both hypothesis including the lab leak they ended up hurting the credibility of science. >> dana: the debate over the origins of covid and credibility of our health officials leading the charge comes back today. dr. fauci is about to testify before a house panel on his response to the virus in his first public testimony in nearly two years. remarkable. it has been two years. welcome to a new hour of "america's newsroom," i'm dana perino. >> bill: good morning. i thought dr. redfield was very interesting last hour. i'm bill hemmer. the pandemic may be officially over but the world may never fully recover from the damage it posed. a lot of questions finally getting more pointed. republicans on that committee are digging into the lab in wuhan china and whether a key fauci advisor was looking to evade laws, a cover-up. >> dana: the founder of public vcc. you follow it closely. i want to play some sound from democratic lawmakers questioning the conduct of dr. morens last week. >> what troubles me most about your conduct, dr. moren, is the extent to which it so willingly be trace decades of decorum and from public health workers who came before you and is not anti-science to hold you for misusing official resources. >> i think you will be haunted by your testimony today and it is unfortunate. it is all on the record. it doesn't make a lot of sense to many of us, certainly not to me. >> dana: dr. anthony fauci has entered the hearing room taking a seat. you can see him right there. michael shellenberger let's get your take. we see what we get over moren testimony, it's mind blowing. >> that's right. good to be with you. it's a historic day we have all been waiting for. it is very exciting on the one hand to finally have a chance to see lawmakers question anthony fauci who is somebody who played a key role. we and others believe in causing the pandemic to begin in the first place by subverting u.s. law to move these very risky experiments to increase the infectiousness of coronaviruses to china and the evidence appears that played a role in covering it up and producing propaganda to show somehow it count have come from a lab when that appears to have been what happened. this is going to be a very historic day. >> bill: i heard the gavel drop. the republican from ohio. there is anthony fauci, now retired. he was formerly the highest-paid member of the u.s. government. had the job in 1983 and exits 40 years later. what a tenure this was, michael. i just want -- shall we give it a listen? stand by one second. >> participate in today's hearings for the purposes of questions and give three minute opening statements. without objection pursuant to clause 4a3a of house resolution five and clause 2j2c of house rule 11 the chair may recognize staff of the subcommittee for questions equal periods of time not to exceed 30 minutes. pursuant to rule 7 d mr. jordan and mr. moskowitz may participate in today's hearing for the purposes of questions. i would like to remind members that the issues we're debating today are important ones. members feel deeply about. while vigorous disagreement is part of the legislative process, members are reminded that we must adhere to established standards of decorum and 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 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. 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 has 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 are 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 en grain prove i shall en sees and remedy deficiencies. in 15 months, the select subcommittee has sent more than 115 invest gative letters, conducted 30 transcribed interviews, resulted in hundreds of hours of testimony, held 27 hearings or briefings and reviewed more than 1 1/2 million pages of documents. we aren't here to throw the baby 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 are drinks named after you, you got bobbleheads made in your likeness, cover of vogue threw out the first pitch at a nationals game. you became a celebrity and 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 have done better. it goes to both sides of the aisle. we should have been more precise. we should have used words and phrases that are accurate and not misleading. we should have been honest, especially about what we didn't know. dr. fauci, i'm not a virologist but i am a physician. like most 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 purpose was to disprove the lab leak theory i was in lockdown researching with another physician in ohio to try to understand the pathology, the effected fizzology and what treatments worked. 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 xi article using gain of function type technology. while policy decisions should have 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 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. 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, 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 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 science turns a blind eye to hypothesis, they serve to be proven or disproveer and done so with facts, if able. it was interesting that you cheese not to pursue a scientific investigation of natural spillover and lab leak. we have been investigating both hypotheses. you testified before the select subcommittee in your transcribed interview the lab leak theory was not a conspiracy theory. you embraced the proximal origin letter. not a peer reviewed research paper but he embraced proximal origin letter and shared it from the white house lawn and stated 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 on a more risky and less safe bsl2 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 they 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 are 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 to conduct risky gain of function experiments in wuhan, china. the actions of eco health and dr. das call into -- 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. morens, your direct report for more than two decades, assisted the doctor in avoiding oversight and scrutiny and said that you were involved. your senior advisor and seemingly 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 mead and legacy media time and time again. why so many americans became so angry. it was fundamentally unamerican. i make a mistake, i answer to the people of ohio who elected me and to my own conscience. what happened when you and your agency made mistakes? 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 so many people as final and as infallible in matters pertaining to the pandemic. but such rigid demands of an ideologically di verse people like americans shattered public trust in american health institutions. because i said so, has never been good enough for americans. it never will be. it is 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 made many 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 and would now like to recognize ranking member for the purpose of making an opening statement. >> thank you, hello dr. fauci. 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 and objectively analyzing the origins of the covid-19 pandemic and made a promise to keep an open mind how the pandemic started. understanding when the coronavirus emerged from a labor nature helps to better protecting the american people. as the origins of the novel coronavirus still remain inconclusive i stand by these commitments to this day. 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 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 concerns about the lab-related origin for partisan gain and 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 inflicted on our society away from the former president whose stumbling pandemic response led to 400,000 unnecessary covid-19 deaths and on to dr. fauci who worked tirelessly to stem the crisis. over the past 15 months, the select subcommittee has poured over more than 425,000 pages of documents provided to us by government agencies, universities, 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 eco health 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 work orchestrate. the select subcommittee does not have a shred of evidence for the extreme allegations that they've leveled against dr. fauci for nearly four years. now i want to make something very clear. in the past month the select subcommittee has held hearings where we have examined serious issues of misconduct in following the facts, select subcommittee democrats uncovered trouble misconduct by the doctor from eco health. in less than two weeks ago we heard from dr. morens about his straylation of the foia requirements and the potential destruction of federal records. both doctors 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 immeasurable toll on our society is a betrayal of the public trust which each of us are stewards of as elected members of this body. today's hearing comes at a pivotal moment. with the darkest days of the covid-19 pandemic behind us, thanks to the biden administration's leadership we're 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 extremely limited and evolving information about a novel virus to save lives during one of the greatest crisis of our time or we can work constructively on the forward-looking policies and solutions to better prepare us for the public health threats 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. it has been my hope that republicans would join democrats in the forward-looking work that will better protect our constituents. strengthening oversight of research domestically and abroad is an essential part of this conversation and so is closing pathways tore transfers of viruses in nature and investing in public health infrastructure to insure what viruses arrive we're ready. when democrats were in the majority, we made important strides in these objectives by passing the consolidated appropriations act of 2023 which strengthed the protections under undue influence in biomedical research and the handling of select agents. paved the way for the interagency collaboration for disease prevention. invested in the workforce and enhanced supply chain preparedness and ability to rapidly develop and deploy medical counter measures. ahead of today's hearing, more than 90 health and medical organizations, including the american public health association, the american college of physicians, the infectious disease society of america. territorial and state health officials and national association of county and city health officials wrote to is select subcommittee urging us to 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 workforce and infrastructure. i seek unanimous consent to enter this letter into the hearing record. >> without objection. >> 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 forward. i stand by my commitments i mentioned earlier to take a serious, balanced look at all possibilities for the origins of covid-19 pandemic. and i stand ready to work with every member of this select subcommittee on this critically important mission so we can save future lives. i believe i still have some time left. so with that i would like to recognize mr. raskin with the remaining time. >> thank you. public health is a matter of urgent and comprehensive public concern. under donald trump when the pandemic began 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. debra burks donald trump's own covid-19 advisor america lost hundreds of thousands of people because of the recklessness of donald trump and his administration. now they are claiming 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 committees impeachment drive proved there were no presidential crimes much less high crimes and misdemeanor to joe biden. the investigation of dr. fauci shows he is an honorable public servant who devoted his entire career to the public health and interest and 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 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 able to actually return to what the good ranking member has said which is an authentic investigation of the origins of pandemic and i will yield back to the gentleman. >> i yield back. >> i now recognize mr. griffith for a three-minute statement >> 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 chief of staff routinely evaded federal records laws including the freedom of information act or foia and those were a shock. it was a shock. i've been doing oversight now for over 14 years, right at 14 years. the scale of the effort to evade foia by some at the national institution of allergy and infectious diseases that's surprised even me. they were among your most senior and trusted staff at an agency you led for nearly 40 years and worked for you for decades. calendar shows you met with them multiple times a week during the pandemic and co-authored dozens of papers with dr. morens and directly imply indicates you, even the head of the naiad foia office was in on some of this conspiracy. my colleagues on the other side love the say we're always talking about conspiracy. when the facts lead you 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 the leadership, it is 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 position. while telling the public, the media and congress that covid-19 almost certainly emerged from nature, experts you convened as a team privately worried a research-related incident was a possible, if not the probable origin of the virus. dr. christian anderson said in february of 2020 quote, i think the main thing still in my mind is that the lab escape version of this is so 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 officials were assuring us the virus could not have come from the wuhan institute of virology, they didn't actually have an idea what the full scope of wuhan's coronavirus research was or even the trajectory of its gain-of-function research. that may be eco health didn't give you the reports, i grant that. but this joint investigation has shown how little oversight neuiad does of risky experiments involving potential path -- they avoided 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 creates a conflict of interest. when an agency is taking the final approval we ought to take that final approval away from the agencies that naiad that fund it. >> i recognize ms. castor for a three minute statements and ablige you an extra 30 seconds as well. >> thank you for your appearance and decades of service to our country during your 39 years at the helm of america's leading health research institution. you tackled some of the most serious health threats including aids, ebola, sars 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 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 c.i.a. headquarters and coerced analysts. others claim 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 of covid by our adversaries and unfortunately fringe far right conspiracy theories have permeated mainstream media outlets and some republican members of congress have played along. i regret 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 e-bola the ways viruses are transmitted aren't obvious at first. 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 do to years of federal investment in the national institute of health and support from 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 hazard preparedness act to make us more prepared to tackle the next pandemic threat. it is not too late for republicans to join us and turn the least productive congress in modern history into one where we're all focused on solutions for the american people. to make our country safer and stronger. democrats were able to prevent harmful roll backs in medical research last year and urge my gop colleagues to move away from threatening and undermining american medical research at every turn. public health threats are constantly emerging. in the past month we're tracking new strains and variants and sars covid two. 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. i yield back my time. >> 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 stand and raise his right hand. do you swear and affirm the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? thank you. let the record show the witness answered in the affirmative. select subcommittee certainly appreciates you for being here today and 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 six minutes. as a reminder please press the button on the microphone in front of you so it is on and the members can hear you. when you begin to speak the light if front of you will turn green. after five minutes the light will turn yellow and when the red light comes on your six minutes has expired and ask that you please wrap up. i recognize dr. fauci to give an opening statement. >> mr. chairman, 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 for 38 years. i was deeply involved in the scientific and public health response to several infectious disease outbreaks including aids, pandemic flu, e bola and zika and under my leadership we were well positioned to respond to covid-19. we had invested billions of dollars in research on mrna technology and 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. it 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 covid two might have resulted from a lab leak. on january 31, 2020, i was informed through phone calls with jeremyfer area, the director of the welcome trust in the u.k. and christian anderson a highly regarded scientists at scripps research institute that they and eddie holmes, a world class virologist from australia were concerned the again alm i can sequence of sars suggested the virus could have been manipulated in a lab. i participated in the conference call with 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 discussion several became convinced 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 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 public paper. the second was a false accusation i tried to cover up the possibility 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 ferrar on february 1, 2020. quote, jeremy, i just got off the phone with christian anderson and related to me his concern about the 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 f.b.i. 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 christian 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. moren's actions regard eco health or his emails. it is important to point out for the record that despite his title and helpful to me in writing scientific paper 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. 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 a statement quote, dr. fauci may have conducted official business by a 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. >> thank you. i now recognize myself for as much time as i may consume for questions with equally time being afforded to the ranking member. dr. fauci, february 1, 2020, you were on a call with dr. ferrar and dr. collins and others that covid-19 was engineered. was cdc director redfield on that call? >> no. >> you said you had to rely on virologists and biologists regarding origin because you are not an expert. is dr. redfield a virologist? >> i believe he is, yes. >> he is. prior to the pandemic, niaid awarded at least three grants via the new york blood center to dr. -- are you aware of these? >> i'm sorry to -- >> dr. zao. are you aware of those grants? dr. usin, zao. your microphone is not on. >> i'm not familiar with that name. >> well, niaid awarded at least three grants to that scientist. a high ranking official and director of the lab at the chinese academy of military sigh tenses. does it concern you if u.s. taxpayer dollars are funding someone like this? >> grants that are submitted to the niaid go -- >> does it concern you. i'm not talking about the process. does it concern you that u.s. taxpayer dollars would be going to someone who is a high ranking chinese pla official, yes or no? >> i would have to know more about that. i don't even know the person you are talking about. >> were aware that the u.s. state department in 2005 issued warnings the chinese government was working on the creation of bioweapons? >> i was not aware of that. >> did you ever discuss the chinese bioweapons program with anyone in the intelligence community? >> i have never discussed the chinese bioweapons program to my knowledge with anybody. >> before, during or after the covid-19 pandemic, did you speak to the f.b.i., c.i.a., d.i.a. or any u.s. intelligence agency concerning viral research of any kind? >> what time frame are you talking about, sir? >> i said before, during, or after covid-19 pandemic, did you speak to the f.b.i., c.i.a., d.i.a. , or any u.s. intelligence agency concerning viral research of any kind? >> 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 of -- by agencies that were intelligence agencies. i don't remember who they were. it could have been any of the above you mentioned about the possibility there were bioweapons that had fallen into the hands of bad actors, i.e. terrorists, that might have been used potentially as a bio terror attack. that was at a time when we had thought that the anthrax -- >> i appreciate your expertise in that. >> that's the answer. >> but did you at any time talk to concerning viral research of any kind? >> again, i say that at the time that there was concern about the fact that al qaeda may have been using or potentially using bioweapons, we had discussions with intelligence agencies about that possibility. >> not as related to say covid-19. >> not to my knowledge about covid -- let me 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 agencies. >> thank you. science is always open to debate and it is 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. you said in your transcribed interview that you supported those orders. dr. fauci, were those orders racist and xenophobic? >> no, they were not. >> 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? >> that is a complicated issue because in the beginning the first iteration of the vaccines did have an effect, not 100%, not a high effect, they did prevent infection and subsequently transmission. however, it is 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. that was proven as time went by to not be a durable effect. >> definitely had positive effect for many people. those vulnerable but we knew from the trials that people that got vaccinated still were subject to getting covid. so was the covid vaccine 100% effective? >> i don't believe any vaccine is 100% effective. >> i now recognize the ranking member dr. ruiz from california for five minutes of questions. >> over the past year and a half my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have vilified dr. fauci under the guise of investigating the covid-19 pandemic. after reviewing millions of documents and receiving testimony from a dozen witnesses 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 would 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 it would include the manufacture of flu vaccines as gain of function. because it is so broad, the national institute 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. 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 propose research, did nih ever fund gain-of-function research in wuhan, china? >> 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. >> despite my republican colleague's efforts it seems to me you have been consistent of this issue from the beginning of the pandemic and they know this. but they still use the terms gain of function loosely. and with respect to niaid staff assessment 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? >> those assessments were done by highly experienced program people several levels below me. >> your public statements that nih did not fund gain-of-function research in wuhan reflected the assessment made by aiaid -- the p3c0 framework, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> thank you. 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 p3c0 committee. you also testified in 2021, quote, gain of function is a very nebulous term. we have spent, not us by 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 p3c0. that is back in 2021. at the time of your may 2021 testimony p3co was the operative definition of gain-of-function research for several years, correct? >> that's correct. >> i note at your transcribed interview in january the majority conceded that nih did not fund research in wuhan that met the criteria of p3c0. read the transcript of that interview to evaluate of the majority's claims for yourselves. so now if we could quickly turn to the irresponsible and false accusation that you created sars covid two, the virus responsible for the covid-19 pandemic. so this accusation centers on a grant niaid awarded to eco alliance and we have been entertained earlier the suggestion that funding could have possibly gone to a bioweapons research capacity as well. i want to be clear, no evidence provided to this select subcommittee demonstrates that the work performed under nih funding led to the creation of sars covid two. they have failed to -- that any of the viruses studied under the grant could have possibly been the virus. dr. fauci, could you explain why none of the viruses studied on the eco health alliance grant could have been covid two? >> when you talk about the evolution of one to another. the viruses this were studied under the sub award to the wuhan institute that had been report evidence in progress reports in literature and published papers, those viruses were so far removed from sars covid two that it is molecularly impossible for those viruses to have evolved or be made into sars covid two. it is just a fact that they were so far removed it could not possibly be a start of sars covid two. >> i want to be clear on this point that the funding and the research conducted by eco health did not produce sars covid two. it doesn't negate that this lab -- another lab could have been doing research and it could have leaked from a lab. that is still a possibility. but it was not directly -- 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 three 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 p3c0 regulatory definition and it is studied under the eco health alliance grant. republicans have levied these unsubstantiated allegations know they aren't true and trying to push their extreme partisan narrative that dr. fauci and the nation's public health officials caused the covid-19 pandemic. >> now recognize the chairman of the full committee mr. comer for five minutes of question. >> your opening statement you attempt to distance yourself from your previous senior advisor dr. morens saying his title was made up. not an advisor to you and his office was in a different building. did he report directly to you? >> 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 report evidence through someone lower like my deputy. >> your senior advisor did not report directly to you. >> there were very few people who report directly to me. >> he testified he could walk into your office any time he wanted to. is that true? >> no, that's not true. you don't just walk into the office. he is there. it is conceivable. >> did he ever walk into your office? >> he did occasionally. can i finish the answer? >> no. did you delete an official record? >> no. >> did you ever conduct official business via email? >> to the best of my recollection and knowledge i have not done that with my private email. >> there is a troubling pattern of behavior from your inner circle. not just dr. morens but your chief of staff. do you agree it violates niaid policy to use personal email for official purposes? >> the dr. morens issue that was discussed by this committee violates nih policy, yes. >> does using official email -- using a personal email for official business violate? >> using a personal email for official business violates policy. >> does it violate niaid policy to delete records to avoid foia? >> yes. >> dr. morens edited an eco health press release re