to democracy.

next testimony on the origins of covid 19 with former director of national intelligence john ratcliffe. he testified before the select subcommittee on the coronavirus pandemic with other government officials. we talk about intelligence gathered by the us and roadblocks to those investigations. the hearing is 21/2 hours. >> the select subcommittee on the coronavirus pandemic will come to order. welcome everyone. with objection the chair may declare recess at any time for the committee on oversight and accountability at the discretion of chairman comer. a member of the full committee may participate in the hearing for the purpose of questions. we ask unanimous consent for mr. moscowitz to join today for the

purposes of questions. i recognize myself the purpose of making an opening statement. the second hearing in the series investigating, in the first hearing, what we presume for years in addition to scientific question for intelligence and national security. former director of the us centers for disease control and prevention doctor robert redfield who himself is a virologist. discussing the origins, quote, i don't think the answers going to come from the scientific community. the answer will come from the intelligence community. doctor redfield stated the intelligence community plays an important role in this investigation. we are not here to analyze the intelligence ourselves but to listen to the experts who follow the facts and that is what we are here to do today.

ask those who were involved in the intelligence process in the early stage of the pandemic about what they saw and how we as congress should proceed. we appreciate each of the witnesses here today. i want to highlight that according to the christian research service, this is the first time current or former director of national intelligence testified for the oversight committee. welcome. it shows the importance of this issue for director radcliffe to be here today and i thanked him. we will discuss and examine many aspects of the classified intelligence and it is my sincere hope this hearing moves the ball forward and we can agree the origins of covid 19 cannot be solved by science alone. starting in 2020, they were grumbling about the possibility covid 19 came from a lab in wuhan. every month since then more

circumstantial evidence has come to light suggesting this is the case. january 15, 2021, secretary of state mike pompeo released a fact sheet, surrounding the origins of covid 19. the fact sheet stated three things. first there were numerous researchers in the wuhan institute of virology that were sick in the fall of 2019. this doesn't prove covid 19 came from the lab there's a data point suggesting so. an expert in emerging disease testified before the subcommittee that researchers in a lab becoming sick, would be consistent with research related lab outbreak. second, the wuhan institute of virology has a published record of gain of function research including low biosafety levels. we know that much of this work

was done with us-based eco-health alliance. we know that he go health alliance failed to publish, refused to share its work with the us government. in other words, us taxpayer-funded risky research that may have sparked the pandemic is being hidden by a us entity in china. third, the wuhan institute of virology has cooperated with the chinese military since 2017, including on animal laboratory experiments. biden administration still has not disagreed with these facts. a senior biden state department official says, quote, no one is disputing the information, the fact those data points exist, the fact that they are accurate. ironically, the biden administration takes issue with the fact the trump administration released these facts. the same official said, quote,

the trump administration puts been on the ball. the fact she displayed clear and nonbiased. it even stated the us government does not know exactly where, when, or how the covid 19 virus was transmitted to humans. that is true. the rest are statements of fact derived from available intelligence. next, october 29, 2021, the office of the director of national intelligence released its first declassified assessment on covid 19 origins. the stated unequivocally, laboratory or natural origins are policies. more reporting has emerged. fbi director christopher ray confirmed the fbi assist covid 19 most likely originated from a lab incident in wuhan. the wall street journal reported that the brunt of

energy believes the lab leak is the most likely origin. the fact these two agencies is important. the fbi uses experts in biological threats and was reportedly supported by the national bio forensic analysis center and the department of energy used its own b division experts in investigating biological threats. these are scientific and intelligence experts. the specific origin of covid 19 may not be 100% clear, mounting evidence indicates a lab related incident. what is clear is china does not want the globe to know the origins. they dodge and duck every attempt to investigate the question. according to the fact sheet, china has prevented a transparent investigation of the covid 19 pandemic's origins.

china has hindered global investigation, resisted sharing information and reported to blaming other countries including the united states. this became more clear when we received this email from the chinese embassy last week. without objection i would ask unanimous consent to enter this e-mail into the record. and the chinese embassy expresses grave concern regarding this hearing and states they firmly oppose it. we have some news for beijing, these intimidation tactics will not work, will not slow down our work. after the hearing i will send a letter to the chinese ambassador to the us requesting china cease d intimidation tactics and cooperate in this investigation. i extend the invitation to any member of the subcommittee to join me. thank you. i would now like to recognize

ranking member ruiz to make an opening statement. >> thank you. understanding the origins of the covid 19 pandemic is important to america's public health and our ability to respond to future public health threats. since the first outbreak of covid 19 researchers in the scientific community have worked tirelessly to get to the bottom of this issue with dozens of studies that have been conducted or are currently underway. agents in the intelligence community have continued their sweeping assessment of covid 19 origins. thanks to president biden's direction and leadership, we are learning more every day. in may of 2021 he directed the intelligence community to evaluate whether the novel coronavirus could have emerged from a laboratory in china urging our nation's intelligence agencies to do, quote, everything we can to trace the roots of this

outbreak. since then, two government agencies have assessed with low and moderate confidence the virus originated in a lab while four government agencies assist with low confidence that the virus came about through natural transmission. as it stands there is no consensus. the reports are inconclusive and more research is needed. while our scientists and intelligence communities continue their investigation, it is crucial that we empower them to do so without extreme partisan rhetoric or political biases that cherry pick evidence to push a partisan political narrative that vilify public house leaders. our focus as lawmakers should be on developing policy based on current and evolving evidence to prevent and prepare for future pandemics and save lives. to do right by the american

people and public health we must let our expert communities do their job. we must develop policies based on evidence as inconclusive as they may be at the moment that will help us prevent the next pandemic no matter which covid origin theory you believe in. we must take a deep dive into the barriers to the nation's ability to research the origins of covid and respond to it. this includes examining how the chinese communist party's refusal to cooperate with international investigations in december 2019 set us back in our pandemic. and how the chinese commonest party continued the spread of misinformation and up eustachian and evidence entered our ability to understand both theories of how this virus came to be in the first place. and it is crucial we look at

forward-looking domestic answered and foreign policy, that advance american interests and save lives. this means rejecting the isolation approached -- isolationist approach donald trump took under the guise of america first that decimated the state department. weakened our ability to engage. let the void that rendered america vulnerable to china's growing influence. it abandoned state to state diplomacy. and and america's public health, economy and security ultimately paid the price. we must protect our public health, and security from the ccp's growing influence by investing in competition,

deepening collaboration with our allies in furthering the state department after black work. that means building on the progress we made with legislation with the chips in science act to invest in innovation to outcompete china in sectors critical to our public health and national defense and strengthening the supply-chain and that means building on house democrats in the biden administration's work to bolster our pandemic preparedness, public health infrastructure and international into mystic standards for pandemic surveillance to address possible animal transmission and biomedical research safety to address possible lab leaks. there's more work to do and it is my sincere hope we can pursue this on a bipartisan basis. the covid 19 pandemic has demonstrated how global health security, pandemic preparedness and national security are linked. as we seek to understand the

virus's origin we must take a scientific and evidence-based approach. as physician and ranking member of the subcommittee i take this chart seriously, putting people over politics, to protect our public health. we should do this without the politicization and extreme partisan rhetoric that get in the way of common sense solutions to the public health challenges we face. let's work on forward-looking policies to prevent the harm of future viruses and pandemics without vilifying the nation's public health officials. the world is watching what we are doing and it is my hope that we rise to the occasion and meet the moment with the integrity our global health and national security demands. >> thank you. pursuant to committee on oversight and accountability rule 9 g, the witnesses will stand and raise their right

hand. do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god? thank you, please be seated. let the record show the when this is all answered in the affirmative. our witnesses today are the honorable john ratcliffe who was most recently the director of national intelligence, serving as the principal intelligence advisor to the president. prior to that he served in congress as a member of the house intelligence, homeland security and judiciary committee. mr. fife, mr. david 5, adjunct senior fellow at the center for a new american security, previously deputy assistant secretary of state for east pacific affairs. and doctor mark loan fell --loewnthal who served as vice

chairman for evaluation of national intelligence council. the select subcommittee certainly appreciates you all for being here today. we appreciate your service and look forward to your testimony would let me remind the witnesses we have read your written statements and they will appear in full in the hearing record. please welcome your statements to 5 minutes. as a reminder please press the button on the microphone in front of you so it is on and members can hear you. when you speak the light in front of you will turn green. after four minutes up turn yellow. when the red light comes on, your 5 minutes has expired and we ask that you please wrap up. i recognize director ratcliffe to give an opening statement. >> members of the committee, it's a pleasure for me to be back in the house of representatives where i spent six years on the house intelligence, judiciary, and

homeland security committees, before leaving congress when confirmed as director of national intelligence and the trump administration. this was the first in person senate hearing after the covid 19 pandemic began. during i promised to ensure the intelligence community would be laser focused on getting answers to the virus's origins and spread. what follows is a brief overview of what the intelligence community learned, synopsis of the relevant challenges i encountered during this effort, where we must go from here. let me state the bottom line upfront. up front. my assessment as a person with as much access as anyone to the government's intelligence in the initial year of the pandemic has been and continues to be that a lab leak is the only a split nation. supported by our intelligence, science and common sense.

review that our intelligence at evidence supporting lab leak theory was placed side-by-side with our intelligence and evidence pointing to natural origins or spillover theory, the lab leak side of the ledger would be long, even overwhelming, the spillover side would be nearly empty. were this a trial, a preponderance of circumstantial evidence provided by our intelligence would propel us provide a jury finding of guilt to an accusation the coronavirus research in wuhan labs was responsible for the pandemic, and likewise the chinese commonest party would be guilty of going to great lengths to cover up the virus's origins, from destroying medical tests, samples, and data, to intimidating and disappearing witnesses and journalists, to lying and coercing global health authorities, even spreading propaganda that the virus originated here in the united states by the us military. their efforts continue to this day as the chinese embassy has

objected to this hearing at this committee's efforts to ascertain the truth. the chinese government has done this while proving itself incapable of offering a shred of exculpatory evidence. the intelligence community sources on this issue are numerous, diverse, and unassailable. i hope the unanimous congressional support to require the declassification of covid origin material will make this available to you and the american people. right now a few of the intelligence community's agencies are publicly assessing the covid 19 virus originated from a lab leak in wuhan and as it continues they will come when every agency will make the same assessment which begs the question, why have they not to this point? it is a simple and obvious question that does not have a simple answer. the challenges that i and other senior trump administration officials encountered while in

office included legitimate concerns about our closely held sources and methods of intelligence as well as diligent other roadblocks related to professional conflict of interest and partisan politics. these include the headwinds created when a lab leak assessment was initially labeled falsely and falsely reported with near unanimity as a conspiracy theory by conflicted scientists and mainstream press while being censored as disinformation by social media giants. internally, national and electoral politics were influencing the analysis of intelligence on china within the ic as reflected in the generate sixth 2021 report by the intelligence community's ombudsman. as a career nonpolitical official, the ombudsman found, quote, analysts are reluctant to have their analysis on china brought forward because they

disagree with the trump administration's policies saying i don't want our intelligence used to support those policies. to this day the cia which is the world's premier spy agency with unrivaled capacity to acquire information has stated this is not enough information to make any formal assessment. to put it bluntly this is unjustifiable and a reflection not that the agency can't make an assessment with any confidence but it won't. three years later the only plausible assessment the agency could make with any confidence is a virus which killed a million americans originated in a chinese lab whose research included work for the chinese military and such an assessment would have enormous geopolitical implications i think the current administration does not want to face head on. let me close by saying the search for the truth should

drive where we go from here and every one from intelligence agencies to members of the administration to members of congress to public health officials, should put politics aside and let our intelligence speak the truth about what happened. speak the truth to the americans who deserve that truth, deserve justice and accountability and only by seeking truth, justice and accountability can we achieve the other important goal of preventing the next pandemic. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you. i recognize mr. fife for an opening statement. >> members, thanks for this opportunity. my written testimony has three elements. first, it describes how the state department's east asia

bureau approached the covid ordination during the first year of the pandemic from the outbreak to the publication in january 2021 of a fact sheet on activity at the wuhan institute of virology. it describes the damaging effects of public health establishment's efforts to stigmatize the notion -- the very notion that covid may have emerged from a laboratory accident. distro underground discussion of a set of risks namely those involving gain of function research the deserve to be at the front and center of policies about making. third it offers some oversight and policy suggestions on helping to find the origin of covid, to fix policy problems raised by these issues and to tighten us exchanges with china to protect national security and help prevent the next pandemic. in my short remarks i want to discuss the stakes involved in

whether covid emerged from nature or from a lab. the stakes are almost unimaginably great. covid was not some immaculate infection. it was not spontaneously generated. it came from somewhere and the details matter. if emerged naturally in applies things about human interactions with nature where risks were sizable enough. if emerged from a lab particularly when conducting gain of function experiments with technology invented a few years ago than this was akin to a hiroshima event revealing new and modern high-tech risks to human civilizations and even to our species. that makes it such a scandal that the most influential us government and academic authorities on virology were coordinating to, as one said, disprove any type of lab theory. these officials and scientists knew covid may have come from a lab and that it could have resulted from research in wuhan funded by the us government and that if such research were part

of covid's origins they could face professional and personal embarrassment. these officials and scientists collaborated to convince the government and the public not to investigate the origin of covid. at least not in the fashion that followed the evidence down paths that the point to a lab origin, mr. action tactics worked. the lab leak theory became stigmatize, driven underground but evidence continued to mount in its favor. by late 2020, colleagues flagged new government information that underscored the possibility of a lab leak. most significant, the researchers in the wuhan institute of virology just before the public outbreak in wuhan. the same wuhan lab held a record of secrecy about its coronavirus research and undisclosed ties with china's military. we arranged to make this information public. some of our colleagues warned us not to. not to highlight china's gain of function research lest we

draw attention to the government's rolling such research and open a pandora's box. it wasn't clear what these colleagues feared but their demand for non-transparency was not persuasive. on january 15, 2020, one we published a fact sheet on the institute of virology. the lab week possibly began to force its way into the mainstream. by may, president biden himself recognized the significance of the lab leak possibility and/or a 90 day review of us intelligence. progress since then has been limited. we know the fbi and the promise of energy assessed a lab leak as most likely. that is important. we don't need a running intelligence community strop all as much as we need a transparent, holo government campaign to recognize the lab leak possibility and pursue appropriate policy reforms. game of function technology of the kind that emerged in the last 10 to 15 years were the deadliest viruses can conceivably be fused with the

most infectious ones appeared to pose a species level risk to human life. it has been said for 75 years that nuclear weapons could destroy the world or humanity. and so they might. that would require many decisions in two capitals over a sustained period of time. the gain of function risk is one mistake in one place let alone one deliberate act by some actor is all that it takes. once a virus of sufficient deadliness escapes a lab there may be nothing humanity can do to stop it. this is a stunning tragedy, those experts who stigmatize the notion of a lab leak. faced with possible dry run of the worst case pandemic gain of function science has made the world have to fear, the authorities who know the most about this threat didn't speak up. many sought to silence others. this caused a paralytic affect. not only public awareness but policy reforms we need to protect ourselves from lab risks in the future.

overcoming this handicap is a major obligation for lawmakers and policymakers. as for trying to confirm covid's origin i note three points. first the immediate declassification test. congress passed a law requiring the biden administration to declassify intelligence on covid's origin in 90 days, the third test for the icy and the rest of the agency after failure to disclose in 2020-20 one. no doubt the administration has more information than has been released publicly. second, the researchers standalone. the wuhan lab researchers identified in the 2021 fact sheet identify who was patient 0. no animal has been identified as a likely source of the outbreak. the biden administration like the trumpet ministry should has more information about the researchers than has been released. third and finally, what changed the department of energy's mind? the most significant piece of intelligence post 2020 is what reportedly motivated the energy department's recent change of

assessment maximizing release of this information would shed additional light on the covid mystery, thank you. >> thank you. i recognize doctor loeowenthal for an opening statement. >> memory the committee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss intelligence on the origins of the covid pandemic. i've spent most of my life as an intelligence analyst, manager of intelligence analysts. i have also sought analytical skills to hundreds of new analysts. to be a good intelligence analyst, you have to have the ability to deal with ambiguity. very often analysts are asked to address issues for which there may not be a final definitive answer. analysts have in a world where there may be several possibilities each of which has a degree of certainty and uncertainty. this can be frustrating to policymakers who want an answer. given the available intelligence and our own

expertise, specific answer cannot always be determined. this seems to be the case in terms of the origin of the coronavirus in china. there's not been sufficient intelligence to date to make a firm judgment whether the virus occurred naturally or was the result of activity in a lab, whether witting or accidental. the october 2021 declassified assessment on covid 19 origins which you cited reflects this uncertainty. intelligence agencies assess that the virus originated naturally with low confidence. one intelligence agency believes the virus originated in a lab with moderate confidence. three intelligence agencies are unable to make a determination either way. again, this can be frustrating to policymakers but that's the nature of intelligence. one of the points i stressed is you want your reader, policymaker to understand and appreciate your uncertainty as

well as your certainty because they will make decisions based on your analysis and you don't want to betray confidence and certainty that misrepresents your intelligence. absence, cooperation and uncertainty which seems highly unlikely, we may never resolve the issue with certainty. and we look at the intelligence or policy experience from the pandemic and ask what we can do better next time. i have a few recommendations. we should consider creating a national intelligence officer for health issues, who with his or her office, would serve as the focal point for us intelligence collection and analysis not only on health issues that threaten the united states but also looking at health issues worldwide the and be destabilizing regionally. the intelligence community likely needs to higher analyst with backgrounds in medicine, epidemiology and other areas. there's a section of the

centers for disease control that has cleared analysts. the larger intelligence community needs more in-house expertise. finally, it is important to avoid politicizing intelligence efforts on issues like the covid pandemic. the intelligence community is nonpartisan and objective and i believe we will meet these standards on a consistent basis. intelligence may be discomforting but that does not mean it is counter to policy preferences but that does not mean it is partisan or subjective. it becomes difficult for intelligence officers to do their best work when they are under constant partisan pressure or consistently accused of being partisan. some people refer to the role of the intelligence community as telling truth to power. i find that phrase objectionable is it is arrogant and more to the point we don't have truth in many cases but well thought out analytic

conclusions. these will run counter to the outcomes of policymakers. that does not mean the intelligence is politicized but is being honest when talking to power. that's a great response ability, and the intelligence community takes it seriously. i look forward to your questions. >> i now recognize myself for a series of questions. if you have had a chance to follow the initial workings of this subcommittee to date, you would know the drive of this committee is to perform an after action review, lessons learned, create a path forward for any future pandemic, so we may predict, prepare for, protect ourselves and hopefully prevent any future pandemic. this, i believe, would be consistent with the suggestion made by doctor lowenthal that

will allow us to be better next time. it is a fair question why decisions may have been made. where they based on data or hypothesis? where their motives to the decision such as personal gain or political gain? all fair questions. you recommended a national intelligence officer for health. i believe we have this with the national center for medical intelligence but we may need to expand their role. it is also suggested the intelligence community higher experts with backgrounds in medicine and epidemiology and other specialties and i agree and that is why i have been requesting information concerning those experts they've consulted during their review of the origins question. i'm interested in knowing which specialists weighed in for each component of the ic.

if one has 20 virologists at another has none that can make a difference in analyst outcomes. i am curious as to why so many agencies have different opinions on this. the expertise of those who contributed to each agency matters and make the difference. for this committee, i have stated honesty is nonnegotiable. that requires proof. i understand one hundred% certainty in an analysis is difficult to come by, but what can be truthful is the level of confidence in the analytic summary. during my time on the intelligence community, i've seen changed or ignored for political purposes, their analysis stated things were going badly. but after going up the chain, politicians stated everything was going well. mr.

radcliffe, did you ever feel information was being withheld from you or altered in any way? or did you have that concern? >> i would say fortunately, that did not happen very often but it did happen on vocation. i didn't just feel it. as i referenced in my opening remarks, the analytic ombudsman recognized there were times intelligence was suppressed. >> y, and what kind of information was that, if you can share it? >> as has been publicly available, the ombudsman made specific reference to intelligence on china. >> did this have -- strain your ability to conduct your job? >> made it more difficult but through persistence and some of

the things mr. feith talked about, looking at covid origins to get to where we can protect sources and methods, and make some of that intelligence available by the classifying it and the process whereby we did that through a state department fact sheet. >> one of the aspects of this investigation, learning who the it consultants were during the review. we want to know what kinds of experts each component worked with. i will ask each of you, each witness. do you think this question is an important one when it comes to origins of covid? >> i will begin by saying it is because sometimes in this case particularly when talking about covid 19, our analytic judgments are framed by science. to the scientists are and how

they are motivated, certainly is important. >> i would agree and add the element the conflicts of interest in general and with respect to the enormous amount of scientific exchange with china are important as china is central to national security analytical work going forward. >> it is fair to the intelligence community -- >> thank you. >> you were heavily involved in the investigation from the side of the state department. while you are gathering information did you struggle to find experts that did not have conflict of interest? >> in short, yes. that became clearer in retrospect also. >> do you believe the same conflicted scientists may be briefing the ic today? >> i can't speculate about today but based on the experience a few years ago yes. ..

i don't think it's appropriate to ignore the truth. from the intelligence community standpoint there is an billy to protect sources and methods but still meet our obligations to keep members of congress informed through its proper oversight role. >> doctor? >> there was a provision of law that requires congress to fully and currently informed of all its current and significant activities. i am probably only person in this room who is in the senate chamber when the senate intelligence committee was created. i am an advocate for congressional oversight, mr. chairman. >> i have read that statute myself but have had to bring it up and still didn't flaunt a few times intelligence community. so the next question for the two of you, is it important for the

ic to try to know all they can about the weapons systems of our adversaries including biological weapons? >> absolutely. in the case of china, the intelligence community has publicly address china as our top national security threat from a nationstate perspective. so particularly that's important with respect to the country of china. >> mr. chairman, yes, this is like when high priority since the committee was greater in 1947. >> thank you. should a virus that killed more than 1 million americans be an intelligence priority for the ic, and specifically the cia and dia? >> absolutely. >> doctor? >> that depends on the policymakers. we don't make our priorities. the president, the national security council determined a priority for the intelligence community. so if you determine its authority than yes, it is. if they decide there are higher

priorities than no, it isn't. this is not a call for the transix. something that understood but we don't set our priorities. we are there to respond to the policymakers. i helped create the current priority system and its one will be derived from the president and his national security council where are the areas you want the most emphasis knowing that inevitably there are going to be areas where we spend less attention because with finite resources. >> that's a fair assessment. i would have to say as a policy maker that i think achieve a high intelligence priority, but will thicken. finally director ratcliffe we senate document request thereto director haines in figure 13. we get receive any documents from odni for consistent all the appropriate restrictions on classified material is former director do you believe it support for odni to fully cooperate with our investigation and produce the requested documents? >> yes. >> i would now like to yield to ranking member ruiz. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

look, understand how covid-19 came to be is critical to america's public health. i want to point out and make clear that we wouldn't even be having this hearing in the first place if it wasn't for president biden taking early and decisive action in may 2021 to investigate whether the novel coronavirus originated in a lab or nature. president biden directed the intelligence community to conduct this review to quote do everything we can to trace the roots of this outbreak that has caused so much pain and death around the world so that we can take every necessary precaution to prevent it from happening again. in fact, every intelligence that democrats and republicans voted to declassify last month was collected because of president biden's directed for the intelligence community to use every tool at its disposal to investigate covid-19's origins. dr. lowenthal, can he get a quick yes or no come was president biden's directed a critical step in advancing our understanding of the pandemic origin?

>> yes. >> i agree. thanks to this action we're making progress every day in advancing our understanding of the pandemics origins. despite continued obstruction from the chinese communist party. while we know more now than we ever did before the fact of the matter is the intelligence communities assessment remains inconclusive on whether the virus emerge from either human contact with an animal or from a laboratory accident. various elements of the intelligence community that they different assessments, all but one of which were made with low confidence, meaning without certainty. dr. lowenthal you've explain the function of intelligence is to reduce uncertainty. when intelligence on a particular issue divided between two conclusions what is the best course of action for policymakers? should we prepare an event of both scenarios? >> probably, but policymakers can make their own decisions regardless of the intelligence you give them. we are not speaking ex cathedra. were given our best intelligence

in the near making decisions. but if you are too strong possibilities and i were a policymaker which have only done once or twice in my career i would say yes, you should try to protect against both of them. >> i agree with this, too. this is the approach president biden a democratic taken, and approach up with people over politics. while our intelligence community continues to collect and analyze information that will bring us closer to definitive conclusion we have worked to prevent and better prepared for the next of the pandemic so that we can keep the american people safe no matter if this threat originates from an animal or a bat. fact last congress democrats included in the consolidated appropriations act of 2023 significant reforms to address pandemic preparedness. this includes provisions to enhance safety standards for biomedical research involving pathogens of pandemic potential and to recruit more public health workers with epidemiological backgrounds.

it includes reforms to prevent undue foreign influence in our nation's biomedical research such as the requirement of participation in foreign talent programs be disclosed to receive nah grants and a provision directing the second of health and human services and national security officials to identify and develop strategies that address threats to sensitive biomedical research. there is a whole host of other commonsense reforms that we passed last congress as part of this package that are outlined on this fact sheet. mr. chairman, permission to enter it into the record. >> without objection. >> thank you. i find it interesting despite a much my colleagues on the other side of this dice have focused their efforts to push a lab leak narrative they voted against these reforms that help prevent lab leaks in the future. i also want to point out the good work of the administration is doing by partnering with our allies to press for strong international standards for

biosafety and security as part of its national security strategy. while these are all good steps forward, i do think there's more we should do and can do. dr. lowenthal, what additional steps should we be taking from an intelligence and policy perspective to build on this work and to better prepare us for future pandemic? >> i outlined those in her opening statement, but one of the things that member but of intelligence committee is we are volunteer organization. i cannot draft doctors in more than the military can threat individuals. when we go out looking for experts, we have told what to come work for us. we obviously have gaps, the -- intelligence center centt they're mostly been devoted to supporting the defense establishment, which is fine. i'm suggesting we need a broader expertise of the net. but you have to remember we can only recruit the people who come to the recording table. this is one of the great

frustrations of my life in my last three years at cia. we have to look at a expertise across the community and we have a system for doing that and ask yourselves where are the gaps and it had a go higher the people to fill in those gaps? >> dr. lowenthal, i received my medical doctorate at harvard medical school. i received my masters in public policy from harvard kennedy school. i realized that when i was at the kennedy school the cia was there recruiting students to join their firm. yet there was no recruitment happening in the public health school which i later received a masters in public health from harvard school public health or from the harvard medical school. so perhaps one of the suggestions would be to entertain the career options for public health and physicians and medical scientists to join the intelligence communities in doing the research ezell. >> i think that would be a good day.

also know recruit when i i goy degree from harvard history department. we have to rethink how we recruit so going to medical schools, public health policy schools would be a very good idea. >> thank you. i yield back. >> i now recognize the chairman of the full committee mr. comer from kentucky for five and is a question. >> thank you, mr. chairman. what you think each of the witnesses for being here today. as i said from the beginning discovering the origins of covid-19 is vital to both the public health and national security of the united states. former cdc director redfield testified last month this is not simply a scientific question but also one of intelligence and i agree with that. we need to ensure the intelligence is accurate and truthful. on march 17, 2020, one of of those inferential papers of all time was published in the scientific journal nature medicine entitled the proximal origin of sars-cov-2, it was prompted by dr. fauci and

britain to suppress the lab leak hypothesis. this paper stated that no type of lab-based scenario is possible. director ratcliffe, is at factual? >> it is not. >> mr. faith, to you, is that statement factual? >> it's my understanding know. >> ten days later on march 26 the state department produce a memo that stated u.s. scientists assess the virus emerged naturally. they continue to say a lab leak was improbable and not supported by the available evidence. director ratcliffe, are the statements factual? >> they are not. >> mr. feith, do you, are the statements factual? >> no, a were at best overstated. >> mr. feith, you involved in the briefing that produced that memo?

>> i was a recipient of the briefing that the memo is an account. >> so while serving at the state department investigating the origins of covid-19 were you ever briefed by an author of the proximal origin paper? >> yes, sir. >> during the operation of that memo which i i referenced aboo you believe the unnamed scientist had apparent conflicts of interest? >> in short, yes especially based on what we know since then about them. >> were the authors, where they the ones that were briefing the intelligence community, the authors of that? >> so that document is a write up of a so-called analytic exchange that had been hosted by the state department intelligence and research bureau that day or the day before, including a number of scientists

who were briefing a range of policymakers from across the interagency. >> so they were, the authors were on the conference call with dr. fauci on february 1, 2020, when the almost universally said covid-19 may have come from a lab? >> that actually i'm not sure of. there's a little bit of a difficulty in identifying exactly who was part of the state department briefing just because of the rules that we were subject to. >> okay. director ratcliffe what you begin directed to dr. fauci relate any of these concerns to you that may have come from a a lab? >> he did not. >> why do you think he did not? >> well, i would obviously have to speculate but i would point you to dr. fauci being perhaps the best person to answer that and there is obloquy available

under information that has been obtained through open-source and freedom of information where drs and scientists -- virologist -- the fact would bring unwanted attention to funding sources and the research that was taking place using funding sources, domestic funding sources from the united states and the relationship of certain western scientists with scientists at the wuhan institute of virology were unsafe coronavirus research was taking place in labs that did not have appropriate biosafety levels and precautions as had been reported. >> this is so bad, it just gets, it gets worse every day. besides his flip 180° with noted evidence can produce a paper not based on facts and then they use paper to brief the intelligence community and suppress the lab leak hypothesis.

this this is a how-to manuald orchestrating a cover-up by using some of the most powerful and influential institution in our country. if you ask me this is set in motion by dr. fauci to hide u.s. funding of gain of function research and dodge accountability for a virus that has killed more than 1 million americans. this must be investigated. thank you, mr. chairman and i yield back. >> i now recognize mr. mfume from maryland for five minutes of questions. >> thank you very much, chairman wenstrup. my thanks also to ranking member ruiz and all others who collaborated to make sure that we could have this hearing today. i want to thank the witnesses for their participation. mr. ratcliffe, welcome back. mr. chairman, the covid-19 pandemic has underscored in many ways that the chinese communist party's growing influence is

absolutely contrary to america's interests and to america's values. if we as a congress failed to meet this moment i fear that we will undermine for side two, our ability to respond to the next public health crisis and to protect american interests, both at home and abroad. we've got a long road ahead of us. however, in the last two years congressional democrats as aa majority party during that time working with president biden did lay the groundwork to make sure that we take decisive action necessary to safeguard and to advance our health, our geopolitical, and our economic interests. in october of last year the biden administration announced its national security strategy which includes as most of us know a three-part plan focused on outcompeting china. mr. chair, i would ask unanimous

consent that that national strategy be entered into today's record. >> without objection. >> the first step of the plan was to invest in strengthening american competition. president biden delivered on that rolling out initiatives guided by the bipartisan chips and science act to strengthen american manufacturing and american supply chains. all, my gut, solidifying america's technological leadership on the global stage. the state department launched as we know the china house initiative which brings together china experts from throughout the state department and security officials to help the administration responsibly managed competition between the u.s. and china. the second step of the plan was to work with america's allies with common purpose and with a common sense. president biden delivered convening as we know the leaders of egypt, cambodia, indonesia,

japan, south korea, the eu, italy, the uk, mexico and canada to emphasize that combating china's global influence must be a team effort, to which by the way they all concurred. the third and final part of the plan was to put resources to defending america's interests abroad. the present delivered include in his fiscal 2024 budget proposal to the congress, comprehensive investments in the indo-pacific regions critical infrastructure as well as investments focusing on showing up american defenses in that region. dr. lowenthal, you are by all accounts an expert in intelligence matters and have a robust understanding of chinese influence in the global order. i appreciate the recommendation in your written testimony advocating for a national intelligence officer. i appreciate the chairs comments

that if, in fact, there is a similar position in place that we ought to look at expanding that role. can you tell this committee and the american people what you think is the most important tactic that this congress can use to counter the chinese communist party? >> i think, i'm recovering from a a cold, i don't have covid i promise you. it's less a tactic than a strategy. we need a strategy for dealing with china. it's a difficult issue because we are entangled with them economically. they are a competitor. they are arrival. that doesn't mean they're necessarily an enemy but we had to figure out how do we outcompete them without resulting in overt hostility? you have to remember anything we do is going to have a reaction from the chinese. when president biden tries to control the chip industry, for example, so that we are not

supplying a rival with the technology they need which makes it since may, we did the same thing to the soviet union during the cold war very successfully. the but that as an active hostility if we were all sitting in beijing we probably agree with. it's important certainly as an intelligence analyst to understand how the other side is going to react. i think we need a strategy and a think we have elements that strategy. i think the united states, british, australian alliance is part of that strategy. i think that is being successful. i think our relationship with india as part of that is successful but this is also we have to be prepared just doesn't work during the cold war. this is a long struggle. this is not going to wrap up in this administration or the next administration. this is a long-term struggle but i think you look at it objectively, would you rather be china or the united states? i was still rather be the united states. >> every day. >> everyday. >> everyday.

dr. lowenthal, my time is expiring. mr. chairman, this much to be done obviously. i just want to invite colleagues on both sides that i'll hear and in the larger body to work together in a thoughtful manner to develop national security solutions based on putting the american people first. i yield back. thank you, sir. >> i now recognize this mala talk us from new york fibers of questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thanks to the witnesses who are here today. was equally important as the ccp's actions to cover-up and conceal the origins of covid is understand what role our government may have played in the origins of this virus and to what level if you need at a health officials and members of our media attempted to conceal or hide the truth from the american people. the questions surround american tax dollars being used to potentially find the origins of this virus and attempts to suppress them, that is what i do to focus on today.

in november 2021 dr. fauci told senator rand paul under oath that the nih did not find gained a a function research at the wuhan lab, despite having been explicitly told in an e-mail january of 2021 that nih had a monitor relationship with the wuhan institute through the eco-health alliance. during the committee's initial origins hearing in march i ask former cdc director dr. redfield whether the nih was funding or had funded gain of function research at the one institute and he told me direct quote no doubt, unquote, nih was funding this research in wuhan refuting dr. fauci claims. i'll start with you, mr. ratcliffe. you agree with dr. redfield? >> i do. >> even what we know now, if you were in dr. fauci position would you have denied the nih role in gain of function research at the wuhan lab?

>> no. >> do you think dr. fauci lied under oath? >> i think that some of dr. fauci's testimony is inconsistent with some of the intelligence that we have the remains classified as well is inconsistent with some information that is publicly available. >> did you think that president biden should declassify all information related to covid origins, every single document as was requested and passed by the legislature? >> with the caveat that we always have to be careful about protecting our sources and methods, particularly though sources and methods as it relates to what the intelligence community uniformly agrees is our number one threat from a nation state actor standpoint. but that caveat, providing as

much information about our intelligence as possible of preserving the sources and methods should absolutely take place. >> thank you. >> as soon as possible. >> mr. faith you agree with dr. redfield original testimony that this funding which we will likely played a role in the virus came from, actually be back up and fill you guys in. so even more troubling at the time when my time was expiring at the last during dr. redfield testified that that only did american tax dollars find gained of function research to the nih also from, that the wuhan lab received money from state department usaid and the department of defense. do you agree with dr. redfield testimony this is funny which very like a bigger role in the virus came from these government agencies? >> my understanding is consistent with what you've read back in terms of the many funding sources that ran from washington to the one institute of virology and certainly if the covid origin was indeed a lab

leak from their it was from that coronavirus research program some of which were funded by the united states government. >> because we had previously heard about the nih funding but up until that hearing i had not heard that it was potentially the state department, usaid and the department of defense that it also funded wuhan lab activities. the u.s. government determined that the wuhan lab collaborated on publications and special projects a top secret projects with the ccp military since at least 2017. knowing this, what purpose would use department of defense funding be provided to the wuhan lab? >> well, i think for a full answer i differ to folks from dod and from the dod biodefense relevant components. but in principle the kind of broad theme of the funding as i

always understood it across different parts of our government, nih and usaid and state and otherwise, was based on a certain through a pandemic prevention by scooping up these viruses, playing with them in the lab and then trying to design vaccines and therapies but there always warnings that this was extremely dangerous work and that the work courted exactly the kind of danger that appears to have happened in wuhan. and from our perspective parts of the state department that don't specialize in this part of what was most troubling is that when covid broke out in wuhan practically on the doorsteps of that lab, we did not have folks from other parts of the government raising their hand to educate the non-experts across the government in how plausible this was a know it needed to be taken seriously. in fact, the folks from other parts of the government that worked of these issues generally worth deflecting attention, and that cost us a lot of time and

understanding that was really damaging. >> all right. i've run out of time and mr. ratcliffe, jeb anything to add to that? i saw you nodding her head. i will differ back to the chubby. thank you. >> now recognize dr. bera from california for five minutes of questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. a lot happened in the last three years, a million americans died. we can go back and relitigate the past. i can go back a look at the prior administration that we set up an office a pandemic preparedness that was there solely to advise the nsc. that was disbanded. that was a mistake. we raised alarms at that time. we raised reparations. i held the first hearing on the novel coronavirus at the time in february 2020. we pushed the trump administration to do everything they could to get our scientists to the hot sun, et cetera. i can very well argued the lab leak theory because china did not cooperate. it did not let folks get in

there, et cetera. i can also make a case of wife initially folks thought it jumped from an animal to a human. i think as dr. lowenthal said i don't think we're ever going to get an edge because i don't think china will ever let us get to the hot zone, will have letters interview folks. i don't even the scientists are probably around. i don't think the data that we would have to look at is there. i think where to take both theories susa. i think the intelligence community should continue to try to get an answer with high confidence. but mr. feith, as you are likely pointed out, you know, any bad actor out there in the world just saw what a virus did to the entire planet. what keeps me awake at night are these bio threats, are the fact that a lot of this equipment is really available. i think it's a legitimate for this committee to discuss and

educate ourselves on game to function research. there is a legitimate reason to do this, to help us develop counter tools et cetera that we should debate what kind of lab should do this. what are lab standards consider how to make sure labs like wuhan which clearly did not have the precautions in place are not doing research that might potentially allow something like this. those are legitimate areas, mr. chairman, the we should be thinking about policy. we should be putting protocols in place et et cetera. we should be worried with the ic to assess these threats. mr. feith, let me ask you a question. we have to work with the international community. there's a reason why the tragic government partners with labs around the world, because we do want to have these early warning systems if we do want to go

where these novel viruses are emerging, whether man-made or naturally jumping from animals to humans. because we would rather discover, rather have early warning systems abroad. would you agree with that assessment? >> i think broadly biosurveillance is extremely important. as you said i think that there are though especially in light of covid clearly very important consequential questions about how broadly that kind of pandemic preparedness work should apply in terms of creating an laboratory environments certain viruses of a sufficient lethality and infectiousness that might be

completely unlikely ever to emerge in nature. but having created in a lab we've delivered the world a risk that otherwise would have existed except with an impetus moly small likely it. >> i think that's accurate, she would be doing that. we certainly can have that debate and is that the research is taking place, what are the exact highest safety standards that had to exist if that research is taking place. that said, there's nothing that is going to prevent bad actors in other countries and other individuals from doing this type of research. director ratcliffe, would you agree that we ought to be really concerned about bio threats going into the future within congress? >> absolutely. >> what types of steps would you take? with that to work with the international community to develop those standards. we've got to work with the international community to try to detect these risks and bad actors early on and what are some recommendations you might

have? >> i would agree with that but the facts that are not in dispute here and have been acknowledged by those international organizations including the world health organization was that they will lie to initially by chinese officials and that they were coerced into making or not taking certain actions that the later regretted. some of those world organizations like the world health organization, you know, have corrected and have now tried to bring about china's participation. from a common sense standpoint, congressman, to this question about the origins, if china had exculpatory evidence that showed this was of natural origins or that the was not a lab leak, you would expect it would share that information with international organizations which they have not, they have not shared with anyone. >> 100%.

and again china has acted irresponsibly. they put the entire world at risk. i would not trust him as a legitimate partner at this point. that said, we would hope that at some point if you look back at the damage that happened to their own country that they would be forthright working with us and what with the rest of the world to get to the bottom of this and prevent the next pandemic. i'm out of time but again this isn't about trusting china. it's about preparing and preventing the next pandemic. >> i now recognize dr. miller-meeks from iowa for five minutes of questions. >> thank you, dr. anne schuchat i will be signed on to the literate just as an aside, so thank you for that. i want to thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, drs well. almost two years ago we had a hearing, this committee had a hearing into the origins of covid-19. unfortunately, is only attended by republicans but at the press

conference following that hearing i could tell it people were thinking of this as a partisan issue. and what it's critically important that we understand covid-19 origins is to prevent future outbreaks and global pandemics. precisely that. and why? one is that we know that there was a lack of disclosure. we know that international health regulations require 24 hours notice and certainly we were not notified of this until late january, even though the evidence points to the virus circulating in the fall of 2019. we need to know as previously mentioned because of biosafety laboratory research. it is the research being conducted? we understand even in the best laboratories there can be leaks, but biosafety lab for work was occurring in a biosafety lab, too, and the international committee has a vested interest in both of disclosure and that the proper type of research is

occurring in the proper biosafety lab. and then four, prepa's mentioned again and they think it to be underscored, the ethics of the type of research that is being performed. this is not a republican issue here it is not a democrat issue. it is not a united states issue. it is an international issue and the international health organizations have a vested interest in disclosure immediately in biosafety lab and in the ethics of research. mr. ratcliffe i want to thank you for testifying before the subcommittee this morning and supporting our investigation into the origins of covid-19. when the former cdc director dre this committee last month he stated that when you look at the two departments, the fbi and the energy department, they have stronger scientific footprint of any of our intelligence agencies. and i think the way they got to the answers of low probability and moderate probability is there integral scientists did

the science here and there are some in immediate especially who insinuate that a low probability or moderate probability means no probability. with your background and experience as director of national intelligence can you elaborate on the scientific expertise within the department of energy and the fbi, and why the conclusions on covid-19 origins would be noteworthy, and it doesn't mean not probable? >> thank you for the question congresswoman. from initial starting, standpoint, as has been talked about some agencies have made any assessment at any confidence level. when assessments are made they can be made at a low confidence level. they can be made at a moderate confidence level or they can be made at a high confidence level. in this case you reference a moderate and low confidence levels that the fbi and the department of energy respectively have made. those are based on scientific

information, and none of this is political. none of this is disputed. there is currently no environmental source identified for covid-19. there is no intermediate host that is ever been identified. there was no reservoir species that is ever been identified, and covid-19 was never known to exist in any animal or species before the pandemic began. those are scientific facts that are not disputed, and there's nothing political about that. that factored into the determinations that have been made, and what i i talked abot before about this shift taking place, the things that are just related early on in the intelligence community was briefed by various scientists who said those answers will come. they reference sars one and mers outbreaks and saying, look, and may take several months even a year sometimes even longer to

identify an immediate -- and intermediate host or species. we are now three and half years and every that passes makes it less likely that there's anything that will never tie this to nature. were as on the other side of the ledger it's overwhelming when you look at china's actions and the circumstances surrounding what was going on from a biosafety standpoint at wuhan. the massive number of coronaviruses, the massive numbers of bats caring coronaviruses that were brought into line, all of that weighs heavily into making assessments at some confidence level that a lab leak was the origin for this pandemic. >> so it sounds like you would consider the opinions of these components to be taken seriously, and i would say in reference to the letter from the chinese embassy that that minimal w.h.o. now recognizing its earlier mistakes would diminish the influence of the

chinese communist party within the w.h.o. w.h.o. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> i now recognize mr. cooter from hawaii for five minutes of questions for thank you, mr. chair. as we develop policies to better prepare us in the future it is crucial that we do so without fanning the flames of anti-api extremism that faster during the pandemic. anti-asian rhetoric espoused by those at the very top of the republican party and the pandemics always stated that real-world consequences on our aapi community here in the united states. in an effort to deflect from his administration botched pandemic response president trump looked for a scapegoat and a way to score points with his base. and in doing so he recklessly villainize aapi people for political gain making our community human shields and red herrings to distract from his inability to deal on all levels of the public health crisis including understand and the very earliest days the origins of covid. for example, within a matter of

days president trump using the phrase chinese buyers on twitter at the asian rhetoric on a platform grew exponentially according to a study conducted by the university of california san francisco. in the summer 2020 president trump begin referring to covid-19 as kung flu, i campaign rallies across the country, ratcheting up vitriol among his right-wing base. this hateful rhetoric online if the deadly consequences. according to the center for the study of hate and extremism, hate crimes targeting members of our aapi community increased by 339% from 2020 to 2021. words my friend that appear when of the ccp did not cooperate with international efforts to understand the origins of covid-19 but president trump made it worse. his words helped perpetuate the ccp's misinformation campaign and assign blame for the covid-19 to make an asian american communities, and in doing so further hindered our

nation's ability to limit an effective evidence-based public health response. we must recognize the consequences of our words. the impact they have on the communities we serve and how it shapes the national conversation on issues of critical importance to our health and our security. dr. lowenthal, your board about the dangers of politicizing intelligence and national security. as we seek to engage in a thorough fact-based analysis what are the real world consequences of distracting rhetoric and politicizing intelligence regarding the viruses origins? >> as i said, it makes it very difficult for analysts to do their work. because if they know that what they are writing of what they are briefing is going to go into, is going to be question not because somebody disagrees with the substance, but disagrees with why they're being told something, it makes it increasingly difficult for analysts to do good work because they are worried about the

consequences. nobody wants to be vilified either as an ethnic group or professionally. and so that becomes a problem. >> thank you, doctor lowenthal. there are clearly troubling consequences as you noted of the rhetoric both for the value and ability for us to do the work as well as for aapi community here in the united states. as well as we will talk about today. intelligence community is ever. we make sure we course correct what is been happening to both ensure the safety of our communities and preserve the integrity of our intelligence work as we seek to fully understand the origins of covid? >> the issue of vilifying communities is beyond the scope of the intelligence community. that's not our responsibility. that's the leadership issue. as a political leadership issue. in terms of the partisanship, you have to hope that people on both sides of the aisle recognize that analysts are not out there trying to grind in acts. they are trying to present the

best and villages they have at the time with caveats and with uncertainties, , and that they e doing this not because are being animist but because they really don't know the answer. again i had to do with senior officials many times and in know this is frustrating. you want an answer and sometimes we get -- just can't give an answer that create a tension between these two immunities, between the policy community and the intelligence community but that is the reality of a lot of the issues on which we work. >> thank you, dr. lowenthal. it is by definite hope through these discussions that we wee having that we can put the harmful rhetoric aside and we've seen and focus on the work that matters, protecting our nation's public health and preparing for future public health crises. we can be tough on the ccp and a lack of transparency and cooperation with pandemic with investigations. but we must do so without putting at risk the safety and well-being of asian americans and our communities.

if we fail to do this we are only strengthening the ccp's efforts to distract and to mislead and gets us no closer to fully understanding the origins of covid and allowing us to do the good work of preventing future crises in being able to respond to save lives. thank you, mr. chair. i yield back. >> i now recognize ms. lesko from arizona for five minutes per thank you, mr. chairman. over 1 million americans died. millions more got sick. some with long-term effects from covid-19. it is absolutely vital that we determine what happened, what did china do. did people within our own government cover up information because their professional topics of interest or for political reasons? the ranking member says covid-19 should not be a political issue. i agree, but with all due respect, sir, i contend that it is you that is making this a political issue.

you said that the only reason we're having this hearing today is because of president biden wanting to get to the bottom of it. with all due respect, are you kidding me? you have been in the majority, the democrats have been in the majority for the last two years and there has been no on the origins of covid. while you are in the majority. my first question is for mr. ratcliffe. in your testimony you wrote the challenges that i and other senior trump administration officials encountered while in office include legitimate concerns about the closely held sources of our intelligence and the sensitive methods used to update it as well as illegitimate roadblocks related to professional conflicts of interest and partisan politics. can you please elaborate on the conflict of interest you encountered? >> thank you, congresswoman. did you see you again. i referenced in my opening a

report from the analytic ombudsman who found, that person by the what is a career individual. it's not a political appointment. that person is charged with refereeing disputes about assessments. it was based on his investigation that when it comes to the issue of china, some of our intelligence was being suppressed because there were analysts within the community that felt like that some of the intelligence may be used by the top administration in ways that they disagreed with, and that is clearly inappropriate under analytic judgment standards. and again that's not my opinion, that's the independent opinion of the analytic ombudsman. >> my next question for you, mr. ratcliffe, is you mention in your testimony that cia analysts

on china were collected to bring forth the information. did you ever, do you think you ever got all of the information that they and come from china related to covid-19? >> well, i think that intelligence is such that we're constantly gating to information, even when we have limited sources and methods. i do think that there were headwinds to get information. i endeavored to be made aware of as much as possible. ultimately that's what led to the process where i worked with secretary of state mike pompeo on the state department fact sheet to put out information about the coronaviruses, their similarity to what became covid-19, covid-19, researchers at the wuhan institute of virology becoming sick, and the other information that was included in that fact sheet so that that

information would hopefully drive further declassification of intelligence to the american people and would drive congressional hearings going forward. unfortunately, that hasn't happened the way that we anticipated. >> thank you. mr. feith, in the january 2021 fact sheet on activity at the what institute, institute of neurology, which you helped to write, it mentions debbie id researchers who got sick and 2019 with covid like symptoms in which we have talked about. can you tell us more about these sick researchers? >> i can share the view that a think the sick researchers are probably still today the most potentially probative part of this story that we are yet aware of. it's been suggested already that the passage of time doesn't help in finding a confirmed answer

and that is richer and that's probably true also with respect to some of what we would want to know about these sick researchers and what tests were taken and what material and evidence would've been available from the autumn of 2019. but still what we know is that there is additional information that the u.s. government has that was not available -- able to be specified at the time in the fact sheet that was released in january 2021. but part of the help in doing the fact sheet as director ratcliffe just noted was that it would bring interest and, frankly, pressure and help make the case for additional disclosure including by the biden administration once they came in, and just by those with subpoena power elsewhere in washington, because it certainly bulldoze over frankly defined in the of 2020 that the was after all a u.s. government information about a cluster of illnesses in that lab which is

exactly what you would expect to happen if the origin of covid came from a laboratory accident where a worker became ill, knowingly or not, and then took the virus out into the community and had it emerge in wuhan, a place where there's really hard to imagine any explanation for a bat coronavirus imaging for the first time on earth unless a walk at the door of the lab. >> thank you very much for all of your testimonies, and i yield back. >> now recognize dr. joyce from pennsylvania. >> thank you, chairman thank you to our witnesses for appearing here today. let me be clear, the work that the subcommittee is conducting is critical to ensure that the destruction that was caused by the outbreak of the covid-19 pandemic and our subsequent response is never again repeated. to quote from the lancet covid-19 commission, identify covid-19 origins would provide

greater clarity and that only the causes of the current pandemic but also the full abilities to future outbreaks and strategies to prevent them. beginning with my service on the house china task force and throughout our investigation on the subcommittee i have that consistent concerns with the nih biomedical research security and how the nih interacts with other elements of our government on research that could raise national security concerns. for this reason, last congress i introduce the safe biomedical research act which did become law off the record both the nih and hhs at large to consult with the director of the office of national security within the department of hhs and the assistant secretary for preparedness and response, the director of national intelligence, the director of the fbi, and the heads of other appropriate agencies on a

regular basis regarding biomedical research conducted or supported by the nih that may affect or be affecting other matters of national security. director ratcliffe, since this was not long when you served, do you feel that these requirements would have been beneficial to ensure research being conducted by the nih was being properly vetted for national security risks? >> yes. >> overall, what was your experience with the nih and with a cooperative during the initial outbreak on matters such as lab leak theory? >> to be candid, some of the information that came from officials of their -- officials there was an consistent with what later became intelligence and later became publicly known through open-source

intelligence, as has been discussed here. there are questions about relationships including scientists from the nih and whether or not they had an interest in one theory over another and now that would've been or should have been disclosed. >> in december of 2022 then chairman of the house permanent select committee on intelligence adam schiff released and unclassified report on the origins of covid-19 where he wrote at the onset it is important to note that the first warning signs of an emerging novel virus will almost always come from public health authorities and their unclassified reporting. director ratcliffe, to your knowledge what mechanisms and processes exist between the intelligence community and public health authorities such as the cdc to coordinate the affirmation dissemination of knowledge about the identification of novel diseases

particularly in countries like china? >> with respect to china, particularly it is not unusual for local officials to actually suppressed intelligence from national leaders until a problem can be arrested or remediated. sometimes life depend on that. it's one of the interesting things about the events that took place and the fact that as mr. feith testified, researchers became sick within the what institute of neurology with symptoms that are consistent with covid-19. there has been public reporting about intelligence that those patients, that those researchers became patience patiene hospitalized. so without confirming the accuracy of that, what i would submit to you is if that is, in

fact, the case and those hospitalizations took place, the lab results and tests from those patients it submitted for genetic sequencing would be dispositive of the issue of whether or not those initial or patient zeros work at the wuhan institute of virology. i would submit you that in china there are not hipaa consideration to prevent the chinese government from accessing that. i was meant to you that is just a place they have the answer to that end of submit to you that if the answers were exculpatory in nature that information would've been shared by the chinese government which it is not. >> have that information been shared early, could this have been a regional, local endemic as opposed to unleashing this pandemic onto the world? >> absolutely. that issue is one of many factors and, unfortunately, actions that the chinese government took or did not take,

they misled. i referenced their conversations with world health organizations. they urged that a public health epidemic not be declared earlier. they misled international scientists about human to human transmissibility, and what they knew about the covid-19 virus. all of those things could have minimize and prevented the spread of this disease, and surely would would've savs of lives globally. >> had china cooperated and not suppressed actions of the world health organization, could this pandemic have not spread worldwide? >> yes. >> again i thank you for appearing today. mr. chairman, i yield. >> i now recognize ms. greene from georgia for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like for the record to address something that one of our colleagues across the i was talking about which was asian hate in reference to president

trump at president trump never spoke any language of racism or hate. he did, however, call, many of us have called the covid-19 virus the wuhan flu, the chinese china virus because we feel it originated from china. i would like to also state for the record that many viruses and diseases are named after the areas that they come from like the west nile virus from west nile uganda. rocky mount spotted fever from the rocky mountains. marburg virus on marburg germany. zika fever from the zika force of uganda. japanese encephalitis, german measles, and i could go on and on and on. we are really tired of the racism in name-calling, and it needs to end. but we really talk about the origins of covid-19 here today, which is shocking to me because honestly we have been talking about the origins of covid-19 for three and half years, and every commonsense american that i know pretty much understands

where it came from, came from the wuhan institute of virology, and doesn't really care if the intelligence community says it did or didn't. i would like to point out that here we are, the intelligence community is able to figure out immediately who was leaking classified information and a disc or chat but yet still doesn't want to say whether it came from the lab didn't come from the lab. the intelligence communities seem to release or not release information based on how the information will affect the government that it seems to protect. yet unfortunately so many times it doesn't release or not release the information the people that it serves, and i remind everyone it is paid for by the taxpayers of america. i would like to point out that the state department fact sheet on january 15, 2021, new are a

lot of information about the one institute of virology. so that means our intelligence community knew a whole lot more before that. they knew the u.s. government believes it were several researchers inside the wuhan institute of virology became sick an audit of 2019. before the ccp first reported cases of covid-19. they also knew the ccp was preventing journalists investigate a global health authorities from accessing the wuhan institute of virology. they also knew that started in 2016 well before this, so the wuhan institute of virology was researching the bat coronavirus with the closest relationship to sars covfefe two, 96.2% similar. the wuhan institute of virology is publish published res gain to function research. and the state department memo also said that the u.s.

government determine the wuhan institute of virology collaborated, collaborate on publication and secret projects with the ccp military since at least 2017. and you you know what else we know? we know that dr. fauci at the come into, in many age funded through a grant eco-alliance with a gain of function research. we know that for a fact our government pay for it, our taxpayers unfortunately unknowingly paid for it. so we know all this to be true and we know what was going on at the wuhan institute of virology. mr. lowenthal, which her dedication to being an analyst of information, why is it so hard to determine whether covid-19 came from the wuhan institute of virology or not? >> because the chinese will not give us access to the information that we need. they gave us point of access then mr. feith was talked about them if they gave us samples come if they give us access to

the records and you will never be sure with the chinese whether they're giving you the access that you want, we are never going to be able to say with a high degree of certainty. .. >> entirely salacious, ma'am. >> dr. lowenthal, you said you keep your intelligence claims nonpartisan. in 2018 you recorded in "the new york times" i saying that president trump is the best president that russia ever had. that sounds pretty political -- >> but i was no longer an intelligence officer at the time, ma'am. i'm a private citizen. >> i think you have a difficult time keeping your political opinions out of your political analysis. mr. ratcliffe, you are quoted as saying to this day the cia has an unrivaled capacity to acquire information and near limitless

resources to do so, have continued to state that it does not have enough information to the make any formal assessment. to put it bluntly, this is unjustifiable and a reflection not that the agency can't make an assessment with any confidence, only that it won't. could you elaborate, please? >> well, i talked about the overwhelming evidence and intelligence on one side of the ledger that supports that the lab leak is the only plausible assessment at this point in time. and that, conversely, that there really at this point isn't anything that ties covid 19 to nature. i talked about the fact that no environmental source, no intermediate host, no reservoir species, nothing, nothing has ever been published that covid-19 existed in any animal or species before the pandemic began. we make assessments all the time in the intelligence community with a fraction of the

intelligence that we have available to us here. again, i think this is a matter of won't, not can't, and i think that, you know, that it's unjustifiable when we're talking about a million americans dead and as many as 10 or 15 million worldwide. and contradiction that the current administration is taking through the intelligence community and that you've heard here today that we'll never know the answer to this unless the chinese cooperate is a contradiction with those that say our goal here is also to prevent a future pandemic. we'll never be able to prevent it if we don't get the answers that we need with respect to how this happened in the first place. >> thank you, mr. ratcliffe. i think it's an issue of won't, not can't, as well. and perhaps we need to look deeper into whether was china trying to sway, possibly, an

election, a presidential election, or was it some type of bioweapon. i yield back. thank you. >> i now recognize ms. dingell from michigan for five minutes in questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, to both you and the ranking member for holding this hearing, because i do think this hearing matters more than anyone does. unfortunately, discussions, debates and investigations in this country have become highly politicized in every arena. okay. as a congress, we expect it. but i hope we can minimize it on this committee, because i am worried about the next virus. it's already out there. we're reading about them popping up everywhere right now, and i think we all want to be prepared. what worries me the most is what's happening in the scientific community where it's exchanging of ideas, research and shared data has found clues, discovered cures to reach con

consensus. and this arena is becoming so highly politicized between virologists and researchers, public health officials, national security experts and, oh, yes, the politicians that i think we're in trouble. to quote "the wall street journal" this morning, these divisions and a lack of transparency from beijing have hobbled efforts to determine how the virus first infected humans. i hope our committee can work together to address that. so today i want to focus on a couple things i think we can all agree on and raise a couple of other issue is. first, china has not been forthcoming. i think all three witnesses would agree to that this, and i think everybody on this panel would agree to that. i strongly echo my colleague's call -- colleagues' calls from both sides of the aisle that we need greater transparency from the chinese communist party regarding the wuhan institute of virology especially if we want to prevent further pandemics.

and the further we get away, the more complicated it becomes. second, here's the reality with respect to our witnesses, i do not believe that we have -- in either direction as to how this virus started. lots of us have opinions. lord knows how many papers have been written, intelligence investigations undertaken, studies abound. and as we've heard today, some are firmly in the camp that it was a lab leak, some say it appears to be a zoo ottic transmission from an animal. i'm not a scientist the -- scientist, but i think here's a fact, no one definitely knows. a report by the senate republicans that was released yesterday, yesterday on the pandemic's origins said, to quote, after 18 months of research, the team that worked on the senate report acknowledged it was unable to definitely pinpoint the source of the pandemic which has

killed, everybody here has talked about the million americans, but it's killed 6.9 million people worldwide. we should all be worried about this and want to stop next one. i new there are areas -- i think there are areas of agreement. while the intelligence community has not reached a conclusion on the exact origins of the pandemic, there appears to be a scientific consensuses that the this specific virus does not appear to have been developed as part of biological warfare. now, let me be really clear, this count mean we don't have to worry concern this doesn't mean we don't have to the worry about other forms of biological warfare. but in this distance, the office of national intelligence states, quote: we judge the virus was not developed as a biological weapon. in other foreign countries and other scientists, there seems to be consensus on that. next, some of my colleagues have pointed to the fact that the bat

coronavirus known as coronavirus ratg-13 shares 96% sequence similarly to the sars cov-2 the which is the virus which was responsible for covid-19. to be clear, there is sign e terrific consensus -- scientific consensus that this, well, everybody would say, oh, that's where it should be. that 4% difference represents decades. to put it in perspective, the national human genome research institute the has found that fruit flies are nearly 60% question netically sum to us as humans. we're different than fruit flies. and, third, while my republican colleagues have attempted to draw conclusions based on the researchers -- consistent with covid-19, the office of director of national intelligence

declassified assessments clearly indicates this is not diagnostic of if -- of the pandemic's origin. in fact, for the record, in november of 2019, i had a 103 never for three weeks. i ended up at the university of michigan, and no one knows what it was. and all the -- are located in wuhan. but that's anecdotal, that's not a fact. we don't have facts. and i also want to say that, you know, in 218 we were getting warnings from the state department the of the lack of safety at the wuhan airport -- at the wuhan lab, and what were people doing? so i'm going to ask one question quickly. dr. lowenthal, is there any reason to caught the validity of the intelligence community's determination on anything i've just describedsome. >> no. >> so i guess i'm going to have

to conclude because i'm out of time. i could keep going, but i would like to submit the declassified office of the director e of national intelligence assessment and the peer-reviewed paper published by more than 20 leading virologists titled the origins of sars cov-2, and i'd like to to the ask the chairman if he might ask his republican colleagues on the senate side if they would share their study for the members to read. >> without objection, and the other is public. >> so i think it would be good for all of us to circulate it. with that, i want us all to work together. i take this virus very seriously. i don't want to see it again. not going to solve it partisanly, we're going to solve it working together. thank you, mr. chairman, and i yield back. >> i now recognize dr. jackson from texas for five minutes for questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i appreciate it. thank you to our witnesses for being here today. for over two years, many american just like myself have

been demanding that an investigation into china's role in the development of this vaccine or this, i'm sorry, this virus and their efforts to cover up the virus after the fact that it was released leading to the global pandemic that has killed millions, we've been demanding that for a while. i'm glad we're doing this now. i think we're wayened beyond the power curve on this. i want to start off by saying other than the chinese government, the entities most aggressive hi trying to actively spread misinformation about the origins of covid, trying to actually create and spread e what they would have you believe was sign -- scientific the evidence and scientific opinion, and i'm referring in this particular to the proximal origins document, a document that was intended provide forder to harass, label, threaten, cancel, croix anyone with any if other -- destroy anyone with any other opinion, specifically an opinion that this came from a lab, from the wuhan lab in particular, an opinion that we we know now was accurate. the people that were most interested in doing just the

were people like anthony fauci, francis collins and others at nih. it was peter daszak, it was the doctors at the w.h.o. and our cable news networks like cmn and msnbc. directer ratcliffe, kuhn if there were any -- do you know if there were any instances of the u.s. intelligence agencies, did they share information, did the they corroborate or collaborate with any of the entities that i've mentioned or the individuals that i've mentioned to either suppress or get out information that was contrary to to what we're talking about today the that we know to be the facts? >> as i understand your question, congressman, were any of the scientists or individuals associated with any of those group, did they have -- >> were there interactions with the intelligence -- >> they did have interactions. the answer to all of them, but some of the individuals that i know, for instance, dr. peter

daszak, dr. farrar, dr. geary, i believe, were all at some point in time briefing various entities or agencies within the intelligence community about, about this virus. >> one of the things i'm wondering is, you know, we're looking back now, we're realizing that some of these intelligence agencies probably had enough information to to make a solid determination that the most likely came from the lab in wuhan as far back as a year or more ago. my question is, were they sharing this information with these people that were putting out contrary information, that were being propped up as the experts, that were giving us things like proximal origins to completely undermine what i think intelligence agents knew to be the truth a long time ago. and i can ask that because you make, you may have realized, you know, after the fact because i think you had mentioned at one point that even within the intelligence agencies, you as

the director e of national intelligence were being kept in the dark on some things or gnat if being fully briefed or being read into everything that was going on. people that were subordinate to you were doing things maybe for politically-motivated or saying they thought -- they wanted to draw politics into it, but they were politically motivated themselves. was there any effort on the intelligence, on the side of the intelligence agencies to correct what was misinformation, what they knew to be misinformation at the time? >> well, i can only speak, you know, to personal knowledge that i have, and, you know, the efforts that i engaged in was as we found information and intelligence that was inconsistent with things that some of the individuals that had consulted with the intelligence community had stated, we went through a process to declassify as much of that so that you would be aware. the state department fact sheet that has been referenced a

number of times about researchers being sick at the wuhan institute of virology, coronaviruses including the one most similar in nature to what became covid 1 and the chinese -- covid-19 and the chinese military's involvement, those were all pieces of intelligence that the i worked to get out publicly with secretary of state pompeo through a declassification process. my personal knowledge was where we became aware of inconsistencies like that, we did do our to make that information available publicly. >> thank you. i guess what i'm a little bit worried about is i'm just worried that there's a process where the intelligence agencies were purposely not sharing information or not coming forward, you know, coming forth with the information that they knew to be true because they were being influenced politically by what was going on in the white house or elsewhere. >> yeah. and i think that, you know, again, i didn't just -- there were instances that were documented by the analytic ombudsman that reflect the fact that when it came specifically to china, the country of china,

that some of our intelligence and our analytic judgments were impacted by partisan politic des and the desire for intelligence -- desire -- politics and the desire for intelligence not on the used by one party. >> this happened in the military, i think it happened in our intelligence agencies, these are people that we pay to be nonpartisan, to protect us, for their, expertise so they can make sure that our national security is intact. and i think if there's any of that going on behind the scenes, need to get to the that. people do not need to be making decisions based on their political beliefs or their political alignment if it's going to impact, you know, something like, you know, our response to covid. >> i agree completely. >> thank you. i yield back, sir. >> i now recognize mr. garcia from california for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you to our witnesses. i do want to start, mr. chairman, by just responding to one of the committee members who

just made some comments trying to link the origins of covid to some of the national security leaks that are very concerning that we've been discussing recently. it's important to note that this committee itself cannot have credibility to discuss sensitive intelligence information if members of the majority are going to publicly defend people who continue to the leak top secret information which is in violation of their oath of office. this member of the committee, the members of the committee have are defended jack teixeira who has been arrested for leaking classified information. just to clarify that, he was no whistleblower. he wasn't telling the truth or trying to serve the public, and all the ed shows he has reck he isly shared information in a private chat which was -- in which there was also racist memes and jokes. anyone who defends him should be ashamed. again, we want to insure that if we're going going to actually talk about important information, origins of covid, we should actually focus on the

pandemic and not try to link this to someone who betraded our country. i yield back the remainder of my chime. -- my time. thank you. >> i now recognize mr. cloud from texas for five minutes for questions. >> thank you all for being here today, for continuing this information. it's so important to where we need to go in the future. you know, doctor -- director ratcliffe -- i promoted you, maybe. [laughter] you mentioned some of the, china did cover up a lot of what happened. we know they hoarded ppe, they blocked investigations into the wuhan lab. they, as you mentioned, blamed service members, they destroyed data. and so where we don't have maybe evidence of the definitive evidence of the origins, it certainly seems like we have ed of a cover-up. evidence of a cover-up. now, i'm not, i'm aggrieved by that, but i'm not surprised the that godless communist countries

do bad things. what has been extremely concerning and surprising, i think, to a lot of americans is to see how certain is aspects of our government has, in a way, misled them through the last two years. you've mentioned that you have pretty high confidence that that this came, did not have natural origins. now we have the department of energy and the fbi now say that the lab leak is the most likely scenario as well which, you know, you mentioned all the apparatuses at our intelligence, world class, world-leading tools that our intelligence community has. it boggles the mind of the american people to see that three years later the intelligence community's finally coming around to where the american people were, you know, about three years ago. could you speak to, can you elaborate on how you developed your degree of confidence? to the extent that you can? i realize there's information you cannot share. >> well, i've talked a little bit about it told, but, you

know, the highlights one of the comments the congresswoman from michigan was making earlier about no one can know with certainty. i actually agree with that at this point in time, but we don't have to in making the intelligence community assessments. we have to have some level of confidence. it can be low, it can be moderate or it can be high. so i have been very clear that when we look at all of our intelligence, much of it is the circumstantial. and with circumstantial the evidence, you can never know with certainty. but the that doesn't mean that you cannot make an assessment with some level of confidence, and the more i have learned about this and the more i have seen -- and, again, as a person who had more access to our intelligence for the first year as much as anyone in our government, my level of confidence became higher. things that others were supporting for natch natchald

natural origins a approach have been peeling away, and some people were revealed in having conflictses of interest in perhaps promoting that as a theory. at this point in time, three and a half years later, no scientist can point to anything from an environmental standpoint that ties covid-19 to nature. on the other side of the equation, you have all of the things that we've talked about, china's obfuscation and the fact that they have the best access to the intelligence that would be diagnostic and dispositive, and yet they have shared none of that with us. and if they had any that was indicative or diagnostic that this was naturally occurring, why wouldn't they share that? if there was no one to blame for this pandemic, why wouldn't they share that information? i think the answer is they know certainly or they either -- they don't know the answer or they don't want the know the answer because, like me, they know that is the intelligence certainly points to a lab leak as the most

plausible assessment, the only one supported by intelligence, science and common sense at this point. >> now, you developed a high degree of confidence. could you speak about when, was it earlier or later in the process? >> you know, when i became the director of national intelligence, i had seen the prior assessments. i had been a member of congress on the intelligence community -- committee, i said show me all the intelligence we have, and i was frankly surprised how little we had supporting natural origins, how much we had, circumstantial or otherwise to, that supported the lab leak. and over time, again, some of the explanations for natural origins became less and less likely. again, i was told that some of this would appear over a course of months. we've now been three and a half years, and we haven't identified an intermediate host, a reservoir source or species, any of those things. is so pretty rapidly, which is why i talked about the property that mike pompeo, secretary pom pompeo and i went through with the hopes of the next administration would declassify

more information while protecting our sources and methods and that this body would hold hearings. unfortunately, two years went by without any hearings in this body into the origins of covid so, you know, i'm grateful that we're getting there, but these are things that should have taken place a long time ago. >> you've alluded even as the dni, you had trouble sometimes getting information from the intelligence community. could you peek to that? -- speak to that? >> well, i think there was at times reluck a dance and, you know -- reluctance and, you know, as i've commented that, you know, the independent analytic ombudsman found there were instances where, particular to china, some intelligence was being suppressed so that it could not be used to support policies that the added managers in which i was serving -- administration in which i was serving, the trump administration, could use that. and that was improper. you know? and i think i've addressed that that. >> yeah.

that's, i mean, to me, that's one of our major concerns from an oversight perspective, is looking into, you know, an intelligence agency that seems to have gone wayward in some of these aspects. and, dr. lowenthal, while i certainly appreciate some of your comments, i think the intelligence community may have drifted since then, you know? and so it's important that we look into. i'm sorry, my time 's up. thank you, mr. chair: >> i now recognize dr. mccormack from georgia for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. ratcliffe, mr. honorable ratcliffe, thank you for your service in congress. also thank you for your service as former director of national intelligence during a tumultuous time during the origins of this citizen process. recently, direct director from the fbi reports say that the covid-19 was likely the result of a lab incident in wuhan. based on your knowledge, do you

agree with the report from the department of energy as well? >> i agree with both the fbi and the department of energy. >> thank you. in your testimony you stated, and i quote, our intelligence has led to the a common central shift whereby a few of the intelligence community's 18 agencies are now publicly accepting that the covid-19 virus originated from a lab leak in the wuhan. and as this shift continues, the day will comp when every single agency in the intelligence community will make the same assessment, end quote. do you think there is another federal agency close to following on the -- falling on the side of the wuhan lab leak theory in the near future, and if so, which one? >> well, i've talked about, you know, again, i'm not in the intelligence community now. but, of course, have friends tar career individuals still serving in agencies. you know, my understanding is that that in most of the

agencies, there is a shift. more and more analysts believe that a lab leak is the most plausible if not the only plausible assessment to make. and that it's a minority in most agencies that that are holding on to the idea that this is naturally occurring. you know, i would, would hope as i talked about, the fact that the cia would make ap assessment at some confidence level. and based upon my personal knowledge of conversations about analysts within that agency, i believe that a great majority of those analysts cosupport the department of energy -- do support the department of emergency and the fbi analysis. it's a minority opinion that is currently holding back the cia from making that assessment that a lab leak is the most plausible. >> and certainly in your estimate in the last year, is there some new information that

occurred, or do you think the cia could have come to that conclusion probably about a year ago or so? >> well, i think that we certainly could have -- all agencies within the united states' intelligence community could have made an assessment at some confidence level a year ago on this in favor of a lab leak. my understanding specifically9 from the department of energy is that there was new intelligence that persuaded them the make their assessment of the lab leak. so new intelligence is always being gained. but, again, from my standpoint, the more i'm that passes, the further -- the more time that passes, the further we get without anything tying covid-19 to the nature as i talked about, no environmental source, no intermediate host, no reservoir species, none of that, it makes it less and less likely that the this was a natural origin. >> i think as a physician of emergency medicine and as a scientist, i think i author

thoroughly -- thoroughly agree with that assessment, and the fact that we're even having this conversation is absurd. whether to there's animals in the wild that have or have not this disease. the fact that the chinese have literally spent years and incredible efforts trying to obtain that information and have received zero information supporting one theory whereas we know there is an incredible amount of evidence on the other side of that which points to one thing, and that's a ccp cover-up. this, unfortunately, leads me to the conclusion that the efforts of this administration, dr. fauci, the w.h.o. and multiple bureaucracies are willfully or ignorantly colluding with the ccp. that's what bothers me. as you know, this committee was formed on the basis that we would seek truth to create recommendations to the face future pandemics. with that being said, i have one

last question for you. in your opinion, what reason could the administration, public officials and many of our federal agencies have for hiding the truth from the american people? and if you can't speak to that, what effect the has on the american people's trust of their public health officials and the government? >> well, i would say that, you know, china has been identified as our number one nation-state adversary. they've been described by the current administration as a strategic competitor. but our intelligence clearly tells us they are an adversary. their public actions very clearly dictate that they are an adversary, and i think that the current administration for whatever reason has been reluctant to confront china on any number of issues or transgressions that have taken place publicly from spying, a spy balloon that flew over the country, threats against

legislators in this body from landing in taiwan, the list is long. and there hasn't been an effort by the current administration other than to say we're not seeking conflict with china. and i think that that is continued with respect to the this issue into covid origins. >> i agree with you. i don't think we can learn from this if we're not being honest. we can't prepare for the next pandemic if we're not being honest. we have obvious answers that we want to ignore. i think we've been biased. i think we have -- to really acknowledge this, if we're going to the prepare for the next virus. mr. chair, i think we cannot disallow that we've already had multiple viruses from animals in the past. but we're not doing what we need to prepare for with wuhan leaks and disallowing gain of function. with that, i yield. >> i now recognize mr. moskowitz from florida for five minutes in

questions. >> mr. chairman, thank you. the american people deserve to know the origins of the covid-19 virus. i happen to believe, based on the evidence that is available, that it's most likely that it came out of the lab than not. but for the families who lost loved ones to covid, they don't have an answer. for the businesses that were shut down, they don't have an answer. for the folks in nursing homes who couldn't have their loved ones visit them, they don't have an answer. and i know all of this because i'm the only one in congress who ran a covid-19 response operation as the director of emergency management for the state florida. i'm the only one that had to go to china to buy masks and buy vent9 laters and -- ventilators and viral media and universal media and having to get all of that stuff from around the world

competing with everybody but antarctica because this country was not prepared to take on a pandemic. those families deserve to know. my dad, like some others, was diagnosed with cancer during covid-19. we couldn't be with him in the hospital during treatment. those families have a right to know. students who weren't in school have a right to know. but also i think the american people have a right to know why so much misinformation was spread about covid-19 in this country by president trump. let me just read some of the greatest hits from president trump. china's been working very hard to contain the coronavirus. the united states greatly appreciates their efforts and transparency. of it'll all work out well in particular on behalf of the american people, i want to thank president xi. okay? i just spoke to president xi

last night, and, you know, we're working on the problem, the virus. it's a very tough the situation. i think he's going to handle it. i think it's handled very well. we're helping wherever we can. just had a long conversation with the president of china. he's strong, sharp, powerful, focused on leading the counterattack of the coronavirus. he feels they're doing very well, even building hospitals in a matter of days. great discipline is taking place in china. president leads strongly and a very successful operation, we're working closely with china to help. i think china is very, you know, professionally run in a sense. they've got everything under control. i i really believe they're going to have it under control very soon. you know, in april supposedly it's going to die with the hotter weather, and that's a beautiful date to look forward to. but china, i can tell you, is working very hard. we have very few people in the country with covid and you know what? their getting better. they're all getting better. i think the whole situation will work out well. we pretty much shut it down coming from china. you know, we only have 15 people

with covid and, you know, 15 within a couple of days it's going to go down to 0. that's a pretty good job we've done. st going to go away, hopefully, at the end of the month. and if not, hopefully soon after that. i could keep going. this goes on and on. and every day it goes on, there were more and more cases in this country. and so we have to find out why the president was spreading that information. we heard about this paper, proximal origins paper, in the committee. we heard from members that this paper specifically said that they didn't want to investigate the lab leak at all. that is not true. here's the quote from the paper: we must, therefore, examine the possibility of an inadvertent laboratory release of sars-c of v-2. -- cov-2. i don't know why we continue to

spread misinformation. i also think one of the things we should learn, because the document that mr. ratcliffe has been, has been reading from as part of his. suggests analysts appearedded reluctant to have their analysis on china brought forward because they tend to disagree with trump administration policies. one of things i also think we should investigate is did the professionals not share the information they had with the president because they didn't trust the president because every single day he was going out saying this stuff? or better, going out and telling people they can drink bleach, or they should just go out and put light in the body with, and we'll get rid of covid. i mean, this went on for a long period of time. so, yes, we need to investigate. we need to investigate the origins of covid, we need to know what we knew when, and we need to share that with the american people. and we need to know why president trump, who was in charge when covid happened, he was in charge when covid got out

of control, why he didn't tell the american people the truth. i yield back. >> i now recognize mr. jordan ohio for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. ratcliffe e, i think dr. mccormack was on to the right questions. seems to me the fundamental question is i why. why did the they lie to the us, and why is it take taking so long -- you point this out in your testimony -- why's it taking so long for every government agency to admit what we all know? because belief in a lab leak as the origin of start of this is not a conspiracy theory is it, mr. ratcliffe? >> no. >> why is it taking so long? you knew that early on. you were confirmed in, i think, may of 2020, and you knew within weeks -- in fact, i think you say in your testimony a lab leak is the only explanation, only credible explanation. the preponderance of the evidence is all on the side of the lab leak. you knew that within weeks, so

why did this the government not tell us the truth? >> well, i think, you know, when you look at the intelligence community report that the biden administration put out in october of '21, they acknowledge that china's refusal to cooperate. but the report in many ways ignores what i i i think is the inescapable fact and reality that if the ccp had anything exculpatory, anything at all, anything that would be helpful to showing that no one was to blame -- >> right. >> -- that this occurred naturally, that they would share. and, you know, why not share data, samples, research, everything that tends to show that they had access to the, that would tend to show that this was naturally occurring and tend to show that the lab leak theory really was a conspiracy theory? they didn't do that was they couldn't do that. and to me, that's why making an

assessment with some level of confidence is something that should have been done a long time ago by the intelligence community. >> uh-huh. >> yeah, we need to protect sources and methods. it's why mike pompeo and i laboredded over how much of this this can we putout. >> do right. >> hoping it would drive the next administration coming in to declassify more information which they haven't and would drive congressional hearings into the origins of this the, which it didn't. >> here's what gets me. so the director of national intelligence knew this thing came from a lab. the secretary of state knew this thing came from a lab. common sense tells you this thing came from a lab. and, frankly, even the guy who called us names knew it came from a lab because we have their e-mails from the start. he he says i don't know how the happens in nature, be easy to do in a lab. mr. anderson says this is not consistent with evolution their -- everyone knew at the get go. you knew at the get go. and yet they tell us just the

opposite why? >> well, and you left out the top public if health official, a virologist, dr. redfield -- >> dr. redfield knew, he's testified, yes. >> also testified. the top public health official telling you with some confidence level that the most likely origin of this was a lab leak. and i think that, you know, unfortunately for political reasons and political narratives, it was difficult -- >> so did you talk with dr. fauci during this time frame when you get in in may and over the next several months, did you talk to dr. fauci? >> no. >> never spoke with dr. fauci? >> no. >> do you find that strange when he's out saying something directly con area to the secretary of state, the director of national intelligence -- contrary -- and to the top virologist, dr. redfield, that dr. fauci wouldn't talk with you? >> to be clear, there were folks within the coronavirus as thing

force that were communicating, you know, medical and scientist -- scientific information to the intelligence community, not me directly. but none of that information was, frankly, consistent with what we've talked about what the intelligence showed. again, some of those individuals to include dr. fauci were promoting the idea that this was natural origins and notwithstanding, you know, the language that was read, they were referring to it publicly as a conspiracy theory in certain conversations -- >> dr. collins called it a conspiracy theorist, if you believed in the lab as the origin. tell me your -- why do you think fauci and collins took that -- i've got my theory, and i think i'm right, but i'd like to hear from the director of national intelligence what he think fauci and collins' motivation for sharing misinformation. >> the best with evidence is their own conversation which is hay didn't want unwarranted or i think the term was unwanted attention to the relationships that were taking place between western virologists and those

working within the wuhan -- >> do you think maybe -- >> -- institute of virology and funding sources for some of that research. >> yes. we sent our money to a lab in china that wasn't up to code, that was doing gain of function research, and that's where this thing came from. that's what they didn't want with us to the know. do you agree with that, mr. ratcliffe? >> i do agree with that. >> that's important. thank you. i yield back. >> i'd now like to yield to ranking member reeves for a closing statement if he would like one. >> thank you. as i said from the select subcommittee's first hearing, our efforts to understand the origins of the covid-19 pandemic should remain evidence-based and free from partisan rhetoric and conspiratorial accusations without proof if that seek to vilify our nation's public health officials. we should not politicize intelligence and turn the origins question into with a

partisan blame game. instead, we must let our nation's scientists and intelligence professionals do the work necessary to promote our understanding of the pandemic origins without political interference. and while the experts work to determine how the coronavirus came on the, we should focus on putting people over politics. we should develop forward-looking, evidence-basedded policies that will keep the american people safe from if future pandemics. and we should take an intelligent, strategic approach to competition with china and the challenges posed by the chinese communist party. instead of fanning the flames of extreme rhetoric, we should build on the progress we made over the past two years under president biden to insure america's interests flourish domestically and abroad. now more than ever we must double down on our commitment to scientific integrity and put the needs of the american people above political theater. let's reject extreme partisan relate spring work together to save lives. the american people deserve nothing less.

thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> thank you. you know, i serve on the intelligence committee, and as a physician, when the pandemic began, no doubt i took an extreme interest into what was going on. mostly what i was interested in was what was going on physiologically causing so many people to chi. interest -- to die. interested many if finding out ways that we could maybe find treatments for people that actually worked. and started doing research. lockdown came, nothing else to do. just sitting at home. sitting at home going back and forth with another doctor from ohio who actually got on the phone with infectious disease doctors in china. we began our covid-19 origins investigation in february of 2020. and we found an article during

that time that i had never seen before, medical article, research article, published by ralph barrett from north carolina and dr. xi are if china. an article that showed that they were able to create a key her rah -- chimera with this gain of function research where you take a virus, put in other parts of virus, and pick it more init can white house. the other doctor found it, he called me and said, or you won't believe this, and he sent it to me. i thought, oh, my gosh. this is extremely alarming. fast forward after a poi ya request was able the -- foia request was able to the reveal some e-mails from dr. fauci, dr, christian anderson said this

thing looks engineered. immediately dr. fauci reacts. he contacts his deputy. capital letters, be ready -- i'm pair paraphrasing, i can't remember exactly what the e-mail said. but i do know the e-mail had an attachment to it. and it had the attachment of that very article about the creation of a chimera. oh, my goodness. i would hope that when dr. fauci saw that or became aware of it, maybe he just became aware of it? i don't think so, but maybe he kid, that he was as alarmed as i was. so you take that article, the question from christian andersot from christian anderson saying this thing looks engineered. and what does this very group do within weeks? come out and say it came from nature. it came from nature.

dr. anderson, we found, had said that he was focused, he was going to focus to disprove the lab leak theory. lab leak theory. why? why? what is the motive for that? that is very reasonable, to ask that question. mr. moskowitz, i guess, wasn't here for the other hearings. he's not on this subcommittee regularly, so he doesn't understand that that's actually what christian anderson said. i'm going to focus to disprove the lab leak theory. and they wrote proximal origins, got it published. how can we not question this motive? and if we are going to do all that we say we want to do with this committee to move forward, we have to consider these types of things, the motives. whether they're political or personal. so that we don't let someone

else do that again in the future. as mentioned, i'm on intelligence committee, so i'm able to get intelligence that ores -- others weren't able to get. and under chairman schiff, there was an unwillingness to investigate this together. the good news is in the intelligence community that rift is now gone. and we work together very well. but at that time since there was two separate reports coming out of the intelligence committee in the house, democrats in their report they concluded there was no need to search any further for the origins, what good would that that do? well, that's changed, forchute fortunately -- fortunately, in this committee and across the entire congress. and, apparently, with the president of the united states as well. and i'm glad he ordered the commission, but to date, i've seen less from the commission than i've seen on my own work on the intelligence committee. and when i ask questions of some of the people from the ic, they tell me it's their policy not to

answer my question. [laughter] dr. lowenthal, you referenced it before. you know what the statute is. they cannot have that type of policy. and that's why we want to know more. and fortunately, i have been able to work through some of that to some degree with director haines. and i give her credit for being open. but overall, let me just say this, i am grateful for this opportunity that we now have in the house. it's it's long overdue. and i'm grateful to speaker mccarthy for putting this select subcommittee together. and i'm grateful for dr. ruiz. he's been a friend for a long time. we've worked on a lot of health issues together as physicians, and i believe that if with we continue to work together, we can produce a product. you know, the pain of this pandemic in one way or another has understandably evoked emotions from everyone on this

committee and everyone in congress and everyone across america. but at the end of the day, i do believe we can and we must produce a product of truth and accountability. and i'll keep repeating what i'm after. i want us to be able to predict a pandemic, prepare for a pandemic, protect ourselves from a pandemic and prevent a pandemic if we can. with that, i yield back. i want to thank all of you for being here today and if for being witnesses for us. i greatly appreciate what you have done and what you have said and participate -- and with that, this meeting is adjournedded.

[inaudible conversations] [background sounds] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]