[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                             A HEARING WITH
                   THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY
                        AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES
                       SENIOR SCIENTIFIC ADVISOR
                            DR. DAVID MORENS

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                     SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CORONAVIRUS 
                                 PANDEMIC

                                 OF THE

                        COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND 
                              ACCOUNTABILITY

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                              MAY 22, 2024

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-112

                               __________

  Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability
  
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]  


                       Available on: govinfo.gov,
                         oversight.house.gov or
                             docs.house.gov
                             
                               __________

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
55-828 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2024                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                              
                             
                             
                             
               COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

                    JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman

Jim Jordan, Ohio                     Jamie Raskin, Maryland, Ranking 
Mike Turner, Ohio                        Minority Member
Paul Gosar, Arizona                  Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of 
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina            Columbia
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin            Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Michael Cloud, Texas                 Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
Gary Palmer, Alabama                 Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Clay Higgins, Louisiana              Ro Khanna, California
Pete Sessions, Texas                 Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Andy Biggs, Arizona                  Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Nancy Mace, South Carolina           Katie Porter, California
Jake LaTurner, Kansas                Cori Bush, Missouri
Pat Fallon, Texas                    Shontel Brown, Ohio
Byron Donalds, Florida               Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania            Robert Garcia, California
William Timmons, South Carolina      Maxwell Frost, Florida
Tim Burchett, Tennessee              Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia      Greg Casar, Texas
Lisa McClain, Michigan               Jasmine Crockett, Texas
Lauren Boebert, Colorado             Dan Goldman, New York
Russell Fry, South Carolina          Jared Moskowitz, Florida
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida           Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
Nick Langworthy, New York            Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Eric Burlison, Missouri
Mike Waltz, Florida

                                 ------                                
                       Mark Marin, Staff Director
             Mitchell Benzine, Subcommittee Staff Director
                        Marie Policastro, Clerk

                      Contact Number: 202-225-5074

                Miles Lichtman, Minority Staff Director
                      Contact Number: 202-225-5051
                                 ------                                

            Select Subcommittee On The Coronavirus Pandemic

                     Brad Wenstrup, Ohio, Chairman
Nicole Malliotakis, New York         Raul Ruiz, California, Ranking 
Mariannette Miller-Meeks, Iowa           Minority Member
Debbie Lesko, Arizona                Debbie Dingell, Michigan
Michael Cloud, Texas                 Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
John Joyce, Pennsylvania             Deborah Ross, North Carolina
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia      Robert Garcia, California
Ronny Jackson, Texas                 Ami Bera, California
Rich Mccormick, Georgia              Jill Tokuda, Hawaii
                        
                        
                        C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              

                                                                   Page

Hearing held on May 22, 2024.....................................     1

                                Witness

                              ----------                              

David Morens, M.D., Senior Scientific Advisor, Office of the 
    Director, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
    Diseases

                           Index of Documents

                              ----------                              

Questions for the Record: to Dr. Morens; submitted by Rep. Cloud.

This document is available at: docs.house.gov.

 
                             A HEARING WITH
                   THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY
                        AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES
                       SENIOR SCIENTIFIC ADVISOR
                            DR. DAVID MORENS

                              ----------                              


                        Wednesday, May 22, 2024

                        House of Representatives

               Committee on Oversight and Accountability

            Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic

                                           Washington, D.C.

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:31 p.m., in 
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brad Wenstrup 
[Chairman of the Select Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Wenstrup, Comer, Malliotakis, 
Miller-Meeks, Lesko, Cloud, Joyce, Greene, McCormick, Ruiz, 
Dingell, Mfume, Ross, and Tokuda.
    Also present: Representatives Griffith and Castor.
    Dr. Wenstrup. The Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus 
Pandemic will come to order. I want to welcome everyone.
    At the discretion of the chair and 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 Investigations, Mr. Morgan 
Griffith and Ms. Kathy Castor, are permitted to participate in 
today's hearings for the purposes of questions and give 3-
minute opening statements if they so desire.
    Without objection, the chair may declare a recess at any 
time.
    I now recognize myself for the purpose of making an opening 
statement.
    Good afternoon, everyone. Dr. Morens, you wrote in an email 
that you have never said anything that you would not be happy 
to defend before a congressional Committee. Today serves that 
day. The Select Subcommittee has been thoroughly investigating 
the U.S. Government's response to the coronavirus pandemic. The 
years-long investigation has been conducted to both understand 
the actions of our public health agencies, institutions, and 
officials, and the actions taken so that we can learn from 
deficiencies and ingrained proficiencies. We are learning from 
experiences and developing better pathways for processes, 
responses, and new ways forward so that the next time there is 
a public health emergency, such as a pandemic, our response 
will meet the high standards the American people expect, 
deserve, and pay for. This is not McCarthyism. This is not 
Stalinesque. This is not a witch-hunt. As you, Dr. Morens and 
Dr. Daszak have so eloquently labeled it before, this is 
seeking truth, justice, and the American way.
    While conducting this investigation, the Select 
Subcommittee uncovered extremely concerning behavior by Dr. 
Anthony Fauci's senior scientific advisor and the witness 
before us today, Dr. David Morens. Accordingly, on April 16, 
2024, the Select Subcommittee announced a subpoena for Dr. 
Morens for documents related to the COVID-19 pandemic, 
specifically those found on his personal email accounts, which 
he had been using to communicate with other NIH officials and 
EcoHealth President, Dr. Peter Daszak. Government officials 
hiding from, we the people, is not the American way. The Select 
Subcommittee proceeded to conduct an extensive review of the 
communications and documents produced under subpoena by Dr. 
Morens. The information contained on these 30,000 pages of 
emails are deeply concerning and, in my opinion, reflects 
poorly upon Dr. Morens and the Office of the National Institute 
of Allergy and Infectious Disease under Dr. Fauci's leadership 
and the NIH, under Dr. Francis Collins, unfortunately.
    Today, we released a staff memo outlining the evidence 
gathered. We have evidence that Dr. Morens purposefully evaded 
public transparency required by the Freedom of Information Act 
by intentionally using a personal email account for official 
business. We have evidence that Dr. Morens unlawfully deleted 
government records and may have engaged with the NIH, FOIA 
Office--Freedom of Information Act Office--to assist this 
illegal action. We have evidence that Dr. Morens routinely 
acted as an intermediary between Dr. Daszak and Dr. Fauci, and 
we have evidence that Dr. Morens took affirmative steps to 
assist Dr. Daszak so that EcoHealth could have its grant 
reinstated after it was suspended under the Trump 
Administration and approved by NIH leadership.
    Dr. Morens, it, unfortunately, looks like you were not 
truthful in your interview with us. During that interview, you 
may not have been under oath. However, you were reminded by 
Select 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 is it in your 
emails?
    We recently had the president of EcoHealth Alliance, Dr. 
Peter Daszak, before the Select Subcommittee for a hearing, and 
we produced an extensive report outlining the wrongdoing and 
bad faith actions taken by EcoHealth and its president. Just 2 
weeks after these investigative measures took place, NIH 
recommended that EcoHealth be immediately debarred from 
receiving Federal dollars. Dr. Morens provided nonpublic 
government information to Dr. Daszak, including internal 
deliberations and communications about EcoHealth occurring at 
the highest levels of NIH. This is not just a one-way street. 
We also found that Dr. Morens disseminated information from 
EcoHealth on behalf of EcoHealth to top NIH officials. In fact, 
we even uncovered an email from Dr. Morens to Dr. Daszak asking 
if he would get a kickback after the EcoHealth grant was 
reinstated.
    After the funding to EcoHealth was paused in 2020, Dr. 
Morens advocated for them to have their Federal funding 
reinstated, assisted EcoHealth in receiving that funding, 
provided EcoHealth with nonpublic information in order to help 
get that funding reinstated, and then requested a kickback. You 
know, joking about kickback or not, the entire process is 
wholly unacceptable, and I wish that was the full extent of it, 
but it is not. Frankly, some of the documents we received from 
Dr. Morens 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 Dr. Morens acted 
inappropriately and entirely unsuitably for a member of the 
public health service who receives a taxpayer-funded paycheck.
    These are just some of the unfortunate and unprofessional 
findings the Select Subcommittee has made during our 
investigation. It is very disturbing to witness this type of 
behavior from Dr. Fauci's senior advisor, but the evidence is 
clear and overwhelming. Dr. Fauci's NIAID was, unfortunately, 
less pristine than so many, including the media would have had 
us all believe.
    You, Dr. Morens, reported directly to Dr. Fauci. You served 
as his senior advisor for more than 2 decades. Did your boss 
know about this behavior? Did he condone it? Did he try to stop 
it? Did you participate in it? That we don't know, but given 
the breadth of this investigation, we continue our work to 
ensure that we thoroughly review each document produced. No 
stone will be left unturned. Put simply, Dr. Morens, you have a 
lot to answer for. The American people that we represent 
deserve honest answers. We all do. Today, I hope we can further 
our quest for information into the government's response to 
COVID-19 and provide the American people with honest answers 
about the actions taken by personnel at the National Institutes 
of Health during this time, especially at the leadership 
levels.
    Dr. Morens, you will be sworn in today and your answers 
will be under oath, and I strongly suggest you tell the truth, 
which I'm sure I don't need to advise you on that. I will 
remind you that you are testifying today under a subpoena. The 
terms of the subpoena require 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 Ranking 
Member Ruiz for the purpose of making an opening statement.
    Dr. Ruiz. 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 a goal of promoting our scientific enterprise and 
ensuring that every American can lead the healthiest life 
possible. As an emergency physician and public health expert, I 
hold the legacy of scientific advancement to safeguard human 
health in the highest regard. And through my tenure in 
Congress, including as a member of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee's Health Subcommittee, I have championed legislation 
to invest in our Federal scientific and public health work 
force, 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 work force and leaders, and today, we will be 
hearing from one of these individuals.
    Dr. Morens, for nearly a year, the Select Subcommittee has 
been reviewing your conduct, and what we have found is deeply 
troubling to me. In internal documents you produced to the 
Select Subcommittee, you, on multiple occasions, alluded to the 
deletion of official emails, an act that likely constitutes the 
destruction of Federal records. And frequently, you blurred the 
line between your official duties and your personal viewpoints, 
including by communicating about official business on your 
personal email address with individuals who have pending 
interests before your Agency, and by representing yourself as a 
Federal official in the signature of your personal email 
correspondence. 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 Dr. Morens, is the 
extent to which it is so willingly betrays decades of 
dedication, diligence, and decorum from the thousands of 
Federal scientists and public health workers who came before 
you, who have served alongside you, and who will serve on into 
the future, and that is why appropriate accountability for your 
actions is appropriate. It is not anti-science to hold you 
accountable for defying the public's trust and misusing 
official resources. To the contrary, taking your misconduct 
seriously is about ensuring that Americans, myself included, 
can continue to expect the highest degree of professionalism 
from our premier scientific institutions, as we have since 
their inception.
    Now, 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. While accountability for instances of misconduct is 
essential to ensuring the public's continued trust in our 
Federal institutions and their use of taxpayer dollars, Dr. 
Morens' testimony today is not a breakthrough moment in 
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. And 
if the Select Subcommittee wants to actually shed a light on 
the answers to this question, then we need to take an objective 
look at all the various pathways by which SARS-CoV-2 could have 
emerged, be they in a lab or nature. Now, before we hear from 
the witness, let me just conclude by saying it is my hope, Dr. 
Morens, that today you will offer some humility and remorse for 
your actions, which are a stain on the legacy of your 
colleagues at NIAID and throughout the Federal Government. At 
the same time, it is my hope that the members of this 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 steward of the public 
trust, so let's model the same behavior here today that we have 
come to expect of our Federal work force. Thank you, and I 
yield back.
    Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you. Our witness today is Dr. David 
Morens, Senior Scientific Advisor to the Director at the 
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Pursuant 
to Committee on Oversight and Accountability Rule 9(g), the 
witness will please stand and raise his right hand.
    Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you 
are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, so help you God?
    Dr. Morens. I do.
    Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you. Let the record show that the 
witness answered in the affirmative. The Select Subcommittee 
certainly appreciates you for being here today Dr. Morens, and 
we do look forward to your testimony.
    Dr. Morens, pursuant to House rules and committee practice, 
witnesses appearing before the Select Subcommittee are given 
the opportunity to make initial presentation summarizing their 
testimony after opening statements by the Chair and Ranking 
Member, which we have just done. Dr. Morens, it is our 
understanding through your counsel that you have declined to 
provide an opening statement. Is that correct?
    Dr. Morens. Yes, sir.
    Dr. Wenstrup. OK. Let the record reflect that the witness 
has declined the opportunity to provide an opening statement. 
We will, therefore, proceed directly with Member questions, so 
I now recognize myself for questions.
    On January 18, Dr. Morens, you sat for a transcribed 
interview with us. While not sworn in, you were advised by 
counsel that Title 18, Section 1001 applied to that testimony, 
and if you made false statements, you could be subject to 
criminal prosecution. Do you recall that?
    Dr. Morens. [Inaudible].
    Dr. Wenstrup. Your microphone is not on, I don't think, 
yes.
    Dr. Morens. Do I keep it on or only when I talk?
    Dr. Wenstrup. Whenever you are talking, yes.
    Dr. Morens. OK. Sorry. 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?
    Dr. Wenstrup. Yes, and that you could be subject to 
criminal prosecution.
    Dr. Morens. Yes, you told me that.
    Dr. Wenstrup. OK. Today you are under oath, and we will be 
comparing your statements today to those you gave previously. 
The majority of my questions today will be simple ``yes'' or 
``no'' questions.
    On April 21, 2021, you wrote, ``I can either send stuff to 
Tony
    [Fauci] on his private email or hand it to him at work or 
at his house.'' Did you ever send information related to COVID-
19 to Dr. Fauci's personal email?
    Dr. Morens. 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.
    Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you. On May 13, 2021, you wrote that 
you connected a reporter to Dr. Fauci via your secret back 
channel. What back channel did you have for Dr. Fauci?
    Dr. Morens. Well, all these terms like ``secret back 
channel'' and the other one you mentioned were just jokes, 
just, you know, jokes that I made in dealing with Peter because 
he was under death threats and was very depressed. And it was 
sort of the group of people who were Peter's friends, who were 
trying to cheer him up by making snarky jokes and euphemisms 
that were, you know, not true, but there was no back channel. 
The back channel to Tony was the same one that applies to 
everybody, and may I say----
    Dr. Wenstrup. Which is?
    Dr. Morens. Huh?
    Dr. Wenstrup. Which is what?
    Dr. Morens. Well, I am going to tell you.
    Dr. Wenstrup. OK.
    Dr. Morens. Tony does not want me to connect anybody to him 
directly, and with one exception a couple of weeks ago, I never 
did. But the back channel was a regular channel within 
government where if somebody wanted to talk to Tony, I would 
tell them we have a regular process here. It is called ODAM, 
Office of Director AM Group, the inner circle, and the request 
to do something, it would be to talk to Tony or to give a talk 
or whatever, would go to this group. And they would meet in 
person with Tony every morning and say, you know, we got a 
message that so and so wants to talk to you or so and so wants 
something from you, and then he would decide, usually right 
there. I was never involved in that, at least not in recent 
years. I used to go to those meetings many years ago, but----
    Dr. Wenstrup. So, is that the channel you are referring to?
    Dr. Morens. Yes, that is the channel.
    Dr. Wenstrup. OK.
    Dr. Morens. It is not really a back channel, but I am, you 
know, making snarky comments. It is a well-established, still 
functioning channel. I guess it is still functioning, but 
certainly, before I was put on administrative leave, that 
channel was still operating, and it is the way things were 
done.
    Dr. Wenstrup. So, there was a connection you said just in 
this statement. Now, you said there was a connection a couple 
of weeks ago that you did not do. What was that?
    Dr. Morens. I don't remember the details, but I think it 
was somebody, maybe Jerry Kirsh, who is a former NIH Institute 
Director, wanted to talk to Tony, and I think I said something 
like because he used to be a Director, he knows Tony 
personally. And I think I said something like, you can just 
talk to him directly. You don't have to go through me.
    Dr. Wenstrup. OK. In addition to your Gmail, do you also 
have a Proton mail account?
    Dr. Morens. I do, yes.
    Dr. Wenstrup. On January 18, you testified that you did not 
conduct official business via personal email. Dr. Morens, did 
you ever conduct official business via your personal email?
    Dr. Morens. Well, I didn't do anything that I thought was 
official business. I understand now that there is some 
discrepancy between what I thought and what you all may think 
about what is official business. But may I back up and tell you 
about this whole Gmail thing since Gmail versus NIH email, and 
record destruction, and FOIA seems to be the most important 
thing you are interested in, and rightly so.
    I have had a Gmail account for many years, and I don't know 
how long I have had the Proton account, but it is for a while, 
which I almost never used the Proton account, but I did use the 
Gmail account. And also, I should say that going back to at 
least 2013 and possibly to 2010, the IT people in my Institute 
put one icon on my government phone in which emails and Gmails 
were fused. That is to say, I had a blue icon that said 
``mail.'' Every morning, I would get up and do email, you know, 
open up my NIH emails and Gmails, knowing they were fused. But 
I didn't think it was a problem because I could usually tell 
whether a mail I was looking at was a Gmail or a government 
mail, and I also knew how to go into my phone and do a few 
clicks and things and find out if I needed to find out, or I 
could go to my Gmail on the computer where there wasn't that 
fusion. So anyways, there is a longstanding problem with fusion 
of Gmail and email from----
    Dr. Wenstrup. Dr. Morens, I will tell you, I can understand 
that. I have non-official emails 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 are doing 
official business with that they should contact you on your 
Gmail.
    Dr. Morens. That is true. I was just----
    Dr. Wenstrup. And especially to avoid FOIA and to be able 
to potentially delete things you don't want in New York Times, 
which was your comment. On January 18, you testified ``no'' 
when asked if you ever deleted anything from your official 
account that could be considered a Federal record. Dr. Morens, 
are you aware that the destruction or attempted destruction of 
Federal records carries a potential punishment of both 
imprisonment and a fine?
    Dr. Morens. I was not aware of that, and I was not aware 
that anything I deleted, like emails, was a Federal record 
because we have Federal records training periodically, and the 
training, you know, that I recall we received defined ``a 
Federal record'' in a very different way than you may be 
thinking of, and none of it was defined as an email.
    Dr. Wenstrup. Well, that may be something to look into as 
to what your training looks like when it comes to Federal 
records because it is far different from mine. On October 5, 
2021, you wrote, ``Peter, I just got news that a FOIA picked up 
an email I sent you saying Tony commented that he was brain 
dead. I deleted that email, but I now learn that every email I 
ever got since 1998 is captured and will be turned over whether 
or not instantly deleted.'' On June 28, 2021, you wrote, 
``Peter Daszak emailed me and Tony congratulating Tony on 
standing up for science. That email fell into the hands of the 
Congressman, probably via FOIA, of someone who didn't delete 
it, as I did--as I did delete all of Peter's emails and others 
related to origin. Mine was erased long ago. I verified that 
today, and I feel pretty sure Tony's was, too.'' Dr. Morens, 
did you ever delete or attempt to delete a Federal record?
    Dr. Morens. No, but let me explain why it seems to be 
discrepant. You can't delete an email from NIH, you know, from 
an NIH computer system. They are all retained and can be 
accessed for any purpose, including FOIA. Now, I don't know 
what they normally do, whether when the FOIA is required or 
whether how far back they go or whatever, but it is my 
understanding that if they want to, they can go back all the 
way to the beginning. I came to NIH in 1998, and at that time, 
when I came there in 1998, we were instructed to delete emails 
and/or to move them into PST files frequently because they 
jammed the computer, and so I got into the habit of every 
morning, you know, looking at all my emails, and when I say 
email, I mean NIH email, looking at my NIH emails, and some of 
them can be dispensed with quickly and then just deleting them. 
Other ones that I would need to keep or thought I might keep 
would be moved into a PST file so that 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 have ever seen a Federal 
record in 26 years of being at NIH, and if I am wrong about 
that, I apologize because it just never dawned on me. I have 
done work at the National Archives, and at one point about 10 
or 15 years ago, I contacted a records person lady and said, 
you know, I have some documents that could be something the 
National Archives would want, and she said, no, I don't think 
so, you can destroy it, and I didn't destroy it. I still have 
it.
    Dr. Wenstrup. There is 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 about 
FOIA. You investigated FOIA. You talk to the people that 
implement FOIA. 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 Dr. Ruiz from California for 5 minutes of 
questions.
    Dr. Ruiz. 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 a lab or from nature is 
essential to better preventing and preparing for future public 
health threats and to better protecting the American people. 
Unless and until we see specific evidence on the origins of 
SARS-CoV-2, the scientific process requires that we examine all 
possible hypothesis with objectivity, which is why I have 
concerns, Dr. Morens, that you appear to have frequently 
denigrated and dismissed the gravity of this deductive process.
    In emails reviewed by the Select Subcommittee, you 
described laboratory-related origin theories as conspiracy 
theories and have said that considering these theories is 
``wasting time'' and ``being crazy.'' Well, you have every 
right to evaluate the available evidence and to reach your own 
conclusion regarding the origins of the novel coronavirus, but 
the maligning of other viewpoints by someone in your position 
undermines scientific discourse and reflects poorly on the 
research institution in which you serve.
    And for the record, I want to make it abundantly clear that 
Select Subcommittee Democrats take seriously the charge of 
examining the various pathways by which SARS-CoV-2 came to be, 
including the possibility that it emerged from a lab. It is not 
our position that thoughtfully and objectively exploring these 
possibilities as ``wasting time'' or ``being crazy.'' In fact, 
two of the six agencies instructed by President Biden to take 
an objective look have found, one with low confidence and the 
other with moderate confidence, that it could have possibly 
been a lab leak. But let me remind everybody, too, 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 our Nation and the 
global community are in the strongest position to prevent and 
prepare for future novel virus and pandemic.
    So Dr. Morens, with that in mind, let me ask you, is it 
your view today that all laboratory-related origin theories of 
COVID-19 are conspiracy theories?
    Dr. Morens. No, sir.
    Dr. Ruiz. And is it your view that evaluating lab-related 
origin theories is wasting time and being crazy?
    Dr. Morens. No.
    Dr. Ruiz. So, can I ask what has changed your perspective 
on these matters?
    Dr. Morens. I don't think my perspective has changed, and I 
discussed this in my previous----
    Dr. Ruiz. I am referring to thinking that they are crazy or 
a waste of time. Has that changed, or do you still think that 
they are crazy?
    Dr. Morens. Well, they were made when I was communicating 
in private, off-the-government record, not as a government 
employee, but as a private citizen. And it was the same thing 
of dealing with Peter and these people of being snarky and sort 
of making, you know, it was the coin of the realm to try to 
cheer Peter up with snarky comments and often profane comments. 
I apologize for that. I shouldn't do that, and I never thought 
it would be, you know, 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 black 
humor and things like that. I never thought it was crazy. As 
you said, I did believe from very early on that the evidence 
suggested that the virus arose from bats, and the evidence also 
suggested to me that the possibility of a lab leak or an 
engineering in the virus was extraordinarily low, but if 
anybody, a reasonable person disagreed with me and thought that 
it merited further investigation, it should. I mean, you know, 
I am only one scientist. There are other scientists. There are 
public officials who 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.
    Dr. Ruiz. Now, an important aspect of the scientific 
process is acknowledging what the available evidence does and 
does not show us. And so, I want to be clear that while I 
maintain an open mind to the various possibilities by which 
SARS-CoV-2 may have come to be, no evidence provided to the 
Select Subcommittee through our probe into federally funded 
research has demonstrated that the work performed under the 
NIAID grant to EcoHealth Alliance, including at the Wuhan 
Institute of Virology, led to the creation of SARS-CoV-2. The 
Select Subcommittee possesses no evidence demonstrating that 
any of the viruses studied under the grant could even possibly 
have been the progenitor virus. So, with 6 months remaining in 
this Congress, it is my hope that we take an objective, 
forward-looking approach to understanding COVID-19 origins. And 
with that, I thank you, and I yield back.
    Dr. Wenstrup. Now I recognize Ms. Malliotakis from New York 
for 5 minutes of questions.
    Ms. Malliotakis. Thank you. Dr. Morens, you used your 
personal email to conduct official NIAID business, and you 
shared nonpublic information with EcoHealth, an organization 
that was vying for Federal dollars from your Agency. Given your 
position and experience, you knew that this was against FOIA 
regulations, even indicated it in many of the emails in your 
personal Gmail. Can you explain why you chose to bypass 
official channels and how do you justify that?
    Dr. Morens. Yes. Well, let me go back to the very 
beginning. In early 2020, Peter Daszak, who has been a personal 
friend of mine for almost 20 years, I have had government 
interactions with him that would be on my NIH email, but almost 
all my interactions with him for years had been personal as a 
friend. And suddenly he was getting death threats, credible 
death threats, and his wife and his two daughters are getting 
credible death threats. And the FBI was investigating, and they 
were publishing these death threat people which are said to be 
QAnon. I don't even know who they are, but, you know, they were 
marching outside his house, and they were sending threatening 
things, and an Anthrax powder envelope was mailed to him, and 
it just freaked everybody out.
    Ms. Malliotakis. Why did you choose to use personal email? 
That is the question.
    Dr. Morens. Because that was not government business. What 
happens to a private citizen in a different situation, in my 
mind, is not government business.
    Ms. Malliotakis. Well, it is government business if you are 
advising him, you are advocating on his behalf. You are editing 
things, letters that he wanted to send to NIH. You did all that 
on personal email, correct?
    Dr. Morens. I don't remember, but if I did, I shouldn't 
have done that. That is wrong.
    Ms. Malliotakis. It is wrong, and that is why we are asking 
the question because you were using it for official business, 
and that is what we are trying to understand, why. Why were you 
trying to hide this from Members of Congress, from the 
government, from the public? Should it have been a Freedom of 
Information law? It does seem that you have a very cozy 
relationship with Peter Daszak. You indicated that he was a 
good friend. I mean, I have to after reading this email from 
Exhibit 6, on August 27, 2020, after NIH was awarded a $7.5 
million grant to EcoHealth Alliance, you wrote to him and you 
asked, ``Do I get a kickback? Too much fooking--F-o-o-k-i-n-g--
money. Do you deserve it all? Let's discuss.'' Would you like 
to explain?
    Dr. Morens. That is typical black humor between people, 
like Peter and me and other folks who show up in these emails.
    Ms. Malliotakis. And he responded saying, ``Thanks for the 
kind words and, of course, there is a kickback.'' You think 
that is appropriate behavior between NIH, somebody who works 
for NIAID to a grantee who just received $7.5 million from the 
government? My question before I run out of time, is have you 
ever received any compensation from Peter Daszak or EcoHealth?
    Dr. Morens. No.
    Ms. Malliotakis. Have you ever received any compensation 
from any entity outside of your employer, NIAID?
    Dr. Morens. I don't know what the definition of 
``compensation'' is.
    Ms. Malliotakis. Well, have you ever received any money?
    Dr. Morens. I get a pension.
    Ms. Malliotakis. OK. You have a pension, not government 
related. You have to ask that question when you put it in 
writing, asking him for a kickback.
    Dr. Morens. There are two parts to your question. Let me 
answer. All of this stuff was a bunch of snarky jokes, and I 
think we all knew that.
    Ms. Malliotakis. Well, I don't think any of us think it is 
a funny joke when you are representing the U.S. Government, you 
are representing an Agency, and you are asking a grantee ``Do I 
get a kickback? Do you deserve it all? Let's discuss.'' So, I 
am going to ask you one more time--remind you, you are under 
oath--did you ever receive any money from Peter Daszak, 
EcoHealth, or anybody else outside of your employer, NIAID, or 
the Federal Government directly?
    Dr. Morens. No, ma'am.
    Ms. Malliotakis. OK.
    Dr. Morens. With the exception of early after I joined NIH, 
I had a private corporation, and, you know, in which I used to 
do consulting. And shortly after I got to NIH, I realized there 
would always be a conflict.
    Ms. Malliotakis. OK.
    Dr. Morens. And that corporation has been silent for 20 
years now. No income.
    Ms. Malliotakis. OK. Thank you very much. I yield back.
    Dr. Morens. May I say one more thing?
    Ms. Malliotakis. Yes. You have 2 seconds.
    Dr. Morens. I have already apologized for making snarky and 
profane comments, but I made them thinking that they were made 
on my private email in a manner that was just between a small 
group of friends and would never end up where it is ended up. 
It is embarrassing to me. I shouldn't have done it, but, you 
know, I accept that I did. I don't know what to say except I am 
sorry.
    Ms. Malliotakis. Thank you.
    Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize Mrs. Dingell from Michigan 
for 5 minutes of questions.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have to say 
something as we start this, just that for 15 months, under the 
guise of investigating the pandemics origins, my Republican 
colleagues have been probing our Federal scientific and public 
health institutions. Right now, at this point, we have not 
meaningfully advanced the American public's understanding or 
the origins of SARS-CoV-2. I do believe that people are always 
looking for the partisan instead of taking an actually serious 
look at the various ways in which the virus could have emerged 
in a lab or in nature, and this investigation has really been 
about trying to pin the blame on NIH and NIAID for the COVID-19 
pandemic.
    But to be perfectly clear, I take seriously the allegations 
of unauthorized disposition of NIH email records by you, Dr. 
Morens, and so I have your statements, Dr. Morens, and the 
emails showing a disdain for the Freedom of Information Act are 
really discouraging, very concerning. And you say in your 
answering of the questions that you did it as black humor, but 
I don't think you used black humor and hide the comments that 
you are trying to do on personal email. I think your conduct 
shows a blatant disregard for accountability to the taxpayers 
who fund NIAID's work, and, quite frankly, it really is 
disturbing. Dr. Morens, do you have any regret for the way in 
which you conducted yourself and the way it has reflected upon 
NIAID?
    Dr. Morens. Yes, I do.
    Mrs. Dingell. And do you realize that there are thousands 
of employees who have worked alongside you at both NIAID and 
NIH, who are now left to deal with the ramifications of your 
misconduct and its impact on the agencies?
    Dr. Morens. Well, that it might happen is very bothersome 
to me, and of almost everything that is happening, I really 
regret that. I am very loyal to NIH. They have been good to me. 
And I have nothing but good to say about the system at NIH, and 
that I may have brought embarrassment to them by my actions and 
my statements, it is just something I am very ashamed of. I 
can't put the toothpaste back in the tube.
    Mrs. Dingell. I just hope we are going to be very careful 
as you are telling us what the facts are because I am very 
disturbed by other people that may be thrown under the bus in 
some of the wild statements that you have made and your 
personal statements, and that you take accountability and don't 
lay blame on people. It is very hard for us to get to the 
truth. Maybe that is the way for me to say it.
    Dr. Morens. Ma'am, I am here to answer all your questions 
and tell you the truth, and any question you want to ask me, I 
will do my best to answer it to the fullest of my knowledge.
    Mrs. Dingell. I am just going to close here and say that 
the NIH and the National Archives and Records Administration 
have taken steps to investigate these matters, and I want and 
share my colleagues' desire from expeditious completion of the 
evaluation and appropriate next steps to hold you accountable. 
But in the meantime, I want everyone to keep in mind that 
although Republicans have tried to read into your emails for 
proof that Federal officials somehow sparked the COVID-19 
pandemic, there simply is no evidence of it. There is a 
critical distinction. As I have said in recent hearings, I will 
always support holding Federal grantees and public servants to 
the highest standards of professional integrity, but I worry 
that we are once again blurring the lines between professional 
misconduct and the separate question of the origins of COVID-
19. And I hope that we do not conflict these issues, and I 
think what you have done has significantly contributed to that. 
Thank you, and I yield back.
    Dr. Wenstrup. Now I recognize the Chairman of the full 
committee, Mr. Comer from Kentucky, for 5 minutes of questions.
    Chairman Comer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On May 16, we 
heard from your boss, Dr. Lawrence Tabak, regarding some of 
your emails and avoiding the Freedom of Information Act. And I 
am sure, as you have already testified, you are aware that 
deleting Federal records is a crime, and as you have said, you 
previously testified that you did not delete any Federal 
records. But on February 24, 2021, you wrote, ``I learned from 
our FOIA lady here how to make emails disappear after I am 
FOIA'd, but before the search starts, so I think we are all 
safe. Plus, I deleted most of those earlier emails after 
sending them to Gmail.'' And the next day on February 25, 2021, 
you wrote, ``But I learned the tricks last year from an old 
friend, Marg Moore, who heads our FOIA Office and also hates 
FOIAs.'' ``Yes'' or ``no,'' is Marg Moore the FOIA lady you 
were referring to?
    Dr. Morens. She was at the time. I believe she has retired 
since then.
    Chairman Comer. Did the NIH FOIA Office instruct you on how 
to delete emails or avoid FOIA?
    Dr. Morens. No.
    Chairman Comer. On October 25, 2021, another scientist 
wrote, ``David is concerned about the privacy of texts and 
other messages from his cellphone to you and me because he has 
been using a government phone. This came from Tony.'' Sir, did 
you ever have any conversations with Dr. Fauci regarding using 
personal phone or email to communicate with Dr. Daszak?
    Dr. Morens. I don't remember it. It is possible, you know. 
I probably wouldn't have remembered and I don't remember it. He 
and I usually never talked about that kind of stuff. It would 
be very unusual if it happened.
    Chairman Comer. On January 18, you testified that you did 
not have any conversations with Dr. Fauci regarding EcoHealth. 
On October 25, 2021, you wrote, ``Peter, from Tony's numerous 
recent comments to me, they are trying to protect you,'' you 
meaning, EcoHealth and Dr. Daszak. Dr. Morens, did you ever 
have any conversations with Dr. Fauci regarding EcoHealth?
    Dr. Morens. Well, the ones you just mentioned, I don't have 
any recollection of that.
    Chairman Comer. No recollection?
    Dr. Morens. Huh? No recollection, no, but let me just say 
what I do remember, is one time in a face-to-face meeting, he 
referred, alluded to, or some stuff that was in the press. I 
don't even think he said what it was. But I assumed it was 
about Peter's grants and press reports about it and the ending 
of the grant. And I said to him sort of out of the blue, 
guessing what he was really thinking. I said to him, Tony, I 
know you would have never been involved in getting rid of that 
grant, and he didn't respond. He just sort of looked at me 
and----
    Chairman Comer. So, Dr. Fauci was always a big defender of 
EcoHealth and they are----
    Dr. Morens. Well----
    Chairman Comer [continuing]. Their right to receive Federal 
funding?
    Dr. Morens. I can't speak for him. I think he had great 
respect for them, and when the grant problems came about, I 
think he was troubled by it. In fact, I just thought of 
something that I forgot to say. At some point, somebody, it may 
not have been Tony, but it might have been Hugh Auchincloss, 
somebody said to me, you know, Peter is his own worst enemy 
because he made some mistakes on that grant.
    Chairman Comer. I would say that is a factual statement. On 
April 21, 2021, you wrote that Dr. Fauci is ``too smart to let 
colleagues send him stuff that could cause trouble.'' On June 
16, 2020, you wrote, ``We are all smart enough to know to never 
have smoking guns, and we wouldn't put them in emails, and if 
we found them, we delete them.'' Now, did you ever have 
conversations with Dr. Fauci regarding deleting emails?
    Dr. Morens. I don't remember any such thing.
    Chairman Comer. You don't remember?
    Dr. Morens. No, sir. Tony and I don't have those kinds of 
conversations.
    Chairman Comer. Did you ever delete any official records?
    Dr. Morens. Not to my knowledge, I mean, but again, at the 
issue of defining what is a Federal record, I deleted a lot of 
emails. I do it every day. But in my mind, they are trivial 
things not related to government business.
    Chairman Comer. In response to my questions, Dr. Tabak said 
he absolutely agreed with every compliance action the NIH took 
against Dr. Daszak and EcoHealth. And over the past 2 weeks, 
both EcoHealth and Dr. Daszak have been suspended from 
receiving Federal funding, finally, and proposed for debarment. 
Do you agree with NIH's actions against EcoHealth?
    Dr. Morens. I have never seen the grant. I don't know what 
is in it. I can't really speak to that. But I can say I have 
known Peter Daszak for almost 20 years, and in my personal 
opinion, he is an honorable, decent----
    Chairman Comer. So, have you had conversations with Dr. 
Daszak about this recent suspension?
    Dr. Morens. Not a conversation. I knew about it. He sent me 
an email or something----
    Chairman Comer. So that occurred over email?
    Dr. Morens. Huh?
    Chairman Comer. You and Dr. Daszak communicated via email 
about his disbarment?
    Dr. Morens. I should say Gmail, not NIH email. You know, he 
was sending stuff to my NIH email for a long time, and I kept 
telling him don't do that, and that is how this this Gmail 
thing started. In 2020, he sent a message to me on my 
government NIH email, and I forget what it was, maybe I never 
knew what it was, but eventually that email was FOIA'd.
    Chairman Comer. OK. So----
    Dr. Morens. Wait a second. Can I finish?
    Chairman Comer. Go ahead.
    Dr. Morens. Eventually, this email was FOIA'd, and Peter 
contacted me and said, you know, some friend you are. I send 
you an email with all my personal stuff, and it ends up in the 
newspaper, and that really struck me. That was a turning point 
for me because he was under death threats.
    Chairman Comer. Right, right, and I get it. I get it. Mr. 
Chairman, if I may, just one last ``yes'' or ``no'' question. 
Have you had any conversations with Dr. Daszak about this 
suspension? Yes or no.
    Dr. Morens. The suspension?
    Chairman Comer. The suspension. The disbarment, the 
suspension?
    Dr. Morens. Not conversation, but he has sent me an email 
with----
    Chairman Comer. An email is a conversation. Your 
conversation via email then. You have had a conversation via 
email with Dr. Daszak?
    Dr. Morens. Well, if you call it a conversation, yes. You 
know, we didn't talk about it. He just sent it to me, and I 
read it or not. That is all.
    Chairman Comer. Thank you. I yield back.
    Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize Ms. Ross from North Carolina 
for 5 minutes of questions.
    Ms. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Morens, I really 
take very seriously these allegations of misconduct. And the 
unauthorized disposition of NIH email records, your blatant 
disregard for transparency obligations under FOIA and the 
manner in which you conducted yourself, including disparaging 
language toward others have differing perspectives, not only 
call into question your judgment, but also your character. And 
on a larger scale, they inflict serious damage on public trust 
for the entire scientific enterprise because when you work for 
the Federal Government, you are not just working for yourself. 
You are working for the people and you are working with 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 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 
percent from 39 percent to 23 percent. 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 
confidence in the scientific 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 records. A recent survey from the Annenberg 
Public Policy Center found that the proportion of respondents 
who did not believe in vaccines that are approved in the United 
States, it nearly doubled from 9 percent to 16 percent between 
April 2021 and the fall of 2023, and with new variants of the 
coronavirus, fewer and fewer people are getting their booster 
shots.
    As we hold today's hearings, the United States is at the 
precipice of losing our measles elimination status due to 
repeated outbreaks of the disease that are popped up across the 
country, from Florida to Ohio to Missouri to California. This 
is especially concerning as 250,000 kindergarteners nationwide 
haven't received their updated measles immunization, leaving 
them 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. So, you have answered 
this question in another way, but do you agree that your 
conduct as a scientist working for the Federal Government 
betrayed the highest ethical standards that are expected of you 
and are expected to maintain the trust of the American people?
    Dr. Morens. Well, that is a several-part statement, and let 
me answer it by saying I have always thought of myself as an 
ethical person. It is important to me to tell the truth and do 
decent things, and that is why I stuck my head up to defend 
Peter when he was under death threats obviously, and I thought 
all these things I was doing that were on my private email, my 
private Gmail, were outside the domain of my official job, a 
private citizen, but I have obviously made mistakes. I have 
mixed up emails and Gmails, and that has caused me to do a lot 
of the things you mentioned, but bring discredit on myself and 
on the government. I don't know what to say. I have apologized. 
I regret that. I wish I could take it back, but I can't.
    Ms. Ross. Thank you. It is imperative for the American 
public to trust the scientific community in order to best 
protect our Nation's public health. 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 yield back.
    Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize Dr. Miller-Meeks from Iowa 
for 5 minutes of questions.
    Dr. Miller-Meeks. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank 
you, Dr. Morens, for testifying before the Select Subcommittee 
this afternoon. And if I can, I am just going to followup for a 
question that you were asked by Dr. Malliotakis in reference to 
whether or not you received any funding or moneys in 
relationship to the amount of funding going into an EcoHealth 
grant. So, to expand on that, did you receive any gift or 
anything of value during that exchange from Dr. Daszak of 
EcoHealth?
    Dr. Morens. One of Dr. Daszak's scientists, a guy named 
Kevin, well, I shouldn't mention his name, it doesn't matter. 
So, the EcoHealth people have their own private sector baseball 
cap, and I made a comment that that is a really cool hat, and 
he said, I have an extra one. This one is old and it has got 
some stains on it. I will just give it to you, and he did.
    Dr. Miller-Meeks. Well, thank you for that, and Dr. Morens, 
I can understand how very difficult it is for you to be here. 
You have had an illustrious career. You went to undergrad and 
medical school at a very 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 Reye syndrome and 
Kawasaki disease. So, can you tell us just very briefly how 
difficult it is to get into medical school, especially in the 
1970's and 1980's?
    Dr. Morens. I don't know. I was----
    Dr. Miller-Meeks. Was it easy to get in med school?
    Dr. Morens. Pardon?
    Dr. Miller-Meeks. Is it easy to get into medical school?
    Dr. Morens. It was never easy. And particularly for 
somebody like me, when I applied to medical school, the only 
science course I have ever had was 9th grade general biology.
    Dr. Miller-Meeks. And do you know what Alpha Omega Alpha 
is?
    Dr. Morens. I believe that is an honorary, like, 
fraternities or society for medical students.
    Dr. Miller-Meeks. National Medical Honor Society. Is it 
easy to get into Alpha Omega Alpha?
    Dr. Morens. I don't believe it is.
    Dr. Miller-Meeks. Is it more prestigious to get in in the 
3d year or the 4th year?
    Dr. Morens. I don't know.
    Dr. Miller-Meeks. OK. Do you know what a kilt is?
    Dr. Morens. A kilt?
    Dr. Miller-Meeks. Yes, sir, a kilt.
    Dr. Morens. K-i-l-t, like a Scottish kilt?
    Dr. Miller-Meeks. Yes.
    Dr. Morens. Yes.
    Dr. Miller-Meeks. OK. And do you know what a tragus is?
    Dr. Morens. Say again?
    Dr. Miller-Meeks. It is a Roman garb, such as Roman 
soldiers wear, sort of like a skirt.
    Dr. Morens. I don't think I know that word.
    Dr. Miller-Meeks. OK. Well, I left home at 16 to put myself 
through medical school. I was the last person who entered my 
medical school class at the University of Texas in 1982, the 
last person. By the third year, I was 12 out of 214 students 
Alpha Omega Alpha in the 3d year. I think merit is 
extraordinarily important. A tragus is a skirt. A kilt is a 
skirt. I don't think William Wallace was any 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.
    Now, although I have had differences, political and 
scientific differences, with Dr. Walensky. I have disagreed 
with her on infection acquired immunity. I have disagreed with 
her on school closures. I have disagreed with her on the lack 
of transparency of adverse outcomes from COVID-19 vaccines. I 
would have expected it when I was in medical school in 1982, 
and I can understand the embarrassment of having personal 
emails shared, but you were doing work-related stuff on your 
personal emails that you would have commented in an email, 
``Dr. Fauci got Rochelle Walensky her job as CDC director by 
lobbying for her to Ron Klain. Well, she does wear a skirt. I 
poured a little cold water on her, but he was undeterred in 
thinking that she is the cat's pajama.''
    So, let me just say, am I the cat's pajama? Do you know how 
many women sit on this subcommittee? Do you know what it takes 
for any of these women to get elected to Congress, because 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 crisis, and instead of doing your job, you 
are too busy worrying about avoiding FOIAs and challenging 
someone's position because they happened to wear a skirt. The 
American people deserve a whole lot better in their public 
servants. We don't need to worry about your trying to avoid 
FOIAs or what the quality of your mattress is, quite frankly, 
sir. You should be ashamed of your character and embarrassed. I 
am glad that you are, and you should in fact, apologize to this 
subcommittee, to Congress, and to our Nation. With that, I 
yield.
    Dr. Morens. May I apologize to you and the Committee. It is 
a misogynistic statement, and, you know, it was the same snarky 
joking stuff, but let me say I have been an advocate----
    Dr. Miller-Meeks. Sir, that is not a snarky joke. That is 
an underlying behavior that indicates how you approach women 
and how you think of women, and it is disgusting.
    Dr. Wenstrup. The time has expired. I now recognize Ms. 
Tokuda from Hawaii for 5 minutes of questions.
    Ms. Tokuda. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to echo my 
colleague's sentiment that your behavior, your mishandling of 
Federal records and disregard for transparency obligations 
under the Freedom of Information Act, are an affront to the 
taxpayers whose contributions fund this Federal Government, and 
to whom we are all accountable, including yourself. In 
addition, 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. I want to be very clear on 
this point. Your troubling misconduct, Dr. Morens, is an 
anomaly, not the norm, and it is essential that you be held 
accountable for your misconduct so that the American people can 
remain confident that their taxpayer dollars are being invested 
in a Federal work force that is committed to serving our Nation 
responsibly and with the care that it deserves.
    So, let me ask you, Dr. Morens, do you feel any remorse for 
the way in which you handled the Federal records that have been 
reflected on the members of Federal work force who you have 
served alongside?
    Dr. Morens. You know, I am sorry, I am getting a little 
echo here, and I am not sure I am hearing every word you say. 
And I am also----
    Ms. Tokuda. Do you feel any remorse for your handling of 
Federal records and how it has reflected on our Federal work 
force that serves alongside of you, the injustice you have done 
by making them look bad by your actions?
    Dr. Morens. To the extent that I have----
    Ms. Tokuda. Do you feel sorry? Yes or no. It is a simple 
question.
    Dr. Morens. I have said that already.
    Ms. Tokuda. You feel sorry? You apologize?
    Dr. Morens. Yes, I do.
    Ms. Tokuda. To the work force, the Federal work force in 
which you have now cast a shadow over?
    Dr. Morens. Yes.
    Ms. Tokuda. So, can you say that you will, in fact, 
apologize for betraying your shared obligation of serving the 
American taxpayers with the utmost respect for transparency and 
accountability, that you let Americans down? Will you apologize 
for that?
    Dr. Morens. Ma'am, I would not use the word ``betray.'' I 
have let them down. Most of it was inadvertent, making poor 
choices and not understanding all these rules and regulations, 
but betrayal suggests a conscious act, and I never did that. I 
have great respect for the Federal work force. I have been in 
Federal Government employment for 48 consecutive years with 
lots of awards and accolades, and I have never had a hint of 
scandal. So, to have----
    Ms. Tokuda. So, are you saying you are proud of your 
behavior, some of the behavior, and which was reflected here 
today in terms of comments you make, whether it be an official 
or non-official emails? Are you proud of this behavior?
    Dr. Morens. No.
    Ms. Tokuda. Is it up to the standards of the Federal 
Government and what taxpayers deserve?
    Dr. Morens. No, I am not.
    Ms. Tokuda. So, shouldn't this be a bit of a betrayal to 
the public, the ones you took an oath to, to make sure that you 
upheld your actions, your decisions, your comments? I consider 
it a betrayal, and we will agree to disagree on this. I am also 
disappointed, Dr. Morens, that someone in your position has 
taken such a brazen approach to blurring the lines between your 
official duties and your personal communications, as has been 
discussed by this panel, for example, in your personal email 
correspondence, including in your email signatures. So, this is 
not just something unintentional. You identify yourself with 
your role at NIAID, and you frequently referenced transferring 
correspondence from your official email address to your 
personal address, including when discussing matters where NIAID 
is actively engaged. In doing so, you are blurring the lines 
between whether you are taking actions in your official 
capacity with the Federal Agency or in your individual capacity 
pursuant to your personal interest. And, Dr. Morens, did you 
ever conduct government business through your personal email 
account?
    Dr. Morens. Not intentionally and----
    Ms. Tokuda. Unintentionally or not, did you conduct 
government business through your personal email account?
    Dr. Morens. Well, some of the emails I have seen that you 
all have provided look pretty incriminating. I don't know what 
they are, I don't remember them, but, yes, it looks like I made 
a mistake on more than one occasion, but it certainly wasn't my 
intention to do that. And let me also----
    Ms. Tokuda. Mistake or not, though--I am running short of 
time--you are admitting that you did official government 
business through your personal email from what you have ignored 
and seen today?
    Dr. Morens [continuing]. Your definition of----
    Ms. Tokuda. From what you have heard today, would you 
consider that to be official government business through your 
personal account?
    Dr. Morens. I don't know. I mean, I would have to look at 
all the emails----
    Ms. Tokuda. OK. It seems like in our discussion, even 
talking with you here, it sounds like you would agree with us 
that you have conducted government business through your 
personal account. Did you ever misuse official resources to 
advance your personal interests or take contrary actions to 
NIAID's official policies or positions?
    Dr. Morens. I am sorry. I am getting feedback here and I 
can't----
    Ms. Tokuda. Did you ever misuse official resources to 
advance your personal interest or take actions that were 
contrary to NIAID's official position?
    Dr. Morens. You know, I am not sure I know what that means, 
but if----
    Ms. Tokuda. Did you misuse resources?
    Dr. Morens. I don't think so.
    Ms. Tokuda. Did you ever take contrary opinions to NIAID?
    Dr. Morens. Contrary opinions?
    Ms. Tokuda. Contrary opinions. OK. Clearly we have some 
miscommunications here, but similar to my colleagues on this 
dais here, I do believe you owe an apology and you have given 
one to the Federal work force. But the bottom line is all 
Americans, all taxpayers deserve an apology from you for your 
actions, the way you have conducted yourself both in a 
professional manner and through your personal correspondence as 
well, and with that, Chair, I yield back.
    Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize Mrs. Lesko from Arizona for 5 
minutes of questions.
    Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I believe earlier today 
you said, sir, ``Tony,'' meaning Tony Fauci, ``does not want me 
to connect anything to him,'' and when asked by my colleagues 
did you use personal email for official business, you answer 
was, I didn't think it was doing official business, and then 
just now you said, not intentionally. Let me read some of the 
emails.
    The first email from you says, ``P.S., I forgot to say 
there is no worry about FOIAs. I can either send stuff to Tony 
on his private email or hand it to him at work or at his house. 
He is too smart to let colleagues send him stuff that could 
cause trouble.'' Next email from you said, ``I suggested Arthur 
try to interview Tony,'' meaning Tony Fauci, ``directly and 
connected him to our secret back channel. He emailed Tony a few 
hours ago.'' Next email from you, ``I forgot to clarify in my 
email yesterday that both my Gmail and phone calls are now 
safe. Text is not as it can be FOIA-ed as can my government 
email, so you and Peter,''--Peter Daszak--``and others should 
be able to email me on Gmail only, with the caveat that no 
other government employee is copied at a government address, as 
all government emails are potentially FOIA-able.''
    Next email 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 that there are 
ongoing efforts within NIH to steer through this with minimal 
damage to you, Peter, and colleagues and to NIH and NIAID.'' 
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 were doing a couple 
of 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 then 
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.''
    Then the next email: ``I learned from our FOIA lady here 
how to make emails disappear after I was FOIA-ed, but before 
the search starts, so 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. Basically, my Gmail is now 
safe from FOIA. Thus, it should be safe to communicate safely 
with you, Peter, and others, as long as we use my private 
Gmail. I ask you both that nothing gets sent to me except to my 
Gmail.''
    Sir, I believe you have lied here today to us, to Congress 
when you say, oh, I didn't know this, I didn't intentionally 
use my Gmail. Are you kidding me? Dr. Morens, do you want to 
change your testimony?
    Dr. Morens. No, I don't, because so many of these emails 
you just mentioned, 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 then other people----
    Mrs. Lesko. Sir, with all due respect, how can you say that 
when you clearly, in all these emails, were intentionally 
avoiding FOIA? You said it in your own words, sir.
    Dr. Morens. Let's talk about what you mean by 
``intentionally avoiding FOIA.'' I don't consider that telling 
them don't send me things because they could get FOIA-ed is 
potentially avoiding FOIA because those are personal things. 
And with respect to my NIH email, I couldn't possibly avoid 
FOIA because I had no control----
    Mrs. Lesko. Sir, did you use, in most of these emails, your 
official signature? It said, ``David M. Morens, OD, NIAID, 
NIH.'' These were official.
    Dr. Morens. Well, let me tell you something else. I didn't 
mention----
    Mrs. Lesko. And you forwarded from your NIH email to your 
personal email, and you said it right in your email.
    Dr. Morens. I learned only about a year ago that the fusion 
of my Gmail and my NIH email on my phone had another side 
effect too. And by the way, I finally got IT to take that off, 
to get rid of it so there is no more Gmail/email fusion. But 
after I asked them to take it off, I realized that if a Gmail 
or NIH email came to me and I replied to it, for some reason 
there was a default where the signature I had on Gmail, which 
said ``David Morens of Bethesda, Maryland'', or something, 
didn't go out, but the NIH email went out. I don't know how 
that happened. I didn't do it consciously----
    Mrs. Lesko. Sir, I am sorry. I just don't believe you, and 
I yield back.
    Dr. Wenstrup. Dr. Morens, in my experience, I just want to 
say, I don't know what defect you are talking about. When you 
get an email from one email, you have to intentionally move it 
to another email. It doesn't automatically shift over to 
another email.
    Dr. Morens. I am sorry, I don't----
    Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize Mr. Mfume from Maryland for 5 
minutes of questions.
    Mr. Mfume. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to 
thank you and the Ranking Member. I mean, if this were not 
laughable, it would be laughable. I don't know what I am 
watching. I saw some of this in my office and got here a little 
while ago and caught the rest of it. Mr. Morens, this is a tale 
out of some sort of movie, and I am not trying to particularly 
characterize you except that I can't define you. I mean, you 
seem to be here, there, and everywhere on these questions, and 
I am trying to get what your testimony is here to this body 
other than ``I don't know,'' ``I don't remember,'' ``I am not 
sure.''
    Much of your personal email account exchanges have been 
revealed, as we all know, by media outlets across the country 
in recent months, and many more had been turned over to this 
Select Committee, and, Dr. Morens, it appears that you yourself 
didn't even follow your own guidance. At least that is what I 
have come to believe here, and you've conflated personal and 
professional matters on both your official and your personal 
email accounts. That is correct, isn't it?
    Dr. Morens. I don't exactly know what the word 
``conflated'' means, but mixed them up. Is that what it means?
    Mr. Mfume. Well, you want to take the Fifth Amendment? I 
mean, you don't seem to remember anything, and 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 that every Federal grant applicant should have full and 
fair consideration that is consistent with Federal guidelines, 
and I am not sure that has occurred. I don't know what to make 
of this. So let me ask you, since you are under oath, what is 
it that you want this committee to know about these so many 
allegations that had been sent your way?
    Dr. Morens. I want this committee to know that however many 
mistakes I made and however bad they were, I was trying to do 
the right thing. I had a friend, a personal friend, who was in 
danger of being murdered and his family being murdered and 
everything centered around that, and I did what I could do. And 
pretty soon the Gmail thing, which I thought was desirable and 
legal, getting personal stuff away from----
    Mr. Mfume. Sorry, you lost me. You lost me. What does a 
friend of yours who is close to being murdered have to do with 
the way that you performed your duties?
    Dr. Morens. I am sorry. I don't understand your question. 
Could you----
    Mr. Mfume. I didn't understand your answer. You said I was 
dealing with a friend who was close to being murdered, and then 
you went on to say something else. I am trying to connect them.
    Dr. Morens. Let me just repeat. My reason for telling Peter 
and others to go to my Gmail is because Peter and later Peter 
Hotez and some others were under death threats, and anything 
they sent me on my government email could end up in the public 
domain, and then I would be responsible for making their peril 
even worse. Does that make sense, or can I explain it again?
    Mr. Mfume. Go ahead.
    Dr. Morens. All right. Let me go back again to what I said 
before. When Peter Daszak contacted me in early 2020 and let me 
know that an email that he had sent me to my government NIH 
email had ended up being published in a journal or something 
and that 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 email? This is not government business. It is your 
personal thing about your state of mind, about your security 
arrangements, that if known your address being published, if 
your security arrangements are known, then people trying to 
kill you, you know, could maybe do it, and I felt responsible 
for that. Peter was very upset, and I was upset too.
    Mr. Mfume. Dr. Morens, what else do you feel responsible 
for?
    Dr. Morens. Pardon?
    Mr. Mfume. What else do you feel responsible for?
    Dr. Morens. I am sorry. I am getting this echo here. Should 
I turn off my microphone?
    Mr. Mfume. Yes, you are using my time. Let me ask you, why 
didn't you report any of this to the Ethics Office?
    Dr. Morens. I don't know. I don't even know what our Ethics 
Office does, but Peter certainly reported it to the----
    Mr. Mfume. I am not worried about Peter. I am talking about 
you. Peter is 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?
    Dr. Morens. What are you referring to? Is what being 
ethically improper?
    Mr. Mfume. What you just said. You asked him why was he 
sending this to one email account when it should have gone to 
another one.
    Dr. Morens. And you are asking me whether I thought what he 
was doing was unethical, what I was doing is unethical?
    Mr. Mfume. Sir, I think you are going to be haunted by your 
testimony today, and it is unfortunate. It is all on the 
record, and 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. Mr. Chairman, I am going to yield back any time that I 
have remaining. I thank you for the opportunity.
    Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize Mr. Cloud from Texas for 5 
minutes of questions.
    Mr. Cloud. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Is this correct that 
this was your title, the Senior Adviser to National Institute 
of Allergy and Infectious Disease former Director, Dr. Anthony 
Fauci?
    Dr. Morens. I think my title is Senior Adviser to the 
Director, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases.
    Mr. Cloud. OK. And how long did you work with Dr. Fauci or 
for him?
    Dr. Morens. Twenty-six years.
    Mr. Cloud. And you would also consider him a personal 
friend?
    Dr. Morens. No. I mean----
    Mr. Cloud. No?
    Dr. Morens. You know, he is a colleague, and Tony is a, you 
know, private guy. I have never gone out with him to have a 
beer or----
    Mr. Cloud. You mentioned Peter Daszak is a personal 
friend----
    Dr. Morens. Yes.
    Mr. Cloud [continuing]. For 20 years. Is that correct?
    Dr. Morens. Probably a little less than 20 years, but 
somewhere in that range.
    Mr. Cloud. OK. And your statement today still is that you 
did not intend to avoid FOIA?
    Dr. Morens. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cloud. In spite of the several emails we have saying 
otherwise. Is that correct?
    Dr. Morens. I think it is correct, but there are some 
elements of this, you know, that I don't think are being 
understood. You can't avoid FOIA----
    Mr. Cloud. And you just said that you did no official 
business on your Gmail account. Is that correct?
    Dr. Morens. I tried to make sure I never did official 
business.
    Mr. Cloud. And that is not what you just said a few minutes 
ago. You said you never did. Here is an email from Peter to 
you: ``Attached is a single sheet with bullets explaining why 
Dr. Tabak 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 get it to NIH by Tuesday 
hopefully.'' You replied, ``Peter, this is an excellent draft. 
I will suggest some wordsmithing tweaks later today.'' He said, 
``Thanks for the comments, David. I will incorporate them 
today.'' Do you think that is not official business?
    Dr. Morens. I would have to look at it. I don't know----
    Mr. Cloud. OK. This is related to EHA. EHA is EcoHealth, is 
that right?
    Dr. Morens. Yes, but I mean--yes.
    Mr. Cloud. OK. So this is an organization who got a 
government grant that you are supposed to be overseeing, right?
    Dr. Morens. I don't have any grant oversight----
    Mr. Cloud. Well, NIH.
    Dr. Morens. NIH does, but I'm----
    Mr. Cloud. Sure, and you are the Senior Adviser to the head 
of----
    Dr. Morens. Right, but I have no involvement in any grants, 
in any aspect of any grants.
    Mr. Cloud. Sure.
    Dr. Morens. And I don't know whether what you are referring 
to is a grant that was already funded or an application that a 
friend----
    Mr. Cloud. Do you not see that as a conflict of interest 
for you to be advising someone who is working to get a Federal 
grant on how they are communicating and approaching and even 
suggesting tweak outline, tweak revisions?
    Dr. Morens. I think it would be a conflict of interest, as 
I understand it, helping someone----
    Mr. Cloud. Is that why you used your Gmail instead of your 
official mail for communication with Peter?
    Dr. Morens. Using my Gmail, it was for a different purpose 
that was for avoiding more embarrassment and danger to him.
    Mr. Cloud. And specifically, as your emails say, avoiding 
FOIA, correct?
    Dr. Morens. No. Well, yes, I guess you could say that, 
avoiding him sending something that had nothing to do with NIH 
business, but could be FOIA-ed and embarrass him.
    Mr. Cloud. OK. Now, there has been this dialog that, you 
know, you are the one bad apple in a whole bunch. Before, you 
know, our last hearing, the communication was Peter was the one 
bad apple out of a whole bunch. Who was the FOIA lady that you 
mentioned?
    Dr. Morens. I think Marg Moore.
    Mr. Cloud. All right.
    Dr. Morens. Marg is Margaret. Margaret Moore.
    Mr. Cloud. OK. What tips did she give you about avoiding 
FOIA?
    Dr. Morens. Well, she gave me none about avoiding FOIA. 
That was a joke, but what she did say to me was--well, let me 
back up a little bit.
    Mr. Cloud. You are sure about that?
    Dr. Morens. Hmm?
    Mr. Cloud. Are you sure about that? We can subpoena her 
email too, you know----
    Dr. Morens. Yes.
    Mr. Cloud [continuing]. And we can call her to witness as 
well, so make sure your testimony is accurate.
    Dr. Morens. Yes. No, I am telling you what I know and 
remember, and it is the truth as far as I know it. When Peter 
had----
    Mr. Cloud. Do you think you are the first employee that she 
gave advice on how to avoid FOIA?
    Dr. Morens. She didn't give me advice about how to avoid 
FOIA. Let me----
    Mr. Cloud. You said she gave you advice on how to avoiding 
FOIA.
    Dr. Morens. That is what I said because that was sort of--
--
    Mr. Cloud. So you were lying then, but you are telling us 
the truth now?
    Dr. Morens. I wasn't lying. I was making a joke with Peter. 
You know, I said something like I have a way to make it go 
away, but that was just a euphemism. May I tell you what she 
told me?
    Mr. Cloud. Sure.
    Dr. Morens. I was worried because I was getting so many 
FOIAs. I was worried that personal things were going to get 
into it, so I went and talked to her and said, how does this 
work because at that point in time I had no involvement in 
FOIAs. If I was going to be FOIA-ed, the FOIA Office would 
notify me and say do we have your permission to do a FOIA 
investigation, and I would say yes, and that is the end of what 
I heard. But I was worried that these personal things would get 
caught up in it, so I asked her how it worked. And she said, 
well, you really don't have to worry about personal things 
because when there is a FOIA request. We, the FOIA Office, 
negotiate to limit the scope of what they are looking for to, 
among other things, make sure that inadvertent stuff doesn't 
get in there.
    Mr. Cloud. You said a comment earlier that concerned me: 
the relationship between your organization, NIH, and EcoHealth 
should be one of oversight. To start off this hearing, you 
said, we all felt it was our job to cheer Peter up. I am just 
really concerned because Peter even admitted the last time that 
he did not do a good job of overseeing the grant that went to 
the Wuhan lab. It is clear that our government did not do a 
good job of overseeing EcoHealth. And it, to me, speaks to the 
culture that is at issue here when you think your job instead 
of oversight is to make sure that we are cheering up the people 
we should be overseeing. Thank you, Chairman. I yield back.
    Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize Dr. McCormick from Georgia 
for 5 minutes of questions.
    Dr. McCormick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Morens, now, I 
am no lawyer, I am a doctor, but just looking through what 
evidence we have and what we subpoenaed and what we have 
gotten, it has become apparent that you and many employees at 
NIH and NIAID have been stonewalling and outright avoiding our 
subcommittee's investigation. Not only is it a violation of 
law, as far as I am understanding, but it also fosters a 
continual distrust of government and its officials and what we 
have been funding.
    Last July, this Select Subcommittee discovered the initial 
evidence of your misconduct and reported it to the National 
Archives and Records Administration, and at the National 
Archives' direction, NIH started an investigation into your use 
of personal email to conduct official business in the unlawful 
deletion of Federal records. I understand you talked about to 
avoid embarrassment. I think that has done just the opposite. 
When the investigation began, you were placed on paid 
administrative leave. In simpler terms, you have been 
continuing to receive your salary and your benefits but 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?
    Dr. Morens. Well, I would say that being placed on 
administrative leave is a discipline because I love my job and 
I would like to be back there doing work, and it is painful for 
me not to be able to work with my colleagues. And may I also 
say that that investigation of me that you referred to for 
destroying documents, exonerated me and said there is no 
evidence I destroyed any documents.
    Dr. McCormick. OK.
    Dr. Morens. And you probably have that information 
yourself. I have it.
    Dr. McCormick. I am not going to ask about the status of 
the investigation because I think that is inappropriate at this 
time, and I don't think it would be appropriate for you to 
comment on an ongoing investigation. But I hope the 
subcommittee receives the answers from the NIH as to the status 
of the investigation soon, which we still have not received 
because we don't think that it is appropriate to pay people who 
weren't able to do a job at the time. So I think we are both 
wasting our time.
    In your emails recovered through FOIA, you boasted to Dr. 
Daszak that you had a ``secret back channel'' to communicate 
with Dr. Fauci. That is what we have seen so far. We also have 
statements concerning the NIH, NIAID, and FOIAs, also an 
instruction on how to avoid document production through 
intentional misspellings of keywords to avoid triggering hits 
in automated search queries in response to FOIA requests and 
congressional oversight inquiries. Dr. Morens, do you deny 
these statements?
    Dr. Morens. You know, I am sorry, I am not sure I followed 
everything you said. I am also getting a little echo from your 
side, but let me move away from them. Let me turn off the 
microphone----
    Dr. McCormick. May I reclaim that time that I am going to 
repeat, please?
    Dr. Wenstrup. Yes.
    Dr. McCormick. Thank you. We have statements concerning the 
NIH, NIAID, FOIA officer, instructions on how to avoid document 
production through intentional misspellings of keywords to 
avoid triggering hits on automatic search queries in response 
to FOIA requests and congressional oversight inquiries, that 
you had the secret back-channel ways to get a hold of Fauci, 
that you are trying to avoid queries through FOIA by 
misspellings and other things. That is what we have come to the 
conclusion on. Do you deny that?
    Dr. Morens. I think there is a misunderstanding because the 
secret back channel----
    Dr. Wenstrup. Microphone.
    Dr. McCormick. Microphone.
    Dr. Wenstrup. Microphone.
    Dr. Morens. I am sorry. I think there is some 
misunderstanding here. The secret back channel joking 
terminology, to my knowledge, was never about FOIAs.
    Dr. McCormick. So you are going to joke about back channels 
to Fauci and about misspellings on queries? That is a joke? Not 
very funny to me.
    Dr. Morens. I would have to see this communication. It is 
confusing to me because, you know, I could walk into Tony's 
office and talk to him anytime I wanted. There is no need to 
have a back channel, and I had face-to-face meetings with him 
all the time. So the back-channel thing----
    Dr. McCormick. So you deny these statements is what you are 
saying.
    Dr. Morens. I think there is a mix-up somewhere.
    Dr. McCormick. So you deny it, yes?
    Dr. Morens. I guess I do.
    Dr. McCormick. OK. Dr. Morens, we have your previous 
statement on FOIA documents here. Chairman, I request unanimous 
consent to submit these documents for the record.
    Dr. Wenstrup. Without objection.
    Dr. McCormick. OK. Based on your answer, you either lied to 
Congress on your transcribed interview or are lying here today. 
This caused me to believe that your behavior as senior 
scientific adviser to the director reflects much broader NIH-
and NIAID-wide practice which really concerns me. This Select 
Subcommittee must bring HHS and the agencies beneath it to heal 
in every way possible over the final 7 months of this Select 
Subcommittee. I want to take a moment to thank the Chairman and 
my colleagues for their leadership thus far. We must earn back 
American people's trust and confidence. We must have full 
transparency. And with that I yield.
    Dr. Wenstrup. Dr. Morens, I am going to take a little time 
to read some statements and ask some more questions. On January 
18, you were asked if you ever assisted in the drafting of 
correspondence that Dr. Daszak sent to the National Institutes 
of Health regarding EcoHealth's terminated grant. You answered 
``no.'' On January 18, you were asked if you ever provided 
advice to Dr. Daszak regarding his grant termination. You 
answered ``no.'' In your Gmail on March 29, 2001, you responded 
to Dr. Daszak with edits to a letter that he sent to the NIH. 
On October 25, 2021, you responded to Dr. Daszak that you would 
edit an EcoHealth press release regarding the grant 
termination. On April 28, 2020, you responded to Dr. Daszak 
with edits to an EcoHealth press release regarding the grant 
termination. On October 25, 2021, you provided Dr. Daszak with 
advice regarding preparing a timeline regarding EcoHealth's 
late 5-year report submission. On December 7, 2021, you wrote 
to the chair of EcoHealth's board of directors to ``put in a 
word'' for Dr. Daszak. Did you ever advise Dr. Daszak on how to 
respond to NIH compliance actions? Yes or no.
    Dr. Morens. What is the word to compliance actions?
    Dr. Wenstrup. Did you ever advise Dr. Daszak on how to 
respond to NIH compliance actions?
    Dr. Morens. Well, yes, I did tell him multiple times----
    Dr. Wenstrup. OK. That is all I am asking. Did you ever 
edit a letter Dr. Daszak sent to NIH in response to a 
compliance action?
    Dr. Morens. Well, I must have. I don't remember it, but I 
saw such a letter.
    Dr. Wenstrup. OK.
    Dr. Morens. I don't know what it was, but apparently, I 
helped him do it, but----
    Dr. Wenstrup. Did you ever edit a press release that Dr. 
Daszak issued in response to a compliance action?
    Dr. Morens. Did I send a press----
    Dr. Wenstrup. Did you ever edit a press release that Dr. 
Daszak issued in response to a compliance action?
    Dr. Morens. The fact that you are asking me says I must 
have, but I don't remember it.
    Dr. Wenstrup. OK. Did you ever advocate on behalf of Dr. 
Daszak to EcoHealth's board of directors?
    Dr. Morens. I sent a letter to Nancye Green, the head of 
the board of directors essentially saying, you know, my 
personal knowledge of Peter--shall I wait a minute?
    Dr. Wenstrup. Go ahead.
    Dr. Morens. This was in response to Peter saying, you know, 
the Board is worried about all these accusations against me, I 
could be fired, can you tell the board that I am a good person 
and, as far as you know, I am an upstanding guy. And I did 
that, but as a private citizen, not as representing NIH.
    Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you. I now recognize Ms. Greene from 
Georgia for 5 minutes of questions.
    Ms. Greene. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Morens, your 
emails have been quite interesting. Reading them has been 
pretty shocking. On April 18, 2020, you wrote an email saying, 
``Peter Daszak emailed me congratulating Tony on standing up 
for science. That email somehow fell into the hands of the 
Congressmen, probably via a FOIA of someone who didn't delete 
it, as I did delete all of Peter's emails and others relating 
to the origin when the shit started hitting the fan. Anyway, 
the Congressmen got a copy of Peter D's emails from someone at 
NIH, and he now wants to get any reply Tony and I or anyone 
else may have sent back to Peter. Mine was erased long ago. I 
verified that today, and I 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 is 
nothing here except opportunities to hassle, harass, and huff 
and puff. You really got into some opportunities.''
    You also wrote on June 16, 2020, you said, ``The FOIAs are 
dreadful and paranoia-inducing. In the old days, we had to do 
them ourselves by hand, I mean, finding and printing out 
thousands of emails coming in and going out. Now they sometimes 
FOIA text messages, too. Many FOIAs turn up thousands of pages 
of docs and, of course, most meaningless. We are all smart 
enough to know to never have smoking guns, and if we did, we 
wouldn't put them in emails, and if we found them, we would 
delete them.'' You wrote on February 24, 2021, you said, ``You 
are right, and I need to be more careful. However, as I 
mentioned once before, I learned from our FOIA lady here how to 
make emails disappear after I am FOIA-ed, but before the search 
starts, so I think we are all safe. Plus, I deleted most of 
those earlier emails after sending them to Gmail.''
    Dr. Morens, who is your FOIA lady? Is it Hillary Clinton?
    Dr. Morens. Thank you for the humor.
    Ms. Greene. You are welcome.
    Dr. Morens. Thank you for the humor. I think, you know, you 
said about 10 things there and my brain can't keep them all in 
my head, but I think I have answered a lot of those questions. 
I told you who the FOIA lady was. I told you what she told me. 
I told the committee that it is impossible to avoid a FOIA and 
it is impossible to destroy an NIH document, an email document. 
Impossible to do it.
    Ms. Greene. Well, clearly because we have got your emails, 
and they are pretty shocking.
    Dr. Morens. There you go.
    Ms. Greene. I do appreciate humor as well, but you do 
receive a taxpayer paycheck, and when it comes to work emails, 
there are a lot of things that shouldn't really----
    Dr. Morens. By the way, if I understood what you just said, 
let me just say that a lot of government emails come to my 
Gmail, stuff from CDC, my paycheck.
    Ms. Greene. This is all related to your job, though, 
regardless of which email account. Like I said, Hillary Clinton 
had a private server as well and she put a lot of things there 
and somehow they disappeared.
    Dr. Morens. [Inaudible].
    Ms. Greene. Dr. Morens, you also wrote on October 5, 2021, 
``Peter, I just got news that the FOIA picked up an email I 
sent you saying that Tony commented he was brain dead, jokingly 
of course. However, Ron Johnson is all over it and now after 
me. Tony will be pissed, rightfully so. I deleted the email, 
but I now learned that every email I ever got since 1998 is 
captured and will be turned over whether or not I instantly 
deleted it, Gmail, phone texts. I need to scrupulously rely on 
those exclusively.''
    On July 22, 2020, this one was actually pretty interesting: 
``I am actually imbibing a double, or is it a triple, martini 
at the moment. Not sure of the amount of EtOH because I just 
poured until my elbow got sore, but the olive at the bottom is 
hard to see. No hot tub in my condo. I tried to negotiate a 
jacuzzi, but they balked and I caved. In any case, now that I 
am divorced, what good is a hot tub or Jacuzzi? If I am lucky 
enough to find a girlfriend, I will spring for a Jacuzzi, 
upgrade my wine cooler, get a mattress that will 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 was raging, and I personally believe that Peter 
Daszak at EcoHealth 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. This is where you emailed 
and talked about kickbacks. This was on August 27, 2020, after 
you were talking about covering up for Tony. You said, ``Of 
course, there is a kickback.'' And then you also referenced a 
kickback on August 27, 2020. You said, ``Do I get a kickback? 
Too much fooking money. Do you deserve it all? Let's discuss.'' 
Have you made any money off of EcoHealth, off of COVID-19, and 
off of COVID vaccines, Dr. Morens?
    Dr. Morens. No, no I have not.
    Ms. Greene. Then what were you talking about with 
kickbacks?
    Dr. Morens. That is a joke.
    Ms. Greene. That is not a joke. You were talking about 
kickbacks, and 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 should have never had to take 
against their will. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Dr. Wenstrup. Now I recognize Dr. Joyce from Pennsylvania 
for 5 minutes of questions.
    Dr. Joyce. Thank you, Chairman Wenstrup, for convening this 
important hearing. Over the past months, this subcommittee has 
heard testimony from Dr. Daszak of EcoHealth and NIH deputy 
director, Dr. Tabak. During that questioning of both of these 
witnesses, it has become clear to me that the NIH's current 
grant processes are inadequate to ensure the proper oversight 
of Federal funds. Dr. Daszak revealed that EcoHealth's 
renegotiated grant would rely on continued work from the Wuhan 
Institute of Virology, and Dr. Tabak confirmed that NIH was 
unaware of this continued collaboration when certifying 
EcoHealth's compliance. This means that based on false 
statements, NIH and NIAID approved Federal funding to go toward 
work involving the debarred Wuhan Institute of Virology. Dr. 
Morens, do you agree that the NIH must have a rigorous grant 
review process in order to ensure the grants that they provide 
are responsible use of the Federal taxpayers' dollars?
    Dr. Morens. Yes.
    Dr. Joyce. Do you agree that the strict review processes 
are especially important when evaluating a grantee who is out 
of compliance and determine if they are still receiving 
funding?
    Dr. Morens. Yes, but I mean----
    Dr. Joyce. Thank you. ``Yes'' is the answer. On September 
7, 2021, you wrote to Dr. Daszak in an email titled, ``For 
Urgent Review, Questions Raised by Ecohealth Alliance Grant 
Proposal.'' You wrote, ``Don't worry, behind the scenes NIH is 
sticking up for EcoHealth''--that is a quote--and proceeded to 
forward internal NIH communications to Dr. Daszak. What did you 
mean by saying that the NIH was sticking up for EcoHealth 
behind the scenes?
    Dr. Morens. I don't remember specifically, but I felt----
    Dr. Joyce. Sounds nefarious, doesn't it?
    Dr. Morens. It sounds what?
    Dr. Joyce. It sounds like it is suspicious. It sounds 
nefarious.
    Dr. Morens. It does, yes.
    Dr. Joyce. It is concerning, isn't it?
    Dr. Morens. Yes.
    Dr. Joyce. Were you regularly colluding with Dr. Daszak in 
order to promote EcoHealth in the NIH?
    Dr. Morens. Did I collude with him?
    Dr. Joyce. Yes, that is my question.
    Dr. Morens. No.
    Dr. Joyce. Is using an unofficial email address to provide 
grantees with nonpublic information about grant consideration 
consistent with NIH standards review process?
    Dr. Morens. I think what I was referring to is stuff that 
was in the public domain. There was a newspaper----
    Dr. Joyce. Why would you use a private email to do that?
    Dr. Morens. Because at one point I stopped communicating 
with Peter and the others on anything but Gmail.
    Dr. Joyce. Why would you do that?
    Dr. Morens. Well, I have already explained that because 
things that they tell me that are private things could get into 
the public domain if they send it to my----
    Dr. Joyce. Well, you said it was in a public domain. Is 
personally editing grantee responses to NIH compliance efforts, 
as you did, with letters EcoHealth sent to NIH, consistent with 
NIH and NIAID's standard compliance process?
    Dr. Morens. It is probably not. I would have to go look at 
it, and I don't remember----
    Dr. Joyce. It certainly is not. Do you believe that using 
your personal email in this way was consistent with NIH and 
NIAID policy, and are you aware of other NIH or NIAID employees 
who also conducted official work on unofficial emails?
    Dr. Morens. You know, I don't know of anybody specifically, 
but we get training on emails all the time, and in that 
training, we are told that it is a policy to try to separate 
them, so----
    Dr. Joyce. Did you follow that policy?
    Dr. Morens. I try to, yes, and I may----
    Dr. Joyce. We have evidence that you did not follow that 
policy. Trying to is not success. The government standards of 
the NIH should mean following policy. Do you agree that you 
failed to follow NIH policy?
    Dr. Morens. I do agree, but, you know----
    Dr. Joyce. I find this to be quite concerning as we look to 
how we move forward, recognizing that NIH standards and NIH 
policies were failed. I think that your testimony here today 
continues to affirm to us that NIH policies have dismally 
failed when it came to COVID-19. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for 
the opportunity to have this hearing today, and I yield the 
balance of my time.
    Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you. Dr. Morens, it is not the 
intention of this committee to throw the baby out with the 
bathwater, and I agree with Dr. Ruiz, many public servants work 
diligently and honestly every day and I applaud those public 
servants. We applaud their work. But it is clear between your 
transcribed interview, the actions that we have seen through 
your emails, and your testimony today, that we have more 
investigating to do. And in closing, I just want to say thank 
you for appearing before us today.
    And with that, and without objection, all Members will have 
5 legislative days within which to submit materials and to 
submit additional written questions for the witnesses, which 
will be forwarded to the witnesses for their response.
    Dr. Wenstrup. If there is no further business, without 
objection, this Select Subcommittee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 5:12 p.m., the Select Subcommittee was 
adjourned.]

                                 [all]