>> 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 and the separate question of the origins of covid 19 and i hope the we do not conflate these issues. what you have done has significantly contributed to that. thank you and i yield back. >> i recognize the chairman of the full committee, mr. comer. >> we heard from your boss regarding your e-mails and avoiding the freedom of information act, i am sure as you already testified you are aware that deleting federal records is a crime and as you said you previously testified you did not delete federal records but on february 24th, 2020, one-year-old, quote, i learned from our foyer lady how

to make e-mail after i am foyer but before the search starts but we are also. i deleted most of those earlier e-mails after sending them to gmail end quote. the next day on february 25th, 2020, one i wrote, quote, but i learned the tricks last year from old, marge moore who heads our foyer office and also hates foyers. yes or no. 's marge moore the foyer lady you are referring to? >> she was of the time. i. he has retired since then. >> did the nih foyer office instruct you on how to delete e-mails or avoid foyer? >> no. >> october 25th, 2020, one another scientist wrote david is concerned about the privacy of text and other messages from his cell phone to you and me because he has been using a government phone. this came. did you ever have any conversations with doctor fauci regarding using personal phone

or email to communicate? >> i don't remember. it is possible. i probably wouldn't have remembered if i don't remember it. >> we usually don't talk about that kind of stuff it would be very unusual if it happened. >> on january 18th you testified that you did not have any conversations with doctor fauci regarding eco-health. on october 25, 2021, you wrote, quote, peter, from tony's numerous comments to me they are trying to protect you. you, meaning eco-health and did you ever have any conversations with doctor fauci regarding eco-health? >> the ones you just mentioned i don't have any recollection of. what i do remember is in a face-to-face meeting he referred to stuff in the press,

i don't think he said what it was but it was i assume about peter's grants and pending of the grants and i said to him out of the blue, guessing what he was really thinking, i know you never would have been involved in getting rid of that grant, he didn't respond, looked at me and -- >> doctor fauci was a big defender of eco-health and -- for their right to receive federal funding? >> i can't speak for him. i think he had great respect for them. when the grant problems came about, i think he was troubled by it. let me just -- i just thought of something i had forgotten. at some point, somebody, may not have been totally, might have been someone else,

somebody said to me peter is his own worst enemy because he say it made some mistakes on that grant. >> i would say that's a factual statement. april 21st, 2020, one euro doctor fauci's, quote, too smart to let colleagues sending stuff that could cause trouble. on june 16th, 2020, euro we are all smart to never have smoking guns and if we wouldn't put them in e-mails and up we found them we would delete them. did you ever have conversations with doctor fauci regarding deleting emails? >> i don't remember any such thing. it would be very -- tony and i don't have those kind of conversations. >> did you ever delete any official records? >> not to my knowledge, but we are at the issue of defining what is a federal record. i delayed a lot of e-mails, i do it every day but in my mind they are trivial things not related to government business. >> in response to my question,

doctor fauci agreed to every compliance action and over the past two weeks eco-health has been suspended from receiving federal funding and proposed for disbarment. you agree with those actions? >> i don't know the details. i've never seen the grant. i don't know what's in it. i can't speak to that but i can say i have known peter for almost 20 years and in my personal opinion, he's an honorable, decent -- >> have you had conversations with him about this recent suspension? >> not a conversation. i knew about it. he sent me an e-mail me an email -- >> they occurred -- you communicated via email about his disbarment? >> i should say gmail. not nih e-mail. he doesn't send, he was sending

stuff to my nhc e-mail for a long time but i kept telling him don't do that and that is how this gmail thing started. he sent me in 2020 send a message to me on my government nih e-mail and i forget what it was, maybe i never knew what it was but eventually that email was foyer so -- can i finish? eventually this e-mail was foyer did and peter contacted me, some friend you are, i sent you an e-mail with my personal stuff and it ends up in the newspaper. that really struck me. that was a turning point. he was under death threats. >> one last yes or no question. have you had any conversations about this suspension? >> the suspension? >> the disbarment, the suspension. >> not conversations but he sent me an e-mail.

>> email is a conversation, conversation via email. >> if you call it a conversation, yes. we didn't talk about it but he sent it to me and i read it or not. >> recognize miss ross from north carolina. >> thank you. david morens, i take seriously the allegations of misconduct and unauthorized disposition over nih e-mail records, your blatant disregard for transparency obligations under foia and the manner in which you conducted results including disparaging language toward others of differing perspectives, not only call into question your judgment, but also your character. on a larger scale, they inflict serious damage on public trust

for the entire scientific enterprise. when you work for the federal government, you are not just working for your self, you are working get for the people and your colleagues. since the start of the pandemic we have seen a decline in the public's confidence in science and public health. one study conducted by the pew research center found between april of 2,020 and october of 2,023 the number of americans who reported they had a great deal of trust in scientists fell from 16% from 39% to 23% and while proliferation of misinformation about covid 19 has certainly fueled this decline, when the american public sees that one of the federal government's own scientists was potentially trying to hide their work-related conversations from

the public by using a personal email, that will only lead to further distrust in our nation's scientific community. and this decline in the confident in the scientific enterprise has rippled and had health effects that we are seeing even now. for example we have seen the affect of the distrust in science specifically within our vaccine records. a recent survey of the annenberg public policy center found the proportion of respondents who did not believe in vaccines that are approved in the united states doubled, nearly doubled from 9% to 16% between april 2021 and fall of 2,023 and with new variants of the coronavirus, fewer and fewer people are getting booster shots.

as we hold today's hearing the united states is at the precipice of losing our measles elimination status due to repeated outbreaks of the disease that have popped up across the country from florida to ohio to missouri to california. this is especially concerning as 250,000 kindergartners nationwide haven't received their updated measles immunization, leaving from unprotected from this deadly disease. that is not your fault, but what i am saying is when people don't trust scientists, they don't trust the science. you 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 expected of you, and are expected to maintain the trust of the american people?

>> that to several parts statement. let me answer it by saying i have always thought of myself as an ethical person, it's important to me to tell the truth and do decent things and that is why i stuck my head up for peter when he was under death threats. i thought these things i was doing that -- my private email or private gmail were outside the domain of my official job but i have made mistakes, mixed up emails and gmails, that is caused me to bring discredit on myself and government. i don't know what to say. i apologize, i regret that. i wish i could take it back but i can't. >> thank you. it is imperative for the american public to trust the scientific community in order to best protect our nation's vulnerable.

we are seeing in real-time the consequences when trust declines. as members of the select subcommittee it is critically important that we work to rebuild that trust in public health and science. your actions have not helped these efforts. thank you and i yelled back. >> i recognize doctor miller meeks from iowa. >> thank you, david morens, for testify before the select committee. i will follow up for a question you asked by doctor malliotakis where the received funding or moneys in relationship to the amount of funding going to the eco-health grant. did you receive any gift or anything of value during that exchange? >> a guy named kevin -- i

shouldn't mention his name, doesn't matter. the eco-health people have their private baseball caps and i made a comment that that's a really cool hat and he is said i have an extra one, this one is old and has stains on it, i will just give it to you, and he didn't. >> thank you for that. i can understand how difficult it is for you to be here. you've had an illustrious career, you went to undergrad and medical school, at a prestigious university, i was on faculty at the university of michigan, you are dual board certified which is not an easy thing to do, to have dual board certification. as a public health servant and a captain in the public health service you have been on the forefront on some very important diseases both virology and other infectious diseases and autoimmune diseases such as ray's syndrome. 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. i was -- >> was it easy to get into medical school? >> it's never easy. particularly for somebody 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? >> that an honorary fraternity or society for medical students. >> national medical honor society. is it easy to get into it? >> i don't believe it is. >>'s or procedures to get in in the third year or the fourth year? >> i don't know. >> do you know what a kilt is? >> like the scottish kilt? yes. >> do you know what a jerusha's is? 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 to medical school. i was the last person in my medical class at the university of texas in 1982, the last person. by the third year i was 12214 students alpha omega alpha in the third year. i think merit is extraordinarily important. it is a kilt, it kilt is a skirt. i don't think william wallace was less a hero in scotland because he wore a kilt nor do i think roman soldiers were any less fierce, intelligent or strategic because they wore a skirt. although i have had differences, political and scientific differences with doctor wolinsky, i disagreed with her on infection of herd immunity, i disagreed with her on school closures, i've disagreed with her on lack of transparency of adverse

outcomes from covid 19 vaccines which i'm having a hard time understanding why in 2,020 one i would have expected it when i was in medical school in 1982 but why in 2,020 one, i can understand the embarrassment of having personal emails shared when you were doing work related stuff on your personal email that you would have commented in an email, doctor fauci got her her job by lobbying for her, she does wear a skirt, i poured a little cold water on her. but she's a cat pajama. let me just say, am i a cat pajama? do you know how many women sit on this subcommittee? what it takes for any of these women to get elected to congress? i find your comments to be disgusting. you had an illustrious career, an amazing track to get to where you are, you are trusted

with one of the highest positions in government to combat public health crises and instead of doing your job you are worrying about avoiding foias and challenging someone's position because they happen to wear a skirt. the american people deserve a lot better in their public servants, we don't need to worry about your trying to avoid foias, should be ashamed and you should apologize to this subcommittee, to congress and to our nation. with that i yield. >> may i apologize to you and the committee, it is a misogynistic statement, the same snarky joking stuff but let me say -- >> that's not a snarky joke, that's an underlying behavior that indicates how you approach women and how you think of women and it is disgusting. >> i recognize miss dakota from hawaii. >> i want to echo my colleagues

sentiment that your behavior and disregard for transparency obligations under the freedom of information act are an affront to the taxpayers whose contributions fund the federal government. to whom we are all accountable including your self, they cast a shadow on the legacy of the millions of federal workers who serve the public diligently and respectfully, day in and day out. your troubling misconduct is not the norm. it is essential you be held accountable for your misconduct so that the american people can remain confident their taxpayer dollars are being invested in a federal workforce that is committed to serving our nation responsibly under the care that it deserves. do you feel any remorse for the way in which you handled the federal records that have been reflected on numbers of federal workforce who you served alongside? >> i'm sorry i'm getting a little echo and i'm not sure i am hearing every word you say.

>> do you feel any remorse for the handling of federal records and out has reflected on our federal workforce that served alongside of you, just as you've done by making them look bad by your actions? >> to the extent that i -- >> yes or no, subquestion? >> i said that already. >> you apologize. >> yes i do. touche's that are workforce in which you cast a shadow over? >> yes. >> can you say that you will apologize for betraying your shared obligation of serving american taxpayers with the utmost respect for transparency and accountability, will you apologize for that? >> i would not use the word betray which i have let them down. most of it was inadvertent, making poor choices, not understanding the rules and regulations. betrayal suggests a conscious act. 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 awards and accolades and never had a hint of scandal. >> you are say you are proud of your behavior? the behavior reflected here today in terms of comments you make, whether there's official or unofficial e-mails, are you proud of this behavior? is up to the standards of the federal government? >> no. i'm not. >> a betrayal to the public you took a nose to to make sure you upheld your actions or decisions, your comments? are considered a betrayal and we will agree to disagree on this. i'm disappointed someone in your position has taken such a brazen approach of blurring the lines between blurring the lines between duties and personal communications. in your personal e-mail correspondence including your e-mails, signatures, this is not just something unintentional, you identify

yourself with your role and transfer correspondence from professionals the personal email address. in doing so, you are blurring the lines between whether you are doing actions your official capacity with a federal agency or your individual capacity pursuant to your personal interests. did you ever conduct government business through your personal email account? >> not intentionally. >> unintentionally or not, did you conduct government business through your personal e-mail account? >> some of the emails you have provided look for the incriminating. i don't know what they are. i don't remember them but it looks like i made a mistake on more than one occasion but it wasn't my intention to do that. >> i'm running short of time. you are admitting you did official government business on your personal email? from you've seen today? >> your definition of -- >> from what you have heard

today would you consider that official government business through your personal accounts? >> i don't know. i would have to look at all the e-mails. >> talking with you here, it sounds like you would agree with us that you have conducted government business on your personal account. did you ever miss use official resources to advance your personal interests or take contrary actions to official policies or positions? >> i'm getting feedback here. >> did you ever miss use official resources to advance your personal interests or take actions contrary to naiad's official position? >> i'm not sure i know what that means -- >> did you miss use resources. >> i don't think so. >> did you take contrary opinions? clearly we have some miscommunications here but similar to my colleagues on this dais i do believe you owe an apology and you have given

want to the federal workforce but bottom line is all taxpayers deserve an apology from you for your actions, the way you conducted your self in a professional matter and your personal correspondence as well as with that i yield back. >> miss lesko from arizona for 5 minutes. >> i believe earlier today you said tony, meaning tony fauci does not want me to connect anything to him. when asked by my colleagues did you use personal e-mail for official business, your answer was i didn't think i was doing official business and just now you said not intentionally. let me read some of the e-mails. the first email from you so's ps, i forgot to say there's no worry about foyers. i can either send stuff to tony on his private e-mail or hand it to him at work or at his house. is too smart to let colleagues

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

there are things i can't say except tony is aware and i have learned there are ongoing efforts within an ih to steer through this with minimal damage to you, peter, and colleagues, to the nih, next email, jerry, my private gmail account is where i sent this from after forwarding to myself from my nih account. please try to send only to my gmail as 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 the two are merged and when you respond by hitting reply it goes to nih. after some recent issues, i am going to try to strictly use only my gmail in these discussions, the next email. i learned from our foia lady here how to make emails

disappear after -- before the search starts. i think we are all safe, but i deleted most of these earlier emails after sending them to gmail. next email, with the help of our it folks, i went over the whole computer and phone situation. my gmail is safe from foia. it should be safe to communicate safely with you, peter, and others, as long as we use my private e-mail, gmail. i ask you both the nothing, in large letters gets sent to me except to my gmails. i believe you have lied here today to us, to congress when you say i didn't know this, i didn't intentionally use my gmail. are you kidding me? do you want to change your testimony? >> no i don't.

i think the the context, so many of these e-mails i can't even remember them all but the context is that this gmail communication thing was set up purely to deal with personal things that were not government business and other people -- >> without a respect, how can you say that when you clearly, all these e-mails were intentionally avoiding foyer, you said it in your own words. >> let's talk about what you mean by avoiding foyer. i don't consider that telling them don't send me things because they get foia is intentionally avoiding foyer because those are personal things. with respect to my nih e-mail i couldn't possibly avoid foia because i had no -- >> do you use in most of these emails your official signature,

it said david -- david morens, nih, these were official. >> let me tell you something else i didn't mention -- >> you forwarded from your nih e-mail to your personal e-mail and you said it writing your e-mail. email. >> i learned only a year ago that the fusion of my gmail on my email, on my phone had another side effect. i finally got aichi to take that off, to get rid of it. there is no more gmail e-mail fusion but after i asked them to take it off i realized if a gmail or nih e-mail came to me and i replied to it, for some reason there was a default where the signature i had on gmail didn't go out, but the nih e-mail went out. i don't know how that happened. i didn't do it consciously.

>> i just don't believe you and i yield back. >> in my experience i want to say i don't know what defect you are talking about, what you have to intentionally loop it to another e-mail. it doesn't automatically shift over to another email. i now recognize the gentleman from maryland for a question. >> thank you very much. i want to thank you and the ranking member. if this were not laughable it would be laughable. i don't know what i'm watching. i saw some of this in my office and got here a little while ago and caught the rest of it. david morens, this is a tale out of a movie and i'm not trying to characterize you except that i can't do you find you. you seem to be here, there and

everywhere on these questions and i'm trying to get what your testimony is here to this body other than i don't know, i don't remember, i'm not sure. bunch of your personal email account exchanges have been revealed, as we all know, by media outlets across the country in recent months, many more have been turned over to this select committee. it appears that you yourself didn't even follow your own guidance, at least that is what i have come to believe that you have conflated personal and professional matters in both your official and personal e-mail accounts. that is correct, is it? >> i don't know what the word conflated means. >> you want to take the fifth amendment? you don't seem to remember and i find that amazing.

something does not seem right. it's unsettling to me and to members of this committee. every federal grant applicant that is consistent, i'm not sure that has occurred. i don't know what to make of this. let me ask you since you are under oath what is it you want this committee to know about so many allegations send your way? >> i want this committee to know that however many mistakes i made i was trying to do the right thing. i had a friend, a personal friend who was in danger of being murdered, his family being murdered, everything centered around that. i did what i could do and then this gmail thing which i thought was desirable and

legal, getting personal stuff -- >> you lost me. what does a friend of yours who's close to being murdered have to do with the way you perform your duties? >> i don't understand your question. >> i didn't understand your answer. you said i was dealing with a friend who was close to being murdered and you went on to say something else. i'm trying to connect. >> let me repeat. my reason for telling peter and others to go to my gmail is because peter and others were under death threats and anything they sent me on my government e-mail could end up in the public domain and i would be responsible, for making their peril worse. sows - does that make sense? can i expanded again? let me go back again.

when peter contacted me in early 2020 and let me know that an email he had sent me to my government nih email had ended up being published in a journal or something and it was personally embarrassing to him, i said to him as i said several times to him why are you sending it on my government e-mail? this is not government business, this is your personal thing about your state of mind, your security arrangements, that if known, if your security arrangements are known that people are trying to kill you, could do it and i felt responsible for that so peter was very upset and i was upset too. >> what else do you feel responsible for? what else do you feel responsible for? >> i'm sorry i'm getting this echo here and i just -- can i

turn off my microphone? >> why didn't you report any of this to the ethics office? >> i don't know. i don't even know what our ethics office does but peter certainly -- >> i'm not worried about peter. i'm talking about you. peter' s not here. i just want to know if you thought this was ethically incorrect or improper why didn't you report it to the ethics office? >> you are referring to what is being ethically improper? >> you ask him why was he sending this to one e-mail account when he should've gone to another one? >> you are asking me whether i thought what he was doing was unethical? what i was doing was unethical? >> sir. i think -- it is all on the record. it doesn't make a lot of sense to many of us, certainly not to me and i don't want to carry

this on any further with any time i have remaining. i thank you for the opportunity. >> i recognize mister cloud from texas for 5 minutes of questions. >> is this correct that your title was senior advisor to national institute of allergy and infectious disease, former director doctor anthony fauci? >> my title is senior advisor to the director of national institute of allergy and infectious disease. >> how long did you work with doctor fauci? beforehand? >> 26 years. >> you would consider him a personal friend? >> no. he is a colleague, his very private guy, i've never gone out with him to have a beer or anything. >> you mentioned peter is a personal friend for 20 years. >> a little less than 20 years but somewhere in that range.

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

smithing tweaks later today. thanks for the comments, david. i will incorporate them today. do you think that's not official business? >> i would have to look at it. >> tha is echo health? >> yes. >> this is an organization who got a government grant you are supposed to be overseeing, right? >> i don't have any grant oversight. >> nih does. >> you are the senior advisor. >> i have no involvement in any grants, any aspect of any grants and i don't know whether what you are referring to is a grant that was already funded or an application. >> you don't see that it's a conflict of interest for you to be advising someone working to get a federal grant on how they are communicating and suggesting tweet outlines. >> i think would be a conflict of interest which as i understand it.

>> is that why you use email, gmail and set of official one? >> it was for a different purpose. that was for avoiding more embarrassment and danger to him. >> specifically as your emails say, avoiding foia? >> i guess you could say that. avoiding him sending something that had nothing to do with nih business that could be foia and embarrass him. >> in this dialogue that you are the one bad apple and a whole bunch, before the last hearing, the communication was peter was the one bad apple out of the whole bunch. who was the foyer lady you mentioned? >> i think marge more, margaret more. >> what tips did she give you about avoiding foia? >> he gave me not about avoiding foia, that was a joke. what she did say to me was, let me back up a little bit. >> are you sure about that? we can subpoena her email too

and call her to witness as well, make sure you are -- >> i'm telling you what i know and remember and the truth as far as i know it. when peter -- >> you think you are the first employee she gave advice how to avoid foia? >> it didn't give me advice to avoid foia. >> you said -- >> that's what i said but -- >> you were lying than the telling the truth now? >> i wasn't lying, i was making a joke with peter. it was just a euphemism. may i tell you what she told me? >> sure. >> i was worried because i was getting so many foias, personal things were going to get into it, i talked to her and said how does this work? at that time i had no involvement in foyer. if i was going to be foia, the office would notify me and say do we have your permission to do a foia investigation and i

would see yes. i was worried the personal things would get caught up in it so i asked her how it worked, she said you don't have to worry about personal things because when there's a foia request, we negotiate to limit the scope of what they are looking for to, among other things, make sure inadvertent stuff doesn't get in there. >> you made a comment that concerned me, the relationship between your organization and echo health should be one of oversight, you said to start off this hearing, we all felt it was our job to cheer peter up. i'm really concerned because peter even admitted last time that he did not do a good job of overseeing the grant that went to the wuhan lab and our government didn't do a good job overseeing echo health and to me it speaks to the culture at issue here when you think your job instead of oversight is to make sure we are cheering up the people who should be

overseeing, i yield back. >> i recognize doctor mccormick from georgia. >> it is apparent, i'm no lawyer, i'm a doctor but looking through the evidence we have and what we subpoenaed and what we've gotten it's become apparent you and many employees at nih have been stonewalling and outright avoiding our subcommittee's investigation. not only is this a violation of law but a distrust of government and its officials and what we have been funding. last july the select subcommittee discovered the initial evidence of your misconduct and reported to the national archives and records administration, the national archives direction, nih started investigation into your use of personal e-mails to conduct official business and unlawful

deletion of federal records, you talk about to avoid embarrassment, it sends the opposite. when the investigation began you were placed on paid administrative leave. and similar terms you've continued to receive your salary and your benefits but do not perform any official duties. as far as we have been notified, you've not been subject to any discipline or accountability to this point. is that correct? >> i've been placed on administrative leave, that is a discipline because i love my job and would like to be back there doing work at it is painful for me not to be able to work for my colleagues and that investigation of me you are referred to for destroying documents exonerated me and said there's no evidence i destroyed any documents. you probably have that information yourself. >> i'm not going to ask about the status of the investigation because it is inappropriate at this time and i don't think it would be appropriate for your comment on an ongoing

investigation. i hope the subcommittee receives answers from nih as to the status of the investigations soon but we've not received it because we don't think it is appropriate to pay people who weren't able to do a job at the time. e-mails recovered through foyer you boasted to doctors you had a secret back channel to communicate with doctor fauci. that is what we've seen. we also have statements concerning the nih and foia officer instruction on how to avoid document production through intentional misspelling of keywords to avoid triggering it in automated search queries in response to foia requests and congressional oversight inquiries. do you deny these statements? >> i'm not sure i followed everything you said. i'm getting a little echo from your side but let me move away, let me turn off the microphone.

>> may i reclaim the time that i repeat please. we have statements concerning the nih foia officer instruction on how to avoid documents production through intentional misspellings of keywords to avoid triggering get its automatic search where raise in response to congressional oversight inquiries. you had the secret back channel ways to get hold of fauci that you were trying to avoid queries through foia, that is what we've come to the conclusion on. do you deny that? microphone. >> i think there's some misunderstanding. the secret back channel joking terminologies my knowledge was never about foyer. >> you're going to joke about back channels to fauci and misspellings on queries, that

is a joke, not very funny to me. >> i would have to see this communication, it's confusing to me because you don't walk into tony's office and talk to many, wanted, there's no need to have a back channel. i had face-to-face meetings with him all the the time. the back channel thing -- >> you deny these statements is what you are saying? >> i think there is a mixup somewhere. >> you deny it. >> yes. >> we have you, previous statement on foia documents here, request unanimous consent to some of these documents for the record. >> without objection. >> you either lied to congress or in your transcribed interview or lying here today. this causes me to believe your behavior as senior scientific advisor to the director of, reflects much broader practice which concerns me. this select subcommittee must bring hhs and agencies in every way possible over the final

seven months of this subcommittee. i want to thank the chairman and my colleagues for their leadership, earn back america's trust and have full transparency and with her that i yield. >> i will take a little time to read some statements and ask some more questions. january 18th you are asked if you ever assisted in the drafting of correspondence to the national institutes of health regarding eco-health terminated grant. you answered no. on january 18th you are asked if you ever provided advice regarding his grant termination, you answered no. in your gmail on march 29, 2001, you responded with edits to a letter he sent to the nih. on october 25, 2021, you responded that you would edit a

press release regarding grant termination. on april 28th, 2020, you responded with edits to an eco-health press release regarding the. october 25th you provided advice regarding preparing a timeline regarding eco-health's late, 5 year reports. on december 7, 2021, you wrote to the chair of eco-health board of directors to put in a word for him. did you ever advise him on how to respond to nih compliance actions? yes or no? >> was the word to compliance action? >> did you ever advise him on how to respond to nih compliance action? >> yes, i did tell him multiple times. >> did you ever edit a letter he sent to nih in response to compliance actions? >> i don't remember it but i

saw such a letter. don't know what it was but i helped him do it. >> did you ever edit a press release that he issued in response to a compliance action? >> did i ever -- >> did you ever edit a press release in response to a compliance action? >> i don't remember it. >> did you ever advocate on behalf of him to eco-health's board of directors? >> i sent a letter to nancy greene, the head of the board of directors, essentially saying my personal knowledge of peter, should i wait a minute, this was in response to peter saying the board is worried about these accusations that i could be fired. tell the board i am a good person and as far as you know and upstanding guy and i did that but as a private citizen,

not representing nih. >> i recognize miss green from georgia. >> thank you, mr. chairman. your e-mails have been quite interesting. reading them has been pretty shocking. on april 18, 2020, you wrote an email saying get peter daszak e-mail me congratulating him on standing up for science. that email somehow fell into the hands of the congressman. probably via a foia of someone who didn't delete it as i did, and others relating to the origins, when the shit started hitting the fan. somewhat at nih, he now wants to get any reply anyone may have sent to peter.

mine was erased long ago. i verified that today and feel pretty sure tony's was too. the best way to avoid foia hassles is to delete all emails when you learn a subject is getting sensitive. in any case, there's nothing here except opportunities to hassle, harass, you got into some opportunities. you wrote on june 16, 2020, foias are dreadful, in the old days we had to do them ourselves by hand, thousands of e-mails coming in and going out. sometimes foia text messages too. many turn up thousands of pages, most are meaningless. we are all smart enough to know to never have smoking guns and if we did we wouldn't put them in e-mails and if we found them, we delete them. you wrote on february 24, 2021,

you said you were right and i need to be more careful but as i mentioned before i learned from our foia lady here how to make e-mails disappear after i am foia but before the search start so i think we are all safe, i deleted most of those earlier emails after sending them to gmail. who is your foia lady? is it hillary clinton? you are welcome. >> you said ten things as my brain can't keep them all in my head. i have answered a lot of those questions. i told you who the foia lady was and what she told me and i told the committee, it's impossible to avoid a foia, and -- >> clearly because we have your

emails and you receive a taxpayer paycheck and when it comes to work e-mails there are a lot of things that shouldn't. >> if i understood what you just said, a lot of government emails come to my gmail, stuff from the cdc, my paycheck. >> this relates to your job, and she put a lot of things there. somehow they disappeared. you also wrote on october 5, 2021, and tony commented, ron johnson is all over it and now after me. tony will be pistol rightfully so, i deleted the e-mails whatever e-mail i ever got since 1998 is captured and will

be turned over whether or not i instantly deleted it, e-mail, phone, text, i need to scrupulously rely on those exclusively. july 22, 2020, this one was interesting. i am imbibing a double or as a triple martini at the moment, not sure of the amount, i just poured until my elbow got sore. the bottom is hard to see. i tried to negotiate a jacuzzi. in any case that i'm divorced, the hot tub or the jacuzzi. if i'm lucky enough to find a girlfriend i will spring for a jacuzzi, got a mattress that will take more of a pounding and stop working so hard. to make the boss look good.

in the summer of 2020 covid was raging. i personally believe peter daszak had a lot to do with the fact that covid was raging because 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 one more question for you, talking about kickbacks. after talking about covering up for tony, you said of course there is a kickback and you referenced a kickback on august 27th, 2020, do i get a kick back? too much money, do you deserve it all, let's discuss, have you made any money off of eco-health off of covid covid vaccines? what were you talking about

with kickbacks? that is not a joke. you were talking about kickbacks. this is something that is very serious. as i said millions of people died and millions of people were forced to take a vaccine they never should have been forced to take against their will. >> doctor joyce from pennsylvania. >> thank you for convening this important hearing. the subcommittee has heard testimony from doctor daszak. during that questioning of both of these witnesses it is clear to me that the nah processes are inadequate to ensure proper oversight of federal funds. doctor daszak found they renegotiated grants to rely on continued work from the wuhan institute of virology.

and that nih was unaware of this continued collaboration certifying eco-health's compliance. this means based on false statements, nih approved federal funding to go toward work by the wind's -- wuhan institute of technology. do you agree the nih must have a regular's grant review process to ensure the grants they provide are responsible use of the federal taxpayer dollars? do you agree the strict review processes are important when evaluating a grantee who is out of compliance and determine if they are still receiving funding? >> yes. >> yes is the answer. september 7, 2021, you wrote to doctor daszak in an e-mail titled 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, proceeded to forward internal nih communications to doctor daszak. what did you mean saying the nih was sticking up for eco-health behind-the-scenes? >> don't remember specifically. >> sounds nefarious, doesn't it? it sounds suspicious. >> it does. >> it is concerning, isn't it? are you regularly colluding with daszak to promote eco-health in the nih? >> that i collude with him? now. >> using an unofficial email address to provide grantees with nonpublic information about grant considerations consistent with nih standards and review process? >> what i was referring to was stuff in the public domain. there was a newspaper story? >> why would you use a private

email? >> at one point i stopped communicating with peter and the others on anything but gmail. >> why would you do that? >> i have explained that. of the things the things they tell me that are private things to get in the public domain. >> you said it was in the public domain. personally editing responses to nih compliance efforts as you did with letters eco-health sent to nih consistent with nih standard compliance process? >> probably not. i would have to look at it. >> it certainly is not. 's do you believe using your personal email in this way was consistent with policy and are you aware of other nih employees who conducted official work on unofficial emails? >> i don't know of anybody specifically but in that

training we are told it is a policy to try to separate them. >> did you follow that policy? >> i try to. >> 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 you failed to follow nih policy? >> i do agree. >> i find this to be quite concerning as we look to how we move forward recognizing nih standards and nih policies were failed. your testimony here today continues to affirm to us that nih policies abysmally failed when it came to covid 19. thank you for the opportunity to have this hearing today and i yield the balance of my time.

>> david morens, it's not the intention of this committee to throw the baby out with the bathwater. i agree many public servants worked diligently and honestly every day and i applaud those public servants and their work. but it is clear in a transcribed interview, the actions we have seen through your email and testimony today, we have more investigating to do. in closing i want to say thank you for appearing before us today. without objection, all members have 5 legislative days 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, without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned. ..

[background noises] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> if you have missed any of c-span's coverage you can find it anytime online at c-span.org. videos of key gimmicks, debates and other events feature markers that guide you to interesting and newsworthy highlights. these points of interest markers appear on the right-hand side of your screen when you hit play on select videos. this makes it easy to quickly