unfiltered. we're funded by these television companies and more, including comcast. >> comcast supports c-span as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. the director of the national institutesf health took questions on the administration's proposed -- grants and funding and the work force. the sub committee hearing ran an hour and 40 minutes.

>> i think it's 10:00 and i li to be prompt and the good doctor is here, so i think it's time to start. thank you, doctor and ngratulations on your new role as director of the nih. thank you for appearing before the sub committ today to discuss how the fiscal year budget of 2026 will continue efforts from nih to reduce illness -- continue land breaking and unbelievable research and lengthen the lives of all americans. my home state of west virginia is faced with me complex health

challenges. if we work together and make wise investments and focus on what really matters, we can create positive momentum towards eliminating these challenges. one of the strengths of the nih idea program, which many of us are very interested in. this p program provides fundingo 23 states, including west virginia, that has historically received little to no research funding. researchers throughout my state of west virginia are making significt contributions to bio medical research and areas ranging from cancers to alzheimer's disease to substance abuse disorders. i look forward to seeing firsthand all the amazing research that is being done across our state. this will be a challenging year for appropriions, yet

supporting bio mededical resear is a priority for me and has long been a bipartisan priority for congress. the united states leads the world in bio medical innovation and i along with many of my colleagues on this committee think it is important that america remains the leader in bio medical innovation and research. investing in bio medical research has proven to save lives while exponentially strengthening the united states economy. looking forward to hearing from you how this budget request would continue to advance its critical research and innovations. the nih is a driver of economic growth, funding more than $94.58 billion in national economic activity last year. in my small state, nih supported over 700 jobs and $147 million in economic activity in 2024 alone. for almost a decade -- and i

could look out behind you and see in the audience that many folks here are extremely interested in that area of research. these investments have allowed nih to fund research into a wide variety of potential causes for the disease and build evidence for preventionased on a healthy lifestyle. nih funded research -- led to the development of the faa approved alzheimer's drugs that were released in 23 and 24 to slow progression of the disease. all of this research is very important and i look forward to working with you to continue robust and diversified alzheimer's disease research. nih funded research is also behind many of the more than 600 new cancer treatments that the fda has approved over the last 20 years. as a lead sponsor of the childhood cancer star act, i look forward to hearing about

your priorities and advancements to cbat cancer and grow our clinical trial networks, especially among our children. although we're making positive strides, substance abuse remaias an iue in my state. i look forward to hearing more from you about h combining the national institute of drug abuse into a new national institute on behavioral health -- i've heard from many uniniversity leaders, scols ranging in size, location and subject about the impact of changes being implemented at nih. these institutions are the reason america has kept the edge in bio medical research and innovation. there seems to be a heightened set of concern and confusion that diverting resources frorom research will result in a less healthy america. and i hope today we can work to come to a better understanding. we hav a difficucult test ahead of us this year, but it is my hope that we will come together just as we have done in prior fiscal years to use our limited

resources in the most effective and efficient way to support the health and well being of all americans. >> thank you, good morning. over the last few months, this committee has heard from patients, families, researchers and experts about what is happening at the national institutes of health. it's bee one consistent message, that this administration is cutting off life saving research. if this administration has its way, it will dismantle the u.s. bio medical research enterprise. that would be devastating for millions of american families counting on new life saving trtments and for terrible diseases. nih makes the united states the global leader in bio medical

research and innotions. nih research contributed to 354 out of 356 drugs approved by the usda, u.s. food and drug administration between 2010-2019. simply put, without nih,here would be no cancer immunotherapy, no overdose reversal medication, no cutting edge treatment. nih funded research has saved millions of lives and significantly reduced deathth rates from common cancers to rare diseases. it has produced what can only be described as miracles. like last month when american doctors made history with the first successful personalized gene editing treatment in a 9.5 month old baby boy, curing him of a rare life threatening genetic disorder. congress spent nearly 100 years

building up nih as the world's premiere bio medical research agency and investing in re search and infrastructure at thousands of institutions nationwide, which are fuelling the development of state of the art treatments that wouldn't have been imaginable just decades ago. t as long as it took to build this, this administration has shown just how fastt can all be torn down. i'm not just talking aut the president's catastrophic budget request for next year, i'm talking about what nih i is doi right now. if we don't stop nih from going down the road it's on, i'm deeply concerned it will create irreparable harm and millions of american families counting on it. nih has taken the unprecedented step of termiting 2370 active

grants and $4.9 billion in funding. it has significantly delayed the awarding of new grants and continuation grants. it has prevevented researc institutions from accessing their existing grant funds. bio medical research can't just be turned on and off on a whim. thesee delays and terminations aren't just debilitating for scientists, they'll also derail research on everything from alzheimer's disease to cancer to diabetes. decision about which medical research grants should be funded or terminated are for the first time in history being made by political appointees, most with absolutely zero scientific training or expertise. i'm very concerned about the sudden proliferation of political appointees at nih and other actions this administration has taken to politicize scientific research, like allowing doge to decide

which grants get terminated and which grants actually get paid. injecting politics into nih will make american science less rigorous, ledge credible and less competitive. everything that is happening at nih is being led by political interests, not by science. i want to mention a few examples because details matter. nih has delayed -- for 14 alzheieimer's disease research centers in nine states, including at the university of wisconsin madison. it has delayed $47 million in cancer center support grants at nine cancer centers in eight ates. it has delayed $55 million for 11 rare disease clinical research network grants in 8 states. let that sink in. this administratation is making conscious choice not to fund research into alzheimer's disease, cancer and rare

diseases. and nih has terminated grants for maternal morbidity and mortality center, a grant developing new digital imaging techniques for cervical cancer screening and a clinical trial studying a potential cure for infants born with hiv, just to name a few. many of us have been sounding the alarm about this for months. through may of this year, nih awarded 3288 fewer grants than through the same time period last year. now the administration's own budget clearly shows this is the plan, to award thousands of fewer grants this year. each one of those grants represents a contribution to scientific progress, a potential new cure or treatment o a medicalreakthrough that could save millions of lives. and on top of that, this budget proses to cut $18illion or

40% from nih next year. that should be all the proof we need to judge this administration's intentions and its priorities. thisdministration says it will insure the united states remains the global leader in bio medical research. but its actions and a budget request that would cut the number of grants funded by nih by 15,000 next year clearly shows those are empty words. this administration cannot be left to its own devices. if congress doesn't intervene, this administration will tear down our bio medicalesearch enterprise, seed our global leadership to china and rip away cures that families desperately need for reasons i can't begin to comprehend. that's why i will do all i can to work with my colleagues onn bo sides of the aisle to protect what congress has built -- that has produced

miracle cures, saved millions of lives and given hope to millions more. so i look forward to marking up the fiscal year 2026 appropriation bills in the coming weeks. and most importantly, enacting those bills into law later this year to do exactly that. because this budget request makes it clear that if we don' this administration will unilaterally enact policies that will be devastating for millions of american families. >> thank you, senator baldwin. now i turn to our witness. we're very happy to have the director of theational institutes of health. welcome. >> thank you. good morning ranking member baldwin and distinguished members of the committee. thank you for inviting me to testify on the administration's fiscal year 2026 budget request

for the nih. as you both said, nih has long been known as the crown jewel of government and science and for good reason. it creates life saving breakthroughs in biology, in medicine. disease, better treatments for cancer and major breakthroughs in sickle cell anemia and a whole host of other diseases and conditions that if i startrted list them, i would take up more than just the five minutes i have. we can reverse ovoverdoses, prevt cervical cancers. the nih's broad portfolio of investigator initiated research and the agency's essential role in training the future generations of scientists fuels innovationon across the country. it is an absolute honor to lead this incredible agency. despite this progress, life

expectancy in the u. has flat lined for more than a decade since 2012. millions of children and adults face poorr outcomes d to chronic diseases like heart disease, like diabetes and conditions like cancer and alzheimer's continue to have trememendous impact on t lives of millions of amamericans. i'm also concerned that after the covid-19 pandemic, many americans no longer trust the bio medical enterprise of the nih. a study in 2024 found that 1 in americans did not believe scientists have the best interest of the public at mind. as a scientist myself, find that tremendously concerning. i applaud the nih's efforts to advance science during a difficult time. however, i take seriously the concerns of the public and recognize the needs of reform at the nih. to restore o our reputatn to the american people, we can't return

to business as usual. advancing 21st century research at the nih. we'll build on the agency's record of solving complex challenges and invest resources where they're needed by prioritizing the health needs of the american people, and i mean every single american. we're working to accelerate innovation at the nih.

the reduction to more than $19 billion to the agency's budget is approximately 40%, it's so disturbing it would undo years of congressional investment in nih. and it would delay or stop

effective developed for diseases like alzheimer's, cancer, type i diabetes, i could go on and on. we also risk falling behind china and other countrieies tha arincreasing their investment in biomedical research. let me give a specific example. there are an estimated 7 million americans living with alzheimer's today. barring any major breakthrough to prevent, slowdown, or cure, this devasastating disease. this number could almost double, to claim the lives of more than 13 million americans by the year 2060. that's why this committee has

been so dedicated to increasing the funding for biomedical research and for alzheimer's and thick alert,t, to more than $3 billion last year alone. and its produced results. we've seen the first two drugs that have been shown when administered early enough to slslow cognitive decline. we've also seen the development of breakthrough blood test which will help lead to earlier diagnosis. yet the administration's budget proposes a decrease of 40% for the national institute on aging, which funds most alzheimer's research. as a senator representing the oldest state of the nation this is a particular concern to me.

and like senator o, i too lost my father to this devastating disease. as well as my grandfather, two uncles, and just last ar a brother-in-law. so i know personally what it means to so many american families. why is the administration proposing to cut the funding for the national institutes of aging, when we are making progress in treating alzheimer's and other dementia >> thank you for the question. first let me say that i am fully committed to making progress, scientific process on alzheimer's. i know all too well for my own resech and friends and family members the devastating ll of the disease. we've made tremendous progress. the nih supports about wide

range of hypotheses on alzheimer's and its resultant and some of the advances like the blood test for early detection. we still don't have, in my professional opinion, a sufficient way to manage the disease to prevent the disease and cure the disease. we need more advances. as i'm absolutely cmitted to make sure that nih plays a tremendous role in that. the president wrote a letter to michael cross eos science advisor committing the united states to be the leading nation in the world and buying medicine. so that's the intention of this administration. the budget, this is my first time to this budget fight, but from what i understand this budget is a collaborative effort between congress and the administration. i look forward to rking with you u all to advance the real health needs not just from the folks on the room who represent alzheimer's tient health

needs of all americans. we have tremendous health needs we h have to address it only excellent research that's gonna solve the problems. >> we look forward to working with you to remedy these problems. and the deficiencies in the budget. prior to your confirmation, nih abruptly and without any notice or input from the scientific community, announced 15% bitrary cap on grants received from the nih. institution to receive grants from nih.this proposed cab is so poorly conceived. i've seen firsthand how harmful it is. leading to scientists leaving e united states for opportunities in other countries. that's causing clinical trials

to halteand promising medical research to be abandoned. hence also against federal law. since 2018 we in congress have specifically included language to prevent nih from arbitrarily imposing such a cap. during your confirmation hearing you commmmitted to working with us on this issue. so i was alarmed and surprised that the administration's budget request contains the same harmful 15% cap. recently i met with doctor calvin strother meyer, who was president trumps science advisor during the first term. he has come up with two possible momodels which are f fairer, make way more sense,

inease countability, haveou had the opportunity to meet wi doctor drug meyer and look at the models he's come up with after extensive consultation? >> i spoke with doctor -- the key thing, first i can't speak about the 15% because the subject of litigation, i dot want to get into that.

and i want to but the broader policy issue which is how should the federal government support the research institutions in the country where the research we've been talking about taking place it's an opportunity to rethink that. we have an obligation to make sure the institutions have the capacity to do the research correctly. we have processes in place that you have sufficient geographic representation that scieientist across the country wherer they are have access? i think we can do a lot better and i would love to work with congress to make sure to address that. i think there's a lot of great possibilities for reform. >> thank you. i encourage you to sit down with him as soon as you can. thank you madam chair. >> thank you. senator baldwin. >> thank you. as i said in my opening comments, i've been raising the alarm for months about nih grant to making being significicantly behind its norm pace. this y year nih has awarded nearly $3 billion less compared to the same period last year. that's at least 3288 fewer grants. was withholding this funding? is it you?

is it doge, is it omb, who is making the decisions? >> is a range of decisions that i think have led to some of those positive grants. >> so, who is making those decisions? not what are the decisions about who is making them? >> because there is a range, it's a different answer for some of those. >> all of the above? >> not necessarily. depends on thepecifics that were talking about.there's chan in priorities for the nih to move away from politicized science. i've made those decisions. decisions regarding harvard and some other institutions that's joint with the administration. those i believe are temporary after settlements have reached with the university because of

the primary classes of decisions you are talking about. >> we now have the fiscal year 2026 budget proposal, which shows the plan to award significantly fewer grants this year and next. omb director recently made a major change in the way nih will fund grants. i want to make sure the committee is really aware of this because it hides an even deeper cut t than the 40% were talking about. for half of its research grants, nih is gonna start forward funding them. in one year granting a multitier grant. this is going to have significant impact in the near term in this number of grants that nih awards and how much is spent on research. your budget requests an $18 billion cut for nih.

that's bad enough. but t be honest with congress a the american people, this forward funding scheme means that the cuts are even deeper. it means billions will effectively be put into escrow and will actually be spent on research foror a numb of years to come. it means that you arare effectively cutting research funding next year by anotr $7 billion on top of th$18 billion cut you proposed. and means that next year nih would award a fractionon of the grants it has historically. your budget already proposeto award 15,000 fewer research

grants next year and this change alone accountsor about 4000 of those. while i think congress will reject your budget request, i think it clearly shows the administration's intent.you can cut $7 billion and dramatically reduce the number of nih awards next year on your own, unless congress steps in to stop it. i'm struggling to find a reason why nih would implement this forward funding policy. how is this proposal anything but intentionally sabotaging environmental research. >> regarding funding for this year, congress allocated the money, my job is to make sure the money goes to excellent research projects. my intention is we will 㦠>> i'm asking about forward funding. >> i wanted to press my answer to that because you asked out that . regarding forward funding, that's a budget proposal. >> you don't deny that it reduces the amount that will be spent on biomedical research

next year by an even deeper amounthan the $18 billion in the 40% cut. >> the way it works right now we have multiyear projects that we find. forward funding size we will allocate the money for the forward funding projects for this year. >> if it's a four-year project, three of yours will sit in an escrow account and not be spent next year. fuher diminishing the amount that will be spent on biomedical research. >> in the long run there's more money and more flexibility for new research projects. >> that's funny math. >> i'm an economist also. it says, let's allocate the money this year so next ar the money isn't tied up for on previous years projects. that's in the long run. i'm happy to work with congress

and i'm looking forward to working with congress on this, this is a budg proposal, not a final thing. if i had to start and redesign the stem from the start allowing more flexibility as new scientific opportunities come up, the forward funding model allows that to happen more than the current model. where large fractions of budget are tied up with old projects. i'm really ad to o work with congress to make sure there's no disruptions. >> thank you. i'm going to save my alzheimer's question, i think senator collins and i have like opinions on that and very much want to see the innovations and detection diagnosis and treatment ve forward. i hope that as you are setting the priorities, and we set them with you, you know that this is a top priority for many of us who are here, me in particular. i want to ask about the idea

program. you mentioned geographic diversity of research. and think the statistics bear out that only a certain amount of states are getng enormous amounts of funding for research and nih. some of the middle states those of us have difficulty securing research grants and moving forward and that's where the idea program really helps. how do you see that when you're looking at the larger picture of priorities? where do you see the value and how do you think we can make sure those developmental awards are not jujust still graded but also increase. >> the ideas program is a tremendously important part of how we support research and

states and universities that don't traditionally get a lot of nih money i think it's 440 million infiscal year 2024. it's absolutely vital that nih investments are achieved geographically dispersed. we empower researchers across the country no matter where they are to have a great opportunity if they have great ideas for nih funding. the ideas program guarantees to make that happen. in my mind it's probably less funding that it ought to be i would love to work with congress to think of ways to make the nih vestment in scientific research more geographically dispersed than it currently is. is very concentrated now. i think 20 universities getting about 60 to 65 percent some of the ney.

the system is set up to guarantee that that happens. >> thank you. i look forward to working with you on that. since we are talking about the different geographies, i learned in the course that if you have a designated cancer center or national cancer institute in and around where you live, your ability to access treatments, your success rate, your early interventions are so much better. some states are called emerging cancer institutes. there's 14 states that don't have an nci designated cancer center. i guess my question is, since a lot of it is viral and there's a huge monenetary commitment fo the universities or the state to be able to create a cancer institute. thisis is something i thinis amazingly important to rural parts of the country. how uld you close that gap for the underrepresentation in

the case for -- cancer institutes. >> it should be everywhere.. it's really important that we collaborate with universities everywhere to make that happen. there are a lot of scientific reasons. we want to make sure the cancer trials we do represent the entirety of the american population. the investments we make in advancing cancer can't happen without cooperation and idenfication of patients and places we don't traditionally go. we need to do better and expanding these national cancer centers to us places we haven't been as a major priority of mine. >> thank you. another priority in the last few seconds i have.

the funded research that's occurred under the opioid and addiction research. this is a growing issue, the statistics have come do but i i don't think we should be taking that as a sign that this is not still a tremendous problem across the country. doctor resigned in our state is using a low intensity focused ultrasound to restructure the way the brain reacts to certain stimuli and how does your budget prioritize continued and vast and addiction treatment. >> such statistics are heartbreaking ever since the pandemic i think the pandemic fueled a rise in drug -- drug overdose deaths. the nih research has funded big advances the locks and is used to reverse opioid overdoses is in part due to nih research.

i think we have a long way to go it's aolutely vil we make investments to address the problem that affects the lives of so many americans and their families. how do we prevent it? medicine may play an important role in that. as well as advances in our understanding of the behavioral circumstances that lead to addiction and much else.i'm committed to that. >> welcome. 10 years ago i made a visit to the nih i met with the man who i believe is an american hero by theame of francis collins. he had the job which you currently have and i asked what i could do as a member of the senate to help nih. in previous years number of bipartisan efforts resulted in

doubling its budget, i didn't think it was realistic and he said what is realistic is give 5% real growth every ye. if you could do that, we line up the scoreboard. we are making breakthroughs and so many different areas.5% regrowth. researchers know they can count on next year, another good year for medical research. i came b back here a talk to patty maria, who will join us before this all rancher. then i reached across the table to roy blunt who is a predecessor as the chair of this committee. and lamar alexande and a number of others who are here today, i said let's go for 5%. in 10 years we went from 30 billion in nih to 48 billion. $18 billion increase in medical research at the nih. i couldn't have been prouder of all of our bipartisan efforts to do that. this year your budget wipes it out completelyly.

wipes t $18 billion we fought for, for over 10 years. i can't understand th. i disagreeith this administration on so many things. this is the one that really gets to me personally. to think that this nation would walk away y from medical research, for god's sake, we leave the world in medical research, why would we give up on it? i look at the specifics, cancer, 2025 2 million new caseof cancer will be agnosed in the united states. 600,000 people will die from the e disease. ur budget requests 38% cut. to the national cancer institute. 7 million people nationwide are living withth alzheimer's, this disease is of course devastating to families.it robs them of their loved ones, yet your budget requests 39% cut to the national institutute of aging. when you look at specifically schools, of course i'm

concerned about illinois we have great research there. northwestern university is not received a penny for nih grants and 11 weeks. 1359 nih awards to northwestern have been frozen or terminated. uling $81 million in research today. i could go through some of the specifics of this rearch but it includes $9 million in clinical trials for brain cancer, colon cancer, breast cancer, childhood cancer, how are you able to reconcile these budget decisions with the reality of research into what it means to alleviate suffering and more importantly, to give people hope. if research is underway you please have the hope that maybe there will be a cure. medium in the lifetime of somebodydy i love. how can you walk away om that? >> my intention is not to walk away from that.

>> but the budget speaks for itself. you cut $18 billion in research! >> the budget is a collaboration between congress and the administration. i look forward to talking about the advances in nih research has made. i think the transition has been a very bumpy time. i don't mean to downplay that but there have been opportunits for reform for how the biomedical research enterprise works. i think the decisions about northwestern happen before i got into office. >> the buck stops in your office. don't blame another person. we are asking you, you are in charge. >> i agree with that. the way that the university has operatedduring the pandemic wasn't always make it easy for

scientists to do their wo. i can n tell you at personally from being a professor. i think. >> eliminating grants eliminating research how can that solve the problem. >> i'm very hopeful that a resolution can be made with the universities where those decisions, those grants have been caused. worked very hard to make sure, for instance at harvard we paused -- we didn't pause grants to the medical centers. there were clinical tals going on. i'm very hopeful these univerersities, where these policies have happened, will come to terms we can mov fowith the agenda k say this, i'm personally disappointed. you try as a senator to pick one or two areas and really make a difference. i think this committee and members of the committee on both sides made difference, dramatic difference, 60%

increase in nih research over the last 10 years, you've wiped it out and now we start a new. forget my disappointment, the disappointment of the people sitting behind you who are counting on this research for hope for tomorrow that life will be better for them and their families. is consent statement from the mls statement be issued after mine. >> without objection. >> thank you very much. lcome, nice to see you again, thank you for the conversations we had prior to this hearing. this could perhaps follow on what senator devon was talking about. the life of the united states senator i assume has a lot of glamour and excitement but i can tell you that perhaps the most satisfying, i say that with a smile because i'm not certain that is true, but i can say in all seriousness one of the places that i found satisfaction in this job, one

of the reasons this job has vavalue to me and hopefully my constituents, is the work that we do in regard to combating diseases and finding the cure is on the treatments for alzheimer's and cancer and diabetes and it's a significant list. the opportunity to have a sense of satisfaction that our constituents are f finding valu frfrom what we do. as all the arenas at which we work as united states senator, this one provides the most satisfaction. and that's when i can relate to my constituents in which they find satisfaction. there's a lot of skepticicism a distrust about government, the federal government in particular. where there does seem to be satisfaction with what we are doining is in support for findi the curious so what task you've

taken on is hugely important to me. it's usually important to this committee and hugely important to the country. how you make decisions now you have the opportunity to get the satisfaction of that we find in trying to do the things that ke a difference in people's lives, individualsls and provid the hope that senator durbin talked about. if congress, you say it's a collaborative effort and you're absosolutely right i courage congress to exert its authority's and utilize responsibilities in this arena and many others. if congress were to provide additional dollars above and beyond the president budget request, how would we as a committee and how you have nih recommend for us to prioritize the spending to get we are looking for that is shaking up the pass process and system by which grants are awarded and the results are attained. > there is a number oideas i've had in my senate hearing when i was confirmed as well as

other public settings. first, we have to focus on the real health needs of the american people. alzheimer's, yes, heart disease, diabetes, cancer, l of these we need to make and so many others i don't have time to talk about. i also have been heartened by the nearby artisan support -- i hope we can get back to that. i view it as part of my job to say let's have an agency that focuses on things that really matter to people. we have to address somethe real problems in science. the replication criticism agenda for many times most people don't know about this but a lot of scientific research look at this and same result they don't find the same answer. that's basic science you

pected and there's reasons why it happens. there's no real advantage to doing replication work. when drug developers do their own investments they tell me they do their own private replication were because they can't trust the biological literature. i would love to be able to fix that problem. let's focus on thinking big. i think it's a collaborative effortrt but i think 's going to be important we address the real problems in science and the real needs of the american people with whatever budget comes out. >> ethic i wrote down what you responded among all the words you said we need focused research advances and i assume that means more resources and he would put them to good use is not accurate?

>> that's my job to make sure every dollar goes to real science that really needs the help of the american people. >> include project as a trans-nih researchestablished in 2017. the program supporting scientists and universities and research institutes across country. including the university of kansas medical center, researchers are studying alzheimer's in people with down syndrome. i've always been fascinated by this particular aspect of research that combines two things i care greatly about into one some ways. as the administration advances efforts to unleash signs across multiple nih centers i believe include as a model for those objectives, will you commit to working with me in the committee to ensure increased federal funding for this offer and maintain the status as an nih wide initiative? >> i think it's a tremendously important focus. i was recently at an event aturing the stance they made in studying down syndrome patients and the early onset of

alzheimer's is one of the major problems they face. >>. >> all my colleagues have already emphasized the work on alzheimer's. it's my understanding that no existing grants counseled, but some of the advisory council meetings necessary for grants to go forward some of the 35 alzheimer's disease research centers have not been held. >> since i've been in office about two months of been working to turn on all the light switches i can find gegetting the committee meeting going. i think were now caught up, if not very close. we are on track to support the research.>> i really appreciate that.

>> i think you are here in bipartisan support. everybody here in the table has friends, everybodyin the audience has friends and family affected by alzheimer's, it's a teible way to finish the arc of your life. drifti intstat malfunction. so turn every light switch on as you can. i wanted to turn to the role of nurses, as may be particular interest in the my wife is a nurse, i hear a lot about the healthcare system from her point of view and her colleagues point of view. but you would agree nurses are a key part of our healthcare system? >> absolutely, yes. >> nih has engaged in research that is related to the role of nurses including the impact patient to nurse staffing ratios that would be an important area of research? >> yes.

one reason i particularly want to highlight that is what i witnessed in some of the major healthcare systems as that so many baby-boom heaealth practitioners are retiring at so many baby boomers need healthcare. the pressure comes for higher and higher patient to stop ratio, which then produces burnout, which means more nurses going on call other than doing a full work week. or retire, and structuring the problem. the research is importan the research also the nurses are engaged interventions that improve the quality of life for many patients including cancer

survivors. in terms of the bedside to bedside and follow-up nurses play a key role, you would agree with that? >> as a medical student i learned at least as much from the nurses that i had the privilege to work with. >> this is why am confused about your decision to eliminate your proposal to eliminate the national institute of nursing search. because such important work is done through that institute. could you give us a little insight on that? >> the restructuring decisions are sosomething that a done in collaboration with congress and looked up the history and congress waited many times and there's a process which i'm committed to following two make that but the substantive question, how should the research and where and should it be done the key question to

me is not the structure but the collaborative nature of the nih. the research needs to get done because it advances health and well-being of the american people. i'm committed to making sure that research like that does get supported.>> what i hear you saying is you put forward a proposal to eliminate the national institutof nursing research but you understand that restructuring is something that should be done in collaboration with congress that is the way the constitution is designed so i appreciate your making that pot. i'm sure folks will be very engaged in that conversation. in terms of any concern that anyone might have that if congress farms decides to fund and the bill is signed by t president the national institute of nursing research, we don't have to be worried that suddenly those funds will be shut down.

>> a lot of nursing research including the things you outlined are important to the health advancing the health of the american people. understanding the nursing ratios is something i studied early in my career. i understand why it's such an important question. i absolutely support the research. >> my question was, if congress funded by law we don't have to worry about the administration shutting it down despite the fact that we have funded it by law? >> my job is to make sure that the funds the congressss allocatefor the national institute are translated to improvements i will make sure the money is snt whatever you allocate to me. >> senator kennedy.>> you don't look like satan to me. >> i hope not. >> some of my colleagues have accused you of everything but

abandoning your children to walls. do you hate medical research? >> i've devoted my life to medical research. >> do you hate nih? >> love nih, i think i said that in my senate hearing, i think it's the most importt biomedical institution in the world. >> the budget we are debating today, when's the last time congress took a president's budget and? >> the funny thing is, >> what is the last time it haened? >> i can remember. >> it's never happened in the history of ever. >> everyone has strorong opinio t what should happen and congress gets to have a say and that's a good thing. >> there are some changes that need to be made at the nadh? yes there are. >> upon the president of the university and i came to you

and i said i need $10 million to research a cure for nephris and i took the $10 million and spent $5 million of it renovating the vice provost tom that would be morally repugnant. >> it why. if i were cocollege president came to nih and asked for $20 million to research cure for dementia and i took $5 million of that and used it to buy a yacht for my university, that would be morally repugnant, wouldn't it? >> that would. >> and that has happened before. >> it's not hypothetical. >> the's a lot of talk about the difference between direct costs, spending the money on

research and cures for nephritis and indirect costs, overhead. harvard, for example, but the $53 billion endowment spent 69% of this money from nih on overhead, does it not? >> i haven't looked at the latest numbers. >> yale spent b& all the money spent on overhead is money that is not being spent on medical rearch, is that right?>> it's for fixed cosost of lab space but also sometimes for other things. some of it is ababsolutely cessary. m the s came to nih and said, i don't want money, i i want to give you money, i want to give

you $100 billion, but you can't spend more than 10% on overhead with nih turn it down? >> i wouldn't turn it down. i think the gates foundation overhead rates are in that range, 10 to 15%. >> robert wood johnson foundation limits overhead to 15%. >> something like that. >> i want you to think in terms the american people and the importan of medical research. what do you think is more important? and we he finite resources. and i support giving resources to nih i think nih does breathtakingly innovative work. but if you ask the american people, would d you rather give money to research

cerebrovascular disease or would you rather give $142,000 to the seattle children's hospital to study how to use telehealth to improve access to gender affirming care? what do you think the american people would say. >> the nih should be a nonpolitical program, addressing the healthcare needs of the american people. >> yet nih spent $120,000 to " develop 3d avatars that help people work gender dysphoria". did it not?>> it did. >> the nih also spent $2,368,492, gave it to brown university, to study improving mental health among the lgbtq community impacted by the covid-19 pandemic, did it not?

>> i think it did. >> you think that's more important than spending money on chronic respiratory disease. >> i think we should address the real health needs of americans, not divide americans, we have to ta into account the real differences in american ithe biology of people but but we should do it in a way that really addresse the actual health needs. >> i'm running out of time. what we have to do is spend money on research!>> absolutely. i agree with you 100%. >> some universities are not and nih is not calling them on it. is an effective between 2017 and 2019 auditors found it 137 critical trials funded with taxpayer money involving 41,000 kids and they didn't even report the results.

what happened to the money? >> senator, i think the researchers we support have an obligation to share their data publicly with the ameran people regardless of the result. >> otherwise it's wasted all you want to do is fix nih. >> i want to fix all the problems. thank you madam chair. >> thank you. >> thank you madam chair. thank you so much, how do you say it?>> i say it dr. bhattacharya, but my cousins think i don't know how to pronounce it. >> i want to talk about what senator kennedy just brought up but before we do that, i want to talk about one of my top priorities. that is supporting mothers before, during, and after pregnancy. far too many women in the country are dying om pregnancy related causes. you look at alabama we have one of the highghest mortality rate in the nation it

disproportionately affects black women, native american women, those women in rural areas. when you look at rural areas, alabama we have one third of our states 67 counties are actually maternal care deserts, meaning they don't have access to breathing facilities or maternal care providers.i mean, look, it's 2025, these numbers should be moving in the opposite direction. i am really proud to have cosponsod that nih improve act. it's to help make sure we have the reresearch to deal with the things that i just said. my question for you is, can you tell us brfly, what do we know today about the why of where this is occurring. and where is the gap we need to close in order tmove these numbers in the opposite direction? >> i was just looking at the numbers. it's a range of conditions, including gestational diabetes, maternal hypertension, a whole host of conditions, many of which are preventable if we just get prenatal care done early. it's an absolutely heartbreaking situation.>> that's another thing, many

women don't even get care until month five a pregnancy. these are things we have to change. look, we are doing this and auorizinit on a year-by-year basis. it is my thought that if we actually want change, we have to allow for predictability. so my nih improve act allows for seven years of predictability. my question to you is, if that was the case and you had that, do you think we could have better research? >> the answer is absolutely yes. >> i think we need to start thinking bigger picture in this body instead of segmenting things onene by one. wegot to think how do we actually achieve the results on the issues in front of us. and speaking o back to senator kennedy's comments, let's talk about nih. u know, i have been a strong supporter making sure we have lifesaving and life-changing research that it absolutely continues. i also know that we have to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars. we havto make sure that we create a system where we can

continue to be the gold standard o of biomedical resrch across the board. i've heard my colleagues today say, and indicate, that you want to gi up on medical research, is that true? >> no. >> they said you want to wipe out research. is that true yes or no? >> no. >> let's have a productive conversation. when we want nih to remain the gold standard of research, we gotta make sure the best idea wins, righght? >> absolutely. >> we have to make sure people have an opportunity to compete no matter where they come from. that we stop rerewarding legacy ntracts so to speak, and empower researchers and the research to go where it can save lives.how do we make re that every dollar actually goes to discovery and not to institutiol overhead? what ideas do you have. >> the key tng they have to make sure that the institutional overhead funds are essentially a part of the competition across universities. right now we have a system that

guarantees a very small number of uniniversities are gog to get all the institutional support. >> how do we fix that? >> the key problem now is that we require to have excellent researchers in order to get the institutional support. it's a vicious cycle because you only attract researchers if excellent researchers if you have the institutional support that the lab space and so on. >> we have to break the cycle. >> we have to break the cycle. >> how do yo there's a lcreating drama creative ways to do that. i would love to work with congress on ththat. >> i thinwe got to create a competitive environment where the best idea wins so the american people when. we've got to stop turning and turning and turning because what's what we've always done. this is our opportunity to make a dollar go further and make it have a greater impact. my question to you is, if we introduce competition into the arena, which i think is a great idea and a concept we should explore, if we iroduce it into the indirect st equation, how would that

actually bolster or do you think it would break the system? >> i think it uld actually strengthen the system because it would get support to the researcher is better in nontraditional prices that of excellent ideas in a much harder time getting support from nih. i think that combat scientific group think, expands the base of scientific ideas and the current roadblock that we face. >> i hope that you will continue to explore that. we certainly want to be your partner in this. i believe we owe it to the american people to ensure that nih funding and every single dollar of it is driving actual innovation. that achieves results that makes an impact that saves lives and i look forward to continuing this conversation. thank you for being innovative in how we approach this. and working with our colleagues on this committee to modernize the outdated system that rewards legacy and n not actual

results. thank you. >>hank you. >> we been joined by the vice chair of the full committee, senator murray, welcome her here. >> thankou very much madam chairman, welcome to our committee. you know, i am extremely proud the work that i've done on a bipartisan basis strengthen our investments in nih, to support lifesaving research, and to r really maintain americ leadership in biomedical innovation. i'm not going to mince words today y about how that progress is now being unraveled. withhe trump administration is doing to nih right now is frankly catastrophic. over t the past few months this administration hasired and pushed out nearly 5000 critical employees. across nih. prevented nearly $3 billion in grant funding from being awarded. and terminated nearly 2500 grants totaling almost $5 billion for lifesaving research that is ongoing stop that includes clinical trials for hiv and -- research

institutions have been waiting for months to receive funding for grants they've alrea been awarded. meanwhile, nih is cutting down on grant awards with thousands of fewer researcgrants this year and almost 15,000 fewer next year if the administration has its way. because, to pile on this destruction, you and the president e requesting that we now /nih budget by 40% or $18 billion. i cannot fathom to what end the trump administstration is s alr systematically dismantling the american biomedical research enterprise that's the envy of the world. throwing away billions of economic activity and every one of our states and jeopardizing lifesaving work of researchers across the country. this budget proposal would effectively forfeit our leadership in research

innovation and competitiveness to china. it would mean we depend on china for the latest treatments for devaating diseases. no one in america wants us to do less cancer research no one is asking you to make it harder to research alzheimer's disease, and no one is asking you to cut lifesaving clinical trials. we are hearing this from the experts themselves, you just received a letter signed by the hundreds of your own staff who believe this administration's actions risk breaking nih and the lifesaving work it does. i really hope you heed their warning, and it should go without saying, but i expect none of them to face retaliation for raising those concerns. everyone on this dais wants nih toucceed, and you're going to need to see some major changes from what you're doing right now to get us back on the right pa.

now, dr. bhattacharya, we spoke on the phone last week, i appreciate that. i want to follow up on those questions. what i been trying to get answers from you for months. told me 25 staff have been fired from the nih clinical center out of the 1445 have been fired across the entire agency. but that does not include staff leaving after being offered buyouts or threatened with future layoffs. i want to know what is the total number of employees who left the clinical center and the e entireagency as a result of the trump admiministration's personnel actions and totals. >> the numbers i have in front of me are forever the reduction of the force, the 25 i mentioned in our conversation. >> i told you i would ask this over the phone, i requested it ltiple times. how many times do i have to ask

for this. i want to know by the end of the day, can i have a detailed list of reductions in standby institute, by center, by job function, not just risks. >> will get the total. >> can i have it by the end of the day? >> yes. >> those are really basic questions, i want to see that by the end of today. i'm also particularly concerned, as i told you, about cuts to clinical trials which are harming patients care nationwide and the chance for better treatments and cares. nih is now terminated at least 160 clinical trials. in addition to terminating grants, you are also delaying grant awards and freezing or significantly delaying institutions from being able to draw down there grant funding, which is disrupting clinical trials to say nothing of the research that it is now threatening. how many clinical trials across the country have been impacted

by the grants you have terminated, frozen, or delayed? >> senatotor, i don't have the numbers or specific number of trials. we've worked to make sure that no patients enrolled in clinical trials have any dedela in their ce as a result of the -- in 2020, the nih terminated a very large number of clinical trials. >> am asking you about today, under your directition. >> a lot of that is subject to negotiation. i set up a process where people can appe for if there are any decisions made regarding grant pauses and terminations. we are actively working to make sure that theppeals process is going, the numbers are in flux. >> we do know the patient care at your own al than 100 clinica

trials in the country. on may 30 two terminated a 23 year reseah effort to develop an hiv vaccine just as scieists, including at the fred hutchinson center in seattle, around the cusp of a functional cure for hiv. terminating those hiv vaccine trials acce to treatment for 6000 patients in the network. you canceled the clinical trial evaluating new evidence-based interventions for type ii diabetes in rural communities in appalachia. you terminated clinical trial studying immunotherapy in combination with monoclonal antibodies to treat women with recurrent ovarian cancer. that is what is already happened. so now you're coming to us today proposing to cut nih funding by 40% set next year. tell us how many fewer clinical trials wouould you find in e next fiscal year with the budget cut of $ $18 billion? >> just addressed hiv, i'm absolutely committed in 2019 president trump issued a

challenge for us to eliminate the threreat of hiv in this country. we've had a 20 2% reduction in hiv transmission since then. we now have the technological tools to do that. i been working on developing a program to actually implement that his vision. >> but you did terminate the hiv research at fred hutch, that was on the cusp of treatment for 6000 patients nationwide. you did do that. >> i'd have to get back to you. i think we actually have a chance with the existing technologies, then b and other technologies. >> i'm delited to hear that but i'm telling you what clinical trials have been terminateded and i'm asking y this because we have to write an appropriations bill. how many fewer clinical trials will you find in the next fiscal year within $18 billion cut? >> well, senator, the budget request is a work of negotiation between congress

and the administration. president trump has issued a letter to secretary katze also committing the united states to be leading -- >> we need to know how many fewer clinical trials, can you get the number to me? >> 㦠>> you're asking for a budget and we're trying to figure out what it will find. >> the number depends on what the requests we get proposals from all across the country. the budget itself would be dependent on what you will do as well as -- >> but we are trying to write a budget with the knowledge that u have with the request that you have, i'm asking questions, how many fewer clinical tals, we need an answer back to that. >> it's hard toto give an answe becae i don't know what the proposals are to be -- year. >> you ce here today to a ask for a budget that reduces nih significantly, i would expe as director you would know what the impacts would be.

>> it's hard to say exactly what the researchers of the country are going to do in response. for a hypothetical budget. >> would yoyou say there will b more clinical trials under that? under an $18 biion price cut. >> it seems unlikely. of the budget itself is a negotiation between the administration and congress. congress locates the funds become i'm absolutely committed to making sure that whatever the allocation goes we address -- >> i know my time is way over. i think the point is really important that you are asking us for a significant reduction. it will impact the healthth of the unitedstates of america. this committee has an obligation to know how you are spending that money. thank you very much. >> senator rounds. >> thank you madam chair. dr. bhattacharya, first of all, i enjoyed our conversation last we. i do think there is a real value in looking at smaller institutions as well and providing an opportunity for

them to participate and compete for the grant dollars coming out of nih. i think you may very well find that their overhead may be substantially less. i also think just in terms of being fair, i think we've got to do perhaps a clearer job of understanding as to what would be considered direct or indirect costs. and lay that out with regard to whether it's overhead or something that's needed. if the smaller institution has the need for a centralized larger computer system and that's a larger part of what's considered overhead, it may very well mean that that's a larger p part of what the to be spending the money on, but it might be a very important part of an experiment. is that a fair way of looking at it? >> absolutely, senator. >> okay. i think what you're hearing today is in a number of areas, first of all, my tradition a

president would suggest a budget and then i congress would modify it back and forth. well i think we're assuming is that in this particular case, the president's budget has said this is the ry basic minimum. congress, if you're going to authorize stuff, you're also going to be accountable for actually appropriating money. and so the expectation is even more than a negotiation is that we will be expected to put the money wherwe tnk it is bestst and when we do that with an appropriate authorization that you will follow the law and see that the money is spent in those appropriate lotions but it will be up to us once again to reassume the responsibility we've got for actually deciding and telling the american people we w want to spend the dollar i the following areas. is that what you're sharing with this committee today? >> absolutely. it is a negotiation a cooperation between congress and the administration for deciding where the research how to best meet the research needs

of the country. >> i'm convinced that there is an opportunity to do two things at the same time, sometimes i think it's misunderstood terms of how we approach spending money, and that is just as an example in medicare, two thirds of all the people that are on medicare have two or more chronic illnesses. we spend 93% of the mon in medicare almost 2/3 of the individuals. their suffering. their quality ofife is not od with two or more chronic illnesse if we could find a way to improve their quality of life and actually save tax dollars by addressing those chronic illnesses, whether it be diabetes, whether it be alzheimer's, whether it be parkinson's, or cancer, it's kind of a win-win situation, isn't it?

>> absolutely. >> i don't think we can do that without integrating ai into the process. i think were on the verge of doing a lot of that today. a part of the requires databases. let me work my way through this just a little bit. i think we have to invest in modernized data systems, including leveraging ai to accelerate research, maintain global leadership and life sciences, and velop treatments and cures for both chronic and rare diseases. as a cochair of the senate ai caucusi'm one of the individuals who have chamoned pieces legislation. this is bipartisan in nature. to expand ai literacy, adoption, and competitiveness. i been briefed on the national center for advancing translational science is known as nc ats. and their work on and 3c. i'm impressed by its success in its role in supporting the national ai research. however, under the budget i

noticed they'll be folded into the national institute of general medical sciences will nih propose consolidation strengthen ncat's research. >> i'm also tremendously proud of ncats and what it's accomplished in a i. i also am aware of the program you're talking about where my predecessor director bertolli directed the program. i fully support using -- to address the needs are talking about.to me the most important thing is the exact organization but rather the actual activities that we do. and under whatever organization we do, of course congress will have its say. i want to make sure that those activies go forth. i agree with you, the investments we make will pay off tremendously. also to make patient care experiences and physician

doctor relationships much better and bigger diagnoses. other ways to manage patients and prevent illness. >> i think the next sp will be literally incorporating ai in an agent ties in the deponent of multiple types of approaches to solving lots of these chronic illnesses, and i'm very hopeful. this is not something that's gonna take decades. it may take years, but this is an opportunity to really shown improvement in quality of life that impacts american families, not just individuals who have the chronic illnesses, but those who take care of them as well. i look forward to working with you. >> likewise, senator. >> thank you. >> senator shaheen. >> good morning, nice to have you here. dr. bhattacharya.federal funded research through the national institute of diabetes and digestive and kidney

diseases. and the special diabetes program has been really critical a and advancing diabet treatment. we talked about that wn you and i met. but nih funding, your budget ash and gets niddk by folding it into other instutes. nih has canceled long-term studies ke the diabetes prevention program outcome study for both political retributn and supposed cost savings. have to be very skeptical of using programs within the national institutes of health for political retribution, i think it's very damaging to this country. but cutting ongoing trials, i think, doesn't save money, it actually costs money. and it wastes the years of

prior investments and abandons the patients who are dependent on the research. willou commit today to ensuring that funding for critical diabetes research, including ongoing trials and prevention initiatives will be prioritized and protected from reductions? >> i commit to doing to supporting excellent research in diabetes, you and i both share commitment to that. both personal reasons, my father died of type ii diabetes. and also because we've had tremendous advances. i think the continuing research in that area is tremendously important and i want a portfolio of funding at the nih that addresses that opportunity and need. >> we had this conversation, as you pointed out, that's why it was so puzzling to me to see what the budget proposes in terms of slashing the funding for niddk. help me understand why that is and how that's going timprove our research into diabetes. >> senator, i think the budget is a negotiation of

collaboration between the administration and congress, and you'll have your say. i think for my job is to make sure that the funds that you all appropriate to me go to advancing and meeting the health needs of the american people. i think that's a productive ththing. i'm hearg from basically everybody that the nih is really valued in congress and i find it gratifying. value nih. the administration, president trump has committed that the u.s. be the leading nation and biomedicine in the 21st century. i entirely support that goal. >> i do too but excited to understand how working to get there when the budget slashs funding, particularly in critical areas of research where our most critical competitor, the chinese, or increasing funding in those

areas and we are slashing the budgets. another area where i'm very concerned is and where i think we need more research is into drug addiction. for years i've talked with director volatile at night out about the importance of advancing science on substance use disorders. finally in new hampshire our overdose death rat are beginning to go down, in large part because of federally funded research on narcan and other treatments. and yet, it's another place where the budget slashes those investments. so how do you read reassure researchers, how you reassure academic institutions and patients that addiction research is not to suffer whe your budget proposes cutting funding and dismantling the very institute that has led to this critical work? >> theealth needs for folks with overdoses are great.

almost 100,000 deaths a year since 2020. >> i u understand that. i've been working on it for over 10 years. don't tell me what the problem is, tell me what the solution is and howou can address it when you're cutting your budget in areas that make a difference. >> the solution involves research. as you said, narcan is a result of an: nih funded research. i don't think it only involves research, also behavioral research to understand the sort of settgs that leado overdoses. i think the nih is going to play a really important role in that. the key thing is not the reorganization of the nih. that's not as important to me as the actitivities were talkin about. the activities to do research that meet those needs. that's what i'm going to make sure happens so that if i come back four years from now wcan look back and say we've reached

the high watermark of deaths from overdoses with spike during the pandemic. and we address those needs with excellarch. d foe are going to address those needs with excellent research when you're cutting research grants from ur cutting personnel. was seeing some of our best scientists talking about going to europe and other parts of the world because i don't feel like they can get a fair shake in the united states. thank you, madam chair. >> senator. >> dr. bhattacharya, thank you for being here. i had an interesting conversation with secretary kennedy, unexpectedly constructive conversation, we sort of wentthrough some of the cancellations in his department. and he conceded something that not every cabinet member has conceded, which is that the initial sort of doge cuts were, and terminations on suspensions, where at least substantially informed by a

control keyword search enterprise. and i've heard this in private with some of the other secretaries, butthe kind of blunt still directionally consistent with the trump administration's approach. a maybe a little overdone it a little b it seems to me is especially bad in the nih because you can painting some of these keywords and not be talking about anything that's in the least bit ideological. so understanding how chromosomal makeup and cross sex hormone administration would affect wound healing in mice the role of environmental sensor, a hr on colitis, establishing the science behind alzheimer's recruitment registries, opportunities for increasing diversity. accelerating enrollment into trial, there's probably many of dozens of examples were you paying a word like maternal or diversity or evransit inside of another word, not to mean transgender. so i guess what i like from you

is an admission th that was too rough of a cut and you still have some work to do in untangling. because it's not as though you just say, yeah that was a little much, then the next appropriation cycle we clarify what we need.many of those grants are currently canceled and e only thing were left to do is to go in and petition in some cases the cane, in some cases part of this court, to say, would you please give mercy to this one. you are smart enough to know how to run an enterprise. i'm wondering if you would undertake a process to figure out now that the dust is settled, which ones of these were accidentally seized and to try to go about systematically reversing that. one of the people i talked to said it's going to take 18 months if we go hand by hand. well, if the cutting takes two weeks and the restoring takes two years, we are losing a lot. i'm wonderining if you can work on that. >> i've established a process for appeals for those grant

terminations and decisions. hundreds of people have appeal. it won't take 18 months. it will take weeks to get through those appeals. we've reversed many of them. i didn't take this job to terminate ants. i took this job to make sure that we do the research that advances the health needs of the american people. >> okay, sgive me a time frame for processing all of them. >> i can't promise a specific timeframe but it won't take years it would take weeks. i spent the last few weeks i think a month ago we stood up the appeals process we been working through those numbers those grant applications. >> can we agree that we shouldn't do it that way again? >> -- - >> i know yohave to survive in this administration, but can we agree is not a helpful way to do. >> a lot of those decisions were made before i got in. >> let's keep you out of trouble and i will come back to

you every couple of weeks to see the status of all these. i think it's a fact that given what happened over the last 90 to 120 days were tually losing researchers. it's not like a rhetorical flourish. we are losing people to some from the countries, canada and others, and some not so friendly countries, china and others. i'm just wondering what you would say to a young researcher whose branches got cut. tell them why they should stay in the united states because the prospects if you are to believe house republics, if you are to believe in elon musk, i'm not sure i can make the argument to a young researcher, yo best staying in the united states. make the best case. you have a microphone. you're on the record. >> the world report, which is an nih product, estimates how much money public institutution giveor research for biomedicine around the whole world. the u.s. the nih of the primary founder of biomedical,

somemething like 85%f all worldwide public biomedical research is funded by the nih. if you're a young scientist, this is the place to do your work. is the place where you are most likely to get the scientific resource to do your scientific work.is the place,e, i looked at it in the macro but if i'm somebody who's grant got froze, that's like what we did the last four years saying that the inflation that you'r experiencing is not so d because what was happening macro economically, , that's no the question the question is, what about my situation? i'm a good researcher. and being recruited from all these other countries. i would like to do this in the united states. i'm going to not make you answer the question a second time. >> this is reallimportant to me so i'm pleased by the

opportunity to ask the question. the real commitment to making sure the young researchers get supported by the nih. they are the future of biomedical research and i absolutely intend to make sure that that happens. >> fine piece of the last question i i have and i ll ask it for the record. there is this conflation of health disparities and different outcomes for the different sexes and people with different ethnicities, you know, you know better than i do but certainly is an ashkenazi jew i have to worry about certain things, african americans have to worry about certain things, that's being swept up as dei. i would like you to clarify there might be a category of things that are more ideological and less scscientif at we can argue in the scientific context it's absolutely true that different peoplele respond to different courses of treatment differently and that should not be swept up as some sort of woke enterpre, can you agree with that? >> i completely agree.

>> thank you. thank you dr. bhattacharya, we have a vote on so we are going to end of the hearing today on that. everybody has a chance for questions. i would like to thank you and my fellow committee members for a very thoughtful conversation and thank you especially for being here. many senators who wish to ask additional questions, questions for the records will be due june 17. their hearing record will remain open. e subcommittee will stand in recess and many thanks to you. >> thanks.

[inaudible background speaking]

c-span's washington journal, our live forum to discuss latest issues and government, politics and public policies. from washington and across the country coming up wednesday morning mary mccall the georgetown law institute for constitutional advocacy protection we talk about the legal and constitutional authority to deploy the u.s. military. then discussion about deportation policies and the ongoing protests in los angeles.first with florida republican congressman jimenez and near democratic congressman she spans washington journal join the conversation live at 7:00 p.m. eastern wednesday morning on c-span, c-span now, our free mobile video app, or online at c-span.org >> wednesday treasury secretary kyle scott bessette is on capitol hill to testy on departments priorities before the ways and means committee.

he will likely face questions on the gop tax and spending bill awaiting action in the nate after passing the house last month. watch the hearing live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3. >> we are funded by these television companies and more including buckeye broadband. >> buckeye broadband support c-spanas a public service along with these other television providers, giving your front row seat to democracy. >> senate minority l