About this transcript: This is a full AI-generated transcript of Secretary Kennedy testifies at House hearing — NBC News from NBC News, published April 24, 2026. The transcript contains 25,837 words with timestamps and was generated using Whisper AI.
"Trump and your work at HHS to advance a bold vision for Make America Healthy Again, the mission of HHS to promote and protect the health and well-being of Americans has never been more important, especially as we confront rising chronic disease, increasing health care costs, and growing access..."
[6:23] Trump and your work at HHS to advance a bold vision for Make America Healthy Again,
[6:28] the mission of HHS to promote and protect the health and well-being of Americans has never
[6:33] been more important, especially as we confront rising chronic disease, increasing health care
[6:39] costs, and growing access challenges across the country. As a pharmacist, I've seen firsthand
[6:44] how these challenges play out in real life at the pharmacy counter, in rural communities,
[6:49] and for patients trying to navigate a system that is often too complicated and too expensive.
[6:55] Too often, patients walk away from needed care not because it isn't available, but because they
[7:01] can't afford it or because the system makes it too difficult to get the care they need.
[7:07] And that's why I appreciate the administration's focus on prevention and transparency and
[7:11] accountability. These are core principles that are reflected throughout this budget. Efforts to
[7:17] strengthen primary care, expand behavioral health services, and invest in maternal and child health
[7:22] are important steps toward improving outcomes and bending the cost curve over time. A stronger
[7:28] emphasis on prevention, particularly addressing nutrition and chronic disease, has the potential
[7:33] to reduce long-term costs while improving quality of life for millions of Americans.
[7:38] I'm also encouraged by the emphasis on health care affordability. Families in East Tennessee,
[7:43] where I'm from, and across the country continue to feel the strain of high drug pricing, rising
[7:49] premiums, and out-of-pocket costs. The administration's work to increase price transparency and ensure
[7:54] patients have access to clear, usable pricing information is a critical step toward restoring a functioning
[8:01] health care marketplace. Similarly, efforts to promote competition through biosimilars and streamlined
[8:07] regulatory pathways can help bring down costs and expand treatment options. And modernizing tools like
[8:13] prior authorization to reduce delays and administrative burden is something both patients and providers
[8:20] have long asked for and have long needed. Another area of strong interest for this subcommittee,
[8:25] and certainly for my district, is rural health. We know that rural communities face unique challenges,
[8:30] including provider shortages, hospital closures, and limited access to specialty care. In many parts of my
[8:37] district, patients have to travel long distances just to see a provider or feel a prescription. I look forward to
[8:43] hearing more about how this budget supports rural providers, strengthens the health care workforce,
[8:48] and ensures that patients, regardless of where they live, can access timely, high-quality care.
[8:54] Investments in primary care workforce development and community-based services will be key to
[8:59] stabilizing rural health systems and providing outcomes. I also want to commend the department's focus on
[9:05] program integrity and stewardship of taxpayer dollars. Efforts to combat fraud, waste, and abuse in Medicare and
[9:13] Medicaid, and to move toward real-time oversight are essential to protecting these programs for the
[9:19] patients who depend on them. Every dollar lost to fraud is a dollar that cannot be used for patient care,
[9:25] and strong oversight is critical to maintaining trust in our health care system. Finally, I want to
[9:31] highlight the importance of ensuring patients have access to innovative treatments and therapies,
[9:36] the administration's effort to accelerate drug development, reduce unnecessary regulatory barriers, and
[9:42] support individualized therapies, particularly for rare diseases, are promising steps forward.
[9:48] At the same time, we must ensure that these scientific advancements translate into real-world access,
[9:55] so patients can get the care they need, when they need it, without unnecessary delay.
[10:01] Mr. Secretary, this budget outlines an ambitious agenda to improve health outcomes, modernize federal
[10:06] programs, and make health care more affordable and accessible. This subcommittee looks forward to working with you to ensure these
[10:13] priorities are implemented in a way that delivers real results for real American people.
[10:18] I appreciate your testimony, and I look forward to our discussion today, sir.
[10:22] I now recognize the subcommittee ranking member, the other half of the Diana Caucus,
[10:29] Representative DeGette, for five minutes for an opening statement.
[10:32] Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll bet you this is the first time in history that
[10:35] both the chair and the ranker have been named Diana. On a serious note, Madam Chair, it's been a profoundly
[10:44] disturbing 15 months for public health and a profoundly disappointing 15 months for this Congress
[10:51] and for this committee. Measles is resurgent in the United States, and we're on track to have the
[10:57] most measles cases since just after CDC started recommending the two-dose immunization regime,
[11:03] which was over 30 years ago. Researchers have seen promising work cancelled, and young researchers
[11:09] are less likely than ever to be able to get the funding they need to launch exciting projects in
[11:14] their careers. And some of the most promising biotechnology companies are wondering whether
[11:20] the United States is where it should grow in their businesses as the FDA becomes less and less reliable
[11:27] and more and more politicized. I think the Secretary and I do agree on some things.
[11:33] Things that are self-evident but yet are not being adequately addressed. We spend by far the most on
[11:39] health care in the rich world. Yes, yet we have by far the worst health consequences. We have a chronic
[11:46] disease crisis driven by environmental contaminants and poor nutrition among other factors. So I'm
[11:53] mystified why tackling these issues has taken a back seat to peddling lies about vaccines, slashing vital
[12:00] public health programs, and seeding unfounded fear about Tylenol. I measure priorities in staffing,
[12:07] attention, and action. And where I have seen action, I have seen it taken in the wrong way.
[12:13] Secretary Kennedy fired the expert scientists on the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices,
[12:20] replacing them with ideologues. Secretary Kennedy canceled research and development relating to MRNA technology,
[12:28] potentially setting back promising cures by years. And Secretary Kennedy directed the addition of
[12:34] safety warnings on Tylenol use in pregnancy, even though the evidence suggests that Tylenol is safe,
[12:41] while fever in pregnancy, which Tylenol treats, can be profoundly damaging. Madam Chair, I want to tell
[12:48] you two stories from across the country about the direct impacts from the last year. First, ending the HIV
[12:55] epidemic was a priority of the first Trump administration, but under Secretary Kennedy's
[13:01] leadership, locally driven programs to get effective medications to prevent HIV to at-risk individuals
[13:08] are in doubt. I was told of a project to increase access to long-acting HIV prevention medication for
[13:15] at-risk men in high incidence areas that has been unable to continue because of funding terminations,
[13:23] restrictions, and instability. That means only one thing, more HIV infections in the long run.
[13:31] In Colorado, this administration's systemic refusal to execute the laws Congress's mandate for the
[13:38] Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality led to disruptions of clinical trials and wasted research
[13:45] time and money. A trial on pediatric medication therapy management, which tested using different
[13:51] medications to treat children with complex medical conditions, was forced to halt enrollment and go on
[13:58] hold. Now, the funding did just come through, but unacceptably late and suspiciously close to this
[14:05] hearing today. The damage is done. The trial had to temporarily close, leading to primary outcome data
[14:12] being lost and diminished access to cutting-edge care. That has a short-term and a long-term harm.
[14:19] Kids who could have benefited from the trial did not. And since the data was lost, it will be longer
[14:26] before any beneficial findings from the trial get integrated into practice more broadly. These stories
[14:32] represent a failure of leadership and a failure of vision. If we want to truly make America healthy,
[14:40] we need to follow the evidence, empower the scientists, and we need to be willing to change when we're wrong.
[14:47] Public health fails when we make decisions based on ideology. We are seeing the very failures of that
[14:54] kind of decision-making before our very eyes. This HHS does not have the confidence of scientists,
[15:01] doctors, or the American people. The Secretary of Health and Human Services must be a force for
[15:08] improving public health, not for dismantling it. The Secretary and this committee must ask a hard question.
[15:15] What is the legacy this HHS and this HHS Secretary are leaving? We're rapidly losing our position as the
[15:24] gold standard in the world for medicine and for science. For the sake of ourselves, our children,
[15:30] and future generations, we must stop the bleeding and we must start to rebuild. I yield back.
[15:36] General Lady yields back and I now recognize Chairman of the full committee, Chairman Guthrie,
[15:42] for five minutes for an opening statement. Thank you, Vice Chair Harschberger, for holding this
[15:46] hearing and thanks, Secretary Kennedy, for being here with us today to discuss the priorities of HHS,
[15:51] the budget, and your department's priorities. This Congress, Republicans have worked hard to take on
[15:58] some of the major healthcare challenges facing Americans, ranging from mitigating the influx of illicit drugs,
[16:05] to cleaning up waste, fraud, and abuse that have plagued our safety net programs.
[16:09] We've held a series of hearings to examine the major cost drivers across the entire healthcare system,
[16:16] and just last week, we held our first hearing in another series on promoting healthier America,
[16:21] which I know is important to you, Mr. Secretary, as well. So, Secretary, I look forward to hearing from
[16:26] you today on everything you have been doing to improve healthcare for all Americans. In particular,
[16:32] I want to commend you on the release of the new Dietary Guidelines and your work with medical
[16:36] schools across the country to increase nutrition training. These are important initiatives that
[16:41] are long overdue. I also want to commend you for your continued partnership in taking on waste,
[16:47] fraud, and abuse in our healthcare system. When bad actors exploit these programs, patients who rely on
[16:53] care ultimately suffer. This is not a victimless crime. With initiatives like this,
[16:59] the committee's ongoing investigation into fraud schemes combined with the administration's new
[17:05] anti-fraud task force, Republicans are committed to protecting patients and preserving crucial
[17:12] government health programs for decades to come. We look forward to continuing to collaborate with
[17:18] the Trump administration and your department to restore the integrity of our health system and to
[17:23] implement solutions that put patients first. I thank you for being here. We thank you for your
[17:27] participation and I look forward to our discussion today and I will yield back.
[17:34] The gentleman yields back and I now recognize the ranking member of the full committee,
[17:38] Representative Pallone, for five minutes for an opening statement.
[17:42] Thank you, Madam Chair. Since Secretary Kennedy last testified before this committee in June,
[17:48] our nation's entire healthcare system has been driven into chaos thanks to his actions and the
[17:54] actions of Republicans here in Congress. Healthcare is less accessible and less affordable thanks to the
[17:59] trillion dollar healthcare cuts in the big ugly bill that Republicans jammed through last summer to
[18:05] pay for giant tax cuts for the wealthy and Republicans' refusal to extend the ACA enhanced premium tax credits.
[18:11] Americans' health, particularly our children's health, is at risk because of Secretary Kennedy's complete
[18:17] upheaval of our nation's vaccine infrastructure and the endless barrage of misinformation spewed to push
[18:24] the Secretary's ideological agenda. And this administration actively worked with Congress to pass the big ugly bill.
[18:31] You can't cut a trillion dollars without dramatically impacting the care Americans receive.
[18:36] Fifteen million Americans are expected to lose their healthcare coverage, forcing people to once again
[18:41] rely on emergency rooms for care and leaving millions of Americans buried in medical debt.
[18:46] Medicare is also cut by hundreds of billions of dollars, reducing access to care for seniors.
[18:51] It strips states of funding to provide healthcare to their lowest-income residents and shutters
[18:56] hospitals and nursing homes, especially those in rural and underserved areas. And as a result of
[19:01] this Republican cruelty, we're watching in real time as hospitals and health clinics are closing at a rapid rate
[19:08] while states are being forced to slash payments to providers, raise out-of-pocket costs, and cut benefits.
[19:14] And the Trump administration and congressional Republicans drove up monthly healthcare premiums for more than 24
[19:19] million Americans at the beginning of this year because they refused to extend the ACA enhanced
[19:24] premium tax credits. People have seen monthly premiums double or triple, leaving some people with no
[19:29] choice but to go without health insurance altogether. And now there are reports that Republicans, through
[19:34] further reconciliation initiatives, intend to make further cuts and take healthcare away from more people
[19:40] to pay for Trump's reckless war of choice in Iran. In Trump's America, we can't afford healthcare, but apparently,
[19:46] we can spend a billion dollars a day in a war with Iran. In fact, Trump himself said that it's not
[19:51] possible for the federal government to pay for Medicaid and Medicare when we're fighting wars.
[19:56] Now, the chaos does not end with skyrocketing costs and coverage laws. Secretary Kennedy is creating chaos
[20:02] and confusion in our nation's vaccine policy. Your handpicked anti-vaccine members of the Advisory
[20:08] Committee on Immunization Practices altered recommendations for multiple vaccines, including measles, Hepatitis B,
[20:15] and COVID. These actions left patients, healthcare providers, and parents confused about what vaccines
[20:20] were recommended, when, and whether they would be covered by their insurance. And the uncertainty drove
[20:25] skepticism and made it harder for people to access vaccines that can keep themselves and their families
[20:31] healthy. At the same time, the Trump administration has frozen or terminated millions of billions of dollars
[20:37] in scientific research grants and funding, halting ongoing clinical trials to find the next generation
[20:42] of treatments and cures. You know, Republicans preached for years on this committee about their
[20:47] concerns regarding protecting pharmaceutical innovation, but it's quite ironic they're noticeably
[20:52] quiet now as we watch the United States get left behind as the global leader in medical research,
[20:57] thanks to their own administration's actions. And Mr. Secretary, you are presiding over one of the most
[21:02] consequential departments within the federal government. And this is no small job, but
[21:07] unfortunately, your actions are dangerous to healthcare in our country, and it's going to take
[21:12] decades to repair the damage that you've done. So finally, I want to mention your unprecedented
[21:17] obstruction of congressional oversight and your refusal to respond to our inquiries or requests over the
[21:23] last year. The radical transparency that you talked about, you know, from the very beginning of your
[21:29] time as secretary, or even before, that radical transparency that you promised appears to have
[21:35] been an empty promise. And I expect you to fully and respectfully answer the questions of the Democratic
[21:40] members of this committee today, and to respond to all written requests that we have sent you in the
[21:45] past. There are so many, I haven't gotten responses to any of them. But with that, Madam Chair, I yield back
[21:51] the balance of my time. The gentleman yields back. We now conclude with member opening statements, and the
[21:57] chair would like to remind members that pursuant to the committee rules, all members' opening statements
[22:02] will be made part of the record. We want to thank our witness for taking the time to testify before the
[22:08] subcommittee. Although it's not the practice of this subcommittee to swear in the witness, I would
[22:13] remind our witness that knowingly and willfully making maternally false statements to the legislative
[22:19] branches against the law under Title 18, Section 1001 of the United States Code, you will have the
[22:25] opportunity to give an opening statement, followed by questions from members. And our witness today
[22:30] is the Honorable Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
[22:36] And per committee custom, the witness will have an opportunity for a five-minute opening statement,
[22:41] followed by a round of questions from members. The light on the timer in front of you will turn from
[22:46] green to yellow when you have one minute left. And I now recognize Secretary Kennedy for five minutes
[22:52] to give an opening statement. Thank you, Chairwoman Harshberger and Ranking Member DeJed.
[23:04] And members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss
[23:10] the president's fiscal year 2027 budget requests. We stand at a generational turning point. Our children
[23:18] are the sickest generation in modern history and decades of failed policies, captured agencies,
[23:25] and profit-driven systems caused it. Parents across the country demanded change, and we are delivering
[23:33] it. We are ending the era of federal policies that fueled this chronic disease epidemic and replacing
[23:40] them with policies that put the health of Americans first. President Trump and I are challenging the
[23:46] status quo and the institutions that defend it as we work to make America healthy again. In just 15
[23:54] months, HHS has delivered historic wins. We negotiated a most-favored nation drug prices with 16 of the
[24:01] largest pharmaceutical companies so that Americans no longer pay more than people in other wealthy
[24:08] countries for the same medications. We are bringing real transparency to healthcare pricing so that
[24:15] patients know the cost of care before they receive it. I use the full convening power of the federal
[24:21] government to bring health insurance CEOs to the table to reform prior authorization. We are cutting
[24:28] red tape, speeding decisions, and demanding transparency. We're also cracking down on waste, fraud, and abuse.
[24:36] This year, HHS and USDA issued new dietary guidelines that put real, whole food at the center of the
[24:44] American plate. We flipped the food pyramid upside down. We sent a clear message to Americans,
[24:50] eat real food. HHS has opened the door to partnerships with industry, trade associations, nonprofits,
[24:59] and advocacy groups. More than 50 medical schools have committed to expand nutrition education from
[25:06] an average of two hours to 40 hours. Food manufacturers are stepping up to more than 40 percent of the food
[25:14] industry is committed to phase out petroleum dyes by the end of the year, and many have already eliminated them.
[25:20] In conjunction with these efforts, FDA approved six natural food colorings derived from fruits and
[25:28] vegetables. Through President Trump's Great American Recovery Initiative, HHS is matching compassion with
[25:36] action to help Americans break the cycle of addiction. At HHS, we are prioritizing patients with ultra-rare
[25:44] diseases and their families and driving faster access to life-saving treatments. We are restoring gold-standard
[25:52] science and integrity across the agency for the first time in decades. We are protecting children from sex-rejecting
[26:00] procedures that expose them to irreversible harm. We're eliminating outdated and misleading warning labels on hormone
[26:09] therapies used to treat women during menopause. We're strengthening oversight of organ procurement. We're implementing
[26:17] Operation Stork Speed to ensure the safety and quality of infant formula. I convened the 405 largest tech companies
[26:27] to agree to stop information blocking so that for the first time, every American is going to be able to get there,
[26:34] access their own health records on their cell phones. We're implementing Operation Stork Speed to
[26:43] improve baby formula. We're applying that same focus and urgency to rural America. The Rural Health
[26:49] Transformation Fund delivers the largest investment in rural health in our nation's history, 50 billion
[26:55] dollars over five years to strengthen rural hospitals and assure Americans can access the care they need
[27:01] no matter where they live. Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have made rural health a clear
[27:09] priority in their conversations with me because every state is feeling the strain of hospital closures and
[27:16] workforce shortages and gaps in access. HHS announced more than $135 million investment this month to expand
[27:26] rural residency programs and nutrition service. The data is clear when physicians train in rural communities,
[27:33] they're far more likely to stay and serve there. The president's budget puts all these priorities into
[27:40] action. It invests in prevention because preventing disease costs less than curing it. As my uncle
[27:48] President John F. Kennedy said, progress is a nice word, a change is its motivator, and change has its enemies.
[27:57] We see those forces clearly. Defenders of failing status quo, institutions that put profits
[28:06] ahead ahead of the American people. That resistance underscores the urgency of this moment. We can
[28:13] reverse chronic disease, improve public health, and lower costs. I stand ready to work with Congress
[28:21] and this committee to seize this opportunity to implement and codify lasting generational reform in
[28:28] American health care. For our country, for our children, and for the health of the American people,
[28:34] together we can make America healthy again. Well, thank you to the witness for your testimony.
[28:42] We'll now begin questioning, and I'd ask that members not begin a new question to our witness as
[28:48] their five minutes expire and would encourage members to submit written questions for the record.
[28:53] And I now recognize myself for five minutes for questions. Mr. Secretary, I agree with all the
[29:01] initiatives that you mentioned that'll be in the budget because this is something I've not only preached,
[29:08] but I've practiced for over 40 years in health care. The first thing I want to ask is, you know,
[29:14] as a pharmacist, I know patient trust depends on clear communication and sound science,
[29:19] and I appreciate your focus on restoring confidence in public health. There's been a lot of misleading
[29:24] commentary about your approach to the measles vaccine and vaccine policy. Let me start off by saying,
[29:31] would you like to take a few moments to set the record straight and explain how HHS is strengthening
[29:37] measles prevention while rebuilding trust with patients and families? Thank you for that question,
[29:44] Madam Chairman. And this has become a talking point for Democrats that somehow I caused the measles
[29:51] epidemic. The measles epidemic started in January 2025 before I came into office. And most of the people,
[30:01] though almost most of the people who are affected are over five years old, meaning their decision to not
[30:08] vaccinate predated my appointment to this office. We had about 2,200 measles case last year. We've had
[30:18] 1,700 this year. This is not unique to the United States. This is a global outbreak. Mexico had three
[30:29] times the number of measles case that we did. We've done better than any country in the world at controlling
[30:34] the epidemic. Mexico has three times the number and it has one third of our population. Canada has twice
[30:44] the number and it has one eighth of our population. Europe had 33,000 cases last year and 127,000 the
[30:53] year before and they have one half of our population. The problem is not me. There are people in this country
[31:00] who do not vaccinate. The major outbreak was in the Mennonite population. The Mennonites have not
[31:07] vaccinated since 1796. That was long before I was born. I haven't been to these countries recently where
[31:16] the outbreaks have occurred. I will tell you one story. There were two little girls who died from
[31:21] measles during the Mennonite population. I went to the funeral service for one. I spent a day with the
[31:29] family of the other. Both of them said that when they showed up at the hospital, they were not
[31:34] offered real treatment. They were instead treated as pariah. They were shamed. They were isolated.
[31:44] And both of them believed that if their children had been properly treated, they would have lived.
[31:49] Their children had comorbidities. Their own doctors, their personal doctors, believed that children could
[31:55] have been saved. There's no child who should die in this country of measles.
[32:01] One of the things I've done since coming into office is to make sure that for people who do get
[32:07] measles, that they're treated decently, they're treated with compassion, and they're given the
[32:13] kind of treatments that exist that are given by other countries and are refused in this country
[32:19] because of the bias toward a vaccination-only policy. We need to treat people who get sick
[32:24] no matter what. They all should be treated with compassion.
[32:27] Well, I've always looked at, you can always, conventional and non-conventional medications
[32:33] or therapies coexist. And we've done it forever, and it should be up to the prerogative of the
[32:38] patient as to what they choose to do. I appreciated our recent discussion on expanding the therapeutic
[32:44] potential peptides, which are increasingly used across a range of clinical areas. And as FDA's pharmacy
[32:52] compounding advisory committee meets in the coming months, I believe it's important to ensure it
[32:56] includes practitioners with real-world compounding and patient care experience. And as policy evolves,
[33:03] we should also ensure reliable access to pharmaceutical-grade ingredients that manufacturers
[33:08] can scale for legitimate medical use. So will you work with me on those priorities, sir?
[33:14] Absolutely, Madam Chairman. And we just moved 14 peptides off of Category 2, where they were wrongly put there.
[33:25] Right. During the Biden administration, which created a huge black market in this country for research-grade peptides,
[33:32] which millions of Americans are using, they're coming from China, they're from uninspected labs. We need
[33:39] to bring it back into a real marketplace where legitimate, honest formulation pharmacies with integrity
[33:49] and ethics are formulating them for Americans. Thank you, sir. My time is up, so now I turn it over to
[33:56] Ranking Member DeGette for her five minutes of questions. Thank you, Madam. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Secretary,
[34:02] I spend a lot of my time here on this committee promoting maternal and child health, and I'm proud
[34:08] to have worked alongside my friends Buddy Carter, Robin Kelly, and Kat Kamek in a bipartisan way to get
[34:15] the Preventing Maternal Deaths Reauthorization Act signed into law just this February. I think I speak
[34:22] for all four of us, as well as the bill's other champions, when I say we're very proud of this
[34:27] legislation and the work HHS did to implement the original Preventing Maternal Deaths Act, which was
[34:33] passed under the first Trump administration. So because of the data collected by the Maternal
[34:40] Mortality Review Committees, we know 80% of maternal deaths are preventable, and we can direct resources
[34:48] into saving those moms and keeping those families whole. I think you would agree that that is useful data
[34:55] to have, correct? Yes, Madam Chairman. Thanks. And work fostered by HHS has also helped reduce
[35:03] infections in newborns, reduce preterm births, improve treatment for mothers with substance use
[35:09] disorders, and much, much more, which is, again, much needed progress. Wouldn't you agree, sir?
[35:15] Yes. Okay. Now, all those great initiatives are part of CDC's Safe Motherhood Program,
[35:22] which the Preventing Maternal Deaths Reauthorization Act reauthorized. So I have to ask you this. Are you
[35:30] aware, sir, that the fiscal year 2027 HHS budget, which you're testifying about here today, seeks the
[35:38] elimination, not the restructuring, not the relocation, but the elimination of CDC's Safe Motherhood Program?
[35:47] Can I reply to that? Yeah. Are you aware that you're seeking to eliminate that
[35:54] program? Yes. Okay. It's also my understanding that this administration is prioritizing, quote,
[36:01] family formation. Is that correct? Prioritizing what? Sorry? I didn't hear what she said. The
[36:10] administration is is prioritizing, quote, family formation. Is that correct? That's what that's
[36:20] that's the words of the agency. Family formation? Uh-huh. I can tell you what we're doing. Okay.
[36:26] I'm internal health. Well, so your agency says family formation is a priority. Wouldn't you say it
[36:32] should be a priority to make pregnancy and childbirth safer and improve outcomes for all moms and babies?
[36:39] It is a priority, and we're doing more on that than any administration in history. Okay, so your answer is,
[36:43] your answer is yes. Now the fiscal year 2027 HHS budget also seeks to eliminate the title 10 family
[36:52] planning program. Title 10 provides more than 2 million low-income people access to critical services
[36:59] like contraceptive care, helping people have kids or not have kids as safely and on their own time.
[37:05] Contraceptive care, as defined in HHS's regulations, includes things like birth control pills, IUDs,
[37:14] implants, and condoms. Mr. Secretary, are you aware that 8 in 10 women of reproductive age have used some
[37:22] kind of contraception in the last year? As I said- No, are you aware that these people have used
[37:29] contraception in the last year? Yes. This administration has done more for maternal health and- Okay,
[37:35] are you aware that 8 in 10 women of reproductive age have used contraception in the last year? Yes or no?
[37:44] As I said, we are doing more for maternal health. You don't know. Are you aware that nearly a third
[37:49] use it for medical purposes other than preventing pregnancy? Yes or no? If you care about the outcome
[37:57] of maternal health, you should be supporting what we're doing. Okay, so you don't know. Are you aware
[38:03] that every dollar invested in family planning saves the public over $7? We had 42 maternal health
[38:14] programs- So you don't know. So I want to ask you something right now, and this is really important.
[38:20] Will you commit right now before the American people that HHS, under your leadership, will not take any
[38:29] action that will limit people for the birth control method of their choice? Yes or no? As I said,
[38:41] we have done more for maternal health than any administration in our history. We have one program,
[38:47] the perinatal pilot program, that has already dropped maternal health deaths by 42% and 225- Okay, I only have
[38:56] six seconds left. Let the record reflect the Secretary refuses to tell the American women whether he will
[39:05] let poor women use the contraception method of their choice. And let the record also reflect it is 2026,
[39:13] Madam Chair. I yield back. Gentle lady yields back and I now recognize the chairman of the full committee,
[39:21] Representative Guthrie for his five minutes. Thanks, Mr. Secretary, over here in the corner. When we
[39:27] reformed Medicaid in the working family tax cut, we wanted to make sure that people that were ineligible,
[39:34] illegal, and able to work, work. And so Medicaid served people it was intended to serve. We also
[39:40] knew that states were creating their own financing system to essentially draw down federal dollars
[39:45] without putting their money in which of the program was supposed to. We reformed that, but we knew that
[39:50] as states had to reform the way they do that, it was going to- we wanted to have a specific focus to give
[39:55] them money to focus specifically on rural hospitals. And so the Rural Transformation Fund, can you talk
[40:01] about your experience of the agency and administering the Rural Transformation Fund and what are you most
[40:06] excited about that you've seen implemented? Yeah, you know, we have a crisis now in rural healthcare.
[40:13] Urban hospitals by and large are doing very well. Rural hospitals are- there's an epidemic of closures.
[40:21] We've lost 120 rural hospitals since 2010, and that pace was accelerating when I came into this job.
[40:31] Under President Trump's leadership, we put the largest investment in rural health in American history.
[40:38] Typically Medicaid pays about seven percent of its funds to rural hospitals and rural areas. And
[40:48] it's about 20 billion dollars a year. So we're increasing that amount by 10 billion dollars a year.
[40:57] So it's a 50 percent increase to rural hospitals to help transform them, help them rebuild infrastructure
[41:04] to recruit and retain workers, bring in technology, AI, and telehealth to completely transform rural health.
[41:15] So we're actually spending more on rural hospitals. I just got a couple more questions I want to get to.
[41:20] So in waste fraud and abuse, we've had criticism that we wanted people to make sure they were
[41:26] eligible to be on the program more than once a year. Now that we're seeing waste fraud and abuse in
[41:31] Minneapolis, other places, not just in Medicaid, but home health and others in California.
[41:36] What has surprised you about what you've seen in the waste fraud and abuse? And what more do we need
[41:41] to be doing to deal with it? What's the most shocking thing you've seen?
[41:46] I mean, the most shocking thing to me was the Biden administration opening the door of waste,
[41:53] fraud, and abuse. They implemented a new program called Pay and Chase, where we have to pay people.
[42:00] We've ended this. We pay claims that we know to be fraudulent. And that's what they did during the
[42:06] Biden administration. And then go and try to claw back that money, which never happens.
[42:12] Another thing they did was we had a program integrity office that were 80 people in it,
[42:17] which was not enough to cover 50 states and six territories. They fired immediately all but six
[42:23] of them. So we have no program integrity department. They instructed people in my office that they
[42:31] should not be doing program integrity, that they could only validate enrollments, the legitimacy of
[42:37] enrollments once a year, and that there was no pre-validation to them signing up. So they were
[42:45] just inviting people onto the roles we found. I mean, as you know, you pointed out in Minnesota,
[42:53] or this analytical, behavioral analysis, the ABA therapy, people with high school diplomas and nothing
[43:03] else, were being paid $600 an hour. We went from paying $7 million a year for autism services in
[43:13] Minneapolis to $200 million a year. And most of that was stolen. In Florida, the durable medical
[43:22] equipment, we found one hotel with 129 rooms and every one of them was a durable medical equipment
[43:28] company. None of them had ever sold durable medical equipment. We were just paying their bills.
[43:34] Well, thanks, thanks for working. I do want to have one more and we're going to work together on
[43:38] that. So on competing against China, our pharmaceutical industry is the number one in the world.
[43:43] We know China has targeted to become the number one producer of cutting edge therapies. They've
[43:49] increased by 20% in 2025. What is the HHS and particularly the FDA focused on to make sure
[43:56] we stay ahead of China and pharmaceutical research in production?
[44:00] China is now eating our lunch. They got more drugs approved last year. 50% of the drugs that were
[44:07] approved in the world were approved in China. They went from running 3% of clinical trials to running
[44:13] 30% and Australia is taking about the same amount. Oh, we are losing scientists, we're losing our IPs,
[44:21] we're losing physicians, we're losing the best researchers, and we're going to lose our biosecurity.
[44:27] I only have a few, so what do we need to do? We're doing it right now. We are fast-tracking
[44:35] approvals now in our country at record levels. This year we approved 67 new drugs, 39 metal,
[44:43] all of these are records, 39 medical devices, 91 generic drugs. We are reducing the clinical trials
[44:50] from two trials to one trial where appropriate. We are fast-tracking approvals so companies can get them.
[44:57] We just approved the two fastest drugs in history, two oncology drugs, one in 45 days, the other in 55
[45:04] days. We'll continue to work. My time has expired. I know the Chair is about to gavel me down,
[45:08] so I appreciate it. We'll continue to work together. I'll gavel you down, Chairman.
[45:13] I now recognize the ranking member of the full committee for his five minutes of questions,
[45:18] Representative Pallone. Thank you, Madam Chair. Secretary Kennedy, I'm shaking my head because
[45:23] you mentioned President Kennedy. I went with my dad to work on his campaign, and we worked on your
[45:32] dad's campaign for president, but these guys were tough. I remember during the Cuban Missile Crisis
[45:39] when President Kennedy forced Khrushchev to back down. He was a tough guy, but at the same time,
[45:46] he was determined to help the little guy. We talk about President Johnson and the Great Society, but
[45:52] most of those initiatives, Great Society initiatives, started under President Kennedy. Johnson continued
[45:58] them. But we don't have a strong president now. We have a weak president. Trump lets Russia and China
[46:05] walk all over us. You mentioned yourself that China's eating our lunch. You know, and President
[46:11] Trump doesn't care about the little guy. He just cares about billionaires, about corporate interests.
[46:17] On April 1st, President Trump actually stated, and I quote, it's not possible for us to take care of daycare,
[46:24] Medicaid, Medicare. They can do it on a state basis. You can't do it on a federal basis. We have to take
[46:31] care of one thing, one thing, military protection. So my question is, do you know what Trump's reckless
[46:39] illegal war with Iran is costing us right now? Do you have any idea? Frank, I remember when you
[46:47] were the champion. All right, I'm not going to get into it because you're not going to answer
[46:51] the question. As of April 10th, the American Enterprise Institute estimated the incremental cost
[47:03] of the war at between 25 and 35 billion dollars. And it has been reported that the Pentagon has
[47:10] submitted a 200 billion dollar war supplemental spending request to the White House in anticipation
[47:15] of sharing it with Congress ahead of another likely reconciliation bill. So I have a question.
[47:20] Secretary Kennedy, do you believe that further cuts to health care programs, including Medicare,
[47:26] Medicaid, and the ACA are necessary in order to pay for Trump's ongoing war with Iran? Yes or no?
[47:33] There's no cut to Medicaid. Oh, okay. So are you going to commit, Mr. Secretary,
[47:39] we're increasing Medicaid spending by 47% over 10 years. How is that a cut? You will commit here today
[47:46] that you will oppose any cuts to federal health care programs to fund the ongoing war with Iran.
[47:53] Will you commit to that? We are not cutting Medicaid. We're not cutting Medicaid. You said that,
[47:57] and it is not true. Okay, let's say, let's forget about the past. Will you commit to
[48:02] oppose any cuts to federal health care programs to fund the ongoing war with Iran in the future?
[48:08] Forget the past. Frankly, you know, I want to talk to you about what you said about my family.
[48:13] You know, let me just say, it would cost to provide two years of funding for the enhanced tax credits,
[48:20] so families can afford their insurance premium, which is, you know, which this administration and
[48:25] congressional Republicans have refused to extend. For two years of that funding, let me just give you
[48:32] some statistics about how this compares. The fact is, extending the enhanced premium tax credit for
[48:37] two years will cost a fraction of the cost of the Iran war, just over a quarter of that supplemental funding
[48:44] request that we expect to come from the Pentagon. So you can argue all you like, but the reality is that
[48:50] this administration and congressional Republicans are making a choice, the choice to fund another
[48:55] endless war that is only raising prices for working families when they could be helping millions of
[49:00] American families here at home afford the health care that they need. But what concerns me the most is
[49:06] not only that we've had these trillions, this trillion dollars worth of cuts under the big ugly bill,
[49:11] and that all our hospitals are suffering, and that people can't afford their health insurance,
[49:16] but the administration dares to come forward and say even with all that we're going to do more
[49:22] reconciliation with more cuts to health care, and says that the reason that we're doing this is
[49:28] because we have to pay for this ongoing war in Iran. It is simply not acceptable to do that,
[49:35] and I don't want to keep bringing back, you know, President Kennedy, but the bottom line is that
[49:40] President Kennedy, who you mentioned, you know, I wouldn't have brought it up, but you brought it up,
[49:45] he was tough on Russia. He believed strongly in a strong military, but at the same time,
[49:53] he wanted to help the average person. He wanted to, you know, provide better health care. He wanted
[49:59] to provide housing. He wanted to provide help for people who were suffering. He was concerned about
[50:05] poverty and started the war against poverty, but this president doesn't want to do that. He just wants to
[50:11] fight wars, and he says blatantly, he doesn't care about the little guy. He doesn't care about,
[50:17] you know, their concerns. So with that, I yield back, Madam Chair. Mr. Pallone yields back, and I
[50:24] remind the witness that you need to call the members by their appropriate title. Excuse me?
[50:30] You need to to call the members by their appropriate title, sir. Oh, I apologize for that,
[50:36] Congressman Pallone. Thank you, sir. I know you know him as Frank. I know him as Frank,
[50:42] but we have to call him. I have a long history with the Congressman, so we were on first name basis
[50:47] for most of our careers. It's easy to mess up. I know. I call our Chairman Brent for heaven's sakes.
[50:53] I apologize for that. Okay. Thank you, sir. I now recognize Representative Bill Arrakas for his five
[51:00] minutes. Thank you. Good morning, Secretary Kennedy. Thank you for being here and for your work making
[51:08] America healthy again. We appreciate it so much. As you know, rare disease innovation is a key
[51:14] priority area for me. Last year with HHS support, Congress reauthorized the FDA pediatric
[51:22] priority review voucher program, a critical incentive for rare disease companies to develop
[51:28] pediatric treatments. I was pleased to see a legislative proposal on the president's budget
[51:34] this year to make the PRV program permanent. And I look forward to working with you on this
[51:41] proposal that will bring stability to the rare community. So thank you very much for that.
[51:48] First question, rare disease advocates were also encouraged to see the additional,
[51:54] the addition of two conditions to the recommended universal screening panel for heritable screen
[52:01] against newborn screening. What will the process look like for adding new conditions to the newborn screening
[52:09] panel moving forward? We added two new diseases, metachromatic leukodystrophy and Duquesne's
[52:22] micro-dystrophy to the panel. We intend to add a lot more of those diseases. In addition to that,
[52:29] we have a new initiative called the plausible mechanism pathway that will facilitate, quickly facilitate,
[52:38] new drugs getting to market, new rare disease drugs without going through clinical trials of a similar
[52:44] molecule has already gone through the process and there's a plausible mechanism for approval. In addition
[52:52] to that, we have a rare pediatric priority review voucher that is going to, again, facilitate quick approval
[53:04] of rare disease drugs. So this is a center focus at FDA right now. We're doing more than any administration
[53:11] has done in history. And I appreciate that. I look forward to working with you on that. Also, I appreciate
[53:17] your efforts on chronic and age-related diseases that impact my constituents and, of course, millions
[53:23] of Americans. According to a recent report by the Michael J. Fox Foundation, the federal government
[53:29] spent more than $25 billion on care in one year for Parkinson's disease and related conditions,
[53:37] and these costs are only increasing, as you know. We must do more to understand why so many Americans are
[53:45] diagnosed with neurodegenerative diseases. Question number two. Secretary Kennedy, research increasingly
[53:53] shows a link between environmental toxins and neurodegenerative diseases. A 2025 study found that living within
[54:04] one mile of a golf course is associated with 126 percent increased risk of developing Parkinson's disease
[54:14] due to high pesticide use. With recent new initiatives at CDC on toxins, do you see an opportunity for HHS
[54:24] to further engage on this potential link between toxins and neurodegenerative diseases?
[54:30] Yeah, we are, you know, we should know the answers to these. It's really regulatory
[54:35] malpractice that we do not already know the answer to that question, but there was a taboo
[54:40] taboo against, before I came into this office, there was a taboo against allowing studies of
[54:50] environmental exposures that might put to disadvantage the mercantile ambitions of certain industries,
[54:59] and we have ended that taboo. We are studying these issues specifically, the links between
[55:05] environmental exposures and neurodegenerative diseases, neurodevelopmental diseases at NIH,
[55:13] and I hope by the end of my term we'll have a lot of those answers.
[55:17] Very good, thank you. Again, thank you. I'm proud to co-lead a bill called the Healthy Brains Act
[55:25] that would create a center for collaboration on this exact issue at NIH,
[55:31] and would welcome the opportunity to work with you. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and I want to give you
[55:35] a couple seconds. I have about 25 seconds to respond to Mr. Pallone.
[55:41] Yeah, I mean, Congressman Pallone unfavorably compared the political courage of my family to me,
[55:50] but I was with Congressman Pallone in the early 2000s when he was the champion in this body for people
[55:58] who had vaccine injuries, and suddenly he did a 180 when the pharmaceutical industry of New Jersey
[56:07] turned him around, and that was a template. Oh, and you know you are, and he has never said a word
[56:16] about it since, and the mothers have not been able to get into his door.
[56:21] Madam Mayor, I would ask you to instruct this witness not to impugn the motives of the members
[56:28] of this committee. But I had my own impugn. Excuse me, as he tried to do the last time he
[56:33] was in front of this committee, Madam Chair. Well, it's best for everybody to just simmer down,
[56:38] and let's try not to talk about the witnesses or the members. So I recognize Dr. Ruiz
[56:46] for his five minutes of questioning. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, do you approve of President Trump's
[56:53] nomination for Dr. Erica Schwartz to be the next CDC director? Yes, I do. So you agree with him? Yes.
[57:02] Were you consulted? Yes. Great. Did you speak to the President directly about this choice
[57:09] before she was nominated? Did you speak with the President before her nomination about her?
[57:21] We were the ones who sent her nomination to the White House. So, but did you speak,
[57:25] did you speak to the President? I have not spoken to the President directly, but my staff,
[57:32] Chris Klomp, spoke directly to the President. All right. So you didn't speak with the President
[57:36] about a major decision that they were all going to make that you, on an agency that you oversee.
[57:45] Did you speak with Erica Schwartz prior to her nomination to vet her? Yeah, on multiple occasions. Great.
[57:53] And have you spoken with her since? Yes, I have. Did you vet her positions on vaccines? I did.
[58:01] Okay. Well, here, let me remind you what she said about vaccines. Quote,
[58:06] when I was a military physician, my job was all about readiness. It was all about public health,
[58:11] prevention, vaccines, early detection. If we get that right, we change lives before illness ever begins.
[58:19] It was all about vaccines. And if we get that right, we can change lives. So this runs contrary
[58:29] to your dangerous anti-vaccine crusade, Mr. Secretary. These questions are important because you fired
[58:36] the last CDC director, Susan Monarez, because she refused to, quote, give blanket approval, unquote,
[58:43] and rubber stamp your efforts to dismantle the childhood vaccination schedule without any
[58:49] scientific evidence to do so. Remember that? That's not true. Well, it's what was reporting
[58:54] was she testified in front of the Senate. Yeah, but what she testified to was not true.
[58:58] But you dismantled the program, replaced the ASAP board with anti-vaxxers anyway, things that she said
[59:05] you were going to do and you did it. So when we talk about truth and who is being honest, I would trust
[59:11] her because that's what you did, even though you were denied to Senator Cassidy, that you wouldn't
[59:17] do that. Mr. Secretary. I had a very good reason for firing her. So let me ask you a question.
[59:23] Because you and her have very different opinions on vaccines, did you change your views on vaccines?
[59:28] You want a soundbite or do you want to have a discussion? Because what you're saying is absolutely
[59:33] wrong. What you have demonstrated throughout your entire time as secretary is the dismantling of the
[59:39] childhood vaccination programs that has been detrimental to our nation and puts our nation
[59:45] at risks of getting more communicable diseases, which has been shown through the flu, through the
[59:50] measles. Those cases have been rising, Mr. Secretary. I'm putting a billion dollars.
[59:55] Do you agree with Dr. Schwartz and her vaccine position? I'm putting a billion dollars.
[1:00:00] No, Mr. Secretary, if Dr. Schwartz is confirmed, will you commit on the record today to implement
[1:00:06] whatever vaccine guidance she issues without interference? I'm not going to make that kind
[1:00:11] of commitment. Because you probably won't. You'll probably fire her as well as you did
[1:00:16] Director Mournares because you will not you will not accept the recommendations based on science.
[1:00:23] You're getting your soundbite, but you're not getting it. It has been reported by Bloomberg that the
[1:00:28] President and the White House have sidelined you. They've benched you because you are making the
[1:00:34] President look bad. Are you aware of that? That's not true. How does that make you feel,
[1:00:40] Mr. Secretary? You must be aware of that. I mean, it must be nerve wrecking, especially after
[1:00:47] A.G. Fondy, especially after A.G. Fondy and Secretaries Noam and Chavez de Rimmer got fired for
[1:00:54] making the President look bad. You see, I think the reporting is correct, Mr. Secretary. You're just
[1:01:00] making stuff up. You're making the President look bad, especially before the midterms elections.
[1:01:05] You talk publicly about snorting cocaine off a toilet bowl seat. Your words, not mine. You said
[1:01:12] that if you were President, you would quote unquote reparent black children. Again, in other words,
[1:01:17] taking them away from their parents. Your words, not mine. Furthermore, the American people think your
[1:01:24] anti-vaccination crusade is too extreme. A KFF polling shows that 55 percent of the Americans
[1:01:32] disapprove, with 37 percent strongly disapprove of your work, Mr. Secretary. 56 percent have little to
[1:01:40] no confidence. The majority have little to no confidence in your work with vaccines. And you keep
[1:01:47] losing. Americans are sicker now more than ever. Measles cases were up to 2,288 in 2025, more than
[1:01:55] the previous year. This year is going to be worse with cases already at 1,748. So, Mr. Secretary,
[1:02:03] you should resign for your dangerous dismantling of our public's health and before the President fires
[1:02:09] you too. And when you do get fired, don't say I didn't tell you. Member's time is up. Member's time is up.
[1:02:14] And I want to remind the members, too, that we can't badger the witness and say these specific
[1:02:24] things we may have read in the paper. So now I recognize— Wait, wait, wait. I'm sorry.
[1:02:28] Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. It's my turn. Patty Carter from the state of Georgia.
[1:02:32] Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here today. And thank your staff for being here. And thank you for
[1:02:36] your efforts that you are making—that you are in trying to make America healthier. Mr. Chairman—or
[1:02:43] Mr. Secretary, I apologize. Mr. Secretary, you—do you have anything you want to respond to? I want
[1:02:48] to give you some time if you want to respond to anything. I also respond by saying a couple of
[1:02:54] things. One is I'm not anti-vax. I've never been anti-vax. I'm putting a billion dollars into vaccine
[1:03:01] research right now at NIH and NCI. If I was anti-vax, I wouldn't be doing that. We're developing a universal flu
[1:03:11] vaccine and we're developing cancer vaccines. I don't believe all vaccines are bad. I've never
[1:03:17] said that. What I've said is they should be safety tested. None of the 92 vaccines, with one exception,
[1:03:24] none of the 92 doses of the 18 vaccines now given to our kids has ever gone through a randomized controlled
[1:03:33] placebo trial. No other medication would be able to do that. And all I'm saying is we should know a
[1:03:39] risk profile so that we can inform parents. I fired Susan Minares because I asked her an outright
[1:03:47] question, are you trustworthy? And she said no. And I said, can I trust you? And she said no. That's why
[1:03:55] she got fired, not because of her vaccine issues. I really had nothing to do with that.
[1:04:01] Okay. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Mr. Secretary, I want to talk about the budget. I think that's why you're here,
[1:04:07] is to talk about the budget and I appreciate it very much. One of the things that, and as you know,
[1:04:12] I'm the oldest pharmacist in Congress and Representative, Chairperson Harsberger is the
[1:04:18] youngest. But nevertheless, I've seen a lot of these federal programs in my practice of pharmacy over
[1:04:23] the years and the policies that are implemented. And I've seen them misaligned. And one of them that I'm
[1:04:30] particularly interested in is the 340B program. I am not trying to end the 340B program. But I think
[1:04:37] it has evolved into something it was never intended to be. It was intended to be for the rural hospitals,
[1:04:42] for the FQHCs, and it has evolved into something much more than that. And I'm interested. I've got
[1:04:48] legislation to call for more transparency in 340B. But I wanted to ask you, what kind of reforms is the
[1:04:57] agency looking at to try to reform the 340B program? Well, and you're right in the way that you
[1:05:04] characterize it. Originally, it was intended for rural hospitals to look for patient populations
[1:05:11] who couldn't afford medicine, to lower the cost of medicine for those hospitals. And it was mandatory.
[1:05:17] Originally, there were 90 facilities, 90 different entities in the program. Today, there's 12,000,
[1:05:26] with about 60,000 outpatient offices. And it has become a boondoggle. We saw in one situation in
[1:05:36] Virginia, a hospital in Virginia, that was taking the discount from the pharmacy drugs and selling them
[1:05:45] at list price to the patients, using the profits from that to build a hospital in an affluent area in
[1:05:53] Virginia. It's exactly the opposite of one. And I could tell you horror stories about it all day.
[1:05:59] Absolutely. There are a lot of good things about 340B. It's absolutely critical. I couldn't agree more.
[1:06:05] Many functions. We need congressional help, because the change has got to be statutory. And we want to
[1:06:13] work with you to figure out the best way to read. Well, we're trying to give you that congressional
[1:06:17] help. Let me assure you of that. But you know, it's even worse than what people think, because not
[1:06:22] only is it being, has it prolificated into something that it was never intended to be,
[1:06:27] but also it's leading to consolidation in health care, which is leading to higher costs in health
[1:06:32] care. There are health care systems that are buying oncology practices for no other reason,
[1:06:37] but to get the pricing of 340B. And then the hospitals have become so dependent on it. And I get it,
[1:06:44] but I can't help them if they are masking costs by using that program. And if I can't see those other
[1:06:52] costs, I can't help them with that cost. And that's exactly what they're doing. And that's why we're
[1:06:57] trying to reform the program, to make it better for who it was intended to be for, for the rural
[1:07:02] hospitals and for the 340Bs. I want to make sure, or for the FQHCs, excuse me. I want to make sure that I
[1:07:10] get to this real quickly. And that is the streamlining the regulatory process and trying
[1:07:16] to give additional investments in domestic manufacturing. Can you tell me real quickly
[1:07:20] what the agency is trying to do there? For manufacturing? For just regulatory process
[1:07:28] and trying to support additional investments in domestic manufacturing. In pharmaceutical
[1:07:36] manufacturing? Yes. Yes. For drugs. Absolutely. Yeah. I mean, we're putting in, um, through the
[1:07:42] MFN agreements, the companies that, the 16 companies that negotiated with us, almost all, all of them have
[1:07:51] agreed to reassure their pharmaceutical production. So we're seeing huge, vast investments now in
[1:07:57] pharmaceutical production. In addition to that, my agency's putting in 325 million dollars
[1:08:04] dollars, who attached to the strategic national stockpile to reassure API manufacturing in this
[1:08:13] country. Good. Thank you for your efforts, Mr. Secretary. We have a pandemic that we don't, you know,
[1:08:18] have these supply chain difficulties that we have. Okay. The member. Right. Thank you for your efforts.
[1:08:23] I now recognize Representative Dingell for her five minutes of questions. Thank you, Madam Chair.
[1:08:29] Mr. Secretary, my concern is that under the current leadership at HHS, and quite frankly,
[1:08:35] out of the White House, America is grappling with an unprecedented destruction, destruction of
[1:08:41] our public health infrastructure. You talked about measles. Other people have talked about measles.
[1:08:47] We eliminated them. The United States announced they were eliminated in the year 2000. I'm one of
[1:08:53] the counties that has an outbreak. Mine's like March. Eliminating. We let in 2000, we said we had
[1:09:00] eliminated measles in this country. It's back. You acknowledged it. Others have 3,000 cases in the last
[1:09:07] few months. Every patient, every child with measles should be treated with compassion. But I had seven
[1:09:14] cases just in the last couple of weeks in my county, and they've been, the contagious spots have been
[1:09:20] grocery stores and colleges. You can't stop it. I've met with the family in one of them, and I said,
[1:09:27] why didn't you get immunized? And they said, we're listening to our government. Our government tells
[1:09:34] us not to. So you may think that you're pro-vaccine, but people aren't hearing that. And I'm talking to
[1:09:41] the people that are actually sick right now. So that's what's worrying me. And you're hiring people that
[1:09:50] are vaccine-skeptic health appointees, and they are spreading, quite frankly, lies about vaccine
[1:09:56] safety. And now polio is coming back. That's why I'm worried. While Americans are continuing to get
[1:10:04] sick, the Trump administration is cutting staff and funding for public health efforts at critical
[1:10:10] agencies. And not only are we seeing measles and polio come back, the chaos at NIH is also doing long-term
[1:10:18] damage to the future of health research in America. I agree with you when you say that researchers are
[1:10:24] going overseas. I've met with these kids. They are being recruited. We are losing a generation of
[1:10:32] researchers. And they're headed to other countries, including bad actors with big wallets, where they
[1:10:38] can count unstable funding. That got called into the University of Michigan by the chairs, who just,
[1:10:44] and I find you've been wonderful at HHS last year, giving them this year, they don't know what the
[1:10:51] hell's going to happen. Kids have said to me, we're leaving. We can't count on it. I say, please stay.
[1:10:57] So do you believe that the U.S. should remain a global leader in health research? Yes or no?
[1:11:03] What was the question? Do you believe that the U.S. should remain a global leader in health research?
[1:11:09] Yes or no? Can I answer some of the misstatements you made about measles?
[1:11:16] My time is short, but it's a document. In fact, the U.S. said it was eliminated in 2000.
[1:11:21] We eliminated it. Europe eliminated it. Canada, and now guess what? Canada has lost its elimination
[1:11:29] status. England has lost its elimination status. All across Europe, they've lost their elimination
[1:11:34] status. It has nothing to do with me. It has to do that we have a global epidemic. If you're asking why
[1:11:40] people stop vaccinating, it's because the government lied to them during COVID. That's when the
[1:11:45] vaccinations rates dropped, because if you're worried about polio and tuberculosis, you should
[1:11:51] look at the immigration policies in this country, because the place where it's occurring are the
[1:11:56] place where the immigrants are going, because they're not vaccinated, and they got tuberculosis.
[1:12:01] A lot of people have stopped getting vaccines, and I can't agree with you on that, but I'm getting low on
[1:12:07] time. And another thing I'm very worried about is your agency rescinded a rule implementing minimum
[1:12:15] staffing standard in nursing homes. This rule would have saved lives.
[1:12:18] Minimum what? I couldn't hear what you said. Minimum.
[1:12:21] Your agency rescinded a rule implementing a minimum staffing standard in nursing homes.
[1:12:27] This rule would have saved lives, improved care, and strengthened the nursing home workforce.
[1:12:33] The rule is not going to be implemented until 2035, providing nursing homes a decade. What plan
[1:12:40] does your agency have to address the staffing crisis in nursing homes? That rule was putting out of
[1:12:46] business thousands of nursing homes in rural areas in this country who could not meet the federal
[1:12:52] standard. And people were dying because there wasn't enough care in those nursing homes, and I've met with
[1:12:57] families whose people died. They were dying because they had to move to city nursing homes with the family
[1:13:02] and couldn't visit them anymore. You have to have a standard that there are enough people to take
[1:13:08] care of people that are in those nursing homes. Let me ask you a question. The New York Times reported
[1:13:15] that several nursing home CEOs got paid $2.1 million to have lunch with President Trump at Mar-a-Lago and
[1:13:22] urged him to rescind the minimum staffing rules. Weeks later, he put that out. Did the president talk to you?
[1:13:29] Was there any connection? Was there? Did the president talk to me about what?
[1:13:34] The gentleman's time is up, and you can answer that via written notice.
[1:13:38] I'm having trouble hearing that voice.
[1:13:42] I now recognize Dr. Joyce for his five minutes of questioning.
[1:13:47] First of all, Secretary Kennedy, I want to thank you for appearing here today, and thank you for your
[1:13:51] leadership and the concrete steps that you have taken to root out the fraud, hold bad actors accountable,
[1:13:58] and improve access to care and training for new physicians. Your leadership in the fraud space,
[1:14:05] including the CRUSH initiative and RFI, pose an opportunity to fundamentally change how we approach
[1:14:12] these fraudsters who prey on the government, and they prey on government programs to divert
[1:14:18] precious government funding away from true areas of need. Moving away from the current model of pay first,
[1:14:25] attempt to recover later, which you mentioned in your statement is very difficult to recover any of
[1:14:30] that funding, to a real-time detection model will enable government to stop payments before they're
[1:14:36] even made, which will lead to billions of dollars in annual savings. And that's what this hearing is
[1:14:42] all about, and I congratulate you for that aggressive stance. Last year, you also acted on bad actors in the
[1:14:50] Oregon procurement space, leading to the first-ever mid-contract decertification of an OPO. Like you,
[1:14:58] I share concerns that more needs to be done in this space and look forward to partnering with you and
[1:15:03] Administrator Oz to address any additional authorities required from Congress. Finally, I am encouraged as a
[1:15:11] physician to the recent announcement that 53 medical schools are now committing to at least 40 hours of
[1:15:18] nutrition education as part of their curriculum. I did four years of medical school. I did six years of
[1:15:24] postgraduate studies. I had zero hours in nutrition training. It is so important that you've addressed
[1:15:32] this, and I would encourage all medical schools, not just the 53 that have made that commitment, all to
[1:15:38] participate and provide that training for our future doctors. In your testimony, you mentioned affordability
[1:15:45] and actions that you and this administration have taken to lower costs. In our previous hearings on
[1:15:50] this subject at this committee, one of the biggest issues driving higher costs is the issue of hospital
[1:15:56] consolidation. Secretary Kennedy, independent physician practices are disappearing, in part due to
[1:16:03] hospital systems offering compensation arrangements that may exceed fair market value and are not commercially
[1:16:10] reasonable. In 2020, CMS made it clear through rulemaking that physician compensation must meet
[1:16:17] standards for fair market value and commercial reasonableness under the Stark Law. This is a growing
[1:16:24] concern that these standards are not being properly enforced, particularly in hospital hiring practices
[1:16:31] that may be declining to the independent physician hospitals and independent physician practices. What is HHS doing to ensure
[1:16:40] that these standards under the Stark Law are enforced? First of all, thank you for raising
[1:16:45] that issue. And one of the ways that we've tried to address this is through reforming the site neutrality rule
[1:16:53] so that hospitals in rural areas are not getting paid less and that the compensation is not less for the doctors in those areas.
[1:17:05] In terms of investigating that particular fraud, I'm happy to work with your office and with Dr. Oz to make sure
[1:17:14] that we're targeting it along the long list among the long list of other things that we're doing to combat fraud.
[1:17:20] Thank you for that commitment. I look forward to working with you and Dr. Oz on that issue.
[1:17:25] Another issue of concern lead to more independent practices closing or selling into hospital systems
[1:17:31] is the recent reimbursement reductions impacting radiation therapy and oncology. As you know,
[1:17:37] radiation therapy is a key part of cancer care and requires significant capital investment, advanced
[1:17:44] technology, and highly specific clinical staff. Abrupt reductions in reimbursement threaten the financial
[1:17:51] viability of community-based radiation oncology practices and freestanding radiation facilities.
[1:17:58] I plan on sending a letter to this on this subject to Administrator Oz. Will you commit to look into
[1:18:03] this issue with us as well to work for a potential solution? Absolutely. Those offices are critical
[1:18:10] again, particularly in rural areas, isolated areas of the country. In the remaining seconds, are there any
[1:18:17] additional issues with the barrage of questions that you've been posed by the other side without adequate
[1:18:22] time to answer? Is there anything that you would like to comment to the committee at large here today?
[1:18:27] I mean, you know, I would say this. People said that I'm breaking the health care system. The health
[1:18:35] care system was broken when I got here. We spend 48 cents out of every dollar that Americans pay in taxes
[1:18:42] that federal government is going to health care. 90% of that's going to chronic disease. That's if you
[1:18:47] include my agency, the Department of Defense and Social Security. Our lifespan is plummeting.
[1:18:54] Okay. Our witness's time is up, but we are going to take a short five-minute recess and we'll come
[1:19:02] back and resume the hearing as soon as that recess is up. Five minutes. Thank you. Thank you. I will
[1:22:49] recognize Ms. Kelly for her five minutes of questions. Thank you, Madam Chair and ranking member.
[1:22:56] Secretary Kennedy, when you appeared before this committee in June 2025, the big ugly bill had not yet
[1:23:03] been enacted, but you claimed that your department would not be cutting Medicaid. You said, and I quote,
[1:23:09] we're not cutting Medicaid. There are no cuts to Medicaid despite active plans underway to dramatically
[1:23:16] change the program and severely reduce federal funding to states. You have actually repeated that
[1:23:21] today. And I just want a yes or no. Is it still your position that a $900 billion reduction in federal
[1:23:29] Medicaid funding to states is not a cut? Yes or no? Yes or no? Can you just tell me yes or no? That would
[1:23:43] only be a cut in Washington, D.C. A 47% increase in spending. How is that a cut? I just want you to say yes or no.
[1:23:52] That's all. So you're saying it's not a cut? It's a 47% increase. Okay. Next question. Did your
[1:24:01] department find $900 billion worth of fraud in Medicaid to justify? Excuse me? Did your department
[1:24:09] find $900 billion worth of fraud in Medicaid to justify these cuts that you're saying? There's been no cuts.
[1:24:17] Did you find $900 billion in fraud? There is no cut to Medicaid. There's a lot of Medicaid fraud. There
[1:24:25] were millions of people on Medicaid. There were 3.7 million people who were who were getting Medicaid
[1:24:32] in two states or they're getting Medicaid and Obamacare at the same time. And there were a million
[1:24:38] illegal immigrants on Medicaid. So that's fraud. We're getting rid of those people. But you're not
[1:24:44] cutting Medicaid. Medicaid is increasing. Next question. Do you have any evidence to justify
[1:24:51] eliminating the funding for critical programs like CDC's Safe Motherhood Initiative? You talked about
[1:24:57] maternal mortality, which is a devastating problem in the United States. We had. Do you have evidence to
[1:25:04] justify eliminating the funding for that critical program? Yes or no? We had 27 maternal mortality programs.
[1:25:15] We consolidated them. We're doing more on maternal mortality. I know. I can show you the data than
[1:25:21] any administration in the history. You don't have to show me the data. I'm the one that brought the
[1:25:25] issue to Congress. Yeah, I'm happy to. So you're saying you eliminated the program because you're merging
[1:25:30] programs. We eliminated programs that were duplicative or or redundant. We are laser focused. We're serving
[1:25:40] 59 million women. Still too many women are dying and definitely too many black women are dying. And that
[1:25:48] is not getting better. Yeah, it is getting better. No, no, no, it's not. Look at our. The national
[1:25:54] average. Look at our perinatal. Black women are three to one in Chicago. It's higher than that in a lot of
[1:26:00] places. Our programs are making it better. Retaking my time, please. The American people are not
[1:26:07] falling for what you're saying. Your attacks on minority health, women's health, LGBTQ plus health,
[1:26:12] and basic preventative medicine through illegal funding freezes and mass firings will lead to
[1:26:18] decades of consequences for all Americans. We're already seeing hospital closures, a reduction in
[1:26:25] services and staffing cuts. For example, a 28-bed obstetric obstetrics unit in Elk Grove Village,
[1:26:32] which is not rural, earlier this year. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to enter, or Ms. Chairman, a Newsweek article
[1:26:39] about the closure into the record, as well as a report from Energy and Commerces and Senate Finance
[1:26:45] that document dozens of similar stories throughout the country. Without objection, so ordered. Labor and
[1:26:52] delivery units and maternity care are some of the most vulnerable health care services to funding cuts,
[1:26:58] which means pregnant and postpartum women must drive further to seek care. Change providers when
[1:27:04] clinics and hospitals close and face longer wait times and more risks in the case of an emergency.
[1:27:11] Secretary, are you concerned by these closures, particularly in rural and low-income parts of the
[1:27:17] country, but not just in those parts of the country, because my district is urban, suburban,
[1:27:21] rural, and I've seen the effects? We're putting more money into improving access in rural health care
[1:27:31] than any administration in history. I don't know about that. It's $50 billion. It's never been done
[1:27:39] before. Before my time closes, you talked about, you know, food, and there's approximately 150,000
[1:27:50] people in Illinois that may lose their food because of the snaps to cut, and you talk about eat real
[1:27:56] food, not medicine. Real food is expensive, and when you, when all those snap cuts that have already
[1:28:02] happened and will continue to happen, it'll be really hard for people to stay healthy. I yield back.
[1:28:07] General Lady's time's up, and I recognize Mr. Balderson for his five minutes of questions.
[1:28:12] Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here today.
[1:28:15] My first question, Mr. Secretary, is the budget for 2027 proposal centers around promoting the
[1:28:24] health and wellness of every American through the reduction of chronic disease burdens. How
[1:28:29] does the department see wearable technologies contributing to earlier detection and prevention
[1:28:34] strategies? It's a key part of our response, and I'll give you an example. Glucose meters can tell
[1:28:44] you while you are eating, while you are chewing on the food, what it's doing to your insulin levels,
[1:28:50] what you're, to your glu, if you're, it's causing your glucose to spike. People who wear those
[1:28:56] glucose meters for even three or four weeks change their diet. It has a dramatic impact because now
[1:29:03] they know they can eat certain things. They may be buying a yogurt thinking it's healthy, and they'll see
[1:29:09] that their glucose spikes. It gives them insight into the healthcare, and it can also mesh with their
[1:29:17] personal health records, so it can help them. Now there are apps that can look at their personal health
[1:29:23] records, look at the feedback from their wearable, and tell them how to shop. Tell them that item is good for you,
[1:29:30] this item is not, and then here's some alternatives. Oh, it can revolutionize chronic disease prevention in this country.
[1:29:38] I agree, sir. Follow up to that, are there policy barriers Congress should consider addressing to
[1:29:44] support the responsible adoption of wearable devices? I mean, the more that, Congress can do a lot more
[1:29:54] than we can, and I would love to work with you on proposals for what Congress could be doing to
[1:30:02] incentivize the use of wearables. Okay, thank you, sir. Look forward to that. We are in a new era of
[1:30:08] Alzheimer's treatment and innovation, yet only half of Americans living with Alzheimer's are diagnosed,
[1:30:15] and many primary care providers report they do not feel prepared to manage dementia care,
[1:30:21] even though they make about 85 percent of initial diagnosis. How important is it to ensure that
[1:30:27] federal investments in research and chronic disease innovation translate into stronger detection and
[1:30:33] diagnosis and primary care, and how will you prioritize that effort? Well, it's absolutely critical,
[1:30:43] because there are, we now know there are, that early treatment of Alzheimer's can
[1:30:50] postpone its onset, and you know, it's almost, it's again kind of regulatory malpractice that we do not
[1:30:59] have early screening already, and one of the things that we're working on right now is to reform the
[1:31:10] United States, the United States Preventative Service Task Force, and we will be putting in the
[1:31:18] Federal Register this week solicitations for new members of that task force. That task force has been
[1:31:26] lackadaisical. It's not been doing its job. If it had been doing its job, we would have early screening for
[1:31:32] Alzheimer's. Okay, thank you. In Ohio, many community health centers report difficulty recruiting behavioral
[1:31:39] health providers and primary care clinicians. How does this budget strengthen the pipeline of
[1:31:44] providers serving health professional shortage areas? Well, first of all, I would point to the
[1:31:51] to the Rural Health Transformation Fund, which a lot of the states, when they filled out their
[1:31:59] applications, included the retention of workers. In addition, so there's going to be a lot of money going
[1:32:09] into that recruitment and retention. We also just put in $135 million to community health services,
[1:32:17] or to community health organizations, to community health centers, which treat about 32 million Americans,
[1:32:27] and they're by far the best facilities for treatment of Americans for preventative care and for, you know,
[1:32:36] 24-hour care, and they're mainly targeted to poorer Americans. We put $135 million into that for nutrition,
[1:32:45] to improve nutrition in them, but also for retention of workers. We're also expanding GME, general medical
[1:32:52] education, so that to increase rural residencies, we know that when doctors train in rural areas,
[1:32:59] about 30 percent of them end up staying there. The more doctors, the more residencies we can get funded
[1:33:06] in rural areas, the more doctors we're going to have. Thank you. Madam Chair, I use that. Thank you, Mr.
[1:33:12] Secretary. The gentleman yields back and I recognize Representative Baragon for her five minutes of
[1:33:17] questions. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I want to bring something to your attention since you just
[1:33:21] brought up glucose meters. I'm not sure if you're aware, but if you're a patient that's on Medicaid
[1:33:27] and Medicare, the U.S. Health System will not cover the glucose meters unless your A1C is so bad,
[1:33:34] like over eight, before they will cover that. So you talk about preventive care and making sure we
[1:33:40] invest in preventive care. I didn't hear what you said. Okay. They won't cover it unless what?
[1:33:45] Unless your A1C, your sugar lever is so high, like over eight, that they will cover it. In other words,
[1:33:53] there's no investment in preventive care. It's only you're so bad, then we're going to cover the
[1:33:57] glucose meter. Oh, that's not right. And I'm just telling you this because I hope you will go fix it.
[1:34:02] This happened to my mother. Her A1C got over eight. They gave her the glucose meter. As soon as she got under
[1:34:07] eight, they said, we're not going to cover anymore. We're going to take it away. That's the opposite
[1:34:11] of preventive care. I hope you're going to fix it. I don't want your comment because I just mentioned
[1:34:18] it because you brought up glucose meters. I will follow up with your office.
[1:34:21] You follow up with my office? I would like to solve that problem.
[1:34:24] Thank you. I'm happy to work with you.
[1:34:26] I appreciate that. Now, do you think women should have access to birth control pills?
[1:34:31] Birth control pills? Yes.
[1:34:34] I assume that they do.
[1:34:37] No. Do you think that women should have access to birth control pills? Should they have access?
[1:34:43] Birth control pills? Yes.
[1:34:45] Then why eliminate Title X funding from the budget? That would make it harder for women
[1:34:53] to have access to birth control pills and the contraception of their choice.
[1:34:57] I am sorry that I can't talk about that because that case is under litigation.
[1:35:04] Okay. Well, you're here to talk about the budget,
[1:35:07] and this is an elimination of the budget of Title X. You just said that women should be entitled to
[1:35:12] birth control. By the way, I agree with you. I agree with you. And I can tell you, surely you
[1:35:19] know how common, either from personal experience or men you know, will ask women before sex,
[1:35:26] how are you on the pill? I mean, that's a common question. Why do you think they're asking? It's because
[1:35:32] of family planning or unwanted pregnancies. So I'm really disappointed that you are here to testify
[1:35:39] about the budget, yet you will not talk about this issue. This is an elimination of Title X funding,
[1:35:47] which is directly to birth control pills. So I will move on. I want to thank you for last year,
[1:35:55] when you came before this committee, I asked you about Alzheimer's research funding. You followed up with
[1:36:00] me in your letter. In the letter, you said, as the global, and this is a quote, as the global leader
[1:36:07] in research on Alzheimer's disease and Alzheimer's related dementias, the Department of Health and Human
[1:36:12] Services considers funding this research area a high priority. So you said it was a high priority,
[1:36:20] yet your budget proposes a $312 million cut to the National Institute of Aging,
[1:36:29] which does research on Alzheimer's disease research centers. Do you think that's consistent,
[1:36:39] Mr. Secretary? We are putting a lot of money into Alzheimer's research, a very, very high priority
[1:36:47] at NIH and at the CDC. Okay, so you know, you use the words regulatory malpractice when you talked about
[1:36:55] Alzheimer's research a moment ago with my Republican colleague. I'll just say that I think this is also
[1:37:00] a malpractice. On the one hand, you say this is a high priority. On the other hand, you're cutting
[1:37:08] $312 million in research funding to the Alzheimer's disease research centers. Mr. Secretary, last week,
[1:37:18] you spoke about Medicaid programs that allow family members to care for their parents at home,
[1:37:23] and you testified, and I'm quoting you, these are family members who are getting paid to do things
[1:37:29] they used to do as family members for free, end quote. Okay, you said this, do you remember saying this?
[1:37:37] I couldn't hear what you said. It seems, ranking member, that most of our time is being taken on,
[1:37:45] what the secretary cannot hear, and I would suggest that you add time, because it's,
[1:37:51] I could tell you, 30 seconds in the last one, just when he can't hear, and I am trying to speak slowly
[1:37:58] and articulately. Last week, you testified for Medicaid programs that allow family members to care
[1:38:06] for their parents at home. You said that family members who are getting paid to do, they're getting
[1:38:12] paid now to do things that they used to do for free. Do you remember that? Yes. Right. So are you suggesting
[1:38:18] women should quit their jobs to provide free care for their family members who are elderly,
[1:38:24] instead of getting in-home care? I said that in the context that that kind of program
[1:38:30] is significantly vulnerable to fraud, which is impossible to detect. Okay. And that program has
[1:38:38] doubled the cost of Medicaid over the past four years. Member's time is up, sir. Member's time is up,
[1:38:45] and I now recognize Dr. Miller-Meeks for her five minutes of questioning.
[1:38:51] Thank you, Ms. Chairman, and thank you, Secretary Kennedy, for testifying before the health subcommittee
[1:38:56] today. As our time is limited, I'll jump in, but perhaps I can give you a chance to respond.
[1:39:02] Mr. Secretary, I have a bill on oral contraception over the counter. I introduced this bill as a state
[1:39:09] senator in 2019. This is something we've been working on in Congress. There are several bills on this.
[1:39:14] In response to the question from my colleague on the other side of the aisle, whether or not you
[1:39:19] support oral contraception for women, would oral contraception over the counter be something you
[1:39:24] would support, which would increase access? Yes. Thank you, sir. I'd also like to bring your
[1:39:30] attention to one of my bills, the Welfare Abuse Laundering Zillions, which you just mentioned fraud,
[1:39:35] or WALDS Act, legislation designed to stop large-scale welfare fraud and restore accountability to
[1:39:40] government programs nationwide. Specifically, this bill would require HHS Office of Inspector General to
[1:39:47] open investigations into any program that sees a 10% or greater increase in total payments over a
[1:39:54] six-month period within a fiscal year. Under the bill, HHS would no longer have discretion to ignore
[1:40:00] sudden increases in billing that critics often signal fraud schemes, particularly in large entitlement
[1:40:08] programs, such as a rapid increase in the billing for autism services. My staff, along with the Energy
[1:40:14] and Commerce Committee, have been working with HHS OIG to ensure the bill has stringent guardrails in
[1:40:20] place to prevent the level of negligence and fraud uncovered in Minnesota, California, and Washington
[1:40:26] from happening again. Would you be supportive of something like my bill, the WALDS Act, and commit to
[1:40:32] providing technical assistance? I think the bill is a great idea. I would look at the details and work with
[1:40:38] you on it at HHS, but I think it's it would have prevented a lot of the fraud that we've seen in the
[1:40:44] last four years. I also want to thank you for your leadership on the Maha Initiative because as a physician
[1:40:53] and a former nurse and someone who represents a largely rural district in southeast Iowa, I've seen firsthand how health is
[1:41:00] shaped long before a patient ever walks into a clinic. The Maha movement rightly emphasizes better nutrition,
[1:41:06] chronic disease prevention, and improving the quality of our food supply. So from changing the food
[1:41:12] pyramid to encouraging nutrition, I just wanted to say that I did not have any nutrition education in
[1:41:18] medical school. It came in nursing school prior to medical school, and I think that your advocacy for
[1:41:25] nutrition education in medical school is worthwhile. There are several bills in Congress for nutrition
[1:41:32] education in medical school. Would this be something that you'd support? Absolutely, and I point out that
[1:41:40] many of the states now, over 50 of the states, have now passed laws requiring for continuing medical
[1:41:48] education that the curriculum includes nutrition. So, you know, the more the doctors know about the
[1:41:57] nutrition, the healthier our people are going to be. I think your leadership has helped to spur that
[1:42:03] that movement. I also want to highlight the great work done by Congressional Republicans and HHS for
[1:42:10] delivering the largest federal investment in rural health care in American history through the Rural Health
[1:42:15] Transformation Program, and I heard you mention that earlier. I've hosted three round tables in the
[1:42:20] past year in my district with all our hospitals, meeting with hospital leaders and FQHCs and community
[1:42:27] health centers, and advocating at the federal level to ensure Iowa is prioritized for this historic
[1:42:33] investment. And in fact, Iowa is the first state to disperse funds related to the rural health care
[1:42:39] transformation legislation. Congratulations. During my last round table earlier this month, hospital
[1:42:47] leaders brought up a few questions of eligible expenses under the rural health care transformation
[1:42:53] grant. And you just mentioned about workforce. So one of the questions that was brought up
[1:42:59] was recruitment is extraordinarily difficult in rural communities. And I had one of our hospital systems
[1:43:05] had to pay a recruitment bonus of $200,000 for an OB-GYN. And so would this be something where there
[1:43:11] could be flexibility in the grant program to allow some of the workforce funds to be utilized for
[1:43:17] recruitment bonuses? You mean under the rural transformation? I do not know the answer to that
[1:43:25] question, but I will get it from Dr. Oz and get back to you. Thank you, sir. And then lastly,
[1:43:31] I just wanted to say that affordability is an issue that all of us are looking at, including you, which
[1:43:36] is why tackling waste, fraud and abuse in the system is so important. I've introduced the lower
[1:43:41] health care premiums for all Americas Act, which passed the House in December of 2025. The bill takes
[1:43:47] a targeted approach to lowering premiums. And I would certainly want to partner with HHS as my times
[1:43:53] expired, but hope to partner with you on lowering health care premiums for all Americans. I look forward to
[1:43:59] it. I yield back. As a gentleman yields back and I now recognize Dr. Schreier for her five minutes
[1:44:05] of questions. Secretary Kennedy, last week you testified that newborns should only get the
[1:44:12] hepatitis B vaccine at birth if their moms test positive or haven't been tested. This is a massive
[1:44:19] departure from a 35-year recommendation for all babies to get the vaccine at birth. Secretary Kennedy,
[1:44:26] how often does that test miss hepatitis B in moms who actually have it? How often? How often does
[1:44:33] that test make a mistake? It makes some mistakes. I'm not sure what the error rate is. It's a really
[1:44:43] important piece of data. It's not a perfect test. It turns out there's a false negative rate of one to
[1:44:48] two percent. And that might be enough for screening the general population, but not when a baby's life is
[1:44:54] at risk. And so let me just translate. That means if there's a hundred moms out there with hepatitis B,
[1:45:01] two of them are going to be told that they don't have it. Their children will not be vaccinated
[1:45:06] based on your recommendations. And then there's a 90 percent chance that those two children will end
[1:45:12] up getting chronic hepatitis B. Mr. Secretary, do you know what happens when you get chronic hepatitis B?
[1:45:17] I do. I also know that the death rate in children was practically zero for hepatitis B prior to the
[1:45:26] introduction of the vaccine. So it's interesting to say that because generally speaking what happens
[1:45:31] with these children is that they don't they don't die as children but they can spread hepatitis B to
[1:45:37] other other people. But they go on later in life to get cirrhosis of the liver and liver cancer and they
[1:45:43] might need liver transplants and they die prematurely when they are younger in adulthood. And so you're
[1:45:50] basically sentencing thousands of kids to a terrible chronic illness that you want to prevent
[1:45:56] for no reason. At the same time you're suggesting to parents that there's something wrong with the
[1:46:01] vaccine, that it might not be safe because after all why not just give them to every child and not have
[1:46:06] anybody fall through the cracks. That's your underlying message. Now there's another shot that babies get at
[1:46:10] birth, it's vitamin K and it prevents catastrophic brain bleeds. And now that you've made parents
[1:46:16] distrust doctors and shots, some parents are now refusing the vitamin K shot and other routine care,
[1:46:22] putting these babies at risk for bleeding out. This has a name, it's called the RFK Junior Spillover
[1:46:29] Effect. You spread misinformation, you scare parents and confuse them, parents don't immunize their children
[1:46:35] or give them other routine care. And then the kids get sick and they might even die. And right now,
[1:46:42] Secretary Kennedy, given what I just told you about vitamin K, will you just tell pregnant women out
[1:46:47] there for the record, yes, you should get your babies the vitamin K shot? Well, first of all,
[1:46:53] anybody can get a hepatitis B shot and have their insurance company paid for it. Secretary, the point
[1:47:00] is that you're discouraging it, you're suggesting it's unsafe. This is what parents are hearing.
[1:47:05] Why else all of a sudden are parents saying no to vitamin K? Will you just tell them for the record,
[1:47:11] there's women out there delivering today, that they should get the vitamin K shot for their babies?
[1:47:16] Are you saying the hepatitis B shot? No, I'm saying vitamin K. Should baby, should women allow their babies
[1:47:24] to get the vitamin K shot so they do not have brain bleeds? You know, I would refer that to FDA
[1:47:28] and to the Furback panel. The FDA has approved it. It was a, it is a recommendation, but parents
[1:47:35] are listening to you and they are doubting science. Well, I've never said anything about vitamin K,
[1:47:39] so I don't see how they're listening to me on it. I've never said anything about it.
[1:47:44] You have not. But also point out that there is no vitamin B shot in Denmark and they have the same
[1:47:50] rate, I mean, hepatitis B. Sir, I'm taking back my time. They have the same rate of hepatitis B as we do.
[1:47:55] Sir, this is about vitamin K. It is a spillover effect, just like measles vaccines and pertussis
[1:48:02] vaccine. I've never, I've never said anything public about it. So you saying that women are listening
[1:48:07] I'm going to move on, Mr. Secretary. You are putting our country in a position where
[1:48:13] I've never said, literally never said anything about it. That's exactly the point. You don't say anything
[1:48:19] about it. But the doubt you've created about all of medicine and science is causing parents
[1:48:25] to make dangerous decisions. Are you saying we changed the recommendations? Mr. Secretary,
[1:48:31] I'm reclaiming my time. The last time we spoke, I told you I would hold you accountable for every
[1:48:37] vaccine preventable illness and death in this country. And now I have to add newborns bleeding out
[1:48:42] because these same parents who are listening to you are not giving their babies the vitamin K shot and
[1:48:47] your reckless policies. This is going to be your legacy. The HHS secretary that caused kids to die.
[1:48:56] Your secretary of HHS, your job is to protect us and you are putting kids in danger. And I believe
[1:49:01] you should resign or you should be fired. I yield back.
[1:49:04] Generality yields back and I now recognize Representative Kemic for her five minutes questions.
[1:49:11] Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And thank you, Secretary Kennedy for appearing before us today.
[1:49:19] I am going to try very hard to resist responding to what I just heard. But I do want to just say
[1:49:29] thank you for actually trusting moms to make the best decisions for themselves and their families,
[1:49:35] rather than continuing to perpetuate the narrative that only bureaucrats in Washington
[1:49:40] can make recommendations and force people into doing things that they know is not best for them
[1:49:50] and their children. As we review the fiscal year 27 budget, Secretary Kennedy, I think it's important
[1:49:55] that we focus not just on how much we are spending, but whether or not we're actually improving health
[1:50:01] outcomes for the American people. Now too often we say that we have a health care system, but I personally
[1:50:06] believe that we have a sick care system. And we have a culture that perpetuates a system of maintenance
[1:50:13] rather than prevention. And I think much of what your initiatives do is trying to address the cultural
[1:50:19] issue as well as the structural issues within HHS. So I appreciate the administration's focus on
[1:50:25] prevention, nutrition, innovation, and I look forward to continuing the discussion on how this budget can
[1:50:31] move us in that direction while improving access and lowering costs. So recently we hosted Dr. Bhattacharya
[1:50:38] in the Gator Nation, North Florida, and I would like to extend a similar invitation to you to learn more
[1:50:45] about what we are doing at the University of Florida, the number one public university in the country.
[1:50:52] I would be remiss if I didn't mention that. But what we are doing, particularly in the health care space and
[1:50:57] within R&D to advance better outcomes and health care discoveries. So we would welcome the opportunity
[1:51:04] to host you. I would love to come. My sister-in-law teaches at the University of Florida. My wife's
[1:51:11] family lives there and my wife is an alumni, so I'd be delighted to come. Can I get a Go Gators from you then?
[1:51:19] Yeah. Okay. Go Gator. All right, that's what I'm talking about. So let's talk about
[1:51:26] the spending and whether our federal health spending through HHS is actually changing outcomes and not
[1:51:34] just maintaining the status quo. Walk us through some of the challenges that you're facing and how
[1:51:39] we can be helpful in advancing those changes that really disrupt the status quo and drive us towards
[1:51:45] better health outcomes. I mean, I would say there's the whole waste fraud and abuse issue that you're
[1:51:53] familiar with, so I won't dwell on that, but I would say the overarching issue that we're trying to
[1:52:04] create is the perverse incentives. We have a sick care system where people get compensated more for
[1:52:11] keeping patients sick. And, you know, Medicare Advantage was supposed to be the template for
[1:52:18] outcome-based care. We have other templates for outcome-based care. The whole system ultimately
[1:52:25] has to be moved to that. E-for-Services is not a way that we're going to get Americans healthy.
[1:52:32] We need to align the economic incentives with the outcome of good health for all Americans.
[1:52:39] Absolutely. I agree. And to that point, we've seen the use of QALYs, right,
[1:52:45] that has been prohibited when we talk about Medicare because they undervalue the lives of our seniors and
[1:52:53] people with disabilities and chronic conditions. That's just fundamentally wrong, in my opinion,
[1:52:57] to have an algorithm, a formula determine whether or not you are of value enough to receive certain
[1:53:04] treatments. So as we're going through this, can you confirm that HHS will continue to uphold this
[1:53:11] safeguard and ensure that coverage and payment decisions are not based on discriminatory measures
[1:53:17] like QALYs? And would you be willing to work with us to extend and clarify this protection across
[1:53:23] all of the federal health programs? I would be delighted to work with you on that. Excellent.
[1:53:29] I know people around the country are celebrating that answer for sure. And shifting a little bit to
[1:53:34] the FDA, while I've got some remaining time here, I would like to hear about how you guys are
[1:53:40] improving the clarity and predictability in FDA as you review different applications. That's something
[1:53:48] that I hear often, particularly from startups, of the process. It's still bogged down. We need to move
[1:53:53] faster. Can you just talk a little bit about that? The process at FDA for approving... Correct.
[1:54:01] New drugs. Well, we're now using AI. Ninety percent of FDA is on it. Using it, we've been able to
[1:54:13] to condense the time for reviewing the final applications from typically 60 to 90 days to two hours.
[1:54:22] Member's time is up, and you can answer her question via written circumstances. And I now recognize
[1:54:30] Representative Trahan for her five minutes of questioning. Thank you, Madam Chair.
[1:54:33] Secretary Kennedy, since day one of your administration, the Department of Health and Human
[1:54:38] Services has made it much harder for Americans to enroll in health coverage and afford their health
[1:54:44] care. Americans are currently experiencing an accessibility and affordability crisis in our
[1:54:50] country due to the Trump administration's actions. Now, before President Trump came into office,
[1:54:56] a record-breaking 24 million Americans were enrolled in health care coverage through the ACA marketplace.
[1:55:04] Millions of families were saving thousands of dollars each year in premiums. Secretary Kennedy,
[1:55:10] you're aware that at least 1.2 million Americans have lost ACA marketplace coverage this year under your
[1:55:18] leadership. Yes or no? They were people... The only people who lost coverage were people
[1:55:24] who were never entitled to coverage. Yeah, no, I've heard the... I've heard the illegal aliens...
[1:55:32] Not just illegal aliens. Yeah, look, that's not how the law works, and I would expect you to know that.
[1:55:35] People who were dead. Undocumented immigrants aren't eligible to enroll in the ACA marketplace at all.
[1:55:39] People who were dead. People who were enrolled in two states. They wouldn't be reflected in the 1.2 million.
[1:55:44] They wouldn't be reflected in that number. So don't offend us by... No, I didn't mention illegal aliens,
[1:55:50] although that is part of the issue. People... We've found 3.7 million people who were double enrolled.
[1:55:59] Okay, I know. It's all fraud, waste, and abuse, even though that we know the paperwork that you're
[1:56:03] now putting on more people are causing them to drop their insurance coverage. And the price of premiums
[1:56:09] has gone up so much that eligible Americans are dropping coverage because they can't afford it anymore.
[1:56:16] And I'd like to enter into the record the 2026 marketplace open enrollment public use files.
[1:56:24] Further, that doesn't even tell the entire story. We're seeing growing evidence that many Americans
[1:56:28] have gone through the process of selecting coverage, but they never actually receive it because they
[1:56:34] can't afford to activate their plans. Independent analysis of 2026 insurer data suggests that roughly 3
[1:56:41] million Americans who selected marketplace plans have never paid their first month's premium and never
[1:56:48] actually got covered. Mr. Secretary, do higher premiums lead to fewer insured Americans, yes or no?
[1:56:54] Eighty-seven percent of the people who are on the exchanges now are paying less than $96 a month.
[1:57:01] You can't make... 54 percent are paying 50 percent.
[1:57:04] No, I'm reclaiming my time. The question is simple. If people can't afford their premiums,
[1:57:08] do they... or does that lead to more insurance of Americans or less?
[1:57:12] Like I said, the Democrats had a chance to expand Obamacare three times.
[1:57:17] Yeah, I know. I've heard the blame Biden too. It's a common theme with all of you. Look,
[1:57:22] when coverage becomes unaffordable, healthier people are often the first to drop it, leaving
[1:57:28] behind a smaller, sicker group of people who need more care. That's what insurance call a risk pool.
[1:57:35] Now, if that risk pool gets sicker, premiums go up, right, Ms. Secretary?
[1:57:39] Yeah, of course. Yes. So nothing about your agency's
[1:57:43] harsh policies, including the $1 trillion cut to Medicaid, reduces...
[1:57:47] There's been no cuts to Medicaid. I know. No, it's no cuts. That's...
[1:57:50] There's no cuts to Medicaid. That trillion-dollar cut, it doesn't reduce the number of strokes,
[1:57:58] heart attacks, cancer diagnoses, or car accidents. So what your policies do mean is that more people
[1:58:05] will show up in emergency departments without appropriate coverage. And when that happens,
[1:58:11] the cost doesn't disappear, does it, Mr. Secretary? It shows up in uncompensated care, which experts have
[1:58:16] shown is often shifted onto insured patients through higher premiums and out-of-pocket costs.
[1:58:24] When hospitals treat more uninsured patients, Mr. Secretary, and they're not paid for that care,
[1:58:32] where do you think those costs go? There have been no cuts to Medicaid. Look
[1:58:36] at the Congressional Budget Office last week. Yeah, it's insulting that you would keep framing
[1:58:43] the increase in Medicaid costs as anything but increase in population growth and inflation. Look,
[1:58:49] we know that more paperwork, more eligibility checks, stricter reporting requirements, people
[1:58:55] lose coverage not because they're ineligible. It's because the system is harder to navigate.
[1:59:02] The downstream impact of this administration's policy is clear to everyone except, I guess, you.
[1:59:08] More uninsured patients means more strain on hospitals, fewer services, higher costs for everyone.
[1:59:15] It makes care more expensive, harder to access, and weakens our health care infrastructure.
[1:59:21] That's not making America healthy. And I've just sat here and listened to you.
[1:59:27] You managed to give a go Gators from the witness table, but not a go K shot.
[1:59:33] I mean, it's incredible that you are heading up as the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
[1:59:38] And I now recognize Representative James for his five minutes of questioning.
[1:59:46] Mr. Secretary, I want to thank you for your courage. As somebody who's a Democrat his entire life,
[1:59:51] in this time, what, two, three years ago, ran as a Democrat, now sitting here choosing the people
[1:59:56] over a party, I want to thank you for your courage and your leadership. Mr. Secretary,
[2:00:01] the Department of Health and Human Services issued a rule in 2020 requiring health care providers
[2:00:05] to clearly label prices so that patients can make informed decisions about where to get treated.
[2:00:11] Under the Biden administration, that rule was not enforced, sir. As a result,
[2:00:16] patients end up paying radically different prices for the exact same services and the exact same
[2:00:20] level of care. We're talking hundreds of thousands of dollars different. That's wrong. Dilbert cartoonist
[2:00:27] Scott Adams had a term for this kind of system, Confusopoly. He called it that because the friction
[2:00:32] makes it difficult to shop around by design. In 2025, President Trump issued an executive order to make
[2:00:39] America healthy again, which included an April 1st deadline for health care providers to comply with
[2:00:45] price transparency laws. Sir, that deadline was three weeks ago, and yet a third of hospitals in
[2:00:51] Michigan, and I have to imagine around the country, have not fully complied. A big part of the problem
[2:00:56] is that HHS does not have strong enough enforcement mechanisms. That's why I introduced Patients
[2:01:02] Deserved Price Act Act to require price transparency by law with consequences for health providers who
[2:01:09] continue to hide their prices from consumers. Mr. Secretary, will you support my efforts to lower prices
[2:01:17] and increase access, transparency, and quality of care for Americans who are struggling in today's
[2:01:23] sick care system in America? Yes, I thank you for that legislation. We have already finalized
[2:01:29] regulations that are now requiring all hospitals in the country to post and certify their prices.
[2:01:38] And so patients will be able to, if you go into a restaurant, you are able to see the price on the
[2:01:45] menu. If a car dealer told you, you can buy this car, but I'm not going to tell you the price afterward,
[2:01:53] you would not buy it. But that is what the hospitals are asking you to do. Thank you for increasing
[2:01:58] transparency. And we are changing that. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I would appreciate your support
[2:02:05] on making that permanent so that it cannot be ripped away from the American people after this
[2:02:10] administration's concluded. Happy to work with you. Thank you, sir. Mr. Secretary, ticks are becoming a
[2:02:16] bigger problem in Michigan and around the country. My wife and son have Lyme disease and other
[2:02:22] co-infections, but they don't show through standard antibody testing. If you have the ability to pay for
[2:02:27] a high cost test like Igenix, it shows the strains and confirms Bartonella and her red blood cells,
[2:02:33] and my son has Babesia and his red blood cells. We know that undiagnosed Lyme causes fatigue,
[2:02:39] autoimmune conditions, and neuropsychiatric issues in elderly and even schizophrenia in younger
[2:02:45] patients. We also know that with proper diagnosis, many of these symptoms can be treated and the
[2:02:50] disease reversed. My concern is that many Michiganders who are suffering from unexplained symptoms
[2:02:55] may think they've been tested for Lyme, when in reality, they have not because the standard test is not
[2:03:00] thorough enough. What can we do together to make sure that people are getting thorough and accurate
[2:03:06] testing for Lyme disease to stop these types of spreads, sir? Yeah, I mean, this is a priority for
[2:03:11] us, Congressman. Lyme disease has been a hidden disease because the government has been denying its
[2:03:18] existence. Prior to me getting in, heads of my agency, the leading heads of NIH, were telling the
[2:03:25] American people, it's a myth, it doesn't really exist. We've changed all that, we've conducted a Lyme
[2:03:32] roundtable with the best experts from around the country, many people from this body participated in
[2:03:38] it. We're putting, we put up a web page, I'm not sure if it's up yet, but it should be up so that
[2:03:45] people can find the best physicians for treating it. We're putting large amounts of money into Lyme research,
[2:03:54] and absolutely we should be doing pre-screening for people to see if they have it. So many millions
[2:04:01] and millions of Americans have this disease and don't know it, and it's absolutely debilitating to
[2:04:06] their lives. Mr. Secretary, in the time that I have remaining, are there any questions, comments,
[2:04:11] or concerns that you feel like you have not had the opportunity to address? I mean, I would say the
[2:04:17] same thing about long COVID, and we're addressing that too. We're getting the best physicians in the
[2:04:23] country together. We're identifying the treatments and the protocols that work, and those that don't,
[2:04:29] and we're giving patients for the first time good information about it. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for
[2:04:34] your leadership and your patriotism. God bless. With that, Madam Chair, I yield. Thank you. The
[2:04:40] representative gentleman yields back, and I now recognize Representative Beesey for his five minutes
[2:04:46] question. Thank you. Secretary Kennedy, I noticed something kind of funny today. You don't really want to
[2:04:53] talk about vaccines, and your written statement doesn't even mention vaccines once, which is odd,
[2:05:00] because you've basically spent your entire career and life trying to shatter American trust in vaccines.
[2:05:08] Under your leadership, we're in the midst of literally the worst measles outbreak this country
[2:05:12] has seen in over 30 years. And in my home state of Texas, we're ground zero. 92 percent of the over
[2:05:21] 3,600 cases we have seen are in unvaccinated people. And, Mr. Secretary, tragically, two Texas
[2:05:32] children have literally died from measles. If you look here at the poster that I have up, two Texas
[2:05:38] children have died from measles. And this is all under your watch, Mr. Secretary. I don't know why you
[2:05:43] won't look at the poster. This happened under your watch. That's not one of the children who died.
[2:05:48] Mr. Secretary, you are the author of a book in which you insisted that the measles outbreaks
[2:05:55] have been fabricated by government officials to create fear. And so here's my first question.
[2:06:00] Who in this administration should Texans blame for fabricating the deadly measles outbreak in our
[2:06:07] state? Did you? Well, let me take my time back. Four days ago, you told my colleague, Representative
[2:06:16] Susan Bonamici, that you, quote, have never been anti-vaccine. That's a ridiculous lie because
[2:06:24] you're probably the most anti-vax figure that I can remember in my lifetime. And in 2007, you found
[2:06:31] that the anti-vax group Children's Health Defense. In 2021, you were literally banned from Instagram
[2:06:39] because you said baseball legend Hank Aaron, an American icon and hero. You suggested that Hank Aaron
[2:06:46] died due to the COVID-19 vaccine. And in 2022, you compared vaccines to the Holocaust. And in 2022,
[2:06:55] you said, quote, there is no vaccine that is safe and effective. And just last year, you dismantled the
[2:07:03] Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and replaced independent scientists with anti-vax pseudoscientists
[2:07:09] who removed six vaccines from childhood, from the childhood vaccine schedule. And after an
[2:07:18] unvaccinated little girl died from measles in my home state, you told her father that, quote,
[2:07:23] you don't know what's in vaccines anymore. So I'm curious as to why such a vocal vaccine skeptic
[2:07:30] has all of a sudden gone silent on these issues. And secretary, I have a question for you. Please answer
[2:07:36] yes or no. Did Susie Wiles or anyone in the White House instruct you or suggest that you stopped
[2:07:44] talking about your controversial vaccine skepticism? No. Okay. It was reported late last year that
[2:07:52] Republican leaders were briefed on a memo that made it clear that anti-vax candidates would negatively
[2:08:00] impact their party's performance in the most competitive congressional districts in the upcoming
[2:08:04] 2026 midterms. I would like to enter this memo from the Republican polling firm, Fabrizio Ward,
[2:08:12] into the record, Madam Chairman. Without objection. Secretary Kennedy, were you made aware of this memo?
[2:08:21] Yes or no? It's a memo on a poll or what? Were you made aware of the Fabrizio Ward? I don't know what
[2:08:29] that memo is. Okay. Okay. Well, if you look here at chart five of this memo, it says that 70 percent of
[2:08:38] all voters do not think that the federal government should remove recommendations for childhood
[2:08:44] vaccines, including measles. Do you agree that the majority of American people oppose
[2:08:50] your anti-vax actions according to your own administration's internal polling? Yes or no?
[2:08:57] We've never removed recommendations for measles and I've never been anti-vaxing. Yes or no? Yes or no?
[2:09:03] I've never been anti-vax. Everything you said is a lie. I'm reclaiming my time. Conveniently,
[2:09:09] since the White House received this memo, it seems that you are miraculously no longer an anti-vaxxer.
[2:09:16] But the American people are not dumb, sir. The American people are not dumb. You and I both know
[2:09:21] what is going on here. You have absolutely not had a change of heart. You do not care about this child
[2:09:28] with this rash from measles on him and it took this polling, it literally took this polling
[2:09:35] to change your public posture about vaccines. This is real life, Mr. Secretary, and you have blood on
[2:09:42] your hands. I honestly hope that Donald Trump tells you to get to stepping next. I yield back my time.
[2:09:49] The gentleman yields back and I recognize Representative Bence for his five minutes of questioning.
[2:09:55] Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here today. The Wall Street Journal on
[2:10:01] April 12th, John C. Goodman wrote in the opinion page, Trump is making the best of Obamacare.
[2:10:07] And in that article, he talks about the 2027 ACA exchange rule, which would allow health insurers to
[2:10:15] offer non-network plans on market exchanges. Health insurers would be able to set reference prices.
[2:10:23] And actually, this is a really clever idea, and I'm just curious if you're thinking on it and if it's
[2:10:30] one of those things that someone has been trying to get in place for years. I happen to think it's
[2:10:35] excellent, but perhaps I'm wrong. What do you think? Can you just repeat the proposal?
[2:10:42] Yes. The idea is that a non-network plan on an exchange would be able to set reference prices.
[2:10:53] For example, you could say $30,000 for a knee replacement, and then the person who enjoys that
[2:11:01] insurance coverage could shop around and select other providers to do the work. They wouldn't be stuck
[2:11:09] inside the space that they might have been required to obtain the coverage from. It's very clever,
[2:11:16] and it suggests competition as opposed to being stuck someplace. But there's lots going on in this
[2:11:22] insurance space, so I would enjoy your thoughts. Yeah, I mean, that is President Trump's solution.
[2:11:29] We need markets. Markets bring down prices. And Congressman James just talked about price
[2:11:39] transparency. When we looked at pregnancy deliveries in New York, within a mile of New York, we found
[2:11:46] 30 hospitals. The lowest was $1,300. The highest was $22,000. The exact same procedure. In Detroit,
[2:11:54] it was $6,000 and $60,000. The reason you have that market chaos is because nobody can choose prices.
[2:12:02] The more that you inject imposed market disciplines on a market, the lower costs are going to go. It's
[2:12:08] ultimately the only way we're going to get health care causes down that and ending the chronic disease
[2:12:14] epidemic. Well, it seemed to me that in studying this situation, this kind of thinking is exactly
[2:12:20] what we need. Because when I go back to my district, the amount that people are paying for health
[2:12:26] insurance is through the roof. And so this kind of transparency is one step. I'm sure there are
[2:12:32] others, I think, in the budget. I note a few. Do you have, I think you've put in your testimony
[2:12:40] what you think would drive down prices. But perhaps you can share with us
[2:12:44] other ideas that will drive down prices. Just so I may share with you, one of my brothers is paying
[2:12:50] $26,000 a year for coverage with a $10,000, $13,000 deductible covering two people. So what in the world
[2:12:58] can I go back to him and say, hey, the administration is working on trying to drive these prices down?
[2:13:04] Yeah, I mean, we have literally dozens and dozens of programs and initiatives for driving prices down.
[2:13:13] The biggest one is ending the chronic disease epidemic. In 1960, when my uncle was president,
[2:13:18] we spent zero on chronic disease in this country. Now we spend about $4.3 trillion a year. And it is
[2:13:26] rising exponentially. So that's one issue that we are addressing for the first time in history.
[2:13:34] The drug pricing, the MFN, you know, we were paying the highest price in the world,
[2:13:40] 10 times in some cases, what Europeans were spending for the exact same price that was made in a factory
[2:13:46] in New Jersey. And now we're paying the lowest prices in the world. The cost sharing, which is
[2:13:56] the president's proposal will lower costs, will lower premiums by 10%. And then I'm sorry, just
[2:14:18] price transparency. Obviously, if we have markets going to drive down prices, the wage fraud and
[2:14:23] abuse, which is costing us $100 billion a year, that will drive down prices, ending up coding and
[2:14:31] Medicaid, which we are finally doing. We're the first administration that's ever doing it.
[2:14:35] That will lower prices. And then cleaning up the risk pool, cleaning up people who don't belong on
[2:14:42] Medicaid or Medicare or in the exchanges. You know, when you do that, you improve the risk pool. So
[2:14:49] that's going to lower prices and all of those things and many, many others are being done by this
[2:14:54] administration. Happy to hear it. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Yield back. Thank you, gentlemen,
[2:15:00] yields back. And I recognize Representative Fletcher for her five minutes of questions.
[2:15:04] Thank you, Chairwoman. Secretary Kennedy, the last time you sat before this committee
[2:15:10] last June, I expressed to you my concerns about the funding cuts to medical research. And I know many of
[2:15:18] many people across the country share these concerns. I represent a lot of people who do,
[2:15:24] and a lot of them do this work in medical research at the Texas Medical Center in Houston,
[2:15:29] the largest medical complex in the world. And in response last year, you told me,
[2:15:35] it's not our intention to cut critical research. We need to keep America as the hub of this critical
[2:15:40] research. And yet for the past year, I've continued to hear from these medical professionals about their
[2:15:46] serious concerns to the cuts that this administration has made to scientific research. And the United States
[2:15:53] has long held the well earned position of the world leader in cutting edge scientific research and
[2:15:59] innovation. But the cuts that this administration has made and is proposing to make in the budget that
[2:16:06] you are here to support to our institutions, especially to the National Institutes of Health,
[2:16:12] they're threatening the United States position as a leader in this research. So I have a few questions.
[2:16:17] I know you had a conversation about this with Mr. Guthrie and with Chairman Guthrie and it,
[2:16:22] it prompted some more questions. So I want to ask, first of all, do you know how many jobs NIH
[2:16:27] funding supported in fiscal year 2025 across the country? I think it was, well, jobs, you mean
[2:16:35] supported? Jobs, research, supported jobs for researchers
[2:16:40] through NIH grants and funding. Were researchers or internal NIH funding? Not internal NIH funding,
[2:16:48] but the NIH grant funding process and supports jobs across the country in all kinds of medical
[2:16:56] research. Do you know how many jobs the funding coming from NIH? I think there were something like
[2:17:01] 62,000 grants. So there could be entire research teams on each of those. There are research teams. The
[2:17:07] answer is 391,000 American jobs are supported by this NIH funding. And so, you know, more than 80%
[2:17:15] of NIH's budget supports these cutting edge research grants through a competitive, merit-based process
[2:17:24] that annually awards, as you said, more than 300,000 researchers at more than 2,500 universities,
[2:17:31] medical schools, and institutions in all 50 states. So it's concerning to me that the fiscal year 2027
[2:17:39] budget requests that we're talking about today renews the prior push to cap indirect costs at 15%
[2:17:47] and doesn't address the significant funding delays that we talked about earlier at NIH. At the same time
[2:17:55] that the U.S. is cutting funding for research, other countries are investing in research. And for example,
[2:18:01] as you discussed with Chairman Guthrie, China has made no secret of its ambition to dominate biomedical
[2:18:08] research. I believe you testified earlier, I made a note, you said China's eating our lunch.
[2:18:13] And China is graduating more STEM PhDs than any other country, dramatically increasing state
[2:18:19] investment in biomedical research infrastructure. And Secretary Kennedy, do you understand that cutting
[2:18:26] federally funded research, as this budget does, will seed U.S. leadership on biomedical research to
[2:18:35] China and create national security and global competitiveness challenges for the United States?
[2:18:41] You want me to answer that question? Yes, please. You want me to give a thoughtful answer to that
[2:18:45] question? I would like an answer to the question. I share your concerns. We still pay for almost 80%
[2:18:52] of the biomedical research on earth at NIH, much more than any other country does. I don't want to cut NIH
[2:19:00] programs. Russ Vogt doesn't want to cut NIH programs, but we have a $39 trillion debt. We've been asked to
[2:19:08] cut across the board at HHS 12% of our $111 billion budget. And so we're making cuts that are painful.
[2:19:17] Some of those are going to be to NIH, but I can also say that NIH is funding a lot of crazy stuff.
[2:19:23] I do appreciate. I have limited time, so if you want to elaborate on that, I ask you to do it in writing.
[2:19:28] I do want to ask a couple of other questions, because in addition to the cuts, there are also
[2:19:34] just delays. And in response to Chairman Guthrie's question about what to do about some of these
[2:19:39] issues and competitiveness, you said we're doing it. But in the first 13 months of the administration,
[2:19:45] do you know how many notice of funding opportunities were issued compared to 2024?
[2:19:50] We're not going to have time for you to answer unless you know it off the top of your head.
[2:19:52] But I will tell you, NIH issued 84 NOFOs, 84, compared to 787 in 2024. So, you know, if we
[2:20:04] are falling behind here, we need to figure out the funding that we are doing. We've got to get it out
[2:20:08] the door. So I have more questions for you. I will submit them for the record. I thank you very much,
[2:20:12] Chairwoman. I appreciate you allowing me to answer something. And I can answer that other one for you,
[2:20:18] but I'm also happy to work with you on it. Thank you. I'll submit my questions for the record.
[2:20:22] All right. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
[2:20:23] General Lady's time is up. And now I recognize Representative Rulley for his five minutes of
[2:20:27] questions. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for visiting the Ohio State House during COVID and helping
[2:20:34] the Ohio Senate and the entire Ohio State House go through that crisis together. Your efforts in
[2:20:41] expanding patient affordability and access to life-saving drugs is always appreciated. Last August,
[2:20:48] however, though, the FDA classified desiccated thyroid extract or DTE as a biologic, giving DTE
[2:21:00] manufacturings one year to cease production or face enforcement. This action of enforcement is
[2:21:08] destroying it. This classification also limited the ability for pharmacists to compound DTE,
[2:21:15] meaning that patients had to switch to much more expensive alternatives.
[2:21:20] So the question, Mr. Secretary, is what was the basis for the FDA to classify DTE as a biologic?
[2:21:29] I would say that there is controversy within my agency about that decision. And I am very,
[2:21:36] very happy to work with you on that, on resolving it. I appreciate you. I invite you to contact my office
[2:21:45] and contact me directly, and I will work with you on that. With patients facing this August deadline,
[2:21:51] do you have any steps that you think you could, you know, maybe influence several Congress members and
[2:21:58] to reassess how we look at this to help your department move forward and get these conversations
[2:22:03] going to an elevated level? On which subject? On the DTE subject. Is there anything that Congress
[2:22:09] could do to help your staff move forward? If you call me about it, I will, I'll convene a high-level
[2:22:17] meeting where we can talk to you and answer your questions and see if there's a resolution.
[2:22:22] I really appreciate that, Mr. Secretary. And I do have a couple minutes left. Is there anything you'd
[2:22:26] like to clarify during the last couple hours that maybe you weren't given the opportunity to?
[2:22:30] Please feel free to do so. Yeah. I mean, there was a number of statements,
[2:22:35] again, made about my so-called anti-vaccine. I've always said for 20 years, I'm not anti-vaccine. I just want
[2:22:42] the same kind of testing done for vaccines of safety testing. Hepatitis V vaccine was tested for
[2:22:51] four days with no placebo, a product that's given to millions of children every year. You would never
[2:22:58] allow a medical product to do that. And so all I want is good testing. I'm not anti-vaccine or I
[2:23:04] wouldn't be putting a billion dollars into developing new vaccines right now. So it's counterintuitive.
[2:23:12] Look at my record here and say I'm anti-vaccine. It's I'm pro-science. I want to ask the right
[2:23:18] questions. I don't think there's any taboos. I don't think this religious belief that you have to say
[2:23:26] all vaccines are safe for everybody and they're all effective for everybody. We all have to accept that
[2:23:34] and anybody who disagrees with that is marginalized, vilified and deplatformed. I think we ought to be
[2:23:43] able to talk. We ought to be able to talk about science and do it in a way that's dignified and
[2:23:48] congenial and open-minded. Mr. Secretary, I will say in the last five years that I've known you,
[2:23:56] the one thing that anyone that knows you would say is you welcome conversations and open debate.
[2:24:01] That's how we grow and I appreciate your time. With that, I yield my time back to the chair.
[2:24:05] Thank you. Will the gentleman yield? I yield back to the chair.
[2:24:11] Okay, thank you for yielding. Back to the chair and now I recognize Representative Ocasio-Cortez for
[2:24:18] her five minutes. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. How you doing, Mr. Secretary?
[2:24:22] Good. Thank you for asking. Of course, of course.
[2:24:28] I'm not sure if you remember our last chat about a year ago where we talked about Medicare Advantage,
[2:24:35] but, you know, I think one area of agreement that we have, I hope, is that these insurance companies
[2:24:43] are fleecing the public, right? Can we can we agree on that? Absolutely. And they are, I mean,
[2:24:52] it's highway robbery on the American people, on people who are sick, on seniors. We're on the same
[2:24:58] page about that, right? Yes. And last year, I brought up Medicare, the Medicare Advantage program to you,
[2:25:05] because these corporations like United Healthcare, Aetna, are known to be defrauding the public.
[2:25:14] And really, we know that with Medicare Advantage, it's to the tune of about 80 billion dollars.
[2:25:21] And the Department of Justice has, in fact, opened an actual- You mentioned United last time.
[2:25:28] So you remember this, right? Okay, I'm glad that we're able to kind of jog the memory on there.
[2:25:33] We chatted about this, and we actually chatted about it afterwards, too. And so we know this. We're
[2:25:40] all on the same page here at United, CVS, Aetna. They're defrauding the American public to the tune
[2:25:47] of 80 billion dollars a year. We know that they're doing this to the public. You know it. I know it.
[2:25:52] We've even had some bipartisan chat about this. And so I was surprised to see about two weeks ago,
[2:25:59] you had decided to give them another 13 billion dollars. And it was used through the mechanism
[2:26:08] of the MA reimbursement rates. But I want to know, why did you do that?
[2:26:13] And first of all, I agree with you on everything that you said.
[2:26:19] We, you know, we have to look at the reimbursements that the industry get, which they said there'd been a
[2:26:27] five percent increase in cost. And that if we didn't give them the full five percent, they were
[2:26:33] going to lose, they were, that it would impair patient choice, particularly in some regions of
[2:26:38] the country, the industry would leave. We gave them a two percent raise. Right. And I, I hear what you're
[2:26:44] saying, Mr. Secretary, that the industry is saying that they're increasing these costs, but the industry
[2:26:53] is defrauding the public. So we know they're lying. We know they're lying through even their mechanisms.
[2:27:04] They are upcoding. They are telling us, the public, the government, Medicare, our systems, that people
[2:27:11] are sicker than they are so that they can get more money. They're lowering their reimbursement rates.
[2:27:15] They're increasing denial. So we know that these folks are lying. We know that they're bad actors.
[2:27:25] And if I'm hearing you correctly, we are giving them more money because they're saying that they
[2:27:33] need it. Can I answer the question? Yeah. First of all, I appreciate everything you've done and you
[2:27:41] speaking out about upcoding. We are ending upcoding. We're using AI now to detect it, to prosecute it,
[2:27:49] and to end it. Yeah, they're lying. But my job as HHS secretary, I have to balance the impact on
[2:28:01] patients if there are no options in those areas. So we do a lot to verify. We don't trust. We do a lot
[2:28:10] to verify. And I hear what you're saying. I mean,
[2:28:11] even when you talked about that two percent, it's something that I found interesting, too, because
[2:28:15] that 2.48 percent wasn't initially what you were going to go for. You had announced in January that,
[2:28:23] in fact, CMS had proposed an increase of 0.09 percent. Yeah. Which would have essentially kept
[2:28:33] payments flat at minimum to these corporations like United and Aetna that are robbing us. And so
[2:28:43] there was an interesting amendment that you had made. We've got the experts saying, okay, even when
[2:28:49] you start looking at that inflation rate or that cost rate, even that at most is 0.09 percent. But then
[2:28:55] it seemed as though there was some industry backlash. And now we're at 2.48 percent. We're giving them
[2:29:06] 13 billion dollars when they are stealing 80 billion dollars a year as it is. I say we let them eat it.
[2:29:16] Why not? Well, you can see from what we originally published what our intention was to give them
[2:29:22] essentially nothing. Okay. And we got a huge blowback, not only from the industry, but providers and
[2:29:29] everybody else who said, we are going to experience closures. We're going to experience places where
[2:29:35] you cannot get insurance. It is going to leave all these patients high and dry. We did our own
[2:29:42] investigation. And, you know, you could look at health care. Representative time's up.
[2:29:45] Representative time's up. I really appreciate you giving me a chance to answer questions. I can't
[2:29:54] thank you enough for that. Appreciate it. Thank you. We'll hear more about that. Now I recognize
[2:30:00] Representative Halchin for her five minutes of questioning. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you,
[2:30:05] Mr. Secretary. Appreciate your patience today. An issue that has been consistently brought to my
[2:30:13] attention is the vital need to simplify and expedite the FDA approval process for pharmaceutical manufacturers
[2:30:21] who already are operating in the United States or seeking to expand operations in the United States.
[2:30:27] This is part of the Biomedical Advancement Research and Development Authority trying to expedite our
[2:30:37] national security for manufacturing medicines here in the United States.
[2:30:42] Indiana is a national leader in pharmaceutical production and exports and the industry continues
[2:30:47] to expand its research and development. In the last couple of years alone, Eli Lilly and Company,
[2:30:53] Roche Diagnostics and Novartis have announced billions of dollars of investments in manufacturing
[2:30:58] facilities and drug development. Areva Pharmaceuticals is a critical manufacturer of generics in my district,
[2:31:06] which I'm proud to have headquartered in southern Indiana. And they've been manufacturing
[2:31:10] pharmaceutical products in Indiana since 2011. They're continuing their efforts to expand production,
[2:31:17] to include manufacturing of raw materials. They make floderabine phosphate, which is a key
[2:31:23] pretreatment for CAR T-cell therapy and stem cell therapy for cancer treatment. The only place they can source
[2:31:31] the precursor to make that medication is in Wuhan, China.
[2:31:35] And they are facing a lengthy and complicated approval process with uncertain timelines,
[2:31:42] making it extremely difficult to expand these productions in raw materials. Mr. Secretary,
[2:31:49] what are HHS and the FDA doing to accelerate U.S. pharmaceutical domestic manufacturing of these
[2:31:56] precursors and minimizing regulatory roadblocks while still maintaining high safety standards?
[2:32:02] And thank you for asking me that. It's been a huge stumbling block with the production of generic
[2:32:08] drugs in this country, which are the majority of drugs that we use. And we're getting them all from
[2:32:14] China and from India, almost all of them from China and India. And it is a vulnerability in our supply
[2:32:19] chain. It's a national health threat, a national defense vulnerability as well. So we're doing everything
[2:32:28] that we can to ease the production pains of construction and expanding plants here and getting
[2:32:36] quick approvals. We have a new FDA has initiated a new program called the PreCheck program at FastTracks
[2:32:44] these proposals. I'm happy to talk to you or to the people who run this plant to make sure that they're
[2:32:53] aware of that program and that they can take advantage of it. Thank you. And when we were talking about the
[2:32:58] cost of medicines in the United States as well, just importing that precursor is $40,000 in shipping.
[2:33:06] So it would be great to for the cost of our prescription drugs here, particularly for cancer
[2:33:11] treatment to reduce those costs by helping to onshore that manufacturing. I want to switch now to an
[2:33:17] issue, the issue of long COVID. Long COVID. Yeah. We believe that as many as 44 million people
[2:33:28] could be affected by long COVID. The more times you get COVID, the more likely you are to develop that.
[2:33:34] There is research ongoing, including treatment for long COVID, which can be very debilitating to some
[2:33:40] Americans. I just want to encourage additional attention and research into long COVID for treatment
[2:33:48] for that. I have some concerns that fibromyalgia might be being diagnosed rather than long COVID,
[2:33:57] and would be grateful having a family member who has experienced that to just encourage you to
[2:34:06] continue focus on research for the treatment and diagnosis of long COVID. I mean, we are putting
[2:34:12] a priority for me personally. I have a son who really was debilitated by long COVID. We've had roundtable
[2:34:23] at HHS for the first time in history. We brought in the best experts from around the country, people
[2:34:28] like Jordan Vaughan from New Jersey, and the best people who have the most experience at treating it
[2:34:36] successfully from California from all over the country. And we are targeting diagnostics to make
[2:34:44] sure that there's uniform diagnostics of very, very complex illness that manifests differently in almost
[2:34:51] every person. Treatment protocols are different than people. There is no panacea. But there are
[2:35:00] biomarkers that can tell us what kind of treatments work best for what populations. Thank you. And we're
[2:35:06] working on identifying those biomarkers, matching them with the treatment, and then getting the
[2:35:13] patients together with the appropriate physician. Okay. Thank you. My time's expired. I appreciate
[2:35:17] your service and leadership, Mr. Secretary. The lady yields back, and I now recognize Representative
[2:35:23] Auchin-Klaus for his five minutes of questions. Thank you, Chairwoman. Hi, Secretary. Good afternoon.
[2:35:29] Good afternoon. I want to talk about the Food and Drug Administration, which reports to you,
[2:35:35] and by law and by logic the FDA should make decisions on science, not politics, right? Yeah,
[2:35:42] that's what we're doing for the first time in history. And I also know that as an environmental
[2:35:47] litigator, I mean, you really emphasized lifting up the voices of scientists when politicians were trying
[2:35:54] to pressure them, right? That was a big part of your litigation against environmental toxins, right?
[2:35:59] Yes. Yes. So I want to make you aware of some of the findings of an investigation I've been doing
[2:36:05] about the Food and Drug Administration under the leadership of Dr. McCary. We opened up a whistleblower
[2:36:11] channel to FDA career scientists and have spoken to multitudes of them. Now, these are career scientists.
[2:36:16] They've worked for Republican and Democratic administrations, including Trump Term 1, without
[2:36:22] complaint or concern. But now in this last year, they are ringing alarm bells. And I want to just
[2:36:28] have you listen to three quotations from very senior FDA scientists who are currently employed
[2:36:34] at the agency. One, quote, FDA staff have been subject to a steady, unrelenting compromise of
[2:36:40] our scientific standards to support ideologically driven policy goals more focused on media soundbites
[2:36:45] and their own self-promotion than our nation's health. That's one senior scientist. Another,
[2:36:50] currently employed, quote, I was pressured into withholding a recommendation for approval for a drug that
[2:36:55] was intended for a rare disease by Dr. Prasad and other FDA leadership. I know the drug would have
[2:37:00] been approved had it not been for the political pressure. Number three, another senior career
[2:37:04] scientist currently employed, quote, Dr. McCary's approach has made direct lobbying to the commissioner's
[2:37:10] office a smart and productive business practice for companies to get what they want. Secretary,
[2:37:17] you spent your career trying to lift up on the environmental front scientists beating back
[2:37:22] political pressure. Does this sound like an agency that is effectively lifting up science over
[2:37:26] politics? I can tell you that all the decisions that have been made at that agency are based,
[2:37:35] are made with the approvals of panels of career science. So that's just not true. So let me reclaim
[2:37:41] my time. That is categorically false because there's in fact a program called the Commissioner's
[2:37:45] National Priority Voucher Program. I've been investigating that as well for the last six months.
[2:37:50] This program expressly allows political leaders to short circuit science and pick and choose
[2:37:55] politically favored treatments. Now, White House and FDA leadership have pressed staff to award vouchers to
[2:38:01] certain companies as part of White House pressure campaigns. And most recently and egregiously,
[2:38:06] the FDA just issued three of those vouchers for psychedelics based on a text from Joe Rogan. And one of
[2:38:13] those psychedelics was denied by the FDA in 2024. So let's just go through what happened here. Joe Rogan had
[2:38:20] a guest on his podcast and the guest was talking about psychedelics. Joe Rogan texted the President
[2:38:26] of the United States and the President texted back, quote, sounds great. Do you want FDA approval?
[2:38:33] Let's do it, end quote. That was from the President of the United States. So just to be clear,
[2:38:37] is the President of the United States allowed to grant FDA approval? The career staff. Is the President
[2:38:43] of the United States allowed to grant FDA approval? Career staff at FDA all supported that decision. Is the
[2:38:49] President of the United States allowed to grant FDA approval? Because he thinks he is. Is he wrong?
[2:38:54] He doesn't do it. He doesn't do it. So and yet the FDA within hours issued three priority vouchers from
[2:39:03] this illegal unauthorized program to respond to political pressure from the White House. Secretary,
[2:39:08] this flies in the face of your stated commitment to putting science over politics. We are literally seeing
[2:39:14] politics put over science. Now, let's just understand why the President might have bent over to do the
[2:39:21] bidding of Joe Rogan. He has a disastrous war in Iran that has led even his most committed supporters
[2:39:27] in his base, like Joe Rogan, to question his competence. And in order to appease Joe Rogan's ire,
[2:39:34] he grants FDA approval. Safety and efficacy should be the standard for these drugs. Do you want a
[2:39:38] grandstand or do you want an answer? You want a grandstand or do you want an answer? I want safety
[2:39:43] and efficacy to be the standards by which psychedelics are approved, not the President's
[2:39:47] attempt to shore up support from his base for a disastrous war in Iran. It should not be Joe Rogan's
[2:39:51] decision what psychedelics are approved. It should be the decision of randomized controlled trials. And we
[2:39:57] are doing non-validicized science for the first time in history. Let me close with a final question here,
[2:40:03] reclaiming my time. You had said about the research here to my colleague from Texas that you wish
[2:40:09] that the NIH didn't have to cut the billions, right? That you wish the NIH did not have to cut
[2:40:14] money. You had said that to Congresswoman Fletcher. NIH, the National Institutes of Health.
[2:40:21] Of course. Right. Do you think it'd be a better use of money to spend a billion dollars a day on
[2:40:26] the NIH or a billion dollars a day on bombing Iran? Which do you think would be a better use of money?
[2:40:31] A billion dollars a day on bombing Iran or a billion dollars a day on the NIH?
[2:40:35] First time's expired. I now go to Representative Langworthy for his five minutes questions.
[2:40:43] Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for being here today and for
[2:40:49] your leadership. As this committee reviews the fiscal year 27 HHS budget, we're focused on how these
[2:40:55] efforts will support American families, rebuild our trust in our health systems, and make America healthy
[2:41:01] again. Secretary Kennedy, in your testimony, you highlight efforts to require hospitals and insurers
[2:41:08] to disclose actual prices and make them comparable for patients. One concern that we hear even when
[2:41:16] pricing data is available is it can be difficult for patients to understand and comparatively make
[2:41:22] a decision. We've seen proposals around tools like advanced explanation of benefits that aim to give
[2:41:28] patients clear upfront cost estimates. What steps is HHS taking to ensure that this information is
[2:41:34] presented in a way that's clear and actionable and useful to patients? You mean information from our
[2:41:42] agency or from the insurers? Throughout the medical ecosystem. I mean we're doing more on
[2:41:49] transparency than any agency in history. We've got transparency and coverage rules. We're forcing the
[2:41:56] insurance industries to tell us what their margins are and what they're charging for every procedure.
[2:42:03] Our transparency rules for the hospitals. The first time we're going to force them to post their price
[2:42:10] to all hospitals and all providers, to post their prices, to certify them, to post them ahead of time.
[2:42:17] And then you know we're doing prior authorization where 80 percent of the insurance industry has now
[2:42:22] agreed and prior authorization for 80 percent of conditions and procedures within a year by 2027.
[2:42:31] That's great. I appreciate your efforts on that. In just about every other part of life in this
[2:42:36] country people know what something costs before they commit to it and that is that is critically
[2:42:40] important. You wouldn't make a major purchase. You wouldn't book travel or sign up for a service
[2:42:46] without at least a general sense of price. And this is going to be very helpful as people make their
[2:42:51] health care decisions. But unfortunately in health care you know to this date patients have often been
[2:42:59] expected to make important decisions first and then they find out the cost after the fact when they
[2:43:04] get a bill in the mail and that's an unacceptable way for to go forward and we can't get our arms around
[2:43:10] the rising creep of cost of health care in this country until we really can see in layman's terms where
[2:43:16] the dollars are going. So you know what specific enforcement actions is HHS taking to ensure that
[2:43:23] providers are actually complying with uh the transparency requirements that your agency is
[2:43:29] putting forward? I mean during the you know the Trump administration the first Trump administration
[2:43:34] passed the transparency and coverage um requirements during the Biden administration they passed at the
[2:43:42] end of his administration during the Biden administration they just didn't enforce them so there was no
[2:43:47] resolution of the problem. We've now sent out a thousand letters um we're enforcing discipline we have
[2:43:55] hardened the regulations just finalized new regulations that will provide draconian penalties for hospitals
[2:44:06] that fail to comply. So we are going to end that problem. Well thank you very much we look forward to
[2:44:12] working with you and HHS on on this issue uh on biosimilars. Secretary Kennedy you noted in your
[2:44:19] testimony uh that HHS is taking steps to streamline the development of biosimilars. What specific actions
[2:44:25] is the department taking to accelerate uh uptake and ensure that these lower cost options actually reach
[2:44:31] patients? Well we've changed the approval process for biosimilars so that they will get fast tracked
[2:44:38] and biosimilars are um are basically the generic version of biologics uh they're 35 percent cheaper
[2:44:47] and we are doing everything that we can to maximize uh their uh access to the market as quickly as possible.
[2:44:56] I appreciate that Mr. Secretary because at the end of the day this is really about affordability for
[2:45:01] patients and making sure that they have availability of low cost options uh another key piece of that is
[2:45:07] increasing competition in the system and that's why I'm working on legislation to help speed up the
[2:45:12] development and the approval of biosimilars cutting unnecessary red tape while still keeping the FDA
[2:45:18] strong safety and effectiveness standards in place. We appreciate your time uh with us today Mr.
[2:45:23] Secretary and we look forward to working together uh to make health care more transparent and affordable
[2:45:28] for everyone and I yield back Madam Chair. Thank you. Gentleman yields back and I now recognize
[2:45:33] Representative Carter for his five minutes of questioning. Thank you Madam Chair.
[2:45:37] Like many of our colleagues Mr. Secretary I'm appalled by the chaos that has transpired in HHS
[2:45:46] in the past year including at SAMHSA. On January 13th SAMHSA canceled some two billion dollars in grant
[2:45:54] funding for mental health and substance use programs putting grantees in a state of uncertainty.
[2:46:01] Approximately 2,000 grantees received a letter stating there will know that they were being terminated
[2:46:08] immediately and that no corrective action could align the award with agency priorities. Madam Chair,
[2:46:15] I'd like to enter a copy of that letter into the record. Without objection. Mr. Kennedy, Secretary Kennedy,
[2:46:23] you stated um that uh you weren't aware of these cuts. Are you not aware of this uh letter that went out
[2:46:32] relative to these um I was not aware of it prior to going out but as soon as I found out about it I
[2:46:39] withdrew it within 24 hours. And then how does such a mistake happen in an agency of the size of yours
[2:46:46] how does uh something like this happen that sends a reverberating um fears throughout the hearts and minds of
[2:46:54] people who are suffering in our in our country? Uh we have a 2.3 trillion dollar agency it's the biggest
[2:47:01] agency in the history of government it has it's the size of the sixth largest economy in the world we
[2:47:07] have hundreds and hundreds of agencies and sub agencies we have careers working for us who oftentimes
[2:47:15] are hostile to uh to are not aligned with the president and his agenda. Are you suggesting that
[2:47:24] there was a you suggest that this was done nefariously by somebody and then because of the corruption
[2:47:29] during the Biden administration we did a lot of things that some of them were over correct. Sir,
[2:47:36] respectfully, can I cut you off? I asked you about these egregious cuts you said there were a mistake
[2:47:44] a mistake by the Biden administration during your administration? It was a mistake by my
[2:47:49] administration. How do you how do you then inject something about the Biden administration? I'm asking
[2:47:55] you about something. Do you want me to answer that question? Yeah I do but I want you to answer it
[2:47:58] honestly sir. Because we had to do an extra amount of surveillance because of all the corruption that was
[2:48:04] happening within our agency. Corruption caused your mistake? Corruption caused your mistake? Corruption was
[2:48:11] Biden's mistake yeah. Corruption caused you to mistakenly cancel these grants for SAMHSA? The
[2:48:19] surveillance procedures and protocols that we had to put in place to stop money from flowing out the
[2:48:25] door to people. Okay let's leave that because you're not respectfully you're just not you're not
[2:48:29] answering that either intentionally or by answering that question precisely. I asked you about a mistake
[2:48:35] that you admitted was from your agency. It was my mistake. But then you go on to tell me about
[2:48:41] corruption in the previous administration has nothing to do with you canceling these grants.
[2:48:45] So let's move on. Is there any chance that this could happen again? Have you corrected whatever
[2:48:51] caused the error? May I sir? Have you corrected whatever caused the error to ensure that these
[2:48:59] grantees will not have to suffer as so many did? Our phones were ringing off the hook. A bipartisan group
[2:49:05] of legislators Republicans and Democrats sent a letter that caused you to immediately reverse it.
[2:49:11] Has a mechanism been put in place to fix it so it doesn't happen again?
[2:49:17] I can't tell you that a mistake will never happen again and at 2.3.
[2:49:21] I've got about a minute 16. I want to touch on a couple other things. Secretary you publicly shared
[2:49:25] your experience about your 14 years of heroin addiction. You've also gone on to say a day doesn't
[2:49:30] go by that you don't think about heroin. So certainly you understand the gravity of people who are suffering.
[2:49:38] Certainly you understand the gravity of people who have addictions and they need resources.
[2:49:43] But how do we expect that that you really understand that when your own budget undermines
[2:49:50] substance use prevention treatment and recovery services block grant state opioid response and
[2:49:56] community mental health block grant programs by consolidating them into behavioral health innovation
[2:50:01] grant. How do we expect mental health and substance use providers and administrators of high quality
[2:50:08] evidence-based care that they'll be able to compete against the other same limited funding under your
[2:50:15] proposals? What message are we sending the people back home? We're making the system more efficient and
[2:50:22] I'm putting more money into it than any other HHS secretary in history. Not only that, we're putting 49
[2:50:30] million into opioid response and putting 100 million into sober housing. I got two seconds.
[2:50:37] Respectfully, you know what I really wish you'd spend more time on, more time thinking about the American
[2:50:41] people, less time talking about whale heads, bear heads, and raccoon parts. Talking about what's important to the American
[2:50:47] people and how they can- I don't talk about any of those things. Okay. Representative, time is up and we
[2:50:52] have one more original member of the committee and we'll let him ask his questions and I know you've
[2:50:57] got a heart out and we appreciate you staying over. I'll turn it over to Representative Lansman for his
[2:51:03] five minutes of questions. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon. A couple things. One, I'm from Cincinnati.
[2:51:12] As I mentioned last time, our Community Action Agency, as you know, they do Head Start,
[2:51:18] utility assistance. They were awarded a grant, their CDBG grant was awarded to them, but it hasn't come
[2:51:24] yet and so I got a frantic call from a constituent saying that they were going to get furloughed or fired
[2:51:31] because of the delay in the grant going out. Can we work together to try to get that grant out?
[2:51:37] I would love to work. Okay, thank you. This is the Cincinnati- You're welcome to call me
[2:51:42] if- We've sent a note to the- I'm more accessible to Congress than I think any other cabinet member.
[2:51:48] We've sent a note to your office, but I want to make sure we can get these out the door so that
[2:51:52] no one gets fired. You had mentioned the rural hospital piece, $50 billion, largest investment,
[2:52:00] but there's a reason why the Senate Republicans asked for a $50 billion rural hospital investment
[2:52:07] is because of the trillion dollar, nearly trillion dollar cut to Medicaid. There would not have been a
[2:52:12] request for that. It was the only way to get a few of them to vote for this massive spending deal.
[2:52:19] They spent four and a half trillion dollars. Most of that went to tax cuts that overwhelmingly
[2:52:23] benefited the super wealthy. It was about a two trillion dollar increase in the debt.
[2:52:30] So you said there's no cuts to Medicaid. In order to balance that spending bill, it was two,
[2:52:38] two and a half trillion dollars in deficit spending, a trillion dollar cut, essentially,
[2:52:43] in Medicaid. Was it three and a half trillion for deficit spending? Or was there truly, as we have
[2:52:49] been saying, a nearly trillion dollar cut to Medicaid? And why these Republican senators push for a rural
[2:52:56] hospital fund of $50 billion, which is nowhere close to a trillion dollars in cuts to Medicaid?
[2:53:02] There's no cut in Medicaid. Look at the CBO report from this week.
[2:53:06] So then if you go back, then just do the math with me, then that means that they added three
[2:53:11] and a half trillion dollars to the deficit? You've got to find a trillion dollars. You
[2:53:14] either added a trillion dollars to the deficit, or you cut Medicaid by a trillion dollars.
[2:53:17] I mean, do you think the Congressional Budget Office is lying?
[2:53:20] Yeah, but the Congressional Budget Office—
[2:53:22] You think they're lying?
[2:53:22] No, they're saying that there was this massive cut.
[2:53:24] They're saying there's a 47 percent increase in Medicaid.
[2:53:27] They're saying that about 15 million Americans are going to lose their Medicaid
[2:53:33] health coverage. That is a trillion dollar cut.
[2:53:35] There's no—
[2:53:36] There are no legitimate enrollees who's going to lose.
[2:53:39] We sat in this committee and made a decision—I voted against it. My colleagues over here voted
[2:53:45] against it—to cut nearly a trillion dollars in Medicaid in order to make tax cuts.
[2:53:50] There's no cut in Medicaid.
[2:53:52] It's not true.
[2:53:53] That's the CBO's lying to you.
[2:53:55] It's not true. I want to get back to everyone knows—every hospital, every doctor, every provider,
[2:54:02] every patient in this country knows that you all cut nearly a trillion dollars in Medicaid.
[2:54:07] On the Medicare Advantage—
[2:54:08] You guys keep saying it, but it's a lie.
[2:54:11] Look at what the CBO says. Are they lying to us?
[2:54:14] No, they're saying that there was a massive cut.
[2:54:16] Well, they're saying there's a 47 percent increase.
[2:54:18] I want to go back to the Medicaid Advantage piece that you mentioned.
[2:54:21] Medicaid Advantage is private health insurance, correct?
[2:54:23] Yes.
[2:54:24] And so when they pushed you to increase the fee, as Ms. Ocasio-Cortez mentioned,
[2:54:31] you said the reason you agreed to it is because they said there would be no other options.
[2:54:38] We determined that people would lose coverage.
[2:54:42] They wouldn't lose coverage.
[2:54:44] That they'd lose coverage.
[2:54:45] In the private health insurance market, correct?
[2:54:47] They'd lose coverage from Medicaid Advantage.
[2:54:51] Exactly. Which means that they could go back to what? Medicare.
[2:54:56] You could have sent them back to Medicare, where they get more coverage, and we pay less.
[2:55:01] Why didn't you do that? Why do you give them an additional 10,
[2:55:04] 13 billion dollars when the option was just go back to Medicare?
[2:55:09] Because Americans want to prefer Medicare Advantage.
[2:55:13] Because they think it's Medicare.
[2:55:15] They're because they prefer it.
[2:55:17] Because they think it's Medicare. Because of the name.
[2:55:18] Do you agree it should be called Medicare Advantage when it's not Medicare?
[2:55:21] I don't care what they call it. Americans like it.
[2:55:26] I think we should change the name to something that says this is private health insurance.
[2:55:30] That's up to you and Congress.
[2:55:31] Great. Next time you have a chance to negotiate, send people back to Medicare.
[2:55:35] It's better health insurance, and it costs you less money.
[2:55:38] I look forward to seeing your legislation.
[2:55:43] I want to add, I have a bill. I'm excited, but maybe you'll endorse it.
[2:55:47] It does say if you can't be, if you can't adhere to everything that Medicare offers,
[2:55:54] you can no longer use the name.
[2:55:57] Okay. I mean, the reason that people prefer Medicare Advantage,
[2:56:01] people like my agency, is because it's outcome-based care.
[2:56:06] Okay. Because the insurance company.
[2:56:08] I got to go back. Thank you.
[2:56:09] Thank you.
[2:56:10] Okay.
[2:56:10] I know, Mr. Secretary, we had one more wave on members.
[2:56:13] She won't have time to ask her questions, but I would remind members they could submit questions
[2:56:18] for the record. I ask unanimous consent to insert in the record the documents included on the staff
[2:56:23] hearings document list, which is here. Without objection, so ordered.
[2:56:29] So I'd like to thank our witness again for being here today, and members may have additional written
[2:56:36] questions for you, sir. And I'll remind members that they do have 10 business days to submit
[2:56:41] questions for the record. And I ask the witness to respond to the questions promptly. Members should
[2:56:46] submit their questions by the close of business on Tuesday, May the 5th. And without objection,
[2:56:51] the subcommittee is adjourned.
Transcribe Any Video or Podcast — Free
Paste a URL and get a full AI-powered transcript in minutes. Try ScribeHawk →