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


                      OVERSEEING THE DEPARTMENT OF
                       HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES'
                       COMPLIANCE WITH CONGRESS

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                    SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CORONAVIRUS 
                                PANDEMIC

                                 OF THE

                        COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND 
                              ACCOUNTABILITY

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                            JANUARY 31, 2024

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-88

                               __________

  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                    
54-769 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                    Jimmy Gomez, California
Byron Donalds, Florida               Shontel Brown, Ohio
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania            Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
William Timmons, South Carolina      Robert Garcia, California
Tim Burchett, Tennessee              Maxwell Frost, Florida
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia      Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Lisa McClain, Michigan               Greg Casar, Texas
Lauren Boebert, Colorado             Jasmine Crockett, Texas
Russell Fry, South Carolina          Dan Goldman, New York
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida           Jared Moskowitz, Florida
Nick Langworthy, New York            Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
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 January 31, 2024.................................     1

                               Witnesses

                              ----------                              

Hon. Melanie Egorin, Assistant Secretary for Legislation, U.S. 
  Department of Health and Human Services
Oral Statement...................................................     6

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

                              ----------                              

  * Article, The Wall Street Journal, ``Chinese Lab Mapped Deadly 
  Coronavirus''; submitted by Rep. Miller-Meeks.

  * Letter, to the SSCP from HHS; submitted by Rep. Ross.

  * Letter Response, to SSCP from HHS; submitted by Rep. Ross.

  * Letter, from the SSCP to Centers for Disease Control; 
  submitted by Rep. Jackson.

Documents are available at: docs.house.gov.

 
                      OVERSEEING THE DEPARTMENT OF
                       HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES'
                        COMPLIANCE WITH CONGRESS

                              ----------                              


                      Wednesday, January 31, 2024

                     U.S. 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 a.m., in 
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brad Wenstrup 
(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
    Present: Representatives Wenstrup, Miller-Meeks, Lesko, 
Joyce, Jackson, McCormick, Ruiz, Dingell, Mfume, Ross, Garcia, 
and Tokuda.
    Dr. Wenstrup. Good morning. The Select Subcommittee on the 
Coronavirus Pandemic will come to order. Welcome everyone, and 
without objection the Chair may declare a recess at any time.
    I now recognize myself for the purpose of making an opening 
statement.
    We are here today to examine the Department of Health and 
Human Services' compliance with the Select Subcommittee's 
oversight requests.
    I am sorry we are even having this hearing today. It is 
unexpected because of the expectations that agencies will work 
with Congress openly and transparently on behalf of the 
American people.
    It is time the Department answered some questions. We tried 
once before. As you know we issued a subpoena for your 
deposition, but the Department assured us things would improve 
and your testimony was unnecessary.
    The Department's compliance has not improved. To this day, 
your Department continues to stonewall this Subcommittee. The 
Department has produced documents with unnecessary and some 
illegitimate redactions. As you can see on the screen, the 
Department redacted every name in this document, even foreign 
nationals. When asked why, we were told it was because of 
security concerns. When asked how the Department knew these 
individuals had security concerns, the Department was unable to 
provide an answer.
    The Department has produced documents that are simply 
unrelated to our requests. You have produced documents that are 
not relevant to our requests or hundreds of pages of news 
articles. This is unacceptable and simply seems to be a tactic 
to inflate your production page count, which I am sure you will 
tell us about today.
    And maybe most shockingly, the Department's failure to 
produce documents we know are in your possession. Again, on the 
screen is a document that the Oversight Committee made public 2 
years ago. The email has yet to be produced to this 
Subcommittee. I can't understand why. You know it exists. You 
know how to find it. The fact this hasn't been produced raises 
serious questions and implies the Department is intentionally 
trying to withhold something or hide something.
    Regarding interviews, we do appreciate that Department 
employees have chosen to voluntarily comply with our requests. 
I will state that the Subcommittee accepted every single date 
that the Department proposed. Despite this compliance, the 
Department and all your lawyers have routinely attempted to 
hinder witness testimony. The night before each interview, you 
personally issue a memo to the Subcommittee and the witness, 
instructing the witness as to what they can and cannot testify 
to.
    HHS has blocked witnesses from discussing the EcoHealth 
Alliance grant reinstatement. We wonder why.
    HHS has blocked witnesses from discussing EcoHealth's 
current grant status. We wonder why.
    HHS has blocked witnesses from discussing COVID mitigation 
measures. We wonder why.
    HHS has blocked witnesses from discussing internal 
communications. Why?
    And HHS has blocked a witness from discussing anything he 
did through his official capacity at NIAID. Again, why?
    This Select Subcommittee was formed with the intent of 
performing an after-action review of everything that happened 
during the pandemic, where 1.2 million American lives were 
lost. We want to know what we did well, what we could do better 
in the future, and how to prepare for the future. Hiding what 
was done does not help.
    Is HHS funded by someone other than the American people's 
taxpayer dollars? No. I hope not. This is acting in bad faith 
at best and a violation of law at worst.
    I have read your opening statement, and frankly it is 
somewhat insulting. There are no significantly relevant facts 
or data in there. There are no explanations for the questions 
you know we have. In fact, it raises more questions than it 
does answers.
    In it, you boast about producing more than 30,000 pages to 
Congress during the 118th Congress. Curiously, during the 117th 
Congress, in a similar amount of time, the Department produced 
more than 43,000 pages to one Oversight subcommittee alone. 
What changed? What changed besides who is in the majority in 
the House? Was it no longer in the Department's interest to be 
overly compliant? And if not, why?
    You say the Department has been ``exceptionally 
responsive'' to the Subcommittee. I think we could contest that 
assertion and perhaps we have a different definition of 
exceptional. That could be.
    On February 13, 2023, we sent a letter regarding the 
origins of COVID-19. It has taken two follow-up letters, two 
staff meetings, subpoena threats, and scheduling interviews to 
begin receiving unique documents, documents that belong to the 
American people, and documents that Congress should have easy 
access to.
    Out of the 10,000 pages produced, of which I would note 
more than 1,000 were produced last night, just last night, the 
majority of the documents are previously publicly available, 
some are more redacted than FOIA productions, others are non-
responsive to the questions, or copies of press articles.
    On March 10, 2023, we sent a letter regarding the process 
of approving the COVID-19 vaccine. We received fewer than 300 
pages more than a month later and have not received any 
documents since. Common sense, in reviewing them, would suggest 
that there are more that we have not received.
    On March 28, 2023, we sent a letter regarding the Biden 
Administration's school opening guidance. It took two follow-
ups, a subpoena threat, and scheduling transcribed interviews 
before the Department was compliant.
    On August 1, 2023, we sent a letter regarding the 
implementation of COVID-19 vaccine mandates. You have not 
produced a single document on that.
    On August 2, 2023, we sent a letter regarding CDC Director 
Cohen's statement about annual COVID-19 boosters. Again, you 
have not produced a single document.
    On August 23, 2023, we sent a letter regarding the illegal 
Chinese lab in California. You produced fewer than 100 pages 
that were all previously publicly available. Did you have no 
internal documents concerning this issue?
    On September 6, 2023, we sent a letter regarding former CDC 
Director Walensky's override of booster recommendations. You 
have produced about 100 pages that are all already available on 
the CDC's website. You may as well just have sent us the link, 
as to the number of pages you sent us.
    And on October 13, 2023, we were forced to subpoena records 
regarding a NIAID employee's use of personal email. You said 
you were prevented from producing documents because it was an 
internal investigation--an excuse that is not founded in fact.
    We are conducting an investigation. We have oversight over 
HHS. Our investigation overrides your internal investigation. 
Understand that going forward.
    This is not a track record of exceptionalism, in my mind. 
This is not a track record of competence. And this is certainly 
not a track record of compliance or transparency.
    Dr. Egorin, compliance with Congress is not voluntary. Time 
and time again we hear the Department is providing witnesses or 
documents ``voluntarily.'' And while that may be legally 
accurate, and appreciated when they do it, it provides the 
perception that you believe that you have a choice. You do not.
    Congress created your agency. Congress funds your agency 
through the generosity of the American taxpayer, and that is 
who you serve. And Congress has the absolute right to oversee 
your agency on behalf of the American people, and they know 
that.
    Barry Goldwater said, ``The Constitution is not an 
instrument for the government to restrain the people. It is an 
instrument for the people to restrain the government.'' I think 
that is where we are.
    I hope we can get answers today and get back to the work on 
behalf of the American people, the same American people who 
lost 1.2 million loved ones because of COVID.
    This is an after-action review of the government response 
to the COVID-19 pandemic. It should not be partisan. It should 
not be controversial. But it needs to be based on facts, facts 
that you have that we are not getting. And the Department's 
honesty and cooperation is non-negotiable.
    I would now like to recognize Ranking Member Ruiz for the 
purpose of making an opening statement.
    Dr. Ruiz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I respectfully disagree 
with the Chairman's implied accusations and sentiment here.
    I would like to begin by thanking Assistant Secretary 
Egorin for her participation in today's hearing. I have had the 
pleasure of working with Assistant Secretary Egorin on numerous 
fronts, and she has been nothing but forthcoming and 
cooperative in all aspects of our work together.
    Select Subcommittee Democrats are appreciative of your 
willingness to voluntarily appear today, which no doubt has 
required a significant dedication of time and resources, and 
for your continued engagement with the Committee.
    It is evident to me that today's hearing is not about 
enhancing our understanding of COVID-19's origins, advancing 
our Nation's pandemic preparedness, or addressing the public 
health challenges our Nation currently faces. It is not even 
about meaningfully resolving any of the issues that the 
Majority has alleged when it comes to the Department's 
responsiveness to their requests. It is about political 
theater. It is about painting the Biden Administration as, 
quote/unquote, ``stonewalling'' the Committee in a venue that 
is better suited for soundbites than identifying a path forward 
and negotiations regarding document productions.
    So, let's just be clear about why we are here today, 
because the fact of the matter is over the last year the 
Department has operated in good faith with the Select 
Subcommittee, consistently providing documents responsive to 
the majority's requests, and making Department officials 
available for more than 80 hours of voluntary transcribed 
interviews. In total, the Department has made more than 30 
productions of internal documents, communications, and 
information responsive to the majority's requests, including 
two dozen productions as part of the majority's probe into Dr. 
Fauci alone. These productions have been made voluntarily, 
consistently, and with a demonstrated effort to satisfy the 
majority's identified priorities.
    For example, every week for 5 consecutive weeks the 
Department has made productions responsive to priorities 
identified by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, 
with each production meeting an interim deadline set by the 
Majority. And over the course of the Congress the Department 
has also made significant accommodations for the Select 
Subcommittee, including providing copious details about its 
document collection process and arranging in-camera review of 
the information underneath the redactions.
    Furthermore, all while constantly churning out productions, 
the Department has made 12 current and former officials 
available for voluntary transcribed interviews, totaling more 
than 80 hours of testimony. So, this doesn't exactly sound like 
stonewalling to me.
    Look, I understand that in the oversight process there are 
disagreements between Congress and the executive branch, two 
co-equal branches of government, may arise. However, to 
characterize the Department's behavior as intentional 
obstruction when it has, time and time again, been responsive 
to this Committee's requests is a gross politically calculated 
mischaracterization.
    Furthermore, by holding this hearing today the majority has 
made it clear that they are more interested in these political 
accusation soundbites than they are in reaching resolution on 
the issues they allege have taken place. Simply put, this 
hearing is little more than a distraction from the fact that 
the majority has failed to accomplish anything to improve the 
lives of the American people and has chosen politically 
motivated probes over advancing constructive policies that 
promote our Nation's public health and pandemic preparedness.
    Under the guise of determining COVID-19's origins, the 
majority has pursued a politically motivated probe, vilifying 
our Nation's public health officials, and politicizing the 
intelligence community in the process. And at the end of the 
day our Nation is no better for it. In no way has this probe 
enhanced our understanding of how COVID-19 actually came to be, 
and in no way has it made our country better prepared for the 
next pandemic, and in no way has it promoted our Nation's 
public health.
    I have repeatedly and earnestly called for this Select 
Subcommittee to change course because I am deeply concerned 
that we are wasting critical hours, days, months, years, 
failing to adequately protect our Nation from the next public 
health crisis. Six months ago, I wrote a letter expressing my 
concern about the directions we were heading in, and now, as we 
sit here today, we have pandemic prevention and preparedness 
programs expiring under PAHPA. We have a debilitating distrust 
in our Nation's public health systems as manufactured, and we 
have childhood vaccination rates at an all-time low. And at the 
very same time we have a majority in the House trying to make 
extreme cuts to vital public health programs at the very time 
we need them most.
    So, I hope that going forward the Majority will set aside 
their efforts to distort the facts and create a false narrative 
for partisan gain. Only then will we be able to get to work 
that really matters, putting people over politics to save lives 
and reduce harm, both now and in the future.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    Dr. Wenstrup. Our witness today is Dr. Melanie Egorin. Did 
I pronounce that correctly?
    Dr. Egorin. You did, sir.
    Dr. Wenstrup. I did. OK. It is E-GOR-in.
    Dr. Egorin is the Assistant Secretary for Legislation at 
the Department of Health and Human Services.
    Pursuant to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability 
Rule 9(g), the witness will please stand and raise her 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. Egorin. 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 that will appear in full in the hearing record. 
But please limit your oral statement to 5 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 4 minutes the light will turn yellow. When the red 
light comes on your 5 minutes has expired, and we would ask 
that you please wrap up.
    I now recognize Dr. Egorin to give an opening statement.

               STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MELANIE EGORIN

                  ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR LEGISLATION

              U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

    Dr. Egorin. Chair Wenstrup, Ranking Member Ruiz, and 
Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to 
testify on behalf of the Department of Health and Human 
Services. I am Melanie Anne Egorin, the Assistant Secretary for 
Legislation at HHS. Prior to coming to HHS, I spent more than 
15 years working in Congress and at the Government 
Accountability Office, including almost a decade as 
professional staff for the Committee on Ways and Means.
    I have a deep appreciation for the important work of 
Congress and the critical role that oversight plays in the 
effective functioning of our government. I believe it is vital 
for Congress to ask questions about current policies and 
programs to improve their integrity, our health care system, 
and the overall health of the Nation.
    HHS's mission is to enhance the health and well-being of 
all Americans. We accomplish this mission every day by 
providing effective health and human services and by fostering 
sound, sustained advances in the sciences underlying health, 
medicine, and the social services.
    HHS provides access to health care coverage for more than 
100 million Americans through Medicare, Medicaid, the 
Children's Health Insurance Program, and the Health Insurance 
Marketplaces. We also provide vital services through Indian 
Health Service, federally qualified health centers, and the 
U.S. Public Health Service. We protect Americans from health, 
safety, and security threats, both foreign and domestic, and we 
oversee the safety, effectiveness, and quality of foods, drugs, 
vaccines, and medical devices.
    I also appreciate the opportunity to highlight the hard 
work of the Department, health care professionals, essential 
workers, and everyone involved in the whole-of-government 
approach to combatting COVID-19. We are using everything that 
we have learned during the emergency to strengthen our public 
health infrastructure, to be better prepared for future 
emergencies.
    HHS will continue to work to ensure Americans are safe and 
have access to care and support they need. Under the Biden-
Harris Administration, we have administered more than 7 million 
COVID vaccines, launched the 9-8-8 lifeline, and a record-
breaking 21.3 million Americans enrolled in affordable health 
care through the ACA's Marketplace just this year. As you can 
see, the HHS programs touch the lives of all Americans.
    HHS regularly interacts with Congress and responds to 
congressional requests. This includes a wide array of work in 
support of Congress' legislative agenda. The Office of the ASL 
provides technical assistance to support policy and legislative 
developments, facilitates thousands of grants, assists Members 
of Congress and their staff with constituent services. And to 
that end, my office serves as the primary link between the 
Department and Congress, which includes facilitating responses 
to congressional oversight.
    HHS recognizes and appreciates the importance of 
congressional oversight, and we are committed to continuing to 
work with Congress in good faith. Given the breadth of the 
programs we administer, HHS receives inquiries from virtually 
every Member and regularly receives a variety of oversight 
requests from multiple committees in both the House and Senate.
    Since the 118th Congress began, the Department has sent 
more than 100 letters responding specifically to oversight 
inquiries, produced more than 30,000 pages of documents in 
response to oversight requests, and responded to a number of 
other congressional requests for information and assistance. 
Department officials have testified at multiple oversight 
hearings and provided briefings in connection with a wide range 
of oversight inquiries. We are also actively responding to over 
140 ongoing GAO engagements, and committed to improving by 
closing 120 GAO recommendations this Congress alone.
    In responding to the substantial volume of congressional 
oversight requests we engage in the constitutionally mandated 
process of accommodation, seeking to balance Congress' 
interests consistent with executive branch interests, while 
working within and being very mindful of the inevitable 
resource constraints facing the Department.
    As you know, we have been actively engaging with this 
Subcommittee regarding multiple oversight requests. We have 
worked to identify and produce documents and information 
prioritized by the Subcommittee as effectively as we are able. 
In all instances, the Department has worked to understand 
Subcommittee's priorities and target our efforts effectively. 
To date we have produced 35 productions totaling more than 
10,000 pages, including a production just this week, as you 
noted, Dr. Wenstrup. We have facilitated participation of more 
than a dozen current and former employees, and produced nearly 
100 hours of briefings, interviews, and testimoneys before the 
Subcommittee, all touching on a wide variety of topics.
    I believe my testimony today reflects that HHS has a 
demonstrated record of working diligently across a broad range 
of oversight requests from Congress, including this 
Subcommittee, and is committing to continuing to engage in good 
faith.
    I would be happy to answer your questions.
    Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you. I now recognize myself for 
questions, and I want to start with some overarching questions 
regarding your office and your procedures. I have a number of 
questions. Just a yes or no will suffice.
    But during the 118th Congress have there been any 
discussions, written or verbal, about not responding to 
congressional oversight?
    Dr. Egorin. Congressman, we have been responsive to 
congressional----
    Dr. Wenstrup. Just yes or no. Have there been discussions, 
written or verbal, about not responding to congressional 
oversight? I know what we have received from you, but have----
    Dr. Egorin. So, Congressman----
    Dr. Wenstrup [continuing]. There been discussions.
    Dr. Egorin. There have been discussions on how to respond 
and how to meet the priorities of the Subcommittee.
    Dr. Wenstrup. Have there been any discussions about 
providing only previously public documents?
    Dr. Egorin. There have been conversations about how to 
respond to the Committee in an effective manner and what we can 
do to be----
    Dr. Wenstrup. Well, obviously you are not going to answer 
my question specifically, and let that be seen for the record 
that you are really not answering.
    I hope you have had conversations. I really do.
    Dr. Egorin. We----
    Dr. Wenstrup. But I am asking specifically, have there been 
any discussions about providing only previously public 
documents?
    Dr. Egorin. There have been conversations about how to be 
responsive to----
    Dr. Wenstrup. Previously public documents.
    Dr. Egorin. Congressman, it is about what documents----
    Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you. I am going to move on because 
clearly you are not going to answer the question.
    Have there been any discussions about delaying production 
to run out the clock of this Congress?
    Dr. Egorin. Congressman, we continue to produce documents 
every 10 days, on average.
    Dr. Wenstrup. Still not answering my questions. Thank you.
    I want to run through a few of our letters and attempts to 
get a better understanding of your process in action. And let 
me explain something to you. I consider this the most important 
thing I have done in my now 12th year in Congress--1.2 million 
American people died. The process of our government is very, 
very important. I will tell you that Dr. Fauci, when he came in 
for his transcribed interview, gave us some information about 
the process concerning grants, for example. It was very 
revealing, and I appreciate his openness and honesty in that, 
because we are going to recommend a better process for the next 
time. That is how important this is. So, if you don't want to 
answer my questions about process, that is fine, but I am going 
to continue to ask them, and the record will show that you are 
not answering.
    But let's go to this. On February 13, 2023, we sent the 
Department our first letter regarding COVID-19's origins. We 
then sent follow-ups in October and November. When did the 
Department first identify responsive custodians?
    Dr. Egorin. Congressman, we produced our first set of 
documents to your request in February, within 2 weeks.
    Dr. Wenstrup. When did the Department first identify 
responsive custodians?
    Dr. Egorin. Congressman, we produced documents responsive 
to your request within 2 weeks.
    Dr. Wenstrup. OK. I am sure I will get this same answer in 
my next question. When did the Department first conduct 
custodial interviews?
    Dr. Egorin. Congressman, we produced documents that have 
been ongoing and responsive to your request.
    Dr. Wenstrup. Thus far, in 12 months, the Department has 
produced about 10,000 pages, of which a significant portion are 
simply unresponsive to the questions, previously publicly 
available, or just news articles. Is this the entirety of 
responsive documents in the Department's possession?
    Dr. Egorin. Congressman, we have worked to continue to 
produce, as you noted, producing documents even within the past 
24 hours, to make sure we are being responsive, and we continue 
to work with your staff to prioritize documents, to make sure 
we are being responsive to the priorities of the Subcommittee.
    Dr. Wenstrup. Pursuant to the Subcommittee's letter, how 
many potentially responsive documents has the Department 
identified?
    Dr. Egorin. Congressman, we continue to produce documents 
in a timely manner, and as you noted, being mindful of the 
taxpayer, and making sure we are producing documents based on 
the priorities, effectively and----
    Dr. Wenstrup. OK. Well, how about this, Doctor. Would you 
like to take that question for the record and get back to us?
    Dr. Egorin. Congressman, I am happy to take that question.
    Dr. Wenstrup. OK. Let me repeat it. Pursuant to the 
Subcommittee's letter, how many potentially responsive 
documents has the Department identified?
    Dr. Egorin. Congressman, I do not have that number in front 
of me. I am happy to continue that conversation.
    Dr. Wenstrup. OK. And maybe the next one can be for the 
record. Let's just go down this, rather than you giving us the 
same answer that doesn't answer the question.
    How many have gone through review?
    Dr. Egorin. Congressman, I do not have that----
    Dr. Wenstrup. Do you want to take that for the record?
    Dr. Egorin. Congressman, I am happy to continue to answer 
your questions.
    Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you. Would you take that for the 
record? Yes or no.
    Dr. Egorin. Congressman, if it is submitted as a question 
for the record, we are happy to be responsive.
    Dr. Wenstrup. It will be. Do you commit to produce every 
responsive document in the Department's possession?
    Dr. Egorin. Congressman, what I commit to you is to 
continue to work with the Department--to work with the staff's 
priorities, and to continue to do productions as long as the 
Committee is----
    Dr. Wenstrup. So, you don't commit to produce every 
responsive document in the Department's possession, because 
that is not an answer.
    Dr. Egorin. Congressman, I commit to continue to work with 
you to make sure that we are producing documents based on the 
priorities of the Committee, of the Subcommittee, and that we 
will continue to produce documents and continue to have this 
conversation.
    Dr. Wenstrup. But you don't guarantee that every responsive 
document in your possession will be produced.
    Dr. Egorin. Cong----
    Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you. No, you have answered it. You can 
say it over and over again. The record is going to reflect your 
answer. That is fine.
    On March 10, 2023, we sent the FDA a letter regarding the 
approval of the Pfizer COVID vaccine. To date, we have received 
only 274 pages. Is this the entirety of responsive documents in 
the Department's possession?
    Dr. Egorin. Congressman, as you noted we did produce 
documents, and we are happy, if that is a priority for the 
Subcommittee, to go back and continue to work with your 
Committee to respond to that request.
    Dr. Wenstrup. So, there may be more documents that you 
could produce.
    Dr. Egorin. Congressman, with the limited resources that we 
have, and being mindful of the taxpayer dollars and priorities 
of the Subcommittee, we can come back and reevaluate the 
priorities.
    Dr. Wenstrup. Well, so pursuant to that letter from March 
10, 2023, how many potentially responsive documents has the 
Department identified and maybe you would like to take that one 
for the record, as well.
    Dr. Egorin. Congressman, I am happy to take that back.
    Dr. Wenstrup. OK. And how many have gone through review? I 
would imagine that would have to be something that you will get 
back to us on.
    Dr. Egorin. Congressman, I am here to speak about our 
responsiveness across the Department, consistent with my role, 
and----
    Dr. Wenstrup. I am here to ask you about process and where 
you are in the process. If you can't answer it, that is fine. 
If you have to take it for the record, then please do so.
    Dr. Egorin. Congressman----
    Dr. Wenstrup. But you should be able to do that because it 
should be documented, filed, et cetera.
    Do you commit to produce every responsive document in the 
Department's possession?
    Dr. Egorin. Congressman, what I can commit to you is to 
produce documents based on the prioritization. And I do want to 
set the record straight, that some of the requests that we got 
were incredibly broad and included search terms such as 
``lab,'' ``nature,'' ``teleconference.'' If you think about the 
breadth and depth of an organization that has 90,000 employees, 
that is boiling the ocean. So, that is why we worked with your 
staff to prioritize and understand----
    Dr. Wenstrup. Doctor, we limited it to 12 employees, so 
that makes a huge difference from what you were just telling 
the American people. And you should know that, and I think you 
do know that.
    On October 13, 2023, we issued a subpoena to the Department 
after it failed to produce requested documents relating to Dr. 
David Morens' potentially illegal deposition--disposition, 
excuse me--illegal disposition of Federal records and evasion 
of transparency laws. You sent a letter in response. In your 
letter you state that the release of documents pertaining to 
this internal investigation would jeopardize the Department's 
investigation.
    What is the current status of the Department's 
investigation of Dr. Morens?
    Dr. Egorin. Congressman, I cannot speak to internal 
investigations and timelines, but I am happy to get back to you 
with that----
    Dr. Wenstrup. Who can speak to the internal investigation?
    Dr. Egorin. Congressman, internal personnel investigations, 
or investigations, are not something I can speak to in this 
forum.
    Dr. Wenstrup. Who can?
    Dr. Egorin. Congressman, I am happy to get back to you.
    Dr. Wenstrup. Please do, because we are conducting an 
investigation as well, and we override your investigation.
    Does Congress have the authority to investigate potential 
Federal records violations?
    Dr. Egorin. Congressman, Congress has a right to 
investigate and oversee Federal law.
    Dr. Wenstrup. Yes, thank you. You just answered my next 
question. Congress has jurisdiction over this.
    Can you produce the Department policy that says you are 
unable to produce these records while there is an internal 
investigation?
    Dr. Egorin. Congressman, I can take that back and see what 
materials will be responding to that request.
    Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate that.
    Final topic I want to ask about is regarding the 
Department's authorization memos prior to transcribed 
interviews. When did this practice begin, that the Department 
had to authorize?
    Dr. Egorin. Congressman, it is a longstanding practice of 
the Department, going back multiple administrations, to provide 
authorization memos to current and former employees, reflecting 
the conversations and accommodation process between the 
Committee and the Department.
    Dr. Wenstrup. Do you approve each memo?
    Dr. Egorin. I review and sign each memo.
    Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you. Prior to issuance, does this 
Subcommittee have the opportunity to agree with the memo?
    Dr. Egorin. Congressman, the memos reflect the 
communications between the Committee and the Department, and 
the authorization memos reflect the accommodations and serve as 
guidance, and that is why they are shared with both the 
employee as well as with the Committee.
    Dr. Wenstrup. OK. The screen shows the memo prior to the 
interview with Dr. Morens. In it you instruct Dr. Morens not to 
provide any information regarding his official work at NIAID. 
You signed this memo. Did you personally approve it?
    Dr. Egorin. Congressman, anything coming out with my 
signature reflects the Department's position, and I read 
everything I sign.
    Dr. Wenstrup. According to Section 7211 of Title 5 of the 
U.S. Code, the rights of employees, individually or 
collectively, to petition Congress or a Member of Congress, or 
to furnish information to either House of Congress or to a 
Committee or Member thereof may not be interfered with or 
denied.
    Are the instructions in these memos advisory or are they 
mandatory for the witnesses to follow?
    Dr. Egorin. Congressman, these memos reflect the guidance 
based on the scope that is agreed to between the Subcommittee 
or Committee and the Department. So, they are advisory, 
reflecting the conversations, so that the employee understands 
the conversations that happened between the Department and the 
Committee regarding the scope of the conversation.
    Dr. Wenstrup. Well, I would tell you that regardless, it 
seems the Department counsel treats these memos as mandatory, 
and I think there is an argument to be made that even by 
issuing them the Department is intimidating witnesses and 
interfering with their testimony, in violation of the law. And 
I hope this practice, regardless of administration, no matter 
which administration, no matter which party, I hope that that 
comes to an end.
    I now recognize the Ranking Member, Dr. Ruiz, from 
California, for questions.
    Dr. Ruiz. Thank you. Once again, I respectfully disagree 
with the implied accusations through these assumptions.
    Assistant Secretary Egorin, to ensure that it is abundantly 
clear for the record, I would like to quickly walk through the 
efforts you and your colleagues at the Department have made to 
work cooperatively and constructively with the Select 
Subcommittee this Congress.
    Could you briefly explain how many productions of internal 
documents and communications you have made to the Select 
Subcommittee during the 118th Congress?
    Dr. Egorin. Yes. During the 118th Congress we have made 35 
productions. That is 1 approximately every 10 days, for a total 
of over 10,000 pages.
    Dr. Ruiz. So, 1 out of 10 days you have been working with 
this Committee and producing these productions, and that is a 
total of how many pages?
    Dr. Egorin. Ten thousand pages.
    Dr. Ruiz. Ten thousand pages. And you made these 
productions on a wide range of topics, spanning from federally 
funded research to the process of reopening schools to the 
authorization of COVID-19 boosters. Isn't that right?
    Dr. Egorin. That is correct.
    Dr. Ruiz. The Department has also worked to make a dozen 
current and former Federal officials available for more than 80 
hours of testimony. Correct?
    Dr. Egorin. That is correct.
    Dr. Ruiz. And in this Select Subcommittee your staff has 
worked to facilitate the testimony of former CDC Director 
Rochelle Walensky, Assistant Secretary for Global Affairs Loyce 
Pace, and your testimony here today. Isn't that correct?
    Dr. Egorin. That is correct.
    Dr. Ruiz. OK. And just to confirm, you made all these 
efforts on a voluntary basis. Correct?
    Dr. Egorin. Yes. All of these have been voluntary.
    Dr. Ruiz. As Ranking Member of the Select Subcommittee I 
have called for a focus on the forward-looking work of 
preventing and preparing for future pandemics since the outset 
of the Congress. But instead of doing this work our first 
hearing of the new year is focused on creating a false 
narrative, the implied accusations based on these assumptions 
that we hear of obstruction for Republicans' partisan gain.
    So, let me be clear. This is not putting people over 
politics. This is putting politics over people and the 
critically important work of preparing for future pandemics.
    So, Assistant Secretary Egorin, while we have you, I would 
like to discuss this work, including the Department's ongoing 
efforts to implement provisions Democrats passed in the 2023 
Consolidated Appropriations Act. What steps has HHS taken to 
strengthen biosafety and address national security threats in 
biomedical research?
    Dr. Egorin. Thank you for that question because we are 
working diligently across the Department and across the 
government to implement those provisions. That includes making 
sure we are looking at education, we are looking at 
coordination, and we are focusing on the investments that 
Congress gave the Department, and we are greatly appreciative 
of.
    Dr. Ruiz. And what steps has HHS taken to prevent, control, 
and respond to the emergency of zoonotic diseases?
    Dr. Egorin. Congressman, we have followed similar steps, 
and one of the things coming out of the COVID pandemic and 
other lessons learned is really looking at how we do better at 
data collection and coordination across the Department.
    Dr. Ruiz. You know, I think that is very important to 
really emphasize here, because again, right now the truth of 
the matter is, is that there is no consensus as to whether this 
leaked from a lab or whether it was a zoonotic origin. And the 
point is that we should be focusing on what the Administration 
is doing to help prevent a future pandemic, whether it is a lab 
leak or whether it is zoonotic, and that we should really 
systematically bolster our efforts to really prevent the spread 
of emerging viruses that can cause devastation like COVID-19.
    So, let me ask you, are there additional ways, thinking 
forward looking, concrete, pragmatic, solutions-oriented ways 
that Congress could support the Department's ongoing efforts to 
prevent and prepare for future pandemics?
    Dr. Egorin. Congressman, thank you for that question, and I 
think one of the best things Congress could do is reauthorize 
PAHPA and the support that that provides to states and local 
governments for response, as well as the investments that it 
makes and lessons that are learned from COVID and other 
pandemics on how we can be better prepared in the future.
    Dr. Ruiz. Thank you. I hope that in the remaining time, 
which is actually less than half of the time we have left this 
Congress, the Select Subcommittee can change course and focus 
on the constructive, bipartisan work of fortifying our Nation 
from future public health threats.
    And with that I yield back.
    Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize Dr. Miller-Meeks, from Iowa, 
for 5 minutes of questions.
    Dr. Miller-Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for 
this very important Committee. Thank you, Ms. Egorin, for 
testifying today.
    I am going to echo the Chairman's frustrations with HHS's 
lack of compliance in requests from this Committee. To 
reiterate, you and the Department are accountable to the 
Oversight Committee, period. As a side note, I sent you a 
letter pertaining to colorectal cancer screening tests, I would 
say something very important, on September 1st of last year, 
and have yet to receive confirmation of my letter, let alone a 
response. It is both unfortunate and unacceptable that you and 
HHS do not take your accountability to Congress, and by the 
extension, to the American people, seriously.
    As I am sure you know, during the early days of the 
pandemic there was a massive shortage of personal protective 
equipment, which highlighted the need to bolster our capability 
to produce PPE domestically rather than relying on foreign 
countries, especially China. In response, the Federal 
Government committed almost $600 million to bring production 
back to the United States.
    I have heard concerns, however, that HHS is dragging its 
feet on these contracts and is being unresponsive to grantees. 
Oversight Committee staff reached out to your office on January 
2d of this year to ask for a briefing on this issue, 
specifically regarding one surgical glove manufacturer whose 
contract may be in jeopardy and has been stonewalled by HHS. If 
just one contract falls through, tens or even hundreds of 
millions of dollars in taxpayer funds already spent on 
onshoring efforts will have been wasted. While I am not 
advocating for one company's products over another, I believe 
that HHS has a responsibility to be responsive and 
communicative with grantees for all initiatives.
    Are you aware of this request on January 2 of this year, 
and do you know why this seemingly simple request has not been 
granted?
    Dr. Egorin. Dr. Miller-Meeks, I am aware of that request, 
and it is my understanding that there was a conversation even 
yesterday between the staff about making sure we have that 
briefing and that we find the right subject matter experts to 
provide that briefing and work with them to make sure we are 
not pulling them away from mission critical work but also being 
responsive.
    Dr. Miller-Meeks. So, then you are committing to this 
Committee that you will have a briefing on the topic.
    Dr. Egorin. Yes. We are working on coordinating a briefing 
on the topic.
    Dr. Miller-Meeks. To follow up where my colleague on the 
other side of the aisle just mentioned, and you had mentioned 
in response to Dr. Wenstrup, that this Committee had asked for 
very broad topics--lab, nature, teleconference--are you aware 
of this article in the Wall Street Journal from January 15, 
2024, ``Chinese Lab Mapped Deadly Coronavirus Two Weeks Before 
Beijing Told the World, Documents Show.'' In it you are quoted.
    Dr. Egorin. Congresswoman, I am aware of that article, and 
I believe the quote comes from a letter of response that we 
sent back as part of an oversight inquiry.
    Dr. Miller-Meeks. And you are aware that this Committee has 
been meeting now, this is the second term that this Committee 
has been meeting, and that we are researching origins of COVID-
19 and trying to prepare for the next pandemic, is it not 
important if a genetic sequence was released on December 28th, 
that that would be important to developing vaccines, important 
to developing testing, and why was that information shared? 
When did you know about the sequence, when did HHS know, and 
why wasn't the Committee informed or Congress informed?
    Dr. Egorin. So, Congresswoman, the documents related to 
this and the letter that you quoted was when we informed 
Congress, when we came across a responsive document. I believe, 
and I need to double-check, that that was provided, hence the 
letter with that. And as we continue to look at documents that 
are responsive, we do come across new information, and that is 
part of the reason we continue to do rolling production.
    Dr. Miller-Meeks. So, you mentioned in this article that 
you wrote last month to the Committee's Chair, Cathy McMorris 
Rodgers, that Ren submitted--Dr. Ren of Chinese--the virus 
sequence on December 28, 2019, to a genetic data base, GenBank, 
run by the U.S. National Institutes of Health.
    NIAID, as we know, funded EcoHealth, who is mentioned in 
this article. Are you covering for EcoHealth and for NIAID?
    Dr. Egorin. Congresswoman, I am not covering for EcoHealth 
or NIAID. As I said when we came across a responsive document, 
we provided it to, as you know, the Chairwoman of the Energy 
and Commerce Committee, and we----
    Dr. Miller-Meeks. But you have yet to say when you had 
access to the document, when HHS knew of this, and why it was 
not reported. I would say this is extraordinarily important to 
preparing for the next pandemic. We know that there is 
immediate disclosure of viruses that can lead to a worldwide 
pandemic. This affected worldwide nature, 2 weeks before the 
Chinese Communist Party released information, and they had 
already alerted their own CDC. So, I find your response to be 
lacking, and I think it, in fact, creates impediments to us, 
going forward, to prepare for the next pandemic.
    With that I yield back.
    Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize Mrs. Dingell, from Michigan, 
for 5 minutes of questions.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am just going to 
start by commenting on the Chairman's opening statement, where 
you said that the Department has blocked testimony about the 
reinstatement of the EcoHealth Alliance grant. I really want to 
correct the record on that matter.
    The facts are that we have heard nearly 80 hours of 
voluntary testimony from 11 current or former HHS officials, 
all who testified about the EcoHealth Alliance grant 
reinstatement to the extent that they had knowledge about it. 
We have interviewed the program officer responsible for 
overseeing the grant, interviewed the two senior-level 
officials responsible for reinstating the grant, and we were 
briefed by two senior-level officials about the grant's 
reinstatement months before conducting the transcribed 
interviews.
    So, I have got to say to you, I love my colleagues and I 
want to work with my colleagues, but I am disappointed that we 
are even having this hearing today because I keep repeatedly 
hearing, over the course of this hearing how responsive the 
Administration has been to the Select Committee, rather they 
are not, and rather than working on real issues that could 
improve the health and lives of the American people some on 
this Select Subcommittee just want to score political points 
rather than strengthening our Nation's health and safety. And I 
really want to work with my colleagues on strengthening our 
Nation's health and safety. We are going to get another 
pandemic, and we need to be ready for it.
    The reality is the COVID-19 pandemic upended our entire 
nation and exemplified the importance of Americans having 
access to quality health care. These are real, serious issues 
we should be entirely focused on.
    So, I am going to use my time today to discuss how we can 
meaningfully lower health care costs for families across the 
country. Just last week, President Biden announced that a 
record-breaking 21.3 million Americans have enrolled in health 
care coverage through the Affordable Care Marketplaces. This 
has resulted in our Nation's uninsured rate reaching a historic 
low. Thanks to lowered premiums under the American Rescue Plan 
and renewed under the Inflation Reduction Act, more families 
than ever before will be able to access the care that they 
need, when they need it.
    So, Assistant Secretary Egorin, how does expanded access to 
health insurance coverage make for an overall healthier 
population?
    Dr. Egorin. Congresswoman, thank you for that question, and 
those numbers last week were a really wonderful set of news, 
especially as I think back toward my tenure when I worked as a 
staffer and the threats that were place before the Affordable 
Care Act.
    Having health insurance, having the knowledge that people 
could access care, is essential, and it is important. One of 
the things that we worked bipartisanly on at the beginning of 
the COVID pandemic--Dr. Wenstrup, as you mentioned, 1.2 million 
people lost their lives--but one of the things we really 
focused on during that period of time, and Congress 
bipartisanly came together on, was how to make sure people 
continued their health insurance during those days of 
uncertainty, and it is nice to see us continue to build on 
those accomplishments that we had.
    Mrs. Dingell. So, if Congress were to make these lower 
costs permanent, as my Democratic colleagues and I are pushing 
for, how would that impact overall health outcomes in the 
United States?
    Dr. Egorin. Congresswoman, anything that can be done to 
help people access care, to not delay care, to make sure that 
they have the care that they need, when they need it, will lead 
to better health outcomes.
    Mrs. Dingell. I am going to--well, I am going to ask you 
one more question. What would the consequences be if Congress 
were to repeal this policy that was enacted under the Inflation 
Reduction Act?
    Dr. Egorin. Congresswoman, the ability to make health care 
more affordable, to make people that are entrepreneurs and 
working in jobs where the marketplace is the best source of 
health care coverage for them, affordable in a similar way that 
many of us benefit from job-connected health insurance, really 
does show our commitment to making sure that people have health 
care. And if it is not there, people will make the choice about 
where their dollars go, and we might see uninsured numbers 
increase.
    Mrs. Dingell. Well, I thank you. Unfortunately, we know 
that there are some who are all too eager to repeal these 
health care plans without a plan to keep costs low and coverage 
high for millions of people who rely on the marketplace for 
coverage. I am very concerned that the negative consequences 
could become a reality if some were to get their way in rolling 
back these programs. We should be looking to build on this 
progress, not turn back the clock, because at the end of the 
day more expensive and less accessible health care would put us 
at risk if we have another public health crisis like COVID. 
People will not go to the doctor. It will spread.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back.
    Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize Mrs. Lesko, from Arizona, for 
5 minutes of questions.
    Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Assistant Secretary 
Egorin, Chairman Wenstrup is a very respected, rational 
legislator, and he is not one to exaggerate. So, I have seen 
him probably the most upset that I have seen him in this 
Committee hearing. And when he says to me and the public, that 
your Department of Health and Human Services has not been 
responsive, I believe him, and I think everybody should believe 
him because he is not somebody that just says things for 
exaggeration. He is a very serious person.
    My question to you, ma'am, is on August 23, 2023, this 
Committee sent the Department of Health and Human Services a 
letter regarding an illegal biolab in California. However, the 
Committee received less than 50 documents after sending this 
letter, all of which were already publicly available.
    Were you aware that the Committee was seeking documents 
responsive to biosafety, in particular labs in California?
    Dr. Egorin. Congresswoman, I am aware that the Committee 
sent a letter on August 23d, and then a subsequent letter in 
September, and we produced documents in response to both of 
those letters.
    Mrs. Lesko. Did you ever identify responsive custodians, 
and if so, when?
    Dr. Egorin. Congresswoman, we produced responsive documents 
to that request.
    Mrs. Lesko. Can you answer the question?
    Dr. Egorin. I am happy to take that question back.
    Mrs. Lesko. How come you don't know anything? Aren't you in 
charge of this? I mean, when the Chairman asked you questions 
you don't know. You just say you will take it back. You don't 
have a whole staff behind you that can give you the answers?
    Dr. Egorin. Congresswoman, I am here in my role as the 
Assistant Secretary for Legislation to talk about the 
responsiveness, overall, of our----
    Mrs. Lesko. Right, so you would think you would be 
prepared. I would think you would be prepared. Obviously not.
    When did the Department first conduct custodial interviews?
    Dr. Egorin. Congresswoman, the documents were produced 
within 2 weeks of the--I will double-check my math. I am sorry. 
We produced within a month of receiving the first letter, 
within 2 weeks of receiving the second letter.
    Mrs. Lesko. Is that an answer to the when did the 
Department first conduct custodial interviews?
    Dr. Egorin. Congresswoman, what I am saying is we have been 
responsive to this request and this information.
    Mrs. Lesko. So, you don't know when you first did custodial 
interviews?
    Dr. Egorin. Congresswoman, I do not know the specific date. 
I am here to talk about how we have been responsive and how we 
have made sure that we have met the----
    Mrs. Lesko. How many documents have you identified as 
responsive?
    Dr. Egorin. Congresswoman, I do not have that number before 
me, but again, we have been responsive.
    Mrs. Lesko. How many have gone through the review?
    Dr. Egorin. Congresswoman, again we have produced 
responsive documents.
    Mrs. Lesko. I find it very hard to believe that somebody 
that is in charge of this, that knows that they are coming in 
front of the Committee that has, for a year, requested 
information, knows nothing and will just get back to us, even 
though you probably won't get back to us because you haven't 
for a year.
    And with that 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. Ms. Egorin, I 
hope we don't have you yearning for the days of the Ways and 
Means Committee and the kind of bipartisanship that you saw and 
worked with through the pandemic. Sometimes, as you know, 
having worked here on the Hill and having worked specifically 
for a major committee, our balance is usually found in the 
middle. It is not on either side, either extreme. So, I would 
ask you to take today's questioning with a grain of salt, even 
as my colleagues have barraged the Department of Health and 
Human Services with inquiry after inquiry after inquiry.
    In fact, this ongoing probe, which is a probe also of Dr. 
Fauci, has provided more than 10,000 relevant documents, which 
is an enormous amount of information, literature, and 
documentation. And yet it does not ever seem to be enough. And 
I understand your role, particularly on the legislative side, 
but maybe we are better served by just having the Secretary in 
and not putting you through this.
    These questions are important. You know, the interests here 
are very important. But it is not and should not be the role of 
this Committee to berate witnesses, particularly after we have 
received 10,000 documents of information, and I might add, of 
which none of us have read all of them.
    So, I am going to argue that we try to find a way to put 
politics aside, that we prioritize supporting agencies, and 
allow you a moment to talk to all of us about what you have 
tried to do, over and over again, in response to the requests 
and the admonitions of the Committee that you provide more and 
more and more and more. I think there is another side to this, 
and I would like to hear yours.
    Dr. Egorin. Thank you very much, Congressman, and I want to 
start by saying I loved my time on the Hill and being a 
congressional staffer and working with Members. I love being 
the Assistant Secretary for Legislation. It is a unique place 
where I really get to serve both the executive branch and the 
legislative branch. It is a unique intersection in 
policymaking, and it is a chance to further the policy and 
legislative goals of Congress.
    One of the essential functions that the Office of the ASL 
does is provide technical assistance for Members of Congress, 
as they develop policy. So, in addition to the oversight 
requests and in addition to the hearings that we take a lot of 
time and consideration in preparing for, we also talk daily 
with Members of Congress and their staff about how to make 
legislation better, about how to make sure policymakers' intent 
become those words that are passed into law, that then we are 
implementing. And think about the bipartisan Safer Communities 
Act. You can think about the Infrastructure and Jobs Act.
    I am still very excited that we are implementing laws that 
were passed when I was a congressional staffer, and doing it in 
a way that is thoughtful, and receives the feedback not just of 
Congress but of the stakeholders and partners that really are 
impacted by the legislation that Congress passes and the 
President signs into law, regardless of party.
    In terms of our oversight responsiveness--and I want to 
sort of draw back that this Subcommittee is part of a larger 
body of oversight--we have 150 oversight letters that we have 
been responsive to in just the 118th Congress. We have done 
over 100 productions across both the House and the Senate. We 
have done innumerable briefings and conversations with staff to 
make sure that in response to oversight inquiries that Members 
have the information they need to make policy better. And I 
want to go back to that.
    I started my career in D.C. at GAO, working on behalf of 
Congress, getting to spend the time to really dig into how to 
make health care programs work better for all Americans. It is 
what brought me to the Hill and now brought me to the 
Administration. So, I really hope nobody questions my 
commitment to serving the American people and to serving this 
body.
    Mr. Mfume. Well, thank you. No, I don't think it is your 
commitment that is being questioned. I do question, however, 
the commitment of some Members of this body, the U.S. Congress, 
that have proposed a $7.6 billion decrease in funding for the 
Centers for Disease Control in the upcoming appropriations 
package, and $3.6 billion cut in strategic preparedness, even 
though we are talking about being prepared strategically for 
another pandemic. So, sometimes we have to kind of make sure 
that we are in line, our actions, with many of the questions 
and the criticisms that we raise.
    Thank you very much. I have exceeded my time. I yield back, 
sir.
    Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you. Just a point of order, 
respectfully, Mr. Mfume. You said no one has read the 10,000 
pages. Actually, our staff director has read all 10,000 pages, 
except for maybe the records we got last night, and you have 
read those as well.
    I now recognize Dr. Joyce, from Pennsylvania, for 5 minutes 
of questions.
    Mr. Mfume. Mr. Chairman, point of clarification. I meant no 
one on this Committee, those of us who are asking the questions 
and hurling the accusations, has read all 10,000 documents.
    Dr. Wenstrup. I appreciate that, and that is very factual, 
I am sure, but our questions are coming from, in many ways, the 
staff director who has read them all.
    Dr. Joyce, you are recognized.
    Dr. Joyce. Thank you, Chairman Wenstrup and Ranking Member 
Ruiz, for holding today's hearing.
    First and foremost, let's make it clear that Congress does, 
in fact, have the authority over and oversight of executive 
agencies. HHS exists because Congress created it, and continues 
to fund it. Therefore, investigating this agency, and others, 
and analyzing the manner in which they carry out United States 
policy, during a pandemic, is paramount to the mission of this 
Select Subcommittee.
    The establishment of this Select Subcommittee is in direct 
response to pandemic-era policies and the gross mishandlings of 
them by unelected bureaucrats across those various agencies. 
When those policies had adverse or harmful repercussions on the 
American public it became the responsibility of this body to 
seek accountability. When agencies like HHS refuse to cooperate 
with request from Congress you are not only insulting this 
institution, you are insulting and disrespecting the American 
people. When agencies like HHS continuously express a wanton 
disregard for the authority of this Congress it further 
degrades what it means to have an open and a transparent 
government. We cannot begin to move forward for the American 
people until we have a clear place to start.
    As the elected public servants, we are beholden to the 
American people. It is the responsibility of this Select 
Subcommittee to investigate, to learn, and to further establish 
a path forward when agencies refuse to comply. By doing this 
you have set an unacceptable standard for what might follow. 
The American people want, and the American people deserve 
answers from this Subcommittee and from executive agencies, and 
they deserve to know what we intend to do to safeguard our 
Nation and protect our citizens from the next global and public 
health emergency.
    And it is not just this COVID Select Subcommittee that HHS 
has been stonewalling. I have the unique obligation and 
responsibility of serving on this Select Subcommittee, but I 
also serve on the Committee of Energy and Commerce. Both this 
Select Subcommittee on the origins of COVID and Energy and 
Commerce have been ignored repeatedly by requests to HHS. The 
American people want that transparency. So, my questions are 
going to be straightforward and very simple.
    Assistant Secretary Egorin, yes or no, do you believe that 
the Department of Health and Human Services is immune to any 
requests for information by this conference?
    Dr. Egorin. Congressman, we have shown a good faith 
accommodation to work with this Subcommittee and the Committee 
on Energy and Commerce.
    Dr. Joyce. A simple yes or no. Do you feel that we have the 
answers to the requests for information that for the last 13 
months we have been reaching out to you? Yes or no. Have those 
been provided?
    Dr. Egorin. Congressman, we have provided documents to all 
of the requests.
    Dr. Joyce. We, on this side, do not see that 
responsiveness. We have repeated requests, we have repeated 
outstanding questions, and we look forward to a productive 
relationship, but to date we have not seen that.
    Assistant Secretary Egorin, are you aware that 
congressional oversight is backed by the full force of the U.S. 
Constitution?
    Dr. Egorin. Congressman, I am aware of----
    Dr. Joyce. Thank you. I will take that to be a yes.
    On August 1, 2023, we sent the Department a letter 
concerning the development in implementation of vaccination 
policies and mandates. However, this Select Subcommittee 
received no responsive documents after sending this letter
    --no response, and yet you told me that you had been 
responsive. Is there a reason why this information has not yet 
been produced to this Select Subcommittee on the origins of the 
COVID virus?
    Dr. Egorin. Congressman, the August 1st letter, I believe 
on vaccine mandates, went to the Center for Medicare and 
Medicaid Services. We did provide a response, and if it is a 
priority for the Subcommittee, I am happy to continue to work 
with you and work with the staff.
    Dr. Joyce. I look for the ability for that work to be 
initiated. I look for that ability for that work to be 
developed. Because to date we feel that that stonewalling has 
occurred on the Select Subcommittee, and from my position on 
Energy and Commerce I feel that as well. I feel that there 
needs to be an open dialog, but HHS has not provided us with 
that. We look for that stonewalling to end.
    With that my time has expired. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Dr. Wenstrup. I would like to submit for the record, on 
behalf of Dr. Miller-Meeks, since she made the request, that 
this article by Warren Strobel, January 17, 2024, entitled, 
``Chinese Lab Mapped Deadly Coronavirus Two Weeks Before 
Beijing Told the World, Documents Show,'' that this article be 
submitted for the record, and without objection.
    Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize Ms. Ross, from North 
Carolina, for 5 minutes of questions.
    Ms. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and also thank you for 
the additional time. It is much appreciated. I want to thank 
the witness for both her patience and her commitment to the 
health care of the American people. It is not easy being a 
public servant. It is not easy testifying before Congress, and 
you have done it with grace.
    We have heard allegations throughout today's hearing that 
the Department has slow-walked documents of informational 
interest to the Committee, and I would like to set the record 
straight. The Department has consistently worked to address the 
majority's requests and expedite their stated priorities.
    However, whether intentionally done or not, Select 
Subcommittee Republicans have repeatedly moved the goalposts on 
their requests to the Department. For example, in a letter from 
the Majority to the Department, dated June 1, 2023, regarding 
the COVID origins probe, Select Subcommittee Republicans 
alleged that the Department refused to provide certain 
documents to the Select Subcommittee.
    The truth is that the Department, in fact, had already 
provided the documents to the Committee at that point and was 
simply working to first produce documents that the Majority 
identified as priority requests. Select Subcommittee 
Republicans at that point had not even identified the documents 
in question as being a priority.
    Mr. Chairman, I would like permission to enter into the 
record a letter from the Department to the Majority dated June 
8, 2023, which provides these details as well as a commitment 
from the Department to produce the requested documents to the 
Select Subcommittee Republicans that same day.
    Dr. Wenstrup. Without objection.
    Ms. Ross. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Now I would like to turn my attention to how things have 
been provided. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
have misleadingly suggested that HHS has not cooperated in good 
faith with the Select Subcommittee's probes, including, as we 
saw at the beginning of this hearing, using redactions as a 
tactic to stonewall congressional oversight. I would like to 
correct the record on this point.
    First, to be clear, a number of the redactions have been to 
protect personally identifiable information so that individuals 
are not subject to threats if and when documents have been 
released. I serve on the Judiciary Committee. We have not just 
seen that in HHS. We have seen that throughout government. 
Threats on government officials are on the rise, and we have 
seen it repeatedly, and it is a huge concern.
    Assistant Secretary Egorin--is that how we say it?--
Egorin----
    Dr. Egorin. Yes.
    Ms. Ross [continuing]. Why is it important that the 
Department take steps to protect the personal information of 
individuals that it employs?
    Dr. Egorin. Congressman, thank you for acknowledging the 
risks and the increased threats to government officials and to 
public servants. Part of the reason that we are so diligent 
about protecting personal information is we actually want to 
prevent having to do threat assessments, having to prevent 
asking people to shut down their Facebook accounts, which they 
use to communicate with friends and family, asking people to do 
other actions for their personal safety because they chose to 
serve the American people.
    Ms. Ross. Thank you for that answer. As in the case in any 
congressional investigation there is a process for 
congressional attorneys and agency counsel to negotiate 
redactions, and it is my understanding that these negotiations 
actually have been productive, with HHS making opportunities 
available for Subcommittee staff to review material underneath 
redactions in camera, to satisfy Congress' informational 
interests as well as protect employees. Is that correct?
    Dr. Egorin. That is correct.
    Ms. Ross. And, as I understand it, information from these 
in-camera reviews has been used in staff questioning at 
transcribed interviews of HHS officials, which suggests that 
the Department's accommodation on redactions have, in fact, 
advanced the Select Subcommittee's informational interests and 
facilitated its oversight work. Do you agree with this 
assessment?
    Dr. Egorin. Congresswoman, we have worked with Subcommittee 
staff to produce underneath the redactions through in-camera 
review, yes.
    Ms. Ross. And regarding accommodations HHS has made to work 
cooperatively with the Select Subcommittee, I would also like 
to discuss efforts to provide transparency into the 
Department's document collection process. As you know, specific 
details regarding the internal processes and search parameters 
for document collections generally implicates separation of 
powers concerns. You have worked both in the executive and in 
the legislative branch. As such, they are not typically 
provided to Congress in order to prevent a chilling effect on 
executive branch internal deliberations. However, on November 
9th, HHS sent a letter to the Select Subcommittee containing 
comprehensive information about the collection process for 
nearly 20 of its prior productions, including search terms and 
custodians.
    I would like to enter this November 9th letter into the 
record, outlining what I have just shared.
    Dr. Wenstrup. Without objection.
    Ms. Ross. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
    And at a staff-level meeting 1 week later, representatives 
of the Office of General Counsel and the Office of Legislative 
Affairs answered detailed questions from the majority staff 
about aspects of the document collection process, including the 
prioritization of custodians, the mechanics of search terms, 
and the targeted date ranges.
    Assistant Secretary Egorin, is it the case that far from 
stonewalling, the Department has taken each of these 
significant steps and is continuing to take steps voluntarily 
to be responsive to the Select Subcommittee's oversight 
interests?
    Dr. Egorin. Congresswoman, the Department continues to work 
with Subcommittee staff to be responsive to the requests.
    Ms. Ross. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Chairman, it is clear that the Department has made a 
robust effort to engage in good faith with the Select 
Subcommittee and accommodate its oversight interests. To claim 
that HHS is simply stonewalling is a distortion of the facts, 
and I am confident that today's record will show precisely 
that.
    Thank you very much, and I yield back.
    Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize Dr. Jackson from Texas for 5 
minutes of questions.
    Dr. Jackson. Thank you, Chairman Wenstrup.
    Assistant Secretary Egorin, we have heard a lot of excuses 
as to why HHS has not provided documents repeatedly requested 
by this Subcommittee, and we have heard lots of empty claims 
that you and your team are doing everything you can to 
cooperate with our requests.
    In your testimony, you state that HHS has produced more 
than 10,000 pages of documents in response to this 
Subcommittee's oversight requests. However, that is not 
entirely true. The documents that your Department has provided 
this Subcommittee included hundreds of publicly available news 
articles, not even authored by HHS officials. To make matters 
worse, the documents that are actually from HHS are heavily 
redacted or do not have anything to do with the topic at hand.
    It is evident that you and/or your team are simply trying 
to wait out the existence of this Subcommittee and are using 
every possible tactic to seem prompt and responsive when in 
reality you are stonewalling and interfering with this 
investigation. Your inability to provide the pertinent 
information is either deliberate or it is complete 
incompetence, and you have mentioned that you have 90,000 
employees available to you, and I would suspect that you have a 
cadre of people that could get together and provide us 
pertinent information related to these questions.
    My first question is on August 2, 2023, this Subcommittee 
sent the Department a letter regarding a potential new 
guideline on COVID-19 booster shots. Mr. Chairman, I would ask 
unanimous consent that this August 2d letter from last year be 
entered into the record for the purposes of this hearing.
    Dr. Wenstrup. Without objection.
    Dr. Jackson. Assistant Secretary Egorin, the Committee 
simply wanted to review the science in the supported statements 
made by the CDC Director to the media regarding the boosters. 
However, no response and no documents have been received after 
sending this letter. Were you aware that this letter was sent 
to Dr. Mandy Cohen, the director of the CDC?
    Dr. Egorin. Congressman, I am aware that letter was sent to 
Director Cohen. I am also aware that there was a briefing based 
on that letter providing information to staff within a month of 
us receiving that letter.
    Dr. Jackson. Did you identify points of contact in the CDC 
to get us a written response to this?
    Dr. Egorin. Congressman, we provided a briefing to the 
staff, and based on the prioritization we have continued to 
work on other priorities of the Subcommittee.
    Dr. Jackson. Did you ever intend to send any documents that 
we have requested regarding the CDC booster guidance?
    Dr. Egorin. Congressman, we continue to work on productions 
across all of the inquiries----
    Dr. Jackson. How many documents have you provided so far 
regarding this topic?
    Dr. Egorin. Concerning that topic, we have provided a 
briefing. We have provided----
    Dr. Jackson. How many documents have you provided? This was 
a request for documents.
    Dr. Egorin. Congressman, we have provided a briefing with 
the information. If there was follow-up----
    Dr. Jackson. How many documents?
    Dr. Egorin [continuing]. We are happy to work with you.
    Dr. Jackson. This is not a follow-up. This is something we 
have already requested. We have already requested documents. We 
didn't request a briefing to explain why we can't have the 
documents.
    Dr. Egorin. Congressman, it was not a briefing to explain 
why you could not have the documents. It was a briefing to 
provide the information and to help----
    Dr. Jackson. But were the documents provided?
    Dr. Egorin. Congressman, we are happy to work with the 
staff----
    Dr. Jackson. So, the answer is no, you did not provide the 
documents that we requested. You still have not provided those 
documents.
    Over the course of this hearing, it is apparent that HHS 
has willfully ignored direct requests from this Subcommittee 
and deliberately sent documents that are intended to obscure 
the truth rather than uncover it. You know, I just hope that we 
get ourselves in a situation pretty soon here, as Members of 
Congress, where we can do something to make you take the 
oversight of Congress seriously. I hope that we can find a way 
to restrict your travel funds, to restrict your pay, to fence 
off some money to your organization, something. We are going to 
have to do something drastic. It is apparent that you have 
thumbed your nose, your organization has thumbed your nose at 
this Committee with regard to the oversight responsibility that 
we have, and you have done everything you can to make a joke of 
our oversight.
    So, I hope that your attitude will change. I hope that we 
can get more response from your organization when we ask for 
stuff that we need for oversight, as a bipartisan committee, to 
answer the questions. We cannot even get to the point where we 
answer the questions or we have a debate between the two sides 
here, between the Democrats and the Republicans, on the issues 
that are the topics of these Committee hearings that we are 
having if we can't get the information in order to support 
that. And this is just an obvious attempt to stop that process.
    With that I yield back my time.
    Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize Mr. Garcia, from California, 
for 5 minutes of questions.
    Mr. Garcia. Well thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to 
thank the Assistant Secretary for being here as well, and thank 
you for your service.
    I think this hearing, obviously, I am sure, tells you, and 
it certainly tells us here how pointless these House Republican 
investigations are that happen in this Committee over and over 
again. These investigations into the Biden Administration and 
our public health officials are really quite shameful. We have 
been at this now for almost an entire year of these hearings, 
and with very little to show for it, which is why we are 
sitting here arguing back and forth about whether or not HHS 
has been responsive enough to requests for information.
    And Mr. Chairman, I would like to note that this is the 
epitome of a hearing that could have been an email. And there 
is no reason that we need to sit here and participate in this 
hit job on our Nation's health officials. It seems to be the 
case every time we have one of these hearings.
    If House Republicans were not so desperate to find a shred 
of evidence for their Members' unhinged conspiracies, they 
could be using this time and resources to actually save lives 
and prevent the next pandemic. But the majority is not 
interested in any of that. They are only interested in forcing 
their extreme ideology on the American people, whether it is 
kicking low-income families off their health insurance or 
gutting the right to abortion care across the country.
    And let's also be really clear. These policies have been 
proposed not by the Republican majority but also by their 
supreme leader, Donald Trump. We know that Donald Trump has 
already vowed to roll back health care in this country. He has 
vowed to roll back women's rights to reproductive health. He 
has vowed to appeal Obamacare. He has vowed to kick people off 
their health care. He has vowed to eliminate and actually 
destroy the way we actually have Medicare in this country. And 
let's also remind ourselves that many of the Committee folks on 
this Committee have also spent a large part of the last decade 
trying to actually dismantle Obamacare and kick millions of 
Americans off their health insurance plans. And again, we know 
Donald Trump, just last week, said he would like to repeal 
Obamacare.
    So, the point of many of my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle is essentially to kick people off health care, roll 
back Obamacare, attack our health care officials across this 
country, and do whatever they can to elect Donald Trump 
President again. And by the way, if you have a preexisting 
condition your health coverage could be gone under some of 
these Republicans' plans.
    And to that extent, before I was in Congress and certainly 
before I was in elected office, I was a faculty member at a 
university, and the attack, of course, on students and 
preexisting conditions and young people having access to their 
parents' plan is also a consistent theme with the Majority.
    Now on top of this we all know that Obamacare was critical 
to people's access to care during the pandemic and during the 
horrific period of loss of life that we had in this country. 
The pandemic has cost us more than 1.3 million Americans and 
certainly had a huge impact on my city.
    Can you share for my colleagues what the COVID would have 
looked like for the American health care system and the 
American people if Obamacare had actually been repealed as most 
of the majority wanted to, back when they made that last 
attempt?
    Dr. Egorin. Congressman, I actually want to be forward 
thinking, and what I will say is I am very glad that the ACA 
was available, and the marketplaces were available, for as 
people had job loss there was coverage options, whether that 
was Medicaid, COBRA, or the ACA for coverage. And the support 
for individuals allowed us to recover from the pandemic and the 
economic impact at a much more rapid pace than probably what 
would have happened had there not been that coverage.
    Mr. Garcia. Great. Thank you very much, and I think you are 
absolutely right. We should be thinking about ways to expand 
health care coverage across this country, not take health 
coverage away.
    Also, I just want to note that one thing that is really 
discouraging is this consistent attack on public health 
officials, on you, on all of our witnesses that come forward. 
This is the same majority that encourages skepticism, as we 
know, not just attacks on our health care system but even our 
COVID vaccination process and vaccines in general. They have 
encouraged, as you know, followers on social media to ignore 
recommendations of doctors, to ignore vaccinations for 
children, comparing getting vaccines to essentially causing 
mass harm to the American public, which we all know is both 
shocking and incredibly irresponsible.
    During my time as mayor, getting supplies, getting 
vaccines, getting masks, getting PPE to the public was 
incredibly important. Last year I introduced the FLASH Act, 
which helps HHS cut through red tape and get critical medical 
supplies like PPE, tests, and vaccines during emergencies.
    Last, how do you think the FLASH Act would affect HHS's 
ability to get these supplies?
    Dr. Egorin. Congressman, I do not want to speak to a 
specific piece of legislation but what I can say is investments 
in PPE, investments in supplies, the ability to make sure 
people have the health care they need and the protection they 
need when they need it is critically important. And we are 
happy to work with you or any Member of Congress on legislation 
to meet those goals.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you very much, and with that I yield 
back.
    Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize Dr. McCormick, from Georgia, 
for 5 minutes of questions.
    Dr. McCormick. Thank you, Chairman, for holding this 
hearing, and thank you for this opportunity to talk about this 
very important topic.
    I think it was somewhat hilarious that our colleague on the 
side of the aisle talk about how we have politicized this and 
used this to dupe the American public that you are not doing 
your job, and then spend most of their time on their points 
talking about anything but COVID, as if they are not 
politicizing this very topic.
    Today's hearing not only highlights the Department of 
Health and Human Services' blatant noncompliance but also 
brings to attention something much larger, and that is that we 
believe that bureaucracies now have more power than the people 
themselves.
    In our Doctors Caucus we had the Secretary come before us, 
and could not answer questions because he was in legal 
hearings. Now, I want to point out the fact that he actually 
lost those legal hearings on the Surprise Act, which he has 
stonewalled a lot of people on it and taken sides on it, in my 
opinion. And I think it is probably an insult to the people 
that we have picked a lawyer who loses his law cases, as the 
head of Health and Human Services. That is just my opinion. But 
I think we have an overgrown, unacceptable, and unaccountable 
bureaucracy right now.
    You mentioned that we are overtaxed in this Department, but 
you also, in the same breath, mentioned you have 90,000 
employees. Ninety thousand employees. There are 435 Congressmen 
who ask questions, and we have 90,000 employees that don't put 
priorities on giving the questions that we are asking 
specifically from this Department. If that is not your 
priority, I do not know what is.
    When we have a congressional investigation it is not merely 
a burdensome task when we ask a bureaucracy a question. It is 
your priority. Ninety thousand employees getting a question 
back to--I would assume less than half of Congress ask 
questions, specifically--90,000 employees, with a very large 
budget for one reason, to be accountable to people. We are the 
people.
    Dr. Egorin. So, Congressman----
    Dr. McCormick. So wait. I haven't asked a question yet. 
Thank you. I think Congress needs to kind of take our power 
back.
    I will ask you a question here in a second. When I believe 
that you haven't answered these specific questions--you have 
answered questions--You have given us a ton of information, 
just not specific to what the Chairman has asked specifically. 
I have seen the Chairman get more upset today than I have seen 
in a very long time. He is a pretty mellow-mannered guy. But I 
feel like there has been this slow rolling of information and 
avoiding, so I will ask you a couple of questions and I will 
allow you to answer.
    The first one, yes or no if you please, has anyone in the 
Department of Health and Human Services ever told you or 
implied that you should not comply with our specific 
investigation questions?
    Dr. Egorin. No. We have always worked to----
    Dr. McCormick. OK, good.
    Dr. Egorin [continuing]. Accommodate----
    Dr. McCormick. OK. Then how do you explain when the agency 
doesn't comply with a specific request on a specific question, 
with those 90,000 employees working in compliance with our 
specific requests for information?
    Dr. Egorin. So Congressman, I want to speak to the 90,000 
employees, and I will answer your question. Those 90,000 
employees serve all of the functions of HHS.
    Dr. McCormick. I understand.
    Dr. Egorin. So, that makes sure that 64 million Americans 
have Medicare coverage, that we are partnering with 50 states, 
D.C., and territories for Medicaid, that we are making sure we 
are training medical students and paying for graduate medical--
--
    Dr. McCormick. How many people are on your staff?
    Dr. Egorin. Congressman, the Assistant Secretary for 
Legislation has a staff of approximately 27 that serve all of 
the functions, including letting you know about the grants----
    Dr. McCormick. So, 27 employees that specifically answer to 
you, and you specifically answer to the Secretary, and the 
Secretary specifically answers to us. OK. Thank you. And I am 
sure they are very qualified individuals. I am sure the people 
sitting behind you have lots of answers to our specific 
questions, and that is our frustration right now.
    Congress and Federal agencies are supposed to serve the 
American people, and this is what frustrates us when we don't 
get answers. I am running short on time, but do you believe you 
have upheld the duties and provided the answers specifically 
that we have asked? The specific questions we have asked that 
the Chair pointed out at the beginning of this, do you think 
you have answered those?
    Dr. Egorin. Congressman, we have responded to the 
priorities----
    Dr. McCormick. OK, I disagree. I think you have responded 
but not to the specific questions.
    So, this is the noncompliance that we are frustrated with, 
all of us here. I think it sends a message, not only about HHS 
but also about the Biden Administration in general, that we 
don't have the accountability we want. I don't think we can 
ignore Congress' direct questioning. If you can't provide these 
answers to Congress, with your staff, which I think is very 
well funded, specifically to answer questions for us, then that 
kind of leads me to believe that either you can't justify your 
budget or because you are either duplicitous because you are 
supplying stuff that we can get anywhere else besides your 
Department, or you are just not being honest. And that is what 
disturbs us, and that is what I wanted to address with our 
time.
    I think you guys need to answer some very specific 
questions very quickly or there is going to be a bigger 
problem.
    With that I yield.
    Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize Ms. Tokuda, from Hawaii, for 
5 minutes of questions.
    Ms. Tokuda. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Before I get started, I 
would like to take a moment to clear some things up for the 
record. We have heard accusations that the Department has 
intentionally devoted minimal resources toward handling 
congressional oversight and inquiries, but let's also remind 
people that every day your primary responsibility is the health 
and wellness of 340 million Americans, keeping them alive and 
well.
    Assistant Secretary Egorin, would you like to clarify 
anything briefly regarding this claim?
    Dr. Egorin. I want to just acknowledge the mission of the 
Department is to make sure we are taking care of the welfare of 
the American people and that that is a very broad set of 
activities.
    Ms. Tokuda. Thank you and mahalo also. You have done much 
of that for my community personally on the island of Maui, in 
Lahaina. I have seen your men and women on the ground every day 
since the fires.
    You know, over the last year Select Subcommittee 
Republicans have leveraged their majority to advance 
politically motivated probes that do nothing to improve the 
lives of everyday Americans, do nothing to ensure that we are 
better prepared for the next pandemic, and do nothing to 
protect our constituents from future public health threats. And 
under the guise of investigating COVID-19's origin this Select 
Subcommittee has squandered valuable time and taxpayer dollars 
to probe simply for the purpose of scoring political points. 
And despite all of that time and resources they have wasted on 
their inquiry, the question for me is what do they have to show 
for it? In fact, the only thing they have achieved is further 
politicization of the greatest crisis of our time by pointing 
fingers at public health officials like yourself and sowing 
distrust in our Nation's intelligence community.
    Before they took the majority last Congress, Republicans 
were already plotting their probe against Dr. Fauci, and tens 
of thousands of documents, more than a dozen transcribed 
interviews, three congressional hearings later, we have not 
seen or heard so much as a shred of evidence substantiating 
their claims of a coverup of the pandemic's origins or 
suppression of the lab leak theory on the part of Dr. Fauci.
    Instead, we have witnessed the Majority repeatedly rely on 
speculation and distortion of the facts to fit their narrative. 
For example, they have baselessly accused Dr. Fauci of playing 
semantics with the regulatory definition of ``gain of function 
research,'' despite all documents and testimony, including his 
14-hour closed-door interview, plainly demonstrating otherwise. 
And they have alleged that Dr. Fauci visited the CIA's 
headquarters to skew its inquiry into COVID-19's origins on the 
basis of whistleblower testimony that they refused to make 
available to the Minority for months. Without a single shred of 
evidence substantiating this claim, the Majority released these 
allegations publicly. And yet 3 weeks after Dr. Fauci told us 
that he hasn't been to the CIA's headquarters in decades, they 
have neither issued a correction.
    And now they are trying to accuse the Biden Administration 
of stonewalling because their probe into Dr. Fauci is not 
getting them anywhere. It is all just theater.
    As we have seen today, the majority's desperate fishing 
expedition to seek a scapegoat rather than the facts does not 
put us on a path forward to meet the supposed mission of this 
Subcommittee. The fact is the Majority's oversight and 
investigations have in no way enhanced our understandings of 
how COVID-19 came to be.
    So, Assistant Secretary, I would like to discuss with you 
the ways in which this Administration has constructively worked 
toward garnering a better understanding of the COVID origins 
pandemic. Can you please speak to the steps the Biden 
Administration has taken on this front?
    Dr. Egorin. Congresswoman, as the President and many other 
officials have noted, understanding the origins of COVID and 
understanding the science and how to make sure we are looking 
forward to better response to future pandemics is essential. 
And that has included work by the intelligence community but 
also, as this Subcommittee has heard, conversations among our 
own scientists about understanding what lessons we have learned 
and how to move forward.
    Ms. Tokuda. Thank you. And in their efforts to construct 
this extreme narrative, Select Subcommittee Republicans have 
actually undermined the intelligence community, individuals 
that would be critical, really, to taking on the next potential 
pandemic and its origins assessment. These hard-working men and 
women who serve our country, they have insinuated that they and 
the Biden Administration have been withholding information due 
to a classified annex of the report. And let me just say that 
they have done so in spite of witnesses coming before our very 
Committee, warning about the dangers of politicizing 
intelligence.
    Assistant Secretary, yes or no, is there any reason for the 
American people to doubt the validity of the intelligence 
community's origin assessment?
    Dr. Egorin. Congresswoman, I have not read the report 
myself, but we are taking this seriously and there is no reason 
people should doubt the validity of the hard work of the 
intelligence community.
    Ms. Tokuda. Given the individuals on the Intelligence 
Committee, the process in which they go through, would there be 
any reason why they should doubt an assessment brought forward 
by them?
    Dr. Egorin. No, I would not see why.
    Ms. Tokuda. Thank you. I bring this up today because a 
purposeful undermining of public trust in the IC puts our very 
national security at risk. It prevents all of us from getting 
the objective information. We need to make sound policy, and it 
is a gift to our adversaries, quite frankly, who want nothing 
less than our Republicans to continue tearing apart the 
national security institutions that keep our very country safe 
and free.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am out of time, and I yield back.
    Dr. Wenstrup. I would now like to yield to Ranking Member 
Ruiz for a closing statement if he would like one.
    Dr. Ruiz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before we close today's 
hearing I would just like to again reiterate for the record the 
ways in which the Department has engaged with the Select 
Subcommittee, in good faith, by consistently producing 
documents responsive to the Majority's requests on a rolling 
basis, including more than 30 productions comprising more than 
10,000 documents, making Department officials available for 
more than 80 hours of voluntary transcribed interviews, and 
offering accommodation to the Select Subcommittee on several 
matters such as meeting with staff to prioritize the Majority's 
informational interests and offering in-camera review of 
redacted material in several documents. These actions in no way 
amount to stonewalling nor do they necessitate threats of 
compulsory action.
    So, now that we have spent hours debating the mechanics of 
document production and redactions and custodians and search 
terms, I hope that we can all move on and get to the actual 
work that matters for the American people, work like enhancing 
our Nation's pandemic preparedness or strengthening our public 
health systems or getting state and local governments the tools 
they need to care for their patients. Because at the end of the 
day we, as a Nation, are facing real challenges that cannot and 
will not be solved by political prose or backward-facing 
policies.
    So, with that I hope that we can focus on advancing 
constructive policies that improve people's lives, promote our 
public health, and enhance our Nation's pandemic preparedness.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
    Dr. Wenstrup. I will now seek time to myself to make a 
closing statement.
    Look, this is not a hearing I was excited to hold. Not at 
all. The Ranking Member discussed the desire to spend his time 
talking about other issues associated with the pandemic, and I 
agree with him. I am disappointed too, that this is necessary.
    See, I would have the same reaction here today, regardless 
of any political affiliation an agency may have, regardless of 
who was in the White House. The risk of a pandemic and the 
lives lost going forward is not a Republican of Democrat issue. 
None of this ever has been or should be. And I have never 
approached it that way, in spite of the accusations that you 
have heard today and that we hear throughout the press. It is 
simply not true, and it is not how I have conducted this 
process during the pandemic.
    I am not the one that talks about political affiliations. 
Republican or Democrat, this is an American concern of the 
American people, and whose government it actually is as we are 
here today.
    So yes, we are a little off when it comes to specifically 
focusing on the pandemic, but this is a government process that 
is really inhibiting us from coming forward, as best we can, 
with a future process that will benefit all of the American 
people. And if we don't know how our government acted and the 
decisions they made, good or bad, we have to own up to them, or 
be grateful for the good decisions that have been made.
    There was so much we didn't know. It is understandable. At 
the beginning, this virus, it is called novel for a reason. We 
didn't know what to do. We didn't know what was even happening 
to people at the very beginning, physiologically.
    So, you respond on hypotheticals or based on the evidence 
that you have. We want to see that process. We want to see how 
it was conducted. It is not necessarily an extreme guilt of 
anything, but if there is, then we need to know that too. And 
when we are not being transparent there is an assumption that 
something must be wrong. Something must be wrong within that 
agency, that agency that belongs to we, the people of the 
United States of America.
    We should not have needed this hearing today. This time 
could have been better spent. But the Department's efforts seem 
to be less than adequate. I didn't say run out the clock or 
stonewall, per se. I asked if there was any conversation about 
that. That is all I asked.
    The Department's goal is to improve the health of all 
Americans. I am with you, 100 percent. The primary 
responsibility is the welfare of the American people. We need 
that. That is why the agency was created. We need that. But the 
welfare of the American people is jeopardized, and their 
anxiety is produced, is increased when it is proven that there 
is a lack of transparency taking place.
    The facts speak for themselves. Helping people is one of 
the reasons I became a physician. If I can't help all people, 
let me help some. It is one of the reasons I joined the 
military, as a surgeon. It is one of the reasons I left private 
practice to run for Congress and to come here, with the hope 
that I could serve more people and benefit the welfare of the 
American people. I am with you. But there are different ways of 
going about it.
    You know, I see there seems to be this, ``Hey look, we did 
things voluntarily, producing documents, responding to 
requests.'' As though there is another choice. It should be 
matter-of-fact business, not a pat on the back because you did 
what you are supposed to do.
    You argue that they have been responses. You know, 
responses are not the same as answers. If I asked my child, 
``Did you take that cookie?'' and the child says, ``Well, I 
know there used to be a cookie there,'' that does not answer my 
question. That is how this felt today.
    So, you argue there have been responses, evidence of 10,000 
pages you produced to the Select Subcommittee. That does not 
necessarily mean that answered a question. And you continue to 
argue that despite the fact that vast quantities of documents 
is either irrelevant, useless, previously publicly available. 
You could just as soon hand us a physiology book or something 
and say, ``This is my response.''
    And despite the fact that the predecessor of this Committee 
received more than 40,000 pages, you claimed that you produced 
documents for every single request from the Select 
Subcommittee, and plainly that is not true. You argue that our 
search terms are too broad, despite the fact that you have 
continually negotiated with your staff to scope these requests. 
And we have.
    You mentioned to Dr. Miller-Meeks a response you sent to my 
staff last night. So, you know, if you believe your efforts to 
scramble together responses to weeks-or months-old requests 1 
day before this hearing are reflective of your compliance, that 
is a little hard to swallow.
    On the eve of his interview, the Department directed Dr. 
Morens, who served as Dr. Fauci's senior scientific advisor 
before and during the pandemic, to not testify regarding 
matters within the scope of his duties. And when Dr. Morens 
presented to testify, HHS lawyers blocked it, much to the 
inconvenience of all of those working in this effort to know 
what happened, why it happened, and what can we do better. That 
is blocking.
    I am sorry but it does not appear you were prepared to 
answer our questions today. We got responses but not answers, 
and those non-answers are concerning. They are concerning to a 
government that wants to function efficiently and on behalf of 
the American people. So, those responses are simply not good 
enough. We put some things forward for the record today, which 
I had hoped you would be prepared to answer today, but now they 
are a take-back. That happens. We want those answers.
    This Committee has not been provided with a substantive 
explanation regarding the document explanation, and I think you 
know that. And if you do not have these answers, that is fair 
enough. It is a big organization. But somebody does, and we are 
relying on you to find that somebody and give us those answers 
to our questions.
    So, in that regard the buck does stop with you. And at this 
point, if we do not receive explicit answers for the record, 
unfortunately we will be forced to evaluate a subpoena to 
receive the outstanding documents and further testimony. We 
should not have to be subpoenaing the agency that we have 
oversight over and that we fund. We are responsible for the 
American taxpayer dollars and how they are spent, and when you 
are doing good things on behalf of the American people Congress 
is more than willing to spend those dollars. But you have to be 
able to answer to the American people.
    I will say one of the things I heard today is this could 
have all been done in an email. We've sent hundreds of emails. 
It could have been done by email. It could have, but it wasn't. 
And we sent emails without complete answers.
    I am not doing this to embarrass any individual or to put 
threats on any individual, but I want to know the process that 
took place within our government agencies so that we can 
continue to do better. In America the beautiful we ask God to 
mend our every flaw. We have to admit to our flaws and work to 
mend them.
    With that, and without objection, all Members will have 5 
legislative days within which to submit materials and to submit 
additional written questions for the witnesses, which will be 
forwarded to the witnesses for their response.
    If there is no further business, without objection, the 
Select Subcommittee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:51 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                 [all]