[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
A HEARING WITH DR. ANTHONY FAUCI
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CORONAVIRUS
PANDEMIC
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 3, 2024
__________
Serial No. 118-114
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on: govinfo.gov,
oversight.house.gov or
docs.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
55-830 PDF WASHINGTON : 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman
Jim Jordan, Ohio Jamie Raskin, Maryland, Ranking
Mike Turner, Ohio Minority Member
Paul Gosar, Arizona Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Columbia
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Michael Cloud, Texas Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
Gary Palmer, Alabama Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Clay Higgins, Louisiana Ro Khanna, California
Pete Sessions, Texas Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Andy Biggs, Arizona Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Nancy Mace, South Carolina Katie Porter, California
Jake LaTurner, Kansas Cori Bush, Missouri
Pat Fallon, Texas Shontel Brown, Ohio
Byron Donalds, Florida Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Robert Garcia, California
William Timmons, South Carolina Maxwell Frost, Florida
Tim Burchett, Tennessee Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia Greg Casar, Texas
Lisa McClain, Michigan Jasmine Crockett, Texas
Lauren Boebert, Colorado Dan Goldman, New York
Russell Fry, South Carolina Jared Moskowitz, Florida
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
Nick Langworthy, New York Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Eric Burlison, Missouri
Mike Waltz, Florida
------
Mark Marin, Staff Director
Mitchell Benzine, Subcommittee Staff Director
Marie Policastro, Clerk
Contact Number: 202-225-5074
Miles Lichtman, Minority Staff Director
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
------
Select Subcommittee On The Coronavirus Pandemic
Brad Wenstrup, Ohio, Chairman
Nicole Malliotakis, New York Raul Ruiz, California, Ranking
Mariannette Miller-Meeks, Iowa Minority Member
Debbie Lesko, Arizona Debbie Dingell, Michigan
Michael Cloud, Texas Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
John Joyce, Pennsylvania Deborah Ross, North Carolina
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia Robert Garcia, California
Ronny Jackson, Texas Ami Bera, California
Rich Mccormick, Georgia Jill Tokuda, Hawaii
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on June 3, 2024..................................... 1
Witness
----------
* Anthony Fauci, M.D., Former Director, National Institute of
Allergy and Infectious Diseases
Oral Statement................................................... 11
Written opening statements and the written statements of the
witnesses are available on the U.S. House of Representatives
Document Repository at: docs.house.gov.
Index of Documents
----------
* Letter, May 31, 2024, Public Health Associations; submitted
by Rep. Ruiz.
* Article, The Hill, ``Let's honor Anthony Fauci and his 50
years of advancing public health''; submitted by Rep. Ruiz.
* Interim Report, June 2024, the Minority staff, ``Republican's
Fauci Flop: Select Subcommittee's Fifteen-Month Probe Fails
to Find Evidence of Extreme Claims Linking Dr. Fauci to
COVID-19's Origins''; submitted by Rep. Castor.
* Letter, May 31, 2024, Association of State and Territorial
Health Officials; submitted by Rep. Ruiz.
Documents are available at: docs.house.gov.
A HEARING WITH DR. ANTHONY FAUCI
----------
Monday, June 3, 2024
House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Accountability
Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brad R. Wenstrup
(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Wenstrup, Malliotakis, Lesko,
Cloud, Joyce, Greene, Jackson, McCormick, Ruiz, Dingell, Mfume,
Ross, Garcia, Bera, and Tokuda.
Also present: Representatives Comer, Griffith, Raskin, and
Castor.
Dr. Wenstrup. The Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus
Pandemic will come to order.
I want to welcome everyone this morning.
Pursuant to Committee on Oversight and Accountability rule
7(d), Members of the Committee may participate in today's
Select Subcommittee hearing for purposes of questions.
At the discretion of the Chair and pursuant to an agreement
with the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the Chairman and
Ranking Member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Mr. Morgan
Griffith and Ms. Kathy Castor, are permitted to participate in
today's hearings for the purposes of questions and give 3-
minute opening statements.
Without objection, pursuant to clause 4(a)(iii)(a) of House
Resolution 5 and clause 2(j)(ii)(c) of House rule XI, the Chair
may recognize staff of the Select Subcommittee for questions
for equal periods of time, not to exceed 30 minutes.
Pursuant to rule 7(d) of the Committee on Oversight and
Accountability, Mr. Jordan and Mr. Moskowitz, Members of the
Full Committee, may participate in today's hearing for the
purposes of questions.
I would like to remind Members that the issues we are
debating today are important ones and Members feel deeply about
them. While vigorous disagreement is part of the legislative
process, Members are reminded that we must adhere to
established standards of decorum in debate.
There is a reminder that it is a violation of House rules
and the rules of this Committee to engage in personalities
regarding other Members or to question the motives of a
colleague. Remarks of that type are not permitted by the rules
and are not in keeping with the best traditions of our
Committee.
The Chair will enforce these rules of decorum at all times
and urges all Members to be mindful of their remarks.
Finally, without objection, the Chair may declare a recess
at any time.
I now recognize myself for the purpose of making an opening
statement.
Good morning.
And welcome, Dr. Fauci. First, I want to thank you for your
decades of public service. You served your country through
multiple epidemics, pandemics, and health crises.
I do want to say I'm sorry about the threats that you have
received. As someone who's been shot at and received threats as
well, my heart goes out to you. This should never happen in
America.
Regardless of any disagreements we may have, you chose to
serve, and I want to extend our appreciation and gratitude. I
want to thank you publicly for working with our Doctors Caucus
during Operation Warp Speed and the time you spent with us and
Dr. Collins.
I also want to thank you for your willing cooperation with
the Select Subcommittee. You have voluntarily sat for more than
14 hours of testimony and are appearing voluntarily today. This
is more than we can say about other witnesses we have called,
and we appreciate it.
Dr. Fauci, we're here to investigate the COVID-19 pandemic
and to explore lessons learned, positive or negative, and to
better prepare for future pandemics. Simply put, America cannot
move forward, though, without looking back. We must know what
went right and what went wrong in order to best engrain
proficiencies and remedy deficiencies.
In 15 months, the Select Subcommittee has sent more than
115 investigative letters, conducted 30 transcribed interviews,
resulting in hundreds of hours of testimony; held, including
today, 27 hearings or briefings; and reviewed more than 1.5
million pages of documents.
We aren't here to throw the baby out with the bath water.
That's not the intent. We are following the facts, holding
wrongdoers accountable, and planning for a better, more
prepared future.
Beginning early in 2020, you became the figurehead of
public health. There were drinks named after you. You got
bobbleheads made in your likeness. You were on the cover of
Vogue. You threw out the first pitch at a Washington Nationals
game. Almost overnight, you became a celebrity and a household
name in addition to being a public health official.
Americans from coast to coast and beyond listened to your
words. And this is where I think we could've done better. And
this goes to both sides of the aisle. We should've been more
precise. We should've used words and phrases that are accurate
and not misleading. And we should've been honest, especially
about what we didn't know.
Dr. Fauci, I'm not a virologist, but I am a physician. And,
like most physicians, we are constantly learning, which is why
we do continuing medical education, and we always seek new
information. We learn new things, based on new data. And we
want to give our patients the best possible care, based on new
findings and improvements in science.
At a time when you were prompting the ``Proximal Origin''
paper, whose focus was to, quote, ``disprove the lab leak
theory,'' end quote, I was in lockdown, researching with
another physician in Ohio to try and understand the pathology,
the affected physiology, and what treatments worked, and even
how to diagnose COVID before we had specific COVID tests. My
friend even made a phone call to an infectious disease doctor
in China, looking for help.
As well during that time, we discovered the Baric-Shi 2015
article on creating a chimera using gain-of-function-type
technology.
While policy decisions should've been based on scientific
data, some, frankly, were not. The burdensome six-foot social
distancing rule did not have sufficient scientific report. In
your words, it just sort of appeared. Distancing made sense,
but the six feet was arbitrary. Even Dr. Collins said he still
hasn't seen any empirical evidence to support the six-foot
rule--a rule that shut down schools and businesses, a rule that
will have negative ramifications for decades.
As the pandemic wore on, more mandates also just sort of
appeared, but the American public didn't get to see the
scientific data to support these mandates.
Americans were aggressively bullied, shamed, and silenced
for merely questioning or debating issues such as social
distancing, masks, vaccines, or the origins of COVID.
Many Americans were willing to comply with the 15 days to
slow the spread and understood the necessity of banning travel
from certain countries in an attempt to slow down the virus,
but many Americans became very frustrated when components of
those 15 days stretched into years.
And it should not have been the case that Americans were
forced to comply with oppressive mandates when those who chose
to illegally cross our southern border were not, or when
Governor Newsom, or Governor Whitmer, were throwing parties at
nice restaurants. Not a good look. Americans do not hate
science, but Americans know hypocrisy when they see it.
Dr. Fauci, under your leadership, the United States health
agencies adopted specific policy aims as a single dogmatic
truth, without the benefit of debate, out of a desire for a
single narrative.
Dr. Fauci, you once said, ``If you disagree with me, you
disagree with science.'' Science doesn't belong to any one
person. I was never taught that science turns a blind eye to
hypotheses. They serve to be proven or disproven, and done so
with irrefutable facts, if able.
It was interesting that you chose not to pursue an
aggressive and transparent scientific investigation of both
natural spillover and lab leak. We have been investigating both
hypotheses.
You testified before the Select Subcommittee in your
transcribed interview that the lab leak theory was not a
conspiracy theory. You embraced the ``Proximal Origin''
letter--it wasn't necessarily a full peer-reviewed research
paper--but you embraced ``Proximal Origin'' letter, and you
shared it with the public from the White House lawn.
You stated during your transcribed interview that you did
not review published articles that considered a potential lab
leak of COVID-19. This is especially concerning if the works in
question were conducted at a more risky and less safe BSL-2
lab.
Nevertheless, any dissent from your chosen scientific
position was immediately labeled as anti-science. Anything less
than complete submission to the mandates could cost you your
livelihood, your ability to go into public, your child's
ability to attend school. Families were thrown off planes and
shamed when their 2-year-olds struggled to wear a mask.
Children with disabilities lost access to therapy that they
and their families depended on. Students were out of the
classroom and told to attend school remotely, even when the
science clearly demonstrated it was safe for them to go back in
the classroom. This harmed low-income students the most. And
how were single-parent households supposed to teach their own
children and work at the same time?
Dr. Fauci, you oversaw one of the most invasive regimes of
domestic policy the U.S. has ever seen, including mask
mandates, school closures, coerced vaccinations, social
distancing of six feet, and more.
We've learned many lessons. Our early fear and confusion
was understandable. COVID-19 was clearly a novel virus.
Under your leadership, NIAID allowed disgraced characters
like Dr. Peter Daszak to use millions in taxpayer dollars to
conduct risky gain-of-function experiments in Wuhan, China. The
actions of EcoHealth and Dr. Daszak call into question the
integrity of NIAID's policies and procedures as a whole, as
well as your role, Dr. Fauci, as NIAID's Director. You did sign
off on his research grant.
We need to know why Dr. David Morens, your direct report
for more than two decades, assisted Dr. Daszak in avoiding
oversight and scrutiny and said that you were involved. Your
senior advisor and seemingly your chief of staff repeatedly
attempted to evade transparency laws to shield information from
public scrutiny.
We have senior officials from your office, in their own
writing, discussing breaking Federal law, deleting official
records, and sharing private government information with grant
recipients. The office you directed and those serving under
your leadership chose to flout the law and bragged about it.
Why did you allow your office to be unaccountable to the
American people? You were the highest paid person in the
government. This makes you more accountable to the people, not
less.
Dr. Fauci, whether intentional or not, you became so
powerful that any disagreements the public had with you were
forbidden and censored on social and most legacy media, time
and time again. This is why so many Americans became so angry--
because this was fundamentally un-American.
If I make a mistake, I answer to the people of Ohio who
elected me and to my own conscience. When you and your agency
made mistakes, Dr. Fauci, what happened?
We all need to be held accountable. Sometimes it's as
simple as saying, ``We were wrong.''
You took the position that you presented the science. Your
words came across to so many people as final and as infallible
in matters pertaining to the pandemic. But such rigid demands
of an ideologically diverse people like Americans shattered
public trust in American health institutions. ``Because I said
so'' has never been good enough for Americans, and it never
will be.
It's built into the American spirit: We have a thirst for
information, a drive for advancement. Americans were first in
flight. We landed on the Moon. We've cured diseases. You've
been part of that. And we've made enumerable discoveries and
explorations that forever changed humanity.
Americans do not want to be indoctrinated; they want to be
educated. And they prefer to make their health decisions in
conjunction with the doctor that they know and trust.
To be successful, our Federal public health institutions
must be accountable to the people again. To be successful, our
health organizations must do what they are supposed to do:
protect Americans.
I look forward to a robust and on-topic discussion. I thank
you.
I would now like to recognize Ranking Member Ruiz for the
purpose of making an opening statement.
Dr. Ruiz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Hello, Dr. Fauci, and thank you for being here.
When I was named Ranking Member of the Select Subcommittee
last February, I made a commitment to follow the facts in
objectively analyzing the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic. I
made a promise to keep an open mind about how the pandemic
started, because understanding whether the novel coronavirus
emerged from a lab or from nature is essential to better
preventing and preparing for future public health threats and
to better protecting the American people.
And as the origins of the novel coronavirus still remain
inconclusive, I stand by these commitments to this day.
But nearly a year and a half into House Republicans'
extreme and chaotic majority, I believe we need to take stock
of what the Select Subcommittee has accomplished and whether it
has meaningfully improved our preparedness for the next public
health threat in our Nation.
Under the guise of investigating the pandemic's origins,
House Republicans have abdicated their responsibility to
objectively examine how COVID-19 came to be and, instead,
weaponized concern about a lab-related origin to fuel sentiment
against our Nation's scientists and public health officials for
partisan gain.
They have done so with one particular public health
official in mind: Dr. Anthony Fauci. And they have done so in
an effort to deflect blame and anguish for the damage the
pandemic inflicted on our society away from the former
President, whose stumbling pandemic response, by some
estimates, led to 400,000 unnecessary COVID-19 deaths, and onto
Dr. Fauci, who worked tirelessly to stem the crisis.
Over the past 15 months, the Select Subcommittee has pored
over more than 425,000 pages of documents provided to us by
government agencies, universities, and private citizens. We
have conducted more than 100 hours of closed-door interviews
with 20 current and former Federal officials and scientists.
And what we have found is the following: Dr. Fauci did not
fund research through the EcoHealth Alliance grant that caused
the COVID-19 pandemic. Dr. Fauci did not lie about gain-of-
function research in Wuhan, China. And Dr. Fauci did not
orchestrate a campaign to suppress the lab leak theory.
After 15 months, the Select Subcommittee still does not
possess a shred of evidence to substantiate these extreme
allegations that Republicans have levied against Dr. Fauci for
nearly 4 years.
Now, I want to make something very clear. In the past
month, the Select Subcommittee has held hearings where we have
examined various serious issues of misconduct.
In following the facts, Select Subcommittee Democrats
uncovered troubling misconduct by Dr. Peter Daszak and
EcoHealth Alliance, including potential efforts to mislead the
Federal Government about the nature of its work through the
evasion of reporting and transparency requirements.
And less than 2 weeks ago, we heard from Dr. David Morens
about his flagrant violation of the Freedom of Information
Act's transparency requirements and the potential destruction
of Federal records.
Both Dr. Daszak and Dr. Morens deserve to be held
accountable for betraying the public's trust. To hold them
accountable is not anti-science; it is the defense of our
Federal scientific and research institutions' decades-long
legacy of advancing the scientific enterprise to safeguard
human health.
But baselessly suggesting, without evidence, that these
discrete instances of misconduct are equivalent to our Nation's
scientists and public health officials causing the COVID-19
pandemic, which has killed more than 1 million Americans and
inflicted an immeasurable toll on our society, is also a
betrayal of the public's trust, which each of us are stewards
of as elected Members of this body.
Today's hearing comes at a pivotal moment for our Nation's
public health. With the darkest days of the COVID-19 pandemic
behind us, thanks to the Biden administration's leadership, we
are now faced with a crisis of declining confidence in the very
science and public health interventions that lifted our society
from one of the most challenging periods in our Nation's
history.
And as we look to the future, we find ourselves at a fork
in the road: We can go down the path of fueling mistrust in the
interventions that saved us, like vaccines, masking, and social
distancing, and the public health officials, like Dr. Fauci,
who worked tirelessly and with extremely limited and evolving
information about a novel virus to save lives during one of the
greatest crises of our time, or we can work constructively on
the forward-looking policies and solutions that we know are
necessary to prevent and better prepare us for the public
health threats that are yet to come.
Since my first day as Ranking Member, I set out to take the
latter path--the path of putting people over politics and
prioritizing solutions to better prepare us for the next
pandemic. And it has been my hope that Republicans would join
Democrats in the forward-looking work that will better protect
our constituents.
Strengthening oversight of potentially risky research,
domestically and abroad, is an essential part of this
conversation. And so is closing pathways for zoonotic transfers
of viruses in nature and investing in our public health
infrastructure to ensure that when future viruses arrive, we
are ready.
When Democrats were in the majority, we made important
strides in these objectives by passing the Consolidated
Appropriations Act of 2023, which strengthened the protections
against undue influence in our biomedical research, improved
training and transparency for the handling of select agents,
paved the way for the interagency collaboration to fortify
zoonotic disease prevention, invested in our infectious disease
work force, and enhanced our supply chain preparedness and
ability to rapidly develop and deploy medical countermeasures.
And ahead of today's hearing, more than 90 health and
medical organizations, including the American Public Health
Association, the American College of Physicians, the American
Academy of Family Physicians, the Infectious Disease Society of
America, the Association of State and Territorial Health
Officials, and the National Association of County and City
Health Officials, wrote to the Select Subcommittee, urging us
to, quote, ``stand against efforts to weaken the ability of the
Nation's public health agencies to protect the Nation's
health'' and to take additional action to fortify our Nation's
public health work force and infrastructure.
I seek unanimous consent to enter this letter into the
hearing record.
Dr. Wenstrup. Without objection.
Dr. Ruiz. As we sit here today, I have not lost hope that
in the remaining months of the Select Subcommittee we can work
together to build on this legacy and make objectively examining
the origins of the novel coronavirus a part of this forward-
looking work. I stand by my commitments I mentioned earlier to
take a serious, balanced look at all possibilities for the
origins of the COVID-19 pandemic. And I stand ready to work
with every Member of the Select Subcommittee on this critically
important mission so that we can save future lives.
And I believe I still have some time left, so, at that, I
would like to recognize Mr. Raskin with the remaining time.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Dr. Ruiz.
Public health is a matter of urgent and comprehensive
public concern.
Under Donald Trump, when the COVID-19 pandemic began and
spun out of control, we came close to becoming a failed state,
which the political scientists define as a state that cannot
deliver the basic goods of existence to its people.
According to Dr. Deborah Birx, Donald Trump's own COVID-19
advisor, America unnecessarily lost hundreds of thousands of
people because of the recklessness and indifference of Donald
Trump and his administration.
Now the people who brought you the political big lie,
claiming absurdly that Trump won the 2020 election, which he
lost by more than 7 million votes, now bring you the medical
big lie, making the outlandish claim that Dr. Fauci was
responsible for causing COVID-19.
Using the Select Subcommittee as a platform for this
disinformation, House Republicans now find themselves in the
familiar position where their own investigation debunks their
runaway political rhetoric.
Just like the broader Committee's impeachment drive proved
only that there were no Presidential crimes, much less high
crimes and misdemeanors, attributable to Joe Biden, the
investigation of Dr. Fauci shows he is an honorable public
servant who has devoted his entire career to the public health
and the public interest and he is not a comic book super-
villain.
He did not fund research to create the COVID-19 pandemic.
He did not lie to Congress about gain-of-function research in
Wuhan. And he did not organize a lab leak suppression campaign.
Today, Dr. Fauci's testimony, along with the thousands of
pages of documents and dozens of closed-door testimony provided
to House Republicans as part of the COVID origins
investigation, will dispel these hysterical claims and reveal
that the people bowing down to a twice-impeached convicted
felon who told Americans to inject themselves with bleach now
want you to believe not only a big political lie but a big
medical lie too.
I hope that this Committee will be able to correct all of
the propaganda and disinformation today and we will be able to
actually return to what the good Ranking Member has said, which
is an authentic investigation of the origins of the pandemic.
And I will yield back to the gentleman.
Dr. Ruiz. And I yield back.
Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize Mr. Griffith for a 3-minute
statement.
Mr. Griffith. Good morning. I want to again thank the
leadership of this Committee for including the Energy and
Commerce Committee in this hearing.
Dr. Fauci, the recent revelations that Dr. Morens, a senior
advisor, and your chief of staff, Greg Folkers, routinely
evaded Federal records laws, including the Freedom of
Information Act, or FOIA--and those were a shock. That was a
shock. I've been doing oversight now for over 14 years, or
right at 14 years, and the scale of the effort to evade FOIA by
some at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
Diseases, or NIAID, has surprised even me.
These men were among your most senior and trusted staff at
an agency you led for nearly 40 years. They worked for you for
decades. Your calendars show that you met with them multiple
times a week during the pandemic. You co-authored dozens of
papers with Dr. Morens. He directly implicates you. Even the
head of the NIAID FOIA office was apparently in on some of this
conspiracy.
And I know that my colleagues on the other side love to say
we're always talking conspiracy, but when the facts lead you
there--whether you knew about it or not, when the facts lead
you to that your agency was involved in some form of a
conspiracy related to COVID origins, we have to follow those
facts. It is hard to believe that all of this occurred without
your knowledge and/or approval.
In civil law, when one party has destroyed or refuses to
produce evidence that's within its possession, a jury is
allowed to draw an adverse inference, that the information
destroyed or not produced was unfavorable.
Therefore, until we get a full accounting of all of the
communications among NIAID's leadership, it's reasonable for us
to assume that missing information would mirror the private
doubts expressed by so many virologists and other scientists
related to your public positions.
While telling the public, the media, and Congress that
COVID-19 almost certainly emerged from nature, experts you
convened as a team privately worried that a research-related
incident was a possible, if not the probable, origin of the
virus.
Dr. Kristian Andersen even said in February 2020, quote,
``I think the main thing still in my mind is that the lab
escape version of this is so friggin' likely to have happened
because they were already doing this type of work and molecular
data is fully consistent with that scenario.''
Further, while you and other NIAID officials were assuring
us that the virus could not have come from the Wuhan Institute
of Virology, NIAID didn't actually have an idea as to what the
full scope of Wuhan's coronavirus research was or even the
trajectory of its gain-of-function research. Now, that may be
because EcoHealth wasn't giving you the reports, I grant that.
But this joint investigation has shown just how little
oversight NIAID does of risky experiments involving potential
pandemic pathogens.
NIAID set up a system designed to green-light potentially
risky experiments while avoiding HHS Department-level review.
The same program officers who act as advocates for their
scientific area are responsible for assessing whether an
experiment is too dangerous. That creates a conflict of
interest.
I think that means that when we're taking--when an agency
is taking the final approval, we ought to take that final
approval away from the agencies like NIAID that fund it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize Ms. Castor for a 3-minute
statement, and I will oblige you an extra 30 seconds as well.
Ms. Castor. Well, thank you, Dr. Fauci, for your appearance
today and for your decades of service to our country.
During your 39 years at the helm of America's leading
health research institute, the National Institute of Allergy
and Infectious Diseases, you tackled some of the most serious
health threats, including AIDS, Zika, Ebola, SARS-CoV-1, and
COVID-19. Your leadership and service to Republican and
Democratic administrations and all Americans saved countless
lives and resources. We owe you a debt of gratitude.
While the evidence to date points to COVID-19 having
originated from an animal market in China, the Chinese
Communist Party has blocked access to important information
that could help confirm the origin of the virus.
This Committee should be doing more to fight for those
answers but, instead, has wasted significant time and taxpayer
money fueling conspiracy theories and ignoring the importance
of preparing for the next deadly pandemic.
Some GOP Members falsely claimed you secretly broke into
CIA headquarters and coerced analysts. Others claimed that you
committed crimes.
America's adversaries, like China, Russia, and Iran, love
it when Americans are divided and distracted. It provided
fertile ground for the spread of misinformation about COVID-19
by our adversaries.
And, unfortunately, fringe, far-right conspiracy theories
have permeated even mainstream media outlets, and some
Republican Members of Congress have played along.
I regret that many of the conspiracies have smeared you,
Dr. Fauci, as you and our top scientists did everything to keep
Americans safe during the deadly days of COVID-19.
Over 1.1 million Americans lost their lives to COVID-19,
and today it's still more deadly than the flu.
As we learned from Zika and Ebola, the ways viruses are
transmitted are not obvious at first, and the development of
treatments and vaccines takes time.
What you and your team did to speed the development of the
safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine was remarkable. That fast
timeline was only possible due to years of Federal investment
in the National Institutes of Health and support for medical
research in the United States.
So one of the lessons learned from the pandemic is the need
to continue to invest in medical health research in the U.S.--
for cancer, for heart disease, for diabetes, but also to
prepare for the next pandemic. We must learn from the past so
that we can keep Americans safe.
That's why Democrats have worked hard to update America's
pandemic preparedness law, the Pandemic and All Hazards
Preparedness Act, to shore up public health and make us more
prepared to tackle the next pandemic threat.
It's not too late for Republicans to join us and turn the
least productive Congress in modern history into one where we
are all focused on solutions for the American people to make
our country safer and stronger.
Democrats were able to prevent harmful rollbacks in medical
research last year, and I urge my GOP colleagues to join us and
move away from threatening and undermining American medical
research at every turn.
Public health threats are constantly emerging. In the past
month alone, we have been tracking new strains and variants of
H5N1, Mpox, and SARS-CoV-2.
Dr. Fauci, I'm sorry for the personal attacks you have
received and may have to deal with today. But while you are
here, I want you to know that the vast majority of Americans
appreciate your work over the years.
I look forward to continuing to learn from you, to learn
everything possible about how we can take the pandemic lessons
learned and put them to use to help keep our communities safe
and healthy.
Thank you, and I yield back my time.
Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you.
Our witness today is Dr. Anthony Fauci. Dr. Fauci was the
Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
Diseases from 1984 to 2022 and Chief Medical Advisor to
President Joe Biden from 2021 to 2022.
Pursuant to Committee on Oversight and Accountability rule
9(g), the witness will please stand and raise his right hand.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you
are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
Dr. Fauci. I do.
Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you.
Let the record show that the witness answered in the
affirmative.
The Select Subcommittee certainly appreciates you for being
here today, and we look forward to your testimony.
Let me remind the witness that we have read your written
statement, and it will appear in full in the hearing record. As
requested, please limit your oral statement to 6 minutes.
As a reminder, please press the button on the microphone in
front of you so that it is on, and the Members can hear you.
When you begin to speak, the light in front of you will turn
green. After 5 minutes, the light will turn yellow. And when
the red light comes on, your 6 minutes has expired, and we
would ask that you please wrap up.
I now recognize Dr. Fauci to give an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF ANTHONY FAUCI, M.D.,
FORMER DIRECTOR
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY
AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Dr. Fauci. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Ruiz, Members of
the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to testify.
Prior to my retirement from Federal service in December
2022, I had been at the NIH for 54 years and Director of NIAID
for more than 38 years. In those posts, I was deeply involved
in the scientific and public health response to several
infectious diseases outbreaks, including HIV/AIDS, pandemic,
flu, Ebola, and Zika. And so, under my leadership, we were well
positioned to respond to COVID-19.
For at least two decades prior to the COVID outbreak, we at
NIAID had invested billions of dollars in research on mRNA
technology and immunogen design, both of which led to the swift
development of COVID vaccines. Less than 11 months after the
identification of this new virus, safe and highly effective
vaccines were widely available--an unprecedented accomplishment
in the history of vaccinology that saved tens of millions of
lives worldwide.
I will now use my remaining time to directly address
certain issues that have been seriously distorted concerning
me.
The first issue concerns my actions regarding the
possibility that SARS-CoV-2 might've resulted from a lab leak.
On January 31, 2020, I was informed through phone calls
with Jeremy Farrar, then-director of the Wellcome Trust in the
U.K., and then with Kristian Andersen, a highly regarded
scientist at Scripps Research Institute, that they and Eddie
Holmes, a world-class evolutionary biologist from Australia,
were concerned that the genomic sequence of SARS-CoV-2
suggested that the virus could've been manipulated in a lab.
I participated in a conference call the next day with about
a dozen international virologists to discuss this possibility
versus a spillover from an animal reservoir. The discussion was
lively, with arguments for both possibilities. Two participants
have testified before this Subcommittee that I did not try to
steer the discussion in any direction.
It was decided that several participants would more
carefully examine the genomic sequence. After this further
examination, several who at first were concerned about lab
manipulation became convinced that the virus was not
deliberately manipulated.
They concluded that the most likely scenario was a
spillover from an animal reservoir, although they still kept an
open mind. They appropriately published their opinion in the
peer-reviewed literature.
The accusation being circulated--that I influenced these
scientists to change their minds by bribing them with millions
of dollars in grant money--is absolutely false and simply
preposterous. I had no input into the content of the published
paper.
The second issue is a false accusation that I tried to
cover up the possibility that the virus originated from a lab.
In fact, the truth is exactly the opposite.
I now quote from an email that I sent to Professor Farrar
on February 1, 2020.
Quote, ``Jeremy, I just got off the phone with Kristian
Andersen, and he related to me his concern about the furin site
mutation in the spike protein of the virus. I told him that as
soon as possible he and Eddie Holmes should get a group of
evolutionary biologists together to carefully examine the data
to determine if his concerns are validated and they should
report it to the appropriate authorities. I would imagine that
in the USA this would be the FBI and in the U.K. it would be
MI5. In the meantime, I will alert my U.S. Government official
colleagues of my conversation with you and Kristian and
determine what further investigation they recommend. Let us
stay in touch. Best regards, Tony,'' unquote.
It is inconceivable that anyone who reads this email could
conclude that I was trying to cover up the possibility of a lab
leak. I have always kept an open mind to the different
possibilities.
Another issue is that of Dr. David Morens, who has the
title of Senior Advisor to the NIAID Director and who recently
began--has been investigated for conduct unbecoming a
government official. Naturally, given his title, a connection
is made to me.
With respect to his recent testimony before this
Subcommittee, I knew nothing of Dr. Morens's actions regarding
Dr. Daszak, EcoHealth, or his emails.
It is important to point out for the record that, despite
his title and even though he was helpful to me in writing
scientific papers, Dr. Morens was not an advisor to me on
Institute policy or other substantive issues.
At NIAID, we had weekly Executive Committee meetings of the
Institute leadership and daily morning meetings of my immediate
staff, and, to the best of my recollection, he attended neither
of these. Furthermore, his office is located in a different
building from that of the NIAID Director.
Finally, in a Majority Staff memorandum of May 22, 2024,
there is this statement: Quote, ``Dr. Fauci may have conducted
official business via personal email,'' unquote.
Let me state for the record that, to the best of my
knowledge, I have never conducted official business using my
personal email.
Thank you for listening. I would be happy to address these
and any other issues in the discussion period.
Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you.
I now recognize myself for as much time as I may consume
for questions, with equal time being afforded to the Ranking
Member.
Dr. Fauci, on February 1, 2020, you were on a call with Dr.
Farrar, Dr. Collins, and other scientists regarding the
potential that COVID-19 was engineered.
Was CDC Director Redfield on that call?
Dr. Fauci. No, he was not.
Dr. Wenstrup. OK.
Dr. Fauci, you've said that you had to rely on virologists
and evolutionary biologists regarding origins because you are
not an expert.
Is Dr. Redfield a virologist?
Dr. Fauci. I believe he is.
Dr. Wenstrup. He is.
Prior to the pandemic, NIAID awarded at least three grants
via the New York Blood Center to Dr. Zhou Yusen.
Are you aware of these?
Dr. Fauci. I'm sorry? To Dr.----
Dr. Wenstrup. Yusen Zhou. Are you aware of those grants?
Dr. Fauci. I'm sorry. The name of the person?
Dr. Wenstrup. Dr. Yusen Zhou.
Dr. Fauci. [Inaudible.]
Dr. Wenstrup. Your microphone is not on, Doctor.
Dr. Fauci. Excuse me?
Dr. Wenstrup. Your microphone is not on.
Dr. Fauci. I'm not familiar with that name.
Dr. Wenstrup. OK. Well, NIAID awarded at least three grants
via the New York Blood Center to that scientist.
He was a high-ranking Chinese PLA official and director of
a lab at the Chinese Academy of Military Medical Sciences.
Does it concern you if U.S. taxpayer dollars are funding
someone like this?
Dr. Fauci. Grants that are submitted to the NIAID go
through a very----
Dr. Wenstrup. Does it concern you--I'm not talking about
the process right now.
Dr. Fauci. Well, I don't know anything----
Dr. Wenstrup. Does it concern you that U.S. taxpayer
dollars would be going to someone who's a high-ranking Chinese
PLA official? Yes or no?
Dr. Fauci. I would have to know more about that, Mr.
Chairman----
Dr. Wenstrup. OK.
Dr. Fauci [continuing]. Because I don't even----
Dr. Wenstrup. Well, it concerns me.
Dr. Fauci [continuing]. Know the person you're talking
about.
Dr. Wenstrup. Are you or were you ever aware that the U.S.
State Department in 2005 issued warnings that the Chinese
Government was working on the creation of bioweapons?
Dr. Fauci. I was not aware of that.
Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you.
Did you ever discuss the Chinese bioweapons program with
anyone in the intelligence community?
Dr. Fauci. I have never discussed the Chinese bioweapons
program, to my knowledge, with anybody.
Dr. Wenstrup. Before, during, or after the COVID-19
pandemic, did you speak to the FBI, CIA, DIA, or any U.S.
intelligence agency concerning viral research of any kind?
Dr. Fauci. What timeframe are you talking about, sir?
Because----
Dr. Wenstrup. I said, before, during, or after the COVID-19
pandemic, did you speak to the FBI, CIA, DIA, or any U.S.
intelligence agency concerning viral research of any kind?
Dr. Fauci. I can't give you the specifics of it, but back
in the time of the anthrax attacks, we certainly had a number
of briefings by agencies that were intelligence agencies--I
don't remember who they were; it could've been any of the above
that you mentioned--about the possibility that there were
bioweapons that had fallen into the hands of bad actors, i.e.,
terrorists, that might have been used potentially as a
bioterror attack.
That was at a time when we had thought that the anthrax----
Dr. Wenstrup. So, I appreciate--I appreciate that. I
appreciate your expertise in that. But----
Dr. Fauci. Well, that's the answer.
Dr. Wenstrup. But did you at any time talk to--concerning
viral research of any kind?
Dr. Fauci. Again I say that, at the time that there was
concern about the fact that al-Qaida may have been using or
potentially using bioweapons, we had discussions with
intelligence agencies about that----
Dr. Wenstrup. Sure.
Dr. Fauci [continuing]. Possibility.
Dr. Wenstrup. But not as related to, say, COVID-19?
Dr. Fauci. Not, to my knowledge----
Dr. Wenstrup. OK.
Dr. Fauci [continuing]. About COVID--now, well, let me just
make sure we get the facts.
After the investigations began about COVID, I was briefed
by intelligence agencies about possibilities of there being
activities going on in different laboratories. I was briefed by
intelligence----
Dr. Wenstrup. Yes.
Dr. Fauci [continuing]. Agencies.
Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you.
Science is always open to debate, and that's a benefit. The
science supported restricting travel from certain countries at
the beginning of the pandemic, and after these orders went into
effect, the President was called racist and xenophobic.
Dr. Fauci, you said in your transcribed interview that you
supported those orders. Dr. Fauci, were those orders racist and
xenophobic?
Dr. Fauci. No, they were not.
Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you.
The vaccine saved millions of lives, and I want to thank
you for your support and engagement on that.
However, despite statements to the contrary, it did not
stop transmission of the virus.
Did the COVID vaccine stop transmission of the virus?
Dr. Fauci. That is a complicated issue, because, in the
beginning, the first iteration of the vaccines did have an
effect--not 100 percent, not a high effect--they did prevent
infection and, subsequently, obviously, transmission.
However, it's important to point out, something that we did
not know early on that became evident as the months went by is
that the durability of protection against infection, and hence,
transmission was relatively limited, whereas the duration of
protection against severe disease, hospitalization, and deaths
was more prolonged.
We did not know that in the beginning. In the beginning, it
was felt that, in fact, it did prevent infection and, thus,
transmission, but that was proven, as time went by, to not be a
durable effect.
Dr. Wenstrup. Yes, it definitely had positive effect for
many people, especially those that were vulnerable. But we knew
from the trials that people that got vaccinated still were
subject to getting COVID.
So, was the COVID vaccine 100 percent effective?
Dr. Fauci. I don't believe any vaccine is 100 percent
effective.
Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize the Ranking Member, Dr. Ruiz
from California, for 5 minutes of questions.
Dr. Ruiz. Thank you.
Over the past year and a half, my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle have relentlessly vilified Dr. Fauci under
the guise of investigating the origins of the COVID-19
pandemic.
But after reviewing nearly half a million pages of
documents, conducting 20 closed-door interviews, and receiving
testimony from nearly a dozen witnesses brought before the
Select Subcommittee for public hearings, they have come up
empty-handed for evidence of their extreme allegations that Dr.
Fauci lied about gain-of-function research at the Wuhan
Institute of Virology and caused the COVID-19 pandemic.
So, I'd like to address both of the Republican claims in
turn.
Throughout the Majority's investigation, the Select
Subcommittee has heard three definitions for ``gain-of-
function'' research.
Of the three, Republicans have relied heavily on an overly
broad definition that has no regulatory significance. Let me
repeat that: no regulatory significance. In fact, their
definition is so broad that it would include the manufacture of
flu vaccines as gain-of-function.
Because it is so broad, the National Institutes of Health
does not use that definition when assessing whether proposed
research is or is not, quote/unquote, ``gain-of-function''
research. For those assessments, NIH has instead appropriately
used the definitions provided in regulations.
And, to be clear, the Select Subcommittee has been reminded
by witnesses after witness that NIH at all times referred to
regulations for the definition of ``gain-of-function'' research
and not to a nebulous, expansive definition with no legal
bearing that is so broad it could apply to, again, the
manufacturing of flu vaccines.
Dr. Fauci, according to the regulatory definitions, for
example, in P3CO, that NIH applied to proposed research, did
NIH ever fund gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China?
Dr. Fauci. As you said, Congressman Ruiz, according to the
regulatory and operative definition of P3CO, the NIH did not
fund gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of
Virology.
Dr. Ruiz. Thank you. And despite my Republican colleagues'
effort to fit a square peg into a round hole, it seems to me
that you've been consistent on this issue from the beginning of
the pandemic. And they know this, but they still use the term
``gain-of-function'' loosely.
And with respect to NIAID's staff assessments of whether
proposed research was or was not gain-of-function research,
were you personally involved in those assessments, or were
those assessments made several levels removed from you and by
subject-matter experts?
Dr. Fauci. Those assessments were done by highly qualified
and experienced program people several levels below me.
Dr. Ruiz. Thank you.
And your public statements that NIH did not fund gain-of-
function research in Wuhan reflected the assessments made by
NIAID subject-matter experts applying a definition found in the
regulation known as the P3CO framework.
Is that correct?
Dr. Fauci. That is correct.
Dr. Ruiz. Thank you. And thank you for clarifying that.
In fact, all of that is abundantly clear in your 2021
Senate testimony on this matter. When asked by the Senate about
gain-of-function research, you testified, quote, ``That is why
we have committees, we have a P3CO committee.''
You also testified in 2021, quote, ``'Gain-of-function' is
a very nebulous term. We have spent--not us, but outside
bodies--a considerable amount of effort to give a more precise
definition to the type of research that is of concern that
might lead to a dangerous situation. You are aware of that.
That is called P3CO.''
That was back in 2021. At the time of your May 2021
testimony, P3CO had been the operative definition of gain-of-
function research for several years, correct?
Dr. Fauci. That is correct.
Dr. Ruiz. So I will note that, at your transcribed
interview in January, the Majority conceded that NIH did not
fund research in Wuhan that met the criteria of P3CO.
I encourage the audience to read the transcript of that
interview so you can evaluate the merit of the Majority's
claims for yourselves.
So, now, if we could quickly turn to the irresponsible and
false accusation that you created SARS-CoV-2, the virus
responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic.
So this accusation centers on a grant NIAID awarded to
EcoHealth Alliance, with a sub-award to the Wuhan Institute of
Virology. And we have been entertained earlier about the
suggestion that this funding could've possibly gone to a
bioweapons research capacity as well.
So, I want to be clear: No evidence provided to the Select
Subcommittee demonstrates that the work performed under NIH
funding, including at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, led to
the creation of SARS-CoV-2.
The Majority has failed to demonstrate or even credibly
suggest that any of the viruses studied under the grant could
even possibly have been the progenitor virus.
Dr. Fauci, could you briefly explain why none of the
viruses studied under the EcoHealth Alliance grant could've
been the progenitor virus of the SARS-CoV-2?
Dr. Fauci. When you're talking about the evolution of a
virus from one to another, the viruses that were studied under
the sub-award to the Wuhan Institute that have been reported in
progress reports and the literature and published papers, those
viruses were phylogenetically so far removed from SARS-CoV-2
that it is molecularly impossible for those viruses to have
evolved or been made into SARS-CoV-2.
It's just a virological fact. They were so far removed that
it could not possibly be a progenitor of SARS-CoV-2.
Dr. Ruiz. So I want to be very clear on this point: that
the funding and the research conducted by EcoHealth Alliance
did not produce SARS-CoV-2.
That doesn't negate that this lab could've--another lab
could've been doing research and it could've leaked from a lab.
That still is a possibility. But it was not directly--or it was
not funded by NIAID or NIH.
And, just for the record, this information was provided by
NIH to then-Oversight Ranking Member James Comer nearly 3 years
ago, in October 2021.
So, despite the clear evidence that Dr. Fauci and his
agency did not fund gain-of-function research under the P3CO
regulatory definition and that the viruses studied under the
federally funded EcoHealth Alliance grant could have not have
been the progenitor virus for SARS-CoV-2, Republicans have
levied these unsubstantiated allegations, knowing very well
that they are not true. And they have done so to push their
extreme, partisan narrative that Dr. Fauci and our Nation's
public health officials caused the COVID-19 pandemic.
Dr. Wenstrup. Do you yield back?
Dr. Ruiz. Yep.
Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize the Chairman of the Full
Committee, Mr. Comer from Kentucky, for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Comer. Thank you.
Dr. Fauci, in your opening statement, you attempt to
distance yourself from your previous senior advisor, Dr.
Morens. You say that Dr. Morens' title was just made up, that
he was not an advisor to you, and that his office was in a
different building.
So, Dr. Fauci, did Dr. Morens report directly to you?
Dr. Fauci. Actually, I'm not sure exactly what the on-paper
report is. He is Senior Advisor to the Director, but it is
conceivable--we can get that information--he might have
reported through someone lower, like my deputy.
Mr. Comer. So your senior advisor did not report directly
to you?
Dr. Fauci. There were very few people who report directly
to me.
Mr. Comer. OK.
Dr. Morens testified that he could walk into your office
anytime he wanted to. Is that true?
Dr. Fauci. No. That's not true. You don't just walk into
the office. I mean, he's there. I mean, it's conceivable that
he----
Mr. Comer. Did he ever walk into your office?
Dr. Fauci. I would say he did occasionally, but the idea--
can I finish the answer to you, sir?
Mr. Comer. No, because I've got a lot of questions.
Dr. Fauci. OK.
Mr. Comer. Dr. Fauci, did you ever delete an official
record?
Dr. Fauci. No.
Mr. Comer. Dr. Fauci, did you ever conduct official
business via email?
Dr. Fauci. To the best of my recollection and knowledge, I
have never conducted official business via my private email.
Mr. Comer. So, there's a troubling pattern of behavior from
your inner circle, not just Dr. Morens but also your chief of
staff, Mr. Folkers.
Do you agree that it violates NIAID policy to use personal
email for official purposes?
Dr. Fauci. The Dr. Morens issue that was discussed by this
Committee violates NIH policy, yes.
Mr. Comer. But does using official email--using a personal
email for official business, does that violate policy?
Dr. Fauci. Using a personal email for official business
violates NIH policy.
Mr. Comer. Does it violate NAID--NAI--NA--NIAID policy to
delete records to intentionally avoid FOIA?
Dr. Fauci. Yes.
Mr. Comer. OK.
On April 28, 2020, Dr. Morens edited an EcoHealth press
release regarding the grant termination.
Does that violate policy?
Dr. Fauci. That was inappropriate, for him to be doing that
for a grantee, as a conflict of interest, among other things.
Mr. Comer. So, on March 29, 2021, Dr. Morens edited a
letter that Dr. Daszak was sending to NIH.
Does that violate policy?
Dr. Fauci. Yes, it does.
Mr. Comer. On October 25, 2021, Dr. Morens provided Dr.
Daszak with advice regarding how to mislead NIH on EcoHealth's
late progress report.
Does that violate policy?
Dr. Fauci. That was wrong and inappropriate and violated
policy.
Mr. Comer. On December 7, 2021, Dr. Morens wrote to the
chair of EcoHealth's board of directors to, quote, ``put in a
word,'' end quote, for Dr. Daszak.
Does that violate policy?
Dr. Fauci. He should not have done that. That was wrong.
Mr. Comer. And that violates policy?
Dr. Fauci. Well, I'm not sure of a specific policy, but I
imagine it does violate policy. He should not have been doing
that.
Mr. Comer. In addition to all those actions, Dr. Morens
wrote to Dr. Daszak, quote, ``Peter, from Tony's numerous
recent comments to me, they are trying to protect you,'' end
quote.
Did you ever talk to Dr. Morens about Dr. Daszak or
EcoHealth Alliance?
Dr. Fauci. I can tell you, regarding what you said, I never
spoke about protecting him. I mean, obviously, we knew that
Daszak was a grantee, so I may have mentioned and discussed Dr.
Daszak because he's a grantee----
Mr. Comer. So he just made that up?
Dr. Fauci [continuing]. But I never spoke about----
Mr. Comer. You're testifying----
Dr. Fauci [continuing]. Protecting him.
Mr. Comer [continuing]. That he just made that up?
Dr. Fauci. Excuse me?
Mr. Comer. You're testifying that Dr. Morens just made that
up?
Dr. Fauci. I don't know where he got that, but that's not
true.
Mr. Comer. So, by this point, Dr. Fauci, when these emails
were written, you should've known that Dr. Daszak was more than
2 years late on a required progress report with his grant, Dr.
Daszak conducted an experiment that resulted in a novel virus
showing excess growth, that Dr. Daszak failed to report that
experiment, that Dr. Daszak was protecting the Wuhan lab in not
sharing its lab notebooks, and that Dr. Daszak failed to
disclose obvious conflicts of interest.
So why were you trying to protect Dr. Daszak and EcoHealth
Alliance?
Dr. Fauci. I repeat on the record, I have not tried to
protect Dr. Daszak. And that's No. 1.
No. 2, you said something that's not true, because I did
not know about the compliance issues until well after the fact,
when I was being briefed for going before a congressional
committee. So it wasn't that as these things were going on I
knew that he was withholding----
Mr. Comer. Well, did you know about Dr. Morens' close
relationship with Dr. Daszak?
Dr. Fauci. Dr. Morens made it clear that Dr. Daszak was his
friend. I did not engage in any of that interaction between
them.
Mr. Comer. And, just last, if I might, Mr. Chair, you
testified and answered the Chairman's question that you never
had any communication with the intelligence community
throughout all of COVID? Did I understand that correctly?
Dr. Fauci. No, you heard wrong. I said I did have
communication. I was briefed by the intelligence community
multiple times during the COVID issue.
Mr. Comer. And you never----
Dr. Wenstrup. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Comer. All right.
Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize the Ranking Member of the
Full Committee, Mr. Raskin from Maryland, for 5 minutes of
questions.
Mr. Raskin. OK.
First, Dr. Fauci, thank you for your testimony and your
extraordinary service to the American people.
Let me just start, was there anything you wanted to clear
up in that last exchange that--where you were interrupted?
Dr. Fauci. No, I think I made it clear. I mean, they were
talking about my knowing about a lack of compliance. That
became clear, Congressman Raskin, well after the fact. It isn't
as if they were not complying and I was not monitoring their
noncompliance. I didn't know about it until it was a done deal.
Mr. Raskin. Gotcha.
You've been a scientist and a scientific administrator for
54 years; is that right? More than a half-century?
Dr. Fauci. That's correct.
Mr. Raskin. And you were Director of the National Institute
of Allergy and Infectious Diseases for more than three decades.
Is that right?
Dr. Fauci. Thirty-eight-plus years.
Mr. Raskin. Thirty-eight years. OK.
And I assume that you've never been accused of trying to
start a disease before. Is that right?
Dr. Fauci. That is correct.
Mr. Raskin. You have devoted your life to fighting
infectious diseases for the American people. Is that right?
Dr. Fauci. That is correct.
Mr. Raskin. I want to go back to this email that you cited
in your opening, because I think it goes right to the heart of
this campaign of character assassination against you.
The claim was, essentially, that you tried to cover up the
possibility of there having been a laboratory leak--which, of
course, is perfectly possible, and if this Committee were doing
its job, we could actually be working to advance the
investigation of that. But they would rather assert that you
tried to cover up this possibility.
Here's the email that you sent on February 1 at 12:38 a.m.
to Kristian Andersen--with a copy to Kristian Andersen, but you
sent it to Professor Jeremy Farrar.
``Jeremy, I just got off the phone with Kristian Andersen,
and he related to me his concern about the furin site mutation
in the spike protein of the currently circulating 2019 nCoV. I
told him that as soon as possible he and Eddie Holmes should
get a group of evolutionary biologists together to carefully
examine the data to determine if his concerns are validated. He
should do this very quickly. And if everyone agrees with his
concern, they should report it to the appropriate authorities.
I would imagine that in the USA this would be the FBI and in
the U.K. it would be MI5. It would be important to quickly get
confirmation of the cause of his concern by experts in the
field of coronaviruses and evolutionary biology. In the
meantime, I will alert my U.S. Government official colleagues
of my conversation with you and Kristian and determine what
further investigation they recommend. Let us stay in touch.
Best regards, Tony.''
Was this the email where you were putatively trying to
cover up the possibility of a lab leak?
Dr. Fauci. Yes, Congressman Raskin. And that's the reason
why I mentioned in my opening statement that it is
inconceivable that anyone could get out of that that I was
covering anything up.
Mr. Raskin. Would you have any reason to cover up any new
scientific evidence relating to the origins of the COVID-19
virus?
Dr. Fauci. Absolutely not. And that's the reason why it was
important to get people together to discuss this in a
transparent way.
Mr. Raskin. Have you spent your whole life trying to
determine the causes of infectious diseases and then to stop
them to protect the American people?
Dr. Fauci. Yes, I have.
Mr. Raskin. Well, Dr. Fauci, I want to join my colleague
from Florida in apologizing to you that some of our colleagues
in the U.S. House of Representatives seem to want to drag your
name through the mud.
They're treating you, Dr. Fauci, like a convicted felon.
Actually, you probably wish they were treating you like a
convicted felon. They treat convicted felons with love and
admiration. Some of them blindly worship convicted felons.
Is there anything else you would like to say to the
American people about your service to America during the course
of the COVID-19 pandemic?
Dr. Fauci. My main job during the COVID pandemic was to
play a role with my team at the Vaccine Research Center to
develop a safe and effective vaccine. And we did that in an
unprecedented short period of time never seen before in the
annals of vaccinology.
As we all know, that vaccine and those vaccines have
resulted in saving of hundreds of thousands of lives in the
United States and millions of lives throughout the world.
Mr. Raskin. Well, you have fought AIDS and HIV, you have
fought COVID-19, and you are fearless in doing so.
Do you have any reason to be afraid of scientific evidence
or data or the truth?
Dr. Fauci. Not at all.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you.
I will yield back to you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize Mr. Griffith from Virginia
for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Griffith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It's good to see you, Dr. Fauci.
So take a deep breath, because my questions change
sometimes based on things that happen in the hearing, and I
want you to follow the bouncing ball with me. And there's no
``gotcha'' at the end of this; I'm just trying to figure this
out.
You told Dr. Ruiz in his questioning that it was absolutely
impossible for any of the viruses that you all were funding--I
get that--to--it was impossible for SARS-Covid-2, or SARS-CoV-
2, known as COVID-19, to have come from any of the work that
was being done at Wuhan.
At the same time, you told Mr. Comer that you didn't know
about the noncompliance by EcoHealth until after the fact and
when the virus is already out there, however it got there.
In light of the fact that part of that noncompliance was a
report where we uncovered--and I believe that Dr. Daszak was
untruthful to this Committee--in one of his reports to NIAID,
and, further, that in the two most sensitive years related to
the humanized mice experiments, we never got lab notebooks from
Wuhan Institute of Virology, can you understand, following the
bouncing ball, why some of us doubt that--not that you had some
hand in it or that you knew about it, but doubt that you can
state with certainty that it was impossible because they
might've been doing stuff you didn't know about? Isn't that
true?
Dr. Fauci. Actually, it's not incompatible at all,
Congressman, what I said.
The viruses that were studied, whether you did or did not
give a 5-year report on time, were still the viruses that
phylogenetically would be impossible to be the precursor of
SARS-CoV-2.
So it was completely compatible with the statement that I
made----
Mr. Griffith. And is that----
Dr. Fauci [continuing]. To Dr. Ruiz.
Mr. Griffith [continuing]. Is that accurate as well,
knowing that they had worked on adding a furin cleavage site to
MERS?
Dr. Fauci. But, sir, there's a difference between the
viruses that were funded by the NIH sub-award versus anything
else anybody else in China might be doing.
Mr. Griffith. Excellent.
Dr. Fauci. We were talking about, did the NIH----
Mr. Griffith. You were talking about what you funded.
Dr. Fauci. What we funded. And----
Mr. Griffith. All right.
Dr. Fauci [continuing]. That's the point.
Mr. Griffith. And that goes to my next question, because I
thought you might go there. And I appreciate that.
Dr. Fauci. Right.
Mr. Griffith. Because, in an off-the-record Member-level
briefing in February 2022, I asked about the likelihood in
nature of a SARS-related coronavirus to have a furin cleavage
site, particularly since it takes the 12-nucleotide change in
there to make it so--to make it as viral as this was going on.
And, at the time, you said to me pretty much what you just
said--and I want you to just confirm it for the record--``Well,
that wasn't us. If that was being done, it wasn't us.''
Dr. Fauci. Yes.
Mr. Griffith. And you confirmed that for the record, yes?
Dr. Fauci. No, what I'm----
Mr. Griffith. It wasn't you? It wasn't what you were
funding?
Dr. Fauci. What I'm saying is that I cannot account, nor
can anyone account, for other things that might be going on in
China, which is the reason why I have always said and will say
now, I keep an open mind as to what the origin is.
But the one thing I know for sure is that the viruses that
were funded by the NIH phylogenetically could not be the
precursor of SARS-CoV-2.
Mr. Griffith. And I appreciate that, because I've never
thought that NIH or NIAID went out to create this thing. But I
am a believer that it came out of the lab.
And I think you've just made it clear--and sometimes people
miss this, Dr. Fauci--one side says one thing, one side says
the other, and the actual fact may be that, at some time,
working on that, maybe they used some of our money to get
started, maybe they didn't, but a group of scientists getting
together might very well at Wuhan have said, ``Hey, let's see
what happens if we go over here and do this''--not that NIH
funded it, but they, on their own, went off and did something.
Isn't that accurate? Isn't that possible?
Dr. Fauci. Well, I actually would also want to say that one
thing we should put out on the table, that you were talking
about a $120,000-a-year grant in a $6 billion budget. So, I
mean, if they were going to do something on the side, they had
plenty of other money to do it. They wouldn't necessarily have
to use a $120,000 NIH grant to do it.
Mr. Griffith. And I appreciate that, because it means
something could happen, and I'm glad you kept an open mind.
I would ask this one final thing, though. Do you think they
could've done it without the humanized mice that we gave them?
Dr. Fauci. Could've done what, sir?
Mr. Griffith. Could they have done any other research with
the humanized mice that we gave them? Would they be successful?
China didn't have the humanized mice before we gave them to
Wuhan. Isn't it accurate that they might've been able to do
extra stuff with our mice?
Dr. Fauci. That's a hypothetical that I can't really
answer, what they could or could not----
Mr. Griffith. But you can't say it couldn't have happened
either.
Dr. Fauci. Well----
Mr. Griffith. I yield back.
Dr. Fauci [continuing]. You want me to prove a negative.
Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize Ms. Castor from Florida for 5
minutes of questions.
Ms. Castor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You know, these special investigative committees are
intended at the outset to bring light to difficult matters, and
I think, unfortunately, this Select Committee has brought more
heat than light to things.
And one example is, nearly 5 months ago, Dr. Fauci sat for
a 14-hour voluntary interview with the Subcommittee--I was
there for that interview--which included exchanges on many
important questions on research safety, long COVID, vaccine
development, and the importance of strong public health systems
in our local communities. And also, we discussed pandemic
preparedness, like stockpiling supplies for our hospitals in
advance of the next pandemic.
But I want the public to know that for 5 months the
Republicans sat on that transcript. They could have released it
at any time. It was released last Friday.
If the public had seen it 5 months ago, they would know
that they--the Republicans failed to find a shred of evidence
of their far-fetched conspiracy linking Dr. Fauci to a cover-up
of the origins of the pandemic. Instead, the Republicans
contorted and mischaracterized Dr. Fauci's words over Twitter
to gin up conspiracies about NIH's role in the origins of the
pandemic.
In the lead-up to this hearing, parts of that interview
have again been cherry-picked and distorted in press releases
and tweets.
So, Dr. Fauci, I want to make sure that you have an
opportunity to publicly clear anything up. Does anything come
top of mind right off the bat in how they cherry-picked parts
of your 14-hour transcript?
Dr. Fauci. I don't want to be casting stones at the
distortions of what was said in that, but, you know, there are
a couple of things that come to mind.
You know, one I'm sure is going to come up later is the
issue of the six-foot distance, and I made the statement that
it ``just appeared.'' And that got taken like, ``I don't know
what's going on. It just appeared.''
It actually came from the CDC. The CDC was responsible for
those kinds of guidelines to schools, not me.
So, when I said that it just appeared, it appeared. Was
there any science behind it? What I meant by ``no science
behind it'' is that there wasn't a controlled trial that said,
compare 6-foot with 3 feet with 10 feet. So there wasn't that
scientific evaluation of it.
What I believe the CDC used for their reason to say six
feet is that studies years ago showed that when you're dealing
with droplets--which, at the time that the CDC made that
recommendation, it was felt that the transmission was primarily
through droplet, not aerosol, which is incorrect, because we
know now aerosol does play a role.
That's the reason why they did it. It had little to do with
me, since I didn't make the recommendation. And my saying there
was no science behind it means there was no clinical trial that
proved that.
That's just one of the things that got a little distorted
in the response to that.
Ms. Castor. And I've learned and watched you over the
years. I have to go back to the Zika outbreak, where we didn't
know how exactly it was being transmitted. And, at one point,
we weren't aware that some of the--some of it was sexually
transmitted.
That's an example of why, with these public health threats,
that you learn--you learn, unfortunately, as we go along.
Talk a little bit about the Zika health threat and how
that--we didn't know what was happening in early days.
Dr. Fauci. Well, Congresswoman----
Ms. Castor. Your microphone.
Dr. Fauci [continuing]. I'm glad you brought that up,
because it really is also reflective of what went on in the
early months of COVID.
When you're dealing with an outbreak that's a novel
outbreak--the Zika outbreak that caused microcephaly was novel.
We had never seen that before. COVID was novel. We'd never seen
that before. When you're dealing with a new outbreak, things
change. The scientific process collects the information that
will allow you, at that time, to make a determination, a
recommendation, or a guideline.
As things evolve and change and you get more information,
it is important that you use the scientific process to gain
that information and perhaps change the way you think of
things, change your guidelines, and change your recommendation.
And that really goes across the board, because you're
dealing with something that needs to be modified because it's a
moving target. Zika was a moving target. COVID was a moving
target.
Ms. Castor. Well, thank you very much.
And I want to thank the Democratic staff for your Minority
report.
And if it's not already submitted for the record, I'd like
to ask unanimous consent to offer into the record the
Democratic staff report, just completed, ``Republicans' Fauci
Flop: Select Subcommittee's Fifteen-Month Probe Fails to Find
Evidence of Extreme Claims Linking Dr. Fauci to COVID-19's
Origins.''
Dr. Wenstrup. Without objection.
Ms. Castor. And thank the staff. This is an outstanding
report that folks should read.
Thank you.
Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize Ms. Malliotakis from New York
for 5 minutes of questions.
Ms. Malliotakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think many of us on the Committee are really disturbed by
revelations to this Committee that there were officials at NIH
that deleted government records, that deleted personal--or they
used personal information--personal emails to communicate and
circumvent freedom-of-information laws. So, I just had a couple
questions about that.
Dr. Fauci, did you delete any emails or records related to
the Wuhan lab or the origins of the virus?
Dr. Fauci. No, I did not.
Ms. Malliotakis. OK.
Dr. Morens said in a May 2021 email--he indicated that he
was connecting people to you in a, quote, ``secret
backchannel.''
Do you know what he was referring to?
Dr. Fauci. I don't have any idea what he's talking about.
There is no backchannel at NIAID.
Ms. Malliotakis. OK.
``There is''--he also said in another email that ``there is
no worry about Freedom of Information Act. I can send stuff to
Tony on his private email.''
Did you communicate with anyone relating to anything
regarding NIH or with Dr. Morens on a private email?
Dr. Fauci. I do not do government business on my private
email.
Ms. Malliotakis. OK. So have you communicated with Dr.
Morens via private email, even if it was not necessarily your
definition of government business?
Dr. Fauci. It might have been--because, as I mentioned in
my opening statement, one of his functions is to write
chapters, medical scientific chapters, with me. So it is
conceivable that I communicated with him on my private email
when we were writing a chapter, and that was not official
business.
Ms. Malliotakis. What about Peter Daszak?
Dr. Fauci. No.
Ms. Malliotakis. OK.
I just want to clarify for the record, because today you
testified that you did not suppress the lab leak theory, yet in
the past you have said, quote, ``It is a distortion of
reality,'' unquote. You've said, quote, ``I've heard these
conspiracy theories, and, like all conspiracy theories, they're
just conspiracy theories.'' That's what you told the American
people.
And so would you like to clarify, what science were you
following then versus now?
Dr. Fauci. Yes. No, I--actually, I've also been very, very
clear and said multiple times that I don't think the concept of
there being a lab leak is inherently a conspiracy theory.
What is conspiracy is the kind of distortions of that
particular subject. Like, it was a lab leak, and I was
parachuted into the CIA like Jason Bourne and told the CIA that
they should really not----
Ms. Malliotakis. OK.
Dr. Fauci [continuing]. Be talking about a lab leak.
Ms. Malliotakis. Thank you.
Dr. Fauci. That's the conspiracy.
Ms. Malliotakis. Appreciate that.
Dr. Fauci, how much have you earned from royalties from
pharmaceutical companies since the pandemic began in 2021?
Dr. Fauci. Zero.
Ms. Malliotakis. It says, ``NIH scientists made $710
million in royalties from drug makers.''
You're saying that you did not receive any of the $710
million?
Dr. Fauci. On COVID? I received I think $122 for a
monoclonal antibody that I made 27 years ago----
Ms. Malliotakis. OK. So, just in general, though, how much
have you received--not related to COVID, just in general, how
much have you received in royalties between 2021 and 2023?
Dr. Fauci. I think none.
Ms. Malliotakis. OK. So somebody received the $710
million----
Dr. Fauci. Somebody did, but not me.
Ms. Malliotakis. You didn't receive any royalties? OK.
Dr. Fauci. I see no royalties associated with COVID. I
mentioned----
Ms. Malliotakis. Yes, I said----
Dr. Fauci. No, I want to----
Ms. Malliotakis. No, I just said----
Dr. Fauci. I'm on the record, and I want to make sure that
this is clear: that I've developed a monoclonal antibody about
25 years ago that's used as a diagnostic that has nothing to do
with COVID, and I receive an average of about $120 a year from
that patent.
Ms. Malliotakis. OK.
But the bottom line here is that scientists at NIH did
receive $710 million in royalties. And I guess my question is,
don't you think that if these experiments are made using
American tax dollars, that any of those royalties, this nearly
billions of dollars, should be going back to the American
taxpayer, not in the pockets of the scientists? Do you believe
that's a law that we should consider changing?
Dr. Fauci. If you want to change the patent laws and the
Bayh-Dole Act, then go ahead.
Ms. Malliotakis. OK.
Dr. Fauci. But that's not for me to say.
Ms. Malliotakis. Well, I'm asking your opinion. OK.
Well, anyway, moving on, I just want to say that, you know,
we know billions of dollars have been funding these animal
experiments, both here domestically and in foreign lands. I'm
very troubled by the animal--the cruel, horrific animal
research that has been done on U.S. land and in foreign
laboratories of--taxpayers are footing the bill for billions of
dollars. These beagle puppies that have their throats slit.
They are being injected with ticks. They are murdered after
just a few months. Piglets, rabbits, you name it.
FDA is saying we no longer need to be testing human
medications on animals, that there's other ways to achieve
this.
Can you comment on that, if it's time for the United States
of America to be moving on from these cruel animal and horrific
costly tests?
Dr. Fauci. I'd be happy to comment, but I'm puzzled as to
what that has to do with the origins of COVID.
Ms. Malliotakis. Well, I have a question about it, and----
Dr. Fauci. OK. I'd be happy to answer it.
Ms. Malliotakis [continuing]. You're before this Committee,
and it has to do in general----
Dr. Fauci. Yes.
Ms. Malliotakis [continuing]. With the amount of waste of
tax dollars that NIH is using.
Dr. Fauci. Well, the animal experiments that are conducted
by and funded by NIH go through strict regulations of the
proper use of animals in research.
So, I'm not--Congresswoman, with all due respect, I'm not
trying to be confrontative. I'm not sure what you're talking
about, but the experiments that the NIH funded go through
strict regulatory processes of the treatment of animals, the
humane treatment of animals.
Ms. Malliotakis. Well, they're not very humane. And I will
say, as the former Director, you signed off on these
experiments.
And so my time has expired, and we will----
Dr. Fauci. Well, I signed off on them because they were
approved by a peer-review process.
Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize Mrs. Dingell from Michigan
for 5 minutes of questions.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You know, instead of actually taking a serious look at the
various ways by which this virus could've emerged in a lab or
in nature, my Republican colleagues and friends have spent the
last 15 months trying to pin blame on NIH, NIAID, and
specifically Dr. Fauci for the COVID-19 pandemic.
And now--and just, you know, let's bring everything in.
Look, I want to have a discussion about animal testing too, but
I'm really not sure how that comes into here.
But I want to be perfectly clear, though, that the Select
Subcommittee has seen no evidence of this. However, allegations
by my Republican colleagues, amplified in the media, have led
to real, tangible consequences for Dr. Fauci in his personal
life in a way that should be unacceptable to all Americans.
Dr. Fauci, you and I have known each other for a long time,
and I'm not even going to admit how long. But, during that
time, I've seen your commitment not just to science but to
advancing the greater good.
And I know that this isn't a topic you enjoy discussing,
and I'm sorry I'm going to have to ask you about it, but I
think the American people need to know what we are doing to
those who are serving the common good and public health. I
think it's important to make clear the harms that you and your
loved ones have suffered because of these deeply irresponsible
accusations. Because you know what? You're human, just like the
rest of us.
So, Dr. Fauci, can you please share with us the nature of
the threats you have received since the start of the COVID-19
pandemic?
Dr. Fauci. Yes. There have been everything from harassments
by emails, texts, letters, of myself, my wife, my three
daughters. There have been credible death threats, leading to
the arrests of two individuals. And ``credible death threats''
means someone who clearly was on their way to kill me. And it's
required my having protective services essentially all the
time.
It is very troublesome to me. It is much more troublesome
because they've involved my wife and my three daughters.
Mrs. Dingell. At these moments, how do you feel?
Dr. Fauci. [Inaudible.]
Mrs. Dingell. Keep your mic on.
Dr. Fauci. Terrible.
Mrs. Dingell. Do you continue to receive threats today?
Dr. Fauci. Yes, I do. Every time someone gets up and says
I'm responsible for the death of people throughout the world,
the death threats go up.
Mrs. Dingell. It's unacceptable that you've been treated
this way, especially after you've dedicated your life to
science and research for the public interest. You deserve
better. Every human being deserves better.
And I'm afraid that the treatment you've received will also
have far-reaching consequences for the future of science,
particularly when done for the public good.
Dr. Fauci, how do you think the threats toward you and
other public health officials have received will impact bright
young scholars thinking about going off into science or public
service? Do you think as many people will want to follow in
your footsteps as they did when I first met you?
Dr. Fauci. You know, Congressman Dingell, I think this is a
powerful disincentive for young people to want to go into
public health and maybe even science and medicine in the public
arena, because it's very clear that not only I, because I'm
very much of a public figure, but many of my colleagues who are
less visible than I, whenever they speak up in defense of the
kinds of things that we're trying to do to protect the American
public, they too get threats.
And when they see that their colleagues get threats, they
say to themselves, ``I don't want to go there. Why should I get
involved in that?'' And you have some potentially very good
talent that would be important to maintain the integrity and
the excellence of the public health enterprise in the United
States--we're not getting the best people coming in, because
they're reluctant to put themselves and their family through
what they see their colleagues being put through.
Mrs. Dingell. Well, you're right, you're not alone in
feeling that way. In fact, ahead of today's hearing, the Select
Subcommittee received a letter from the Association of State
and Territorial Health Officials, which represents public
health officials in communities of all political persuasions,
detailing the surge of harassment, intimidation, hate speech,
threats of violence, and deaths threats that their members
faced during the pandemic.
Can I just--I'm going to ask to insert the--into the
letter, but I wanted to just make the point before I close, Mr.
Chairman, that as many as 40 percent of public health workers
have been bullied, threatened, or harassed. And I think we all
need to take that on as a public health issue.
I'd ask to enter the letter into the record, and yield
back.
Dr. Wenstrup. Without objection.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize Mrs. Lesko from Arizona for 5
minutes of questions.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Dr. Fauci, did the National Institute of Health fund the
potentially dangerous enhanced potential pandemic pathogens
gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology?
Dr. Fauci. I would not characterize it the way you did.
The National Institutes of Health, through a sub-award to
the Wuhan Institute of Virology, funded research on the
surveillance of and the possibility of emerging infections.
I would not characterize it as ``dangerous gain-of-function
research.'' I've already testified to that effect----
Mrs. Lesko. So----
Dr. Fauci [continuing]. A couple of times.
Mrs. Lesko. So you're saying no, correct?
In his May 16----
Dr. Fauci. I'm saying no because I've said no multiple
times----
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you.
Dr. Fauci [continuing]. Including in the transcribed
interview.
Mrs. Lesko. In his May 16, 2024, testimony, the NIH Deputy
Director Tabak said, and I quote, ``I can tell you that the
failure of the Wuhan Institute of Virology to provide us with
the data that we requested and the lab notebooks that we
requested certainly impeded our ability to understand what was
really going on with the experiments that we have been
discussing this morning.''
My question to you, Dr. Fauci: If the NIH didn't inspect
the Wuhan Institute of Virology and NIH didn't receive the lab
books and data from China and the required reports from
EcoHealth Alliance were not submitted--in fact, they were
late--how can you definitively say that the NIH did not fund
the dangerous gain-of-function research?
Dr. Fauci. I go back to what I said, that the gain-of-
function research by the operative and regulatory definition of
P3C0 does not include, at all, the viruses that were studied
under the sub-award----
Mrs. Lesko. How do you know that, sir, if there were no lab
books----
Dr. Fauci. Because we----
Mrs. Lesko [continuing]. Nothing from China?
Dr. Fauci [continuing]. Know what viruses they were
studying.
Mrs. Lesko. How? How do you know? You never went there.
Dr. Fauci. By their--but you--I'm telling you that the NIH
funded research on these viruses. If someone else somewhere in
China was doing something else, that is not----
Mrs. Lesko. Well, that's the problem, because NIH didn't go
there, you didn't get the reports that were needed. How in the
world would you know?
I'm going to go on to----
Dr. Fauci. Well----
Mrs. Lesko [continuing]. The next question.
Dr. Fauci. And you're not hearing what I'm saying.
Mrs. Lesko. Dr. Morens, your senior advisor for over 20
years, said in an email dated February 24, 2021, ``I learned
from your FOIA lady here now how to make emails disappeared
when I am FOIA'ed but before the search starts, so I think we
are all safe. Plus, I deleted most of these earlier emails
after sending them to Gmail.''
In another email, dated 4/21/21, Dr. Morens said, ``I
forgot to say, there is no worry about FOIAs. I can either send
stuff to Tony,'' meaning you, ``on his private email or hand it
to him at work or at his house. He is too smart to let
colleagues send him stuff that could cause trouble.''
Dr. Fauci, were you ever engaged in attempts to obstruct
the Freedom of Information Act and the release of public
documents?
Dr. Fauci. No.
Mrs. Lesko. Did you--did Dr. Morens communicate with you
about official business using his private email?
Dr. Fauci. Official business? No.
Mrs. Lesko. Did you ever encourage Dr. Morens to use his
private email address for official business?
Dr. Fauci. No.
Mrs. Lesko. My next question, sir, is: On February 1, 2020,
you, yourself, Dr. Fauci, the NIH Director Collins, and at
least 11 other scientists were on a conference call to discuss
the origins of COVID. A number of the scientists said that they
were concerned that COVID was the result of a lab leak at the
Wuhan Institute of Virology and were concerned that a
revelation of the lab leak theory would hurt their relationship
with China.
The CDC Director Redfield testified that he was not invited
on this conference call, and he believes it's because he
believed the lab leak theory was possible.
Three days later, on February 4, 2020, four participants on
the conference call authored a paper, ``Proximal Origin,''
which was sent to you for editing. ``Proximal Origin'' pushed
the natural origin theory.
On April 16, 2020, the NIH Director, Dr. Collins, emailed
you, expressing dismay that the Nature Medicine article, which
was based on ``Proximal Origin,'' didn't suppress the lab leak
theory and asked you for more public pressure to suppress the
lab leak theory.
The very next day, in response to Dr. Collins' request to
suppress the lab leak theory, you cited the Nature Medicine
article, which discounted the lab leak theory, from the White
House podium.
My question to you, sir: Did you cite this article at the
White House because the NIH Director asked you to suppress the
lab leak theory?
Dr. Fauci. No. I did not do that in response to anybody's
suggestion to suppress anything. It was in response to a
question that someone asked at the podium.
And I did not edit any paper, as shown in my official
testimony.
So you said about four or five things, Congressman, that
were just not true.
Mrs. Lesko. Well, we have emails to prove it.
Dr. Fauci. No, you don't.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, and I yield back.
Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize Mr. Mfume from Maryland for 5
minutes of questions.
Mr. Mfume. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And, by the way, no, we don't have it. So I get tired of
hearing ``we've got it,'' and then when we ask for it, it's not
there. We do not have it, Dr. Fauci, and for everyone watching
this. That's just incorrect.
Now, let me just say a couple of things. If I sound a
little outraged, it's because, you know, we sit here and we
watch one conspiracy theory after another get debunked.
And, if I might, on a point of personal privilege, to the
gentlewoman from New York who wanted to argue that we should be
worrying about testing of human medicines on animals, if this
Committee really wants to do something, let's talk about the
most infamous biomedical research study in the United States,
the Tuskegee study, where 400 Black men in this country were
injected deliberately with syphilis and allowed to die slowly
over a 40-year period without any attempt to help them at all.
It was condoned by the U.S. Public Health Service. And if we
want to talk about testing, let's talk about that as well.
[Disturbance in the hearing room.]
Mr. Mfume. I'm going to talk about COVID right now.
Mr. Chairman, point of--I have the floor, Mr. Chairman.
I want to say to you, Mr. Chairman----
Dr. Wenstrup. If the gentleman would suspend, please.
I want to remind the audience of decorum.
I recognize Mr. Mfume.
Mr. Mfume. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you and
Ranking Member Ruiz for this opportunity.
Dr. Fauci, we owe you an apology for the way we have raked
you through the mud, and none of us have said to you, here's
where you go to get your good name and your reputation back.
It's the most unfair thing I have seen.
If there were evidence, if there were facts that supported
the charges, I, like everybody else, would be interested. But
we haven't seen a damn thing to suggest that these accusations
are accurate.
You've been a hero to many for 54 years, five-plus decades.
You helped lead this country through the anthrax scare, through
AIDS, through Zika, through Ebola, through SARS, and through
COVID-19, pandemics and epidemics. We owe you a collective
``thank you.''
You are a world-renowned scientist and an American patriot.
And whether or not people want to believe that, that's on them,
but those facts are undisputable.
For a year and a half, the Republican Majority on this
Committee has sought to weaponize genuine scientific questions
over COVID-19 and to vilify--vilify--our public health
officials and our Nation's scientists with unsubstantiated,
with baseless, with--allegations that just can't stand the
light of day. And so they've tried to do that with COVID-19,
and we are here now as a result of the aggregated amount of
foolishness that has taken place.
And I've always said to this Committee every time I've had
a chance to speak, let's go back to when we were in the heart
of the pandemic, when our family members and friends and
coworkers were dying left and right, when we were afraid to get
near anybody, when we wanted to wash down our groceries before
we brought them into the house, where we were willing to put on
masks or headgear if it would keep us from being infected.
And we turned to our leaders and the public health
officials and scientists for answers. And we got some, but then
we didn't get some. And then we got some later, like Dr.
Deborah Birx, who was Donald Trump's expert on the virus, who
said, ``No, bleach won't do it, don't inject yourself with
it,'' and who also said publicly on the record that thousands
of American lives could have been spared--spared--if we had
done what we were being told to do by the scientific community.
At least one thing is clear: Those 1 million people who
died as a result of these conspiracy theories will never come
back, and those families have empty seats at the table year
after year. And we do a disservice if, at the very least, we
don't acknowledge their deaths and the harm and the hurt that
has been done to their families and learn--learn--how to find a
way to trust science going forward in this country.
Dr. Fauci, you've been accused over and over again of going
to the CIA headquarters and sitting down and having a meeting
with the CIA to construct a way to make sure that COVID raged
in this country.
Is that correct?
Dr. Fauci. That is incorrect.
Mr. Mfume. Dr. Fauci, have you been to the CIA office in
the last 20 years, or headquarters?
Dr. Fauci. I went to the CIA decades ago during the anthrax
attacks to discuss the possibility of terrorist attacks.
Mr. Mfume. Thank you. I wanted to get that on the record,
because that's just the latest theory now, that you and the CIA
Director conspired. This is foolishness.
People are not going to agree with you, I understand that.
But we take and besmirch somebody's good name? Think about if
it were one of us. We'd be jumping up and down, trying to find
a way to get justice.
And so, on behalf of those of us who are thankful, who are
part of many in a grateful Nation, thank you for your service,
sir.
I yield back.
Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize Mr. Cloud from Texas for 5
minutes of questions.
Mr. Cloud. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for being here.
And I do want to echo some of what Mr. Mfume said, because
I do think we need to focus on the people. And I think that's
really what--the angst that's left with the American people.
It's what they had to walk through during this time.
I'm going to go down a list of mitigation measures that you
supported over the course of the pandemic and ask you just to
give a ``yes'' or ``no'' as to whether you still believe these
measures were justified.
Business closures?
Dr. Fauci. Congressman, I'm not hearing you at all. Could
you please speak louder into the mic?
Mr. Cloud. Sure. I'm going to go through a list of COVID
mitigation measures that you supported over the course of the
pandemic and ask you to give me a ``yes'' or ``no'' as to
whether you believe these measures were justified.
Business closures?
Dr. Fauci. Early on, when 5,000 people were dying a day,
yes.
Mr. Cloud. Church closures?
Dr. Fauci. Same thing.
Mr. Cloud. School closures?
Dr. Fauci. Again----
Mr. Cloud. Stay-at-home orders?
Dr. Fauci. These were important when we were trying to stop
the tsunami of deaths that were occurring early on. How----
Mr. Cloud. Early on.
Dr. Fauci [continuing]. Long you kept them going is
debatable.
Mr. Cloud. Mask mandates for adults? Mask mandates for
children? Mask mandates for children under 5?
Dr. Fauci. And going back to what I said before, all of
that is in the context of, at the time, 4,000----
Mr. Cloud. Mask mandates for children under 5, there----
Dr. Fauci [continuing]. To 5,000 people a day were dying.
Mr. Cloud [continuing]. Was scientific evidence for that?
Dr. Fauci. Excuse me?
Mr. Cloud. Mask mandates for children under 5, there was
scientific evidence supporting that?
Dr. Fauci. There was no study that did masks on kids
before--you couldn't do the study. You had to respond----
Mr. Cloud. Right.
Dr. Fauci [continuing]. To an epidemic that was killing
4,000 to 5,000 Americans----
Mr. Cloud. Vaccine----
Dr. Fauci [continuing]. Per day.
Mr. Cloud [continuing]. Mandates for employees? Vaccine
mandates for students? Vaccine mandates for military?
Dr. Fauci. Vaccines save lives. It is very, very clear that
vaccines have saved hundreds of thousands of Americans and----
Mr. Cloud. I'm not debating----
Dr. Fauci [continuing]. Millions of people worldwide.
Mr. Cloud. We're talking about COVID-19. Did or do the
vaccines, the COVID-19 vaccines, stop anyone from getting
COVID?
Dr. Fauci. I have answered that question to the Chairman.
Early on, it became clear that----
Mr. Cloud. They did?
Dr. Fauci. No, actually, no. In the beginning----
Mr. Cloud. They did not?
Dr. Fauci [continuing]. It clearly prevented infection in a
certain percentage of people, but the durability of its ability
to prevent infection was not long. It was measured in months--
--
Mr. Cloud. And they didn't stop you from spreading it
either, correct?
Dr. Fauci. Early on, it did if it prevented infection. But
what became clear, that it did not prevent transmission when
the ability to prevent infection waned.
Mr. Cloud. All right.
I think what's troubling is when the American people look
at the certainty and the case at which people lost jobs, they
lost livelihoods. I had rural hospitals in my area that did not
have a single case of COVID in their rural community that had
to shut down and people not get care that they did need for
cancer, and some passed away because of those kind of things.
And, time after time, we had people's lives that are destroyed,
and we have not seen the same sort of--once the new data came
available, we did not see a change of course.
And you'll point out, for example, on the schools, that the
CDC, you know, put out the guidelines, for example. But we know
that those guidelines end up being protection from lawsuits.
It's, ``If you don't want to be sued, you'd better follow the
guidelines.'' So they are not mandates, de facto mandates, but
they turn out to be such a mandate.
And when the science began to change--we all understand
that in the first couple weeks, first few weeks, even a couple
months, we were all trying to figure it out. I think there's a
lot of grace for that.
The concern is that, as the science became available, there
wasn't like a, ``Oh, maybe we should consider the lab leak
theory,'' ``Oh, maybe we should consider natural immunity.'' We
never heard this messaging coming from you or from anyone else
who stood on the sidelines talking about these things. And it's
left the American people with a tremendous distrust.
I want to talk a little bit about the grant process. My
understanding from your testimony to us--it says that the NIH
process for awarding grants is that, basically, a research
proposal goes to a peer-review committee to receive a priority
score. Then it goes to an advisory council for NIH personnel.
It receives a final--basically, the group votes on it. And then
eventually it ends up on your desk for signature, right?
Now, you said in that that sometimes, if I recall
correctly, those grants are often approved en bloc, en masse,
when they're voted on, and then you sign off on them.
Dr. Fauci. That's correct.
Mr. Cloud. This is one of the things that's really
troubling to the American people. Because they look at their
lives being destroyed, and there's no one to hold accountable,
because these systems of accountability have become systems of
plausible deniability.
And so your name is on every single grant, but yet you
absolve yourself of any sort of responsibility by saying, well,
you know, it goes to this Committee that's, you know--that has
a number of people on it, and they're approved en bloc. And so
there's no accountability for anything, any of the taxpayer
dollars that are going forth.
Dr. Fauci. I disagree with you, Congressman. Because, if
you look at the number of grants, we fund thousands of grants.
It would be physically impossible for me to go through every
single grant in a detailed way to understand it. That is true
not only for me but for virtually every institute at the NIH.
Mr. Cloud. Then why does your signature go on it?
Dr. Fauci. Because somebody has to sign off on it, and you
trust the expertise and the competence of the staff that go
over----
Mr. Cloud. And what is the mechanism----
Dr. Fauci [continuing]. It very carefully.
Mr. Cloud [continuing]. For holding people accountable?
Dr. Wenstrup. The gentleman's time has expired.
I now recognize Ms. Ross from North Carolina for 5 minutes
of questions.
Ms. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank you, Dr. Fauci, for your voluntary
testimony today; also, for so much grace in your 14 hours of
testimony.
And I again want to thank you for your service and your
patience. It's truly remarkable. Because it bears repeating,
let me just remind everyone that, after 15 months, my
Republican colleagues' extreme allegations against you remain
unsubstantiated. Unsubstantiated.
And, now, during your 2-day closed-door interview in
January, you discussed a number of topics regarding the public
health response to the COVID-19 pandemic, some of which we've
touched on briefly, but I just want to dive in a little bit
deeper here.
For example, you discussed, both then and here with
Congresswoman Castor, the recommendation that we maintain six
feet of distance between one another to reduce the spread of
COVID-19. And you discussed how social distancing
recommendations were developed, that you yourself didn't pick
this six feet, and it was just really kind of a guideline in
the moment.
In your view, though, do social distancing recommendations
and other public health measures to reduce transmission save
lives?
Dr. Fauci. Definitely.
Ms. Ross. OK.
I'd also like to go back and take a deeper dive into the
COVID-19 vaccine discussion that we just had, and you were also
asked about that during your interview in January.
In the Select Subcommittee, we've heard suggestions that
the vaccine was ineffective because of breakthrough infections
that occur after vaccination. We just heard about that right
here.
But, as I understand it, perhaps the strongest measure of
COVID-19 vaccines' effectiveness is the reduction of severe
disease and death, not necessarily getting a milder form of
COVID.
Could you talk about that a little bit?
Dr. Fauci. Yes. It's very clear that, when you're dealing
with many vaccines but particularly when you're looking at
COVID, as I mentioned--and I'll repeat it quickly for you--
that, early on, there was a degree, not as much as against
severe disease, of protection against infection. Unfortunately,
that protection against infection, which is related to
transmissibility, waned rather rapidly, in a matter of months.
What has stood firm well, much better than transmission and
much better than infection, is the ability to prevent someone
from hospitalizations and deaths.
And, in fact, the curves, Congresswoman, are stunning. When
you look at the deaths and hospitalizations of people who are
unvaccinated, it's like this.
[Indicating.] When you look at the deaths and
hospitalizations for people who are vaccinated and boosted,
it's like this.
[Indicating.] The difference is profound. When you're
dealing with infection, again, less so, because of the waning
of protection against infection.
Ms. Ross. Well, and that was also confirmed by a
Commonwealth Fund December 2022 report, which came out 2 years
after the Biden administration's effort to get COVID-19
vaccines in arms, and your effort too, that it prevented more
than 3 million deaths and averted 18 million hospitalizations.
And that came out in 2022, but it seems to corroborate what
you're saying.
Dr. Fauci. Indeed. And $1.15 trillion in healthcare costs.
Ms. Ross. Thank you for that add.
One pillar of the vaccine requirements was to have an
increased uptake in the COVID-19 vaccines. And that, at the
time, was supported by leading physicians, including the
American Medical Association, the American Academy of Family
Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and more.
Were the vaccine requirements a clinically sound tool for
improving uptake of a safe and effective vaccine?
Dr. Fauci. Yes. You would like people to get vaccinated
voluntarily, realizing the important effect on it, but the fact
that people were vaccinated by whatever the motivation was
clearly saved many, many lives.
Ms. Ross. And just with the 17 seconds I have, what steps
can public health officials take to bolster confidence in these
life-saving interventions, since there has been so much
misinformation circulating?
Dr. Fauci. That's going to be very difficult,
Congresswoman, because there is so much mis-and disinformation
around that we've got to do a better job of reaching out and
trying to get the correct information. But that's difficult
when you have a very energetic group of people continually
spreading mis-and disinformation about vaccines. We've got to
be more proactive in putting out the facts and the data and the
information that's correct.
Ms. Ross. Thank you very much for your testimony.
And I'll yield back.
Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize Dr. Joyce from Pennsylvania
for 5 minutes of questions.
Dr. Joyce. Thank you, Chairman Wenstrup, for convening this
important hearing.
And thank you, Dr. Fauci, for testifying.
Dr. Fauci, one of the controversial regulations of the
pandemic was the six-foot distancing rule. This rule became an
important policy consideration in subsequent regulations.
However, you testified recently, and I'm quoting, this six-foot
rule ``sort of just appeared.''
Do you think that a rule that ``sort of just appeared'' is
substantial justification for the regulations that we saw based
on that six-foot rule?
Dr. Fauci. Congressman, thank you for that question. I
answered that, but I'll summarize it briefly for you.
When saying it ``just appeared,'' it came from the CDC----
Dr. Joyce. OK. You stated that earlier.
What was your relationship with the CDC when you saw a
regulation which was not based in the current science?
Dr. Fauci. Well, when I say it was not based in science, I
meant a prospective clinical trial to determine whether 6-foot
was better than 3, was better than 10. What----
Dr. Joyce. But once we realized that the virus was not
spread by droplets and was aerosolized, did you feel an
indication to go back to the CDC and say, let's base this on
science, let's get rid of this six-foot rule?
This six-foot rule crippled businesses.
Dr. Fauci. Right.
Dr. Joyce. It allowed students to stay at home and not
learn. Americans suffered. And that suffering continues,
because the fracture of trust in American scientists continues
to this day.
Did you not feel an obligation, for something that just
sort of appeared, not to go back to the CDC and say, let's base
this on what we know?
Dr. Fauci. It was a CDC decision, and it was clear----
Dr. Joyce. Were you dialoguing with the CDC?
Dr. Fauci. Excuse me?
Dr. Joyce. Were you in communication with the CDC?
Dr. Fauci. CDC was part of the coronavirus response team,
yes.
Dr. Joyce. And you didn't feel an obligation to go to them
and say, look, Americans aren't going to trust----
Dr. Fauci. Yes.
Dr. Joyce [continuing]. Us, we're providing them with
misinformation?
Dr. Fauci. We had discussions at the White House about
that. We did. But the CDC's decision--and it was their decision
to make, and they made it.
Dr. Joyce. And you didn't feel an obligation, as the lead
scientist at the NIH, to challenge that?
Dr. Fauci. I've challenged the CDC multiple times----
Dr. Joyce. Publicly on this regard?
Dr. Fauci. Excuse me?
Dr. Joyce. Publicly you challenged them on this six-foot
distancing rule?
Dr. Fauci. It is not appropriate to be publicly challenging
a sister organization.
Dr. Joyce. Do you agree that Americans now have lost their
trust in science, in lead science, from government because of
misinformation like this?
Dr. Fauci. Well, I--you know, when you talk about
misinformation, I think that you have to be careful. That's not
disinformation. It was information that ultimately proved, when
you put the aerosolization in, that----
Dr. Joyce. That it was not an effective rule----
Dr. Fauci. All right.
Dr. Joyce [continuing]. To have six feet of distancing.
Dr. Fauci, let's move on. On April 21, Dr. Morens wrote to
Dr. Daszak in an email that ``there is no worry about FOIAs. I
can either send stuff to Tony on his private Gmail, hand it to
him at work, or at his house. He is too smart to let colleagues
send him stuff that could cause trouble.''
Do you realize that this impact still considers today? This
is your lead, trusted researcher who works with you, your
advisor. Do you realize the impact of that?
Dr. Fauci. It was a terrible thing, it was wrong, and it
was inappropriate, and he----
Dr. Joyce. Thank you. I think we----
Dr. Fauci [continuing]. Should not have said that.
Dr. Joyce. I think we all agree it was incredibly
inappropriate.
Recently, in an op-ed that Senator Roger Marshall published
just yesterday, he raised concern about HHS FOIA compliance
following your testimony in front of the Senate HELP Committee.
Dr. Fauci, what involvement did you have in HHS not
responding to FOIA requests following your testimony in the
Senate in 2021?
Dr. Fauci. I had no role whatsoever in anything to do with
the request. When FOIA is made, it doesn't go directly to a
person like me. It goes to a department, which then takes care
of it. So, I don't have any role, one way or the other, in
FOIA.
Dr. Joyce. Let's go on.
Were you aware that NIAID employees conducting official
work on unofficial emails and inappropriately assisting
grantees during your time as the Director?
Dr. Fauci. I was not aware of that as it was occurring. It,
obviously, came out during the Committee hearings. But I was
not aware of that as it was occurring.
Dr. Joyce. And I think that you put an exclamation point on
how important these hearings are.
Dr. Fauci, would you agree that this demonstrates the need
for more accountability and increased oversight of NIAID?
Dr. Fauci. What you saw, I believe, with Dr. Morens was an
aberrancy and an outlier. The individuals at the NIH and NIAID
are a very committed group of individuals, and this one
instance that you point out is an aberrancy and an outlier.
That does not----
Dr. Joyce. From your senior advisor for 20 years.
Dr. Fauci. Well, he is--well, the title is senior advisor.
We wrote scientific papers together. He didn't advise me, as I
mentioned----
Dr. Joyce. Are your senior advisors not trusted staff?
Dr. Fauci. Again, I told you that his title was senior
advisor, but he is not an advisor on policy. He writes----
Dr. Joyce. That's very confusing to have someone's title--
--
Dr. Fauci. Right.
Dr. Joyce [continuing]. And not having that to be their
obligation.
Dr. Fauci. But that is the fact, though.
Dr. Joyce. I think that that supports what we said. There
needs to be more oversight, and there needs to be more
accountability.
Mr. Chairman, my time has expired, but these points are
very clear to all of us today in this hearing room.
I yield back.
Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize Mr. Garcia from California
for 5 minutes.
Oh, he left?
I now recognize Ms. Greene from Georgia for 5 minutes of
questions.
Ms. Greene. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Fauci, you were quoted on CBS' ``Face the Nation''
saying, ``It's easy to criticize, but they're really
criticizing science, because I represent science.''
Do you represent science, Mr. Fauci?
Dr. Fauci. I am a scientist who uses the scientific method
to gain information.
Ms. Greene. Yes. You said you represent science.
Do you represent science, Mr. Fauci, yes or no?
Dr. Fauci. Again----
Ms. Greene. Yes or no?
Dr. Fauci. No, that's not a yes or no----
Ms. Greene. Yes, it's a yes or no.
Dr. Fauci. I don't think it is.
Ms. Greene. OK. Well, we'll take that as a you don't know
what you represent.
Dr Fauci. Oh, I----
Ms. Greene. But this--as Director of the NIH, you did sign
off on these so-called scientific experiments. And as a dog
lover, I want to tell you, this is disgusting and evil, what
you signed off on, and these experiments that happened to
beagles paid for by the American taxpayer. And I want you to
know Americans don't pay their taxes for animals to be tortured
like this.
So the type of science that you are representing, Mr.
Fauci, is abhorrent, and it needs to stop.
Mr. Fauci, you also represent the type of science where you
confess that you made up the COVID rules, including----
Dr. Fauci. I didn't hear what you said.
Ms. Greene [continuing]. Six feet social distancing and
masking of children. You just----
Dr. Fauci. I never said I made anything up.
Ms. Greene. You admitted that you made it up, you made it
up as you went.
Dr. Fauci. I never said I made it up.
Ms. Greene. So are you saying this is fake news, Mr. Fauci?
Dr. Fauci. I didn't say I made anything up.
Ms. Greene. What did you say?
Dr. Fauci. I said that it is not based in science and it
just appeared.
Ms. Greene. But this is science?
Dr. Fauci. What do dogs have to do with anything that we're
talking about today?
Ms. Greene. These are scientific experiments. This is what
you signed off on.
But you also told the American people they had to distance
by six feet, they had to wear masks.
But let's also talk a little bit further about the type of
science that you represent.
``NIH scientists made $710 million in royalties from drug
makers,'' a fact that's been hidden.
Let's talk about the fact about, is it right for scientists
and doctors getting paid by the American people, government
taxpayer paychecks, to get patents where they're paid millions
and hundreds of millions of dollars in royalty fees, especially
when the NIH and these government agencies, the most powerful
agencies in our country, are recommending medical suggestions
and advice and making up guidelines, like six feet distancing
and masking of children?
Do you think that's appropriate? Do the American people
deserve to be abused like that, Mr. Fauci? Because you're not
Dr., you're Mr. Fauci in my few minutes.
Dr. Fauci. Am I going to be allowed to answer the question?
Ms. Greene. No, I don't need your answer.
I want to talk about this right here.
Mr. Fauci----
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, objection.
Ms. Greene. I reclaim my time.
Mr. Raskin. Objection.
Ms. Greene. I reclaim my time. I reclaim my time, Mr.
Raskin.
Dr. Wenstrup. The gentlelady will suspend.
Mr. Raskin. Point of order.
Dr. Wenstrup. The gentlelady will suspend.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman----
Dr. Wenstrup. Point of order.
Mr. Raskin [continuing]. In terms of the rules of decorum,
are we allowed to deny that a doctor is a doctor just because
we don't want him to be a doctor?
Ms. Greene. Yes. Because in my time that man does not
deserve to have a license. As a matter of fact, it should be
revoked, and he belongs in prison.
Dr. Wenstrup. The gentlelady will suspend.
The gentlelady should recognize the doctor as a doctor.
Mr. Mfume. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, is this what we have become? Is this what we
have devolved into, no decorum?
Ms. Greene. You know what, we can do that hearing about the
poor men that were injected with syphilis, because I support
you in that. That's horrific.
Voice. I would urge----
Ms. Greene. And this government that does things like that
to Americans doesn't have decorum to the American people.
Mr. Garcia. Mr. Chairman----
Dr. Wenstrup. The gentleman is out of order.
Mr. Garcia. Point of regular order, please.
Dr. Wenstrup. The gentleman is out of order.
Mr. Garcia. Decorum.
Dr. Wenstrup. I recognize a point of order.
Go ahead with your point of order.
Mr. Garcia. No. I mean, I was going to say what Mr. Raskin
said, is that it's completely unacceptable to deny Dr. Fauci,
who's here, a respected member of the medical community, his
title. And that's actually a personal attack on his character.
Dr. Wenstrup. And I have instructed her----
Ms. Greene. He's not respected.
Dr. Wenstrup. I've instructed her to address him as doctor.
The gentlelady shall continue.
Ms. Greene. I'm not addressing him as doctor.
Let's talk about----
Mr. Mfume. And I would----
Ms. Greene. Let's talk about this----
Mr. Mfume. Mr. Chairman, I would----
Ms. Greene. I'm reclaiming my time.
Mr. Mfume [continuing]. Move that the woman's----
Ms. Greene. I'm reclaiming my time.
Mr. Mfume [continuing]. Words get taken down then.
Ms. Greene. I'm reclaiming my time.
Voice. Point of order.
Dr. Wenstrup. Suspend.
A Member can only move to have words--I'm sorry. The issues
we are debating are important ones that Members feel deeply
about. And while vigorous disagreement is part of the
legislative process, as I said at the beginning, Members are
reminded that we must adhere to established standards of
decorum in debate.
This is a reminder that it is a violation of House rules
and the rules of this Committee to engage in personalities
regarding other Members or to question the motives of a
colleague. Remarks of that type are not permitted by the rules
and are not in keeping with the best traditions of our
Committee. The Chair will enforce these rules of decorum at all
times and urges all Members to be mindful of their remarks.
Does the gentleman from California have anything further?
Mr. Garcia. We should take--we should take her words down.
Mr. Mfume. Yes. I made--I offered that her words be taken
down, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Griffith. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Greene. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a point of
order.
Dr. Wenstrup. Mr. Griffith is recognized--Mr. Griffith----
Ms. Greene [continuing]. Because they accuse us of
worshipping President Trump.
Dr. Wenstrup. The gentlelady----
Ms. Greene. We don't worship President Trump.
Dr. Wenstrup. The gentlelady will suspend.
Mr. Griffith, you have a point of order.
Mr. Griffith. Mr. Chairman, while it may not be polite, I
believe the rule only applies to Members of this body, the
Senate, and the President of the United States. I do not
believe that it applies--the rule on taking down words does not
apply to a witness.
Again, I'm not condoning the words. I'm just relating--or
asking whether or not it applies to individuals who just happen
to be here in front of us.
Dr. Wenstrup. I agree. The Chair overrules the point of
order by the gentleman from Maryland but asks that Members
please afford all other Members the respect they're entitled,
refrain from using rhetoric that could be construed as an
attack on the motives or character of another Member or the
witness.
You may proceed.
Ms. Greene. Thank you.
This was a time in history where you got to throw out the
first pitch at the Washington Nationals baseball game, while
Americans were forced to stay home and watch such events that
they love from at home, alone, on their televisions.
And what a hypocrisy this picture shows. Here you are
without your mask, with empty seats everywhere. Remember the
cardboard cutout fans? That was one of the most insulting
things to Americans, having to watch the games from home where
you got to go and enjoy the game and sit right next to people,
not following the six feet of distancing, not wearing your
mask, and everyone else was forced to stay home and stop
enjoying life.
And your science--here your science is displayed perfectly
in this picture where children, children in school, were put in
plastic bubbles because of your science, your repulsive, evil
science.
And let's go back to your very own email. You said earlier
you don't use email. Oh, you do. Right here, this is your own
email where you said, ``The typical mask you buy in the
drugstore is not really effective in keeping out virus . . . I
do not recommend that you wear a mask.'' This is your email.
This is your own words.
But yet children, children all over America were forced to
wear masks, healthy children forced to wear masks, muzzled in
their schools. And then they were forced to learn from home
because of your so-called science and your medical suggestions,
while you and all your cronies get paid from Big Pharma.
You know what this Committee should be doing? We should be
recommending you to be prosecuted. We should be writing a
criminal referral because you should be prosecuted for crimes
against humanity. You belong in prison, Dr. Fauci.
Mrs. Dingell. Mr. Chairman, I have another point of order.
Dr. Wenstrup. I recognize Mrs. Dingell.
Mrs. Dingell. I just want to make sure the record is clear.
Dr. Fauci testified that he did not use his personal email
for official business. He did not say he did not use email. And
I think today this particular has been full of lies and
disregard and disrespect, and we need to stick to facts.
Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you.
The gentlelady's time had expired before the point of
order.
I now recognize Mr. Garcia from California for 5 minutes of
questions.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Fauci, I am so sorry you just had to sit through that.
That was completely irresponsible. Quite frankly, some we're
hearing--this might be the most insane hearing I've actually
attended. I've only been in Congress for a year and a half, but
I am so sorry that you are subjected to those level of attacks
and insanity.
Your, quote/unquote, ``so-called science'' that the
gentlewoman is referring to has saved millions of lives in this
country and around the world, and I want to thank you for that.
I also think it's important to note that my opinion is that
you are an American hero, and your team has done more to save
lives than all 435 Members of this body on both sides of the
aisle.
You guys have worked not just during this pandemic but over
time to save millions of lives in this country and across the
world.
We lost 1.1 million American lives, 1.1 American lives, 7
million lives around the world. We were having 9/11-like
events, death events, daily in this country, losing 4,000,
5,000 people every single day.
I was mayor during the time of the pandemic. I remember how
painful it was to close businesses, to shut down schools. But
how quickly we forget the pain and how scared we were as a
country. We were washing our groceries as they were coming in.
We were keeping seniors at a distance. The tragedy that was
happening in our nursing homes. Thousands of people were dying
a day.
And you and your team of the best and the brightest
scientists in this country and the world were doing everything
that you could and working night and day to save more and more
of those lives.
A lot of my colleagues know that my mom was a healthcare
worker during the pandemic. My mom died of COVID. My stepfather
died of COVID. I lost both of my parents during the pandemic.
So I take this very personally, especially when other
Members of this body, who are tasked to be responsible and to
actually help the American people, attack medical professionals
like you and across the world.
Vaccines. The vaccine that you and your team helped foster
has saved millions of American lives.
These attacks are ridiculous.
Now, even before this Committee started--I want to point a
few things out.
Even before this Committee started, this same Member that
just went on this rant introduced the Fire Fauci Act and
promoted on a podcast saying that COVID was a bioweapon. That
is how insane some of these comments are.
And I want to quote this. This is a quote from this same
Member.
``I don't believe in evolution. These viruses were not
making people sick until they created them. They weaponized
these viruses to be able to attach to our cells and make us
sick. It's a bioweapon.''
The ``they created them,'' sir, is you. They are attacking
you and our medical community for actually creating COVID that
has caused the deaths of millions. And we know that these
extreme comments are targeting public health officials across
the country.
I also want to show you this other comment, same Member who
just attacked you.
``The Fauci-funded Wuhan lab created the virus.''
This is so crazy and irresponsible.
In this post, this same Member of this Committee is
accusing you of orchestrating a global conspiracy to create
COVID on purpose just to make people get vaccines, that you've
done this, sir.
This same Member routinely promotes complete misinformation
about vaccines and actually has encouraged the routine
prevention of vaccinations that even eliminate diseases like
the measles.
Dr. Fauci, you brought together our Nation and the world's
best and brightest scientists to take on COVID and create a
vaccine that works.
I want to ask you a question. I want to be crystal clear
for the public.
You brought together the world's and America's best
scientists. Do you believe that the vaccine that you all helped
create and ensure is safe and effective for the public?
Dr. Fauci. Yes, and its track record has proven that.
Mr. Garcia. And do you also agree that it saved hundreds of
thousands and possibly millions of lives in America and across
the world?
Dr. Fauci. That is absolutely correct, and it's very clear
that it saved millions of lives here and throughout the world.
The Europeans have done the same studies that we have, and the
data are incontrovertible that they save lives.
Mr. Garcia. Sir, and do you think the American public
should listen to America's brightest and best doctors and
scientists or instead listen to podcasters, conspiracy
theorists, and unhinged Facebook memes?
Dr. Fauci. No. Listening to people who you've just
described is going to do nothing but harm people because they
will deprive themselves of lifesaving interventions, which has
happened.
And, you know, some have done studies. Peter Hotez has done
an analysis of this and shows that in people who refuse to get
vaccinated for any of a variety of reasons probably responsible
for an additional two to three hundred thousand deaths in this
country.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, sir, and your entire team for saving
lives in this country. And I'm sorry you have to continue going
on with these attacks.
I yield back.
[Disturbance in the hearing room.]
Mr. Garcia. Oh, thank you. You're not allowed. Thank you
very much.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, can you have her removed from
the--please just have her removed.
Dr. Wenstrup. Please, excuse me. I ask the Capitol Police
to escort.
Mr. Garcia. Yes. Thank you. She can be removed.
[Disturbance in hearing room.]
Mr. Garcia. You can be removed. Actually you're not allowed
to speak.
Mr. Raskin. Take your Starbucks with you.
Dr. Wenstrup. Your time has expired, Mr. Garcia.
Mr. Raskin, you're out of line.
Your times have expired.
I now recognize Dr. Jackson from Texas for 5 minutes of
questions.
Dr. Jackson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Fauci, I have to say I, as so many Americans, am deeply
disappointed in your actions during a critical time in our
Nation's history while you were in key leadership roles as the
Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
Disease and as the chief medical advisor to President Biden.
Put quite simply, you failed miserably, in my opinion.
Based on all we have learned during the pandemic and all
that we have since learned through this Committee's work, I
believe your failures stem from both an effort of self-
preservation manifested by a series of lies and cover-up and by
a total failure of leadership.
It was obvious to everyone that you and your organization,
NIH, had a lot to lose if the American people were to discover
that COVID-19 was most likely leaked from a lab in Wuhan,
China, and that you, via EcoHealth Alliance and Peter Daszak,
actually funded this research, and that this lab was actively
and recklessly conducting gain-of-function research.
As such, you did everything in your power to deflect and
cover up this possibility. You even recruited others to help
you in this effort.
Unfortunately, this cost our country and the world valuable
time, time that may have led to answers regarding the origin,
may have blunted the spread, and would have almost certainly
saved lives.
While I think most of us have known all along what I just
described, what I have been appalled to discover through sworn
testimony to this Committee is the level at which you and those
that worked with you went to cover up the obvious.
Just a few examples, and I know these have been touched on,
but they're important for everyone to hear.
Dr. Lawrence Tabak, former Acting Director of NIH,
testified that under the generic definition, that NIH did, in
fact, fund gain-of-function research.
This was based on a definition that was initially used by
NIH and a definition that was abandoned and removed from the
website in October 2021 and replaced by a new, much more
detailed definition with a much higher bar that you have since
conveniently used to define gain-of-function testing and to
deny what Dr. Tabak has since confirmed.
He also said that EcoHealth Alliance failed to properly and
promptly report that their research violated the terms of the
grant, something that went completely unaddressed during your
watch.
Dr. Morens, your senior advisor, who you have tried today
to distance yourself from, but whose large volume of emails
clearly demonstrate that you had a very close and personal
relationship with and who reported to you directly, has openly
bragged about how he subverted FOIA requests.
I remind you that the law requires you and your former
organization to comply with Freedom of Information Act
requests. It is not optional.
If you or your employees or your organization that you
oversaw were systemically avoiding transparency and illegally
hiding or destroying documents that rightfully belong to the
American people, then you should be criminally charged and they
should be as well.
In addition, Dr. Gregory Folkers, your chief of staff, also
engaged in illegal practices in which he crafted messages using
symbols instead of letters to avoid FOIA exposure.
In an email April 2020 from Dr. Morens to Peter Daszak, he
says, quote, ``There are things I can't say.''
Well, I wonder what he couldn't say.
He also went on to say, quote, ``Except Tony is aware and I
have learned there are ongoing efforts within NIH to steer
through this with minimal damage to you, Peter, and colleagues,
and to NIH and NIAID,'' end quote.
And then a few days later he said, quote, ``I have reason
to believe that there are already efforts going on to protect
you,'' end quote.
In February 2021, Dr. Morens wrote to Boston University
scientist Gerald Keusch saying, quote, ``I learned from our
FOIA lady here how to make emails disappear after I'm FOIA'd
but before the search starts, so I think we are all safe,'' end
quote.
Dr. Fauci, I want to know what you were being protected
from and what you needed to be safe from.
I'm going to go on because I have little time here.
He went on to say, quote, ``Plus I deleted most of the
earlier emails after sending to gmail.''
Once again, illegal and an actual crime.
Dr. Morens noted in another email to Dr. Keusch saying,
quote, ``I learned the tricks last year from an old friend,
Marg Moore, who heads our FOIA office and also hates FOIAs,''
end quote.
It is absolutely amazing to me that Dr. Morens and Marg
Moore still have jobs and taxpayers are still paying their
salaries.
Dr. Morens wrote to Dr. Daszak in April 2021, quote, ``PS,
I forgot to say there is no worry about FOIAs. I can either
send stuff to Tony on his private email or hand it to him to
work or at his house. He is too smart to let colleagues send
him stuff that could cause trouble,'' end quote.
Apparently, you neglected to surround yourself with equally
smart individuals.
Dr. Morens wrote to another collaborator, Peter Hotez, in
June 2021, at Baylor College of Medicine, that he had deleted
all of his emails related to COVID origin when, quote, ``the
shit hit the fan,'' end quote. He said, quote, ``I feel pretty
sure Tony would too. The best way to avoid FOIA hassles is to
delete all emails when you learn the subject is pretty
sensitive.''
In October 2021, Dr. Morens wrote to Peter Daszak, quote,
``Peter, from Tony's numerous recent comments to me, and from
what Francis has been vocal about over the past 5 years, we are
trying to protect you,'' and they are protecting their own
reputations as well, end quote.
I'll just jump ahead.
The American people can rest assured that we are going to
continue to pursue answers and we continue to push for full
accountability from you and your colleagues despite continuing
efforts to try to cover this up.
Dr. Fauci, history will not be kind to you, and you'll be
known as the man who put his personal interests before the
interests of the American people, the very people that you were
supposed to be protecting.
Your actions, along with several others we have had before
this Committee, have completely eroded America's trust in our
public health system and the agency that you represented for
half a century.
With that, I yield back.
Dr. Wenstrup. The gentleman's time has expired.
I now recognize Ms. Tokuda from Hawaii for 5 minutes of
questions.
Ms. Tokuda. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I hope I'll have an
additional 30 seconds like the previous gentleman.
And, Dr. Fauci----
Dr. Wenstrup. I have allowed that today----
Ms. Tokuda. Thank you.
Dr. Wenstrup [continuing]. On several occasions.
Ms. Tokuda. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Dr. Fauci, you deserve better than this. The other side
suddenly cares about puppies, ironic given recent book
publications, versus the millions of people that you have kept
safe and alive over your lifelong commitment to public health.
I'd like to use my time to dispel some of the myths about
you that have circulated in right-wing circles.
We can all acknowledge that, yes, suspension of in-person
activities during the early days of COVID, it was necessary to
save lives and to stop the spread, and it was not without its
challenges. It was difficult, particularly for our Nation's
students, like my two sons in public schools, and our business
owners. But to completely blame these policies on you, Dr.
Fauci, is absolutely ridiculous.
I would like to make the record clear on something. The
decision to suspend in-person learning, dining, and other
activities, that was not a decision that you were somehow
solely responsible for, including in your role as NIAID
Director. Is that correct?
Dr. Fauci. Yes.
Ms. Tokuda. In fact, these decisions were actually made at
the state and local level in communities across the country,
like my home state of Hawaii which was particularly aggressive,
in part as a response to the Trump administration's early
failure to contain the initial outbreak of the virus. Is that
not correct?
Dr. Fauci. I'm sorry. I did--ma'am, I'm not really hearing
you very well. Could you just put your----
Ms. Tokuda. We'll put it a little bit closer.
But to be clear, the decisions were actually made at the
state and local levels in communities across the country.
Dr. Fauci. That is correct.
Ms. Tokuda. OK. Thank you.
Now I'd like to shift topics and turn to the allegation
that you sought to suppress opposing viewpoints about the
pandemic response.
Over the past 15 months, Majority Members of this
Subcommittee have levied the allegation that Federal health
officials censored proposals, like the Great Barrington
Declaration, which were inconsistent with the overwhelming
consensus of the scientific and medical community.
Much attention has been paid to an email Dr. Francis
Collins sent you regarding the Great Barrington Declaration
where he called for a quick and devastating published takedown
of its premises.
To be clear, this was not Dr. Collins suggesting that you
suppress or censor the Great Barrington Declaration. Rather, he
was suggesting that the points you just explained be
memorialized to substantively refute the scientific premises of
the Great Barrington Declaration. Is that correct?
Dr. Fauci. Yes.
Ms. Tokuda. And there was good reason for Dr. Collins to
have substantive concerns. The Great Barrington Declaration
proposed lifting mitigation measures for the vast majority of
society and preserving them only for certain populations,
including the elderly and people with underlying health
conditions.
This was months before a vaccination was available and
public health systems are already being overwhelmed and
thousands of Americans were dying daily.
Dr. Fauci, what percentage of the population did we
estimate needed to be infected with COVID before we would
achieve so-called herd immunity?
Dr. Fauci. Herd immunity was very elusive with COVID. And
the Great Barrington Declaration was flawed both conceptually
and in practice; conceptually that you could shield vulnerable
people as if the only vulnerable people are those in nursing
homes.
We have tens and tens of millions of vulnerable people that
you couldn't possibly shield. People with underlying
conditions, the elderly, those would be the individuals. So it
would be conceptually impossible to do that.
Herd immunity, as we know, means if you have a virus that
doesn't change and a virus in which when you get infected or
vaccinated you have highly durable, perhaps lifelong immunity.
That's not the case with COVID. We know immunity wanes, and we
have multiple variants.
So, in practical purposes, the Great Barrington Declaration
was invalid, both conceptually and practically.
Ms. Tokuda. Thank you, Dr. Fauci.
You've answered a few of my other questions in terms of the
fact that for many of us that live in multigenerational
communities, thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions more
lives would have been impacted by this so-called approach. And
given the fact that the virus' rapid evolution that we have
seen since 2020, herd immunity approaches would be absolutely
ineffective against COVID.
If you would answer one more question. Considering the
mortality rates at the time, how many more deaths might we have
seen, just briefly?
Dr. Fauci. I mean, if we had done that, just let it rip,
there very likely would have been another million people would
have died, I would imagine.
Ms. Tokuda. Thank you, Mr. Fauci.
So, it wasn't the Federal Government suppressing the Great
Barrington Declaration. Rather, it was about protecting and
saving millions of American lives.
The COVID-19 pandemic wasn't some academic exercise. It was
real. It was in real time. It was about saving lives in real
time.
Theories like herd immunity may seem plausible on paper,
but we have to remember that it is based upon the assumption
that enough people would have to be infected, and that would
likely have meant that our family members, our friends, our
neighbors, our constituents, especially those in our most
marginalized multigenerational rural communities, would have
died.
So, thank you, Dr. Fauci. I want to thank you, not blame
you. Thank you for your science. Thank you for your science
that have saved millions of American lives, kept us safe,
including my children, many of our families right here on this
dais.
And thank you for clarifying these points for the record
and for all of your efforts to keep us safe during the pandemic
and so many other health crises we have faced over the decades
that you have served.
Mahalo, Mr. Chair, and I yield back.
Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize Dr. McCormick for 5 minutes
of questions.
Dr. McCormick. Thank you, Dr. Wenstrup, Chairman.
It's been insinuated that politicians--only politicians,
only bloggers, only conspiracy theorists are disagreeing with
you.
I want to point out that I'm probably the only Member of
Congress that actually treated patients during the pandemic,
from the very beginning to the very end of the pandemic, during
night shifts in the ER, thousands of patients during that time.
And in 2020, I was censored, my medical license was
threatened, because I disagreed with bureaucrats, literally
taken off the internet as a person who was treating patients
with leading-edge technologies, developing theories, but doing
my very best, but being censored by the U.S. Government, for
the first time stepping in and taking the place of medical
professionals as the experts in healthcare.
Any dissent surrounding COVID-19 treatments, mask mandates,
and any public policy surrounding the pandemic was immediately
labeled as anti-science. I watched as public health officials
and politicians told my patients what treatment options were
best for them, regardless of their comorbidities or their
medical history.
Despite my education and my training and my experience, my
opinions were relegated to conspiracy and misinformation by so-
called healthcare experts who had never treated a patient
throughout the entire pandemic.
This has been a black eye on medicine and has highlighted
why government should never, never insert itself in between
patients and their healthcare providers. The American people
deserve to make medical decisions through conversations with
their physicians rather than politically motivated mandates.
Dr. Fauci, did you ever treat a patient for COVID during
the pandemic?
Dr. Fauci. I was part of a team that was at the NIH that
took care--we didn't take care of many of them because----
Dr. McCormick. OK. So not hands on. Got it. Thank you.
Why would I be criticized by a bureaucrat for doing my very
best as a healthcare--this is a rhetorical question. But why?
Why would the government, who's never treated a patient for
COVID? You can read all the things you want, but you're not
there. You're not seeing patients. You're not watching people
die, intubating patients right there with that disease in your
face, watching it happen, watching the development of this
disease and actually learning from it. But I'm being told by
bureaucrats what's right and wrong.
And what's funny is everything I was censored on, I was
proven to be right. Pretty crazy, isn't it?
You said in your interview that you gave as part of an
audio book written by Michael Specter that you believed an
institution should make it hard for people to live their lives
so they'd feel pressured to get vaccinated.
Could we run the audio clip on that, please?
[Audio recording played.]
Dr. McCormick. Thank you.
Are all objections to COVID vaccinations ideological
bullshit, Dr. Fauci?
Dr. Fauci. No, they're not.
Dr. McCormick. Thank you.
Dr. Fauci. And that's not what I was referring to.
Dr. McCormick. Well, in reference to making it hard for
people to get education, traveling, working, I'd say it very
much was in context, and I take great offense to this.
Ms. Allison Williams testified before this Committee about
losing her job because she sought an exemption for ESPN's
vaccine mandate which came from a recommendation from
bureaucrats like yourself.
She and her husband were actively working with a fertility
expert, a physician, on how to get pregnant and agreed with the
premise that she was young, healthy, wanted to get pregnant,
and shouldn't get the vaccination for medical purposes.
But she was fired, because you made it hard, just like you
said in your statement, because you didn't want to make sure
that the ideological bullshit got in the way of her working, of
living her life, of making a medical decision with her
healthcare professional.
I think America should take great offense to this. That's
exactly what you meant when you said making it hard for people
to live without getting a vaccination. You affected people's
ability to work, travel, be educated, to actually flourish in
America, in fact to self-determine as well given God-given
rights. Shame on you.
Dr. Fauci, you've become Dr. Fear. Americans do not hate
science. I don't hate science. The American people hate having
their freedoms taken from them.
You inspired and created a fear through mask mandates,
school closures, vaccine mandates that have destroyed the
American people's trust in our public health institutions.
This fear you created will continue to have ripple effects
over generations to come. You have already seen its effects in
education, in the economy, and everything else. Quite frankly,
you said, ``If you disagree with me, you disagree with
science.''
Dr. Fauci, I disagree with you because I disagree with
fear.
And with that, I yield.
Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize Mr. Moskowitz from Florida
for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Moskowitz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Fauci, good to be with you here today.
I was not here, but I saw a Member of this Committee
questioned whether or not you represent science and tried to
make that in some offensive way. I just want you to know most
Americans don't think she represents Congress.
[Audio recording played.]
Mr. Moskowitz. So I hear now double Fauci.
So, I don't want you to be offended by that.
I actually, similar to Representative McCormick, who was
serving in the field as a doctor during COVID, I was running
the logistics operation and the Florida response as the
director of emergency management for the state of Florida for
Governor DeSantis.
So, I was deploying masks and gowns and gloves. We were
setting up field hospitals, we were setting up testing sites,
we were setting up vaccine sites throughout the pandemic.
And the one thing that became clear to me: As a country we
were not prepared. In fact, we actually had many preparations
for a pandemic, but both the states collectively and the
Federal Government threw that out and kind of was just making
it up as we go.
One of the things I wanted to ask you--and I understand
you're not in the response field--but do you feel since you've
left that we are better prepared today than we were several
years ago when COVID hit?
Dr. Fauci. In some respects, we are; but in others, I'm
still disappointed. And I think one of the things that was
really a problem with the response was the degree of
divisiveness that we had in the country about a lack of a
coherent response where we were having people, for reasons that
had nothing to do with public health or science, refusing to
adhere to public health intervention measures.
What I think that we will do better, hopefully, is that the
CDC, I believe, has now recognized some of the failings of the
lack of communication and interaction between the Federal
response and the local public health officials.
One of the weaknesses that we had in the United States that
other countries didn't have was a disconnect between the
healthcare system and the public health system, whereas the CDC
can't demand information from local public health individuals,
they have to volunteer to give it to them. And it isn't given
to them in real time. So we were at a disadvantage.
Mr. Moskowitz. Oh, no question. I saw that. I saw how--the
lack of investment in technology, right? We had states trying
to share information with the Federal Government using, you
know, Windows 2000.
Dr. Fauci. Or fax machines.
Mr. Moskowitz. Fax machines, exactly.
Dr. Fauci. Yes.
Mr. Moskowitz. And so, you know, we spent $7 trillion in
two packages in two administrations. And one of my concerns is,
is that I feel that, especially in supply chain, I feel like
we're not that much better off than we were before COVID. Am I
wrong in that assessment?
Dr. Fauci. Yes, I don't think you're wrong, but I hope
that--the CDC has made it very clear that they are trying to
change that and correct that deficit of a separation between
the local and the Federal CDC so that we can get information in
real time.
It was very frustrating for us that often we had to go to
the U.K. or South Africa or Israel to get real-time information
because they had a connection between what was going on on the
ground and their public health system. So they knew right away
what was happening. We didn't.
Mr. Moskowitz. Dr. Fauci, you talked about how, you know,
we live in partisan times, a lot of misinformation. And, you
know, colleagues on this body said, you know, you should be,
you know, charged and found guilty. Of course, the only one
that that's happened to is your former boss.
But, you know, the question I have is, when you saw a lot
of that disinformation, whether it was, you know, we can use a
disinfectant to do, like, a cleaning or do light in the body or
that, you know, China is working super hard, President Xi's got
it contained, all of the stuff that was being put out, were you
concerned--you know, what was your feeling at that time working
in the administration seeing that come from the podium?
Dr. Fauci. Well, I was very frustrated by that. It was very
clear. I was put in a very difficult position that I didn't
like of having to contradict publicly the President of the
United States. I took no great pleasure in that, but I felt it
was my responsibility to preserve----
Mr. Moskowitz. He must have thought you did a great job. He
gave you a commendation right before he left.
Dr. Fauci. Well, I felt it was my responsibility, you know,
to preserve my own personal integrity and my major
responsibility to the American public to tell them the truth.
And if I could just take this opportunity. When I was
saying that if you attack me, you attack science, I didn't mean
that I am science. What I meant was that when the data showed
that hydroxychloroquine does not work and there are people
saying, ``Oh, it does, I'll give it to people,'' and we know it
can be hurtful to them, then when you're attacking what I'm
saying, that the science shows it doesn't work and the science
shows that bleach doesn't work, that when you attack that, you
really are attacking science, because science has shown that it
doesn't work. That's what I meant when you're attacking me,
you're attacking science.
Mr. Moskowitz. Thank you, Doctor.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Dr. Wenstrup. The gentleman's time has expired.
I now recognize Mr. Jordan from Ohio for 5 minutes.
Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Doctor, why was it so important that the virus not have
started in a lab?
Dr. Fauci. We don't know where it started, and that's the
reason why I keep an open mind. So I don't know what you mean
by, why was it so important? It wasn't important.
Mr. Jordan. You still don't know where it started? The guys
you gave money to figured it out in 3 days.
Dr. Fauci. No, no, no. They----
Mr. Jordan. Mr. Andersen said on January 31, 2020, ``Virus
looks engineered. Virus not consistent with evolutionary
theory.''
The very next day Dr. Garry said, ``I don't know how this
happens in nature. It would be easy to do in a lab.''
And then 3 days later, shazam, they switch and say it
didn't--it has to be nature.
So they figured it out in 3 days, but you still don't know?
Dr. Fauci. No. In fact, if you look at what they were
saying, Congressman Jordan, they were saying that it was not a
manufactured virus. It still could have evolved out of a lab--
--
Mr. Jordan. Let me read something here to you. In our----
Dr. Fauci. They're not incompatible.
Mr. Jordan. In our study on the censorship of the Biden
administration working with Big Tech, I want to read you a
WhatsApp message from Mark Zuckerberg.
``Can we include that the White House put pressure on us to
censor the lab leak theory.''
So this is a communication on July 16, 2021, Nick Clegg,
Joel Kaplan, Sheryl Sandberg, Mark Zuckerberg. They're
certainly feeling the pressure to downplay any lab leak theory
and go with the natural origin theory.
Dr. Fauci. Is there a question there?
Mr. Jordan. It's coming. One's coming.
Here's another email to Mark Zuckerberg. It says, Subject
line: ``COVID misinformation. Wuhan lab leak theory. In
response to continued public pressure, intense conversations
with the new administration, we started removing five COVID
claims, including the lab leak theory.''
Mr. Zuckerberg responds, ``This seems like a good reminder
that when we compromise our standards due to pressure from an
administration, in either direction, we often later regret
it.''
Why was it so important the virus not have started in a
lab?
Dr. Fauci. It wasn't so important that the virus not. We
don't know. We know----
Mr. Jordan. Well, it was important to someone in the Biden
administration, so much so that the top people at Meta, the top
people at Facebook are asking, ``Why are we getting all this
pressure to downplay the lab leak theory?'' And we have an
email from June of the same year, June 4, 2021, saying the same
thing. It was certainly important to somebody.
Dr. Fauci. Well, what does that got to do with me?
Mr. Jordan. I'm asking you because you're the expert on
coronavirus. I'm saying why was the administration----
Dr. Fauci. Am I on this email?
Mr. Jordan [continuing]. Why was the administration so
pushing not to have the lab leak theory as something that was
viable.
Dr. Fauci. I can't answer that. I've kept an open mind
throughout the entire process.
Mr. Jordan. You've kept an open mind. Dr. Fauci, open mind.
Dr. Fauci. That is correct.
Mr. Jordan. What happened in those 3 days? Why did Dr.
Andersen and--excuse me--Mr. Andersen and Dr. Garry, why did
they change their mind 180 degrees? Because what Kristian
Andersen says 3 days later, after he said, ``Virus looks
engineered. Virus not consistent with evolutionary theory,'' 3
days later he says, ``The main crackpot theories going around
at the moment relate to this virus being somehow engineered,
and that is demonstrably false.''
How did they figure all that out in 3 days, Dr. Fauci----
Dr. Fauci. You can do that----
Mr. Jordan [continuing]. If you still have an open mind?
Dr. Fauci. Well, what they did is that--you know, they
testified before this Committee what they did. They went back
and looked at the sequences and realized that their initial
concern was unfounded about that and it did not look at all
like it was manufactured. But as they said in their paper, even
though they feel it was more likely----
Mr. Jordan. Three days they figured it out.
Dr. Fauci. That's exactly. You could do that in 3 days.
Mr. Jordan. OK.
Dr. Fauci. You can scan sequences in a day.
Mr. Jordan. OK.
Dr. Fauci. You don't need 3 days.
Mr. Jordan. OK. Who's Robert Redfield?
Dr. Fauci. The former Director of the CDC.
Mr. Jordan. Dr. Redfield, right? And he was also on the
Coronavirus Task Force. Is that accurate?
Dr. Fauci. He was a member of the Coronavirus Task Force.
Mr. Jordan. Here's what he said to this Committee. He
said--Redfield said that Fauci and Collins ``left him out
because Redfield suspected that coronavirus had leaked from the
Chinese lab.''
Is that accurate?
Dr. Fauci. Well, he said that, but that's not true.
Mr. Jordan. You're saying----
Dr. Fauci. That is incorrect, Congressman.
Mr. Jordan [continuing]. Dr. Redfield was lying to the
Committee----
Dr. Fauci. No.
Mr. Jordan [continuing]. When he sat right where you sat?
Dr. Fauci. When he said that I kept him out, that is an
incorrect statement. The roster who was on the phone----
Mr. Jordan. Was Dr. Redfield in that conference call on
February 1 when you had Mr. Andersen and Dr. Garry on that
call?
Dr. Fauci. He was not. And the conference call was put
together by Jeremy Farrar. So no one kept him out. He said he
was kept out because he felt----
Mr. Jordan. Did U.S. tax dollars----
Dr. Fauci. Do you want me to answer the question?
Mr. Jordan. Yes. I just wondered why he wasn't on the call.
It seems to me the head of CDC, part of the Coronavirus Task
Force which was formed 2 days prior to that call, would have
been on the call.
Dr. Fauci. Well, the call was arranged by Jeremy Farrar.
You should ask him.
Mr. Jordan. OK. Did U.S. tax dollars flow through a grant
recipient to the lab in China?
Dr. Fauci. I'm sorry? What was----
Mr. Jordan. Did U.S. tax dollars flow through a grant
recipient to the lab in China.
Dr. Fauci. Yes, of course. It was a subaward to the Wuhan
Institute----
Mr. Jordan. And who approved that award.
Mr. Fauci. Excuse me?
Mr. Jordan. And who approved that award? What agency
approved that award.
Dr. Fauci. The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
Diseases.
Mr. Jordan. Your agency approved that, right.
Dr. Fauci. Yes, it did, after----
Mr. Jordan. Does that have anything to do with this
downplaying of the lab leak theory.
Dr. Fauci. No.
Mr. Jordan. Nothing to do with it?
Dr. Fauci. Nothing.
Mr. Jordan. Do you agree that there was a push to downplay
the lab leak theory?
Dr. Fauci. Not on my part.
Mr. Jordan. Really?
Dr. Fauci. Really.
Mr. Jordan. Wow. I think most of the country would find
that amazing.
I've still got 11 seconds.
Dr. Fauci. Well, look at the facts. I've kept an open mind
throughout the entire process.
Mr. Jordan. All right. I yield back.
Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize the Majority Staff for no
longer than 30 minutes of questions.
Majority Staff. Dr. Fauci, it's good to see you again. I
want to ask a couple of questions about some of the Members'
questions and then get into some follow-ups.
The issue of the CIA trip was brought up. That was brought
to us by a whistleblower. That was not an allegation made by
the Committee. It was an allegation made by the whistleblower.
You testified at a transcribed interview back in early
January. Do you recall me asking you about that allegation?
Dr. Fauci. About going to the CIA?
Majority Staff. Yes.
Dr. Fauci. Yes.
Majority Staff. And do you recall--and you denied it then
as well, and you denied it here today. Do you recall the
Subcommittee publishing that you denied it?
Dr. Fauci. I don't recall.
Majority Staff. We did.
Dr. Fauci. You did. OK.
Majority Staff. We put it out in a press release afterwards
that you denied the whistleblower's allegation.
Dr. Fauci. OK.
Majority Staff. And then today, during the course of the
last couple hours, have any Members on the Majority side of the
dais asked you about a trip to the CIA?
Dr. Fauci. Yes.
Majority Staff. They have?
Dr. Fauci. No, they have. I'm sorry. Mitch, I'm not hearing
you so well. Let me turn this off.
Mr. Mfume. I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Wenstrup. What's the gentleman's point of order?
Mr. Mfume. I have an inquiry about whether or not I'm
hearing things or whether or not you just yielded 30 minutes of
Committee time to staff.
Dr. Wenstrup. That is correct, both sides.
Mr. Mfume. And the question that the gentleman just raised
was a question that I raised. So apparently he was not
listening when I was questioning Dr. Fauci.
Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you for your point of order.
You may continue.
Majority Staff. What I asked was we asked you about this in
a transcribed interview. You testified that you did not go to
the CIA.
Dr. Fauci. Yes.
Majority Staff. We published that you refuted that
allegation.
Dr. Fauci. Yes.
Majority Staff. And then today no Members of the Republican
side of the dais have asked you that question. Is that
accurate?
Dr. Fauci. Yes.
Majority Staff. Thank you.
You've been asked a number of times about your former
senior advisor, Dr. Morens, and have said--and I want to make
sure I characterize it correctly because it goes a little back
and forth--that you didn't conduct official business over a
personal email with Dr. Morens.
Has Dr. Morens emailed to your personal email before on
nonofficial purposes?
Dr. Fauci. As I mentioned, we wrote scientific papers
together, so he very well may have used that because that's the
email I use when I write a scientific paper, right.
Majority Staff. And that's because NIAID policy allows you
to write, on semi-official time, write papers, but you just
have to put a disclaimer that this is not the----
Dr. Fauci. Yes. In other words, if you're doing something
as official business, you shouldn't use your emails that are
official business. So in order to be compliant with the
regulations, you would use a personal email.
Majority Staff. I appreciate it.
I want to ask about some of the public health policies
enacted during the pandemic.
Dr. Francis Collins, the former NIH Director, recently said
at an interview, and I'm quoting, ``You attach an infinite
value to stopping the disease and saving a life. You attach a
zero value to whether this actually totally disrupts people's
lives, ruins the economy, and has kept many kids out of school
in a way that they never quite recovered.''
Understanding the COVID Task Force had a lot of voices at
the table, is that an accurate description of the public health
advisors and then you could fit in other advisors along the
way?
Dr. Fauci. Yes. You know, Mitch, what I believe that Dr.
Collins was saying was that we give a advice based on pure
public health issues.
It's very, very clear now, retrospectively, looking at the
potential collateral negative effects of things like mandating,
it would be important for us now, since the purpose of, I
believe, why we're here, is to how we can do better next time,
is to consider the balance.
I think things that we did in the beginning were in the
context of a horrible situation of four to five thousand deaths
per day. But that doesn't mean that you don't go back and look
and say: Did everything we do at that point and the duration
for which we did it, was that appropriate and do we need to
reexamine?
I believe that's what Dr. Collins was referring to, and I
agree with him on that.
Majority Staff. And you got to my next question, that we
are here trying to figure out how to do better next time, lose
fewer lives next time.
Dr. Fauci. Yes.
Majority Staff. Would that be a better thought process
going forward of thinking about the possible unintended
consequences of public health measures?
Dr. Fauci. Absolutely.
Majority Staff. And you've heard from both sides of the
dais today, first weeks, months, novel virus, nobody knew what
was going on, called for some drastic measures.
Understanding--once there was a better understanding of who
the most affected demographics were, do you think it would be
important to more narrowly craft public health measures to
specifically favor those demographics?
Dr. Fauci. The answer is yes, but you have to be careful,
because if you have a certain group that is being predominantly
afflicted, if you're really, really clear that another group is
really quite protected, then you should fashion it
demographically related.
But what often happens with outbreaks is that they're a
moving target, and you only hear about other vulnerables as you
get further into the outbreak.
So, the answer to your question is you're partially
correct, that you need to do that, but you've got to be careful
when you're dealing with a moving target.
Majority Staff. And we can appreciate that.
You've been asked a little bit again about the theories of
natural immunity and herd immunity. Those are both real
scientific theories in infectious diseases. Is that correct?
Dr. Fauci. Yes.
Majority Staff. And between infection-acquired immunity and
vaccinated-acquired immunity, did the United States hit herd
immunity?
Dr. Fauci. The answer is no, and I've written a paper on
that, is that when you're dealing--just let me take 30 seconds.
I don't want to run out the clock on you, but I think it's
important to make this point.
When you talk about herd immunity, it's predicated on two
principles: that you're dealing with a pathogen that's not
changing; and, No. 2, that when you either get infected or
vaccinated, the duration of the immunity is measured in
decades, if not a lifetime.
So, that if you have a pathogen that stays the same--like
measles doesn't change. So I was infected with measles when I
was a child. It's the same measles that's infecting people in
certain countries in the developing world.
No. 2, when you get either infected or vaccinated with
measles, you have immunity that's durable minimally in decades
and possibly for life.
So, if you get the same pathogen and you get a large
percentage of the people who have either been infected or
vaccinated, then you have herd immunity. We did not ever have
that with COVID.
Majority Staff. And you've also been asked a number of
times about the vaccine and vaccine mandates. Were you the one
that recommended to the President to mandate vaccines for
certain individuals?
Dr. Fauci. No.
Majority Staff. Do you know who did?
Dr. Fauci. No. It was more of a--it was a combination of a
group and just saying that, you know, certain agencies, like
the Labor Department or what have you, would feel that this
were to be done. But it was not like I 1 day said, ``Hey, we
should mandate vaccines.'' That did not happen.
Majority Staff. And I want to echo the comments of the
Chairman that we agree the vaccine saved hundreds of thousands
of lives. And we talked about this a little bit in January, and
I think you touched on it a little bit today.
Could issuing these mandates and removing the notion of
informed consent from some certain sects of the citizenry lead
to vaccine hesitancy?
Dr. Fauci. Yes. I mentioned this, I believe, in the TI,
that as a matter of fact that's something that I think we need
to go back now, when we do an after-the-event evaluation, about
whether or not, given the psyche of the country and the
pushback that you get from those types of things, we need to
reevaluate the cost-benefit ratio of those types of things.
Majority Staff. And then I won't belabor the point, but we
talked about the six-foot distance an awful lot today.
Do you recall if it was ever suggested to be 10 feet?
Dr. Fauci. You know, I don't recall, Mitch, if it was ever
suggested it was 10 feet. But when I made my explanation of
what it was, I was saying that there was no trial that looked
at 10 versus 6 versus 3 versus not even worrying about it at
all.
Majority Staff. And you said today that there were
discussions at the White House about the six-foot rule. You
don't recall if it was discussions about whether or not it
should be 3 or should be 10 or should be 6?
Dr. Fauci. You know, I don't recall, Mitch, what the exact
discussion was. But as I've said in response to multiple
questions, what we had was it came to CDC was said that on the
basis of their evaluation, which was based on the droplet
approach, that six-foot would be the go. And since there was no
clinical trials going one way or the other, that's why it was
accepted by the group.
Majority Staff. And then it hasn't been a large topic
today, and we talked about kind of like in the many unknowns in
early 2020 schools were closed through the semester, some
schools reopened for the fall semester, some remained closed
going through into 2021.
Looking back, were there--are there current academic
ramifications of remote schooling or kids not being in school?
Dr. Fauci. I think there have been a number of studies--not
I think, I know--that there have been a number of studies to
show that there are lasting effects, at least up to this point.
They tend to attenuate over time. But there have been
substantial negative effects on learning and on children when
you keep them out of school for a prolonged period of time.
Majority Staff. Have you seen any studies suggesting
physical health ramifications?
Dr. Fauci. I haven't seen physical health ramifications.
Majority Staff. Mental health?
Dr. Fauci. I believe that there are some that show
psychological issues that relate to keeping kids out of the
environment, of the social environment of the school.
Majority Staff. I'm--and apologize for bouncing around. We
don't have 14 hours with you today. I've got 30 minutes. So,
I'm going to----
Dr. Fauci. Yes, I'm so sorry about that.
Majority Staff. I'm going to move quickly.
Dr. Fauci. Yes.
Majority Staff. Again, across the dais, both sides of the
aisle, a lot of questions on the origins of COVID and finding
out the origins and how that could better lead to both
protecting against spillover and wildlife trade, but also
increase biosafety standards.
As you sit here today, is it possible that COVID-19 was the
result of a laboratory-related accident?
Dr. Fauci. Oh, absolutely. And I keep, like I mentioned
multiple times, I keep an open mind.
I feel, based on the data that I have seen, that the more
likely--not definitive--but the more likely explanation is a
natural spillover from an animal reservoir. But since there has
not been definitive proof one way or the other, we have to keep
an open mind that it could be either.
Majority Staff. And based on that answer, I think, is the
hypothesis that COVID-19 accidentally leaked from a lab a
conspiracy theory?
Dr. Fauci. No. I mentioned that several times.
Conceptually, the concept of it is not a conspiracy theory.
Majority Staff. We've talked a little bit about ``The
Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2,'' the paper authored by Dr.
Andersen. It came to two primary conclusions, and I'm quoting.
``Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a
laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus'' and
``we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario
is plausible.''
Do you disagree with those conclusions?
Dr. Fauci. I think, Mitch, if I'm not mistaken--I don't
have the paper in front of me--I think they also said the
possibility of if you passaged it in, you could have done that.
Majority Staff. And they----
Dr. Fauci. And that--and if you passage it, it's in a lab.
So it is--I mean, that could be.
Majority Staff. And they dispelled that at the end with the
``we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario
is plausible.''
So, I'm just--I'll ask again. Is a laboratory-based
scenario plausible?
Dr. Fauci. Well, I mean, again, I'm not--I don't want to
speak for what they meant in that paper, but I have said
multiple times I keep an open mind that it could be either a
laboratory leak or it could be what I think the data is leaning
toward mostly, which is a natural occurrence from an animal
reservoir.
Majority Staff. And this email was brought up, too, on
April 16, 2020. Dr. Collins wrote to you and said, ``Wondering
if there's something NIH can do to help put down this very
destructive conspiracy,'' referencing the lab leak. ``I hoped
the Nature Medicine article on the genomic sequence of SARS-
CoV-2 would settle this, but probably didn't get much
visibility. Anything more we can do?''
The next day, you were at a White House press conference
and cited Proximal Origin and said that Proximal Origin
established that COVID-19, quote, ``is totally consistent with
a jump of a species from an animal to human.''
Dr. Fauci. Right.
Majority Staff. Did anyone tell you to cite Proximal Origin
from the White House podium?
Dr. Fauci. No. It was in response, I believe, to a question
that might have been asked by a reporter. But I wasn't
stimulated to say that at all. I was responding to a question.
Majority Staff. At that time back in April 2020, was it
also your belief that a lab leak was possible?
Dr. Fauci. Yes. I've always had an open mind about it.
Majority Staff. And then I want to correct the record again
a little bit on the drafting and publication of the Proximal
Origin paper.
Did Dr. Andersen send you drafts to review?
Dr. Fauci. He sent drafts, but I'm going to jump ahead of
you if I might dribble around. I did not edit it.
Majority Staff. That was----
Dr. Fauci. It was mentioned by a few of the Congressmen.
Majority Staff. It was.
Dr. Fauci. I did not edit the paper.
Majority Staff. And I appreciate that. I just wanted to get
on the record.
Dr. Fauci. Right.
Majority Staff. I want to talk about Dr. Morens and what
you wrote in your opening testimony and some of the answers
that you gave today.
And just for clarity, you were, in addition to being
unaware of his use of personal email and potentially
intentionally deleting Federal records, were you also unaware
of his actions to assist Dr. Daszak and EcoHealth?
Dr. Fauci. I am--I was aware of his friendship. I was not
aware of his attempts to assist him to respond to an NIH
inquiry.
Majority Staff. So not aware of the editing of press
releases or editing of letters?
Dr. Fauci. No, I was not.
Majority Staff. On November 11, 2021, Dr. Morens wrote in
an email to Dr. Daszak that he attempted to discuss the
EcoHealth grant with you and you, quote, ``got upset'' and told
him to have no more communications with Peter.
Why did you tell Dr. Morens to no longer communicate with
Dr. Daszak?
Dr. Fauci. Because I think it's inappropriate to do what he
did, I mean, and your Committee has called him out very
definitively about that. And it was inappropriate to do that.
Majority Staff. This is back in 2021. What did you know
about what he was doing then?
Dr. Fauci. I didn't know exactly what he was doing, but I
don't think it's appropriate for people to be communicating and
helping a grantee in a response. I didn't know exactly what he
was doing, but I didn't think it was appropriate.
Majority Staff. When did you--you testified to Chairman
Griffith--or, excuse me, Chairman Comer--that you knew about
the compliance issues later on with EcoHealth.
When did you first become aware?
Dr. Fauci. I became aware during briefings by my staff in
preparation for congressional hearings well after the fact
where the compliance issues actually happened. And I didn't
know--as I mentioned to you in the TI, Mitch--I didn't even
know the grant existed before the outbreak.
And then, finally, when there was this issue about
congressional hearings, I needed to know, what is this grant,
what are we doing with it, and are there any issues? That's
when they said there was a compliance problem of the fourth
year versus the fifth year progress report.
Majority Staff. Some of the other emails from Dr. Morens I
just want to read into the record and ask you if his
recollection is accurate.
On April 27, 2020, Dr. Morens wrote, ``I am sure privately
he would love to see Peter and EcoHealth fully restored,
although he did once make the comment to me that Peter had
screwed himself with the late report. I already told him that
all that crap wasn't true.''
The late report was true, despite what Dr. Morens said.
On April 21, 2021, Dr. Morens wrote that he was sure you
would do anything you could to restore the funds to EcoHealth.
On June 5, 2021, Dr. Morens wrote that you were working
behind the scenes to undo the damage to EcoHealth.
On October 21, 2021, Dr. Morens wrote, ``Peter, I had my
regular meeting with Tony this morning. He immediately inquired
about you and several times asked how you were doing. He used a
lot of colorful language about the situation with attacks on
EcoHealth.''
On October 25, 2021, Dr. Morens wrote that you were trying
to protect EcoHealth.
On March 22, 2021, Dr. Morens wrote, ``The most important
is within NIH to get the decision reversed and the grant
refunded. I believe Tony would like to do this.''
And on February 24, 2022, Dr. Morens wrote, ``It will be a
small consolation to hear the following, but in my face-to-face
meeting with Tony this morning he once again brought up, as he
usually does, your plight, Peter.''
Did you ever have any discussions with Dr. Morens about
protecting EcoHealth or helping restore funding?
Dr. Fauci. Not at all. I don't know what--to be honest with
you, Mitch, I just don't know what Dr. Morens is talking about
with that. Maybe he's trying to, as he said, cheer up--he said
that in front of this Committee--cheer up Dr. Daszak. But to
say that I'm getting involved in trying to help him or protect
him, not so.
Majority Staff. Did you ever have any conversations with
Dr. Morens about what Dr. Daszak was facing or about the
termination of the grant?
Dr. Fauci. You know, I may--he may have mentioned to me
something like Dr. Daszak is going through terrible times. But
I don't recall. It is conceivable that he would have mentioned
that to me, because, as he mentioned to you, that Dr. Daszak
and he are very good friends.
So, it would not be surprising if sometime he had mentioned
to me, ``Boy, Dr. Daszak's going through some really tough
times.'' Fine. That doesn't mean that I say you should help
him.
Majority Staff. No, it absolutely doesn't. So, that's why
we want to ask the questions----
Dr. Fauci. Yes.
Majority Staff. [continuing] And get the answers.
During your transcribed interview with us, you were asked
about whether or not Dr. Daszak had a conflict of interest in
reviewing the origins of COVID-19.
And you testified, ``You know, I hesitate to speculate
about what someone else should do. The only people that I am
involved with is my own staff, who we've mentioned many times
in this discussion, who don't have a conflict of interest.''
With the benefit of hindsight and the work of this
Committee, do you believe Dr. Morens had a conflict of interest
regarding EcoHealth?
Dr. Fauci. Well, from what we know now, he definitely had a
conflict, because he was communicating with a grantee and
helping him in response to an NIH issue, which is a conflict of
interest. I did not know that at the time when I made your
statement.
Majority Staff. And I appreciate that.
Dr. Fauci. Yes.
Majority Staff. Sticking with EcoHealth, in April 2020 NIH
terminated and then subsequently reinstated and then suspended
the EcoHealth grant that had the Wuhan Institute as a
subgrantee.
Do you recall that decision?
Dr. Fauci. Yes.
Majority Staff. Were you involved at all in that decision?
Dr. Fauci. No.
Majority Staff. You previously testified to House Energy
and Commerce that you were, in essence, told to cancel the
grant. Do you recall who told you?
Dr. Fauci. We got it from a number of--now,
retrospectively, we found out how it was. It was the White
House told the Department to tell the NIH to cancel the grant.
Majority Staff. Did you agree with the cancellation?
[Disturbance in the hearing room.]
Dr. Fauci. What is that? Do we need to listen to that?
Majority Staff. He was escorted out.
Dr. Fauci. Yes. OK. Good.
I'm sorry, repeat the question, Mitch.
Majority Staff. Did you agree with the cancellation?
Dr. Fauci. You know, it wasn't a question of agreeing or
disagreeing. It was like, ``Can we really do that? I don't
think that you can do that.'' And as it turned out, I was
right, because the general counsel of HHS said, ``By the way,
you can't do that. You've got to restore the grant.''
Majority Staff. And that's why they restored it and then
suspended it, pending the compliance review.
Dr. Fauci. Yes, exactly.
Majority Staff. Not to keep reading Dr. Morens' emails, but
on June 24, 2020, Dr. Morens wrote an email.
``He,'' referencing you, ``made some additional comments to
the effect that this came from the White House and he was
totally opposed to it.''
You weren't totally opposed to it?
Dr. Fauci. Well, see, that's his--you know, he's doing a
lot of interpretation, Mitch. His interpretation I was totally
opposed to it. It was more of, can we really legally do that?
And the answer turned out I was right, no, you can't.
Majority Staff. Do you recall the--did the Department ask
you first or Dr. Collins first to terminate the grant?
Dr. Fauci. I think it went directly to Building 10--excuse
me, Building 1, the Director's Office.
Majority Staff. Is that the NIH Director's Office?
Dr. Fauci. Yes, yes. I think it--it went from the
Department to NIH to us.
Majority Staff. OK. Were you, prior to your retirement in
December 2022, were you involved in any of the compliance
actions NIH took against EcoHealth?
Dr. Fauci. I don't believe so. I think the actual--and,
again, I'm a little unclear about the time--but I think most of
the disciplinary actions actually occurred after I left, if I'm
not mistaken.
Majority Staff. Yes, the actual suspension and debarment
occurred after you left, but there were a number of letters
requesting lab notebooks or further information----
Dr. Fauci. Yes, I----
Majority Staff. [continuing] While you were still there.
Dr. Fauci. Yes. What happened, Mitch, and it's important to
point this out, once it was clear that there was compliance
issues while I was still there, we were told at NIAID, stay out
of it, compliance is going to be handled by Building 1--i.e.,
the NIH Director--and Mike Lauer. So the compliance was said,
don't touch it, don't go near it, just we'll take care of it.
Majority Staff. And you just brought this up. Since the
original termination, then suspension, NIH found numerous major
violations of grant policies, has since debarred the Wuhan
Institute of Virology and suspended and proposed for debarment
both EcoHealth as an institution and Dr. Daszak individually.
Are you aware of those?
Dr. Fauci. Yes, I am.
Majority Staff. During previous TIs and hearings, when
asked if they supported every one of these actions and
supported the suspension and debarment, both Dr. Collins and
Dr. Tabak said yes.
Sitting here today, do you support the suspension and
debarment of EcoHealth?
Dr. Fauci. Yes.
Majority Staff. I want to move on to the kind of, like,
``known unknowns'' of COVID origins, to quote Dr. Lipkin's
paper from early 2020.
On October 20, 2021, Dr. Tabak sent a letter to then-
Ranking Member Mr. Comer that said the bat coronaviruses
studied under the EcoHealth Alliance grant could not have been
the source of SARS-CoV-2 and the COVID-19 pandemic. You've
testified similarly both back in January and today.
Some of the things that I believe Chairman Griffith brought
up was just kind of that statement results on some things--
rests on some things that we just can't know.
In your experience, Dr. Fauci, do researchers publish every
virus that they sequence?
Dr. Fauci. No. I mean, I think researchers don't always
publish every single thing they do.
Majority Staff. Do they routinely publish every experiment
that they conduct?
Dr. Fauci. I'm sure there are people who don't publish
every single experiment that they do.
Majority Staff. And then is there a lag time between the
sampling, the analysis, and the publication?
Dr. Fauci. Yes. I mean, publications often take months
before they come out.
Majority Staff. Is it possible, if not plausible, that
EcoHealth and the Wuhan Institute of Virology have samples from
between 2020, when they originally published a paper--or,
excuse me, 2015, when they originally published a paper with
all their samples, and now that are unpublished?
Dr. Fauci. Sure, it's possible. But, Mitch, I'm--I might
just throw in there you can't get away from the fact that the
viruses that were studied, that we--that the NIH gave them a
grant to study, don't pull back on the fact that, no matter
what you did with those viruses, they were phylogenetically so
different they could not possibly be the precursor of SARS-CoV-
2.
Majority Staff. And I agree with that. I guess my only
point is that you don't know all the viruses they were working
with.
Dr. Fauci. Yes. And let's make that clear, because
Griffith--Congressman Griffith--asked it, and I answered you
quite honestly, that none of us can know everything that's
going on in China or in Wuhan or what have you. And that's the
reason why I say today and I've said at the TI, I keep an open
mind as to what the origin is.
Majority Staff. The last thing, last topic I want to touch
on is gain-of-function. We touched on it in January. You
touched on it a little bit today.
I know the pandemic has resulted, as I'm sure you're aware,
with a rather large debate, including with the NSABB updating
their dangerous research policies surrounding gain-of-function,
P3CO, and dual use research of concern.
At the--prior to October 2021, the NIH website listed gain-
of-function as a type of research that modifies a biological
agent so that it confers new or enhanced activity to that
agent.
And the P3CO framework that the U.S. Government uses to
further regulate a subpart of that research, that it's more
dangerous, specifically that could cause widespread and
uncontrolled death or disease in humans.
Putting aside what's regulatory--I agree with you, the P3CO
definition is regulatory--are there types of research that
could fall under the broad definition but not the P3CO
definition?
Dr. Fauci. Well, I believe Members on the Minority side
have mentioned that. Influenza is a gain-of-function to a virus
to make it grow better in eggs. Making an E. coli manufacture
insulin is telling the E. coli to do something it wasn't able
to do before by mutation. Of course that's the case.
Majority Staff. So, in kind of the Venn diagram of this
research, something could fall under gain-of-function without
falling under further regulation?
Dr. Fauci. I know where you're going and you're not going
to get there. But go ahead.
Majority Staff. According to EcoHealth's year five progress
report, they facilitated an experiment in Wuhan that had seven
mice infected with Wuhan Institute of Virology-1 as the
backbone. Five survived. Then eight mice were infected with a
chimera of WIV1 and the spike from another virus, and two
survived.
In EcoHealth's own words, these results suggest that the
pathogenicity of that full-length chimera is higher than
others.
Dr. Fauci. Right.
Majority Staff. You were asked today and it was read back
to you a little bit, but on May 16, just a few weeks ago, Mrs.
Lesko asked Dr. Tabak, ``Did NIH fund gain-of-function research
at the Wuhan Institute of Virology through EcoHealth?''
And Dr. Tabak answered, ``If you're speaking about the
generic term, yes, we did.''
Dr. Fauci. Right.
Majority Staff. On May 11, you were asked a similar
question, and you answered, ``The NIH has not ever and does not
now fund gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of
Virology.''
I'm going to ask it and you can answer it how you want to
answer it.
According to the broad definition of gain-of-function
research and the definition Dr. Tabak was testifying pursuant
to, did NIAID fund gain-of-function research via EcoHealth in
Wuhan?
Dr. Fauci. The broad definition of gain-of-function, in my
mind, is not applicable here and does nothing but confuse the
situation.
And that is the reason why, after 3 years of deliberation
by the bodies, including the NSABB as well as the National
Academies, it was decided to make an operative and regulatory
definition.
If you harken back to the original broad definition, it
does nothing but confuse people. And that's why every time I
have mentioned gain-of-function, at the Senate hearing with
Senator Paul and the TI and today, the definition that I use is
not my personal definition. It's a codified regulatory and
operative definition made by a body that has nothing to do with
me.
Majority Staff. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize the Minority Staff for not
longer than 30 minutes.
Minority Staff. Dr. Fauci, nice to see you. We've covered
many different topics today. We just want to make sure that you
have the opportunity to provide your full perspective on any
and all of them.
Is there anything you'd like to add, clarify, or say about
any of the topics we've discussed here today?
Dr. Fauci. Actually, I think we've covered just about
everything, but if you come up with something you want to ask
me, I'd be happy to try to fill it in. But I think we've been
rather extensive today.
Minority Staff. I think that's great, and I think we agree.
And so, with that, we'll yield back the remainder of our
time.
Dr. Wenstrup. I would like to yield to Ranking Member Ruiz
for a closing statement if he would like one.
Dr. Ruiz. Dr. Fauci, I'd like to thank you for your
testimony today. And I would like to thank you for your decades
of service to our Nation, especially with the HIV epidemic that
our Nation suffered through, the pandemic flu, Ebola, Zika, and
COVID-19, and your years of research and investment in--that
led to the rapid development of the COVID-19 vaccine that saved
millions of lives. Thank you.
And over the past 4 years, you have been personally
targeted by extreme narratives about the origins of the COVID-
19 pandemic and the U.S. Government's response to it. They
began in force in retaliation to wisdom you offered that
contradicted the reckless and dangerous therapeutic
recommendations by President Trump and have remained part of
House Republicans' political playbook.
These extreme narratives have been the bedrock of the
Select Subcommittee's Republican-led probe and the untenable
inferences they've somehow drawn despite the overwhelming
evidence that it is inconvenient to those narratives.
I want to be clear. The evidence uncovered from more than
425,000 pages of documents and 20 closed-door interviews of
current and former Federal officials has undermined the extreme
narratives behind the Republicans' own probe.
As I alluded to at the beginning of this hearing, my
Democratic colleagues and I are committed to speaking
objectively and truthfully about what the evidence shows, and
this is what it shows:
Dr. Fauci did not fund research through the EcoHealth
Alliance grant that caused the COVID-19 pandemic.
Dr. Fauci did not lie about gain-of-function research in
Wuhan, China.
Dr. Fauci did not orchestrate a campaign to suppress the
lab leak theory.
These findings are apparent from the evidence. In fact,
this much was clear by the time of Dr. Fauci's 2-day
transcribed interview this past January.
In the 5 months since, the Select Subcommittee has
conducted several more closed-door interviews and reviewed
several thousand more pages of documents. This additional
evidence and Dr. Fauci's testimony today has only made
Republicans' claims less plausible and more preposterous.
And when I was named Ranking Member of the Select
Subcommittee, I made a commitment to follow the facts in
objectively analyzing the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic.
If the Select Subcommittee is to meaningfully improve our
Nation's preparedness for future pandemics, then we must take
an objective approach to the factual and scientific evidence
available to us.
The origins of the COVID-19 pandemic remain uncertain. I
would like to remind my Republican colleagues that that
uncertainty is not an opportunity for them to author fiction
for partisan gain. It could have been a lab leak and it could
have been an animal transmission.
And, at the cost of meaningfully advancing our
understanding of COVID-19's origins, Republicans have levied
extreme allegations of creating SARS-CoV-2 against Dr. Fauci.
The result is that Republicans' own probe has failed to
shed any additional light on a central question for our Select
Subcommittee.
In fact, we are actually entering the fourth quarter of
this Congress and this Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus
Pandemic, and what have we focused on? It's not an objective
investigation on the origin as either a lab leak or animal
transmission.
We have spent the vast majority of time, like in this
hearing, with Republicans trying to prove that Dr. Fauci and
Collins funded research through EcoHealth that created the
SARS-CoV-2 virus. And in order for that to be true, it is
dependent on proving the lab leak theory to be true.
So it has not been an objective investigation as to whether
or not the virus came from a lab or an animal transmission in
order to prevent and prepare for the next pandemic. It has been
to push this narrative. And this hearing is their climax, their
star witness, to finally prove their narrative. And they did
not do so.
Instead of focusing on solutions, like fortifying our
public health work force and infrastructure, securing domestic
supply chain of vital public health equipment and medication,
or equipping schools, churches, synagogues, mosques, and
businesses to safely stay open during the next deadly novel
viral pandemic, instead they focused on accusation without
evidence.
And it seemed like even though the evidence was there that
the accusations were false, it didn't matter. They still
accused him on a cover-up, suppressing the truth, that he
initiated, prompted, or edited the proximal origins paper, that
he funded gain-of-research that created the SARS-CoV-2 virus,
even that he received royalties.
You know, his answers today and his transcribed interviews
and his countless emails refuted all of this. They always have.
And his testimony today did again. But I guess that doesn't
matter for the Majority.
The truth is that there is no evidence to prove this
narrative that we've spent so much time addressing. Their
accusations are without evidence. But it doesn't matter to
them.
Intentionally misleading the public is propagating
disinformation, and it's wrong and dangerous not only because
it manufactures distrust in our public health leaders and our
public health agencies, but also because it targets Dr. Fauci
and other public health officials for violent death threats.
Dr. Fauci just said that any time anybody alludes to the
false accusation that he created the COVID-19 pandemic, his
death threats go up. But irresponsibly and recklessly, Members
on this Subcommittee continue to accuse him of that.
So, for the remaining months of the Select Subcommittee I
reaffirm my commitment to take a serious, balanced look at the
question and the possibilities of whether the novel coronavirus
emerged from a lab or from nature.
And I emphasize to my colleagues that any uncertainty about
those origins is an opportunity for us to work constructively
together on forward-looking measures to improve our Nation's
readiness for future public health threats.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you again.
Dr. Fauci, I want to thank you for coming here today. I,
again, truly appreciate your willingness to come voluntarily
before the Select Committee for both your transcribed interview
and hearing today.
You know, this hearing was an opportunity to learn about
our COVID-19 response and how we can improve and do better. And
we did some good things during that, and I'll say Operation
Warp Speed is one of them.
It's also an opportunity to more closely examine the office
in which you served, because there seemed to have been some
significant wrongdoings that took place. And I believe that we
can make changes and prevent that from happening in the future.
That's my goal.
It's an opportunity to take a close look about the
processes and the procedures in place in our health
institutions in the United States. That's our job, is
oversight, in Congress. That's what we're supposed to do.
I don't know what playbook some are talking about, because
it's been my goal as Chairman--and I think you've seen the
staff speaking the same way--to take a hard look at the facts
so that we can do better in the future.
I know that at the end of the transcribed interview, not
only during the interview, we talked about other types of
vaccines we may be able to create, mucosal vaccines, maybe
inhibitors of furin, if there's a furin cleavage site as part
of the vaccine. I appreciated that conversation so very much.
And at the end, you thanked me for the fairness, and we had the
opportunity to share a lot that day.
I think what I'm most concerned about as we go forward as a
country and from our agencies is that we can be trusted and
that we are better in our messaging and talk about clarity.
Dr. McCormick today talked about what it was like actually
treating COVID patients day in and day out. I had recommended
early on that America needed to hear more from doctors that
were treating COVID patients, what they were seeing, what was
working, what was not working.
I compared it to General Schwarzkopf during the Gulf War.
Everyone tuned in every night to hear what General Schwarzkopf
had to say, not the politician, but what the general in charge
had to say. And I think that was important, the one who was in
the trenches.
But, look, you know, we've gone back and forth on the
definition of gain-of-function. I think it's been pretty clear
what you said was on your mind. And there were two different
definitions, if you will, a generic definition and an operative
regulatory definition.
But so, you know, when we go through this what America
hears is that you say NIH did not fund and Dr. Tabak said NIH
did fund. Clarity matters.
I think it would have helped when you were in front of Dr.
Paul in the Senate if you were clear about what you meant. The
American people had never heard of gain-of-function until this
came about. Clarity matters.
You know, we conducted great trials on the vaccines. I
thought they were phenomenal. Normally, you have eight to ten
thousand people. We had about 40,000 people in each one of the
trials.
And what we knew from the trials is that, one, it saved a
lot of lives. That's one thing. But we also knew that if you
got vaccinated you could still get COVID. We didn't make that
clear to the American people, in my mind, and that you could
still get sick.
And so, if someone stands up, not you, but if someone
stands up and says, if you get vaccinated you're never going to
go to the ICU and you're not going to die, well, it was still
happening.
So, where was the messaging? I wish you would have
corrected that right then and there.
You know, the President says, oh, maybe we just inject
bleach. Well, some people maybe thought that was serious. We
made it clear it was not, and that was important.
But here we have Operation Warp Speed, which I know
firsthand you were working on, and you were kind enough to work
with the Doctors Caucus to explain what was going on with
Operation Warp Speed. And we have a Presidential candidate who
says, ``Well, if that's developed, I'm not taking it''--I'm
paraphrasing--and then takes it.
The American public deserve a lot better from their
government. And what should have been a 9/11 moment for this
country, this pandemic, was turned into a political nightmare.
We need to do better. These are agnostic issues, not
political.
And I think from what we have learned from you in the TI
and here today, there's a lot of things that we can do better,
and the grant process being one of them. I mean, if you--look,
when I sign a prescription, I'm responsible for it.
Somebody needs to be responsible. And if you're signing for
grants but not responsible for it, you just sign it, then
you're not responsible for the dollars that are going out.
And then maybe it's the Advisory Committee that needs to be
signing the grant so that there's some level of responsibility,
and responsibility for compliance. I think that's one of the
biggest lessons learned through all this.
We can do better. America is a great country. We can fix
our problems. But we have to take a good hard look at what we
did, what we didn't do, be honest with ourselves, be better in
our messaging to the American people, especially when it comes
to health.
And that's why I felt it was very important that we don't
do things like mandates, but let patients have a conversation
with the doctor that they know and trust and make sure that
we're getting the doctors all the information and data that
they need, from adverse effects of the vaccine, which we've
always done, adverse effects of the vaccine, to what the
vaccine can and can't do, whether you're at risk or not at
risk, what are your risks.
Those are personal conversations that need to take place.
And I look forward to try and establish the system that does a
better job at that.
I'm going to conclude and just say thank you once again,
Dr. Fauci. As a matter of fact, I'd be glad to have more off-
the-record conversations about things we can do in the future,
the drugs we may be able to develop, treatments we may be able
to provide, and vaccines we may be able to produce.
And so, if you're amenable, I might reach out to you for
that, and other scientists as well that may have varying
opinions.
So, again, thank you again for being the witness today.
With that, without objection, all Members will have 5
legislative days within which to submit materials and to submit
additional written questions for the witnesses, which will be
forwarded to the witnesses for their response.
If there's no further business, without objection, the
Select Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:30 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]