerning. in my opinion reflects poorly upon doctor lawrence in the office of the institute of allergy and infectious disease under dr. fauci's leadership nih.

evidence gathered public transparency required by the freedom of information act by intentionally using a personal e-mail account for official business. we have evidence unlawfully deleted government records may have engaged with the nih office, the freedom of information act office to assist this illegal action.

you may not have been under oath, however, you were reminded by the subcommittee counsel that your answers were subject to criminal prosecution pursuant to title 18 section 1001 of the united states code. in other words, lying in that interview before us would be a crime. when asked if you understood that requirement, you said you did. today we may be able to find out where the truth lies. is it in your testimony or e-mail we recently had at the president of eco- health alliance before the select committee and we produced a report on the bad faith actions taken by eco- health and its president just two weeks after these investigative measures take place.

they provided information including internal deliberations and communications about eco- health occurring at the highest levels of nih. this is not just a one-way street. we all sat down with the information from eco- health on behalf of eco- health with the top officials. in fact we even uncovered an e-mail after the grant was reinstated after it was paused in 2020, doctor morris advocated for them to have their federal funding reinstated and assisted in receiving that funding provided with nonpublic information in order to help get the funding reinstated into then requested a kickback. joking about the kickback the

entire process is wholly unacceptable and i wish that was the full extent of it, but it's not. frankly some of the documents received were difficult to read. i can't imagine saying some of the things, let alone putting them in writing. the select subcommittee uncovered communications in which it was unsuited for the public health service who received a taxpayer-funded paycheck. these are some of the unfortunate findings the select subcommittee has made during the investigation. it's very disturbing to the witnesses type of behavior from doctor fauci's senior advisor that the evidence is clear and overwhelming. it was unfortunately less pristine than so many damn the media would have had us believe.

you reported directly into served as a senior advisor for more than two decades. did your boss know about this behavior and participate in it, we don't know. we continue our work to ensure that we review each document. the american people that we represent deserve honest answers. we all do. today i hope we can further the request for information into the government's response to covid-19 and provide of the american people with honest answers about the actions taken to personnel and the institutes of health in this time especially at the leadership level. you will be sworn in today and your answers under oath and i strongly suggest you tell the truth, which i'm sure i do not need to advise you.

you are testifying today under a subpoena. the terms required you to stay until the chair excuses you. i look forward to a robust and on-topic discussion today. thank you and i would now like to recognize the ranking member for the purpose of making an opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. for decades our federal public health and scientific institutions have diligently upheld a legacy of respect and decorum in their work to advance the public interest and within these institutions, thousands upon thousands of federal employees have reported to work every day with the goal of promoting the scientific enterprise and ensuring that every american can lead the healthiest life possible. to safeguard in the highest

regard and through my tenure in congress including as a member of the energy and commerce committee's health subcommittee, i've championed legislation to invest in our federal, scientific and public health workforce so that they can carry forward this crucial work. but there are times when individuals stray from this legacy and conduct themselves in a manner that is unbecoming of the thousands and thousands who strive to uphold the respect and decency that has come to be known of our federal, scientific and public health workforce and leaders. and today we will be hearing from one of these individuals. for nearly a year the select subcommittee has been reviewing your conduct and what we have found is deeply troubling to me. and internal documents he produced to the select subcommittee, on multiple occasions you eat eluded to the dilution of official e-mails,

and act that likely constitutes the federal records infrequently you blurred the line between your official duties and your personal viewpoints including by communicating about official business on your personal e-mail address with individuals who have pending interests before your agency. and by representing yourself as a federal official on your personal e-mail corresponded and while it is not a violation of the law to do so, you disparaged other members of the scientific community with language that is unbecoming of a representative of the federal government. what troubles me most about your conduct is the extent to which it is so willingly betrayed decades of dedication, diligence and decorum from the thousands of federal scientists and public health workers who came before you, who served alongside you

and who will serve on into the future and that is why appropriate accountability for your actions as appropriate. it is not antiscience to hold you accountable for denying the public's trust and misusing official resources. to the contrary, taking the misconduct seriously is about ensuring that americans, myself included, can continue to expect the highest degree of professionalism from the premier scientific institutions as we have since their inception. with all that in mind, i want to take a moment to make sure the record is clear on one thing at the outset of this hearing. accountability for instances of misconduct is essential to ensure the public's trust in the federal institutions and the use of taxpayer dollars. the testimony today is not a breakthrough moment and actually understanding the actual origins of the covid-19 pandemic. because the fact of the matter is that as of today the origins

of the novel coronavirus remain inconclusive be they in a lab or nature. now before we hear from the witness, let me just conclude by saying it is my hope that today you will offer some humility and remorse for your actions which are a stain on the legacy of the colleagues throughout the federal government at the same time it is my hope that the members of the select subcommittee while appropriately critical of your actions will treat you with the same decency and respect that we expected of you as a federal employee and a steward of the public trust so let us model the same behavior today that we've come to expect.

thank you and i yield back. >> the witness today is doctor david a senior scientific advisor to the director of the national institute of allergy and infectious disease pursuant to the committee on oversight and accountability rule 9g the witness will please stand and raise his right hand. do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony that you are about to give us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god? >> thank you. let the record show that the witness answered in the affirmative. the select subcommittee certainly appreciates you for being here today to the committee practice appearing before the committee are given the opportunity to make initial presentation summarizing the

testimony after opening statements by the chair and ranking member, which we've just done. it is our understanding through your council that you declined to provide an opening statement. is that correct? >> let the record reflect that the witnesses declined the opportunity to provide an opening statement and we will therefore proceed directly with member questions. i now recognize myself for questions. on january 18th, you sat for a transcribed interview with us and applied to the testimony and if you made false statements you can be subject to criminal prosecution. do you recall that? >> [inaudible] >> your microphone is not on. >> do i keep it on? >> whenever you're talking.

>> i think what you are referring to is telling me that even though i wasn't under oath i was bound to tell the truth. is that what you said? >> yes and could be subject to criminal prosecution. >> you told me that. today you are under oath and we will be comparing your statement to those you gave previously. the majority of my questions today will be a simple yes or no. did you ever send information related to covid-19 to doctor fauci's personal e-mail? >> i don't remember if i did. i may have, but i certainly told him some things that he asked me to tell him about the situation with peter. >> thank you.

may 13, 2021, you wrote you connected a reporter to doctor fauci via your secret back channel. what back channel did you have for doctor fauci? >> all these terms like secret back channel and the other one you mentioned were just jokes. jokes that i made because there were death threats and he was very depressed and it was sort of the group of people trying to cheer him up by making jokes and euphemisms that were not true but there was no back channel. the back channel was the fact that it applies to everybody. and may i say -- >> which is what? >> he doesn't want me to connect anybody to him directly.

with one exception a couple of weeks ago, i never did, but the back channel was within government where if somebody wanted to talk with tony i would tell them we have a regular process here called oee a.m., office of director group, the inner circle, and of the request to do something would be to talk to tony or give a talk would go to this group and they would meet in person every morning and say we've got a message that samanta so wants to talk with you were wants something from you and then he would decide usually right there. i was usually never involved in that. at least not in recent years. i used to go to the meetings many years ago. >> so that is a channel you are referring to. >> it's not really a back channel, but making starkey channels it's a well-established still functioning channel, i

guess it is still functioning but before i was put on administrative leave, that channel was still operating outo the way things were done. >> there was a connection and a couple of weeks ago that you did not do. what was that? >> i don't remember the details, but i think it was somebody, maybe jerry who was a former institute director that wanted to talk to tony and he used to be a director. he knows tony personally, and i think i said something like you can talk to him directly. you don't have to go through me. >> in addition to your e-mail, do you also have a proton account? >> i do, yes. >> january 18th you testified to that you did not conduct official business via personal e-mail. did you ever conduct official business on your personal

e-mail? >> i didn't do anything that i thought was official business. i understand now that there is some discrepancy between what i thought and between what you all may think is official business, but may i back up and tell you about this whole gmail thing and record destruction seems to be the most important thing you're interested in and rightfully so. i've had a gmail account for many years and i don't know how long i've had a proton account, but it's been a while. i almost never use the proton account, but i did use the gmail account. and also i should say that going back to at least 2010, i'm sorry, going back to at least 2013 and possibly to 2010, the people in my institute put one

icon on my government phone in which e-mails and gmail's refused that is to say i have a blue icon and if i got mail, every morning i would get up and do e-mails, open up knowing they refused but i didn't think it was a problem because i could usually tell whether the melee was looking at was gmail or government mail and i also knew how to go into my phone and do a few clicks and things to find out if i needed to find out where i could go to my gmail on a computer where there wasn't that fusion. so, anyway, there is a long-standing problem with fusion of gmail and e-mail. >> i would tell you i can understand that. i have mono official e-mail on a separate phone that are fused or i can separate them, but not my

official ones and that doesn't account for telling people that you're doing official business with that they should contact you on your gmail. and especially to avoid and be able to potentially delete you don't want anything in "the new york times" which was your comment. january 18 you testified know if you ever deleted anything from your official account that could be considered a federal record. are you aware that the distraction or attempt of destruction and federal records carries punishment of both imprisonment and a fine box. >> i was not aware of that or that anything i deleted with a federal record because we have a federal records training periodically and the training that i recall we received defiant at the federal record in a very different way than you may be thinking of and none of

it defines an e-mail. >> that may be something to look into what your training looks like when it comes to the records because it is far different than mine. on october 5, 2021, you wrote i just got news that and e-mail was picked up send saying tony commented that he was brain-dead. i deleted the e-mail but i now learned that every e-mail i ever got since 1998 is captured and will be turned over whether or not instantly deleted. june 8th, 2021 you wrote. peter e-mailed me on standing up for science. that e-mail fell into the hands of the congressman and someone who didn't deleted as i did delete all the e-mails and others related to origin. mine was erased long ago. i verified that today and i feel

pretty sure tony's was two. doctor, did you ever delete or attempt to delete a federal record? >> no, but let me explain why it seems to be discrepant. you can't delete an e-mail from nih, from an nih computer system. they are retained and can be accessed for any purpose. i don't know what they normally do whether it is required and whether how far back they go, but it's my understanding that if they want to, they can go back all the way to the beginning maybe even to i came to nih in 1998 and at that time when we came to the end in 1998, we were instructed to delete e-mails and move into the files frequently because they jam at the computer so i got into the habit of every morning looking

at all my e-mails and when i say e-mail, i mean, nih, looking at the e-mails and some of them can be dispensed with quickly. other ones that i would need to keep or thought i might keep would be moving to a file so my inbox wouldn't crash. and i must say based on my understanding of what a federal record was, i truly don't think i've ever seen a record and 26 years of being at nih. and if i'm wrong about that, i apologize because it never dawned on me. i tried. i've done work at the national archives and at one point, about ten or 15 years ago i contacted a record person and said i have some documents that could be something the national archives would want and she said i don't think so. you can destroy it.

i didn't destroy it. i still have it. >> there's a difference between the federal archives and your day-to-day work as a federal employee employed by the american people. you seem to know a lot. you investigated and talked to the people that implement and you need to know if you didn't that it is a federal offense if you even attempt to delete something that would be considered for the federal record. i now recognize the ranking member for california for five minutes of questions. thank you. when i was named ranking member of the select subcommittee, i made a commitment to keep an open mind about how the pandemic started because understanding whether the novel coronavirus emerged from the lab or nature is essential to better preparing for public health threats and to better protecting the american people. unless and until we see specific

evidence on the origins, the scientific process requires that we examine all possible hypotheses with objectivity which is why i have concerns that you appear to have frequently denigrated and dismissed the gravity of this process. e-mails and this committee you described laboratory related origin theories as conspiracy theories and have said that considering of the theories as, quote on quote, wasting time" on quote, being crazy. while you have every right to evaluate the available evidence and at the origins of the novel coronavirus, the maligning of other viewpoints by someone in your possession undermines scientific discourse and reflects poorly on the research institution in which you serve. for the record i want to make it abundantly clear that the democrats take seriously the charge of examining the various pathways by which it came to be including the possibility that it emerged from land.

it is not our position that thoughtfully and objectively exploring these possibilities is, quote on quote, wasting time or being crazy. in fact, two of the six agencies instructed by president biden to take an objective look has found one with low confidence into the other with moderate confidence that it could have possibly been a lab leak. let me remind everybody that four of the others with low confidence believe that it came from animal transmission so it is still inconclusive. but to the contrary, it is in the advancement of ensuring that the nation into the global community or in the strongest position to prevent and prepare for future novel virus and pandemics. so, with that in mind, let me ask you is it your view today that all laboratory related origin theories are conspiracy theories? >> no, sir. >> and is it your view that a

evaluating the fear he is wasting time and being crazy? >> no. >> can i ask what has changed your perspective on these matters? >> i don't think my perspective has changed and i discussed this in my previous -- >> referring to thinking they are crazy or a waste of time. has that changed or do you see them as crazy? >> they were made when i was thinking i was sort of communicating in private off the government record. not as a government employee that has a private citizen. and it was the same thing of dealing with peter and these people into being snarky and a sort of making, you know it was the coin of the realm to cheer her up with the comments you often profane comments. i apologize. i shouldn't do that and i never thought it would be entered and put forward in front of the american people. i shouldn't have done that obviously. i recognize that. i was trying to help a friend by

cheering him up with humor and things like that. i never thought it was crazy. i did believe from very early on the evidence suggested that the virus arose from that and the evidence also suggested to me the possibility of a lab leak or engineering was extraordinarily low. but if anybody, a reasonable person thought were disagreed with me and thought that it merited further investigation, it should. i'm only one scientist. there's other scientist and public officials that want to understand all this. of course if there is a reasonable belief out in the public domain that a lab leak occurred, efforts to find evidence of that should continue. >> an important aspect is acknowledging what the available evidence does and does not show us so i want to be clear that

while i maintain an open mind to the possibilities that we have come to be, no evidence provided to the select committee through the probe and federally funded research has demonstrated that the work performed under the grant to the eco- health alliance including the institute led to the creation of sars covid to give you the select subcommittee possesses no evidence demonstrating that any of the viruses studied under the grant could even possibly have been the progenitor virus. with six months remaining it is my hope that we take an objective forward-looking approach to understanding covid-19's origins and with that, i think you and yield back. >> the gentleman from new york for five minutes of questions. >> you used your personal e-mail to conduct open show business and a shared of nonpublic information with eco- health and organization vying for federal

dollars from your agency. given your position and experience, you knew this was against regulations and indicated in many of the e-mails in your personal gmail. can you explain why you chose to bypass official channels and how do you justify that? >> let me go back to the very beginning. in early 2020, peter who's been a personal friend of mine for almost 20 years i've had a government interactions with him that would be on my e-mail that almost all my interactions with him for years have been personal as a friend. and suddenly he was getting credible death threats and his wife and two daughters were getting credible death threats. the fbi was investigating if they were publishing these threats.

they were marching outside his house and sending threatening things. a powder envelope was mailed to him and it just freaked everybody out. >> why did you choose to use personal e-mail? >> because that wasn't private business. what happened to a citizen in the situation is not a government business. >> it is government business if you are advising him, advocating on his behalf, editing things, letters that he wanted to send, you did all that on personal e-mail, correct? >> i don't remember, but if i did i shouldn't have done that. >> it is wrong and why we are asking the question because you were using it for official business and that's what we are trying to understand is why were you trying to hide this from members of congress, the government, should it have been a freedom of information law it does seem you have a cozy relationship you indicated he was a good friend.

after nih was awarded a $7.5 million grant to the eco- health alliance, you wrote to him and asked do i get a kickback? too much money. you deserve it all? let's discuss. would you like to explain? >> that's typical humor between people like peter and other folks that show up in these e-mails. >> and he responded saying thanks to the kind words and of course there's a kickback, period. you think that's appropriate behavior between nih, somebody that works to guarantee that just received $7.5 million from the government? my question before i ran out of time is have you ever received any compensation from peter or

eco- health? >> no. >> have you received compensation from any entity outside of your employer? >> i don't know what the definition of compensate -- >> you have a pension, not government related. i'm asking specifically because you have to ask that question when you put it in writing asking for a kickback. >> there's two parts to the question. let me answer. all this stuff was a bunch of snarky jokes and i think, you would know, we all knew that. >> you must think it's a funny joke and you are representing the united states government and an agency and asking guarantee do i get a kickback. let's discuss. so i'm going to ask one more time, mind you are under oath, did you ever receive any money from peter, eco- health or

anybody else outside of your employer or the federal government directly? >> no with of the exception of after i joined i had a private corporation and which i used to do consulting and i realized there would always be a conflict and that corporation has been silent for 20 years now. no income. >> thank you very much. >> and may i say one more thing. i've already apologized for making snarky and profane comments, but i made them thinking that they were made on my private e-mail in a manner that was just between a small group of friends and would never end up extended. it's embarrassing. i shouldn't have done it but i accept that i did. i don't know what to say except that i'm sorry.

>> thank you. ms. dingle from michigan for five minutes of questions. >> thank you mr. chairman. i have to say something. for 15 months under the guise of investigating the pandemic's origin, my republican colleagues have been probing our federal scientific and public health institutions. while the republican probe is not meaningfully, right now at this point we haven't meaningfully advanced the understanding or the origin of sars covid two. i do believe that people are always looking for them partisan instead of taking it seriously looking at the ways in which the virus could have emerged in a lab were nature and of the the investigation has been about trying to blame for the pandemic. but to be perfectly clear, i

take seriously the allegations among write the position of the nih e-mail records. i have your statements in the e-mail for the freedom of freedom ofinformation act are d. very concerning. you say in your answering of the questions that you did it out of humor but i don't think you use black humor to hide of the comments were trying to do on personal e-mail. conduct shows a blatant disregard for accountability to the taxpayers and quite frankly, it really is disturbing. do you realize that there are thousands of employees who have worked alongside you who are now

dealing with the ramifications of your misconduct and its impact on the agencies? >> that is very bothersome to me and of almost everything happening, i really regret that. i'm loyal to nih. they've been good to me and i have nothing to say about the system that i may have brought embarrassment to them by my actions and statements is just something that i'm very ashamed of. i can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. >> i just hope you're going to be very careful as you are telling us because i'm very disturbed by other people that may be thrown under the bus and some of the statements that you've made on your personal statement and that you take accountability and don't lay blame on people who it's hard

for us to get to the truth. maybe that's the way for us to say it. >> i'm here to answer your questions and tell the truth and any question you want to ask i will do my best to answer to the fullest of my knowledge. >> i'm just going to close here and say the nih at the national records administration have taken to investigate these matters and i share my colleague's desire for expeditious completion of the evaluations and appropriate next steps to hold you accountable. but in the meantime, i want everyone to keep in mind although federal officials somehow sparked the pandemic there simply is no evidence of it. this critical distinction as i've said in recent hearings i will always support holding

federal guarantees and public service to the highest standards of professional integrity. but i worry that we are once again blurring the lines between professional misconduct and a separate question of the origins of covid-19. and i hope we do not complete these issues and i hope what you've done has significantly contributed to that. thank you and i yield back. >> the chairman of the full committee from kentucky for five minutes for questions. >> thank you mr. chairman. may 16th regarding some of your e-mails and avoiding the freedom of information act and i'm sure as you've already testified you are aware that the leading federal records is a crime and you previously testified that you did not delete any federal records but february 204th, 2021 you wrote, quote a letter to make letters disappear after, so

i think we are all safe. plus i believe most of those earlier e-mails after sending them to gmail" and the next day february 205th, 2021 you wrote, but i learned the tricks last year from an old friend who heads the office and also hates. yes or no, is march 4th -- >> she's retired since then. >> did the nih office instruct you on how to delete the e-mails or avoided? >> no. >> another scientist wrote david is concerned about the privacy of the tax and other messages from a cell phone to you and me because he's been using a government phone. this came from tony. did you ever have any conversations with doctor fauci regarding using personal phone

or e-mail to communicate? >> i don't remember, it is possible. i probably would have remembered. >> he and i usually never talked about the kind of stuff it would be very unusual if it happened. >> january 18th you testified that you did not have any conversations regarding eco- health. october 205th, 2021, you wrote peter from tony's recent comments to me they are trying to protect you you meaning eco- health. did you ever have any conversations regarding eco- health? >> the ones you just mentioned i don't have any recollection of that. let me just say what i do remember is one time in a face-to-face meeting he referred or eat eluded to some stuff in the press i don't even think he

said what it was but it was about peter's grants and courts and of the ending of the grants and i said to him out of the blue thinking i said to him you never would have been involved in getting rid of that grant and he just sort of looked at me and said he was always a big defender of eco- health and the right to receive federal funding i can't speak for him i think he had great respect for them and the problems. i just thought of something that i forgot to say. at some point, somebody it may not have been tony, somebody

said to me peter is his own worst enemy because he made some mistakes on the grant. >> i would say that is a factual statement. you wrote doctor fauci is too smart sending stuff that could cause trouble. june 16 you wrote we are smart enough to know to never have smoking guns and if we wouldn't put them in e-mails and if we found them we would delete them. did you ever have conversations regarding the leading e-mails? >> i don't remember any such thing. tony and i don't have those kind of conversations. did you ever delete any official records? >> not to my knowledge but we are defining the federal records on a lot of e-mails and in

response to my questions he said he absolutely agreed with every action taken in eco- health and over the past two weeks both had been suspended from receiving federal funding and proposed the environment. do you agree with the actions i don't know the details i've never seen the grant i can't really speak to that but i can say i've known him for almost 20 years and in my personal opinion he's been an honorable and decent -- have you had conversations about this recent suspension? >> not a conversation i knew about it. he sent me an e-mail. >> so it occurred over e-mail. you communicated via e-mail about the disbarment? >> not nih.

he doesn't ascend -- he was sending stuff a long time and i kept telling him don't do that and that's how this started he sent me in 2020 a message on my government e-mail, and i forget what it was. maybe i never knew what it was but eventually it was. peter contacted me and said what brand you are i send you personal stuff and it ends up in the newspaper. that struck me. that was a personal turn for me because he was under death threats. >> i get it. if i may, one last. have you had any conversations about this suspension, yes or no? >> the suspension? >> the suspension of the disbarment?

>> he sent me an e-mail -- >> an e-mail is a conversation, a conversation via e-mail. you had a conversation via e-mail. >> if you call it a conversation, yes. we didn't talk about it. he sent it to me whether i read it or not. >> thank you. now ms. ross from north carolina for five minutes of questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i really take very seriously these allegations of misconduct and the unauthorized disposition of records your blatant disregard for transparency obligations and the manner in which you conducted yourself including disparaging language toward others of differing perspectives. not only calling into question your judgment, but also your character. and on a larger scale, they inflict damage on public trust

for the entire public enterprise. because you don't, when you work for the federal government, you are not just working for yourself. you're working for the people and with your colleagues. >> since the start of the pandemic we have seen a decline in the public's confidence in the science and public health. one study conducted by the pew research center found that between april, 2020 and october, 2023, the number of americans who reported that they had a great deal of trust in scientists fell by 16% from 39% to 23%. and while proliferation of misinformation about covid-19 covid-19 iscertainly fueled thi, when the american public sees that one of the federal government's own scientists was potentially trying to hide the work related conversations from

the public by using a personal e-mail that would only lead to further distrust in the nation's scientific community. and this decline in the confidence of the enterprise has rippled and had health effects that we are seeing even now. for example, we have seen the effect of the distrust in science specifically within our vaccine record. a recent survey from the public policy center found that the proportion of respondents who did not believe in vaccines that are approved in the united states doubled from, nearly doubled from 9% to 16% between april, 2021 and the fall of 23. and with new variance of the coronavirus, people are getting their booster shot. as we hold today's hearing, the

united states is at the precipice of losing the measles elimination status due to repeated outbreaks of the disease that propped up against the country from florida to ohio to missouri to california. this is especially concerning his 250,000 kindergartners nationwide haven't received their updated measles immunization leaving them unprotected from this deadly disease. that is not your fault. when people don't trust scientists, they don't trust the science. you've answered this question in another way but do you agree that your conduct as a scientist working for the federal government betrays the highest ethical standards that are expected of you and are expected to maintain the trust of the american people?

>> that is a civil statement and let me answer by saying i've always thought of myself as an ethical person. it's important for me to tell the truth and do decent things and that's why i stuck my head up to defend him when he was under death threats. obviously, and i thought all these things i was doing that were on my private e-mail were outside of the domain of my of joel's job as private citizen. but i've obviously made mistakes. i've mixed up e-mails and that's caused me to do the things you've mentioned, bring discredit upon myself and the government. i don't know what to say. i've apologized. i regret it. i wish i could take it back, but i can't. >> it is imperative for the american public to trust the community to best protect. we have seen in real-time the

consequences when trust declines. as members of the select subcommittee, it is critically important that we worked to rebuild that trust in public health and science. your actions have not helped these efforts. thank you, and i yield back. >> doctor miller meeks from ohio. >> thank you mr. chairman and i think you were testifying before the select subcommittee this afternoon and if i can i'm just going to follow up for a question asked in reference to whether you received any funding or money in relationship to the amount of funding going to an eco- health grant so to expand on that, did you receive any gift or anything of value during that exchange?

>> i shouldn't mention his name, it doesn't matter. the eco- health people have their own and i made a comment that's a really cool hat and they said i have an extra one. thank you for that. and i can understand how difficult it is for you to be here. you had an illustrative career and went to undergrad and medical school at a very prestigious university. your dual board certified which is not an easy thing to do to have the dual certification. as a public health servant you had been on the forefront such as the system and the disease can you tell us very briefly how

difficult is it to get into medical school especially in the 70s and 80s? >> i don't know. is it easy to get into that school? is it easy to get into medical school? >> it was never easy and for someone like me when i applied to medical school, the only science course i ever had was ninth grade general biology. >> do you know what alpha omega alpha is? >> i believe that is an honorary fraternity were society for medical students. >> national medical honor society. is it easy to get into? >> i don't believe it is. >> is it more prestigious in the third or fourth year? >> i don't know. >> do you know what a kilt is? >> yes, like a scottish kilt? yes. >> and do you know [inaudible] >> say it again? >> it's a roman garb such as

roman soldiers where sort of like a skirt. >> i don't think i know that word. >> i left home at 16 to put myself through medical school. i was the last person that entered my class at the university of texas in 82, the last person by the third year i was 12 out of 214 students in the third year. i think merit is extraordinarily important. it is a skirt, a kilt is a skirt. i don't think william wallace was any less a hero because he wore a kilt nor do i think roman soldiers were any less fierce, intelligent or strategic because they were a skirt. now although i have had differences, political and a scientific differences, i have disagreed with her on infection acquired immunity and foreclosures and the lack of

transparency. i am having a hard time understanding why in the 2020 when i would have expected it when i was in medical school in 1982, but why in 2021, and i understand the embarrassment of having personal e-mails shared while you were doing work related stuff on your personal e-mails that you would have commented in an e-mail doctor fauci got wilensky director by lobbying for her to run claim. well, she does wear a skirt. i poured a little cold water on her but she was undeterred and thinking she was the catch of the camera. so, let me just say in my the cat's pajamas? do you know how many women sit on the subcommittee? do you know what it takes to get elected to congress? because i find your comments to be disgusting. you had an illustrative career, and amazing track to get to where you are, trusted with one

of the highest positions in government to combat public health crisis and instead of doing your job you are too busy worrying about avoiding and challenging someone's position because they happen to wear a skirt. the american people deserve a whole lot better than their public servants. we don't need to worry about you trying to avoid or with the quality of your mattress is quite frankly, sir. you should be ashamed of your character and i'm glad you are and you should in fact apologized to the subcommittee, to congress and to the nation. with that, i yield. >> i apologize to you into the committee. it's a misogynistic statement, and it was the same snarky joking stuff but let me say -- >> that's not a snarky joke that is an underling to behavior that indicates how you approach women and how you think of women and it's disgusting. >> now from hawaii for five minutes of questions. >> thank you mr. chair. i want to echo my colleagues

sentiment that your behavior and mishandling of federal records into disregard for transparency obligations under the freedom of information act are an affront to the taxpayers whose country visions fund this federal government. and to whom we are all accountable including yourself. but in addition they cast a shadow on the legacy of the millions of federal workers who share and respectfully day in and day out. it's committed to serving the nation responsibly under the care that it deserves. so let me ask you do you feel any remorse for the way in which you handled the federal record that has been reflected on the members of the federal workforce. i'm sorry i'm getting a little

echo here how it has reflected on the federal workforce that serves alongside of you can do youapologize for betraying your shared obligation serving the american taxpayers with utmost respect for transparency and accountability that you flood americans down? will you apologize for that? >> i wouldn't use the word betray. i've let them down. most of it was inadvertent making poor choices and not understanding all the rules and regulations, but betrayal suggests a conscious act, and i never did that. i have great respect for the

federal workforce. i've been in federal government employment for 48 consecutive years with lots of accolades and i've never had a hint of scandal. >> are you saying you're proud of your behavior? >> some of the behavior reflected here today in terms of comments whether it be an unofficial or non-official e-mail are you proud of this behavior and is it up to the standards of the federal government and what taxpayers deserve? should be a bit of a betrayal to the public that once you take an oath to to make sure that you upheld actions or decisions, your comments? >> we will agree to disagree. i'm also disappointed that someone in your position has taken a such a brazen approach to blurring the line between your official duties and personal communications as has been discussed. for example, in the personal e-mail correspondence including your e-mail signature, so this is not something unintentional, you identify yourself with the role and frequently reference

the official e-mail address to the personal address including with discussing matters where it's actively engaged. in doing so, you are blurring the line between whether you have actions in your official capacity with federal agency or an individual capacity pursuant to your personal interest. did you ever conduct government business through your personal e-mail account? >> not intentionally. his gimmick unintentionally or not, didn't you conduct government business through your personal e-mail account? >> some of the e-mails that have been provided look pretty incriminating. i don't know what they are. but yes it looks like i made a mistake on more than one occasion but it certainly wasn't my intention to do that. >> mistake or not, i'm running out of time. you are admitting that you did official government business to the personal e-mail from what you have -- >> i don't know what your definition of --

>> what you've heard today what you consider that to be official government business in your personal account? >> i don't know. i would have to look at all the e-mails. >> it seems like in the discussion here it sounds like you would agree that you've conducted business for your personal account. did you ever refuse official resources or take contrary actions to the official policies or positions? >> i'm sorry i'm getting feedback. >> did you ever miss use of visual resources to advance your personal interest or take actions that were contrary to the official position? >> i'm not sure that i know what that means. >> did you miss use resources? did you ever take contrary opinions? >> contrary opinions. clearly we have some miscommunications here. but a similar to my colleagues on the dais, i do believe you

owe an apology and you have given one to the federal workforce, but the bottom line is all americans and all taxpayers deserve an apology for your actions, the way you've conducted yourself within the professional manner and your personal correspondence as well and with that, i will yield back. .. did you use personal e-mail for official business? your answer was i did not think it was during official business. just now you said not intentionally. let me read some of the e-mails. the first e-mail from you says ps i forgot to say there is don't worry about phoria. i can send the stuff to tony on his private e-mail or hand it to him at work or at his house. it's too smart to let colleagues

send him stuff that could cause trouble. next e-mail from you it said i suggested arthur try to interview tony, meaning tony fauci directly connected him to our secret back channel. he e-mailed tony a few hours ago. next e-mail from you. i forgot to clarify in my e-mail yesterday both my gmail and phone calls are now safe, text as not it can be avoided. as can mark government e-mail. so you and peter and others should be able to e-mail me on gmail only with the caveat no other government employee is copied at a government address all government e-mails are potential foia. next e-mail from you this is sent from a gmail account please send all replies here to gmail.

there are things i cannot say except tony is aware i have learned their ongoing efforts within nih to steer through this minimal damage to you and id. next e-mail, gerry my private gmail account is where i sent this from after forwarding to myself or my nih account. please try to sent only to my gmail we are doing a couple weeks ago but i messed up a few times and sent them from my nih account because on my phone that you are merged. and then you respond by hitting reply echoes to nih. after some recent issues i am going to try to strictly use only my gmail and these discussions. then the next e-mail i learned from our foia lady how to make

e-mails disappear before the searcher start so i think we are all safe. i deleted most of the earlier e-mails after sending them to gmail. next e-mail, with the help of it folks i went over the whole computer and phone situation. basically right gmail is safe from foia. thus it should be safe to communicate safely with you, peter, and others as long as we as my private gmail. i ask you both nothing in the larger letters cap letters get sent to me except to my gmail. sir i believe you have light here today to us to congress when you say i did not know this. i did not intentionally use my gmail, are you kidding me? do you want to change her testimony? >> no i don't.

the context there so many e-mails you mentioned i cannot even remember them all. the context is that this gmail communication thing was set up purely to deal with personal things about government business. >> , with all due respect to how can you say that when you clearly all of these e-mails were intentionally avoiding foia. you said in your own words. >> let's talk about what you mean by intentionally avoiding foia? i do not consider telling them don't send me things because they could get floyd potential he is avoiding foia. those are personal things. with respect to my nih e-mail i cannot possibly avoid foia i had no control provokes a jew use and most of these e-mails your official signature it said david

m born od, and niaid, nih for these were official. while let me say something else i did not mention this because you forwarded from your nih e-mail to your personal e-mail and he said it right in your e-mail. >> i learned only about a year ago the fusion of my gmail and my e-mail nih e-mail on my phone had another side effect and by the way i finally got it to take that off it. to get rid of that there's no more gmail, e-mail confusion. after i asked him to take it off i realized if gmail or nih e-mail came to me and i replied to it. for some reason there is a default the signature had on gmail which should something did not go out. the nih e-mail went out i don't know how to have it i didn't do

it consciously. >> sir, i just don't believe you kneel back. >> my experience i just want to say i do not know what defect or your talk about when you get an e-mail from one e-mail you have to intentionally move into another e-mail does not automatically shift over too another e-mail. >> i'm sorry i don't provokes i recognize from marilyn for five minutes of questions. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. i want to thank you and the ranking member. [laughter] if this was not laughable it would be laughable. i do not know what i am watching. i saw some of this in my office i got here a little while ago and caught the rest of it. this is a tale out of some sort of movie and i am not trying to particularly characterize you except i cannot define it. you seem to be here, they are,

and everywhere on these questions. i am trying to get what your testimony is here to this body other than i do not know, i do not remember, i am not sure. much of your personal e-mail account exchanges have been revealed as we all know fight media outlets across the country in recent months. many more been turned over too this select committee. it appears you, your self did not even follow your own guidance. at least that is what i have come to believe here. you conflated personal and professional matters on both your official in your personal e-mail accounts, that is correct, isn't it? >> all not exactly what the word conflated means. mix them up is that what that means? i tried to take the fifth amendment? you don't seem to remember

anything. i find that amazing. something does not seem right here it is very unsettling to me and obviously to members of this committee we believe every grant applicant should have full and fair consideration that is consistent with federal guidelines. i am not sure that has occurred i do not know what to make of this. so the ask usage or under oath what is it you want this committee to know about so many allegations that have been sent your way? >> i want this committee to know however many mistakes i made however bad they were i was trying to do the right thing. i at a friend a personal friend who was in danger of being a murderer and his family being murdered. everything centered around that. i did what i could do and pretty soon the gmail thing which i

thought was desirable and illegal getting personal stuff. >> sir, you lost me. what does a friend of yours who was close to being murdered have to do with the way you performed your duties. except i don't understand your question i didn't understand your answer dealing with a friend who is close to being murdered i'm trying to connect them. >> on meat repeat might reason for telling peter and others to go to my gmail is because it peter and later some others were under death threats. anything they sent him a government e-mail could end up in the public domain and i would be responsible for making their pro is that makes sense can explain it again? >> go ahead.

>> peter contacted me in early 2020 and let me know an e-mail he had sent me for the nih e-mail ended up being published was personally embarrassing for him. as i said several times where you sending on my government e-mail? this is not government business it is your personal thing about your state of mind come about your security arrangements. your address being published. if your security arrangements are known that maybe we could do it. felt responsible for that. peter was very upset and i was upset too big. >> what else do you feel responsible for? >> pardon? >> what else you feel responsible for? >> cook some sort of getting an echo and i just.

can't turn off my microphone question. >> you are using my time. why didn't you report any of this to the ethics office. >> i don't know. i don't even know what her ethics office does. peter certainly reported it. >> i'm not worried about peter more talk about you, peter is not here. that this ethically incorrect or improper why didn't you report to the ethics office parks was being ethically improper. while he send this to one e-mail account should've gone to another one. >> are asked me whether i thought what he was doing was unethical? what i was doing is unethical? >> , you are going to be haunted by her testimony today. and it is unfortunate that it's on the record. certainly not to me and i do not

want to revealed back in time i have remaining thank you for the opportunity. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> this was your title senior advisor to national institute of infectious disease, former director doctor auntie anthony fauci. >> i think my title senior advisor to the director at direr nationalist allergy and infectious disease. >> okay. how long did you work with dr. fauci? before him? >> 26 years vaguely should also consider him a personal friend? >> and no. [laughter] he is a colleague. tony is a private guy. i've never gone out and have a beer or anything progress you mentioned peter is a personal friend for 20 years is that correct question chris from a little less but somewhere in

that range. >> okay. your statement today it still is that you did not intend to avoid avoid it? >> yes, sir. >> despite the several e-mails we have saying otherwise is that correct? >> i think it is correct. there are some elements i don't think you're being understood. >> no official business on your gmail account is that correct? >> i tried to make sure i never did official business because how each of said a few minutes ago you said you never did. he said the purpose of this was for personal. >> here's an e-mail from peter to you, attached is a single sheet with bolts explaining why doctor tabak was wrong hopefully convincing folks at nih to stop criticizing eha reporting compliance. please don't share this letter yet will edit that and get to nih by tuesday hopefully. you replied peter this is an excellent draft i will suggest

wordsmithing tweaks later today thanks for the comments you think is not official business? >> i would have to look at it. >> this is echo health. is that right? this is an organization got a government grant you are supposed to be overseeing. right? >> i do not have any cramped oversight for. >> and ih. yes nih does. you are the senior advisor to the head of? >> i have no involvement in a grandson aspects of any grants. >> sure. >> i do not know what you are referring to is a grant that was already funded or an application question. >> you not see it's a conflict of interest you to be advising summit working to get a federal grant on how they are communicating and approaching and suggesting tweets revisions? >> to be a conflict of interest as i understand it helping so.

>> is that where you gmail instead official with peter question. >> it was for a different purpose. that was for avoiding more embarrassment and dangerous to him. >> specifically say avoiding foia, correct? >> yes i guess you could say that avoiding him sending something that had nothing to do with nih business but could be for you and embarrass him. >> others and this dialogue you are the one bad apple and a whole bunch. before our last hearing the communication was peter was the whole bad apple out of a whole bunch. who is the foia lady you mention? >> i think margaret moore. >> what tips did she give you about avoiding foia? >> you gave me none but what she did say to me it was, let me back up a little bit. >> are you sure about that question we can subpoena her e-mail too.

we can call her to witness as well. make sure to click some telling it what i know and remember it is the truth as far as i know it. >> you think you are the first employee she gave advice on how to avoid foia question. >> you do not give advice on how to avoid foia progress she said she gave advice on how to avoid because that is what i said because you're lying them in tongues the truth now? >> is not lying is making a joke with peter. i said something i have a way to make it go away that was a euphemism. may i tell you what she told me? >> sure. >> i was worried as getting so many i was worried personal things were going to get into it. i went and talked to her and said how does this work? at that point in time i had no involvement. if i was going to be void the office would notify me and say do we have your permission to do

an investigation but i would say yes and that's the end of what i heard. i was a worried these personal things get caught up so i asked her how it worked? she said you don't have to worry about personal things because and there's a foia request we the office negotiate to limit the scope of what they're looking for to among other things an important step does not get in there pick what you said a comment earlier that concern me. the relationship between your organization come nih and at the health to be a lot of you said you start off this year end you said we all felt it was our job to cheer peter up. i am really concerned. peter even admitted the lesson he did not do a good job of overseeing oversight of the wuhan levitz clear government did not do a good job of overseeing echo health. to me it speaks of the culture that is at issue here you think your job of oversight is to make sure were cheering up the people

we should be overseeing thank you chairman i yield back their. >> site recognize zach mccormick from georgia for five minutes of questions but. >> thank you mr. chair. it has become apparent, i am no lawyer i'm a doctor just look in there what evidence we have what was subpoenaed and gotten it has become apparent you and many employees nih and have been stone falling an outright avoiding our subcommittees investigation. it's a violation of law is farm i am understanding it fosters a continual distrust of government and its officials and what we have been funding. last july the select subcommittee discovered initial evidence of your misconduct reported to the national archives and records administration. the national archives direction nih start investigation into your use of personal e-mails to conduct official business and the unlawful deletion of federal

records. you talk about to avoid embarrassment destine just the opposite. when the investigation began you're placed on paid administrative leave. simple terms you have been continuing to receive your salary and your benefits do not perform any official duties. as far as we have been notified you have not been subject to any discipline or accountability to this point, is that correct? >> i would say being placed on administrative leave is a discipline. because i love my job i would like to be back there doing at work and it is painful for me not to be able to work with my colleagues. may also say the investigation of me that you referred to for destroying documents exonerating me said there's no evidence i destroyed any documents. you probably have that information yourself. >> i'm not going to ask what the status of the investigation is inappropriate at this time i don't the it would be appropriate fruit on an ongoing

investigation. i hope the subcommittee receives answers in the nih for the status ofinvestigation soon whie not received. we don't think is appropriate to pay people were not able to do a job where both wasting our time. your e-mails recovered you boasted to you had a secret back channel quote unquote to communicate with dr. fauci. that is what we have seen so far but we also statements concerning nih and officer instruction on how to avoid document production to intentional misspellings of key words to avoid triggering hits and automated search inquiries in response to foia requests congressional oversight inquiries. do you deny these statements? >> i'm sorry i'm not sure i followed everything is said and also getting an echo from your side. let me turn off the microphone.

quick spent reclaim the time i am going to repeat please? thank you. we have statements concerning nih officer instruction on how to avoid documents production through intentional misspellings of keywords to avoid triggering hits on automatic search queries in response to foia request and congressional oversight inquiries. it secret back channel ways to get hold of fauci he tried to avoid queries through foia by misspellings and other things that is what we have come to the conclusion on do you deny that? >> at risk of misunderstanding here read the secret back channel joking terminology to my knowledge was never on do you deny that? >> at risk of misunderstanding here read the secret back channel joking terminology to my knowledge was never about foia. what you are going to joke about back channels to fauci and misspellings on queries, that is

a joke but not very funny to me. i'd have to see this communication it is confusing to me. i did note back to i can walk into tony's office and talk to them anytime i want to there's no need to have a back channel. i had face-to-face meetings with them all the time. the back channels and cooks you deny these statements is what you're saying? >> i think there is a mix up somewhere. >> are you deny it? >> yes i guess i do. >> we have the previous statement on foia documents here can't chairman our question as consent to sin at the documents for the record. >> of that objection for. >> based on your answer it with that lie to congress or your transcribed or are lying here today. this causes me too believe your behavior is senior scientific advisor to the director of reflects much broader nih practice which really concerns me. the select subcommittee must bring hhs and the agencies beneath it to heal in every way

possible over the final seven months of the subcommittee. i did think take want to thank the chairman to my colleagues thus far we must earn back american people's trust we must have full transparency and with that i yield. >> i'm going to take a little time to read some statements and asked more questions. she and her 18 your if you ever assist in the drafting of correspondence sent to the national institutes of health regarding eagle health determining grants for you answered no. january 18 you are asked if he ever provided advice to him regarding grant termination? you answered no. and your gmail march 29, 2001 you responded with edits to a letter he sent to the nih. on october 25, 2021 you responded you would edit eagle health press release regarding the grant termination.

april 20, 2020 respondent with edits to eagle health press release regarding termination for it on october 25, 20 to 22 t you provided with advice regarding preparing a timeline regarding eagle health late five-year report submission. the board of directors to put in a word. did you ever advise him and how to respond to nih compliance actions yes or no? >> what is the word compliance? >> did you ever advise on how to respond to nih compliance actions? >> yes, i did. told it multiple times for. >> lm asking did you ever edit a letter he sent to nih in response to a compliance action? >> i must have i don't remember

but i saw such a letter i don't know what it was but apparently i helped him do it. >> is you ever at a press release that doctor daszak and response a compliance action? >> did you ever edit a press release that dr. daszak issued in response to a compliance action? >> i don't remember it. >> did you ever advocate on behalf of dr. daszak to eagle health board of directors? >> a sent a letter to nancy green head of the board of directors essentially saying my personal knowledge of peter so wait a minute question. >> go ahead. this was in response to peter saying the board is worried about all these against me i could be five could you tell the board i'm a good person and as far as you know i'm an upstanding guy and i did that

but as a private citizen not as a representative of nih with excitement reckonings ms. green from georgia for five minutes of questions. and as far as you know i'm an upstanding guy and i did that but as a private citizen not as a representative of nih with excitement recklessness cream from georgia for five minutes of questions. dr. morens your e-mails have been quite interesting. reading them is been pretty shocking. on april 18, 2020 he wrote an e-mail saying gentoo congratulating tony standing up for science for the e-mails and up onto the hands of the congressman probably a via foia of seven who did not plead as i did delete all of peter's e-mails and others related to the origin when it started hitting the fan anyway the congressman got a copy of peter daszak from seven nih you now is to get any reply tony and i or anyone else may have sent back to peter.

mine was a race long ago i verified that today and i feel pretty sure tony's was two. the best way to avoid foia hassles is to delete all e-mails when you learn a subject is getting sensitive. in any case there's nothing here except opportunities to hassle, harass and huff and puff. he got into some opportunities also june 16, 2020 is that lawyers are dreadful and paranoia inducing. in the old days we had to do them ourselves by hand. mining and printing out thousands of e-mails coming in and going out. now they sometimes avoid it text messages to but many turned up thousands of pages of docs and most are meaningless but we all smart enough to know to never have smoking guns. and if we did we would not put them in e-mails. and if we found them, we would delete them. he wrote on february 24, 2021

you said you are right i need to be more careful part however as i mentioned once before i learned from her for your lady here how to make e-mails and disappear after i am floyd. but before the search starts so i think we're all safe. plus i deleted most of those earlier e-mails after sending them to gmail. dr. morens who is your for you lady? is it hilary clinton? >> are welcome too. >> thank you for the humor. you said about 10 things that my brain cannot keep them all in my head. i think i've answered a lot of those questions. i told you of the foyt lady was i told you what she told me. i told you i told the committee it is impossible to avoid eight foia it is impossible to destroy an nih document. an e-mail document. >> clearly because we have got your e-mails.

they are pretty shocking. i do appreciate humor as well you do receive a taxpayer paycheck. what it comes to work e-mails there's a lot of things that should have been. >> by the way if i understood understandwhat you just said, lt say a lot of government e-mails come to my gmail. stuff from cdc, my paycheck. >> this is all related to your job regardless of which e-mail account and i guess it hilary clinton had a private server as well and she put a lot of things there and somehow they disappeared. dr. kagan you also wrote on octt got news he foia picked up an e-mail i sent you think tony commented he was a brain-dead joke in the of course. however ron johnson is all over and now after me. he'll be pissed rightfully so i deleted the e-mail putting out learned every e-mail i ever got since 1998 is captured.

i will be turned over whether or not i instantly deleted it. gmail, phone, text go into scrupulously double rely on those exclusively. on july 22, 2020 this went was actually pretty interesting. i am actually a double or is it a triple martini at the moment but not sure of the amount of etoh i just port until my elbow got sore. the olive at the bottom is hard to see. no hot tub in my condo i tried to negotiate a jacuzzi they balked and i caved. in any case now that i'm divorced what good is a hot tub or jacuzzi? if i'm lucky enough to find a girlfriend i will spring for a jacuzzi up grade by one clerk don't get a mattress he'll take more of a pounding and stop working so hard. in the meantime i will work at my job of trying to make the boss look good. in the summer of 2020 covid it

was raging. i personally believe that peter daszak had a lot to do with the fact that coat covid it was raging. experimenting on viruses that turn into basically a monster that has murdered millions and millions of people is something to take very seriously. i have a more question for you. this is where your e-mail and talk about kickbacks. this was on august 27, 2020 after chocolate covering up for tony. you said of course there is a kickback then you also reference a kickback on august 27, 2020 you said do i get a kickback? too much money do you deserve it all? let's discuss. have you made any money off of eco- health come out of covid-19, and off of covid

vaccines, dr. morens? then what we talk about kickbacks? that is not a joke. you are talking about kickbacks and this is something that is very serious. as i said and millions of people died and millions of people were forced to take a vaccine they should never have to take against their will. thank you, mr. chairman. quickly recognized doctor joyce in pennsylvania for five minutes per. >> thank you chairman for convening this important hearing. over the past months, the subcommittees are testimony from dr. daszak of eco- health and nih deputy director. during that questioning of both of these witnesses it has become clear to me the nih current grant processes are in adequate to ensure the proper oversight of federal funds. dr. daszak renegotiated grant would rely on continued to work from the oakmont institute of virology. doctor tae bick confirmed nih

was unaware of this continued collaboration one certifying compliance. this means based on false statements nih and naiad nyad ae federal funding to go toward work involving the debarred will haunt institute of virology. dr. morens do you agree the nih must have a rigorous grant review process in order to ensure grants they provide are responsible use of the federal taxpayers dollars? >> yes progress you agree the stricter view processes are especially important when evaluating a grantee who is out of compliance and determine if they are still receiving funding? >> yes progress yes is the answer. on september 7, 2021 erupted dr. daszak@e-mail tout for urgent review questions raised by eco- health alliance grant proposal. you wrote, do not worry. behind the scenes nih is

sticking up for eco- health. that is a quote and proceeded to forward internal nih communications to dr. daszak. what did you mean by saying nih was sticking up for eco- health behind the scenes? >> i do not remember specifically pickwick sounds nefarious, doesn't it? >> ounce of what? >> sounds like it suspicious like it is nefarious it. it is concerning isn't it? really regularly colluding in order to promote eco- health in the nih? >> and i collude with them? what yes that is my question regards and nope it is using an unofficial e-mail address to provide grantees with nonpublic information about grant consideration consistent with nih standards and review process? >> i think what i was referring to a stop in the public domain there is newspaper stories workflows use a private e-mail to do that?

>> at one point i stopped communicate with peter and the others on anything but gmail. >> why would she do that? >> have already explained that. because things they tell me are private things could get into the public domain. it's personally editing grantee responses to nih compliance as you did with letters eco- health sent to nih consistent with nih and nyad standard compliance process? >> it is probably not. it would have to go look i don't remember progress is certainly is not do you believe using your personal e-mail and this way was consistent with nih and nyad policy question are you aware of other nih or nyad employees who also conducted official work on unofficial e-mails? >> you know, i do not know of anyone specifically. we get training on e-mails all

of the time. and in that training we are told it is a policy to try to separate them pickwick scoot did you follow that policy? >> i tried to, yes. >> we have evidence you did not follow that policy. trying to is not success. the government standards of the nih should mean following policy. do you agree it you failed to follow nih policy? >> i do agree but. >> i find this quite concerning as we look to how we move forward recognizing nih standards and nih policies were failed. i think your testimony here today continues to affirm to us nih policies have dismally failed when it came to covid-19. mr. chairman i thank you for the opportunity to have this hearing and not yield the balance of my

time. >> is not the intention of this can make to throw the baby out with the bathwater. i agree with many public servants we work diligently and honestly every day and i applaud this public servants. we applaud their work. but it is clear between your transcribed interview, the actions we have seen through your e-mail your testimony today in closing i just want to say thank you for appearing before us today but that without objection all members of five legislative days within which to submit materials and additional written questions for the witnesses. which will be forwarded to the witnesses for their response if there is no further business that objection this subcommittee stands adjourned. [background noises]

[background noises] [background noises] ♪ c-span is your unfiltered view of government. funded by the cell vision companies and more including charter communications. chart is federally recognized when the best internet providers. we are just getting started. a link 100,000 miles of new infrastructure to reach those

who need it most. support c-span as a public servant along with these other television providers. giving you a front row seat to democracy. c-span's "washington journal" our life form involvement you place issues in government, politics and public policy. from washington and across the country coming up thursday morning the chair of the house freedom caucus virginia republican congressman bob goode discusses israel/hamas conflict. president trump's hush money trail and the africa center director talks about kenyan president to that u.s. this week. state of the u.s. africa relation. call for a democratic congressman a member of the foreign affairs and intelligence committee on the israel/hamas conflict.

immigration c-span "washington journal" join the conversation by at 7:00 a.m. eastern thursday morning on c-span, c-span our free mobile beta app or online at c-span.org. >> campaign 2024 coverage continues alive with that libertarian national convention as they choose the party's nominee for president and vice president beginning friday at 30 p.m. highlights include independent presidential vice president for debate former republican contender at 8:00 p.m. eastern. d then on saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern former president and presumptive republican nominee donald trump will speak before the delegates on sunday eastern announces its presidential nominee for the november election by that libertarian and national

convention, live friday at 3:30 p.m. on c-span, c spent now are free mobile video app and online@c-span.org. ♪ nonfiction book lovers c-span is a podcast for you. listen to best-selling nonfiction authors for influential interviewers on the after words podcast. on q&a wide ranging conversation with nonfiction authors and others who are making things happen. book notes a plus episodes are weekly hour-long conversations regularly feature passing authors of nonfiction books on a wide variety of topics about books a podcast takes you behind the scene of the nonfiction book publishing industry insider interviews, industry updates and bestseller list. when all of our podcast back down when the pre-c-span now app or where ever you get your podcast and on our website