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


                      A HEARING WITH DR. ANTHONY FAUCI

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

                                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

                               __________

                              JUNE 3, 2024

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-114

                               __________

  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                    
55-830 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 June 3, 2024.....................................     1

                                Witness

                              ----------                              


  * Anthony Fauci, M.D., Former Director, National Institute of 
    Allergy and Infectious Diseases
Oral Statement...................................................    11

Written opening statements and the written statements of the 
  witnesses are available on the U.S. House of Representatives 
  Document Repository at: docs.house.gov.

                           Index of Documents

                              ----------                              

  * Letter, May 31, 2024, Public Health Associations; submitted 
    by Rep. Ruiz.
  * Article, The Hill, ``Let's honor Anthony Fauci and his 50 
    years of advancing public health''; submitted by Rep. Ruiz.
  * Interim Report, June 2024, the Minority staff, ``Republican's 
    Fauci Flop: Select Subcommittee's Fifteen-Month Probe Fails 
    to Find Evidence of Extreme Claims Linking Dr. Fauci to 
    COVID-19's Origins''; submitted by Rep. Castor.
  * Letter, May 31, 2024, Association of State and Territorial 
    Health Officials; submitted by Rep. Ruiz.

Documents are available at: docs.house.gov.

 
                    A HEARING WITH DR. ANTHONY FAUCI

                              ----------                              


                          Monday, June 3, 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 10:01 a.m., in 
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brad R. Wenstrup 
(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
    Present: Representatives Wenstrup, Malliotakis, Lesko, 
Cloud, Joyce, Greene, Jackson, McCormick, Ruiz, Dingell, Mfume, 
Ross, Garcia, Bera, and Tokuda.
    Also present: Representatives Comer, Griffith, Raskin, and 
Castor.
    Dr. Wenstrup. The Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus 
Pandemic will come to order.
    I want to welcome everyone this morning.
    Pursuant to Committee on Oversight and Accountability rule 
7(d), Members of the Committee may participate in today's 
Select Subcommittee hearing for purposes of questions.
    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.
    Without objection, pursuant to clause 4(a)(iii)(a) of House 
Resolution 5 and clause 2(j)(ii)(c) of House rule XI, the Chair 
may recognize staff of the Select Subcommittee for questions 
for equal periods of time, not to exceed 30 minutes.
    Pursuant to rule 7(d) of the Committee on Oversight and 
Accountability, Mr. Jordan and Mr. Moskowitz, Members of the 
Full Committee, may participate in today's hearing for the 
purposes of questions.
    I would like to remind Members that the issues we are 
debating today are important ones and Members feel deeply about 
them. While vigorous disagreement is part of the legislative 
process, Members are reminded that we must adhere to 
established standards of decorum in debate.
    There is a reminder that it is a violation of House rules 
and the rules of this Committee to engage in personalities 
regarding other Members or to question the motives of a 
colleague. Remarks of that type are not permitted by the rules 
and are not in keeping with the best traditions of our 
Committee.
    The Chair will enforce these rules of decorum at all times 
and urges all Members to be mindful of their remarks.
    Finally, without objection, the Chair may declare a recess 
at any time.
    I now recognize myself for the purpose of making an opening 
statement.
    Good morning.
    And welcome, Dr. Fauci. First, I want to thank you for your 
decades of public service. You served your country through 
multiple epidemics, pandemics, and health crises.
    I do want to say I'm sorry about the threats that you have 
received. As someone who's been shot at and received threats as 
well, my heart goes out to you. This should never happen in 
America.
    Regardless of any disagreements we may have, you chose to 
serve, and I want to extend our appreciation and gratitude. I 
want to thank you publicly for working with our Doctors Caucus 
during Operation Warp Speed and the time you spent with us and 
Dr. Collins.
    I also want to thank you for your willing cooperation with 
the Select Subcommittee. You have voluntarily sat for more than 
14 hours of testimony and are appearing voluntarily today. This 
is more than we can say about other witnesses we have called, 
and we appreciate it.
    Dr. Fauci, we're here to investigate the COVID-19 pandemic 
and to explore lessons learned, positive or negative, and to 
better prepare for future pandemics. Simply put, America cannot 
move forward, though, without looking back. We must know what 
went right and what went wrong in order to best engrain 
proficiencies and remedy deficiencies.
    In 15 months, the Select Subcommittee has sent more than 
115 investigative letters, conducted 30 transcribed interviews, 
resulting in hundreds of hours of testimony; held, including 
today, 27 hearings or briefings; and reviewed more than 1.5 
million pages of documents.
    We aren't here to throw the baby out with the bath water. 
That's not the intent. We are following the facts, holding 
wrongdoers accountable, and planning for a better, more 
prepared future.
    Beginning early in 2020, you became the figurehead of 
public health. There were drinks named after you. You got 
bobbleheads made in your likeness. You were on the cover of 
Vogue. You threw out the first pitch at a Washington Nationals 
game. Almost overnight, you became a celebrity and a household 
name in addition to being a public health official.
    Americans from coast to coast and beyond listened to your 
words. And this is where I think we could've done better. And 
this goes to both sides of the aisle. We should've been more 
precise. We should've used words and phrases that are accurate 
and not misleading. And we should've been honest, especially 
about what we didn't know.
    Dr. Fauci, I'm not a virologist, but I am a physician. And, 
like most physicians, we are constantly learning, which is why 
we do continuing medical education, and we always seek new 
information. We learn new things, based on new data. And we 
want to give our patients the best possible care, based on new 
findings and improvements in science.
    At a time when you were prompting the ``Proximal Origin'' 
paper, whose focus was to, quote, ``disprove the lab leak 
theory,'' end quote, I was in lockdown, researching with 
another physician in Ohio to try and understand the pathology, 
the affected physiology, and what treatments worked, and even 
how to diagnose COVID before we had specific COVID tests. My 
friend even made a phone call to an infectious disease doctor 
in China, looking for help.
    As well during that time, we discovered the Baric-Shi 2015 
article on creating a chimera using gain-of-function-type 
technology.
    While policy decisions should've been based on scientific 
data, some, frankly, were not. The burdensome six-foot social 
distancing rule did not have sufficient scientific report. In 
your words, it just sort of appeared. Distancing made sense, 
but the six feet was arbitrary. Even Dr. Collins said he still 
hasn't seen any empirical evidence to support the six-foot 
rule--a rule that shut down schools and businesses, a rule that 
will have negative ramifications for decades.
    As the pandemic wore on, more mandates also just sort of 
appeared, but the American public didn't get to see the 
scientific data to support these mandates.
    Americans were aggressively bullied, shamed, and silenced 
for merely questioning or debating issues such as social 
distancing, masks, vaccines, or the origins of COVID.
    Many Americans were willing to comply with the 15 days to 
slow the spread and understood the necessity of banning travel 
from certain countries in an attempt to slow down the virus, 
but many Americans became very frustrated when components of 
those 15 days stretched into years.
    And it should not have been the case that Americans were 
forced to comply with oppressive mandates when those who chose 
to illegally cross our southern border were not, or when 
Governor Newsom, or Governor Whitmer, were throwing parties at 
nice restaurants. Not a good look. Americans do not hate 
science, but Americans know hypocrisy when they see it.
    Dr. Fauci, under your leadership, the United States health 
agencies adopted specific policy aims as a single dogmatic 
truth, without the benefit of debate, out of a desire for a 
single narrative.
    Dr. Fauci, you once said, ``If you disagree with me, you 
disagree with science.'' Science doesn't belong to any one 
person. I was never taught that science turns a blind eye to 
hypotheses. They serve to be proven or disproven, and done so 
with irrefutable facts, if able.
    It was interesting that you chose not to pursue an 
aggressive and transparent scientific investigation of both 
natural spillover and lab leak. We have been investigating both 
hypotheses.
    You testified before the Select Subcommittee in your 
transcribed interview that the lab leak theory was not a 
conspiracy theory. You embraced the ``Proximal Origin'' 
letter--it wasn't necessarily a full peer-reviewed research 
paper--but you embraced ``Proximal Origin'' letter, and you 
shared it with the public from the White House lawn.
    You stated during your transcribed interview that you did 
not review published articles that considered a potential lab 
leak of COVID-19. This is especially concerning if the works in 
question were conducted at a more risky and less safe BSL-2 
lab.
    Nevertheless, any dissent from your chosen scientific 
position was immediately labeled as anti-science. Anything less 
than complete submission to the mandates could cost you your 
livelihood, your ability to go into public, your child's 
ability to attend school. Families were thrown off planes and 
shamed when their 2-year-olds struggled to wear a mask.
    Children with disabilities lost access to therapy that they 
and their families depended on. Students were out of the 
classroom and told to attend school remotely, even when the 
science clearly demonstrated it was safe for them to go back in 
the classroom. This harmed low-income students the most. And 
how were single-parent households supposed to teach their own 
children and work at the same time?
    Dr. Fauci, you oversaw one of the most invasive regimes of 
domestic policy the U.S. has ever seen, including mask 
mandates, school closures, coerced vaccinations, social 
distancing of six feet, and more.
    We've learned many lessons. Our early fear and confusion 
was understandable. COVID-19 was clearly a novel virus.
    Under your leadership, NIAID allowed disgraced characters 
like Dr. Peter Daszak to use millions in taxpayer dollars to 
conduct risky gain-of-function experiments in Wuhan, China. The 
actions of EcoHealth and Dr. Daszak call into question the 
integrity of NIAID's policies and procedures as a whole, as 
well as your role, Dr. Fauci, as NIAID's Director. You did sign 
off on his research grant.
    We need to know why Dr. David Morens, your direct report 
for more than two decades, assisted Dr. Daszak in avoiding 
oversight and scrutiny and said that you were involved. Your 
senior advisor and seemingly your chief of staff repeatedly 
attempted to evade transparency laws to shield information from 
public scrutiny.
    We have senior officials from your office, in their own 
writing, discussing breaking Federal law, deleting official 
records, and sharing private government information with grant 
recipients. The office you directed and those serving under 
your leadership chose to flout the law and bragged about it.
    Why did you allow your office to be unaccountable to the 
American people? You were the highest paid person in the 
government. This makes you more accountable to the people, not 
less.
    Dr. Fauci, whether intentional or not, you became so 
powerful that any disagreements the public had with you were 
forbidden and censored on social and most legacy media, time 
and time again. This is why so many Americans became so angry--
because this was fundamentally un-American.
    If I make a mistake, I answer to the people of Ohio who 
elected me and to my own conscience. When you and your agency 
made mistakes, Dr. Fauci, what happened?
    We all need to be held accountable. Sometimes it's as 
simple as saying, ``We were wrong.''
    You took the position that you presented the science. Your 
words came across to so many people as final and as infallible 
in matters pertaining to the pandemic. But such rigid demands 
of an ideologically diverse people like Americans shattered 
public trust in American health institutions. ``Because I said 
so'' has never been good enough for Americans, and it never 
will be.
    It's built into the American spirit: We have a thirst for 
information, a drive for advancement. Americans were first in 
flight. We landed on the Moon. We've cured diseases. You've 
been part of that. And we've made enumerable discoveries and 
explorations that forever changed humanity.
    Americans do not want to be indoctrinated; they want to be 
educated. And they prefer to make their health decisions in 
conjunction with the doctor that they know and trust.
    To be successful, our Federal public health institutions 
must be accountable to the people again. To be successful, our 
health organizations must do what they are supposed to do: 
protect Americans.
    I look forward to a robust and on-topic discussion. I thank 
you.
    I would now like to recognize Ranking Member Ruiz for the 
purpose of making an opening statement.
    Dr. Ruiz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Hello, Dr. Fauci, and thank you for being here.
    When I was named Ranking Member of the Select Subcommittee 
last February, I made a commitment to follow the facts in 
objectively analyzing the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic. I 
made a promise 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.
    And as the origins of the novel coronavirus still remain 
inconclusive, I stand by these commitments to this day.
    But nearly a year and a half into House Republicans' 
extreme and chaotic majority, I believe we need to take stock 
of what the Select Subcommittee has accomplished and whether it 
has meaningfully improved our preparedness for the next public 
health threat in our Nation.
    Under the guise of investigating the pandemic's origins, 
House Republicans have abdicated their responsibility to 
objectively examine how COVID-19 came to be and, instead, 
weaponized concern about a lab-related origin to fuel sentiment 
against our Nation's scientists and public health officials for 
partisan gain.
    They have done so with one particular public health 
official in mind: Dr. Anthony Fauci. And they have done so in 
an effort to deflect blame and anguish for the damage the 
pandemic inflicted on our society away from the former 
President, whose stumbling pandemic response, by some 
estimates, led to 400,000 unnecessary COVID-19 deaths, and onto 
Dr. Fauci, who worked tirelessly to stem the crisis.
    Over the past 15 months, the Select Subcommittee has pored 
over more than 425,000 pages of documents provided to us by 
government agencies, universities, and private citizens. We 
have conducted more than 100 hours of closed-door interviews 
with 20 current and former Federal officials and scientists.
    And what we have found is the following: Dr. Fauci did not 
fund research through the EcoHealth Alliance grant that caused 
the COVID-19 pandemic. Dr. Fauci did not lie about gain-of-
function research in Wuhan, China. And Dr. Fauci did not 
orchestrate a campaign to suppress the lab leak theory.
    After 15 months, the Select Subcommittee still does not 
possess a shred of evidence to substantiate these extreme 
allegations that Republicans have levied against Dr. Fauci for 
nearly 4 years.
    Now, I want to make something very clear. In the past 
month, the Select Subcommittee has held hearings where we have 
examined various serious issues of misconduct.
    In following the facts, Select Subcommittee Democrats 
uncovered troubling misconduct by Dr. Peter Daszak and 
EcoHealth Alliance, including potential efforts to mislead the 
Federal Government about the nature of its work through the 
evasion of reporting and transparency requirements.
    And less than 2 weeks ago, we heard from Dr. David Morens 
about his flagrant violation of the Freedom of Information 
Act's transparency requirements and the potential destruction 
of Federal records.
    Both Dr. Daszak and Dr. Morens deserve to be held 
accountable for betraying the public's trust. To hold them 
accountable is not anti-science; it is the defense of our 
Federal scientific and research institutions' decades-long 
legacy of advancing the scientific enterprise to safeguard 
human health.
    But baselessly suggesting, without evidence, that these 
discrete instances of misconduct are equivalent to our Nation's 
scientists and public health officials causing the COVID-19 
pandemic, which has killed more than 1 million Americans and 
inflicted an immeasurable toll on our society, is also a 
betrayal of the public's trust, which each of us are stewards 
of as elected Members of this body.
    Today's hearing comes at a pivotal moment for our Nation's 
public health. With the darkest days of the COVID-19 pandemic 
behind us, thanks to the Biden administration's leadership, we 
are now faced with a crisis of declining confidence in the very 
science and public health interventions that lifted our society 
from one of the most challenging periods in our Nation's 
history.
    And as we look to the future, we find ourselves at a fork 
in the road: We can go down the path of fueling mistrust in the 
interventions that saved us, like vaccines, masking, and social 
distancing, and the public health officials, like Dr. Fauci, 
who worked tirelessly and with extremely limited and evolving 
information about a novel virus to save lives during one of the 
greatest crises of our time, or we can work constructively on 
the forward-looking policies and solutions that we know are 
necessary to prevent and better prepare us for the public 
health threats that are yet to come.
    Since my first day as Ranking Member, I set out to take the 
latter path--the path of putting people over politics and 
prioritizing solutions to better prepare us for the next 
pandemic. And it has been my hope that Republicans would join 
Democrats in the forward-looking work that will better protect 
our constituents.
    Strengthening oversight of potentially risky research, 
domestically and abroad, is an essential part of this 
conversation. And so is closing pathways for zoonotic transfers 
of viruses in nature and investing in our public health 
infrastructure to ensure that when future viruses arrive, we 
are ready.
    When Democrats were in the majority, we made important 
strides in these objectives by passing the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act of 2023, which strengthened the protections 
against undue influence in our biomedical research, improved 
training and transparency for the handling of select agents, 
paved the way for the interagency collaboration to fortify 
zoonotic disease prevention, invested in our infectious disease 
work force, and enhanced our supply chain preparedness and 
ability to rapidly develop and deploy medical countermeasures.
    And ahead of today's hearing, more than 90 health and 
medical organizations, including the American Public Health 
Association, the American College of Physicians, the American 
Academy of Family Physicians, the Infectious Disease Society of 
America, the Association of State and Territorial Health 
Officials, and the National Association of County and City 
Health Officials, wrote to the Select Subcommittee, urging us 
to, quote, ``stand against efforts to weaken the ability of the 
Nation's public health agencies to protect the Nation's 
health'' and to take additional action to fortify our Nation's 
public health work force and infrastructure.
    I seek unanimous consent to enter this letter into the 
hearing record.
    Dr. Wenstrup. Without objection.
    Dr. Ruiz. As we sit here today, I have not lost hope that 
in the remaining months of the Select Subcommittee we can work 
together to build on this legacy and make objectively examining 
the origins of the novel coronavirus a part of this forward-
looking work. I stand by my commitments I mentioned earlier to 
take a serious, balanced look at all possibilities for the 
origins of the COVID-19 pandemic. And I stand ready to work 
with every Member of the Select Subcommittee on this critically 
important mission so that we can save future lives.
    And I believe I still have some time left, so, at that, I 
would like to recognize Mr. Raskin with the remaining time.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Dr. Ruiz.
    Public health is a matter of urgent and comprehensive 
public concern.
    Under Donald Trump, when the COVID-19 pandemic began and 
spun out of control, we came close to becoming a failed state, 
which the political scientists define as a state that cannot 
deliver the basic goods of existence to its people.
    According to Dr. Deborah Birx, Donald Trump's own COVID-19 
advisor, America unnecessarily lost hundreds of thousands of 
people because of the recklessness and indifference of Donald 
Trump and his administration.
    Now the people who brought you the political big lie, 
claiming absurdly that Trump won the 2020 election, which he 
lost by more than 7 million votes, now bring you the medical 
big lie, making the outlandish claim that Dr. Fauci was 
responsible for causing COVID-19.
    Using the Select Subcommittee as a platform for this 
disinformation, House Republicans now find themselves in the 
familiar position where their own investigation debunks their 
runaway political rhetoric.
    Just like the broader Committee's impeachment drive proved 
only that there were no Presidential crimes, much less high 
crimes and misdemeanors, attributable to Joe Biden, the 
investigation of Dr. Fauci shows he is an honorable public 
servant who has devoted his entire career to the public health 
and the public interest and he is not a comic book super-
villain.
    He did not fund research to create the COVID-19 pandemic. 
He did not lie to Congress about gain-of-function research in 
Wuhan. And he did not organize a lab leak suppression campaign.
    Today, Dr. Fauci's testimony, along with the thousands of 
pages of documents and dozens of closed-door testimony provided 
to House Republicans as part of the COVID origins 
investigation, will dispel these hysterical claims and reveal 
that the people bowing down to a twice-impeached convicted 
felon who told Americans to inject themselves with bleach now 
want you to believe not only a big political lie but a big 
medical lie too.
    I hope that this Committee will be able to correct all of 
the propaganda and disinformation today and we will be able to 
actually return to what the good Ranking Member has said, which 
is an authentic investigation of the origins of the pandemic.
    And I will yield back to the gentleman.
    Dr. Ruiz. And I yield back.
    Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize Mr. Griffith for a 3-minute 
statement.
    Mr. Griffith. Good morning. I want to again thank the 
leadership of this Committee for including the Energy and 
Commerce Committee in this hearing.
    Dr. Fauci, the recent revelations that Dr. Morens, a senior 
advisor, and your chief of staff, Greg Folkers, routinely 
evaded Federal records laws, including the Freedom of 
Information Act, or FOIA--and those were a shock. That was a 
shock. I've been doing oversight now for over 14 years, or 
right at 14 years, and the scale of the effort to evade FOIA by 
some at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases, or NIAID, has surprised even me.
    These men were among your most senior and trusted staff at 
an agency you led for nearly 40 years. They worked for you for 
decades. Your calendars show that you met with them multiple 
times a week during the pandemic. You co-authored dozens of 
papers with Dr. Morens. He directly implicates you. Even the 
head of the NIAID FOIA office was apparently in on some of this 
conspiracy.
    And I know that my colleagues on the other side love to say 
we're always talking conspiracy, but when the facts lead you 
there--whether you knew about it or not, when the facts lead 
you to that your agency was involved in some form of a 
conspiracy related to COVID origins, we have to follow those 
facts. It is hard to believe that all of this occurred without 
your knowledge and/or approval.
    In civil law, when one party has destroyed or refuses to 
produce evidence that's within its possession, a jury is 
allowed to draw an adverse inference, that the information 
destroyed or not produced was unfavorable.
    Therefore, until we get a full accounting of all of the 
communications among NIAID's leadership, it's reasonable for us 
to assume that missing information would mirror the private 
doubts expressed by so many virologists and other scientists 
related to your public positions.
    While telling the public, the media, and Congress that 
COVID-19 almost certainly emerged from nature, experts you 
convened as a team privately worried that a research-related 
incident was a possible, if not the probable, origin of the 
virus.
    Dr. Kristian Andersen even said in February 2020, quote, 
``I think the main thing still in my mind is that the lab 
escape version of this is so friggin' likely to have happened 
because they were already doing this type of work and molecular 
data is fully consistent with that scenario.''
    Further, while you and other NIAID officials were assuring 
us that the virus could not have come from the Wuhan Institute 
of Virology, NIAID didn't actually have an idea as to what the 
full scope of Wuhan's coronavirus research was or even the 
trajectory of its gain-of-function research. Now, that may be 
because EcoHealth wasn't giving you the reports, I grant that. 
But this joint investigation has shown just how little 
oversight NIAID does of risky experiments involving potential 
pandemic pathogens.
    NIAID set up a system designed to green-light potentially 
risky experiments while avoiding HHS Department-level review. 
The same program officers who act as advocates for their 
scientific area are responsible for assessing whether an 
experiment is too dangerous. That creates a conflict of 
interest.
    I think that means that when we're taking--when an agency 
is taking the final approval, we ought to take that final 
approval away from the agencies like NIAID that fund it.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize Ms. Castor for a 3-minute 
statement, and I will oblige you an extra 30 seconds as well.
    Ms. Castor. Well, thank you, Dr. Fauci, for your appearance 
today and for your decades of service to our country.
    During your 39 years at the helm of America's leading 
health research institute, the National Institute of Allergy 
and Infectious Diseases, you tackled some of the most serious 
health threats, including AIDS, Zika, Ebola, SARS-CoV-1, and 
COVID-19. Your leadership and service to Republican and 
Democratic administrations and all Americans saved countless 
lives and resources. We owe you a debt of gratitude.
    While the evidence to date points to COVID-19 having 
originated from an animal market in China, the Chinese 
Communist Party has blocked access to important information 
that could help confirm the origin of the virus.
    This Committee should be doing more to fight for those 
answers but, instead, has wasted significant time and taxpayer 
money fueling conspiracy theories and ignoring the importance 
of preparing for the next deadly pandemic.
    Some GOP Members falsely claimed you secretly broke into 
CIA headquarters and coerced analysts. Others claimed that you 
committed crimes.
    America's adversaries, like China, Russia, and Iran, love 
it when Americans are divided and distracted. It provided 
fertile ground for the spread of misinformation about COVID-19 
by our adversaries.
    And, unfortunately, fringe, far-right conspiracy theories 
have permeated even mainstream media outlets, and some 
Republican Members of Congress have played along.
    I regret that many of the conspiracies have smeared you, 
Dr. Fauci, as you and our top scientists did everything to keep 
Americans safe during the deadly days of COVID-19.
    Over 1.1 million Americans lost their lives to COVID-19, 
and today it's still more deadly than the flu.
    As we learned from Zika and Ebola, the ways viruses are 
transmitted are not obvious at first, and the development of 
treatments and vaccines takes time.
    What you and your team did to speed the development of the 
safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine was remarkable. That fast 
timeline was only possible due to years of Federal investment 
in the National Institutes of Health and support for medical 
research in the United States.
    So one of the lessons learned from the pandemic is the need 
to continue to invest in medical health research in the U.S.--
for cancer, for heart disease, for diabetes, but also to 
prepare for the next pandemic. We must learn from the past so 
that we can keep Americans safe.
    That's why Democrats have worked hard to update America's 
pandemic preparedness law, the Pandemic and All Hazards 
Preparedness Act, to shore up public health and make us more 
prepared to tackle the next pandemic threat.
    It's not too late for Republicans to join us and turn the 
least productive Congress in modern history into one where we 
are all focused on solutions for the American people to make 
our country safer and stronger.
    Democrats were able to prevent harmful rollbacks in medical 
research last year, and I urge my GOP colleagues to join us and 
move away from threatening and undermining American medical 
research at every turn.
    Public health threats are constantly emerging. In the past 
month alone, we have been tracking new strains and variants of 
H5N1, Mpox, and SARS-CoV-2.
    Dr. Fauci, I'm sorry for the personal attacks you have 
received and may have to deal with today. But while you are 
here, I want you to know that the vast majority of Americans 
appreciate your work over the years.
    I look forward to continuing to learn from you, to learn 
everything possible about how we can take the pandemic lessons 
learned and put them to use to help keep our communities safe 
and healthy.
    Thank you, and I yield back my time.
    Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you.
    Our witness today is Dr. Anthony Fauci. Dr. Fauci was the 
Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases from 1984 to 2022 and Chief Medical Advisor to 
President Joe Biden from 2021 to 2022.
    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. Fauci. 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, and we look forward to your testimony.
    Let me remind the witness that we have read your written 
statement, and it will appear in full in the hearing record. As 
requested, please limit your oral statement to 6 minutes.
    As a reminder, please press the button on the microphone in 
front of you so that it is on, and the Members can hear you. 
When you begin to speak, the light in front of you will turn 
green. After 5 minutes, the light will turn yellow. And when 
the red light comes on, your 6 minutes has expired, and we 
would ask that you please wrap up.
    I now recognize Dr. Fauci to give an opening statement.

                   STATEMENT OF ANTHONY FAUCI, M.D.,

                            FORMER DIRECTOR

                     NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY

                        AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES

    Dr. Fauci. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Ruiz, Members of 
the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to testify.
    Prior to my retirement from Federal service in December 
2022, I had been at the NIH for 54 years and Director of NIAID 
for more than 38 years. In those posts, I was deeply involved 
in the scientific and public health response to several 
infectious diseases outbreaks, including HIV/AIDS, pandemic, 
flu, Ebola, and Zika. And so, under my leadership, we were well 
positioned to respond to COVID-19.
    For at least two decades prior to the COVID outbreak, we at 
NIAID had invested billions of dollars in research on mRNA 
technology and immunogen design, both of which led to the swift 
development of COVID vaccines. Less than 11 months after the 
identification of this new virus, safe and highly effective 
vaccines were widely available--an unprecedented accomplishment 
in the history of vaccinology that saved tens of millions of 
lives worldwide.
    I will now use my remaining time to directly address 
certain issues that have been seriously distorted concerning 
me.
    The first issue concerns my actions regarding the 
possibility that SARS-CoV-2 might've resulted from a lab leak.
    On January 31, 2020, I was informed through phone calls 
with Jeremy Farrar, then-director of the Wellcome Trust in the 
U.K., and then with Kristian Andersen, a highly regarded 
scientist at Scripps Research Institute, that they and Eddie 
Holmes, a world-class evolutionary biologist from Australia, 
were concerned that the genomic sequence of SARS-CoV-2 
suggested that the virus could've been manipulated in a lab.
    I participated in a conference call the next day with about 
a dozen international virologists to discuss this possibility 
versus a spillover from an animal reservoir. The discussion was 
lively, with arguments for both possibilities. Two participants 
have testified before this Subcommittee that I did not try to 
steer the discussion in any direction.
    It was decided that several participants would more 
carefully examine the genomic sequence. After this further 
examination, several who at first were concerned about lab 
manipulation became convinced that the virus was not 
deliberately manipulated.
    They concluded that the most likely scenario was a 
spillover from an animal reservoir, although they still kept an 
open mind. They appropriately published their opinion in the 
peer-reviewed literature.
    The accusation being circulated--that I influenced these 
scientists to change their minds by bribing them with millions 
of dollars in grant money--is absolutely false and simply 
preposterous. I had no input into the content of the published 
paper.
    The second issue is a false accusation that I tried to 
cover up the possibility that the virus originated from a lab. 
In fact, the truth is exactly the opposite.
    I now quote from an email that I sent to Professor Farrar 
on February 1, 2020.
    Quote, ``Jeremy, I just got off the phone with Kristian 
Andersen, and he related to me his concern about the furin site 
mutation in the spike protein of the virus. I told him that as 
soon as possible he and Eddie Holmes should get a group of 
evolutionary biologists together to carefully examine the data 
to determine if his concerns are validated and they should 
report it to the appropriate authorities. I would imagine that 
in the USA this would be the FBI and in the U.K. it would be 
MI5. In the meantime, I will alert my U.S. Government official 
colleagues of my conversation with you and Kristian and 
determine what further investigation they recommend. Let us 
stay in touch. Best regards, Tony,'' unquote.
    It is inconceivable that anyone who reads this email could 
conclude that I was trying to cover up the possibility of a lab 
leak. I have always kept an open mind to the different 
possibilities.
    Another issue is that of Dr. David Morens, who has the 
title of Senior Advisor to the NIAID Director and who recently 
began--has been investigated for conduct unbecoming a 
government official. Naturally, given his title, a connection 
is made to me.
    With respect to his recent testimony before this 
Subcommittee, I knew nothing of Dr. Morens's actions regarding 
Dr. Daszak, EcoHealth, or his emails.
    It is important to point out for the record that, despite 
his title and even though he was helpful to me in writing 
scientific papers, Dr. Morens was not an advisor to me on 
Institute policy or other substantive issues.
    At NIAID, we had weekly Executive Committee meetings of the 
Institute leadership and daily morning meetings of my immediate 
staff, and, to the best of my recollection, he attended neither 
of these. Furthermore, his office is located in a different 
building from that of the NIAID Director.
    Finally, in a Majority Staff memorandum of May 22, 2024, 
there is this statement: Quote, ``Dr. Fauci may have conducted 
official business via personal email,'' unquote.
    Let me state for the record that, to the best of my 
knowledge, I have never conducted official business using my 
personal email.
    Thank you for listening. I would be happy to address these 
and any other issues in the discussion period.
    Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you.
    I now recognize myself for as much time as I may consume 
for questions, with equal time being afforded to the Ranking 
Member.
    Dr. Fauci, on February 1, 2020, you were on a call with Dr. 
Farrar, Dr. Collins, and other scientists regarding the 
potential that COVID-19 was engineered.
    Was CDC Director Redfield on that call?
    Dr. Fauci. No, he was not.
    Dr. Wenstrup. OK.
    Dr. Fauci, you've said that you had to rely on virologists 
and evolutionary biologists regarding origins because you are 
not an expert.
    Is Dr. Redfield a virologist?
    Dr. Fauci. I believe he is.
    Dr. Wenstrup. He is.
    Prior to the pandemic, NIAID awarded at least three grants 
via the New York Blood Center to Dr. Zhou Yusen.
    Are you aware of these?
    Dr. Fauci. I'm sorry? To Dr.----
    Dr. Wenstrup. Yusen Zhou. Are you aware of those grants?
    Dr. Fauci. I'm sorry. The name of the person?
    Dr. Wenstrup. Dr. Yusen Zhou.
    Dr. Fauci. [Inaudible.]
    Dr. Wenstrup. Your microphone is not on, Doctor.
    Dr. Fauci. Excuse me?
    Dr. Wenstrup. Your microphone is not on.
    Dr. Fauci. I'm not familiar with that name.
    Dr. Wenstrup. OK. Well, NIAID awarded at least three grants 
via the New York Blood Center to that scientist.
    He was a high-ranking Chinese PLA official and director of 
a lab at the Chinese Academy of Military Medical Sciences.
    Does it concern you if U.S. taxpayer dollars are funding 
someone like this?
    Dr. Fauci. Grants that are submitted to the NIAID go 
through a very----
    Dr. Wenstrup. Does it concern you--I'm not talking about 
the process right now.
    Dr. Fauci. Well, I don't know anything----
    Dr. Wenstrup. Does it concern you that U.S. taxpayer 
dollars would be going to someone who's a high-ranking Chinese 
PLA official? Yes or no?
    Dr. Fauci. I would have to know more about that, Mr. 
Chairman----
    Dr. Wenstrup. OK.
    Dr. Fauci [continuing]. Because I don't even----
    Dr. Wenstrup. Well, it concerns me.
    Dr. Fauci [continuing]. Know the person you're talking 
about.
    Dr. Wenstrup. Are you or were you ever aware that the U.S. 
State Department in 2005 issued warnings that the Chinese 
Government was working on the creation of bioweapons?
    Dr. Fauci. I was not aware of that.
    Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you.
    Did you ever discuss the Chinese bioweapons program with 
anyone in the intelligence community?
    Dr. Fauci. I have never discussed the Chinese bioweapons 
program, to my knowledge, with anybody.
    Dr. Wenstrup. Before, during, or after the COVID-19 
pandemic, did you speak to the FBI, CIA, DIA, or any U.S. 
intelligence agency concerning viral research of any kind?
    Dr. Fauci. What timeframe are you talking about, sir? 
Because----
    Dr. Wenstrup. I said, before, during, or after the COVID-19 
pandemic, did you speak to the FBI, CIA, DIA, or any U.S. 
intelligence agency concerning viral research of any kind?
    Dr. Fauci. I can't give you the specifics of it, but back 
in the time of the anthrax attacks, we certainly had a number 
of briefings by agencies that were intelligence agencies--I 
don't remember who they were; it could've been any of the above 
that you mentioned--about the possibility that there were 
bioweapons that had fallen into the hands of bad actors, i.e., 
terrorists, that might have been used potentially as a 
bioterror attack.
    That was at a time when we had thought that the anthrax----
    Dr. Wenstrup. So, I appreciate--I appreciate that. I 
appreciate your expertise in that. But----
    Dr. Fauci. Well, that's the answer.
    Dr. Wenstrup. But did you at any time talk to--concerning 
viral research of any kind?
    Dr. Fauci. Again I say that, at the time that there was 
concern about the fact that al-Qaida may have been using or 
potentially using bioweapons, we had discussions with 
intelligence agencies about that----
    Dr. Wenstrup. Sure.
    Dr. Fauci [continuing]. Possibility.
    Dr. Wenstrup. But not as related to, say, COVID-19?
    Dr. Fauci. Not, to my knowledge----
    Dr. Wenstrup. OK.
    Dr. Fauci [continuing]. About COVID--now, well, let me just 
make sure we get the facts.
    After the investigations began about COVID, I was briefed 
by intelligence agencies about possibilities of there being 
activities going on in different laboratories. I was briefed by 
intelligence----
    Dr. Wenstrup. Yes.
    Dr. Fauci [continuing]. Agencies.
    Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you.
    Science is always open to debate, and that's a benefit. The 
science supported restricting travel from certain countries at 
the beginning of the pandemic, and after these orders went into 
effect, the President was called racist and xenophobic.
    Dr. Fauci, you said in your transcribed interview that you 
supported those orders. Dr. Fauci, were those orders racist and 
xenophobic?
    Dr. Fauci. No, they were not.
    Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you.
    The vaccine saved millions of lives, and I want to thank 
you for your support and engagement on that.
    However, despite statements to the contrary, it did not 
stop transmission of the virus.
    Did the COVID vaccine stop transmission of the virus?
    Dr. Fauci. That is a complicated issue, because, in the 
beginning, the first iteration of the vaccines did have an 
effect--not 100 percent, not a high effect--they did prevent 
infection and, subsequently, obviously, transmission.
    However, it's important to point out, something that we did 
not know early on that became evident as the months went by is 
that the durability of protection against infection, and hence, 
transmission was relatively limited, whereas the duration of 
protection against severe disease, hospitalization, and deaths 
was more prolonged.
    We did not know that in the beginning. In the beginning, it 
was felt that, in fact, it did prevent infection and, thus, 
transmission, but that was proven, as time went by, to not be a 
durable effect.
    Dr. Wenstrup. Yes, it definitely had positive effect for 
many people, especially those that were vulnerable. But we knew 
from the trials that people that got vaccinated still were 
subject to getting COVID.
    So, was the COVID vaccine 100 percent effective?
    Dr. Fauci. I don't believe any vaccine is 100 percent 
effective.
    Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize the Ranking Member, Dr. Ruiz 
from California, for 5 minutes of questions.
    Dr. Ruiz. Thank you.
    Over the past year and a half, my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle have relentlessly vilified Dr. Fauci under 
the guise of investigating the origins of the COVID-19 
pandemic.
    But after reviewing nearly half a million pages of 
documents, conducting 20 closed-door interviews, and receiving 
testimony from nearly a dozen witnesses brought before the 
Select Subcommittee for public hearings, they have come up 
empty-handed for evidence of their extreme allegations that Dr. 
Fauci lied about gain-of-function research at the Wuhan 
Institute of Virology and caused the COVID-19 pandemic.
    So, I'd like to address both of the Republican claims in 
turn.
    Throughout the Majority's investigation, the Select 
Subcommittee has heard three definitions for ``gain-of-
function'' research.
    Of the three, Republicans have relied heavily on an overly 
broad definition that has no regulatory significance. Let me 
repeat that: no regulatory significance. In fact, their 
definition is so broad that it would include the manufacture of 
flu vaccines as gain-of-function.
    Because it is so broad, the National Institutes of Health 
does not use that definition when assessing whether proposed 
research is or is not, quote/unquote, ``gain-of-function'' 
research. For those assessments, NIH has instead appropriately 
used the definitions provided in regulations.
    And, to be clear, the Select Subcommittee has been reminded 
by witnesses after witness that NIH at all times referred to 
regulations for the definition of ``gain-of-function'' research 
and not to a nebulous, expansive definition with no legal 
bearing that is so broad it could apply to, again, the 
manufacturing of flu vaccines.
    Dr. Fauci, according to the regulatory definitions, for 
example, in P3CO, that NIH applied to proposed research, did 
NIH ever fund gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China?
    Dr. Fauci. As you said, Congressman Ruiz, according to the 
regulatory and operative definition of P3CO, the NIH did not 
fund gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of 
Virology.
    Dr. Ruiz. Thank you. And despite my Republican colleagues' 
effort to fit a square peg into a round hole, it seems to me 
that you've been consistent on this issue from the beginning of 
the pandemic. And they know this, but they still use the term 
``gain-of-function'' loosely.
    And with respect to NIAID's staff assessments of whether 
proposed research was or was not gain-of-function research, 
were you personally involved in those assessments, or were 
those assessments made several levels removed from you and by 
subject-matter experts?
    Dr. Fauci. Those assessments were done by highly qualified 
and experienced program people several levels below me.
    Dr. Ruiz. Thank you.
    And your public statements that NIH did not fund gain-of-
function research in Wuhan reflected the assessments made by 
NIAID subject-matter experts applying a definition found in the 
regulation known as the P3CO framework.
    Is that correct?
    Dr. Fauci. That is correct.
    Dr. Ruiz. Thank you. And thank you for clarifying that.
    In fact, all of that is abundantly clear in your 2021 
Senate testimony on this matter. When asked by the Senate about 
gain-of-function research, you testified, quote, ``That is why 
we have committees, we have a P3CO committee.''
    You also testified in 2021, quote, ``'Gain-of-function' is 
a very nebulous term. We have spent--not us, but outside 
bodies--a considerable amount of effort to give a more precise 
definition to the type of research that is of concern that 
might lead to a dangerous situation. You are aware of that. 
That is called P3CO.''
    That was back in 2021. At the time of your May 2021 
testimony, P3CO had been the operative definition of gain-of-
function research for several years, correct?
    Dr. Fauci. That is correct.
    Dr. Ruiz. So I will note that, at your transcribed 
interview in January, the Majority conceded that NIH did not 
fund research in Wuhan that met the criteria of P3CO.
    I encourage the audience to read the transcript of that 
interview so you can evaluate the merit of the Majority's 
claims for yourselves.
    So, now, if we could quickly turn to the irresponsible and 
false accusation that you created SARS-CoV-2, the virus 
responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic.
    So this accusation centers on a grant NIAID awarded to 
EcoHealth Alliance, with a sub-award to the Wuhan Institute of 
Virology. And we have been entertained earlier about the 
suggestion that this funding could've possibly gone to a 
bioweapons research capacity as well.
    So, I want to be clear: No evidence provided to the Select 
Subcommittee demonstrates that the work performed under NIH 
funding, including at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, led to 
the creation of SARS-CoV-2.
    The Majority has failed to demonstrate or even credibly 
suggest that any of the viruses studied under the grant could 
even possibly have been the progenitor virus.
    Dr. Fauci, could you briefly explain why none of the 
viruses studied under the EcoHealth Alliance grant could've 
been the progenitor virus of the SARS-CoV-2?
    Dr. Fauci. When you're talking about the evolution of a 
virus from one to another, the viruses that were studied under 
the sub-award to the Wuhan Institute that have been reported in 
progress reports and the literature and published papers, those 
viruses were phylogenetically so far removed from SARS-CoV-2 
that it is molecularly impossible for those viruses to have 
evolved or been made into SARS-CoV-2.
    It's just a virological fact. They were so far removed that 
it could not possibly be a progenitor of SARS-CoV-2.
    Dr. Ruiz. So I want to be very clear on this point: that 
the funding and the research conducted by EcoHealth Alliance 
did not produce SARS-CoV-2.
    That doesn't negate that this lab could've--another lab 
could've been doing research and it could've leaked from a lab. 
That still is a possibility. But it was not directly--or it was 
not funded by NIAID or NIH.
    And, just for the record, this information was provided by 
NIH to then-Oversight Ranking Member James Comer nearly 3 years 
ago, in October 2021.
    So, despite the clear evidence that Dr. Fauci and his 
agency did not fund gain-of-function research under the P3CO 
regulatory definition and that the viruses studied under the 
federally funded EcoHealth Alliance grant could have not have 
been the progenitor virus for SARS-CoV-2, Republicans have 
levied these unsubstantiated allegations, knowing very well 
that they are not true. And they have done so to push their 
extreme, partisan narrative that Dr. Fauci and our Nation's 
public health officials caused the COVID-19 pandemic.
    Dr. Wenstrup. Do you yield back?
    Dr. Ruiz. Yep.
    Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize the Chairman of the Full 
Committee, Mr. Comer from Kentucky, for 5 minutes of questions.
    Mr. Comer. Thank you.
    Dr. Fauci, in your opening statement, you attempt to 
distance yourself from your previous senior advisor, Dr. 
Morens. You say that Dr. Morens' title was just made up, that 
he was not an advisor to you, and that his office was in a 
different building.
    So, Dr. Fauci, did Dr. Morens report directly to you?
    Dr. Fauci. Actually, I'm not sure exactly what the on-paper 
report is. He is Senior Advisor to the Director, but it is 
conceivable--we can get that information--he might have 
reported through someone lower, like my deputy.
    Mr. Comer. So your senior advisor did not report directly 
to you?
    Dr. Fauci. There were very few people who report directly 
to me.
    Mr. Comer. OK.
    Dr. Morens testified that he could walk into your office 
anytime he wanted to. Is that true?
    Dr. Fauci. No. That's not true. You don't just walk into 
the office. I mean, he's there. I mean, it's conceivable that 
he----
    Mr. Comer. Did he ever walk into your office?
    Dr. Fauci. I would say he did occasionally, but the idea--
can I finish the answer to you, sir?
    Mr. Comer. No, because I've got a lot of questions.
    Dr. Fauci. OK.
    Mr. Comer. Dr. Fauci, did you ever delete an official 
record?
    Dr. Fauci. No.
    Mr. Comer. Dr. Fauci, did you ever conduct official 
business via email?
    Dr. Fauci. To the best of my recollection and knowledge, I 
have never conducted official business via my private email.
    Mr. Comer. So, there's a troubling pattern of behavior from 
your inner circle, not just Dr. Morens but also your chief of 
staff, Mr. Folkers.
    Do you agree that it violates NIAID policy to use personal 
email for official purposes?
    Dr. Fauci. The Dr. Morens issue that was discussed by this 
Committee violates NIH policy, yes.
    Mr. Comer. But does using official email--using a personal 
email for official business, does that violate policy?
    Dr. Fauci. Using a personal email for official business 
violates NIH policy.
    Mr. Comer. Does it violate NAID--NAI--NA--NIAID policy to 
delete records to intentionally avoid FOIA?
    Dr. Fauci. Yes.
    Mr. Comer. OK.
    On April 28, 2020, Dr. Morens edited an EcoHealth press 
release regarding the grant termination.
    Does that violate policy?
    Dr. Fauci. That was inappropriate, for him to be doing that 
for a grantee, as a conflict of interest, among other things.
    Mr. Comer. So, on March 29, 2021, Dr. Morens edited a 
letter that Dr. Daszak was sending to NIH.
    Does that violate policy?
    Dr. Fauci. Yes, it does.
    Mr. Comer. On October 25, 2021, Dr. Morens provided Dr. 
Daszak with advice regarding how to mislead NIH on EcoHealth's 
late progress report.
    Does that violate policy?
    Dr. Fauci. That was wrong and inappropriate and violated 
policy.
    Mr. Comer. On December 7, 2021, Dr. Morens wrote to the 
chair of EcoHealth's board of directors to, quote, ``put in a 
word,'' end quote, for Dr. Daszak.
    Does that violate policy?
    Dr. Fauci. He should not have done that. That was wrong.
    Mr. Comer. And that violates policy?
    Dr. Fauci. Well, I'm not sure of a specific policy, but I 
imagine it does violate policy. He should not have been doing 
that.
    Mr. Comer. In addition to all those actions, Dr. Morens 
wrote to Dr. Daszak, quote, ``Peter, from Tony's numerous 
recent comments to me, they are trying to protect you,'' end 
quote.
    Did you ever talk to Dr. Morens about Dr. Daszak or 
EcoHealth Alliance?
    Dr. Fauci. I can tell you, regarding what you said, I never 
spoke about protecting him. I mean, obviously, we knew that 
Daszak was a grantee, so I may have mentioned and discussed Dr. 
Daszak because he's a grantee----
    Mr. Comer. So he just made that up?
    Dr. Fauci [continuing]. But I never spoke about----
    Mr. Comer. You're testifying----
    Dr. Fauci [continuing]. Protecting him.
    Mr. Comer [continuing]. That he just made that up?
    Dr. Fauci. Excuse me?
    Mr. Comer. You're testifying that Dr. Morens just made that 
up?
    Dr. Fauci. I don't know where he got that, but that's not 
true.
    Mr. Comer. So, by this point, Dr. Fauci, when these emails 
were written, you should've known that Dr. Daszak was more than 
2 years late on a required progress report with his grant, Dr. 
Daszak conducted an experiment that resulted in a novel virus 
showing excess growth, that Dr. Daszak failed to report that 
experiment, that Dr. Daszak was protecting the Wuhan lab in not 
sharing its lab notebooks, and that Dr. Daszak failed to 
disclose obvious conflicts of interest.
    So why were you trying to protect Dr. Daszak and EcoHealth 
Alliance?
    Dr. Fauci. I repeat on the record, I have not tried to 
protect Dr. Daszak. And that's No. 1.
    No. 2, you said something that's not true, because I did 
not know about the compliance issues until well after the fact, 
when I was being briefed for going before a congressional 
committee. So it wasn't that as these things were going on I 
knew that he was withholding----
    Mr. Comer. Well, did you know about Dr. Morens' close 
relationship with Dr. Daszak?
    Dr. Fauci. Dr. Morens made it clear that Dr. Daszak was his 
friend. I did not engage in any of that interaction between 
them.
    Mr. Comer. And, just last, if I might, Mr. Chair, you 
testified and answered the Chairman's question that you never 
had any communication with the intelligence community 
throughout all of COVID? Did I understand that correctly?
    Dr. Fauci. No, you heard wrong. I said I did have 
communication. I was briefed by the intelligence community 
multiple times during the COVID issue.
    Mr. Comer. And you never----
    Dr. Wenstrup. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Comer. All right.
    Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize the Ranking Member of the 
Full Committee, Mr. Raskin from Maryland, for 5 minutes of 
questions.
    Mr. Raskin. OK.
    First, Dr. Fauci, thank you for your testimony and your 
extraordinary service to the American people.
    Let me just start, was there anything you wanted to clear 
up in that last exchange that--where you were interrupted?
    Dr. Fauci. No, I think I made it clear. I mean, they were 
talking about my knowing about a lack of compliance. That 
became clear, Congressman Raskin, well after the fact. It isn't 
as if they were not complying and I was not monitoring their 
noncompliance. I didn't know about it until it was a done deal.
    Mr. Raskin. Gotcha.
    You've been a scientist and a scientific administrator for 
54 years; is that right? More than a half-century?
    Dr. Fauci. That's correct.
    Mr. Raskin. And you were Director of the National Institute 
of Allergy and Infectious Diseases for more than three decades. 
Is that right?
    Dr. Fauci. Thirty-eight-plus years.
    Mr. Raskin. Thirty-eight years. OK.
    And I assume that you've never been accused of trying to 
start a disease before. Is that right?
    Dr. Fauci. That is correct.
    Mr. Raskin. You have devoted your life to fighting 
infectious diseases for the American people. Is that right?
    Dr. Fauci. That is correct.
    Mr. Raskin. I want to go back to this email that you cited 
in your opening, because I think it goes right to the heart of 
this campaign of character assassination against you.
    The claim was, essentially, that you tried to cover up the 
possibility of there having been a laboratory leak--which, of 
course, is perfectly possible, and if this Committee were doing 
its job, we could actually be working to advance the 
investigation of that. But they would rather assert that you 
tried to cover up this possibility.
    Here's the email that you sent on February 1 at 12:38 a.m. 
to Kristian Andersen--with a copy to Kristian Andersen, but you 
sent it to Professor Jeremy Farrar.
    ``Jeremy, I just got off the phone with Kristian Andersen, 
and he related to me his concern about the furin site mutation 
in the spike protein of the currently circulating 2019 nCoV. I 
told him that as soon as possible he and Eddie Holmes should 
get a group of evolutionary biologists together to carefully 
examine the data to determine if his concerns are validated. He 
should do this very quickly. And if everyone agrees with his 
concern, they should report it to the appropriate authorities. 
I would imagine that in the USA this would be the FBI and in 
the U.K. it would be MI5. It would be important to quickly get 
confirmation of the cause of his concern by experts in the 
field of coronaviruses and evolutionary biology. In the 
meantime, I will alert my U.S. Government official colleagues 
of my conversation with you and Kristian and determine what 
further investigation they recommend. Let us stay in touch. 
Best regards, Tony.''
    Was this the email where you were putatively trying to 
cover up the possibility of a lab leak?
    Dr. Fauci. Yes, Congressman Raskin. And that's the reason 
why I mentioned in my opening statement that it is 
inconceivable that anyone could get out of that that I was 
covering anything up.
    Mr. Raskin. Would you have any reason to cover up any new 
scientific evidence relating to the origins of the COVID-19 
virus?
    Dr. Fauci. Absolutely not. And that's the reason why it was 
important to get people together to discuss this in a 
transparent way.
    Mr. Raskin. Have you spent your whole life trying to 
determine the causes of infectious diseases and then to stop 
them to protect the American people?
    Dr. Fauci. Yes, I have.
    Mr. Raskin. Well, Dr. Fauci, I want to join my colleague 
from Florida in apologizing to you that some of our colleagues 
in the U.S. House of Representatives seem to want to drag your 
name through the mud.
    They're treating you, Dr. Fauci, like a convicted felon. 
Actually, you probably wish they were treating you like a 
convicted felon. They treat convicted felons with love and 
admiration. Some of them blindly worship convicted felons.
    Is there anything else you would like to say to the 
American people about your service to America during the course 
of the COVID-19 pandemic?
    Dr. Fauci. My main job during the COVID pandemic was to 
play a role with my team at the Vaccine Research Center to 
develop a safe and effective vaccine. And we did that in an 
unprecedented short period of time never seen before in the 
annals of vaccinology.
    As we all know, that vaccine and those vaccines have 
resulted in saving of hundreds of thousands of lives in the 
United States and millions of lives throughout the world.
    Mr. Raskin. Well, you have fought AIDS and HIV, you have 
fought COVID-19, and you are fearless in doing so.
    Do you have any reason to be afraid of scientific evidence 
or data or the truth?
    Dr. Fauci. Not at all.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you.
    I will yield back to you, Mr. Chairman.
    Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize Mr. Griffith from Virginia 
for 5 minutes of questions.
    Mr. Griffith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    It's good to see you, Dr. Fauci.
    So take a deep breath, because my questions change 
sometimes based on things that happen in the hearing, and I 
want you to follow the bouncing ball with me. And there's no 
``gotcha'' at the end of this; I'm just trying to figure this 
out.
    You told Dr. Ruiz in his questioning that it was absolutely 
impossible for any of the viruses that you all were funding--I 
get that--to--it was impossible for SARS-Covid-2, or SARS-CoV-
2, known as COVID-19, to have come from any of the work that 
was being done at Wuhan.
    At the same time, you told Mr. Comer that you didn't know 
about the noncompliance by EcoHealth until after the fact and 
when the virus is already out there, however it got there.
    In light of the fact that part of that noncompliance was a 
report where we uncovered--and I believe that Dr. Daszak was 
untruthful to this Committee--in one of his reports to NIAID, 
and, further, that in the two most sensitive years related to 
the humanized mice experiments, we never got lab notebooks from 
Wuhan Institute of Virology, can you understand, following the 
bouncing ball, why some of us doubt that--not that you had some 
hand in it or that you knew about it, but doubt that you can 
state with certainty that it was impossible because they 
might've been doing stuff you didn't know about? Isn't that 
true?
    Dr. Fauci. Actually, it's not incompatible at all, 
Congressman, what I said.
    The viruses that were studied, whether you did or did not 
give a 5-year report on time, were still the viruses that 
phylogenetically would be impossible to be the precursor of 
SARS-CoV-2.
    So it was completely compatible with the statement that I 
made----
    Mr. Griffith. And is that----
    Dr. Fauci [continuing]. To Dr. Ruiz.
    Mr. Griffith [continuing]. Is that accurate as well, 
knowing that they had worked on adding a furin cleavage site to 
MERS?
    Dr. Fauci. But, sir, there's a difference between the 
viruses that were funded by the NIH sub-award versus anything 
else anybody else in China might be doing.
    Mr. Griffith. Excellent.
    Dr. Fauci. We were talking about, did the NIH----
    Mr. Griffith. You were talking about what you funded.
    Dr. Fauci. What we funded. And----
    Mr. Griffith. All right.
    Dr. Fauci [continuing]. That's the point.
    Mr. Griffith. And that goes to my next question, because I 
thought you might go there. And I appreciate that.
    Dr. Fauci. Right.
    Mr. Griffith. Because, in an off-the-record Member-level 
briefing in February 2022, I asked about the likelihood in 
nature of a SARS-related coronavirus to have a furin cleavage 
site, particularly since it takes the 12-nucleotide change in 
there to make it so--to make it as viral as this was going on.
    And, at the time, you said to me pretty much what you just 
said--and I want you to just confirm it for the record--``Well, 
that wasn't us. If that was being done, it wasn't us.''
    Dr. Fauci. Yes.
    Mr. Griffith. And you confirmed that for the record, yes?
    Dr. Fauci. No, what I'm----
    Mr. Griffith. It wasn't you? It wasn't what you were 
funding?
    Dr. Fauci. What I'm saying is that I cannot account, nor 
can anyone account, for other things that might be going on in 
China, which is the reason why I have always said and will say 
now, I keep an open mind as to what the origin is.
    But the one thing I know for sure is that the viruses that 
were funded by the NIH phylogenetically could not be the 
precursor of SARS-CoV-2.
    Mr. Griffith. And I appreciate that, because I've never 
thought that NIH or NIAID went out to create this thing. But I 
am a believer that it came out of the lab.
    And I think you've just made it clear--and sometimes people 
miss this, Dr. Fauci--one side says one thing, one side says 
the other, and the actual fact may be that, at some time, 
working on that, maybe they used some of our money to get 
started, maybe they didn't, but a group of scientists getting 
together might very well at Wuhan have said, ``Hey, let's see 
what happens if we go over here and do this''--not that NIH 
funded it, but they, on their own, went off and did something.
    Isn't that accurate? Isn't that possible?
    Dr. Fauci. Well, I actually would also want to say that one 
thing we should put out on the table, that you were talking 
about a $120,000-a-year grant in a $6 billion budget. So, I 
mean, if they were going to do something on the side, they had 
plenty of other money to do it. They wouldn't necessarily have 
to use a $120,000 NIH grant to do it.
    Mr. Griffith. And I appreciate that, because it means 
something could happen, and I'm glad you kept an open mind.
    I would ask this one final thing, though. Do you think they 
could've done it without the humanized mice that we gave them?
    Dr. Fauci. Could've done what, sir?
    Mr. Griffith. Could they have done any other research with 
the humanized mice that we gave them? Would they be successful? 
China didn't have the humanized mice before we gave them to 
Wuhan. Isn't it accurate that they might've been able to do 
extra stuff with our mice?
    Dr. Fauci. That's a hypothetical that I can't really 
answer, what they could or could not----
    Mr. Griffith. But you can't say it couldn't have happened 
either.
    Dr. Fauci. Well----
    Mr. Griffith. I yield back.
    Dr. Fauci [continuing]. You want me to prove a negative.
    Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize Ms. Castor from Florida for 5 
minutes of questions.
    Ms. Castor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    You know, these special investigative committees are 
intended at the outset to bring light to difficult matters, and 
I think, unfortunately, this Select Committee has brought more 
heat than light to things.
    And one example is, nearly 5 months ago, Dr. Fauci sat for 
a 14-hour voluntary interview with the Subcommittee--I was 
there for that interview--which included exchanges on many 
important questions on research safety, long COVID, vaccine 
development, and the importance of strong public health systems 
in our local communities. And also, we discussed pandemic 
preparedness, like stockpiling supplies for our hospitals in 
advance of the next pandemic.
    But I want the public to know that for 5 months the 
Republicans sat on that transcript. They could have released it 
at any time. It was released last Friday.
    If the public had seen it 5 months ago, they would know 
that they--the Republicans failed to find a shred of evidence 
of their far-fetched conspiracy linking Dr. Fauci to a cover-up 
of the origins of the pandemic. Instead, the Republicans 
contorted and mischaracterized Dr. Fauci's words over Twitter 
to gin up conspiracies about NIH's role in the origins of the 
pandemic.
    In the lead-up to this hearing, parts of that interview 
have again been cherry-picked and distorted in press releases 
and tweets.
    So, Dr. Fauci, I want to make sure that you have an 
opportunity to publicly clear anything up. Does anything come 
top of mind right off the bat in how they cherry-picked parts 
of your 14-hour transcript?
    Dr. Fauci. I don't want to be casting stones at the 
distortions of what was said in that, but, you know, there are 
a couple of things that come to mind.
    You know, one I'm sure is going to come up later is the 
issue of the six-foot distance, and I made the statement that 
it ``just appeared.'' And that got taken like, ``I don't know 
what's going on. It just appeared.''
    It actually came from the CDC. The CDC was responsible for 
those kinds of guidelines to schools, not me.
    So, when I said that it just appeared, it appeared. Was 
there any science behind it? What I meant by ``no science 
behind it'' is that there wasn't a controlled trial that said, 
compare 6-foot with 3 feet with 10 feet. So there wasn't that 
scientific evaluation of it.
    What I believe the CDC used for their reason to say six 
feet is that studies years ago showed that when you're dealing 
with droplets--which, at the time that the CDC made that 
recommendation, it was felt that the transmission was primarily 
through droplet, not aerosol, which is incorrect, because we 
know now aerosol does play a role.
    That's the reason why they did it. It had little to do with 
me, since I didn't make the recommendation. And my saying there 
was no science behind it means there was no clinical trial that 
proved that.
    That's just one of the things that got a little distorted 
in the response to that.
    Ms. Castor. And I've learned and watched you over the 
years. I have to go back to the Zika outbreak, where we didn't 
know how exactly it was being transmitted. And, at one point, 
we weren't aware that some of the--some of it was sexually 
transmitted.
    That's an example of why, with these public health threats, 
that you learn--you learn, unfortunately, as we go along.
    Talk a little bit about the Zika health threat and how 
that--we didn't know what was happening in early days.
    Dr. Fauci. Well, Congresswoman----
    Ms. Castor. Your microphone.
    Dr. Fauci [continuing]. I'm glad you brought that up, 
because it really is also reflective of what went on in the 
early months of COVID.
    When you're dealing with an outbreak that's a novel 
outbreak--the Zika outbreak that caused microcephaly was novel. 
We had never seen that before. COVID was novel. We'd never seen 
that before. When you're dealing with a new outbreak, things 
change. The scientific process collects the information that 
will allow you, at that time, to make a determination, a 
recommendation, or a guideline.
    As things evolve and change and you get more information, 
it is important that you use the scientific process to gain 
that information and perhaps change the way you think of 
things, change your guidelines, and change your recommendation.
    And that really goes across the board, because you're 
dealing with something that needs to be modified because it's a 
moving target. Zika was a moving target. COVID was a moving 
target.
    Ms. Castor. Well, thank you very much.
    And I want to thank the Democratic staff for your Minority 
report.
    And if it's not already submitted for the record, I'd like 
to ask unanimous consent to offer into the record the 
Democratic staff report, just completed, ``Republicans' Fauci 
Flop: Select Subcommittee's Fifteen-Month Probe Fails to Find 
Evidence of Extreme Claims Linking Dr. Fauci to COVID-19's 
Origins.''
    Dr. Wenstrup. Without objection.
    Ms. Castor. And thank the staff. This is an outstanding 
report that folks should read.
    Thank you.
    Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize Ms. Malliotakis from New York 
for 5 minutes of questions.
    Ms. Malliotakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I think many of us on the Committee are really disturbed by 
revelations to this Committee that there were officials at NIH 
that deleted government records, that deleted personal--or they 
used personal information--personal emails to communicate and 
circumvent freedom-of-information laws. So, I just had a couple 
questions about that.
    Dr. Fauci, did you delete any emails or records related to 
the Wuhan lab or the origins of the virus?
    Dr. Fauci. No, I did not.
    Ms. Malliotakis. OK.
    Dr. Morens said in a May 2021 email--he indicated that he 
was connecting people to you in a, quote, ``secret 
backchannel.''
    Do you know what he was referring to?
    Dr. Fauci. I don't have any idea what he's talking about. 
There is no backchannel at NIAID.
    Ms. Malliotakis. OK.
    ``There is''--he also said in another email that ``there is 
no worry about Freedom of Information Act. I can send stuff to 
Tony on his private email.''
    Did you communicate with anyone relating to anything 
regarding NIH or with Dr. Morens on a private email?
    Dr. Fauci. I do not do government business on my private 
email.
    Ms. Malliotakis. OK. So have you communicated with Dr. 
Morens via private email, even if it was not necessarily your 
definition of government business?
    Dr. Fauci. It might have been--because, as I mentioned in 
my opening statement, one of his functions is to write 
chapters, medical scientific chapters, with me. So it is 
conceivable that I communicated with him on my private email 
when we were writing a chapter, and that was not official 
business.
    Ms. Malliotakis. What about Peter Daszak?
    Dr. Fauci. No.
    Ms. Malliotakis. OK.
    I just want to clarify for the record, because today you 
testified that you did not suppress the lab leak theory, yet in 
the past you have said, quote, ``It is a distortion of 
reality,'' unquote. You've said, quote, ``I've heard these 
conspiracy theories, and, like all conspiracy theories, they're 
just conspiracy theories.'' That's what you told the American 
people.
    And so would you like to clarify, what science were you 
following then versus now?
    Dr. Fauci. Yes. No, I--actually, I've also been very, very 
clear and said multiple times that I don't think the concept of 
there being a lab leak is inherently a conspiracy theory.
    What is conspiracy is the kind of distortions of that 
particular subject. Like, it was a lab leak, and I was 
parachuted into the CIA like Jason Bourne and told the CIA that 
they should really not----
    Ms. Malliotakis. OK.
    Dr. Fauci [continuing]. Be talking about a lab leak.
    Ms. Malliotakis. Thank you.
    Dr. Fauci. That's the conspiracy.
    Ms. Malliotakis. Appreciate that.
    Dr. Fauci, how much have you earned from royalties from 
pharmaceutical companies since the pandemic began in 2021?
    Dr. Fauci. Zero.
    Ms. Malliotakis. It says, ``NIH scientists made $710 
million in royalties from drug makers.''
    You're saying that you did not receive any of the $710 
million?
    Dr. Fauci. On COVID? I received I think $122 for a 
monoclonal antibody that I made 27 years ago----
    Ms. Malliotakis. OK. So, just in general, though, how much 
have you received--not related to COVID, just in general, how 
much have you received in royalties between 2021 and 2023?
    Dr. Fauci. I think none.
    Ms. Malliotakis. OK. So somebody received the $710 
million----
    Dr. Fauci. Somebody did, but not me.
    Ms. Malliotakis. You didn't receive any royalties? OK.
    Dr. Fauci. I see no royalties associated with COVID. I 
mentioned----
    Ms. Malliotakis. Yes, I said----
    Dr. Fauci. No, I want to----
    Ms. Malliotakis. No, I just said----
    Dr. Fauci. I'm on the record, and I want to make sure that 
this is clear: that I've developed a monoclonal antibody about 
25 years ago that's used as a diagnostic that has nothing to do 
with COVID, and I receive an average of about $120 a year from 
that patent.
    Ms. Malliotakis. OK.
    But the bottom line here is that scientists at NIH did 
receive $710 million in royalties. And I guess my question is, 
don't you think that if these experiments are made using 
American tax dollars, that any of those royalties, this nearly 
billions of dollars, should be going back to the American 
taxpayer, not in the pockets of the scientists? Do you believe 
that's a law that we should consider changing?
    Dr. Fauci. If you want to change the patent laws and the 
Bayh-Dole Act, then go ahead.
    Ms. Malliotakis. OK.
    Dr. Fauci. But that's not for me to say.
    Ms. Malliotakis. Well, I'm asking your opinion. OK.
    Well, anyway, moving on, I just want to say that, you know, 
we know billions of dollars have been funding these animal 
experiments, both here domestically and in foreign lands. I'm 
very troubled by the animal--the cruel, horrific animal 
research that has been done on U.S. land and in foreign 
laboratories of--taxpayers are footing the bill for billions of 
dollars. These beagle puppies that have their throats slit. 
They are being injected with ticks. They are murdered after 
just a few months. Piglets, rabbits, you name it.
    FDA is saying we no longer need to be testing human 
medications on animals, that there's other ways to achieve 
this.
    Can you comment on that, if it's time for the United States 
of America to be moving on from these cruel animal and horrific 
costly tests?
    Dr. Fauci. I'd be happy to comment, but I'm puzzled as to 
what that has to do with the origins of COVID.
    Ms. Malliotakis. Well, I have a question about it, and----
    Dr. Fauci. OK. I'd be happy to answer it.
    Ms. Malliotakis [continuing]. You're before this Committee, 
and it has to do in general----
    Dr. Fauci. Yes.
    Ms. Malliotakis [continuing]. With the amount of waste of 
tax dollars that NIH is using.
    Dr. Fauci. Well, the animal experiments that are conducted 
by and funded by NIH go through strict regulations of the 
proper use of animals in research.
    So, I'm not--Congresswoman, with all due respect, I'm not 
trying to be confrontative. I'm not sure what you're talking 
about, but the experiments that the NIH funded go through 
strict regulatory processes of the treatment of animals, the 
humane treatment of animals.
    Ms. Malliotakis. Well, they're not very humane. And I will 
say, as the former Director, you signed off on these 
experiments.
    And so my time has expired, and we will----
    Dr. Fauci. Well, I signed off on them because they were 
approved by a peer-review process.
    Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize Mrs. Dingell from Michigan 
for 5 minutes of questions.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    You know, instead of actually taking a serious look at the 
various ways by which this virus could've emerged in a lab or 
in nature, my Republican colleagues and friends have spent the 
last 15 months trying to pin blame on NIH, NIAID, and 
specifically Dr. Fauci for the COVID-19 pandemic.
    And now--and just, you know, let's bring everything in. 
Look, I want to have a discussion about animal testing too, but 
I'm really not sure how that comes into here.
    But I want to be perfectly clear, though, that the Select 
Subcommittee has seen no evidence of this. However, allegations 
by my Republican colleagues, amplified in the media, have led 
to real, tangible consequences for Dr. Fauci in his personal 
life in a way that should be unacceptable to all Americans.
    Dr. Fauci, you and I have known each other for a long time, 
and I'm not even going to admit how long. But, during that 
time, I've seen your commitment not just to science but to 
advancing the greater good.
    And I know that this isn't a topic you enjoy discussing, 
and I'm sorry I'm going to have to ask you about it, but I 
think the American people need to know what we are doing to 
those who are serving the common good and public health. I 
think it's important to make clear the harms that you and your 
loved ones have suffered because of these deeply irresponsible 
accusations. Because you know what? You're human, just like the 
rest of us.
    So, Dr. Fauci, can you please share with us the nature of 
the threats you have received since the start of the COVID-19 
pandemic?
    Dr. Fauci. Yes. There have been everything from harassments 
by emails, texts, letters, of myself, my wife, my three 
daughters. There have been credible death threats, leading to 
the arrests of two individuals. And ``credible death threats'' 
means someone who clearly was on their way to kill me. And it's 
required my having protective services essentially all the 
time.
    It is very troublesome to me. It is much more troublesome 
because they've involved my wife and my three daughters.
    Mrs. Dingell. At these moments, how do you feel?
    Dr. Fauci. [Inaudible.]
    Mrs. Dingell. Keep your mic on.
    Dr. Fauci. Terrible.
    Mrs. Dingell. Do you continue to receive threats today?
    Dr. Fauci. Yes, I do. Every time someone gets up and says 
I'm responsible for the death of people throughout the world, 
the death threats go up.
    Mrs. Dingell. It's unacceptable that you've been treated 
this way, especially after you've dedicated your life to 
science and research for the public interest. You deserve 
better. Every human being deserves better.
    And I'm afraid that the treatment you've received will also 
have far-reaching consequences for the future of science, 
particularly when done for the public good.
    Dr. Fauci, how do you think the threats toward you and 
other public health officials have received will impact bright 
young scholars thinking about going off into science or public 
service? Do you think as many people will want to follow in 
your footsteps as they did when I first met you?
    Dr. Fauci. You know, Congressman Dingell, I think this is a 
powerful disincentive for young people to want to go into 
public health and maybe even science and medicine in the public 
arena, because it's very clear that not only I, because I'm 
very much of a public figure, but many of my colleagues who are 
less visible than I, whenever they speak up in defense of the 
kinds of things that we're trying to do to protect the American 
public, they too get threats.
    And when they see that their colleagues get threats, they 
say to themselves, ``I don't want to go there. Why should I get 
involved in that?'' And you have some potentially very good 
talent that would be important to maintain the integrity and 
the excellence of the public health enterprise in the United 
States--we're not getting the best people coming in, because 
they're reluctant to put themselves and their family through 
what they see their colleagues being put through.
    Mrs. Dingell. Well, you're right, you're not alone in 
feeling that way. In fact, ahead of today's hearing, the Select 
Subcommittee received a letter from the Association of State 
and Territorial Health Officials, which represents public 
health officials in communities of all political persuasions, 
detailing the surge of harassment, intimidation, hate speech, 
threats of violence, and deaths threats that their members 
faced during the pandemic.
    Can I just--I'm going to ask to insert the--into the 
letter, but I wanted to just make the point before I close, Mr. 
Chairman, that as many as 40 percent of public health workers 
have been bullied, threatened, or harassed. And I think we all 
need to take that on as a public health issue.
    I'd ask to enter the letter into the record, and yield 
back.
    Dr. Wenstrup. Without objection.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize Mrs. Lesko from Arizona for 5 
minutes of questions.
    Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Dr. Fauci, did the National Institute of Health fund the 
potentially dangerous enhanced potential pandemic pathogens 
gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology?
    Dr. Fauci. I would not characterize it the way you did.
    The National Institutes of Health, through a sub-award to 
the Wuhan Institute of Virology, funded research on the 
surveillance of and the possibility of emerging infections.
    I would not characterize it as ``dangerous gain-of-function 
research.'' I've already testified to that effect----
    Mrs. Lesko. So----
    Dr. Fauci [continuing]. A couple of times.
    Mrs. Lesko. So you're saying no, correct?
    In his May 16----
    Dr. Fauci. I'm saying no because I've said no multiple 
times----
    Mrs. Lesko. Thank you.
    Dr. Fauci [continuing]. Including in the transcribed 
interview.
    Mrs. Lesko. In his May 16, 2024, testimony, the NIH Deputy 
Director Tabak said, and I quote, ``I can tell you that the 
failure of the Wuhan Institute of Virology to provide us with 
the data that we requested and the lab notebooks that we 
requested certainly impeded our ability to understand what was 
really going on with the experiments that we have been 
discussing this morning.''
    My question to you, Dr. Fauci: If the NIH didn't inspect 
the Wuhan Institute of Virology and NIH didn't receive the lab 
books and data from China and the required reports from 
EcoHealth Alliance were not submitted--in fact, they were 
late--how can you definitively say that the NIH did not fund 
the dangerous gain-of-function research?
    Dr. Fauci. I go back to what I said, that the gain-of-
function research by the operative and regulatory definition of 
P3C0 does not include, at all, the viruses that were studied 
under the sub-award----
    Mrs. Lesko. How do you know that, sir, if there were no lab 
books----
    Dr. Fauci. Because we----
    Mrs. Lesko [continuing]. Nothing from China?
    Dr. Fauci [continuing]. Know what viruses they were 
studying.
    Mrs. Lesko. How? How do you know? You never went there.
    Dr. Fauci. By their--but you--I'm telling you that the NIH 
funded research on these viruses. If someone else somewhere in 
China was doing something else, that is not----
    Mrs. Lesko. Well, that's the problem, because NIH didn't go 
there, you didn't get the reports that were needed. How in the 
world would you know?
    I'm going to go on to----
    Dr. Fauci. Well----
    Mrs. Lesko [continuing]. The next question.
    Dr. Fauci. And you're not hearing what I'm saying.
    Mrs. Lesko. Dr. Morens, your senior advisor for over 20 
years, said in an email dated February 24, 2021, ``I learned 
from your FOIA lady here now how to make emails disappeared 
when I am FOIA'ed but before the search starts, so I think we 
are all safe. Plus, I deleted most of these earlier emails 
after sending them to Gmail.''
    In another email, dated 4/21/21, Dr. Morens said, ``I 
forgot to say, there is no worry about FOIAs. I can either send 
stuff to Tony,'' meaning you, ``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.''
    Dr. Fauci, were you ever engaged in attempts to obstruct 
the Freedom of Information Act and the release of public 
documents?
    Dr. Fauci. No.
    Mrs. Lesko. Did you--did Dr. Morens communicate with you 
about official business using his private email?
    Dr. Fauci. Official business? No.
    Mrs. Lesko. Did you ever encourage Dr. Morens to use his 
private email address for official business?
    Dr. Fauci. No.
    Mrs. Lesko. My next question, sir, is: On February 1, 2020, 
you, yourself, Dr. Fauci, the NIH Director Collins, and at 
least 11 other scientists were on a conference call to discuss 
the origins of COVID. A number of the scientists said that they 
were concerned that COVID was the result of a lab leak at the 
Wuhan Institute of Virology and were concerned that a 
revelation of the lab leak theory would hurt their relationship 
with China.
    The CDC Director Redfield testified that he was not invited 
on this conference call, and he believes it's because he 
believed the lab leak theory was possible.
    Three days later, on February 4, 2020, four participants on 
the conference call authored a paper, ``Proximal Origin,'' 
which was sent to you for editing. ``Proximal Origin'' pushed 
the natural origin theory.
    On April 16, 2020, the NIH Director, Dr. Collins, emailed 
you, expressing dismay that the Nature Medicine article, which 
was based on ``Proximal Origin,'' didn't suppress the lab leak 
theory and asked you for more public pressure to suppress the 
lab leak theory.
    The very next day, in response to Dr. Collins' request to 
suppress the lab leak theory, you cited the Nature Medicine 
article, which discounted the lab leak theory, from the White 
House podium.
    My question to you, sir: Did you cite this article at the 
White House because the NIH Director asked you to suppress the 
lab leak theory?
    Dr. Fauci. No. I did not do that in response to anybody's 
suggestion to suppress anything. It was in response to a 
question that someone asked at the podium.
    And I did not edit any paper, as shown in my official 
testimony.
    So you said about four or five things, Congressman, that 
were just not true.
    Mrs. Lesko. Well, we have emails to prove it.
    Dr. Fauci. No, you don't.
    Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, and I yield back.
    Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize Mr. Mfume from Maryland for 5 
minutes of questions.
    Mr. Mfume. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    And, by the way, no, we don't have it. So I get tired of 
hearing ``we've got it,'' and then when we ask for it, it's not 
there. We do not have it, Dr. Fauci, and for everyone watching 
this. That's just incorrect.
    Now, let me just say a couple of things. If I sound a 
little outraged, it's because, you know, we sit here and we 
watch one conspiracy theory after another get debunked.
    And, if I might, on a point of personal privilege, to the 
gentlewoman from New York who wanted to argue that we should be 
worrying about testing of human medicines on animals, if this 
Committee really wants to do something, let's talk about the 
most infamous biomedical research study in the United States, 
the Tuskegee study, where 400 Black men in this country were 
injected deliberately with syphilis and allowed to die slowly 
over a 40-year period without any attempt to help them at all. 
It was condoned by the U.S. Public Health Service. And if we 
want to talk about testing, let's talk about that as well.
    [Disturbance in the hearing room.]
    Mr. Mfume. I'm going to talk about COVID right now.
    Mr. Chairman, point of--I have the floor, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to say to you, Mr. Chairman----
    Dr. Wenstrup. If the gentleman would suspend, please.
    I want to remind the audience of decorum.
    I recognize Mr. Mfume.
    Mr. Mfume. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you and 
Ranking Member Ruiz for this opportunity.
    Dr. Fauci, we owe you an apology for the way we have raked 
you through the mud, and none of us have said to you, here's 
where you go to get your good name and your reputation back. 
It's the most unfair thing I have seen.
    If there were evidence, if there were facts that supported 
the charges, I, like everybody else, would be interested. But 
we haven't seen a damn thing to suggest that these accusations 
are accurate.
    You've been a hero to many for 54 years, five-plus decades. 
You helped lead this country through the anthrax scare, through 
AIDS, through Zika, through Ebola, through SARS, and through 
COVID-19, pandemics and epidemics. We owe you a collective 
``thank you.''
    You are a world-renowned scientist and an American patriot. 
And whether or not people want to believe that, that's on them, 
but those facts are undisputable.
    For a year and a half, the Republican Majority on this 
Committee has sought to weaponize genuine scientific questions 
over COVID-19 and to vilify--vilify--our public health 
officials and our Nation's scientists with unsubstantiated, 
with baseless, with--allegations that just can't stand the 
light of day. And so they've tried to do that with COVID-19, 
and we are here now as a result of the aggregated amount of 
foolishness that has taken place.
    And I've always said to this Committee every time I've had 
a chance to speak, let's go back to when we were in the heart 
of the pandemic, when our family members and friends and 
coworkers were dying left and right, when we were afraid to get 
near anybody, when we wanted to wash down our groceries before 
we brought them into the house, where we were willing to put on 
masks or headgear if it would keep us from being infected.
    And we turned to our leaders and the public health 
officials and scientists for answers. And we got some, but then 
we didn't get some. And then we got some later, like Dr. 
Deborah Birx, who was Donald Trump's expert on the virus, who 
said, ``No, bleach won't do it, don't inject yourself with 
it,'' and who also said publicly on the record that thousands 
of American lives could have been spared--spared--if we had 
done what we were being told to do by the scientific community.
    At least one thing is clear: Those 1 million people who 
died as a result of these conspiracy theories will never come 
back, and those families have empty seats at the table year 
after year. And we do a disservice if, at the very least, we 
don't acknowledge their deaths and the harm and the hurt that 
has been done to their families and learn--learn--how to find a 
way to trust science going forward in this country.
    Dr. Fauci, you've been accused over and over again of going 
to the CIA headquarters and sitting down and having a meeting 
with the CIA to construct a way to make sure that COVID raged 
in this country.
    Is that correct?
    Dr. Fauci. That is incorrect.
    Mr. Mfume. Dr. Fauci, have you been to the CIA office in 
the last 20 years, or headquarters?
    Dr. Fauci. I went to the CIA decades ago during the anthrax 
attacks to discuss the possibility of terrorist attacks.
    Mr. Mfume. Thank you. I wanted to get that on the record, 
because that's just the latest theory now, that you and the CIA 
Director conspired. This is foolishness.
    People are not going to agree with you, I understand that. 
But we take and besmirch somebody's good name? Think about if 
it were one of us. We'd be jumping up and down, trying to find 
a way to get justice.
    And so, on behalf of those of us who are thankful, who are 
part of many in a grateful Nation, thank you for your service, 
sir.
    I yield back.
    Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize Mr. Cloud from Texas for 5 
minutes of questions.
    Mr. Cloud. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you for being here.
    And I do want to echo some of what Mr. Mfume said, because 
I do think we need to focus on the people. And I think that's 
really what--the angst that's left with the American people. 
It's what they had to walk through during this time.
    I'm going to go down a list of mitigation measures that you 
supported over the course of the pandemic and ask you just to 
give a ``yes'' or ``no'' as to whether you still believe these 
measures were justified.
    Business closures?
    Dr. Fauci. Congressman, I'm not hearing you at all. Could 
you please speak louder into the mic?
    Mr. Cloud. Sure. I'm going to go through a list of COVID 
mitigation measures that you supported over the course of the 
pandemic and ask you to give me a ``yes'' or ``no'' as to 
whether you believe these measures were justified.
    Business closures?
    Dr. Fauci. Early on, when 5,000 people were dying a day, 
yes.
    Mr. Cloud. Church closures?
    Dr. Fauci. Same thing.
    Mr. Cloud. School closures?
    Dr. Fauci. Again----
    Mr. Cloud. Stay-at-home orders?
    Dr. Fauci. These were important when we were trying to stop 
the tsunami of deaths that were occurring early on. How----
    Mr. Cloud. Early on.
    Dr. Fauci [continuing]. Long you kept them going is 
debatable.
    Mr. Cloud. Mask mandates for adults? Mask mandates for 
children? Mask mandates for children under 5?
    Dr. Fauci. And going back to what I said before, all of 
that is in the context of, at the time, 4,000----
    Mr. Cloud. Mask mandates for children under 5, there----
    Dr. Fauci [continuing]. To 5,000 people a day were dying.
    Mr. Cloud [continuing]. Was scientific evidence for that?
    Dr. Fauci. Excuse me?
    Mr. Cloud. Mask mandates for children under 5, there was 
scientific evidence supporting that?
    Dr. Fauci. There was no study that did masks on kids 
before--you couldn't do the study. You had to respond----
    Mr. Cloud. Right.
    Dr. Fauci [continuing]. To an epidemic that was killing 
4,000 to 5,000 Americans----
    Mr. Cloud. Vaccine----
    Dr. Fauci [continuing]. Per day.
    Mr. Cloud [continuing]. Mandates for employees? Vaccine 
mandates for students? Vaccine mandates for military?
    Dr. Fauci. Vaccines save lives. It is very, very clear that 
vaccines have saved hundreds of thousands of Americans and----
    Mr. Cloud. I'm not debating----
    Dr. Fauci [continuing]. Millions of people worldwide.
    Mr. Cloud. We're talking about COVID-19. Did or do the 
vaccines, the COVID-19 vaccines, stop anyone from getting 
COVID?
    Dr. Fauci. I have answered that question to the Chairman. 
Early on, it became clear that----
    Mr. Cloud. They did?
    Dr. Fauci. No, actually, no. In the beginning----
    Mr. Cloud. They did not?
    Dr. Fauci [continuing]. It clearly prevented infection in a 
certain percentage of people, but the durability of its ability 
to prevent infection was not long. It was measured in months--
--
    Mr. Cloud. And they didn't stop you from spreading it 
either, correct?
    Dr. Fauci. Early on, it did if it prevented infection. But 
what became clear, that it did not prevent transmission when 
the ability to prevent infection waned.
    Mr. Cloud. All right.
    I think what's troubling is when the American people look 
at the certainty and the case at which people lost jobs, they 
lost livelihoods. I had rural hospitals in my area that did not 
have a single case of COVID in their rural community that had 
to shut down and people not get care that they did need for 
cancer, and some passed away because of those kind of things. 
And, time after time, we had people's lives that are destroyed, 
and we have not seen the same sort of--once the new data came 
available, we did not see a change of course.
    And you'll point out, for example, on the schools, that the 
CDC, you know, put out the guidelines, for example. But we know 
that those guidelines end up being protection from lawsuits. 
It's, ``If you don't want to be sued, you'd better follow the 
guidelines.'' So they are not mandates, de facto mandates, but 
they turn out to be such a mandate.
    And when the science began to change--we all understand 
that in the first couple weeks, first few weeks, even a couple 
months, we were all trying to figure it out. I think there's a 
lot of grace for that.
    The concern is that, as the science became available, there 
wasn't like a, ``Oh, maybe we should consider the lab leak 
theory,'' ``Oh, maybe we should consider natural immunity.'' We 
never heard this messaging coming from you or from anyone else 
who stood on the sidelines talking about these things. And it's 
left the American people with a tremendous distrust.
    I want to talk a little bit about the grant process. My 
understanding from your testimony to us--it says that the NIH 
process for awarding grants is that, basically, a research 
proposal goes to a peer-review committee to receive a priority 
score. Then it goes to an advisory council for NIH personnel. 
It receives a final--basically, the group votes on it. And then 
eventually it ends up on your desk for signature, right?
    Now, you said in that that sometimes, if I recall 
correctly, those grants are often approved en bloc, en masse, 
when they're voted on, and then you sign off on them.
    Dr. Fauci. That's correct.
    Mr. Cloud. This is one of the things that's really 
troubling to the American people. Because they look at their 
lives being destroyed, and there's no one to hold accountable, 
because these systems of accountability have become systems of 
plausible deniability.
    And so your name is on every single grant, but yet you 
absolve yourself of any sort of responsibility by saying, well, 
you know, it goes to this Committee that's, you know--that has 
a number of people on it, and they're approved en bloc. And so 
there's no accountability for anything, any of the taxpayer 
dollars that are going forth.
    Dr. Fauci. I disagree with you, Congressman. Because, if 
you look at the number of grants, we fund thousands of grants. 
It would be physically impossible for me to go through every 
single grant in a detailed way to understand it. That is true 
not only for me but for virtually every institute at the NIH.
    Mr. Cloud. Then why does your signature go on it?
    Dr. Fauci. Because somebody has to sign off on it, and you 
trust the expertise and the competence of the staff that go 
over----
    Mr. Cloud. And what is the mechanism----
    Dr. Fauci [continuing]. It very carefully.
    Mr. Cloud [continuing]. For holding people accountable?
    Dr. Wenstrup. The gentleman's time has expired.
    I now recognize Ms. Ross from North Carolina for 5 minutes 
of questions.
    Ms. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to thank you, Dr. Fauci, for your voluntary 
testimony today; also, for so much grace in your 14 hours of 
testimony.
    And I again want to thank you for your service and your 
patience. It's truly remarkable. Because it bears repeating, 
let me just remind everyone that, after 15 months, my 
Republican colleagues' extreme allegations against you remain 
unsubstantiated. Unsubstantiated.
    And, now, during your 2-day closed-door interview in 
January, you discussed a number of topics regarding the public 
health response to the COVID-19 pandemic, some of which we've 
touched on briefly, but I just want to dive in a little bit 
deeper here.
    For example, you discussed, both then and here with 
Congresswoman Castor, the recommendation that we maintain six 
feet of distance between one another to reduce the spread of 
COVID-19. And you discussed how social distancing 
recommendations were developed, that you yourself didn't pick 
this six feet, and it was just really kind of a guideline in 
the moment.
    In your view, though, do social distancing recommendations 
and other public health measures to reduce transmission save 
lives?
    Dr. Fauci. Definitely.
    Ms. Ross. OK.
    I'd also like to go back and take a deeper dive into the 
COVID-19 vaccine discussion that we just had, and you were also 
asked about that during your interview in January.
    In the Select Subcommittee, we've heard suggestions that 
the vaccine was ineffective because of breakthrough infections 
that occur after vaccination. We just heard about that right 
here.
    But, as I understand it, perhaps the strongest measure of 
COVID-19 vaccines' effectiveness is the reduction of severe 
disease and death, not necessarily getting a milder form of 
COVID.
    Could you talk about that a little bit?
    Dr. Fauci. Yes. It's very clear that, when you're dealing 
with many vaccines but particularly when you're looking at 
COVID, as I mentioned--and I'll repeat it quickly for you--
that, early on, there was a degree, not as much as against 
severe disease, of protection against infection. Unfortunately, 
that protection against infection, which is related to 
transmissibility, waned rather rapidly, in a matter of months.
    What has stood firm well, much better than transmission and 
much better than infection, is the ability to prevent someone 
from hospitalizations and deaths.
    And, in fact, the curves, Congresswoman, are stunning. When 
you look at the deaths and hospitalizations of people who are 
unvaccinated, it's like this.
    [Indicating.] When you look at the deaths and 
hospitalizations for people who are vaccinated and boosted, 
it's like this.
    [Indicating.] The difference is profound. When you're 
dealing with infection, again, less so, because of the waning 
of protection against infection.
    Ms. Ross. Well, and that was also confirmed by a 
Commonwealth Fund December 2022 report, which came out 2 years 
after the Biden administration's effort to get COVID-19 
vaccines in arms, and your effort too, that it prevented more 
than 3 million deaths and averted 18 million hospitalizations. 
And that came out in 2022, but it seems to corroborate what 
you're saying.
    Dr. Fauci. Indeed. And $1.15 trillion in healthcare costs.
    Ms. Ross. Thank you for that add.
    One pillar of the vaccine requirements was to have an 
increased uptake in the COVID-19 vaccines. And that, at the 
time, was supported by leading physicians, including the 
American Medical Association, the American Academy of Family 
Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and more.
    Were the vaccine requirements a clinically sound tool for 
improving uptake of a safe and effective vaccine?
    Dr. Fauci. Yes. You would like people to get vaccinated 
voluntarily, realizing the important effect on it, but the fact 
that people were vaccinated by whatever the motivation was 
clearly saved many, many lives.
    Ms. Ross. And just with the 17 seconds I have, what steps 
can public health officials take to bolster confidence in these 
life-saving interventions, since there has been so much 
misinformation circulating?
    Dr. Fauci. That's going to be very difficult, 
Congresswoman, because there is so much mis-and disinformation 
around that we've got to do a better job of reaching out and 
trying to get the correct information. But that's difficult 
when you have a very energetic group of people continually 
spreading mis-and disinformation about vaccines. We've got to 
be more proactive in putting out the facts and the data and the 
information that's correct.
    Ms. Ross. Thank you very much for your testimony.
    And I'll yield back.
    Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize Dr. Joyce from Pennsylvania 
for 5 minutes of questions.
    Dr. Joyce. Thank you, Chairman Wenstrup, for convening this 
important hearing.
    And thank you, Dr. Fauci, for testifying.
    Dr. Fauci, one of the controversial regulations of the 
pandemic was the six-foot distancing rule. This rule became an 
important policy consideration in subsequent regulations. 
However, you testified recently, and I'm quoting, this six-foot 
rule ``sort of just appeared.''
    Do you think that a rule that ``sort of just appeared'' is 
substantial justification for the regulations that we saw based 
on that six-foot rule?
    Dr. Fauci. Congressman, thank you for that question. I 
answered that, but I'll summarize it briefly for you.
    When saying it ``just appeared,'' it came from the CDC----
    Dr. Joyce. OK. You stated that earlier.
    What was your relationship with the CDC when you saw a 
regulation which was not based in the current science?
    Dr. Fauci. Well, when I say it was not based in science, I 
meant a prospective clinical trial to determine whether 6-foot 
was better than 3, was better than 10. What----
    Dr. Joyce. But once we realized that the virus was not 
spread by droplets and was aerosolized, did you feel an 
indication to go back to the CDC and say, let's base this on 
science, let's get rid of this six-foot rule?
    This six-foot rule crippled businesses.
    Dr. Fauci. Right.
    Dr. Joyce. It allowed students to stay at home and not 
learn. Americans suffered. And that suffering continues, 
because the fracture of trust in American scientists continues 
to this day.
    Did you not feel an obligation, for something that just 
sort of appeared, not to go back to the CDC and say, let's base 
this on what we know?
    Dr. Fauci. It was a CDC decision, and it was clear----
    Dr. Joyce. Were you dialoguing with the CDC?
    Dr. Fauci. Excuse me?
    Dr. Joyce. Were you in communication with the CDC?
    Dr. Fauci. CDC was part of the coronavirus response team, 
yes.
    Dr. Joyce. And you didn't feel an obligation to go to them 
and say, look, Americans aren't going to trust----
    Dr. Fauci. Yes.
    Dr. Joyce [continuing]. Us, we're providing them with 
misinformation?
    Dr. Fauci. We had discussions at the White House about 
that. We did. But the CDC's decision--and it was their decision 
to make, and they made it.
    Dr. Joyce. And you didn't feel an obligation, as the lead 
scientist at the NIH, to challenge that?
    Dr. Fauci. I've challenged the CDC multiple times----
    Dr. Joyce. Publicly on this regard?
    Dr. Fauci. Excuse me?
    Dr. Joyce. Publicly you challenged them on this six-foot 
distancing rule?
    Dr. Fauci. It is not appropriate to be publicly challenging 
a sister organization.
    Dr. Joyce. Do you agree that Americans now have lost their 
trust in science, in lead science, from government because of 
misinformation like this?
    Dr. Fauci. Well, I--you know, when you talk about 
misinformation, I think that you have to be careful. That's not 
disinformation. It was information that ultimately proved, when 
you put the aerosolization in, that----
    Dr. Joyce. That it was not an effective rule----
    Dr. Fauci. All right.
    Dr. Joyce [continuing]. To have six feet of distancing.
    Dr. Fauci, let's move on. On April 21, Dr. Morens wrote to 
Dr. Daszak in an email that ``there is no worry about FOIAs. I 
can either send stuff to Tony on his private Gmail, hand it to 
him at work, or at his house. He is too smart to let colleagues 
send him stuff that could cause trouble.''
    Do you realize that this impact still considers today? This 
is your lead, trusted researcher who works with you, your 
advisor. Do you realize the impact of that?
    Dr. Fauci. It was a terrible thing, it was wrong, and it 
was inappropriate, and he----
    Dr. Joyce. Thank you. I think we----
    Dr. Fauci [continuing]. Should not have said that.
    Dr. Joyce. I think we all agree it was incredibly 
inappropriate.
    Recently, in an op-ed that Senator Roger Marshall published 
just yesterday, he raised concern about HHS FOIA compliance 
following your testimony in front of the Senate HELP Committee.
    Dr. Fauci, what involvement did you have in HHS not 
responding to FOIA requests following your testimony in the 
Senate in 2021?
    Dr. Fauci. I had no role whatsoever in anything to do with 
the request. When FOIA is made, it doesn't go directly to a 
person like me. It goes to a department, which then takes care 
of it. So, I don't have any role, one way or the other, in 
FOIA.
    Dr. Joyce. Let's go on.
    Were you aware that NIAID employees conducting official 
work on unofficial emails and inappropriately assisting 
grantees during your time as the Director?
    Dr. Fauci. I was not aware of that as it was occurring. It, 
obviously, came out during the Committee hearings. But I was 
not aware of that as it was occurring.
    Dr. Joyce. And I think that you put an exclamation point on 
how important these hearings are.
    Dr. Fauci, would you agree that this demonstrates the need 
for more accountability and increased oversight of NIAID?
    Dr. Fauci. What you saw, I believe, with Dr. Morens was an 
aberrancy and an outlier. The individuals at the NIH and NIAID 
are a very committed group of individuals, and this one 
instance that you point out is an aberrancy and an outlier. 
That does not----
    Dr. Joyce. From your senior advisor for 20 years.
    Dr. Fauci. Well, he is--well, the title is senior advisor. 
We wrote scientific papers together. He didn't advise me, as I 
mentioned----
    Dr. Joyce. Are your senior advisors not trusted staff?
    Dr. Fauci. Again, I told you that his title was senior 
advisor, but he is not an advisor on policy. He writes----
    Dr. Joyce. That's very confusing to have someone's title--
--
    Dr. Fauci. Right.
    Dr. Joyce [continuing]. And not having that to be their 
obligation.
    Dr. Fauci. But that is the fact, though.
    Dr. Joyce. I think that that supports what we said. There 
needs to be more oversight, and there needs to be more 
accountability.
    Mr. Chairman, my time has expired, but these points are 
very clear to all of us today in this hearing room.
    I yield back.
    Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize Mr. Garcia from California 
for 5 minutes.
    Oh, he left?
    I now recognize Ms. Greene from Georgia for 5 minutes of 
questions.
    Ms. Greene. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Fauci, you were quoted on CBS' ``Face the Nation'' 
saying, ``It's easy to criticize, but they're really 
criticizing science, because I represent science.''
    Do you represent science, Mr. Fauci?
    Dr. Fauci. I am a scientist who uses the scientific method 
to gain information.
    Ms. Greene. Yes. You said you represent science.
    Do you represent science, Mr. Fauci, yes or no?
    Dr. Fauci. Again----
    Ms. Greene. Yes or no?
    Dr. Fauci. No, that's not a yes or no----
    Ms. Greene. Yes, it's a yes or no.
    Dr. Fauci. I don't think it is.
    Ms. Greene. OK. Well, we'll take that as a you don't know 
what you represent.
    Dr Fauci. Oh, I----
    Ms. Greene. But this--as Director of the NIH, you did sign 
off on these so-called scientific experiments. And as a dog 
lover, I want to tell you, this is disgusting and evil, what 
you signed off on, and these experiments that happened to 
beagles paid for by the American taxpayer. And I want you to 
know Americans don't pay their taxes for animals to be tortured 
like this.
    So the type of science that you are representing, Mr. 
Fauci, is abhorrent, and it needs to stop.
    Mr. Fauci, you also represent the type of science where you 
confess that you made up the COVID rules, including----
    Dr. Fauci. I didn't hear what you said.
    Ms. Greene [continuing]. Six feet social distancing and 
masking of children. You just----
    Dr. Fauci. I never said I made anything up.
    Ms. Greene. You admitted that you made it up, you made it 
up as you went.
    Dr. Fauci. I never said I made it up.
    Ms. Greene. So are you saying this is fake news, Mr. Fauci?
    Dr. Fauci. I didn't say I made anything up.
    Ms. Greene. What did you say?
    Dr. Fauci. I said that it is not based in science and it 
just appeared.
    Ms. Greene. But this is science?
    Dr. Fauci. What do dogs have to do with anything that we're 
talking about today?
    Ms. Greene. These are scientific experiments. This is what 
you signed off on.
    But you also told the American people they had to distance 
by six feet, they had to wear masks.
    But let's also talk a little bit further about the type of 
science that you represent.
    ``NIH scientists made $710 million in royalties from drug 
makers,'' a fact that's been hidden.
    Let's talk about the fact about, is it right for scientists 
and doctors getting paid by the American people, government 
taxpayer paychecks, to get patents where they're paid millions 
and hundreds of millions of dollars in royalty fees, especially 
when the NIH and these government agencies, the most powerful 
agencies in our country, are recommending medical suggestions 
and advice and making up guidelines, like six feet distancing 
and masking of children?
    Do you think that's appropriate? Do the American people 
deserve to be abused like that, Mr. Fauci? Because you're not 
Dr., you're Mr. Fauci in my few minutes.
    Dr. Fauci. Am I going to be allowed to answer the question?
    Ms. Greene. No, I don't need your answer.
    I want to talk about this right here.
    Mr. Fauci----
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, objection.
    Ms. Greene. I reclaim my time.
    Mr. Raskin. Objection.
    Ms. Greene. I reclaim my time. I reclaim my time, Mr. 
Raskin.
    Dr. Wenstrup. The gentlelady will suspend.
    Mr. Raskin. Point of order.
    Dr. Wenstrup. The gentlelady will suspend.
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman----
    Dr. Wenstrup. Point of order.
    Mr. Raskin [continuing]. In terms of the rules of decorum, 
are we allowed to deny that a doctor is a doctor just because 
we don't want him to be a doctor?
    Ms. Greene. Yes. Because in my time that man does not 
deserve to have a license. As a matter of fact, it should be 
revoked, and he belongs in prison.
    Dr. Wenstrup. The gentlelady will suspend.
    The gentlelady should recognize the doctor as a doctor.
    Mr. Mfume. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, is this what we have become? Is this what we 
have devolved into, no decorum?
    Ms. Greene. You know what, we can do that hearing about the 
poor men that were injected with syphilis, because I support 
you in that. That's horrific.
    Voice. I would urge----
    Ms. Greene. And this government that does things like that 
to Americans doesn't have decorum to the American people.
    Mr. Garcia. Mr. Chairman----
    Dr. Wenstrup. The gentleman is out of order.
    Mr. Garcia. Point of regular order, please.
    Dr. Wenstrup. The gentleman is out of order.
    Mr. Garcia. Decorum.
    Dr. Wenstrup. I recognize a point of order.
    Go ahead with your point of order.
    Mr. Garcia. No. I mean, I was going to say what Mr. Raskin 
said, is that it's completely unacceptable to deny Dr. Fauci, 
who's here, a respected member of the medical community, his 
title. And that's actually a personal attack on his character.
    Dr. Wenstrup. And I have instructed her----
    Ms. Greene. He's not respected.
    Dr. Wenstrup. I've instructed her to address him as doctor.
    The gentlelady shall continue.
    Ms. Greene. I'm not addressing him as doctor.
    Let's talk about----
    Mr. Mfume. And I would----
    Ms. Greene. Let's talk about this----
    Mr. Mfume. Mr. Chairman, I would----
    Ms. Greene. I'm reclaiming my time.
    Mr. Mfume [continuing]. Move that the woman's----
    Ms. Greene. I'm reclaiming my time.
    Mr. Mfume [continuing]. Words get taken down then.
    Ms. Greene. I'm reclaiming my time.
    Voice. Point of order.
    Dr. Wenstrup. Suspend.
    A Member can only move to have words--I'm sorry. The issues 
we are debating are important ones that Members feel deeply 
about. And while vigorous disagreement is part of the 
legislative process, as I said at the beginning, Members are 
reminded that we must adhere to established standards of 
decorum in debate.
    This is a reminder that it is a violation of House rules 
and the rules of this Committee to engage in personalities 
regarding other Members or to question the motives of a 
colleague. Remarks of that type are not permitted by the rules 
and are not in keeping with the best traditions of our 
Committee. The Chair will enforce these rules of decorum at all 
times and urges all Members to be mindful of their remarks.
    Does the gentleman from California have anything further?
    Mr. Garcia. We should take--we should take her words down.
    Mr. Mfume. Yes. I made--I offered that her words be taken 
down, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Griffith. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Greene. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a point of 
order.
    Dr. Wenstrup. Mr. Griffith is recognized--Mr. Griffith----
    Ms. Greene [continuing]. Because they accuse us of 
worshipping President Trump.
    Dr. Wenstrup. The gentlelady----
    Ms. Greene. We don't worship President Trump.
    Dr. Wenstrup. The gentlelady will suspend.
    Mr. Griffith, you have a point of order.
    Mr. Griffith. Mr. Chairman, while it may not be polite, I 
believe the rule only applies to Members of this body, the 
Senate, and the President of the United States. I do not 
believe that it applies--the rule on taking down words does not 
apply to a witness.
    Again, I'm not condoning the words. I'm just relating--or 
asking whether or not it applies to individuals who just happen 
to be here in front of us.
    Dr. Wenstrup. I agree. The Chair overrules the point of 
order by the gentleman from Maryland but asks that Members 
please afford all other Members the respect they're entitled, 
refrain from using rhetoric that could be construed as an 
attack on the motives or character of another Member or the 
witness.
    You may proceed.
    Ms. Greene. Thank you.
    This was a time in history where you got to throw out the 
first pitch at the Washington Nationals baseball game, while 
Americans were forced to stay home and watch such events that 
they love from at home, alone, on their televisions.
    And what a hypocrisy this picture shows. Here you are 
without your mask, with empty seats everywhere. Remember the 
cardboard cutout fans? That was one of the most insulting 
things to Americans, having to watch the games from home where 
you got to go and enjoy the game and sit right next to people, 
not following the six feet of distancing, not wearing your 
mask, and everyone else was forced to stay home and stop 
enjoying life.
    And your science--here your science is displayed perfectly 
in this picture where children, children in school, were put in 
plastic bubbles because of your science, your repulsive, evil 
science.
    And let's go back to your very own email. You said earlier 
you don't use email. Oh, you do. Right here, this is your own 
email where you said, ``The typical mask you buy in the 
drugstore is not really effective in keeping out virus . . . I 
do not recommend that you wear a mask.'' This is your email. 
This is your own words.
    But yet children, children all over America were forced to 
wear masks, healthy children forced to wear masks, muzzled in 
their schools. And then they were forced to learn from home 
because of your so-called science and your medical suggestions, 
while you and all your cronies get paid from Big Pharma.
    You know what this Committee should be doing? We should be 
recommending you to be prosecuted. We should be writing a 
criminal referral because you should be prosecuted for crimes 
against humanity. You belong in prison, Dr. Fauci.
    Mrs. Dingell. Mr. Chairman, I have another point of order.
    Dr. Wenstrup. I recognize Mrs. Dingell.
    Mrs. Dingell. I just want to make sure the record is clear.
    Dr. Fauci testified that he did not use his personal email 
for official business. He did not say he did not use email. And 
I think today this particular has been full of lies and 
disregard and disrespect, and we need to stick to facts.
    Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you.
    The gentlelady's time had expired before the point of 
order.
    I now recognize Mr. Garcia from California for 5 minutes of 
questions.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Dr. Fauci, I am so sorry you just had to sit through that. 
That was completely irresponsible. Quite frankly, some we're 
hearing--this might be the most insane hearing I've actually 
attended. I've only been in Congress for a year and a half, but 
I am so sorry that you are subjected to those level of attacks 
and insanity.
    Your, quote/unquote, ``so-called science'' that the 
gentlewoman is referring to has saved millions of lives in this 
country and around the world, and I want to thank you for that.
    I also think it's important to note that my opinion is that 
you are an American hero, and your team has done more to save 
lives than all 435 Members of this body on both sides of the 
aisle.
    You guys have worked not just during this pandemic but over 
time to save millions of lives in this country and across the 
world.
    We lost 1.1 million American lives, 1.1 American lives, 7 
million lives around the world. We were having 9/11-like 
events, death events, daily in this country, losing 4,000, 
5,000 people every single day.
    I was mayor during the time of the pandemic. I remember how 
painful it was to close businesses, to shut down schools. But 
how quickly we forget the pain and how scared we were as a 
country. We were washing our groceries as they were coming in. 
We were keeping seniors at a distance. The tragedy that was 
happening in our nursing homes. Thousands of people were dying 
a day.
    And you and your team of the best and the brightest 
scientists in this country and the world were doing everything 
that you could and working night and day to save more and more 
of those lives.
    A lot of my colleagues know that my mom was a healthcare 
worker during the pandemic. My mom died of COVID. My stepfather 
died of COVID. I lost both of my parents during the pandemic.
    So I take this very personally, especially when other 
Members of this body, who are tasked to be responsible and to 
actually help the American people, attack medical professionals 
like you and across the world.
    Vaccines. The vaccine that you and your team helped foster 
has saved millions of American lives.
    These attacks are ridiculous.
    Now, even before this Committee started--I want to point a 
few things out.
    Even before this Committee started, this same Member that 
just went on this rant introduced the Fire Fauci Act and 
promoted on a podcast saying that COVID was a bioweapon. That 
is how insane some of these comments are.
    And I want to quote this. This is a quote from this same 
Member.
    ``I don't believe in evolution. These viruses were not 
making people sick until they created them. They weaponized 
these viruses to be able to attach to our cells and make us 
sick. It's a bioweapon.''
    The ``they created them,'' sir, is you. They are attacking 
you and our medical community for actually creating COVID that 
has caused the deaths of millions. And we know that these 
extreme comments are targeting public health officials across 
the country.
    I also want to show you this other comment, same Member who 
just attacked you.
    ``The Fauci-funded Wuhan lab created the virus.''
    This is so crazy and irresponsible.
    In this post, this same Member of this Committee is 
accusing you of orchestrating a global conspiracy to create 
COVID on purpose just to make people get vaccines, that you've 
done this, sir.
    This same Member routinely promotes complete misinformation 
about vaccines and actually has encouraged the routine 
prevention of vaccinations that even eliminate diseases like 
the measles.
    Dr. Fauci, you brought together our Nation and the world's 
best and brightest scientists to take on COVID and create a 
vaccine that works.
    I want to ask you a question. I want to be crystal clear 
for the public.
    You brought together the world's and America's best 
scientists. Do you believe that the vaccine that you all helped 
create and ensure is safe and effective for the public?
    Dr. Fauci. Yes, and its track record has proven that.
    Mr. Garcia. And do you also agree that it saved hundreds of 
thousands and possibly millions of lives in America and across 
the world?
    Dr. Fauci. That is absolutely correct, and it's very clear 
that it saved millions of lives here and throughout the world. 
The Europeans have done the same studies that we have, and the 
data are incontrovertible that they save lives.
    Mr. Garcia. Sir, and do you think the American public 
should listen to America's brightest and best doctors and 
scientists or instead listen to podcasters, conspiracy 
theorists, and unhinged Facebook memes?
    Dr. Fauci. No. Listening to people who you've just 
described is going to do nothing but harm people because they 
will deprive themselves of lifesaving interventions, which has 
happened.
    And, you know, some have done studies. Peter Hotez has done 
an analysis of this and shows that in people who refuse to get 
vaccinated for any of a variety of reasons probably responsible 
for an additional two to three hundred thousand deaths in this 
country.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, sir, and your entire team for saving 
lives in this country. And I'm sorry you have to continue going 
on with these attacks.
    I yield back.
    [Disturbance in the hearing room.]
    Mr. Garcia. Oh, thank you. You're not allowed. Thank you 
very much.
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, can you have her removed from 
the--please just have her removed.
    Dr. Wenstrup. Please, excuse me. I ask the Capitol Police 
to escort.
    Mr. Garcia. Yes. Thank you. She can be removed.
    [Disturbance in hearing room.]
    Mr. Garcia. You can be removed. Actually you're not allowed 
to speak.
    Mr. Raskin. Take your Starbucks with you.
    Dr. Wenstrup. Your time has expired, Mr. Garcia.
    Mr. Raskin, you're out of line.
    Your times have expired.
    I now recognize Dr. Jackson from Texas for 5 minutes of 
questions.
    Dr. Jackson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Dr. Fauci, I have to say I, as so many Americans, am deeply 
disappointed in your actions during a critical time in our 
Nation's history while you were in key leadership roles as the 
Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Disease and as the chief medical advisor to President Biden.
    Put quite simply, you failed miserably, in my opinion.
    Based on all we have learned during the pandemic and all 
that we have since learned through this Committee's work, I 
believe your failures stem from both an effort of self-
preservation manifested by a series of lies and cover-up and by 
a total failure of leadership.
    It was obvious to everyone that you and your organization, 
NIH, had a lot to lose if the American people were to discover 
that COVID-19 was most likely leaked from a lab in Wuhan, 
China, and that you, via EcoHealth Alliance and Peter Daszak, 
actually funded this research, and that this lab was actively 
and recklessly conducting gain-of-function research.
    As such, you did everything in your power to deflect and 
cover up this possibility. You even recruited others to help 
you in this effort.
    Unfortunately, this cost our country and the world valuable 
time, time that may have led to answers regarding the origin, 
may have blunted the spread, and would have almost certainly 
saved lives.
    While I think most of us have known all along what I just 
described, what I have been appalled to discover through sworn 
testimony to this Committee is the level at which you and those 
that worked with you went to cover up the obvious.
    Just a few examples, and I know these have been touched on, 
but they're important for everyone to hear.
    Dr. Lawrence Tabak, former Acting Director of NIH, 
testified that under the generic definition, that NIH did, in 
fact, fund gain-of-function research.
    This was based on a definition that was initially used by 
NIH and a definition that was abandoned and removed from the 
website in October 2021 and replaced by a new, much more 
detailed definition with a much higher bar that you have since 
conveniently used to define gain-of-function testing and to 
deny what Dr. Tabak has since confirmed.
    He also said that EcoHealth Alliance failed to properly and 
promptly report that their research violated the terms of the 
grant, something that went completely unaddressed during your 
watch.
    Dr. Morens, your senior advisor, who you have tried today 
to distance yourself from, but whose large volume of emails 
clearly demonstrate that you had a very close and personal 
relationship with and who reported to you directly, has openly 
bragged about how he subverted FOIA requests.
    I remind you that the law requires you and your former 
organization to comply with Freedom of Information Act 
requests. It is not optional.
    If you or your employees or your organization that you 
oversaw were systemically avoiding transparency and illegally 
hiding or destroying documents that rightfully belong to the 
American people, then you should be criminally charged and they 
should be as well.
    In addition, Dr. Gregory Folkers, your chief of staff, also 
engaged in illegal practices in which he crafted messages using 
symbols instead of letters to avoid FOIA exposure.
    In an email April 2020 from Dr. Morens to Peter Daszak, he 
says, quote, ``There are things I can't say.''
    Well, I wonder what he couldn't say.
    He also went on to say, quote, ``Except Tony is aware and I 
have learned there are ongoing efforts within NIH to steer 
through this with minimal damage to you, Peter, and colleagues, 
and to NIH and NIAID,'' end quote.
    And then a few days later he said, quote, ``I have reason 
to believe that there are already efforts going on to protect 
you,'' end quote.
    In February 2021, Dr. Morens wrote to Boston University 
scientist Gerald Keusch saying, quote, ``I learned from our 
FOIA lady here how to make emails disappear after I'm FOIA'd 
but before the search starts, so I think we are all safe,'' end 
quote.
    Dr. Fauci, I want to know what you were being protected 
from and what you needed to be safe from.
    I'm going to go on because I have little time here.
    He went on to say, quote, ``Plus I deleted most of the 
earlier emails after sending to gmail.''
    Once again, illegal and an actual crime.
    Dr. Morens noted in another email to Dr. Keusch saying, 
quote, ``I learned the tricks last year from an old friend, 
Marg Moore, who heads our FOIA office and also hates FOIAs,'' 
end quote.
    It is absolutely amazing to me that Dr. Morens and Marg 
Moore still have jobs and taxpayers are still paying their 
salaries.
    Dr. Morens wrote to Dr. Daszak in April 2021, quote, ``PS, 
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 to 
work or at his house. He is too smart to let colleagues send 
him stuff that could cause trouble,'' end quote.
    Apparently, you neglected to surround yourself with equally 
smart individuals.
    Dr. Morens wrote to another collaborator, Peter Hotez, in 
June 2021, at Baylor College of Medicine, that he had deleted 
all of his emails related to COVID origin when, quote, ``the 
shit hit the fan,'' end quote. He said, quote, ``I feel pretty 
sure Tony would too. The best way to avoid FOIA hassles is to 
delete all emails when you learn the subject is pretty 
sensitive.''
    In October 2021, Dr. Morens wrote to Peter Daszak, quote, 
``Peter, from Tony's numerous recent comments to me, and from 
what Francis has been vocal about over the past 5 years, we are 
trying to protect you,'' and they are protecting their own 
reputations as well, end quote.
    I'll just jump ahead.
    The American people can rest assured that we are going to 
continue to pursue answers and we continue to push for full 
accountability from you and your colleagues despite continuing 
efforts to try to cover this up.
    Dr. Fauci, history will not be kind to you, and you'll be 
known as the man who put his personal interests before the 
interests of the American people, the very people that you were 
supposed to be protecting.
    Your actions, along with several others we have had before 
this Committee, have completely eroded America's trust in our 
public health system and the agency that you represented for 
half a century.
    With that, I yield back.
    Dr. Wenstrup. The gentleman's time has expired.
    I now recognize Ms. Tokuda from Hawaii for 5 minutes of 
questions.
    Ms. Tokuda. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I hope I'll have an 
additional 30 seconds like the previous gentleman.
    And, Dr. Fauci----
    Dr. Wenstrup. I have allowed that today----
    Ms. Tokuda. Thank you.
    Dr. Wenstrup [continuing]. On several occasions.
    Ms. Tokuda. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Dr. Fauci, you deserve better than this. The other side 
suddenly cares about puppies, ironic given recent book 
publications, versus the millions of people that you have kept 
safe and alive over your lifelong commitment to public health.
    I'd like to use my time to dispel some of the myths about 
you that have circulated in right-wing circles.
    We can all acknowledge that, yes, suspension of in-person 
activities during the early days of COVID, it was necessary to 
save lives and to stop the spread, and it was not without its 
challenges. It was difficult, particularly for our Nation's 
students, like my two sons in public schools, and our business 
owners. But to completely blame these policies on you, Dr. 
Fauci, is absolutely ridiculous.
    I would like to make the record clear on something. The 
decision to suspend in-person learning, dining, and other 
activities, that was not a decision that you were somehow 
solely responsible for, including in your role as NIAID 
Director. Is that correct?
    Dr. Fauci. Yes.
    Ms. Tokuda. In fact, these decisions were actually made at 
the state and local level in communities across the country, 
like my home state of Hawaii which was particularly aggressive, 
in part as a response to the Trump administration's early 
failure to contain the initial outbreak of the virus. Is that 
not correct?
    Dr. Fauci. I'm sorry. I did--ma'am, I'm not really hearing 
you very well. Could you just put your----
    Ms. Tokuda. We'll put it a little bit closer.
    But to be clear, the decisions were actually made at the 
state and local levels in communities across the country.
    Dr. Fauci. That is correct.
    Ms. Tokuda. OK. Thank you.
    Now I'd like to shift topics and turn to the allegation 
that you sought to suppress opposing viewpoints about the 
pandemic response.
    Over the past 15 months, Majority Members of this 
Subcommittee have levied the allegation that Federal health 
officials censored proposals, like the Great Barrington 
Declaration, which were inconsistent with the overwhelming 
consensus of the scientific and medical community.
    Much attention has been paid to an email Dr. Francis 
Collins sent you regarding the Great Barrington Declaration 
where he called for a quick and devastating published takedown 
of its premises.
    To be clear, this was not Dr. Collins suggesting that you 
suppress or censor the Great Barrington Declaration. Rather, he 
was suggesting that the points you just explained be 
memorialized to substantively refute the scientific premises of 
the Great Barrington Declaration. Is that correct?
    Dr. Fauci. Yes.
    Ms. Tokuda. And there was good reason for Dr. Collins to 
have substantive concerns. The Great Barrington Declaration 
proposed lifting mitigation measures for the vast majority of 
society and preserving them only for certain populations, 
including the elderly and people with underlying health 
conditions.
    This was months before a vaccination was available and 
public health systems are already being overwhelmed and 
thousands of Americans were dying daily.
    Dr. Fauci, what percentage of the population did we 
estimate needed to be infected with COVID before we would 
achieve so-called herd immunity?
    Dr. Fauci. Herd immunity was very elusive with COVID. And 
the Great Barrington Declaration was flawed both conceptually 
and in practice; conceptually that you could shield vulnerable 
people as if the only vulnerable people are those in nursing 
homes.
    We have tens and tens of millions of vulnerable people that 
you couldn't possibly shield. People with underlying 
conditions, the elderly, those would be the individuals. So it 
would be conceptually impossible to do that.
    Herd immunity, as we know, means if you have a virus that 
doesn't change and a virus in which when you get infected or 
vaccinated you have highly durable, perhaps lifelong immunity. 
That's not the case with COVID. We know immunity wanes, and we 
have multiple variants.
    So, in practical purposes, the Great Barrington Declaration 
was invalid, both conceptually and practically.
    Ms. Tokuda. Thank you, Dr. Fauci.
    You've answered a few of my other questions in terms of the 
fact that for many of us that live in multigenerational 
communities, thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions more 
lives would have been impacted by this so-called approach. And 
given the fact that the virus' rapid evolution that we have 
seen since 2020, herd immunity approaches would be absolutely 
ineffective against COVID.
    If you would answer one more question. Considering the 
mortality rates at the time, how many more deaths might we have 
seen, just briefly?
    Dr. Fauci. I mean, if we had done that, just let it rip, 
there very likely would have been another million people would 
have died, I would imagine.
    Ms. Tokuda. Thank you, Mr. Fauci.
    So, it wasn't the Federal Government suppressing the Great 
Barrington Declaration. Rather, it was about protecting and 
saving millions of American lives.
    The COVID-19 pandemic wasn't some academic exercise. It was 
real. It was in real time. It was about saving lives in real 
time.
    Theories like herd immunity may seem plausible on paper, 
but we have to remember that it is based upon the assumption 
that enough people would have to be infected, and that would 
likely have meant that our family members, our friends, our 
neighbors, our constituents, especially those in our most 
marginalized multigenerational rural communities, would have 
died.
    So, thank you, Dr. Fauci. I want to thank you, not blame 
you. Thank you for your science. Thank you for your science 
that have saved millions of American lives, kept us safe, 
including my children, many of our families right here on this 
dais.
    And thank you for clarifying these points for the record 
and for all of your efforts to keep us safe during the pandemic 
and so many other health crises we have faced over the decades 
that you have served.
    Mahalo, Mr. Chair, and I yield back.
    Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize Dr. McCormick for 5 minutes 
of questions.
    Dr. McCormick. Thank you, Dr. Wenstrup, Chairman.
    It's been insinuated that politicians--only politicians, 
only bloggers, only conspiracy theorists are disagreeing with 
you.
    I want to point out that I'm probably the only Member of 
Congress that actually treated patients during the pandemic, 
from the very beginning to the very end of the pandemic, during 
night shifts in the ER, thousands of patients during that time.
    And in 2020, I was censored, my medical license was 
threatened, because I disagreed with bureaucrats, literally 
taken off the internet as a person who was treating patients 
with leading-edge technologies, developing theories, but doing 
my very best, but being censored by the U.S. Government, for 
the first time stepping in and taking the place of medical 
professionals as the experts in healthcare.
    Any dissent surrounding COVID-19 treatments, mask mandates, 
and any public policy surrounding the pandemic was immediately 
labeled as anti-science. I watched as public health officials 
and politicians told my patients what treatment options were 
best for them, regardless of their comorbidities or their 
medical history.
    Despite my education and my training and my experience, my 
opinions were relegated to conspiracy and misinformation by so-
called healthcare experts who had never treated a patient 
throughout the entire pandemic.
    This has been a black eye on medicine and has highlighted 
why government should never, never insert itself in between 
patients and their healthcare providers. The American people 
deserve to make medical decisions through conversations with 
their physicians rather than politically motivated mandates.
    Dr. Fauci, did you ever treat a patient for COVID during 
the pandemic?
    Dr. Fauci. I was part of a team that was at the NIH that 
took care--we didn't take care of many of them because----
    Dr. McCormick. OK. So not hands on. Got it. Thank you.
    Why would I be criticized by a bureaucrat for doing my very 
best as a healthcare--this is a rhetorical question. But why? 
Why would the government, who's never treated a patient for 
COVID? You can read all the things you want, but you're not 
there. You're not seeing patients. You're not watching people 
die, intubating patients right there with that disease in your 
face, watching it happen, watching the development of this 
disease and actually learning from it. But I'm being told by 
bureaucrats what's right and wrong.
    And what's funny is everything I was censored on, I was 
proven to be right. Pretty crazy, isn't it?
    You said in your interview that you gave as part of an 
audio book written by Michael Specter that you believed an 
institution should make it hard for people to live their lives 
so they'd feel pressured to get vaccinated.
    Could we run the audio clip on that, please?
    [Audio recording played.]
    Dr. McCormick. Thank you.
    Are all objections to COVID vaccinations ideological 
bullshit, Dr. Fauci?
    Dr. Fauci. No, they're not.
    Dr. McCormick. Thank you.
    Dr. Fauci. And that's not what I was referring to.
    Dr. McCormick. Well, in reference to making it hard for 
people to get education, traveling, working, I'd say it very 
much was in context, and I take great offense to this.
    Ms. Allison Williams testified before this Committee about 
losing her job because she sought an exemption for ESPN's 
vaccine mandate which came from a recommendation from 
bureaucrats like yourself.
    She and her husband were actively working with a fertility 
expert, a physician, on how to get pregnant and agreed with the 
premise that she was young, healthy, wanted to get pregnant, 
and shouldn't get the vaccination for medical purposes.
    But she was fired, because you made it hard, just like you 
said in your statement, because you didn't want to make sure 
that the ideological bullshit got in the way of her working, of 
living her life, of making a medical decision with her 
healthcare professional.
    I think America should take great offense to this. That's 
exactly what you meant when you said making it hard for people 
to live without getting a vaccination. You affected people's 
ability to work, travel, be educated, to actually flourish in 
America, in fact to self-determine as well given God-given 
rights. Shame on you.
    Dr. Fauci, you've become Dr. Fear. Americans do not hate 
science. I don't hate science. The American people hate having 
their freedoms taken from them.
    You inspired and created a fear through mask mandates, 
school closures, vaccine mandates that have destroyed the 
American people's trust in our public health institutions.
    This fear you created will continue to have ripple effects 
over generations to come. You have already seen its effects in 
education, in the economy, and everything else. Quite frankly, 
you said, ``If you disagree with me, you disagree with 
science.''
    Dr. Fauci, I disagree with you because I disagree with 
fear.
    And with that, I yield.
    Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize Mr. Moskowitz from Florida 
for 5 minutes of questions.
    Mr. Moskowitz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Dr. Fauci, good to be with you here today.
    I was not here, but I saw a Member of this Committee 
questioned whether or not you represent science and tried to 
make that in some offensive way. I just want you to know most 
Americans don't think she represents Congress.
    [Audio recording played.]
    Mr. Moskowitz. So I hear now double Fauci.
    So, I don't want you to be offended by that.
    I actually, similar to Representative McCormick, who was 
serving in the field as a doctor during COVID, I was running 
the logistics operation and the Florida response as the 
director of emergency management for the state of Florida for 
Governor DeSantis.
    So, I was deploying masks and gowns and gloves. We were 
setting up field hospitals, we were setting up testing sites, 
we were setting up vaccine sites throughout the pandemic.
    And the one thing that became clear to me: As a country we 
were not prepared. In fact, we actually had many preparations 
for a pandemic, but both the states collectively and the 
Federal Government threw that out and kind of was just making 
it up as we go.
    One of the things I wanted to ask you--and I understand 
you're not in the response field--but do you feel since you've 
left that we are better prepared today than we were several 
years ago when COVID hit?
    Dr. Fauci. In some respects, we are; but in others, I'm 
still disappointed. And I think one of the things that was 
really a problem with the response was the degree of 
divisiveness that we had in the country about a lack of a 
coherent response where we were having people, for reasons that 
had nothing to do with public health or science, refusing to 
adhere to public health intervention measures.
    What I think that we will do better, hopefully, is that the 
CDC, I believe, has now recognized some of the failings of the 
lack of communication and interaction between the Federal 
response and the local public health officials.
    One of the weaknesses that we had in the United States that 
other countries didn't have was a disconnect between the 
healthcare system and the public health system, whereas the CDC 
can't demand information from local public health individuals, 
they have to volunteer to give it to them. And it isn't given 
to them in real time. So we were at a disadvantage.
    Mr. Moskowitz. Oh, no question. I saw that. I saw how--the 
lack of investment in technology, right? We had states trying 
to share information with the Federal Government using, you 
know, Windows 2000.
    Dr. Fauci. Or fax machines.
    Mr. Moskowitz. Fax machines, exactly.
    Dr. Fauci. Yes.
    Mr. Moskowitz. And so, you know, we spent $7 trillion in 
two packages in two administrations. And one of my concerns is, 
is that I feel that, especially in supply chain, I feel like 
we're not that much better off than we were before COVID. Am I 
wrong in that assessment?
    Dr. Fauci. Yes, I don't think you're wrong, but I hope 
that--the CDC has made it very clear that they are trying to 
change that and correct that deficit of a separation between 
the local and the Federal CDC so that we can get information in 
real time.
    It was very frustrating for us that often we had to go to 
the U.K. or South Africa or Israel to get real-time information 
because they had a connection between what was going on on the 
ground and their public health system. So they knew right away 
what was happening. We didn't.
    Mr. Moskowitz. Dr. Fauci, you talked about how, you know, 
we live in partisan times, a lot of misinformation. And, you 
know, colleagues on this body said, you know, you should be, 
you know, charged and found guilty. Of course, the only one 
that that's happened to is your former boss.
    But, you know, the question I have is, when you saw a lot 
of that disinformation, whether it was, you know, we can use a 
disinfectant to do, like, a cleaning or do light in the body or 
that, you know, China is working super hard, President Xi's got 
it contained, all of the stuff that was being put out, were you 
concerned--you know, what was your feeling at that time working 
in the administration seeing that come from the podium?
    Dr. Fauci. Well, I was very frustrated by that. It was very 
clear. I was put in a very difficult position that I didn't 
like of having to contradict publicly the President of the 
United States. I took no great pleasure in that, but I felt it 
was my responsibility to preserve----
    Mr. Moskowitz. He must have thought you did a great job. He 
gave you a commendation right before he left.
    Dr. Fauci. Well, I felt it was my responsibility, you know, 
to preserve my own personal integrity and my major 
responsibility to the American public to tell them the truth.
    And if I could just take this opportunity. When I was 
saying that if you attack me, you attack science, I didn't mean 
that I am science. What I meant was that when the data showed 
that hydroxychloroquine does not work and there are people 
saying, ``Oh, it does, I'll give it to people,'' and we know it 
can be hurtful to them, then when you're attacking what I'm 
saying, that the science shows it doesn't work and the science 
shows that bleach doesn't work, that when you attack that, you 
really are attacking science, because science has shown that it 
doesn't work. That's what I meant when you're attacking me, 
you're attacking science.
    Mr. Moskowitz. Thank you, Doctor.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Dr. Wenstrup. The gentleman's time has expired.
    I now recognize Mr. Jordan from Ohio for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Doctor, why was it so important that the virus not have 
started in a lab?
    Dr. Fauci. We don't know where it started, and that's the 
reason why I keep an open mind. So I don't know what you mean 
by, why was it so important? It wasn't important.
    Mr. Jordan. You still don't know where it started? The guys 
you gave money to figured it out in 3 days.
    Dr. Fauci. No, no, no. They----
    Mr. Jordan. Mr. Andersen said on January 31, 2020, ``Virus 
looks engineered. Virus not consistent with evolutionary 
theory.''
    The very next day Dr. Garry said, ``I don't know how this 
happens in nature. It would be easy to do in a lab.''
    And then 3 days later, shazam, they switch and say it 
didn't--it has to be nature.
    So they figured it out in 3 days, but you still don't know?
    Dr. Fauci. No. In fact, if you look at what they were 
saying, Congressman Jordan, they were saying that it was not a 
manufactured virus. It still could have evolved out of a lab--
--
    Mr. Jordan. Let me read something here to you. In our----
    Dr. Fauci. They're not incompatible.
    Mr. Jordan. In our study on the censorship of the Biden 
administration working with Big Tech, I want to read you a 
WhatsApp message from Mark Zuckerberg.
    ``Can we include that the White House put pressure on us to 
censor the lab leak theory.''
    So this is a communication on July 16, 2021, Nick Clegg, 
Joel Kaplan, Sheryl Sandberg, Mark Zuckerberg. They're 
certainly feeling the pressure to downplay any lab leak theory 
and go with the natural origin theory.
    Dr. Fauci. Is there a question there?
    Mr. Jordan. It's coming. One's coming.
    Here's another email to Mark Zuckerberg. It says, Subject 
line: ``COVID misinformation. Wuhan lab leak theory. In 
response to continued public pressure, intense conversations 
with the new administration, we started removing five COVID 
claims, including the lab leak theory.''
    Mr. Zuckerberg responds, ``This seems like a good reminder 
that when we compromise our standards due to pressure from an 
administration, in either direction, we often later regret 
it.''
    Why was it so important the virus not have started in a 
lab?
    Dr. Fauci. It wasn't so important that the virus not. We 
don't know. We know----
    Mr. Jordan. Well, it was important to someone in the Biden 
administration, so much so that the top people at Meta, the top 
people at Facebook are asking, ``Why are we getting all this 
pressure to downplay the lab leak theory?'' And we have an 
email from June of the same year, June 4, 2021, saying the same 
thing. It was certainly important to somebody.
    Dr. Fauci. Well, what does that got to do with me?
    Mr. Jordan. I'm asking you because you're the expert on 
coronavirus. I'm saying why was the administration----
    Dr. Fauci. Am I on this email?
    Mr. Jordan [continuing]. Why was the administration so 
pushing not to have the lab leak theory as something that was 
viable.
    Dr. Fauci. I can't answer that. I've kept an open mind 
throughout the entire process.
    Mr. Jordan. You've kept an open mind. Dr. Fauci, open mind.
    Dr. Fauci. That is correct.
    Mr. Jordan. What happened in those 3 days? Why did Dr. 
Andersen and--excuse me--Mr. Andersen and Dr. Garry, why did 
they change their mind 180 degrees? Because what Kristian 
Andersen says 3 days later, after he said, ``Virus looks 
engineered. Virus not consistent with evolutionary theory,'' 3 
days later he says, ``The main crackpot theories going around 
at the moment relate to this virus being somehow engineered, 
and that is demonstrably false.''
    How did they figure all that out in 3 days, Dr. Fauci----
    Dr. Fauci. You can do that----
    Mr. Jordan [continuing]. If you still have an open mind?
    Dr. Fauci. Well, what they did is that--you know, they 
testified before this Committee what they did. They went back 
and looked at the sequences and realized that their initial 
concern was unfounded about that and it did not look at all 
like it was manufactured. But as they said in their paper, even 
though they feel it was more likely----
    Mr. Jordan. Three days they figured it out.
    Dr. Fauci. That's exactly. You could do that in 3 days.
    Mr. Jordan. OK.
    Dr. Fauci. You can scan sequences in a day.
    Mr. Jordan. OK.
    Dr. Fauci. You don't need 3 days.
    Mr. Jordan. OK. Who's Robert Redfield?
    Dr. Fauci. The former Director of the CDC.
    Mr. Jordan. Dr. Redfield, right? And he was also on the 
Coronavirus Task Force. Is that accurate?
    Dr. Fauci. He was a member of the Coronavirus Task Force.
    Mr. Jordan. Here's what he said to this Committee. He 
said--Redfield said that Fauci and Collins ``left him out 
because Redfield suspected that coronavirus had leaked from the 
Chinese lab.''
    Is that accurate?
    Dr. Fauci. Well, he said that, but that's not true.
    Mr. Jordan. You're saying----
    Dr. Fauci. That is incorrect, Congressman.
    Mr. Jordan [continuing]. Dr. Redfield was lying to the 
Committee----
    Dr. Fauci. No.
    Mr. Jordan [continuing]. When he sat right where you sat?
    Dr. Fauci. When he said that I kept him out, that is an 
incorrect statement. The roster who was on the phone----
    Mr. Jordan. Was Dr. Redfield in that conference call on 
February 1 when you had Mr. Andersen and Dr. Garry on that 
call?
    Dr. Fauci. He was not. And the conference call was put 
together by Jeremy Farrar. So no one kept him out. He said he 
was kept out because he felt----
    Mr. Jordan. Did U.S. tax dollars----
    Dr. Fauci. Do you want me to answer the question?
    Mr. Jordan. Yes. I just wondered why he wasn't on the call. 
It seems to me the head of CDC, part of the Coronavirus Task 
Force which was formed 2 days prior to that call, would have 
been on the call.
    Dr. Fauci. Well, the call was arranged by Jeremy Farrar. 
You should ask him.
    Mr. Jordan. OK. Did U.S. tax dollars flow through a grant 
recipient to the lab in China?
    Dr. Fauci. I'm sorry? What was----
    Mr. Jordan. Did U.S. tax dollars flow through a grant 
recipient to the lab in China.
    Dr. Fauci. Yes, of course. It was a subaward to the Wuhan 
Institute----
    Mr. Jordan. And who approved that award.
    Mr. Fauci. Excuse me?
    Mr. Jordan. And who approved that award? What agency 
approved that award.
    Dr. Fauci. The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases.
    Mr. Jordan. Your agency approved that, right.
    Dr. Fauci. Yes, it did, after----
    Mr. Jordan. Does that have anything to do with this 
downplaying of the lab leak theory.
    Dr. Fauci. No.
    Mr. Jordan. Nothing to do with it?
    Dr. Fauci. Nothing.
    Mr. Jordan. Do you agree that there was a push to downplay 
the lab leak theory?
    Dr. Fauci. Not on my part.
    Mr. Jordan. Really?
    Dr. Fauci. Really.
    Mr. Jordan. Wow. I think most of the country would find 
that amazing.
    I've still got 11 seconds.
    Dr. Fauci. Well, look at the facts. I've kept an open mind 
throughout the entire process.
    Mr. Jordan. All right. I yield back.
    Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize the Majority Staff for no 
longer than 30 minutes of questions.
    Majority Staff. Dr. Fauci, it's good to see you again. I 
want to ask a couple of questions about some of the Members' 
questions and then get into some follow-ups.
    The issue of the CIA trip was brought up. That was brought 
to us by a whistleblower. That was not an allegation made by 
the Committee. It was an allegation made by the whistleblower.
    You testified at a transcribed interview back in early 
January. Do you recall me asking you about that allegation?
    Dr. Fauci. About going to the CIA?
    Majority Staff. Yes.
    Dr. Fauci. Yes.
    Majority Staff. And do you recall--and you denied it then 
as well, and you denied it here today. Do you recall the 
Subcommittee publishing that you denied it?
    Dr. Fauci. I don't recall.
    Majority Staff. We did.
    Dr. Fauci. You did. OK.
    Majority Staff. We put it out in a press release afterwards 
that you denied the whistleblower's allegation.
    Dr. Fauci. OK.
    Majority Staff. And then today, during the course of the 
last couple hours, have any Members on the Majority side of the 
dais asked you about a trip to the CIA?
    Dr. Fauci. Yes.
    Majority Staff. They have?
    Dr. Fauci. No, they have. I'm sorry. Mitch, I'm not hearing 
you so well. Let me turn this off.
    Mr. Mfume. I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
    Dr. Wenstrup. What's the gentleman's point of order?
    Mr. Mfume. I have an inquiry about whether or not I'm 
hearing things or whether or not you just yielded 30 minutes of 
Committee time to staff.
    Dr. Wenstrup. That is correct, both sides.
    Mr. Mfume. And the question that the gentleman just raised 
was a question that I raised. So apparently he was not 
listening when I was questioning Dr. Fauci.
    Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you for your point of order.
    You may continue.
    Majority Staff. What I asked was we asked you about this in 
a transcribed interview. You testified that you did not go to 
the CIA.
    Dr. Fauci. Yes.
    Majority Staff. We published that you refuted that 
allegation.
    Dr. Fauci. Yes.
    Majority Staff. And then today no Members of the Republican 
side of the dais have asked you that question. Is that 
accurate?
    Dr. Fauci. Yes.
    Majority Staff. Thank you.
    You've been asked a number of times about your former 
senior advisor, Dr. Morens, and have said--and I want to make 
sure I characterize it correctly because it goes a little back 
and forth--that you didn't conduct official business over a 
personal email with Dr. Morens.
    Has Dr. Morens emailed to your personal email before on 
nonofficial purposes?
    Dr. Fauci. As I mentioned, we wrote scientific papers 
together, so he very well may have used that because that's the 
email I use when I write a scientific paper, right.
    Majority Staff. And that's because NIAID policy allows you 
to write, on semi-official time, write papers, but you just 
have to put a disclaimer that this is not the----
    Dr. Fauci. Yes. In other words, if you're doing something 
as official business, you shouldn't use your emails that are 
official business. So in order to be compliant with the 
regulations, you would use a personal email.
    Majority Staff. I appreciate it.
    I want to ask about some of the public health policies 
enacted during the pandemic.
    Dr. Francis Collins, the former NIH Director, recently said 
at an interview, and I'm quoting, ``You attach an infinite 
value to stopping the disease and saving a life. You attach a 
zero value to whether this actually totally disrupts people's 
lives, ruins the economy, and has kept many kids out of school 
in a way that they never quite recovered.''
    Understanding the COVID Task Force had a lot of voices at 
the table, is that an accurate description of the public health 
advisors and then you could fit in other advisors along the 
way?
    Dr. Fauci. Yes. You know, Mitch, what I believe that Dr. 
Collins was saying was that we give a advice based on pure 
public health issues.
    It's very, very clear now, retrospectively, looking at the 
potential collateral negative effects of things like mandating, 
it would be important for us now, since the purpose of, I 
believe, why we're here, is to how we can do better next time, 
is to consider the balance.
    I think things that we did in the beginning were in the 
context of a horrible situation of four to five thousand deaths 
per day. But that doesn't mean that you don't go back and look 
and say: Did everything we do at that point and the duration 
for which we did it, was that appropriate and do we need to 
reexamine?
    I believe that's what Dr. Collins was referring to, and I 
agree with him on that.
    Majority Staff. And you got to my next question, that we 
are here trying to figure out how to do better next time, lose 
fewer lives next time.
    Dr. Fauci. Yes.
    Majority Staff. Would that be a better thought process 
going forward of thinking about the possible unintended 
consequences of public health measures?
    Dr. Fauci. Absolutely.
    Majority Staff. And you've heard from both sides of the 
dais today, first weeks, months, novel virus, nobody knew what 
was going on, called for some drastic measures.
    Understanding--once there was a better understanding of who 
the most affected demographics were, do you think it would be 
important to more narrowly craft public health measures to 
specifically favor those demographics?
    Dr. Fauci. The answer is yes, but you have to be careful, 
because if you have a certain group that is being predominantly 
afflicted, if you're really, really clear that another group is 
really quite protected, then you should fashion it 
demographically related.
    But what often happens with outbreaks is that they're a 
moving target, and you only hear about other vulnerables as you 
get further into the outbreak.
    So, the answer to your question is you're partially 
correct, that you need to do that, but you've got to be careful 
when you're dealing with a moving target.
    Majority Staff. And we can appreciate that.
    You've been asked a little bit again about the theories of 
natural immunity and herd immunity. Those are both real 
scientific theories in infectious diseases. Is that correct?
    Dr. Fauci. Yes.
    Majority Staff. And between infection-acquired immunity and 
vaccinated-acquired immunity, did the United States hit herd 
immunity?
    Dr. Fauci. The answer is no, and I've written a paper on 
that, is that when you're dealing--just let me take 30 seconds. 
I don't want to run out the clock on you, but I think it's 
important to make this point.
    When you talk about herd immunity, it's predicated on two 
principles: that you're dealing with a pathogen that's not 
changing; and, No. 2, that when you either get infected or 
vaccinated, the duration of the immunity is measured in 
decades, if not a lifetime.
    So, that if you have a pathogen that stays the same--like 
measles doesn't change. So I was infected with measles when I 
was a child. It's the same measles that's infecting people in 
certain countries in the developing world.
    No. 2, when you get either infected or vaccinated with 
measles, you have immunity that's durable minimally in decades 
and possibly for life.
    So, if you get the same pathogen and you get a large 
percentage of the people who have either been infected or 
vaccinated, then you have herd immunity. We did not ever have 
that with COVID.
    Majority Staff. And you've also been asked a number of 
times about the vaccine and vaccine mandates. Were you the one 
that recommended to the President to mandate vaccines for 
certain individuals?
    Dr. Fauci. No.
    Majority Staff. Do you know who did?
    Dr. Fauci. No. It was more of a--it was a combination of a 
group and just saying that, you know, certain agencies, like 
the Labor Department or what have you, would feel that this 
were to be done. But it was not like I 1 day said, ``Hey, we 
should mandate vaccines.'' That did not happen.
    Majority Staff. And I want to echo the comments of the 
Chairman that we agree the vaccine saved hundreds of thousands 
of lives. And we talked about this a little bit in January, and 
I think you touched on it a little bit today.
    Could issuing these mandates and removing the notion of 
informed consent from some certain sects of the citizenry lead 
to vaccine hesitancy?
    Dr. Fauci. Yes. I mentioned this, I believe, in the TI, 
that as a matter of fact that's something that I think we need 
to go back now, when we do an after-the-event evaluation, about 
whether or not, given the psyche of the country and the 
pushback that you get from those types of things, we need to 
reevaluate the cost-benefit ratio of those types of things.
    Majority Staff. And then I won't belabor the point, but we 
talked about the six-foot distance an awful lot today.
    Do you recall if it was ever suggested to be 10 feet?
    Dr. Fauci. You know, I don't recall, Mitch, if it was ever 
suggested it was 10 feet. But when I made my explanation of 
what it was, I was saying that there was no trial that looked 
at 10 versus 6 versus 3 versus not even worrying about it at 
all.
    Majority Staff. And you said today that there were 
discussions at the White House about the six-foot rule. You 
don't recall if it was discussions about whether or not it 
should be 3 or should be 10 or should be 6?
    Dr. Fauci. You know, I don't recall, Mitch, what the exact 
discussion was. But as I've said in response to multiple 
questions, what we had was it came to CDC was said that on the 
basis of their evaluation, which was based on the droplet 
approach, that six-foot would be the go. And since there was no 
clinical trials going one way or the other, that's why it was 
accepted by the group.
    Majority Staff. And then it hasn't been a large topic 
today, and we talked about kind of like in the many unknowns in 
early 2020 schools were closed through the semester, some 
schools reopened for the fall semester, some remained closed 
going through into 2021.
    Looking back, were there--are there current academic 
ramifications of remote schooling or kids not being in school?
    Dr. Fauci. I think there have been a number of studies--not 
I think, I know--that there have been a number of studies to 
show that there are lasting effects, at least up to this point. 
They tend to attenuate over time. But there have been 
substantial negative effects on learning and on children when 
you keep them out of school for a prolonged period of time.
    Majority Staff. Have you seen any studies suggesting 
physical health ramifications?
    Dr. Fauci. I haven't seen physical health ramifications.
    Majority Staff. Mental health?
    Dr. Fauci. I believe that there are some that show 
psychological issues that relate to keeping kids out of the 
environment, of the social environment of the school.
    Majority Staff. I'm--and apologize for bouncing around. We 
don't have 14 hours with you today. I've got 30 minutes. So, 
I'm going to----
    Dr. Fauci. Yes, I'm so sorry about that.
    Majority Staff. I'm going to move quickly.
    Dr. Fauci. Yes.
    Majority Staff. Again, across the dais, both sides of the 
aisle, a lot of questions on the origins of COVID and finding 
out the origins and how that could better lead to both 
protecting against spillover and wildlife trade, but also 
increase biosafety standards.
    As you sit here today, is it possible that COVID-19 was the 
result of a laboratory-related accident?
    Dr. Fauci. Oh, absolutely. And I keep, like I mentioned 
multiple times, I keep an open mind.
    I feel, based on the data that I have seen, that the more 
likely--not definitive--but the more likely explanation is a 
natural spillover from an animal reservoir. But since there has 
not been definitive proof one way or the other, we have to keep 
an open mind that it could be either.
    Majority Staff. And based on that answer, I think, is the 
hypothesis that COVID-19 accidentally leaked from a lab a 
conspiracy theory?
    Dr. Fauci. No. I mentioned that several times. 
Conceptually, the concept of it is not a conspiracy theory.
    Majority Staff. We've talked a little bit about ``The 
Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2,'' the paper authored by Dr. 
Andersen. It came to two primary conclusions, and I'm quoting.
    ``Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a 
laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus'' and 
``we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario 
is plausible.''
    Do you disagree with those conclusions?
    Dr. Fauci. I think, Mitch, if I'm not mistaken--I don't 
have the paper in front of me--I think they also said the 
possibility of if you passaged it in, you could have done that.
    Majority Staff. And they----
    Dr. Fauci. And that--and if you passage it, it's in a lab. 
So it is--I mean, that could be.
    Majority Staff. And they dispelled that at the end with the 
``we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario 
is plausible.''
    So, I'm just--I'll ask again. Is a laboratory-based 
scenario plausible?
    Dr. Fauci. Well, I mean, again, I'm not--I don't want to 
speak for what they meant in that paper, but I have said 
multiple times I keep an open mind that it could be either a 
laboratory leak or it could be what I think the data is leaning 
toward mostly, which is a natural occurrence from an animal 
reservoir.
    Majority Staff. And this email was brought up, too, on 
April 16, 2020. Dr. Collins wrote to you and said, ``Wondering 
if there's something NIH can do to help put down this very 
destructive conspiracy,'' referencing the lab leak. ``I hoped 
the Nature Medicine article on the genomic sequence of SARS-
CoV-2 would settle this, but probably didn't get much 
visibility. Anything more we can do?''
    The next day, you were at a White House press conference 
and cited Proximal Origin and said that Proximal Origin 
established that COVID-19, quote, ``is totally consistent with 
a jump of a species from an animal to human.''
    Dr. Fauci. Right.
    Majority Staff. Did anyone tell you to cite Proximal Origin 
from the White House podium?
    Dr. Fauci. No. It was in response, I believe, to a question 
that might have been asked by a reporter. But I wasn't 
stimulated to say that at all. I was responding to a question.
    Majority Staff. At that time back in April 2020, was it 
also your belief that a lab leak was possible?
    Dr. Fauci. Yes. I've always had an open mind about it.
    Majority Staff. And then I want to correct the record again 
a little bit on the drafting and publication of the Proximal 
Origin paper.
    Did Dr. Andersen send you drafts to review?
    Dr. Fauci. He sent drafts, but I'm going to jump ahead of 
you if I might dribble around. I did not edit it.
    Majority Staff. That was----
    Dr. Fauci. It was mentioned by a few of the Congressmen.
    Majority Staff. It was.
    Dr. Fauci. I did not edit the paper.
    Majority Staff. And I appreciate that. I just wanted to get 
on the record.
    Dr. Fauci. Right.
    Majority Staff. I want to talk about Dr. Morens and what 
you wrote in your opening testimony and some of the answers 
that you gave today.
    And just for clarity, you were, in addition to being 
unaware of his use of personal email and potentially 
intentionally deleting Federal records, were you also unaware 
of his actions to assist Dr. Daszak and EcoHealth?
    Dr. Fauci. I am--I was aware of his friendship. I was not 
aware of his attempts to assist him to respond to an NIH 
inquiry.
    Majority Staff. So not aware of the editing of press 
releases or editing of letters?
    Dr. Fauci. No, I was not.
    Majority Staff. On November 11, 2021, Dr. Morens wrote in 
an email to Dr. Daszak that he attempted to discuss the 
EcoHealth grant with you and you, quote, ``got upset'' and told 
him to have no more communications with Peter.
    Why did you tell Dr. Morens to no longer communicate with 
Dr. Daszak?
    Dr. Fauci. Because I think it's inappropriate to do what he 
did, I mean, and your Committee has called him out very 
definitively about that. And it was inappropriate to do that.
    Majority Staff. This is back in 2021. What did you know 
about what he was doing then?
    Dr. Fauci. I didn't know exactly what he was doing, but I 
don't think it's appropriate for people to be communicating and 
helping a grantee in a response. I didn't know exactly what he 
was doing, but I didn't think it was appropriate.
    Majority Staff. When did you--you testified to Chairman 
Griffith--or, excuse me, Chairman Comer--that you knew about 
the compliance issues later on with EcoHealth.
    When did you first become aware?
    Dr. Fauci. I became aware during briefings by my staff in 
preparation for congressional hearings well after the fact 
where the compliance issues actually happened. And I didn't 
know--as I mentioned to you in the TI, Mitch--I didn't even 
know the grant existed before the outbreak.
    And then, finally, when there was this issue about 
congressional hearings, I needed to know, what is this grant, 
what are we doing with it, and are there any issues? That's 
when they said there was a compliance problem of the fourth 
year versus the fifth year progress report.
    Majority Staff. Some of the other emails from Dr. Morens I 
just want to read into the record and ask you if his 
recollection is accurate.
    On April 27, 2020, Dr. Morens wrote, ``I am sure privately 
he would love to see Peter and EcoHealth fully restored, 
although he did once make the comment to me that Peter had 
screwed himself with the late report. I already told him that 
all that crap wasn't true.''
    The late report was true, despite what Dr. Morens said.
    On April 21, 2021, Dr. Morens wrote that he was sure you 
would do anything you could to restore the funds to EcoHealth.
    On June 5, 2021, Dr. Morens wrote that you were working 
behind the scenes to undo the damage to EcoHealth.
    On October 21, 2021, Dr. Morens wrote, ``Peter, I had my 
regular meeting with Tony this morning. He immediately inquired 
about you and several times asked how you were doing. He used a 
lot of colorful language about the situation with attacks on 
EcoHealth.''
    On October 25, 2021, Dr. Morens wrote that you were trying 
to protect EcoHealth.
    On March 22, 2021, Dr. Morens wrote, ``The most important 
is within NIH to get the decision reversed and the grant 
refunded. I believe Tony would like to do this.''
    And on February 24, 2022, Dr. Morens wrote, ``It will be a 
small consolation to hear the following, but in my face-to-face 
meeting with Tony this morning he once again brought up, as he 
usually does, your plight, Peter.''
    Did you ever have any discussions with Dr. Morens about 
protecting EcoHealth or helping restore funding?
    Dr. Fauci. Not at all. I don't know what--to be honest with 
you, Mitch, I just don't know what Dr. Morens is talking about 
with that. Maybe he's trying to, as he said, cheer up--he said 
that in front of this Committee--cheer up Dr. Daszak. But to 
say that I'm getting involved in trying to help him or protect 
him, not so.
    Majority Staff. Did you ever have any conversations with 
Dr. Morens about what Dr. Daszak was facing or about the 
termination of the grant?
    Dr. Fauci. You know, I may--he may have mentioned to me 
something like Dr. Daszak is going through terrible times. But 
I don't recall. It is conceivable that he would have mentioned 
that to me, because, as he mentioned to you, that Dr. Daszak 
and he are very good friends.
    So, it would not be surprising if sometime he had mentioned 
to me, ``Boy, Dr. Daszak's going through some really tough 
times.'' Fine. That doesn't mean that I say you should help 
him.
    Majority Staff. No, it absolutely doesn't. So, that's why 
we want to ask the questions----
    Dr. Fauci. Yes.
    Majority Staff. [continuing] And get the answers.
    During your transcribed interview with us, you were asked 
about whether or not Dr. Daszak had a conflict of interest in 
reviewing the origins of COVID-19.
    And you testified, ``You know, I hesitate to speculate 
about what someone else should do. The only people that I am 
involved with is my own staff, who we've mentioned many times 
in this discussion, who don't have a conflict of interest.''
    With the benefit of hindsight and the work of this 
Committee, do you believe Dr. Morens had a conflict of interest 
regarding EcoHealth?
    Dr. Fauci. Well, from what we know now, he definitely had a 
conflict, because he was communicating with a grantee and 
helping him in response to an NIH issue, which is a conflict of 
interest. I did not know that at the time when I made your 
statement.
    Majority Staff. And I appreciate that.
    Dr. Fauci. Yes.
    Majority Staff. Sticking with EcoHealth, in April 2020 NIH 
terminated and then subsequently reinstated and then suspended 
the EcoHealth grant that had the Wuhan Institute as a 
subgrantee.
    Do you recall that decision?
    Dr. Fauci. Yes.
    Majority Staff. Were you involved at all in that decision?
    Dr. Fauci. No.
    Majority Staff. You previously testified to House Energy 
and Commerce that you were, in essence, told to cancel the 
grant. Do you recall who told you?
    Dr. Fauci. We got it from a number of--now, 
retrospectively, we found out how it was. It was the White 
House told the Department to tell the NIH to cancel the grant.
    Majority Staff. Did you agree with the cancellation?
    [Disturbance in the hearing room.]
    Dr. Fauci. What is that? Do we need to listen to that?
    Majority Staff. He was escorted out.
    Dr. Fauci. Yes. OK. Good.
    I'm sorry, repeat the question, Mitch.
    Majority Staff. Did you agree with the cancellation?
    Dr. Fauci. You know, it wasn't a question of agreeing or 
disagreeing. It was like, ``Can we really do that? I don't 
think that you can do that.'' And as it turned out, I was 
right, because the general counsel of HHS said, ``By the way, 
you can't do that. You've got to restore the grant.''
    Majority Staff. And that's why they restored it and then 
suspended it, pending the compliance review.
    Dr. Fauci. Yes, exactly.
    Majority Staff. Not to keep reading Dr. Morens' emails, but 
on June 24, 2020, Dr. Morens wrote an email.
    ``He,'' referencing you, ``made some additional comments to 
the effect that this came from the White House and he was 
totally opposed to it.''
    You weren't totally opposed to it?
    Dr. Fauci. Well, see, that's his--you know, he's doing a 
lot of interpretation, Mitch. His interpretation I was totally 
opposed to it. It was more of, can we really legally do that? 
And the answer turned out I was right, no, you can't.
    Majority Staff. Do you recall the--did the Department ask 
you first or Dr. Collins first to terminate the grant?
    Dr. Fauci. I think it went directly to Building 10--excuse 
me, Building 1, the Director's Office.
    Majority Staff. Is that the NIH Director's Office?
    Dr. Fauci. Yes, yes. I think it--it went from the 
Department to NIH to us.
    Majority Staff. OK. Were you, prior to your retirement in 
December 2022, were you involved in any of the compliance 
actions NIH took against EcoHealth?
    Dr. Fauci. I don't believe so. I think the actual--and, 
again, I'm a little unclear about the time--but I think most of 
the disciplinary actions actually occurred after I left, if I'm 
not mistaken.
    Majority Staff. Yes, the actual suspension and debarment 
occurred after you left, but there were a number of letters 
requesting lab notebooks or further information----
    Dr. Fauci. Yes, I----
    Majority Staff. [continuing] While you were still there.
    Dr. Fauci. Yes. What happened, Mitch, and it's important to 
point this out, once it was clear that there was compliance 
issues while I was still there, we were told at NIAID, stay out 
of it, compliance is going to be handled by Building 1--i.e., 
the NIH Director--and Mike Lauer. So the compliance was said, 
don't touch it, don't go near it, just we'll take care of it.
    Majority Staff. And you just brought this up. Since the 
original termination, then suspension, NIH found numerous major 
violations of grant policies, has since debarred the Wuhan 
Institute of Virology and suspended and proposed for debarment 
both EcoHealth as an institution and Dr. Daszak individually.
    Are you aware of those?
    Dr. Fauci. Yes, I am.
    Majority Staff. During previous TIs and hearings, when 
asked if they supported every one of these actions and 
supported the suspension and debarment, both Dr. Collins and 
Dr. Tabak said yes.
    Sitting here today, do you support the suspension and 
debarment of EcoHealth?
    Dr. Fauci. Yes.
    Majority Staff. I want to move on to the kind of, like, 
``known unknowns'' of COVID origins, to quote Dr. Lipkin's 
paper from early 2020.
    On October 20, 2021, Dr. Tabak sent a letter to then-
Ranking Member Mr. Comer that said the bat coronaviruses 
studied under the EcoHealth Alliance grant could not have been 
the source of SARS-CoV-2 and the COVID-19 pandemic. You've 
testified similarly both back in January and today.
    Some of the things that I believe Chairman Griffith brought 
up was just kind of that statement results on some things--
rests on some things that we just can't know.
    In your experience, Dr. Fauci, do researchers publish every 
virus that they sequence?
    Dr. Fauci. No. I mean, I think researchers don't always 
publish every single thing they do.
    Majority Staff. Do they routinely publish every experiment 
that they conduct?
    Dr. Fauci. I'm sure there are people who don't publish 
every single experiment that they do.
    Majority Staff. And then is there a lag time between the 
sampling, the analysis, and the publication?
    Dr. Fauci. Yes. I mean, publications often take months 
before they come out.
    Majority Staff. Is it possible, if not plausible, that 
EcoHealth and the Wuhan Institute of Virology have samples from 
between 2020, when they originally published a paper--or, 
excuse me, 2015, when they originally published a paper with 
all their samples, and now that are unpublished?
    Dr. Fauci. Sure, it's possible. But, Mitch, I'm--I might 
just throw in there you can't get away from the fact that the 
viruses that were studied, that we--that the NIH gave them a 
grant to study, don't pull back on the fact that, no matter 
what you did with those viruses, they were phylogenetically so 
different they could not possibly be the precursor of SARS-CoV-
2.
    Majority Staff. And I agree with that. I guess my only 
point is that you don't know all the viruses they were working 
with.
    Dr. Fauci. Yes. And let's make that clear, because 
Griffith--Congressman Griffith--asked it, and I answered you 
quite honestly, that none of us can know everything that's 
going on in China or in Wuhan or what have you. And that's the 
reason why I say today and I've said at the TI, I keep an open 
mind as to what the origin is.
    Majority Staff. The last thing, last topic I want to touch 
on is gain-of-function. We touched on it in January. You 
touched on it a little bit today.
    I know the pandemic has resulted, as I'm sure you're aware, 
with a rather large debate, including with the NSABB updating 
their dangerous research policies surrounding gain-of-function, 
P3CO, and dual use research of concern.
    At the--prior to October 2021, the NIH website listed gain-
of-function as a type of research that modifies a biological 
agent so that it confers new or enhanced activity to that 
agent.
    And the P3CO framework that the U.S. Government uses to 
further regulate a subpart of that research, that it's more 
dangerous, specifically that could cause widespread and 
uncontrolled death or disease in humans.
    Putting aside what's regulatory--I agree with you, the P3CO 
definition is regulatory--are there types of research that 
could fall under the broad definition but not the P3CO 
definition?
    Dr. Fauci. Well, I believe Members on the Minority side 
have mentioned that. Influenza is a gain-of-function to a virus 
to make it grow better in eggs. Making an E. coli manufacture 
insulin is telling the E. coli to do something it wasn't able 
to do before by mutation. Of course that's the case.
    Majority Staff. So, in kind of the Venn diagram of this 
research, something could fall under gain-of-function without 
falling under further regulation?
    Dr. Fauci. I know where you're going and you're not going 
to get there. But go ahead.
    Majority Staff. According to EcoHealth's year five progress 
report, they facilitated an experiment in Wuhan that had seven 
mice infected with Wuhan Institute of Virology-1 as the 
backbone. Five survived. Then eight mice were infected with a 
chimera of WIV1 and the spike from another virus, and two 
survived.
    In EcoHealth's own words, these results suggest that the 
pathogenicity of that full-length chimera is higher than 
others.
    Dr. Fauci. Right.
    Majority Staff. You were asked today and it was read back 
to you a little bit, but on May 16, just a few weeks ago, Mrs. 
Lesko asked Dr. Tabak, ``Did NIH fund gain-of-function research 
at the Wuhan Institute of Virology through EcoHealth?''
    And Dr. Tabak answered, ``If you're speaking about the 
generic term, yes, we did.''
    Dr. Fauci. Right.
    Majority Staff. On May 11, you were asked a similar 
question, and you answered, ``The NIH has not ever and does not 
now fund gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of 
Virology.''
    I'm going to ask it and you can answer it how you want to 
answer it.
    According to the broad definition of gain-of-function 
research and the definition Dr. Tabak was testifying pursuant 
to, did NIAID fund gain-of-function research via EcoHealth in 
Wuhan?
    Dr. Fauci. The broad definition of gain-of-function, in my 
mind, is not applicable here and does nothing but confuse the 
situation.
    And that is the reason why, after 3 years of deliberation 
by the bodies, including the NSABB as well as the National 
Academies, it was decided to make an operative and regulatory 
definition.
    If you harken back to the original broad definition, it 
does nothing but confuse people. And that's why every time I 
have mentioned gain-of-function, at the Senate hearing with 
Senator Paul and the TI and today, the definition that I use is 
not my personal definition. It's a codified regulatory and 
operative definition made by a body that has nothing to do with 
me.
    Majority Staff. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize the Minority Staff for not 
longer than 30 minutes.
    Minority Staff. Dr. Fauci, nice to see you. We've covered 
many different topics today. We just want to make sure that you 
have the opportunity to provide your full perspective on any 
and all of them.
    Is there anything you'd like to add, clarify, or say about 
any of the topics we've discussed here today?
    Dr. Fauci. Actually, I think we've covered just about 
everything, but if you come up with something you want to ask 
me, I'd be happy to try to fill it in. But I think we've been 
rather extensive today.
    Minority Staff. I think that's great, and I think we agree.
    And so, with that, we'll yield back the remainder of our 
time.
    Dr. Wenstrup. I would like to yield to Ranking Member Ruiz 
for a closing statement if he would like one.
    Dr. Ruiz. Dr. Fauci, I'd like to thank you for your 
testimony today. And I would like to thank you for your decades 
of service to our Nation, especially with the HIV epidemic that 
our Nation suffered through, the pandemic flu, Ebola, Zika, and 
COVID-19, and your years of research and investment in--that 
led to the rapid development of the COVID-19 vaccine that saved 
millions of lives. Thank you.
    And over the past 4 years, you have been personally 
targeted by extreme narratives about the origins of the COVID-
19 pandemic and the U.S. Government's response to it. They 
began in force in retaliation to wisdom you offered that 
contradicted the reckless and dangerous therapeutic 
recommendations by President Trump and have remained part of 
House Republicans' political playbook.
    These extreme narratives have been the bedrock of the 
Select Subcommittee's Republican-led probe and the untenable 
inferences they've somehow drawn despite the overwhelming 
evidence that it is inconvenient to those narratives.
    I want to be clear. The evidence uncovered from more than 
425,000 pages of documents and 20 closed-door interviews of 
current and former Federal officials has undermined the extreme 
narratives behind the Republicans' own probe.
    As I alluded to at the beginning of this hearing, my 
Democratic colleagues and I are committed to speaking 
objectively and truthfully about what the evidence shows, and 
this is what it shows:
    Dr. Fauci did not fund research through the EcoHealth 
Alliance grant that caused the COVID-19 pandemic.
    Dr. Fauci did not lie about gain-of-function research in 
Wuhan, China.
    Dr. Fauci did not orchestrate a campaign to suppress the 
lab leak theory.
    These findings are apparent from the evidence. In fact, 
this much was clear by the time of Dr. Fauci's 2-day 
transcribed interview this past January.
    In the 5 months since, the Select Subcommittee has 
conducted several more closed-door interviews and reviewed 
several thousand more pages of documents. This additional 
evidence and Dr. Fauci's testimony today has only made 
Republicans' claims less plausible and more preposterous.
    And when I was named Ranking Member of the Select 
Subcommittee, I made a commitment to follow the facts in 
objectively analyzing the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic.
    If the Select Subcommittee is to meaningfully improve our 
Nation's preparedness for future pandemics, then we must take 
an objective approach to the factual and scientific evidence 
available to us.
    The origins of the COVID-19 pandemic remain uncertain. I 
would like to remind my Republican colleagues that that 
uncertainty is not an opportunity for them to author fiction 
for partisan gain. It could have been a lab leak and it could 
have been an animal transmission.
    And, at the cost of meaningfully advancing our 
understanding of COVID-19's origins, Republicans have levied 
extreme allegations of creating SARS-CoV-2 against Dr. Fauci.
    The result is that Republicans' own probe has failed to 
shed any additional light on a central question for our Select 
Subcommittee.
    In fact, we are actually entering the fourth quarter of 
this Congress and this Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus 
Pandemic, and what have we focused on? It's not an objective 
investigation on the origin as either a lab leak or animal 
transmission.
    We have spent the vast majority of time, like in this 
hearing, with Republicans trying to prove that Dr. Fauci and 
Collins funded research through EcoHealth that created the 
SARS-CoV-2 virus. And in order for that to be true, it is 
dependent on proving the lab leak theory to be true.
    So it has not been an objective investigation as to whether 
or not the virus came from a lab or an animal transmission in 
order to prevent and prepare for the next pandemic. It has been 
to push this narrative. And this hearing is their climax, their 
star witness, to finally prove their narrative. And they did 
not do so.
    Instead of focusing on solutions, like fortifying our 
public health work force and infrastructure, securing domestic 
supply chain of vital public health equipment and medication, 
or equipping schools, churches, synagogues, mosques, and 
businesses to safely stay open during the next deadly novel 
viral pandemic, instead they focused on accusation without 
evidence.
    And it seemed like even though the evidence was there that 
the accusations were false, it didn't matter. They still 
accused him on a cover-up, suppressing the truth, that he 
initiated, prompted, or edited the proximal origins paper, that 
he funded gain-of-research that created the SARS-CoV-2 virus, 
even that he received royalties.
    You know, his answers today and his transcribed interviews 
and his countless emails refuted all of this. They always have. 
And his testimony today did again. But I guess that doesn't 
matter for the Majority.
    The truth is that there is no evidence to prove this 
narrative that we've spent so much time addressing. Their 
accusations are without evidence. But it doesn't matter to 
them.
    Intentionally misleading the public is propagating 
disinformation, and it's wrong and dangerous not only because 
it manufactures distrust in our public health leaders and our 
public health agencies, but also because it targets Dr. Fauci 
and other public health officials for violent death threats.
    Dr. Fauci just said that any time anybody alludes to the 
false accusation that he created the COVID-19 pandemic, his 
death threats go up. But irresponsibly and recklessly, Members 
on this Subcommittee continue to accuse him of that.
    So, for the remaining months of the Select Subcommittee I 
reaffirm my commitment to take a serious, balanced look at the 
question and the possibilities of whether the novel coronavirus 
emerged from a lab or from nature.
    And I emphasize to my colleagues that any uncertainty about 
those origins is an opportunity for us to work constructively 
together on forward-looking measures to improve our Nation's 
readiness for future public health threats.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
    Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you again.
    Dr. Fauci, I want to thank you for coming here today. I, 
again, truly appreciate your willingness to come voluntarily 
before the Select Committee for both your transcribed interview 
and hearing today.
    You know, this hearing was an opportunity to learn about 
our COVID-19 response and how we can improve and do better. And 
we did some good things during that, and I'll say Operation 
Warp Speed is one of them.
    It's also an opportunity to more closely examine the office 
in which you served, because there seemed to have been some 
significant wrongdoings that took place. And I believe that we 
can make changes and prevent that from happening in the future. 
That's my goal.
    It's an opportunity to take a close look about the 
processes and the procedures in place in our health 
institutions in the United States. That's our job, is 
oversight, in Congress. That's what we're supposed to do.
    I don't know what playbook some are talking about, because 
it's been my goal as Chairman--and I think you've seen the 
staff speaking the same way--to take a hard look at the facts 
so that we can do better in the future.
    I know that at the end of the transcribed interview, not 
only during the interview, we talked about other types of 
vaccines we may be able to create, mucosal vaccines, maybe 
inhibitors of furin, if there's a furin cleavage site as part 
of the vaccine. I appreciated that conversation so very much. 
And at the end, you thanked me for the fairness, and we had the 
opportunity to share a lot that day.
    I think what I'm most concerned about as we go forward as a 
country and from our agencies is that we can be trusted and 
that we are better in our messaging and talk about clarity.
    Dr. McCormick today talked about what it was like actually 
treating COVID patients day in and day out. I had recommended 
early on that America needed to hear more from doctors that 
were treating COVID patients, what they were seeing, what was 
working, what was not working.
    I compared it to General Schwarzkopf during the Gulf War. 
Everyone tuned in every night to hear what General Schwarzkopf 
had to say, not the politician, but what the general in charge 
had to say. And I think that was important, the one who was in 
the trenches.
    But, look, you know, we've gone back and forth on the 
definition of gain-of-function. I think it's been pretty clear 
what you said was on your mind. And there were two different 
definitions, if you will, a generic definition and an operative 
regulatory definition.
    But so, you know, when we go through this what America 
hears is that you say NIH did not fund and Dr. Tabak said NIH 
did fund. Clarity matters.
    I think it would have helped when you were in front of Dr. 
Paul in the Senate if you were clear about what you meant. The 
American people had never heard of gain-of-function until this 
came about. Clarity matters.
    You know, we conducted great trials on the vaccines. I 
thought they were phenomenal. Normally, you have eight to ten 
thousand people. We had about 40,000 people in each one of the 
trials.
    And what we knew from the trials is that, one, it saved a 
lot of lives. That's one thing. But we also knew that if you 
got vaccinated you could still get COVID. We didn't make that 
clear to the American people, in my mind, and that you could 
still get sick.
    And so, if someone stands up, not you, but if someone 
stands up and says, if you get vaccinated you're never going to 
go to the ICU and you're not going to die, well, it was still 
happening.
    So, where was the messaging? I wish you would have 
corrected that right then and there.
    You know, the President says, oh, maybe we just inject 
bleach. Well, some people maybe thought that was serious. We 
made it clear it was not, and that was important.
    But here we have Operation Warp Speed, which I know 
firsthand you were working on, and you were kind enough to work 
with the Doctors Caucus to explain what was going on with 
Operation Warp Speed. And we have a Presidential candidate who 
says, ``Well, if that's developed, I'm not taking it''--I'm 
paraphrasing--and then takes it.
    The American public deserve a lot better from their 
government. And what should have been a 9/11 moment for this 
country, this pandemic, was turned into a political nightmare.
    We need to do better. These are agnostic issues, not 
political.
    And I think from what we have learned from you in the TI 
and here today, there's a lot of things that we can do better, 
and the grant process being one of them. I mean, if you--look, 
when I sign a prescription, I'm responsible for it.
    Somebody needs to be responsible. And if you're signing for 
grants but not responsible for it, you just sign it, then 
you're not responsible for the dollars that are going out.
    And then maybe it's the Advisory Committee that needs to be 
signing the grant so that there's some level of responsibility, 
and responsibility for compliance. I think that's one of the 
biggest lessons learned through all this.
    We can do better. America is a great country. We can fix 
our problems. But we have to take a good hard look at what we 
did, what we didn't do, be honest with ourselves, be better in 
our messaging to the American people, especially when it comes 
to health.
    And that's why I felt it was very important that we don't 
do things like mandates, but let patients have a conversation 
with the doctor that they know and trust and make sure that 
we're getting the doctors all the information and data that 
they need, from adverse effects of the vaccine, which we've 
always done, adverse effects of the vaccine, to what the 
vaccine can and can't do, whether you're at risk or not at 
risk, what are your risks.
    Those are personal conversations that need to take place. 
And I look forward to try and establish the system that does a 
better job at that.
    I'm going to conclude and just say thank you once again, 
Dr. Fauci. As a matter of fact, I'd be glad to have more off-
the-record conversations about things we can do in the future, 
the drugs we may be able to develop, treatments we may be able 
to provide, and vaccines we may be able to produce.
    And so, if you're amenable, I might reach out to you for 
that, and other scientists as well that may have varying 
opinions.
    So, again, thank you again for being the witness today.
    With that, 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.
    If there's no further business, without objection, the 
Select Subcommittee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 1:30 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                            [all]