FDA Commissioner Martin Makary Testifies Before The Senate Appropriations Committee

Forbes Breaking News

The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies received testimony from US Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Martin Makary.

Transcript

00:00:00We'll call this hearing to order.

00:00:01Dr. McCrary, thanks for being here.

00:00:03We appreciate it very much.

00:00:04I know that it's a busy day for you,

00:00:06and so I appreciate you being here.

00:00:08And of course, Ranking Member Shaheen, thank you.

00:00:13Look forward to working with you on this appropriate subcommittee.

00:00:17You and I worked before on an appropriate subcommittee,

00:00:19and so I'm pleased now I have that opportunity here with Ag.

00:00:24Agriculture is incredibly important.

00:00:28My state, and I know the ranking members' state,

00:00:31what our great farmers and ranchers do every single day

00:00:35affects every American every single day

00:00:38with the highest quality, lowest cost food supply in the world.

00:00:41And of all the developed countries,

00:00:44Americans spend less of their budget on food,

00:00:46and they have better choice and better quality

00:00:49than any other country in the world,

00:00:52and we can't take that for granted.

00:00:54And so you'll find that we're pretty strong advocates

00:00:59for our farmers and ranchers.

00:01:01We understand that your job at FDA is to keep people safe,

00:01:06whether it's primarily the drugs they eat,

00:01:09but many food products, obviously, as well.

00:01:13I've appreciated the conversations that we've had,

00:01:17and I must say, as I've told you in our conversations,

00:01:21I think you've got an incredible record in healthcare.

00:01:26I certainly believe that John Hopkins

00:01:28is one of the finest hospitals,

00:01:30medical centers in the country.

00:01:32I have direct personal experience,

00:01:33so I've taken family members to John Hopkins,

00:01:35and I've been impressed not only with the quality of healthcare

00:01:37but with the culture of the people there and the caring.

00:01:42And then not only your tenure there

00:01:44but all that you've accomplished is remarkable.

00:01:47And so we appreciate your willing to take

00:01:50on this public service,

00:01:51this incredibly, incredibly important job.

00:01:55In it, you're going to have to, of course,

00:01:56primarily to make sure that our food and drugs are safe,

00:02:00that the organization is working as absolutely well as it can,

00:02:04which is why I appreciate your background

00:02:06not only in medicine but in business.

00:02:09Obviously, we're all trying to find savings across government

00:02:12to address the debt and the deficit.

00:02:14I know you've been charged with that task as well.

00:02:16But paramount, your job is safety.

00:02:20I understand, of course,

00:02:21they'll be releasing the MAHA report today.

00:02:23You're looking at new ways to do things.

00:02:27That's important.

00:02:27We need to do those kind of things.

00:02:29At the same time, there are practical realities,

00:02:32which you and I have talked about,

00:02:34that our farmers and ranchers face every day,

00:02:36producing that highest-quality, lowest-cost food supply

00:02:39that I just referenced that benefits every American

00:02:41every single day.

00:02:42So whether it's the fertilizers, the pesticides, the equipment,

00:02:47all the things that go into them producing that food supply,

00:02:51they have to face the practical realities

00:02:54of operating in a market

00:02:55that every day they don't control.

00:02:57They don't control the weather.

00:02:58They don't control the prices.

00:03:00They don't control trade agreements.

00:03:02And on and on it goes.

00:03:04And when you look across our economy,

00:03:09so many industries are a few big companies,

00:03:12a few big companies that run the whole thing.

00:03:15I personally am not a fan of that.

00:03:17But when you look at agriculture,

00:03:1916 million people directly or indirectly involved

00:03:22in agriculture, small family farms

00:03:24and businesses across this country

00:03:26that have become quite sophisticated

00:03:28with precision ag and everything else,

00:03:30and we do it better than anybody in the world

00:03:32and have higher standards.

00:03:34But that is what we have.

00:03:36And I firmly believe that that's what Americans

00:03:39want to make sure we have for long into the future.

00:03:43So I spent a little time on that in this opening statement

00:03:45because we have to be aware,

00:03:47you have to be aware of how that works.

00:03:50And as we make changes, again,

00:03:53making sure we do all we can for a healthy America,

00:03:58that we understand those realities

00:04:00and the challenges that those people have

00:04:03and that we can't just take it for granted

00:04:06and that we have to understand and make sure

00:04:08that all of this works for everybody

00:04:11on both sides of the equation.

00:04:13So with that, I'll turn to our ranking member.

00:04:15And I'm gonna have to ask to excuse myself to vote.

00:04:18I may miss some of your opening statement,

00:04:19but I'll see if I can't get anything that I miss

00:04:22via the written remarks and then be back.

00:04:24Ranking member.

00:04:26Well, thanks very much, Chair Hoeven.

00:04:27And let me just welcome, as you did, Commissioner McCary.

00:04:32Very nice to have you here this morning.

00:04:34And I would echo the chair's commitment

00:04:38to agriculture and how important it is our farmers are

00:04:41to our food supply and to the economy of this country.

00:04:45It's a very different enterprise in New Hampshire

00:04:49with our farms because they are small family farms,

00:04:52but very important to the state nevertheless.

00:04:56But of course, this morning, we're here to talk about

00:04:59the role of the Food and Drug Administration.

00:05:03Federal investment and stability in biomedical innovation

00:05:07are vital not just for our competitiveness

00:05:09and national security, but also for local economies

00:05:12in New Hampshire and across the country.

00:05:15Right now, we have the earliest access

00:05:17to new cures and treatments,

00:05:18and we attract the best talent from across the globe

00:05:22because of the good-paying jobs

00:05:24that are in emerging research.

00:05:26Those jobs fuel our small towns and cities,

00:05:29including in New Hampshire,

00:05:31where we have a growing industry in biomedical companies,

00:05:37it's very exciting to see the growth

00:05:39that's occurring in our state.

00:05:41As we speak, they're developing cutting-edge

00:05:44cell and gene therapies to cure terrible diseases

00:05:46like diabetes and cancer.

00:05:48And I think when we met, we talked about

00:05:50some of the work that's being done in New Hampshire,

00:05:52particularly at ARMI,

00:05:54the Advanced Regenerative Manufacturing Institute.

00:05:59But of course, to keep pioneering breakthroughs

00:06:02in curative treatments,

00:06:03they need stability and predictability,

00:06:05something this administration, sadly,

00:06:09has failed to provide so far.

00:06:12It's more than just a lack of stability.

00:06:14I fear the very mission of the FDA is at risk

00:06:17because of the actions of this administration.

00:06:21More than 4,000 people have been pushed out of FDA

00:06:24since January, the majority of those targeted

00:06:27by probationary terminations and reductions in force

00:06:31that don't seem to have any real analysis

00:06:34of who's important to keep

00:06:35and who is not critical to the mission.

00:06:40To date, this committee has not received key information

00:06:44on where specifically these workforce cuts

00:06:47are happening across centers and offices at the FDA.

00:06:50And that's information that we need

00:06:52as we're going to write this budget.

00:06:54What I want to emphasize is that

00:06:57it didn't really have to be that way.

00:06:59I think there is bipartisan support

00:07:01to see how we make our government agencies

00:07:05and departments more effective and efficient.

00:07:08But to do that, we need to have a process

00:07:11that people understand and are engaged in.

00:07:14And I fear that the process that's been done so far

00:07:17is going to prove to be very wasteful to patients

00:07:20and families in New Hampshire and across the country.

00:07:23Scientists at the FDA have been fired,

00:07:25along with support staff who make their work possible,

00:07:29from those who assist with product reviewers

00:07:31to those who quite literally keep the lights on.

00:07:34Patients across this country are depending on the FDA,

00:07:37as you know, to review medical products

00:07:40to ensure that new and novel treatments are approved.

00:07:43And yet reports now suggest

00:07:44that medical product reviews have slowed,

00:07:47that essential meetings have been postponed or canceled,

00:07:50and that deadlines for user fee agreements have been missed.

00:07:54And as Congress has provided the FDA

00:07:56with new authorities and directives,

00:07:58from the Tobacco Control Act

00:08:00to the Food Safety Modernization Act

00:08:02to the Modernizing of Cosmetics Regulation Act,

00:08:05the FDA has hired talented people

00:08:08who have gotten the work done to keep the American people safe.

00:08:12Going backwards, I think, is unacceptable.

00:08:15I'm seriously concerned that the workforce cuts

00:08:18across the agency will harm the progress

00:08:21that this committee has supported on a bipartisan basis

00:08:25to ensure a strong FDA

00:08:27that supports innovative treatments

00:08:29and gives families peace of mind that the drugs we take,

00:08:32the food we eat, and the cosmetics we use are safe.

00:08:37Now, moving on to the fiscal year 2026 budget,

00:08:40which is the topic of this hearing,

00:08:43I wish we'd received and had a chance

00:08:45to review the full President's budget request

00:08:47prior to this hearing,

00:08:49though I would point out that that's not unique to FDA.

00:08:52We haven't gotten the details of the budget

00:08:55in any other appropriations hearings

00:08:57that I've been part of.

00:08:59The FDA was not mentioned in the preliminary budget materials

00:09:02we received three weeks ago.

00:09:05So, we're sitting here today talking about a budget

00:09:08that this committee has not received.

00:09:10I'm disappointed to see the vast and drastic proposed cuts

00:09:14to the Department of Health and Human Services,

00:09:16and my priority is that the FDA has the resources

00:09:20that you need to carry out the core missions of the agency.

00:09:24But without a budget, it's hard for us to assume

00:09:27that the President's proposal will meet those goals.

00:09:30Now, in closing, the FDA, at its core,

00:09:32has an incredibly hopeful mission.

00:09:35The agency has the power to bring hope and comfort

00:09:37to millions of people by approving groundbreaking cures

00:09:41and treatments developed here in America

00:09:43by the best scientific minds in the world.

00:09:47So, I think we on this committee stand ready

00:09:50to be partners in this effort,

00:09:52and with that, Commissioner McCary,

00:09:55I appreciate your being here today again,

00:09:57and I look forward to hearing your statement

00:09:59and to the discussion that we will have

00:10:01with members of the committee about your budget proposals.

00:10:07Thank you, Chair Hoeven, and thank you,

00:10:09Ranking Member Shaheen and members of the subcommittee.

00:10:13Thank you for having me here to testify on the FDA budget

00:10:17for 2026.

00:10:19The Trump administration is proposing a $6.8 billion budget

00:10:23for the FDA, including $3.2 billion in budget authority

00:10:27and $3.6 billion in user fees for fiscal year 2026.

00:10:34This allows us to take the necessary steps

00:10:36to support the Make America Healthy Again agenda

00:10:40as we have already been busy implementing.

00:10:43Now, I've been at the FDA for about seven weeks,

00:10:46and I'm proud of the early progress we've made,

00:10:50working to remove all nine petroleum-based food

00:10:53diets from the U.S. food supply,

00:10:55eliminating unnecessary animal testing requirements for drugs.

00:11:01We approved a new blood test for Alzheimer's,

00:11:04which could help enable more early treatment.

00:11:07For the pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities

00:11:09overseas that the FDA inspects,

00:11:13there has been a routine of using scheduled inspections,

00:11:16which, in my opinion, are no inspections at all.

00:11:19They're a joke.

00:11:20And we are moving towards surprise inspections.

00:11:24We don't allow FDA inspectors anymore to accept limo rides

00:11:29from the pharmaceutical manufacturing companies

00:11:31that they are there to inspect.

00:11:34I'm amazed at some of the stuff that I'm learning

00:11:35when I look under the hood.

00:11:38We've begun taking action against new challenges,

00:11:41such as gas station heroin and childhood

00:11:44vaping with illegal Chinese vaping products.

00:11:48Our borders have been far too porous.

00:11:50Working with the Trump administration's

00:11:52re-energized Customs and Border Protection,

00:11:57we're not wasting any time.

00:11:58Today, we are announcing the seizure

00:12:00of nearly 2 million illegal vaping products from China.

00:12:05Last week, we announced plans to withdraw from the market

00:12:08chewable, ingestible fluoride tablets

00:12:11currently prescribed to 6-month-old babies.

00:12:15And this week, we published in the New England

00:12:17Journal of Medicine our framework

00:12:19for COVID vaccine booster regulation

00:12:22so that developers and companies can see what we're thinking

00:12:27and have predictability.

00:12:30And we are planning to bring back gold standard science

00:12:33and common sense.

00:12:35We also have to modernize.

00:12:37On day one of me being on the job,

00:12:41I actively began an effort to organize,

00:12:44to use AI for our scientific reviewers

00:12:48to make their jobs easier.

00:12:51Well, two weeks ago, we just announced

00:12:53our first AI-assisted review

00:12:55with the latest generation AI technology.

00:12:59One reviewer said that what normally took him

00:13:01two to three days, the AI did in six minutes.

00:13:05I've set an aggressive goal of June 30th

00:13:08to have AI-assisted scientific reviews

00:13:10help our reviewers agency-wide.

00:13:13And we're going to be ahead of schedule

00:13:15and under budget on meeting that aggressive goal.

00:13:18The goal is to reduce the paperwork burden of reviewers,

00:13:21which is tremendous, so that we can deliver more cures

00:13:25and meaningful treatments to the American people faster.

00:13:28That's been the first seven weeks of my job at the FDA.

00:13:33Here are other important goals I have for the FDA,

00:13:35and we're already hard at work on them.

00:13:38Healthier food for children.

00:13:39A universal flu shot.

00:13:42Meaningful treatments for ALS, Parkinson's,

00:13:46and other neurodegenerative disorders.

00:13:48Treatments for rare diseases.

00:13:50Cancer therapies that are so powerful,

00:13:53a tumor is eliminated without the need for surgery or chemo.

00:13:57That's not a theoretical.

00:13:58That's something we've already seen.

00:14:01And one of my highest priorities is to ensure

00:14:04that we are not wasting any time

00:14:06in evaluating novel treatments for PTSD.

00:14:10Many of our brave veterans served in unnecessary wars,

00:14:16and we owe it to them.

00:14:18I've not yet hit the two-month mark,

00:14:21so I'm doing a lot of listening.

00:14:23I appreciate all of your input.

00:14:25But one question we must ask is,

00:14:27why does it take over 10 years for a new drug to come to market?

00:14:32My team and I are working very actively

00:14:35to examine the approval process in all of its details

00:14:39so we can try to figure out how to deliver more cures

00:14:43and meaningful treatments and devices faster

00:14:46and in a more user-friendly way for developers

00:14:49without cutting any corners

00:14:51on the scientific review and independence.

00:14:54We're also committed to President Trump's promise

00:14:57to lower drug prices at the FDA.

00:14:59We can help by bringing more low-cost generics

00:15:02and biosimilars to market,

00:15:04among many other strategies we're exploring.

00:15:07In conclusion, the FDA is filled with an enormously talented

00:15:12and committed group of employees representing, in my opinion,

00:15:15one of the greatest brands in the world.

00:15:18It's my duty to make sure that everybody central

00:15:20to the core mission has all the resources

00:15:23they need to do their job well.

00:15:25So I look forward to answering your questions.

00:15:28Thank you very much, Dr. McCary.

00:15:30We're honored to have the chair of the Appropriations Committee,

00:15:34Senator Collins, with us.

00:15:35And Senator Collins, Senator Hoeven went to vote,

00:15:39so he turned the gavel over to me,

00:15:41so I will turn it over to you.

00:15:44Thank you very much, temporary chair.

00:15:49But it's been an honor to work with you on so many issues

00:15:54that we care about in this space,

00:15:56including type 1 diabetes in particular.

00:16:01Doctor, I appreciated hearing your comments this morning.

00:16:05Americans have relied on the FDA for more than a century

00:16:10to ensure that their medicines are both safe and effective.

00:16:15Recognizing that America biotech leads the world in innovation,

00:16:21we in Congress have taken a number of actions

00:16:26to ensure that FDA's rigorous regulatory review

00:16:30keeps pace with the speed of science

00:16:34and solves problems in the areas where we don't have cures

00:16:39or effective treatments or a means of prevention.

00:16:44Recent staffing changes at the FDA

00:16:48appear to have affected the balance between innovation

00:16:53and regulatory review from what I'm hearing.

00:16:57I'm particularly concerned about the downstream impact of delays

00:17:02on patients suffering from debilitating rare diseases

00:17:10like ataxia and Barth syndrome,

00:17:13as well as more common terrible diseases like ALS,

00:17:19which you mentioned, Alzheimer's,

00:17:21and other neurodegenerative diseases.

00:17:24As I mentioned, Senator Sheehan and I,

00:17:30I'm sorry, I'm out of it today apparently.

00:17:33We'll wait until the morning.

00:17:36We have worked together on type 1 diabetes for many years.

00:17:42We're encouraged by what's going on in stem therapy

00:17:45and immunotherapy in that area.

00:17:49And today, you yourself talked about the need

00:17:53for more efficient regulatory pathways

00:17:56and innovative treatments for rare life-threatening diseases,

00:18:01particularly when there are no major safety issues

00:18:05and existing treatments are either don't exist

00:18:08or they're limited.

00:18:10So, what I'm hearing is there's a real slowdown at FDA.

00:18:18And that's not what you were committing to today,

00:18:22but that's what I'm hearing the reality is.

00:18:26There are a number of rare disease new drug applications

00:18:31that have been pending at FDA for some time.

00:18:35What specifically is FDA doing under your leadership

00:18:40to accelerate getting new treatments for rare diseases

00:18:46to patients safely and as soon as possible,

00:18:49particularly since we have developed

00:18:52these accelerated pathways,

00:18:56particularly for those patients

00:18:59for which there are no treatment options now?

00:19:06Good to see you, Senator Collins.

00:19:07I share in your interest in this topic

00:19:10because I have cared for people with rare diseases

00:19:14and rare cancers, and it is the worst feeling in the world

00:19:17to have to break bad news.

00:19:18And when people say, is there anything out there

00:19:22to not have anything to respond with,

00:19:25is a very difficult position.

00:19:27So, we need to customize the regulatory process

00:19:31to the condition being treated.

00:19:34And so, if it is a rare condition,

00:19:37we have to drop our randomized control trial requirements

00:19:40in some instances.

00:19:42I will say, however,

00:19:44that the trains are running on time at the FDA.

00:19:46There have been no staffing changes

00:19:48that have changed any approval schedules.

00:19:51We are on track to meet all of our PDUFA targets.

00:19:54There are, on occasion, essentially every year,

00:19:58a couple drugs that are very complex

00:20:01where the career scientists ask for more time,

00:20:04either to convene an advisory committee to weigh in

00:20:08or to design a very unique, specific randomized trial.

00:20:12So, in reference to one of the products

00:20:16that you had mentioned, I had gotten briefed

00:20:20and was assured that there was no delays

00:20:24related to staffing.

00:20:25These were additional time

00:20:28because of the complexity of the early data.

00:20:31And the staff truly, the career scientists,

00:20:33truly believed they needed a few more weeks.

00:20:36And I thought, we're on track to meet our PDUFA targets.

00:20:39They believe we're completely on track

00:20:41to meet our PDUFA targets if they took a few more weeks.

00:20:44And I thought that was reasonable.

00:20:46The trains are running on time.

00:20:48The food inspectors are doing their job.

00:20:51We have 12 food labs.

00:20:53There's no backlog at the food labs.

00:20:56The cuts that you referenced

00:21:00and Senator Shaheen referenced were to things like this.

00:21:062,600, this is at the FDA,

00:21:102,600 HR staff, contract staff, and budget staff.

00:21:16Now, I think that's too much.

00:21:19They were part of the reduction in force.

00:21:21In total, about 1,800, almost 1,900 people

00:21:26were involved in the reduction in force.

00:21:28And I think a lot of that is consolidation.

00:21:30Just to be clear, there were no reductions

00:21:33in scientific reviewers

00:21:36as a part of the reduction in force.

00:21:37And we're actually hiring scientists

00:21:40because there's normally turnover with our scientific staff.

00:21:43And I hope the AI and the other tools

00:21:46will help make their jobs more efficient.

00:21:49Well, I am hearing something entirely different.

00:21:54So I will convey directly to you

00:21:58the concerns that I'm hearing

00:22:01since Dr. Peter Marks was removed from his position.

00:22:06And it is disheartening

00:22:11for patients with serious diseases,

00:22:14as you know very, very well from your clinical practice

00:22:19for which I know you are a dedicated physician.

00:22:23But it is disheartening

00:22:27when it appears that a new treatment or drug

00:22:32is on the horizon.

00:22:35And then FDA says, no, we need three more months.

00:22:39We need three more months.

00:22:40We need three more months over and over again.

00:22:43Despite the years that have gone into developing

00:22:48a particular treatment for an illness

00:22:53that has no treatment.

00:22:55And again, that's why we work so hard

00:23:00to establish these accelerated pathways.

00:23:04So I'll be in further touch with you.

00:23:07I don't disagree with the need to look

00:23:12at the staffing of FDA

00:23:16and to make sure that as much of it as possible

00:23:19is going into the process

00:23:23that speeds food inspection,

00:23:28new drugs to the American people,

00:23:30sensible regulation and guidance on diet,

00:23:35lifestyle factors, all of that is extremely important.

00:23:40So it's not that I object to looking at that,

00:23:43but I don't want it to come at the expense

00:23:47of drugs that are desperately needed.

00:23:52Thank you, Senator.

00:23:53I will just say that the person,

00:23:55the scientist replacing Peter Marks is outstanding.

00:23:59And I would say, take a close look at his credentials.

00:24:01He has published over 540 peer reviewed scientific articles.

00:24:06He's a professor from UCSF

00:24:08trained at the National Cancer Institute.

00:24:11He's a scientific genius.

00:24:13So I've rejected the idea

00:24:15that there's only one scientist in the world

00:24:17that can run CBER well.

00:24:18And I think we need fresh new ideas.

00:24:21The new scientist replacing Peter Marks is 42 year olds.

00:24:24He brings a fresh new perspective

00:24:26and it will not change our approach to rare diseases

00:24:29or the predictability that people need in the market

00:24:32and development investment space

00:24:34to know that they need to continue

00:24:36to invest in those technologies.

00:24:38I look forward to meeting him.

00:24:44Thank you, Madam Chair.

00:24:45Appreciate you being here.

00:24:48Doctor, you came into roughly a 19,000 person agency.

00:24:53Your budget top lines about 3% less,

00:24:58but there's been estimates as high as potentially

00:25:034,000 reduction force voluntary or actual RIFs.

00:25:07Where are you on that and how's it going?

00:25:09You and I again talked about this before I was,

00:25:14and at that time, we talked about how once you got in there

00:25:17and had more time, you were gonna obviously

00:25:20have a better analysis of what your needs are

00:25:22and where you're at with the personnel situation.

00:25:24So go through that for us, will you?

00:25:26Sure, so there have been about nearly 1,900 people involved

00:25:31in the reduction in force.

00:25:33Roughly another 1,200 plus involved

00:25:39in the early retirement package.

00:25:41We are hiring scientists to replace scientists

00:25:44that may have left for an early retirement,

00:25:47but no scientific reviewer or inspector was cut

00:25:52as a part of the reduction in force.

00:25:54Now, any discussion of the reduction in force,

00:25:57I believe, deserves one important fact of context,

00:26:01which is always omitted in the media coverage,

00:26:04and that is in 2007, the FDA had a little over 9,000

00:26:10employees, and a few months ago, it was 19,000.

00:26:13So there was a 100% increase in the number of employees

00:26:16at the FDA over the last 15, 16 years,

00:26:21and that is how we get 2,600 HR people coming in

00:26:27and contracts and budget people at the agency.

00:26:30380 communications positions.

00:26:33We're now down to about 160.

00:26:35They're doing a good job, 160 people.

00:26:38That covers a lot of the communication work.

00:26:41Did we need 125 travel coordinators

00:26:44and travel offices in each center,

00:26:47or 13 strategy offices at the FDA?

00:26:50A lot of this reorganization is smart,

00:26:53and it's being smart with taxpayer dollars,

00:26:55because I personally believe when this institution here,

00:27:00U.S. Congress, is spending $2 trillion more

00:27:02than we have as a country, it is driving inflation,

00:27:05which is a backhanded tax on the poor,

00:27:07and that is the harsh reality.

00:27:09It doesn't affect people of wealth like myself.

00:27:11It affects the 50% of Americans that have less than $500

00:27:15of cash on hand, and they are forgotten

00:27:17when we spend too much money and we drive inflation,

00:27:21and that's why I support many of these reductions

00:27:25in force where it makes sense.

00:27:30But you also get fee agreements from drug companies

00:27:35that want to get new drugs to the market,

00:27:38and so you have to be able to staff for that

00:27:39so that you bring in that fee revenue,

00:27:41which of course is not a cost to the taxpayer.

00:27:44So I agree with you.

00:27:45We need to find better ways to do things.

00:27:47We need to find savings, and that's good,

00:27:50but talk to us how you're making sure

00:27:52that you manage things.

00:27:53Again, Paramount, your mission of safety

00:27:54as we talked about in the front end,

00:27:55I know you understand that.

00:27:57You're a doctor, took the Hippocratic oath.

00:28:01But those fee agreements make it more complicated,

00:28:03but they bring in revenue.

00:28:04Talk about that, as well as making sure

00:28:07we get these new drugs to the market

00:28:08as safely and efficiently as possible

00:28:11because that ultimately saves lives.

00:28:13Yes, Senator, so thank you for that question,

00:28:16and again, I want to reassure the public

00:28:18to see through the headlines and to know

00:28:22that the trains are running on time at the FDA,

00:28:24and we're on track to meet all of our user-free fee targets

00:28:28as an agency, and we need the staff to help

00:28:31with the user-fee management,

00:28:33and that's why I've made sure

00:28:35that we have the appropriate staff

00:28:37to make sure that we can report on our user fees

00:28:40and sort of service conductors

00:28:43in managing the user-free fee targets.

00:28:46Now, look, I'm a surgeon,

00:28:48and so the reductions in force are never perfect,

00:28:52so I've done everything humanly possible

00:28:54since I've gotten there to try to make sure

00:28:57we heal and reorganize appropriately.

00:29:00We have brought back some people,

00:29:02and my job is to make sure that the scientists

00:29:05and inspectors, that the law enforcement officials at FDA

00:29:08have all the resources they need to do their job well.

00:29:11Okay, I think I'm gonna give you a short question,

00:29:16well, no, I'm gonna go with a longer one.

00:29:19I'm gonna probably run over my time a little bit,

00:29:21ranking members, so I'll beg your indulgence

00:29:24and certainly return the favor.

00:29:27The Maha Commission's coming out with their report,

00:29:30I think, pretty much right after this hearing.

00:29:33Yeah, noon.

00:29:34Yeah, so if you want to kind of give us

00:29:35all the details right now, that's great,

00:29:37and just get a jump on things,

00:29:39but guessing that you might not,

00:29:41you do need to talk to us about it in that,

00:29:44as I laid out in my opening statement,

00:29:46this committee has jurisdiction,

00:29:48both in regard to all of your funding at FDA,

00:29:52but also USDA for our farmers and ranchers,

00:29:57and we have to address both.

00:29:58So I know you're coming out, HHS writ large

00:30:02is coming out with this Maha study plan today,

00:30:09but as I said in my opening, we're very concerned,

00:30:11not only how that's gonna affect the American consumers,

00:30:16but also how that's gonna affect agriculture.

00:30:18And as you know, agriculture goes,

00:30:20I mean, they're regulated like everybody else.

00:30:22In fact, in my opinion,

00:30:23they're over-regulated like everybody else.

00:30:27And so, with this report coming out,

00:30:31yeah, I get y'all are gonna be working very hard

00:30:33to make sure it's scientifically based and all that,

00:30:35but a lot of what our farmers and ranchers

00:30:38in producing that food supply have had to do,

00:30:39that's all scientifically based too,

00:30:42heavily regulated,

00:30:43and there's been years and years and years

00:30:44of that analysis and regulation done,

00:30:46and a heck of a lot of expertise.

00:30:48So how do you approach that in this plan of action

00:30:55and the analysis that you're doing and so forth,

00:30:57and the studies you're doing,

00:30:58to make sure that that's adequately included

00:31:02in terms of your evaluation and the results

00:31:04and the recommendations that you make?

00:31:07Well, Senator, you shouldn't be concerned

00:31:09about the Maha report.

00:31:11It is simply information,

00:31:12and it's important information about health,

00:31:15written by people who have excellent citations

00:31:19and are representing the many scientists

00:31:21that have been waving a flag in the air for many years,

00:31:24saying, hey, look at root causes.

00:31:25We have the sickest, most disabled, most medicated,

00:31:29most obese population in the history of the world.

00:31:33Half our nation's kids are sick, and why are they sick?

00:31:36Because when the immune system

00:31:38or some inflammatory response is reacting

00:31:41to the many different chemicals that go down their GI tract,

00:31:47they feel blah, they don't feel well,

00:31:49and so we have got to look at root causes.

00:31:52Now, there's no single chemical in the food supply

00:31:56that is accounting for a root cause

00:31:57for driving our chronic disease epidemic,

00:32:01but I think everything has to be on the table.

00:32:05We, for example, at the FDA,

00:32:07just convened two days ago a roundtable on talc.

00:32:10Now, talc has been identified as a cancer-causing agent.

00:32:14It's been removed from baby powder.

00:32:16There have been 30 studies saying

00:32:18that talc may cause ovarian cancer in women

00:32:20with a high odds ratio and statistical significance.

00:32:24International cancer bodies have warned

00:32:27about the cancer-causing effect and the mechanism of talc,

00:32:31and so it's been removed from baby powder.

00:32:33Do you know kids are eating talc every day?

00:32:36It's in candy.

00:32:37You take chewing gum, and the white powder on there,

00:32:39people think it's sugar.

00:32:40Sometimes it's talc.

00:32:41Talc is in our food supply.

00:32:43Kids are eating talc, and it's not just in food.

00:32:47It's in medicines.

00:32:48The number one, three, nine, and 10

00:32:50most common medications in the United States

00:32:52have talc on it.

00:32:53Why?

00:32:54Because it's a lubricant.

00:32:55It's just the way we've been doing business.

00:32:57It's a lubricant in the machines when it's mass-produced.

00:33:00Well, there's a low-cost alternative

00:33:03that is generally considered to be safe.

00:33:06We're not fighting anybody here.

00:33:08We're trying to bring the latest scientific information

00:33:12to inform good decisions.

00:33:13And I think you're gonna be pleased

00:33:15with the Maha Commission Report.

00:33:16It puts at the forefront of our discussions of health

00:33:20many issues that scientists have been talking about for years.

00:33:23Never in my oncology meetings

00:33:25do we talk about the root causes of cancer.

00:33:29Cancer's going up in kids.

00:33:30Young people under age 50,

00:33:32it's everyone scratching their heads.

00:33:34You get a diagnosis.

00:33:36They come to Johns Hopkins.

00:33:37We would look at them and parents would say,

00:33:39what could possibly cause this?

00:33:42Well, guess what?

00:33:42We don't talk about any of this in our national conferences.

00:33:46That is what the Maha Commission Report's gonna talk about.

00:33:49What have we been talking about?

00:33:50Insulin, chemotherapy, CAR-T therapy,

00:33:53radiation, sophisticated operations.

00:33:56We've gotta talk about food and chemicals,

00:33:58not just chemo and insulin.

00:34:00And so this Maha Commission is gonna put front and center

00:34:03as they're setting our research priorities,

00:34:06setting a national conversation,

00:34:07setting our own internal goals

00:34:09so that we're gonna deliver in another 100 days from today

00:34:12some of what we're gonna do.

00:34:14The Maha Commission Report is a diagnosis.

00:34:17And I think we have to do something differently.

00:34:21We have a healthcare system that's breaking the budget,

00:34:24that's resulting in inflation, that's burdening businesses,

00:34:28that's the number one cause of household bankruptcy

00:34:30in the United States is medical bills,

00:34:32and no one is talking about the root cause,

00:34:34and that is the health of the population

00:34:36that is actively deteriorating right in front of our eyes.

00:34:40And so we've gotta move from a reactionary healthcare system

00:34:43where we're playing whack-a-mole with all these treatments

00:34:45in the hospital in late stages and be proactive

00:34:50and actually talk about the root causes

00:34:52and why we don't see some of these problems

00:34:54in other countries.

00:34:56I think this report is going to be the cornerstone

00:34:59of a broader discussion.

00:35:01And there's no one single ingredient

00:35:03that's gonna be vilified.

00:35:05So after the report comes out,

00:35:08after we do some work on your budget,

00:35:10we're gonna want you to come back and talk to us.

00:35:12Are you gonna be willing to do that?

00:35:14Of course, I love to talk.

00:35:15Good.

00:35:16Thank you very much.

00:35:17Ranking Member Sheen.

00:35:20Well, thank you, Chair Hoeven.

00:35:22And I certainly agree with you

00:35:25that we gotta focus on the root causes

00:35:26of what's causing diseases.

00:35:30And I've been trying for years

00:35:32to change the sugar subsidy system that we have

00:35:37that encourages sugar to be added to our food supply

00:35:41in so many ways.

00:35:43But so far, there hasn't been the political will to do that.

00:35:46So one of the things that I would urge you to do,

00:35:48Senator Chair Hoeven suggested that we would like

00:35:51to have you come back and talk about this.

00:35:53I hope that there will be more of an effort

00:35:56to engage Congress in the changes

00:36:00that you're talking about making

00:36:03than there was in the cuts that were made.

00:36:05Because again, I think there's a lot of appetite

00:36:10to try and look at how we do things better.

00:36:13But boy, there's not an appetite to have one person

00:36:17and a DOJ commission go around

00:36:19and make all these decisions without engaging Congress.

00:36:22Because so much of that has not only been not well received,

00:36:26it's been outright illegal.

00:36:28That's not your problem.

00:36:29But I hope as you think about looking at the changes

00:36:33that we need to make to get at root causes,

00:36:36that you will come back and engage with us

00:36:38on what you're proposing.

00:36:39Because there's a lot of expertise on this committee.

00:36:43And I'm sure a lot of ideas

00:36:45for what we ought to do better, too.

00:36:48But I want to go back to diabetes,

00:36:50one of the most expensive chronic illnesses we have.

00:36:53It's one that you and I talked about.

00:36:56Senator Collins and I have done a lot of work

00:36:58as co-chairs of the Diabetes Caucus on this.

00:37:01As I explained to you, for me, it's not just a policy issue.

00:37:05It's a personal issue.

00:37:05I have a granddaughter with type 1.

00:37:07So I know the struggles that the community has had.

00:37:10And many of those with the FDA, before you got here,

00:37:14but they have been real.

00:37:16And one of the issues right now

00:37:21that I'm hearing from the diabetes community

00:37:25is about C-peptide,

00:37:28which is a marker of the body's own insulin production.

00:37:31It's emerging as a potentially more accurate tool

00:37:34for measuring how well a person's cells are functioning.

00:37:38However, the FDA does not currently recognize C-peptide

00:37:42as a validated surrogate endpoint,

00:37:46meaning that the community has to use other endpoints

00:37:50that are less, many people believe, less accurate.

00:37:55So will you commit to reviewing C-peptide

00:37:58as a validated surrogate endpoint?

00:38:00I'm happy to, Senator.

00:38:01I love C-peptide.

00:38:03I'm a pancreatic specialist.

00:38:04And so I don't understand why it would not be recognized.

00:38:07It is a naturally occurring hormone

00:38:09that is an indicator of the physiologic health

00:38:11of the pancreas.

00:38:12So I'll take a look at that for you.

00:38:13Happy to.

00:38:14Good, thank you.

00:38:15I hope we can stay in touch on that.

00:38:19In the last couple of days,

00:38:20there have been a lot of news reports about the COVID-19.

00:38:23So I was surprised to hear about the FDA's announcement

00:38:42earlier this week that would limit access

00:38:44to COVID-19 boosters.

00:38:46And it seems like the announcement

00:38:51would take away people's ability to make that choice

00:38:54on their own by limiting it to only people 65

00:38:58or at high risk.

00:38:59So can you help us understand why that decision was made

00:39:03and why people who may think that that booster

00:39:08would be helpful to them will no longer be available?

00:39:13Happy to.

00:39:14It's been four to five years

00:39:15since we've had a randomized control trial.

00:39:17And so we don't know the right number of boosters

00:39:20that a healthy American should take.

00:39:23What is that number?

00:39:24Is it two like the MMR vaccine?

00:39:27Is it two or three like HPV or hepatitis B?

00:39:31Or is it 80?

00:39:32Do we believe in giving 80 mRNA shots to a healthy girl

00:39:36born today in her average lifespan of 80 years?

00:39:38Is that the right answer?

00:39:39That has been a theory that the repeat booster strategy

00:39:43in healthy individuals

00:39:46is the correct evidence-based strategy,

00:39:48but there's been no data to support it.

00:39:50So we are doing our job to say that

00:39:53if we're going to approve a COVID vaccine

00:39:57for younger, healthy Americans,

00:40:00we'd like to see some clinical trial data,

00:40:03given that it's a much different population

00:40:06from five years ago.

00:40:08There's broad, ubiquitous population-based immunity.

00:40:13There's also a different virus circulating,

00:40:16and this is a new vaccine formulation

00:40:18that creates a new protein in the body.

00:40:21Should we blindly rubber stamp a vaccine

00:40:24that creates a new protein in the body

00:40:26every year for the rest of our lives

00:40:28for the next hundred years?

00:40:29I don't think so.

00:40:30And so that's why we published

00:40:32in the New England Journal of Medicine this week

00:40:35a framework for sensible COVID vaccine booster regulation

00:40:40in the United States that uses an age-stratified approach.

00:40:44And really, honestly,

00:40:46we are catching up with the rest of the world.

00:40:48Some of the rest of the world has been laughing at us

00:40:50using this blind strategy.

00:40:52We're now switching to a scientific strategy.

00:40:55The UK only recommends COVID boosters

00:40:58in people 75 years of age and high-risk.

00:41:03France, 80 years of age and high-risk.

00:41:06I don't think we should be pushing this

00:41:07on healthy 6-year-old girls

00:41:10without any evidence every year for the rest of their lives.

00:41:13And so that's why we've outlined this framework.

00:41:15And by the way, the vaccine manufacturers

00:41:17put out positive statements about the framework

00:41:20because I believe they like predictability.

00:41:23Well, so I understand that rationale.

00:41:25Do you have a timetable for when you expect

00:41:27to have the trials done and a decision made about the future?

00:41:32When the companies present trials to us,

00:41:35and in the case of high-risk,

00:41:36our New England Journal paper outlines

00:41:38how they can seek clinical trial data

00:41:41after approval in high-risk populations.

00:41:45But it's up to the companies to present data to us.

00:41:47It's always been that way, where the FDA reviews

00:41:50clinical trial data that companies present,

00:41:53and we make a decision about safe and effective.

00:41:55We have been suspending that role

00:41:58for the last four years with COVID boosters.

00:42:00And so we're saying this is a reasonable time to check in

00:42:03and look at clinical trial data,

00:42:05given how different it is.

00:42:06By the way, America doesn't want COVID boosters.

00:42:09I'm sorry to interrupt, but I'm out of time, actually.

00:42:13I assume that you're talking to some of those companies,

00:42:16so you have some idea of their level of interest

00:42:20in coming back to do those clinical trials

00:42:22and what they may be thinking about in terms of a timeframe.

00:42:25Look, some of these companies made $100 billion

00:42:28in the COVID booster.

00:42:29They can afford to run a clinical trial,

00:42:31and they have time to run a clinical trial.

00:42:33The VRBPAC meeting meets later today to pick a strain.

00:42:37So there's time and there's money.

00:42:39We're setting a common-sense framework.

00:42:42Yeah, but I get that.

00:42:4385% of healthcare workers.

00:42:45Are we talking about six months, a year, five years, 10 years?

00:42:51I'm just trying to get some ideas

00:42:52so that when people call our office and ask,

00:42:55when I run into people and say,

00:42:56well, how come I can't get the COVID booster,

00:43:00that we can give them some kind of an answer

00:43:02for what they can expect?

00:43:0485% of healthcare workers said no to the last COVID boosters.

00:43:07You're not suggesting that we blindly approve

00:43:10COVID boosters each year without clinical trial data.

00:43:11You're not listening to me, Dr. Makary.

00:43:14I'm not asking for a blind approval.

00:43:16I'm saying that I understand the argument you're making.

00:43:19What I'm asking you is, do you have any timeframe

00:43:21for when you think this might happen?

00:43:22And I'm sure you're talking to pharmaceutical companies

00:43:25so that they might have some idea

00:43:28so that we can just answer questions from the public.

00:43:31Part of what I'm objecting to here

00:43:34is that all of these decisions are being made

00:43:36without engaging the public, and I think that's a problem.

00:43:40Public has said no to COVID boosters.

00:43:4270% of the public has not gotten a COVID booster,

00:43:45and they don't trust us because there's no...

00:43:47You're still not answering my question, though.

00:43:49So, the timeframe...

00:43:50Do you not have any idea?

00:43:51The timeframe is reasonable,

00:43:53and it is amicable to what the industry thinks they can do,

00:43:58and so we've had these conversations,

00:44:00and we do with the industry.

00:44:01I can't share individual product conversations

00:44:04with the manufacturers, but they think that the timeframes

00:44:06that we've outlined are reasonable,

00:44:08and we think they're reasonable.

00:44:10But you still haven't said what they might be.

00:44:12There's plenty of time between now and the fall,

00:44:15and so there's plenty...

00:44:16So, you think it's going to be more of a short-term timeline?

00:44:20So, we in the high-risk group...

00:44:21This is not a trick question.

00:44:22I'm not trying to trick you here.

00:44:23I'm just trying to get some answers.

00:44:25And I'm not trying to not answer your question.

00:44:28It's just different for each age group.

00:44:30For young, healthy individuals,

00:44:32we have a different timeframe from the high-risk community,

00:44:35where we are approving the COVID...

00:44:38Well, I shouldn't say we are,

00:44:40because we haven't reviewed all the data

00:44:41and all the applications are not in.

00:44:42But for high-risk individuals, we do have a framework now

00:44:46by which they can run the trials

00:44:48after the approval in high-risk individuals

00:44:51throughout the COVID season,

00:44:52and then Americans will know it either works or doesn't work.

00:44:56So, it's roughly a year.

00:44:58It's roughly a year.

00:44:59In Operation Warp Speed,

00:45:01they ran that phase three clinical trial over the summer,

00:45:04and if they want to do the same thing,

00:45:06there's plenty of time, in my opinion.

00:45:08Thank you. Thanks.

00:45:09Senator Hyde-Smith.

00:45:11Thank you very much, and thank you, Dr. Macri,

00:45:15for being here and joining us on the Hill today.

00:45:17We've discussed the issue of chemical abortion before.

00:45:20However, I'd like to revisit the topic

00:45:23in light of new data published last month

00:45:25by the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

00:45:28This data reveals a much higher risk

00:45:31from the abortion drug mefapristone

00:45:34than previously acknowledged,

00:45:37and this raises the questions

00:45:38whether it's time to reconsider

00:45:39the broadly unrestricted access to the drug.

00:45:43It makes me question if the FDA

00:45:45should reinstate the original safeguards

00:45:48in order to protect vulnerable women and minors

00:45:51from experiencing the horrible, adverse,

00:45:53and life-threatening complications

00:45:56that could follow the chemical abortion regimen.

00:46:00First, let me summarize the new data.

00:46:02In April 2025, researchers from Ethics

00:46:05and Public Policy Center

00:46:06and the Foundation of the Restoration of America

00:46:09reviewed the outcomes of 865,000-plus

00:46:15drug-induced abortions from 2017 to 2023.

00:46:19These abortions occurred after the FDA, in 2016,

00:46:23removed the requirement for doctors

00:46:25to report non-fatal but adverse complications.

00:46:30The data shows that 94,605 serious adverse events

00:46:38proving conclusively that more than one out of 10 women

00:46:43are put at risk by the mefapristone.

00:46:46This real-world rate is 20 times greater

00:46:50than the rate the FDA used

00:46:52when it originally approved the drug.

00:46:55Specifically, this data shows that, quote,

00:46:59their words, 10.93% of women experience sepsis,

00:47:03infection, hemorrhaging, or other serious adverse events

00:47:07within 45 days following the chemical abortion.

00:47:12If serious complications have increased

00:47:15as safety rules have been loosened over the last 25 years,

00:47:18then logically it makes sense

00:47:20to bring those safety protections back.

00:47:23At the very least, the FDA should restore

00:47:25the original safety requirements from 2000

00:47:29under its risk evaluation and mitigation strategies.

00:47:33How do you view this new data,

00:47:35and will the FDA be taking this new data into consideration

00:47:40and commit to restoring common-sense protections

00:47:43like requiring an in-person doctor visit

00:47:46before women can actually access mefapristone?

00:47:51Thank you, Senator Hyde-Smith, and good to see you again.

00:47:54I think a lot of people are asking those questions,

00:47:56and so I did see those top-line results

00:48:00that you referenced,

00:48:01and we are gonna take a look at those data

00:48:05as they become available.

00:48:06There is no peer-reviewed publication,

00:48:08and the underlying data set is not available,

00:48:10but when it does become available,

00:48:12we're gonna take a hard look at it.

00:48:14Thank you, I would appreciate that very, very much.

00:48:19Senator Assa.

00:48:22Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Dr. Macari, good to see you.

00:48:25Good to see you.

00:48:26Thank you for joining us.

00:48:27I was pleased to see that the secretary

00:48:30has made the safety of infant formula

00:48:34a priority for the department, is that correct?

00:48:36That's right, and the FDA will be convening

00:48:38the world experts on infant formula June 4th,

00:48:43and we're going to be having a robust discussion

00:48:45because parents want infant formula options

00:48:48with a better supply chain

00:48:50and without added sugar and seed oils.

00:48:52Did you see a recent Consumer Reports study

00:48:55which found that of 41 tested infant formulas,

00:49:00more than 30 were found to have

00:49:01potentially dangerous levels of lead?

00:49:04Yeah, heavy metals in infant formula

00:49:06is something that's getting a lot of attention,

00:49:08as it should,

00:49:09and so that is part of Operation Stork Speed

00:49:12to take a hard look at that,

00:49:13and it is one of the priorities

00:49:15of our infant formula roundtable at the FDA on June 4th.

00:49:18And it's the human foods division of your agency

00:49:23responsible for infant formula safety,

00:49:25at least in large part, yes?

00:49:27Yes.

00:49:30Trying to make sure I understand

00:49:31some of the relevant personnel decisions,

00:49:33given the concern that families in Georgia

00:49:36have about the safety of infant formula,

00:49:39the safety of the food supply,

00:49:42James Jones, the deputy commissioner for human foods,

00:49:45submitted a resignation letter February 17th,

00:49:50included the quotes,

00:49:51quote, the indiscriminate firing of 89 staff

00:49:53in the human foods program is beyond short-sighted.

00:49:57The foods program staff at FDA is the envy of the world

00:50:00and its technical, professional, and ethical standards.

00:50:02It goes on, the employees fired this past weekend

00:50:04are the most recent hires

00:50:06and generally come to federal service

00:50:08with the most recent education

00:50:09and represent the future of the agency.

00:50:10They included staff with highly technical expertise

00:50:13in nutrition, infant formula, food safety response,

00:50:16and even 10 chemical safety staff

00:50:18hired to review potentially unsafe ingredients

00:50:21in our food supply.

00:50:22That was February 17th.

00:50:25You were asked on April 17th

00:50:30whether any of the personnel reductions

00:50:31had included personnel responsible for food safety

00:50:34or infant formula safety.

00:50:36You said, quote, there were no cuts to scientists

00:50:39or reviewers or inspectors, absolutely none.

00:50:42You were asked on April 23rd on CNN and said, quote,

00:50:46again, there were no cuts to scientists or inspectors.

00:50:52But then just two days later,

00:50:54an HHS spokesperson confirmed that, in fact,

00:50:59scientists had been fired

00:51:01and that you were scrambling to rehire them.

00:51:04Is that, did you, in fact, say on April 23rd

00:51:09there were no cuts to scientists or inspectors?

00:51:11Just before we get into the details,

00:51:12is that an accurate quote?

00:51:13No scientific reviewer was cut

00:51:15as part of the reduction in force.

00:51:17But you said there were no cuts

00:51:18to scientists or inspectors.

00:51:19Didn't you say that?

00:51:21My understanding was that there were no cuts

00:51:23to the scientific staff,

00:51:25but specifically the scientific reviewers

00:51:27is what I was referring to.

00:51:28But you said there were,

00:51:29I mean, I've just, it's a very straightforward question.

00:51:31You said there were no cuts

00:51:32to scientists or inspectors, correct?

00:51:34Scientific reviewers is what I was referring to.

00:51:37That's the vast majority of scientists there.

00:51:39Jim Jones is an economist.

00:51:40Five days before you had said

00:51:41there were no cuts to scientists.

00:51:44You said that, right?

00:51:45I was referring to scientific reviewers.

00:51:46There are a couple of researchers.

00:51:47But scientists had been fired, correct?

00:51:49There have been a couple,

00:51:50there have been research scientists in some labs

00:51:53that have been doing some research.

00:51:55Some of that research is good.

00:51:56Some of it is not good.

00:51:58And so there have been no cuts to scientific reviewers.

00:52:01In fact, scientists who study the safety

00:52:03of infant formula had been fired, correct?

00:52:07I'm not aware of any scientists

00:52:09who studies infant formula.

00:52:11Well, here's the reporting in the New York Times.

00:52:15It says the HHS spokesman said

00:52:17those employees called back had been inadvertently fired.

00:52:21And the decision to rehire specialists

00:52:23on outbreaks of food-related illnesses

00:52:26and those who study the safety

00:52:27of products like infant formula.

00:52:30Is this reporting accurate?

00:52:32Had, in fact, scientists who study outbreaks

00:52:35of food-related illnesses

00:52:37and the safety of infant formula been fired?

00:52:39The reason it's not accurate, Senator,

00:52:41is that people were not fired.

00:52:43They were scheduled for the reduction in force.

00:52:45And that was before I got there.

00:52:47When I got there, we did an assessment.

00:52:48And so some of those individuals

00:52:51out of the 19,000 were restored.

00:52:54Jim Jones was an economist

00:52:56and he was upset about the doge cuts.

00:52:58So he self-doged.

00:53:00He was not fired.

00:53:01I wish he would have stayed, but he chose to leave.

00:53:03Have all scientists responsible for food safety

00:53:07and infant formula safety been rehired or reinstated?

00:53:11Look, we have not reduced in force

00:53:16the scientific review staff.

00:53:17I know where you're going with this.

00:53:19We're not allowed to let go of a single person.

00:53:20I'm trying to get clarity on your statement.

00:53:22You said there were no cuts to scientists.

00:53:25And then the HHS spokesperson said,

00:53:27actually, there were cuts to scientists

00:53:30and now we're trying to rehire them.

00:53:30I mean, so it gives the impression

00:53:32you're not sure about the personnel actions

00:53:34ongoing in your own agency.

00:53:35And that's the indication from your testimony today.

00:53:39No one was cut in the reduction of force.

00:53:41They were scheduled for the reduction in the future.

00:53:44And down the road, it has not happened yet.

00:53:47So the people scheduled to be cut,

00:53:50we did a review and found some research scientists.

00:53:53When I made those statements, it was very specific.

00:53:55I was very clear.

00:53:56We're talking about scientific reviewers

00:53:58because the trains have to run on time.

00:54:00And if you're concerned about-

00:54:01My time is up, my time is up, but you were very specific.

00:54:04You said there were no cuts to scientists.

00:54:06And then five days later, there were no cuts to scientists.

00:54:10Those are your direct quotes.

00:54:12There were no cuts to scientists,

00:54:14but there were cuts to scientists.

00:54:15No, there were no cuts to scientists

00:54:17because people were scheduled

00:54:19for the reduction of force in the future.

00:54:22And the people scheduled were reevaluated

00:54:25and we restored a couple research scientists.

00:54:28And I was referring not only to them,

00:54:29but to the scientific reviewers.

00:54:33How many scientists responsible

00:54:35for preventing outbreaks of food-related illnesses

00:54:40and the safety of infant formula

00:54:41have been restored or reinstated?

00:54:44There were no scientists that were in charge

00:54:46of preventing outbreaks that were part of the reduction.

00:54:48I didn't say in charge.

00:54:49But I mean, this is the problem in government.

00:54:51Somebody has a fancy sounding name

00:54:53like infant formula safety and no one can ever touch them,

00:54:56even if they're not doing their job.

00:54:58Okay, I'll tell you what, how about this?

00:54:59I'll send you, so that you can get accurate information

00:55:03to the committee, I'll send you

00:55:05some very detailed questions about this

00:55:07and you'll respond in full, yes?

00:55:10Yes, just keep in mind the agency was half its size in 2007.

00:55:14We didn't have outbreaks and rampages and food outbreaks.

00:55:17But we had a huge infant formula safety crisis

00:55:19in this country just a few years ago.

00:55:21Do you recall that?

00:55:21That was because of several problems, including-

00:55:24Yeah, but so you will respond in full

00:55:26to the questions that I send you.

00:55:27I'm always happy to respond in full.

00:55:28Thank you so much, Dr. McCarthy, thank you.

00:55:31Doctor, I know that you're working on Operation Stork Speed,

00:55:36speaking of baby formula, that Secretary Kennedy

00:55:40has already talked about Operation Stork Speed,

00:55:43which goes right to this issue.

00:55:44You're already working on it, made it a priority.

00:55:47Would you like to address that?

00:55:48We're working hard on it and that's why

00:55:50we're convening the world's experts.

00:55:51And the part of the problem with infant formula

00:55:55that the Senator is alluding to, which is a real problem,

00:55:59is that the FDA has been so rigid

00:56:02in the way it evaluates infant formula.

00:56:04Basically, we have for decades said,

00:56:07you have to follow this recipe because we,

00:56:10as the government, know exactly what infants need

00:56:12and you can't deviate from this recipe.

00:56:14And guess what?

00:56:15They got added sugar on there and seed oils

00:56:17and there's been no innovation in infant formula

00:56:20practically since 1998 when we saw the last change

00:56:24in infant formula on the Monograph recipe

00:56:27with the exception of selenium that was added.

00:56:29Basically, no innovation in infant formula since 1998.

00:56:33And so that's what we're working to fix.

00:56:35That is one of the underlying problems.

00:56:37The more innovation, the more competitors

00:56:40that can come to market, the more predictability

00:56:42with the regulatory process,

00:56:44the better products we're gonna see,

00:56:46more options for moms that want infant formula,

00:56:49that's safe, low in heavy metals,

00:56:51without seed oil, without added sugar.

00:56:53And that is, I think, gonna help also lower prices

00:56:56and increase the supply chain.

00:56:58And of course, moms know, but there needs to be a choice

00:57:03in that baby formula so that you've got the product

00:57:05you need for your child.

00:57:07Absolutely, we're all about choice.

00:57:09And so there's a lot to it.

00:57:11And again, I commend you and the Secretary

00:57:16for making that a priority.

00:57:18And I do like the name Operation Stork Speed.

00:57:22That's a great name.

00:57:23I don't know if you came up with it or the Secretary,

00:57:25but it's a good one.

00:57:26I did not, but I'll pass along to the person that you like.

00:57:29And the other thing is, this seems like a timely thing

00:57:32to say because the senior senator

00:57:36from the state of Michigan just showed up.

00:57:40And he and I actually have legislation on baby formula,

00:57:44bipartisan legislation.

00:57:45I don't know if you had a chance to look at it yet,

00:57:48but I would ask that you work with us on it

00:57:49because it goes to some of these very same things.

00:57:51And I think we work very hard to make it very practical,

00:57:53actually reflecting some of the things

00:57:54you just talked about.

00:57:56How do we make sure safe, but we innovate and have choice?

00:58:00It's great legislation, Senator.

00:58:01Thank you for working on it.

00:58:02Well, that was the right answer.

00:58:05And I've got another question,

00:58:07but I'm gonna turn to Senator Murray

00:58:10before I ask my final question.

00:58:12And then of course, Senator Peters.

00:58:14Senator Murray.

00:58:15Thank you very much, Chair Hoeven.

00:58:17Look forward to working with you

00:58:18on this really important committee.

00:58:21Commissioner McCarty,

00:58:22the FDA has a really important job to do.

00:58:25Lives literally are at stake.

00:58:28And that work requires the utmost diligence

00:58:32and care and commitment to following the science

00:58:35and uploading FDA's gold standard.

00:58:37We all expect to walk into the drug store

00:58:39and know that what we are buying

00:58:41has passed a safety and efficacy standard.

00:58:44And we have to be assured of that.

00:58:46And we have to be assured that the work's been done,

00:58:48that we don't have to question that.

00:58:51So I don't think it's careful leadership

00:58:53when you do mass fire one in five people across FDA,

00:58:57only to frantically then bring some back

00:58:59because you didn't stop and think two seconds

00:59:01about whether those jobs were actually important.

00:59:04We really, Mr. Chairman, cannot cheap out on the FDA

00:59:08and expect to maintain that gold standard

00:59:11that means that people know that drugs are safe.

00:59:14We can't just cut and cut and hope nobody gets sick.

00:59:17When you're slow to issue a recall,

00:59:19or hope no one needs that medicine

00:59:21that had its approval delayed,

00:59:24or hope there isn't another infant formula issue

00:59:26while your staff are getting fired

00:59:28or getting rehired or wherever they are.

00:59:31This work really takes investments.

00:59:33This committee knows that.

00:59:34And it expects expert staff,

00:59:37like the people that have been shoved out the door.

00:59:40Drug approvals are already getting delayed.

00:59:43Food and drug safety inspections are lagging behind.

00:59:48We are going in the wrong direction fast.

00:59:50We still have yet to see from you a full budget request.

00:59:54That is unacceptable.

00:59:57You are now testifying that the budget proposes

01:00:01to slash FDA by more than 11%.

01:00:04That's actually news to all of us.

01:00:05And I'll tell you right now, it is not gonna fly.

01:00:08It's reckless and it's not gonna happen

01:00:11as long as I have anything to say about it.

01:00:13Now, Commissioner McCary,

01:00:14when it comes to your mass firing of FDA employees,

01:00:18in April, you said, quote,

01:00:19I can tell you there were no cuts

01:00:21to scientists or inspectors.

01:00:23Well, that is not true.

01:00:24I think Senator Ossoff covered that.

01:00:27And I think the point here

01:00:28is that all of this firing and rehiring,

01:00:31I don't see how that's efficient.

01:00:33Frankly, it kind of shows

01:00:34that you don't know what you're doing

01:00:36and you're breaking things in the process here.

01:00:39So let me ask you a question

01:00:41and hopefully it is an easy one for you.

01:00:44Does it save taxpayer dollars

01:00:47to fire staff who work in centers

01:00:49that are fully funded by user fees,

01:00:52not taxpayer dollars?

01:00:53Yes or no?

01:00:56Nice to see you again, Senator Murray.

01:00:58You asked me to do an assessment of the staff

01:01:01when I came here for my confirmation hearing.

01:01:04And I hear that you're criticizing me

01:01:06for bringing back some individuals

01:01:08after the cuts that I was not a part of.

01:01:10No, I am saying that's good.

01:01:11I'm just saying in the long run,

01:01:12this has been very inefficient.

01:01:14But my question to you is not about that.

01:01:17And I know you've covered it with several other members.

01:01:19So does it save taxpayer dollars

01:01:22to fire staff who work in centers

01:01:24that are fully funded by user fees,

01:01:27not taxpayer dollars?

01:01:29Is that efficient?

01:01:32Does it save money?

01:01:33The cuts were to HR, IT, communications.

01:01:37There were 2,600 HR staff.

01:01:38But they're funded by user fees.

01:01:40They're funded by user fees.

01:01:42In part.

01:01:42It is not saving any money.

01:01:43Well, many of the staff you fired

01:01:47were in centers that are actually

01:01:49fully funded by user fees.

01:01:50You know that, correct?

01:01:51So if we have 2,600 HR people,

01:01:53do you want me to not make any cuts?

01:01:55No, I'm asking you a specific question

01:01:57about the centers that are fully funded by user fees.

01:02:02That's one center.

01:02:04It's the tobacco center.

01:02:05Well.

01:02:09Okay, well let me just say.

01:02:09You said we can't just keep cutting and cutting.

01:02:11We can't keep hiring and hiring.

01:02:12The agency doubled since 2007.

01:02:14So let me ask you,

01:02:15what is the right number of employees?

01:02:16You're here to answer my question, sir.

01:02:18And I'm gonna ask some more.

01:02:19Without critical support staff you fired,

01:02:21inspectors cannot plan their trips.

01:02:24They cannot do their jobs.

01:02:25I want to ask you,

01:02:26what percent of planned inspections

01:02:29has FDA missed since those April 1st firings?

01:02:34In the 12 labs that we have

01:02:36that evaluate food products in the food inspection realm,

01:02:40there are no, as of last week,

01:02:43there are no backlogs.

01:02:45They are running at 100% efficiency.

01:02:47There are no drug approval delays

01:02:49despite what people want to attribute.

01:02:52That is not what I have been told.

01:02:54I have been told,

01:02:54and I would like you to go back and check

01:02:57and report back to us

01:02:58because we know that some of the planned inspections

01:03:01at these that were supposed to take place have been missed.

01:03:06And to me, why that's so important,

01:03:08if there is not inspections,

01:03:11the public doesn't have the information that they need.

01:03:14I am gonna run out of time,

01:03:16so I want to move on.

01:03:17There were no cuts to inspectors.

01:03:19Will you go back and check for me, please?

01:03:21Absolutely.

01:03:22I understand, and by the way,

01:03:24inspectors, one thing,

01:03:25but if you don't have the support staff

01:03:27to make sure that they know where they're going.

01:03:27You have a 2,600 HR staff and procurement staff?

01:03:31I understand that the FOIA staff

01:03:33producing documents related to ongoing litigation

01:03:36by the Children's Health Defense,

01:03:39Senator Kennedy's organization,

01:03:41were shielded from the RIF,

01:03:43while other FOIA staff are responsible for FOIA responses

01:03:46at other FDA centers were targeted for termination.

01:03:50Is that true?

01:03:51That's not true, Senator.

01:03:52We have our FOIA staff.

01:03:57They continue to work at the FDA.

01:03:59I've made sure that all the FOIA staff at the FDA

01:04:01are doing their job.

01:04:02We are also using AI to reduce the burden on that staff.

01:04:05Well, for the record,

01:04:06my understanding is that

01:04:07the Children's Health Defense FOIA staff were not fired

01:04:11when other ones were.

01:04:12All the FOIA staff were there.

01:04:12And that seems like a real conflict of interest to me,

01:04:15considering that the Secretary's extensive history

01:04:18with that organization, Children's Health Defense,

01:04:20and his goal to remove authorizations for vaccines.

01:04:24So I just want that on the record.

01:04:25It's not true.

01:04:26Well-

01:04:27All FOIA staff are in place.

01:04:29Okay, so if a study came out saying that

01:04:32people who took a certain medication

01:04:35experienced a certain rate of, quote,

01:04:37serious adverse offense,

01:04:39but the study's authors refused to say

01:04:42what they were counting as an adverse event,

01:04:45would that raise serious questions for you

01:04:46about the study's validity?

01:04:49Yes, Senator.

01:04:50So I have the natural inquisition of a scientist

01:04:53that's done a lot of research,

01:04:54so I would want to see the underlying data, yes.

01:04:57Okay, well, I am, of course,

01:04:59talking about the SHAM study

01:05:00from the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

01:05:03It's an anti-abortion group.

01:05:04It's bankrolled by extremists.

01:05:06They fought to overturn Roe v. Wade.

01:05:08And this study, if you can call it that,

01:05:10is unsound and has been widely panned by medical experts.

01:05:15But days after its release,

01:05:16you and Secretary Kennedy are now suggesting

01:05:19that we need a, quote,

01:05:20complete review on the safety of mifepristone.

01:05:23Now, to be clear,

01:05:25mifepristone has been proven safe and effective

01:05:28in more than 100 studies over three decades.

01:05:31And the people that are now pushing that bogus study

01:05:34and saying that mifepristone is dangerous for women

01:05:37are the exact same people

01:05:39who think that abortion is never necessary

01:05:41to save a woman's life

01:05:42and that 10-year-olds should somehow

01:05:44be forced into childbirth.

01:05:45I believe that this administration is laying the groundwork

01:05:49to rip away access to medication abortion across the country.

01:05:53This has not gotten enough attention.

01:05:56And I know you'd prefer to keep it that way,

01:05:58but I want you to know I'm not gonna let that happen.

01:06:01I have not seen that study, Senator,

01:06:03and you have not seen that study.

01:06:04So how can you call it a sham, bogus study?

01:06:07Neither of us have seen the study,

01:06:08the underlying data, or the methodology.

01:06:11Actually, that's not true.

01:06:12But I will say this.

01:06:13Mr. Chairman, we have a lot of differences here.

01:06:16I know you came before this committee

01:06:19to present your side of the story,

01:06:20but I am very clear that laying off people,

01:06:23cutting budgets, is not gonna improve

01:06:26the safety and efficacy that we count on

01:06:28when we go to the drugstore to get our drugs.

01:06:31And I know that sham studies

01:06:34that try to prove a point that came from a political group

01:06:38is not gonna tell the public

01:06:40that they can count on the medications they count on.

01:06:43Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

01:06:44I yield back.

01:06:45Senator Peters.

01:06:47Thank you, Chairman Hoeven,

01:06:49and thank you for talking about infant formula

01:06:51and talking about our bill specifically.

01:06:53And thank you for eliciting a response from our witness

01:06:56that we both really appreciate.

01:06:57So thank you for doing that.

01:07:00Dr. McCary,

01:07:03as when I was chair of Homeland Security Government Affairs,

01:07:05we did a study looking at persistent drug shortages

01:07:09throughout the country,

01:07:11and found that a lot of us,

01:07:13because we're over-reliant on foreign sources

01:07:16for those supplies,

01:07:17and many of the precursors, as you know, are all overseas.

01:07:21And in fact, in that study, when I put it out,

01:07:23I said it's pretty clear based on these challenges

01:07:27with the supply chain

01:07:28that when there is a pandemic,

01:07:29we're gonna find ourselves in a very difficult position.

01:07:32Six months later, that academic study became reality

01:07:35as we dealt with the pandemic,

01:07:37and certainly saw that we had highly efficient supply chains,

01:07:40but they were not resilient.

01:07:43And I remain concerned that the FDA

01:07:45does not have the visibility it needs

01:07:48into essential medicine supply chains,

01:07:50from the key ingredients needed for manufacturing

01:07:53our drug products, to the distribution,

01:07:55to the patients in hospitals and pharmacies.

01:07:58And these blind spots clearly limit our ability

01:08:01to accurately assess national security risk,

01:08:05including our over-dependence on China in particular,

01:08:10for many critical inputs.

01:08:12So last week, I reintroduced the MAPS Act

01:08:15with several of my bipartisan colleagues,

01:08:19which would address this critical gap

01:08:20by requiring HHS through public-private partnerships

01:08:23to essentially map out the medical supply chains

01:08:27using data analysis

01:08:29and to assess all the threats and vulnerabilities.

01:08:32So my question for you is,

01:08:34do you agree that this is a significant concern?

01:08:37And if so, will you commit to work

01:08:39when we pass this legislation to make this a reality?

01:08:44Senator Peters, I love this topic.

01:08:47It's so important.

01:08:48I'm glad you're raising it.

01:08:49I've written about it in a book in 2019.

01:08:52I've written about it in the Journal

01:08:53of the American Medical Association.

01:08:55I felt like no one has been paying attention.

01:08:58I warned about exactly what happened

01:09:00at the beginning of COVID, and it happened.

01:09:02So I am totally aligned with you

01:09:03that this is an important issue.

01:09:06I think there are root causes

01:09:07that we've not been talking about

01:09:09that we need to talk about.

01:09:10I mean, we can get out a ruler and map out,

01:09:13you know, the supply chains,

01:09:15and I'm not opposed to that exercise.

01:09:17But the underlying problem

01:09:20is that manufacturing has moved overseas.

01:09:22And it's not just one or two things.

01:09:24It is most of what we use in anesthesia to perform surgery.

01:09:27It is most antibiotics.

01:09:29It is most of these cutting-edge therapies.

01:09:31It is the vast majority of generic drugs.

01:09:34And so I totally am in support of President Trump's agenda

01:09:38here to bring manufacturing back to the United States.

01:09:40And we've already had a tremendous amount of success.

01:09:44There are companies announcing moving manufacturing

01:09:46to the United States. We're creating incentives.

01:09:48We're removing regulation.

01:09:50And this is a national security issue.

01:09:52So I am 100% with you on this.

01:09:54Very good.

01:09:56In April, FDA reported suspending programs

01:09:59to improve testing for a potential bird flu virus

01:10:02contamination of milk, cheese, and pet food

01:10:04because of the mass layoffs that occurred.

01:10:09We know that the bird flu virus can kill pets

01:10:12who eat contaminated raw pet food,

01:10:14and it can pose a real danger to humans

01:10:16who also consume unpasteurized dairy products.

01:10:20As you know, the more people and animals

01:10:23who get infected with bird flu,

01:10:25the more opportunities there are for the virus to mutate.

01:10:29And I'm really worried that we only may be a couple,

01:10:33and it's not just me.

01:10:33Others are worried that there may be a couple of mutations

01:10:36away from having another potentially pandemic.

01:10:40So my question for you, sir,

01:10:42is with the continued spread of bird flu in the country

01:10:45and the significant personnel disruptions

01:10:48at FDA food safety programs,

01:10:50could you tell me on the committee

01:10:52specifically what the FDA is currently doing

01:10:54to ensure our food is free from bird flu contamination?

01:10:58Well, first of all, that story was debunked

01:11:00by the Washington Post.

01:11:02It was the normal procurement pause

01:11:04to recalibrate the equipment.

01:11:07And so when that happened, people who were trying

01:11:11to make us look bad, sometimes internally,

01:11:14sometimes externally, said,

01:11:15aha, there were layoffs and there's a pause

01:11:19in some of the milk inspection,

01:11:21and therefore the cuts may have been related to this

01:11:24or were related to this,

01:11:26and that's gonna affect food safety.

01:11:27No, it was a normally scheduled pause

01:11:30to recalibrate equipment.

01:11:32It went through its normal schedule

01:11:34and it is back up and running,

01:11:36and it's normally done to recalibrate the equipment.

01:11:39The cuts were to 380 communications people.

01:11:43What's the right number of communications people

01:11:45for the FDA?

01:11:46Not 380.

01:11:48125 travel coordinators, 13 strategy offices,

01:11:532,600 HR people and budget and procurement people.

01:11:58So I mean, are we not supposed to address

01:12:02some of this redundancy?

01:12:04My question is what exactly are you doing

01:12:06to safeguard our food supply

01:12:08and to safeguard the people from bird flu?

01:12:10So that was the question.

01:12:12I think you're prepared for a different question

01:12:14and you gave the answer to the different question,

01:12:16but the question is specifically what you're doing.

01:12:18You suggested the cuts increased our risk of bird flu,

01:12:21and I firmly reject that.

01:12:23That's not true.

01:12:24And the inspection trains are running on time.

01:12:26I think I said personnel disruptions.

01:12:29There's no personnel disruptions involved.

01:12:31There are no personnel disruptions.

01:12:32There's no calibration facility that was written about.

01:12:35So there are no personnel disruptions

01:12:36related to your work on bird flu?

01:12:38Is that what you're telling this committee?

01:12:41What I'm saying is the story that you referenced

01:12:44was saying that our milk calibration facility

01:12:49paused because of personnel disruptions.

01:12:51I don't think I cited a particular article.

01:12:54I don't know where you...

01:12:55Obviously, you're prepared for a question

01:12:57that I didn't ask.

01:12:58That's fine.

01:12:59You probably gave a good answer to a question

01:13:01that I didn't ask, and so that shows you were prepped for it.

01:13:04I'm asking you, what are you doing about bird flu?

01:13:06Just answer that, please.

01:13:07Don't give me a runaround about other stuff.

01:13:09We're doing a lot on bird flu.

01:13:10Don't use your prepared talking points.

01:13:13Tell me what are you doing to help us

01:13:15and protect the American people from bird flu.

01:13:16Please tell me that.

01:13:18We're doing a lot on bird flu.

01:13:19Please tell me that.

01:13:20That's why we're here.

01:13:21So look, when there is an antigenic shift

01:13:23that represents a epidemic threat,

01:13:26when there is human-to-human transmission,

01:13:29that strain that is involved

01:13:31in that human-to-human transition

01:13:32is the strain that we should be using

01:13:35to base any potential future vaccines.

01:13:38In the interim, as I said in my opening comments,

01:13:43delivering on a universal flu shot is one of our top goals,

01:13:47and there are two universal flu shots

01:13:49that are in development,

01:13:51and we are not in a receive-only mode with those developers.

01:13:54We are actively trying to partner with those individuals

01:13:57because it may be that you could come in

01:14:00for a single influenza vaccine

01:14:05or a two-dose strategy or something like that,

01:14:09and be immune for life

01:14:09against multiple different variants of influenza,

01:14:12including bird flu.

01:14:14And so early preclinical data in animal studies

01:14:17has shown some promise that a universal flu shot

01:14:20using a traditional vaccine platform

01:14:22can actually create antibodies

01:14:24to the current strain of bird flu.

01:14:26The question, of course, is,

01:14:28and I think this is really what you're getting at,

01:14:30is if we have a bird flu epidemic

01:14:33or even an outbreak in a human-to-human fashion,

01:14:36what strain is that gonna be?

01:14:37Because one thing we know for sure is

01:14:39it's not gonna be the strain that's circulating

01:14:41right now in millions of birds.

01:14:42So it is a huge priority for us, Senator.

01:14:45Good, thank you.

01:14:46Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

01:14:50Doctor, and in just one follow-up on the avian flu,

01:14:56I've spent quite a bit of time

01:14:58visiting with Secretary Brooke Rollins

01:15:01on that issue as well,

01:15:02and she put out a comprehensive plan to address it,

01:15:05and a very thoughtful plan,

01:15:06because, for example, the issue of inoculation is really,

01:15:10it's complicated, because if you inoculate chickens

01:15:12and then you got broilers

01:15:13and then you have trouble with export to Europe

01:15:15and all these kind of things.

01:15:16So I think she put out a comprehensive plan,

01:15:17but she did it very judiciously,

01:15:19because some of these things

01:15:20we still gotta figure out, right?

01:15:22So any comments you have in terms of working with her

01:15:25and understanding that this is, it's very complicated,

01:15:28and as doctors say, we wanna first do no harm,

01:15:32but address it in a comprehensive way.

01:15:34Would that be a fair evaluation,

01:15:36and what are your thoughts?

01:15:37100%, Secretary Rollins has been on top of this.

01:15:39She has been in communication

01:15:41with the emergency preparedness scientists at HHS

01:15:44and our FDA team, as well as people

01:15:47in the Office of Science Technology Policy

01:15:49to evaluate whether or not we should be

01:15:52mandating preemptive bird flu vaccines

01:15:58to chickens in the United States.

01:16:00Some countries have done it,

01:16:02and I think they made the right decision

01:16:03in saying that does not make sense at this time.

01:16:06Sometimes it represents messing with Mother Nature

01:16:11in ways that we may not foresee.

01:16:13It may drive mutant strains of the virus.

01:16:17So I think we need to be alert and ready,

01:16:21but at the same time, we need to wait

01:16:24until we see human-to-human transmission

01:16:27and see what that strain is

01:16:29before we develop a strain-specific vaccine.

01:16:33In the meantime, we can advance the universal flu shots

01:16:37that encompass those bird flu strains

01:16:40currently in circulation,

01:16:42provided that they are safe and effective.

01:16:44And not 100% of vaccines are wonderful.

01:16:48I love vaccines.

01:16:49I believe in vaccines.

01:16:50Vaccines save lives.

01:16:52Any death from a vaccine-preventable illness is a tragedy,

01:16:55but the anthrax vaccine was a disaster.

01:16:58The swine flu vaccine was a disaster.

01:17:00The rotavirus vaccine was removed from the market.

01:17:04We had a vaccine that we had to remove from the market

01:17:06a few weeks ago for a rare infectious disease

01:17:09in the United States.

01:17:11And when the data clearly shows

01:17:14that there's not broad safety,

01:17:16as we're commissioned by Congress to do,

01:17:18then we have to do our job.

01:17:20And there is concern by producers

01:17:22in terms of if you start inoculating some of the flock,

01:17:25then you actually have the disease in the flock,

01:17:26but then if you're still keeping that flock,

01:17:29then does the disease spread.

01:17:32Also, as I say, depending on whether they're layers

01:17:34or they're broilers, that makes,

01:17:36so there's a lot that goes into this,

01:17:38and it's a really complicated,

01:17:40very important we address it,

01:17:41but a really complicated issue.

01:17:42And that's why I'm pleased that you and Brooke

01:17:44are working together in the way that you are on it.

01:17:47Thank you, Senator.

01:17:48Yeah, I want to ask about AI,

01:17:51and I don't mean AI as we talked about on the ranch.

01:17:54I mean artificial intelligence.

01:17:57And talk to me, I hear so much about what AI is going to do

01:18:03in every field, but certainly in medicine.

01:18:06Just give me some of your thoughts

01:18:09on not only how we should be using it

01:18:15and what it will do for us,

01:18:17but how we make sure that we don't get ourselves

01:18:20into a problem with it.

01:18:22Well, we spend a lot of time thinking about cybersecurity

01:18:25and proprietary information.

01:18:28We don't want a situation where AI

01:18:31is stealing proprietary information,

01:18:34and we don't want to expose ourselves to any cyber risks,

01:18:38which is why we have ensured that the AI

01:18:41that we're using to summarize clinical data

01:18:43and background information for our scientific reviewers

01:18:46lives in a very secure space, and the reviewers love it.

01:18:49And it's not just AI to assist in the scientific reviews.

01:18:53We're using AI to identify

01:18:55where we should be concentrating our food inspections.

01:18:58And it turns out the AI can sometimes figure out

01:19:01pattern recognition faster than we can as human beings.

01:19:06And we'd like to use this also to address the issue

01:19:10of illegal vapes coming into our border.

01:19:13Okay.

01:19:14And how do we make sure it doesn't get off

01:19:16and running on us and we have problems?

01:19:20We have to keep an eye on it, always.

01:19:22I mean, we cannot have blind trust in anything,

01:19:24which is why all the areas where we are using AI

01:19:27currently at the FDA, we also have a human being

01:19:31reviewing the information and having full access

01:19:33to the underlying data.

01:19:35Okay.

01:19:36Thank you, doctor.

01:19:37Ranking member Sheen.

01:19:39Yes, I just have a couple more questions.

01:19:42One is, again, apropos the need to address

01:19:49type one diabetes.

01:19:50One of the things that Senator Collins and I have worked on

01:19:53is a more efficient pathway for biosimilar drug approvals

01:19:59that are currently lacking competition.

01:20:02So can you give us an update

01:20:04on what you think is happening in that arena

01:20:08and whether there's any reason to hope

01:20:10that that's gonna get expedited

01:20:13and if there are any other approvals

01:20:15or anything that you need at the FDA

01:20:18to ensure that that is being addressed

01:20:22in a way that allows those biosimilars to come to market?

01:20:26Well, thank you, Senator.

01:20:27This is a very important topic

01:20:29that directly relates to drug prices for everyday Americans.

01:20:33And there's a reason why when you watch the news now,

01:20:36you're basically watching people dancing in the fields

01:20:42and singing with these drug ads nonstop

01:20:45in the commercial breaks

01:20:46because they are so expensive

01:20:49and so the companies have figured out

01:20:51that if they can get a few people

01:20:53to shake their doctor down

01:20:56to prescribe one of these drugs to them

01:20:59or I guess somehow let their doctor know

01:21:02that they're a candidate,

01:21:03it might be a little insulting to the doctor

01:21:05that they don't already know it, in my opinion,

01:21:07but that's why these ads are running nonstop.

01:21:09And so there are low-cost biosimilars

01:21:13that can be made available by the FDA,

01:21:15approved by the FDA,

01:21:16and that process is too slow, in my opinion.

01:21:19We have to look at whether or not

01:21:21we really need to require confirmatory trials

01:21:24for each biosimilar.

01:21:26I mean, we don't do that for generics

01:21:29with regular branded pills.

01:21:31We don't say, well, you make a generic

01:21:33with the same molecular structure,

01:21:35go out and do a confirmatory trial.

01:21:37I think we need to look at that.

01:21:39There's a bill I believe that Senator Rand Paul

01:21:41is putting forward to take a look at that.

01:21:43And then finally, we can look at whether or not

01:21:46we can sort of approve a class of interchangeable drugs,

01:21:51that is that they're very similar in the class

01:21:54and so an interchangeability provision

01:21:56could help create more incentives

01:21:58because we want to incentivize companies

01:22:00to make safe biosimilars.

01:22:02I agree.

01:22:04You mentioned in your opening statement

01:22:06the seizure of vaping products from China.

01:22:10One of the things that I've been concerned about

01:22:12for a very long time is the increased use

01:22:15of vaping by young people.

01:22:18And the numbers have gone up dramatically

01:22:23in the last 10 years.

01:22:24And also the health impacts of that

01:22:27that we're not even, I think, fully aware of at this point.

01:22:32So can you talk about what more you're doing at the FDA

01:22:38and how you did that interdiction,

01:22:40who you're working with?

01:22:42Again, what more can be done

01:22:46to get those products off the market?

01:22:49Well, Senator, thank you for your interest in this topic.

01:22:52A lot, we can do a lot more.

01:22:53And I've realized that what's happening now

01:22:57is these illegal Chinese vaping products

01:22:59designed to attract children.

01:23:02They are video game vaping products

01:23:04with an inhalation port designed to addict young children

01:23:08so they can vape as they play these games.

01:23:11These fruit video game products that are so small,

01:23:15they have an inhalation port.

01:23:17What happens is these products that are banned in China

01:23:19and made in China show up in US ports.

01:23:22And what's been happening, I learned,

01:23:23is that they are set aside, the FDA looks at them,

01:23:26and then we say, well, you know what?

01:23:28These shouldn't be coming in our country.

01:23:30We'll put them back on the ship they came on.

01:23:32And then the ship goes to another US port

01:23:35and will come in through,

01:23:36basically, we're 100% porous.

01:23:38It's been a joke, and they've been laughing at us.

01:23:41And so we are gonna stop that.

01:23:43And we have incredible interest at DOJ,

01:23:46at Department of Homeland Security,

01:23:48and we are creating an endeavor

01:23:50that is gonna basically say,

01:23:52we're not gonna send them back anymore.

01:23:54We're gonna compensate or confiscate

01:23:55and seize these products

01:23:57because we've gotta get serious about them.

01:23:58These are designed to get kids addicted.

01:24:01And there are kids in America today

01:24:04who are addicted, they know they're addicted,

01:24:06they come from good families, they're good kids,

01:24:08and they can't stop.

01:24:10And that is something that we have to address.

01:24:13There are high schools in America now

01:24:15where kids are saying half of the kids in high school

01:24:18are addicted to these vaping products.

01:24:21So we cannot get burned again

01:24:22like we did on opioids and Vioxx and other things

01:24:26where the problem is so far down the road,

01:24:28it's hard to undo some of the tragedy.

01:24:30And so this is a top priority for this administration,

01:24:34for this president, for this secretary, and for me.

01:24:37Well, I agree.

01:24:38I think we oughta right out ban vaping products

01:24:42for anybody under a certain age, certainly.

01:24:47And one of the other things we need to do, as you know,

01:24:50is to get a treatment for people

01:24:52who are trying to get off vaping products

01:24:55because one of the other selling points that they use

01:24:58is that, well, it's a way to get cigarette users

01:25:03to stop smoking, they can vape,

01:25:05and the harmful impacts are not as serious.

01:25:09But I'm pleased to hear

01:25:12that you're doing everything possible.

01:25:15And I don't know if you, again,

01:25:17if this is an area where you need

01:25:18additional authorization or support,

01:25:22but I think there are a number of us in the Senate

01:25:24who are all in to try and address this

01:25:26because it is having a huge impact.

01:25:29I've been to those schools in New Hampshire

01:25:31where I've talked to students

01:25:33who have gotten hooked on vaping who can't get off

01:25:36and who don't have any aids to help them do that.

01:25:40So it's something that we've really gotta address.

01:25:42Thank you so much, Senator.

01:25:43And as you know, we confiscated today $34 million

01:25:48worth of illegal vaping products and e-cigarettes.

01:25:52And so that announcement is coming out today.

01:25:57Doctor, thanks for being here.

01:25:58Did you have anything else

01:25:59that you wanted to express for the record?

01:26:02I appreciate the input and the feedback.

01:26:04And look, I'm on a listening tour.

01:26:06We're gonna be traveling around the country,

01:26:08myself and some of the other FDA leaders,

01:26:10meeting with industry leaders, developers,

01:26:13inventors, scientists, academics.

01:26:17And we wanna hear how we can perform better.

01:26:20We don't claim to have all the answers.

01:26:22We don't claim to have the truth on health.

01:26:24But we do have a lot of intellectual curiosity.

01:26:28And we plan when we see something

01:26:30that needs action to take action.

01:26:32So I wanna thank you and this committee

01:26:34for the input that you've provided

01:26:35and made available to me.

01:26:37We appreciate you being here today.

01:26:38We look forward to having you back as well.

01:26:42Questions for the record are due by next Thursday,

01:26:45May 29th, and then we'd appreciate responses

01:26:50from FDA within 30 days.

01:26:53I can't wait.

01:26:54Again, thank you, appreciate it.

01:26:55Have a great day. Thank you, Senator.

01:26:57We are adjourned.

Category

Transcript

Comments

Recommended