To see how we can understand priorities for 2027. I think all of us care a lot about biomedical research. It's long been a bicameral and bipartisan priority and I'm proud of the work that we did last year where we secured an additional $415 million for NIH funding. Areas of concern for me and those at the district know this are things we're ground zero for the opioid epidemic in West Virginia communities. We still have some of the highest rates of overdose deaths. But we're making positive strides as we are across the country. Some of the CDC data shows a decrease and I want to thank Dr. Volkoff for coming to West Virginia and coming back maybe to West Virginia for visiting. We just had Dr. Hodus there as well. And we're really pleased because of what's going on at the Rockefeller Neuroscience Institute. I think he was pretty wowed to see what WB is doing and the innovative and groundbreaking work that we're doing there. As a child of two parents who had Alzheimer's, I don't want to just find ways to keep people in a steady state. I want to find ways to cure and I think that's what the NIH is all about. So one other area of interest for me is the childhood cancer STAR Act. I did that with Senator Reid. So Dr. Latai, thank you for coming to my office and looking forward to hearing about how you're going to grow our clinical trials in that area. So, with that, I'm going to go ahead and turn to Senator Baldwin for her opening statement.
Thank you, Chair Capo. I want to welcome Dr. Bhattacharya and the institute and center directors here today. I also want to note that the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases was slated to testify but stepped down. Other top officials at NIAID have also reportedly been reassigned and forced out. In the midst of an emerging Ebola outbreak, we have a leadership vacuum at the world's premier infectious disease institute. This is of great concern, in addition to the unprecedented termination and forcing out of thousands of career scientists across the NIH as part of this administration's anti-science and frankly anti-vaccine bent. Over the past 16 months, the Trump administration has waged war on science. I'm talking about systematic dismantling of longstanding research programs and deliberate erosion of research institutions that make America the global leader in biomedical innovation. Across the country, researchers, universities, cancer centers, children's hospitals, and patients are experiencing disruptions because this administration has thrown NIH into chaos. They have terminated over 5,000 NIH grants, slashed nearly a quarter of the NIH workforce, and cut the number of new research grants by more than 2,000 or 22%. That cut was largely due to a policy that the OMB director cooked up that requires NIH to expand multi-year funding, forcing the entire cost of a multi-year grant to be paid in advance. This wasn't based on science. It was a political decision. As a result, NIH spent $2.5 billion more on multi-year funded grants in fiscal year 2025 than the year before. That $2.5 billion was locked away in bank accounts for future years, money that could have funded over 2,000 more research grants. Take cancer research: last year, the National Cancer Institute funded 334 or 21% fewer new research grants. The National Institute on Aging funded 438 or 33% fewer grants. This chaos has ramifications across the country. Hiring freezes are hollowing out research labs, clinical trials are being cancelled. For decades, NIH funding decisions were guided by scientific expertise and independent peer review. Now, political appointees and ideological screening decide which grants get funded. Notices of funding opportunities are down by 90%. Even after this committee provided $415 million in increased funds, the White House delayed getting that money out the door. I can't comprehend why this administration is so hellbent on sabotaging the lifesaving research NIH supports. This damage will take years to undo. Congress should do more to stop this. From 2017 to 2023, we provided meaningful increases for NIH, but that progress has stalled. Republicans' insistence on cutting non-defense funding has meant NIH funding hasn't kept up with rising research costs. Meanwhile, the president is asking for $1.5 trillion for defense. If we can find additional funding for bombs, we should be able to find additional funding for cancer research.
Thank you. Welcome Dr. Bhattacharya. We will welcome you for your five-minute opening statement before we go to questions. Thank you.
Chair Capo, Ranking Member Baldwin, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. It's an honor to appear before you again to discuss the work at the National Institutes of Health. NIH's mission is to turn scientific discovery into better health outcomes and longer life for the American people. It's central to the Make America Healthy Again initiative. NIH plays a leading role in confronting the chronic disease crisis, advancing rigorous nutrition science, prioritizing prevention, and more. Chronic disease remains the leading cause of death and disability in the US. NIH is intensifying investment in research that identifies root causes, including studies integrating genetics, behavior, environment, and diet. Ultraprocessed foods now account for about 60% of daily caloric intake with growing links to obesity and metabolic conditions. NIH is supporting multidisciplinary research to address chronic disease at its source. NIH continues to deliver measurable progress. In 2019, President Trump announced the Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative. Decades of NIH investments laid the groundwork for drugs like lenacapavir, a long-acting antiretroviral agent. A single injection lasting 6 to 12 months offers near total protection against HIV acquisition. Gene-based therapies have never shown more promise. CRISPR-based gene editing has led to treatments that can cure sickle cell anemia. NIH-funded researchers delivered personalized therapy to an infant with a rare condition, baby KJ. NIH is harnessing advances in AI and data science. For example, NIH-supported researchers developed AI tools to match patients to clinical trials more efficiently. NIH is advancing partnerships, including with NASA on the Artemis 2 mission and the Avatar project, using cells from astronauts to create organs on a chip to model how deep space radiation and microgravity affect human biology. This work informs treatment for chronic diseases on Earth. Drug repurposing is a powerful lever to reduce cost and accelerate access. NIH-supported studies suggest a shingles vaccine may reduce dementia risk, and terazosin shows potential for Parkinson's. NIH is improving how science is conducted and funded, including a coordinated effort to improve rigor, replication, and reproducibility, with new investments of approximately $100 million to validate key findings. NIH fosters innovation by supporting a balanced research portfolio through a unified funding strategy. We're working to broaden the geographic scope of funding, strengthening research capacity across the country while expanding the use of human-based research models. The strength of American biomedical research relies on its rigor, transparency, and early-stage investigators. Our role as careful stewards ensures every taxpayer dollar produces reliable knowledge, measurable health gains, and lasting public benefit. Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
Thank you very much. And I will now turn to the chair of the full committee, Senator Collins, for several minutes for a statement or questions or whatever she wants. I like that attitude.
Thank you so much, Madame Chair. First of all, let me welcome all of you this morning. I have worked so closely with many of the members of this panel and admire your dedication to improving the health of the American people. There are however some budget issues that I find to be inexplicable. In fiscal year 2025, the NIH awarded more than $120 million in grants and contracts to entities in my home state of Maine. This funding directly supported 1,378 jobs and more than $280 million in economic activity. This funding has also led to exciting developments such as a clinical trial for a new Lyme disease vaccine and another clinical trial investigating how GLP-1 drugs could be used to treat long COVID. Breakthroughs like these can only be sustained if research institutions are able to cover their costs. Yet, the administration's budget request once again proposes a 15% arbitrary across-the-board cap for indirect research costs after Congress specifically blocked a similar proposal last year. Such a cap would negatively affect cutting-edge research happening at universities, nonprofit laboratories, and medical centers around the country and undermine our nation's global leadership in biomedical research. Dr. Bhattacharya, we discussed the fair model and other alternatives last year to have more accountability and increase transparency on indirect costs. I would like to ask you whether you have a specific proposal for improving the current indirect cost system without adopting this one-size-fits-all arbitrary harmful cap.
Senator, we absolutely remain committed to making sure that the research institutions of this country receive the support they need to have the success you described. I'm really grateful that you started with the examples of a potential vaccine for Lyme disease, GLP-1s for so many uses. The key thing that I'd love to have happen is to convene a committee of my advisory committee directors to discuss this openly and propose to delink the way facilities money is awarded. The idea is that right now, in order for Maine and other places to win facility support, you have to have excellent scientists that win the grants, and linked to that is the facilities money. But to win grants, you need great facilities. This catch-22 guarantees that our investments in institutions will be concentrated. 20 institutions get about a third of our facility support. We need to fix that. I'd love to work with you to delink this connection and allow more open competition for facilities money by places like Maine, Kansas, and other great institutions across the country. NIH is like seed money for these places. Once we invest, other foundations invest as well. I want to work with you to launch a renaissance in biomedical research across the country. Regarding your question about the diabetes institute, thank you for your ongoing support for the special diabetes program. This has led to major breakthroughs. You mentioned the first FDA-approved stem cell treatment for type 1 diabetes, and also the first drug to delay onset, teplizumab. The special diabetes program is responsible for five of the six commercially available artificial pancreas technologies. A reduction in funding would have consequences. We would have to delay or postpone efforts, including our TrialNet effort which led to the approval of the first drug to delay onset. We are right on the cusp of understanding environmental determinants of diabetes in youth with the TEDDY study. Nonetheless, we are very thankful for what we get and will make appropriate adjustments to ensure funding goes out as required by law.
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I know I've gone over my time. I will submit for the record questions on Alzheimer's disease, which is also one of our top priorities, and women's health care grants. Thank you.
Thank you. The current Ebola outbreak highlights the potential use of mRNA technology to respond rapidly to viral threats, especially ones we don't have vaccines or treatments for, like the Ebola strain emerging in Central Africa. But last year, Health and Human Services terminated $500 million in contracts for cutting-edge mRNA vaccine development and then redirected that funding to 80-year-old vaccine technology. Experts have expressed serious concerns that this technology is outdated and inferior and that the way the funding was awarded circumvented the scientific review process. Dr. Bhattacharya, will you commit to providing this subcommittee with the contracts that awarded that funding?
Senator, first I should say that the Bunovigio virus, the Ebola virus that's now in the DRC, we don't have a vaccine for it. But we do have...
And I'm raising an issue that there was $500 million in contracts for mRNA research vaccine development that was cut off and then redirected. So I was wondering what I asked was will you commit to providing this committee with the contracts that awarded that funding.
So first is an easy yes or no. Those are BARDA contracts, not NIH contracts. So you can ask HHS specifically. As far as NIH contracts, absolutely. We're an open book for that.
Was there an open, fair, transparent call for proposals for this funding?
We use this for the funding for the universal flu vaccine. You mean...
For the funding that was taken from the mRNA contracts and redirected.
For the universal flu vaccine that the NIH is investing in for research purposes, it followed our normal processes for identifying intramural research opportunities. So the answer is yes.
So was there peer review of that process?
It's the same standard process that we use for all our intramural researchers. This is a very promising vaccine platform.
No, that's not accurate. Award $100 million internally to two NIH researchers, one of whom is your deputy director.
Senator, that's just not accurate. It followed the normal process for determining how intramural NIH projects get funded. NIH has a tremendous number of amazing scientists, some of whom you see here at the table. There's a normal process for deciding which projects get funded.
$500 million in contracts were terminated, $100 million redirected to an 80-year-old technology without competition, and the researcher, one of them is best known for being a COVID vaccine skeptic, had his lab's annual operating budget increased by more than 50 times. Did Secretary Kennedy's special assistant direct NIH to award this funding to these two investigators?
Senator, the project you're talking about is a tremendously promising project that could...
Kennedy's special assistant direct NIH to award this funding to these investigators.
The NIH followed normal processes for deciding whether to invest in this universal flu platform. If the project works out, early results look very promising. We could have a single injection so you don't have to get annual flu.
I'm very concerned about the process. A lack of competition, lack of peer review. This funding was appropriated in the American Rescue Plan. Congress agreed in our fiscal year 2026 labor HHS appropriations bill to rescind that funding. That bill was made public on January 20th. NIH obligated this funding on January 31st, well after the bill was public, but three days before it was enacted into law and would have been rescinded. In late January, did anyone at NIH discuss needing to award this funding before Congress rescinded it?
Senator, we followed the law on allocating the funding and we've allocated to a very promising project that promises to end the need for annual flu vaccines with a single injection that can protect people from the flu forever.
My understanding is that those discussions did happen. And to be clear, the Trump administration rushed out American Rescue Plan funding before Congress could rescind it, as we tried to do in our bill. Secretary Kennedy has his own narrative about the effectiveness or lack thereof of mRNA vaccine technology, and hiding studies to show their effectiveness is something that I'm deeply disturbed about. And meanwhile, NIH is bypassing its actual gold standard scientific review process to unilaterally award more than $100 million to two NIH researchers, one of whom is best known for being a COVID vaccine skeptic and the other who reportedly just stepped down as NIAD director without any public explanation.
Forgive me, those researchers you're talking about are among the most important flu vaccine researchers in the world. They've had a tremendous track record of success in flu infectious disease for flu and particularly flu vaccination research.
I mean they're NIH funded researchers, NIH researchers. They've been here for decades. They're among the world's leaders in flu vaccine research.
We'll expect to see those contracts. Thank you.
Well, I was going to start my question with Dr. a tie, but I have to respond a little bit and Senator Baldwin and I get along really well. But the insinuation from the remark is we're sitting in front of six incredible scientists for our country that are trying to solve some of the most deepest devastating problems that it's being done on the lamb or done illegally or done suspiciously is very offensive to me. And so I just wanted to say that before I ask Dr.
He knows what I'm going to ask him. I think I am from a rural state as we know and I'm very interested in the NCI cancer center designations and I've seen several projects where it talks about the concentration of cancers in rural areas such as mine such as many of our states here and some of the states that bear the highest cancer incidents and mortality rates remain largely without access to NCI designated care where it's proven the care is better, more successful and has better rates of cure. So, you know, we have the IDEIDA program which has great success and to help get some of that biomedical research out to our rural areas. What I would like to see is this NCI cancer designation branch sort of an alternative designation pathways or something so that the structural barriers that are preventing our eligible institutes and states such as mine from getting and I know mine's working towards this and I know you're working with them and I appreciate that. Will you continue to keep looking at this comprehensive review of cancer center support? And maybe you could give us just a 30 second how much more successful the rates are around cancer center designations for the patients that are being served in those immediate or regional areas.
So, thank you, Senator. First, I'd like to say that I think an undercurrent of your question is that it's no good to have major advances in cancer research unless we can reach all Americans with them. And
