our committee has examined the role of purdue pharma, which got millions of americans hooked on the painkiller oxycontin, despite knowing it was highly addictive.

we have also investigated the role of -- which made millions of dollars fueling the public health crisis that has killed a half million people in our country. today's hearing focuses on another key driver of the epidemic, that operated behind the scenes, the consulting firm mckinsey and company. for nearly 15 years, they secretly designed strategies for companies like purdue to boost sales of addictive painkillers, paving the way for an explosion of drug abuse is and overdoses across the country. document show that mckinsey create a roadmap for these drug companies to "turbocharge" opioid sales. some of the advice mckinsey provided is absolutely shocking, beyond belief. in 2017, after the opioid

epidemic had been declared a public health emergency, mckinsey recommended that purdue offer a pharmacy benefit managers a rebate of thousands of dollars for each overdose caused by the opioid pills. mckinsey's goal, it seems, was to make sure that concerns about overdoses did not slow down sales. apparently this advice was to shocking for even purdue to accept. thanks to the tireless work of state attorneys general, we have finally begun to expose mckinsey secret role in this health crisis. i am deeply grateful for the participation today of the massachusetts attorney general who has been leading the fight for accountability from purdue, the sackler's, and mckinsey.

our committee launched our own investigation into mckinsey more than five months ago. we have learned that at the same time mckinsey was providing secretive eyes to do to boost opioid sales, the firm was also consulting for the food and drug administration, which oversees the opioid industry. in other words, mckinsey was advising both fox and the henhouse, and getting paid by both. the committee recently released a staff report showing that at least 22 mckinsey consultants worked for both the fda and opioid companies, often at the very same time. now mckinsey has defended this contact by -- this conduct by saying they did not work on specific opioid regulations or approvals. but the truth is, there were

obvious connections between kinsey's work for fda and for opioid companies. for example, in 2009, mckinsey advised opioid companies to "band together" to "defend against strict treatment by the fda." then in 2011, mckinsey began working with the very fda offices overseeing the opioid industry. the assignment was set to "strategic goals and objectives and to improve drug safety and address adverse health." clearly should not be setting strategy for both drug companies and the fda. since 2008, mckinsey has selected $140 billion from the fda. just yesterday the fda announced

at a senate hearing that it has stopped issuing contracts to mckinsey while investigations into its conduct our ongoing. documents uncovered by the committee also paint a damming picture of how mckinsey used its federal connections to advance its private sector business interests. in a sales pitch to produce ceo, mckinsey bragged about "who we know and what we know, including the fda." in 2018, the firm sent a private memo to president trump's secretary of health and human services. the memo was edited by consultants working for purdue with one consultant urging that the memo should emphasize the "important societal benefits" of opioids.

mckinsey's conflict of interest were undeniable. they were long-lasting, and they were detrimental to public health. today, our committee will reveal documents that raise even more questions about mckinsey's role in the opioid crisis. these documents show that the firm recommended "a cash prize" to boost opioid sales and urged companies to target communities that were already hard-hit by opioids. mckinsey's conflict and conduct are among the worst i have seen in my years in government. mckinsey has apologized for some of its conduct, but it continues to deny its conflict of

interest, raising doubts about whether it has really learned from its mistakes. kinsey also continues to withhold key information from this committee, including client lists and staff information that could reveal the extent of the company's role in the opioid crisis and problems in other areas. today we will hear from a managing partner and i hope we will get some answers about his company's practices. today i'm also introducing legislation to ensure that we have stronger guardrails on conflicts in the future. i want to thank senator peters in partnership with senator grassley for their leadership in developing legislation. we can no longer tolerate it when companies and federal contractors put their profits over the health and safety of the american people. i now recognize the

distinguished ranking member, mr.,, for an opening statement. >> thank you, madam chair, and i want to thank our witnesses who are here today. the opioid epidemic has caused untold harm to millions of americans. in my district in rural kentucky, thousands have lost loved ones to this devastating crisis. today's hearing is not about how to end the opioid epidemic. if it were, we would have officials from the here to testify. mr. biden has been in office for over a year, yet we have not had any cabinet level officials here to testify about this crisis affecting america today. zero biden cabinet officials before the oversight committee. instead, the majority has allowed other committees to conduct the oversight this committee should be doing. this week alone, house committees will hold 14 different hearings with cabinet secretaries and more with agency

heads. today the interstate commerce committee will hold a committee with the secretary of health and human services. two allow the cvc reopening guidance to effectively keep thousands of schools shuttered. contradicting dr. lindsay's assertion that it was customary. and let's talk about the cdc's double guidance on all things covid. cdc continues to push for covid mandates on americans but not to cease immigrants across the border. secretary of state entered lincoln will testify before the house appropriations committee. he should testify about the war in ukraine and the failures of the afghani rev g program.

how many afghani's are over here? we cannot get an accounting of that. it is significantly more than we were told would come to the united states. that's why committee republicans have requested that secretary blinken come and testify. this committee should be where the secretary of energy comes to testify about rising gas prices and the war on domestic energy production. today and tomorrow, the secretary of homeland security will testify before the house judiciary committee and house appropriations committee. i said earlier today the hearing is not about the opioid crisis.

they should come here to testify about the crisis at the southern border. a crisis that is directly fueling this drug epidemic. republicans in the house oversight committee just returned from our second trip to the border, and all we heard was about all the fennel and crystal meth pouring across the southern border -- the fennel and crystal meth pouring across the southern border. that's why republicans on this committee were asked come in testify. but democrats continue to this request. democrats are not interested in fact-finding. they want the public to believe that the opioid crisis is still driven by overprescribing. it is not. it is driven by the thousands of pounds of opioids oreo across the southern border because of president biden's open border policy. decreasing funding at the border , halting border wall

construction and allowing illegal immigrants to make a mockery of our immigration law has made it easy for congress >> last year alone, over 100,000 americans died of opioid overdoses, most of which were caused by opioids i came across our southern border. yet, this administration does everything in its ability to encourage an open border. madam chair, this is the oversight committee, but this committee under democratic leadership is not expecting oversight. a nonpartisan group gave the oversight committee a failing grade on oversight. cabinet secretaries are coming to the hill, but they are not coming to the oversight committee. democrats refusal to take seriously the core responsibly of this committee is damaging institutional credibility. we need an oversight committee that -- who needs an oversight committee that does no oversight? things are going to change is americans in trust republicans

with the majority. we will hold the biden administration accountable on behalf of the american people. we will seek to rid out waste in the american government and americans will get answers to the issues that matter most to them. why grocery bills are so high, wide it cost so much to fill up a gas tank, why prices are so hybrid why the administration was focused on keeping kids out of schools. why dignities are overrun with illegal aliens. why children's are struggling and turning to drugs laced with fenton all coming from our open border. -- fentanyl. we will find answers to these and many more questions. republicans are ready to deliver credible oversight that produces real results. americans deserve no less from their congress and no less from the house oversight committee. madam chair, thank you and i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back.

let me briefly say that this should not be a partisan issue, because opioid abuse affects all americans. all of us know people in our district that have died from overdoses. and the recent spike in overdose deaths began under the previous administration. the biden administration has surged efforts to address this crisis. the department of homeland security seized more than 14,000 pounds of fentanyl last year. just yesterday, released a new plan to further enhance border security. the homeland security secretary mei york has testified today, if you want to go to that hearing and discuss that, then go right ahead and do that. but today, we are looking at really the second cause of death in america. it is preceded only by covid for a long time. we had more deaths from overdoses than you will see that

their practices where they were giving rebates. paying more if you kill more people. i always try to find a bill to answer problems. what do you do, put a bill in, don't kill people? it's outrageous what they have done, it is serious, he needs to be look at. the conflict of interest has to be looked at. and it has to stop. now i ask unanimous consent to put a listing of the 26 hearings that we have had in this committee, many of them with people that are in the administration and on issues that are important. but nothing is more important than the health of the american people and opioids is causing too many deaths. it is addictive. they said it was not addictive when it was addictive. it is a serious health problem and needs to be addressed. and i hope we will focus on the issue before us. now we need to move on and i

would like to introduce our witnesses. our first witnesses bob, who is a global managing problem at mckinsey and company. and i now will recognize expressly to introduce our next witness, hpe healy. she will recognize ag healy and we thank her so much for coming. ms. preston? ms. preston: thank you madam chair. it is my privilege to address healy, for the commonwealth of massachusetts. as the people's lawyer, he has been a national leader in efforts to confront the opioid crisis, which is decimated community's and families and throughout the country. she has been a champion for families and communities targeted, victimized and traumatized by the corrupt and delicious actors that have profited from the opioid epidemic. most notably, they introduced restorative justice for the

opioid recovery remediation fund that takes the ill gained profits from companies like mckinsey and uses them to expand access to opioid use disorder prevention, intervention treatment, and recovery options. attorney general healy, i applied -- i applaud your leadership and thank you for years of friendship and steadfast partnership. i welcome you back to the house committee. >> many thanks to you congresswoman for your work on behalf of so many families devastated by this opioid epidemic and crisis. chairwoman maloney, representatives and members of the committee, thank you -- >> we are introducing all the people and then we will come back to you. very briefly, unfortunately, there is a hard stop at 11:00, but when she leaves she will be replaced by julian feiner, who is a senior enforcement

counselor in massachusetts ag office. next we will hear from dylan, who is chaired from the regulatory compliance white collar practice group in frederick. finally, we will hear from jessica tiller lemmon, who is the assistant dean of law studies at george washington university law school. the witnesses will be unmetered so we can swear them entry please raise your right hand. do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you god? >> i do. >> what the whackers show -- p records show that they answered in the affirmative. your statements will be part of the record and with that, you are now recognized for your testimony. you will be followed by attorney general healy. thank you. >> chairwoman, ranking member and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to be here today to discuss our history, policies and prevention service. mckenzie is one of the world's

leading provider of business and organizational consulting services, serving the largest and most significant american multinational companies, institutions, foundations and not for profits. we were founded in chicago in 1926 and today, we encompass more than 38,000 employees with more than 12,000 employees in the united states. we are currently serving more than 3000 clients and nearly half of our revenues come from clients headquartered in the united states. our work is deeply rooted in american values, including principles of economic oath and mobility. innovation, sustainability, community development and the rule of law. our approach to client service is centered on evidence-based empirical research, fact-based problem-solving, rigorous data gathering and economic analysis. our consulting services often require us to work with sensitive and confidential information. this information interested into

us is a fundamental value and the backbone of policy. this is why we have the confidence in our procedures designed to maintain quiet data. long-term staffing projects. these policies and procedures are a part of who we are as a firm. when we serve the u.s. government we take additional measures to ensure compliance and accountability. dedicated physical space and technology and additional policies including our organizational requirements of the acquisition. we also recognize that we must continue to evolve and strengthen our approach to governance and clients. as part of our own continuous -- in 2019 we launched a rigorous

framework and set of criteria to determine which clients we serve. it is by far the most comprehensive and complete client service in our industry today. we have substantially increased internal resources and legal compliance and the last four years alone, our professional staff, clients, training and technology and related activities have cost $600 million. i would now like to turn to the committees briefing and staff report about mckinsey's work for big pharma. most importantly, mckinsey did not, did not serve both the fda and purdue on opioid-related manners. as both mckinsey and the fbi have made clear, our work focused on administrative and operational topics, including improvements to organization structure, business and technology. in response to congressional questions, the fda has been equally clear, mckinsey did not consult about any specific product or product class. and none of our contracts are

related to opioids. the staff report has additional thoughts. looks at the time. without examining the nature of the work. it applied incorrect conflict standards and took large speculative leaps to reach unwarranted findings. as one example, the staff report and collectively said that they shared information with private sector clients. in fact, the reference content was publicly published by the fda more than eight months earlier. madam chairman, we fully recognize the terrible consequences of the opioid epidemic. we have acknowledged our role serving opioid manufacturers and we apologize. we have committed to be part of the solution including a settlement that provides more than 575 million dollars for prevention, treatment and recovery efforts. we are committed to continuing to provide service consistent with values and guided by strong policies. thank you and i would be happy

to answer questions. >> thank you. attorney general healy, you are recognized for your testimony. ms. healy: thank you for convening this report. i'm grateful to be here on behalf of the people of massachusetts. i am here to explain to you why my team investigated mckinsey for its role in the opioid crisis. what we uncovered and what we did about it. i am here today because of a family who have been so hurt by this opioid crisis, thousands of people in our state, hundreds of thousands across the country today who need access to treatment and recovery and harm reduction. parents love their children. grandparents raising their grandchildren. when i became attorney general, i promised i would uncover what caused this crisis. i would hold perpetrators accountable and make sure that nothing like this ever happens again. in march of 2015, i open my

investigation into the sackler family. that investigation led to further investigations including our investigation of mckinsey and its role in fueling the opioid crisis. as attorney general, i follow the facts and i follow the law. we are prosecutors and investigators. in documents we uncovered information and here's what we've learned. millions of confidential documents from purdue, pharma, the settlers and mckenzie, this is what we learned. we learned how mckinsey works directly with purdue and the sacklers to turbocharge sales. exactly the time when people were overdosing and dying. we learned that mckinsey works directly with sackler to leaners who controlled purdue. which found that mckinsey told the settlers to target the most dangerous prescribers. and put patients on opioids at the most highest level and highest doses for the longest. of time.

we found that they coached purdue to band together with opioid companies to defend against strict treatment by the fda. it found that at the same time that mckinsey was working for purdue, the same mckinsey consultants were in fact also working for the fda. mckinsey went so far as to brag about this. they wrote the previous ceo that purdue should hire mckinsey because of quote who we know. including specifically because mckinsey worked for the fda. we found that mckinsey did not want the world to know what it was doing. when we suited the settlers, mckinsey consultants brett about my investigation and lawsuit -- when i sued the sackler's. and they deleted the documents in emails. they were going to destroy the evidence because quote someone might turn to us. i was not about to let them get away with that paradigm worked with attorneys general to both parties, to secure a national

resolution that made mckenzie pay for its misconduct. forced mckinsey to change its background and required them to turn over documents to the public for all to see. i want to thank colorado attorney general bill and many other colleagues, for working with me to hold mckinsey accountable. i submitted for the record the court order that requires mckinsey to pay and change its ways. first, we required them to pay more than $500 million to address the opioid crisis nationwide. in massachusetts, every dollar we recovered is going to treatment, prevention and harm reduction, to adjust fund that is overseen by public health experts, by families that have experienced substance use disorder, and by representatives from massachusetts cities and towns. second, we banned them from the opioid business forever. third, if mckinsey ever tries to do business with any state, county or city anywhere in america, we require that mckinsey must disclose the conflict of interest in writing.

fourth, to make sure that mckinsey never tries to destroy evidence again, we require them to preserve for five years every email and instant message by any employee working on any matter, anywhere in the world. for us, we required documents. we uncovered these documents for mckinsey's own files and they will be published on the internet, so that families and everyone else can see the evidence for themselves. i applaud chairwoman maloney and your staff for taking on this important matter. the report that you released this month and the hearing that you're holding today will help expose the dangerous misconduct on behalf of the people of massachusetts. i thank you. chair malone: thank you for your leadership and testimony. mr. dillon, you are recognized for your testimony. mr. dillon: distinguished members of the committee on oversight and affirm, thank you

for -- oversight reform, thank you for inviting me to testify to it i joined the committee as a senior investigative counsel, the first of several positions i have been fortunate to hold on the hill, so i am pleased to return to this hearing room to serve as a witness at today's hearing. i began learning about drug enforcement in the 1990's, and the central district of california, prosecuting drug traffickers and gang members, often one and the same. during the second bush administration, i was nominated by the president and unanimously confirmed by the senate as a first director of the office of narcotics enforcement at the department of homeland security. the drug policy office responsible for working with dhs and agencies. more recently, i had the honor and privilege to lead the brave professionals of the drug enforcement administration and to serve as the director of interpol washington. today, the united states is experiencing the third wave of the opioid crisis.

the first wave began with prescription opioids. increase pricing and better regulations led to a cheaper, more powerful alternative to prescription opioids. heroin. starting a second wave. the source of the second wave was predominantly mexican drug cartels who import cheap heroin into the u.s., resulting in increased heroin seizures along the southwest border and a dramatic rise in overdose deaths. today, we are in the third wave of the opioid crisis, distinguished by the introduction of synthetic opioids, such as fentanyl, into the illicit u.s. drug market. this third wave is driven largely by the mexican drug cartels and china's willingness to sell fentanyl and fentanyl precursors to those cartels. synthetic opioids such as fentanyl are easy to produce, easy to steal and more lucrative than other drugs. unlike illicit drugs, such as cocaine and heroin, drug traffickers do not need to control large areas of land to

grow opium the plant from which heroin is derived. nor are they subject to natural forces like droughts or blight. the barriers for entry into the synthetic drug market are relatively low. all you need is a base understanding of chemistry, a basic understanding of chemistry, access to the right chemicals, and a distribution network. mexican drug cartels possess these three operating requirements and their pivot into synthetic opioids was as deadly as it was swift. last year, largely as a result of illicit drugs smuggled into the u.s. across our southwest border, over 100,000 americans died from a drug overdose. with more than 70% dying from synthetic opioids such as fentanyl. that is an increase of 30% from the previous year. add to that the number of americans suffering from substance addiction and this crisis touches virtually every american. dea's most recent national drug threat assessment issued in

march of last year describes mexican drug cartels, also known as transnational criminal organizations, due to the global nature of their criminal activity, as quote the greatest drug trafficking threat to the united states". these organizations, most notably decent a lower cartel and the cartel more commonly known as cj ng are large, well-funded, and exceedingly violent. they operate with relative impunity in mexico and are responsible for tens of thousands of murders and disappearances in that country. and the cartels are taking advantage of our unsecured southwest border by flooding our committees with vent and all, methamphetamine, and heroin. and they show no signs of abating. to make matters even worse, since late 2020, the relationship between u.s. and mexican law enforcement has deteriorated significantly. last year, mexico's government

enacted strict revolutions -- requirements curtailing mexico by essentially requiring dea to tell mexican authorities about its operations and activities in mexico. given the massive corruption in mexico, this was the equivalent of requiring dea to communicate its intelligence and law enforcement strategies directly to drug traffickers. just last week, it was reported that one year ago, mexico disbanded the select anti-narcotics unit known as the sensitive investigative unit, that the dea had been working with for more than two decades. these actions by the mexican government are devastating blows to the dea's ability to fight transnational organized crime in mexico,. mexican president lopez and anti-drug enforcement tactics are making it difficult for u.s. law enforcement to fight and defeat drug traffickers archly responsible for the illicit drugs driving america's overdose crisis. the unfortunate result of all of

this is that without immediate action to secure the southwest border and reestablish an effective working relationship between less and mexican law enforcement, mexican drug trafficking organizations will continue to grow strong for the foreseeable future and we can expect to see increasing amounts of illicit drugs entering our country, boys committees and killing even more of our relatives -- fellow citizens. i look forward to testifying and answering to testifying and answering the committee's questions. >> thank you. you are recognized for your testimony. thank you. >> ranking members and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify in this legislative hearing. i am jessica to lemon, assistant dean for government security studies at the george washington university law school. in addition to leading the law school's government procurement law program, i teach our anti-corruption and compliance force. the majority staff report provides a compelling case study in how conflicts and compliance issues significantly undermine

the public's confidence to how procurement systems and contractors that provide the u.s. government with critical goods and services. the u.s. government procurement system aspires to obtain the best goods and services for the best firms at the best prices to attain these goals and ensure taxpayer dollars are appropriately safeguarded, the federal acquisition organization makes clear that the government demands the highest commitment to ethical and unbiased conduct. to maintain integrity in the system, entities that do business with the government are subject to a patchwork of requirements, and compliance obligations. the house presents two important questions. first, what are the conflict of interests adequately addressed as potential conflict between a contractor's sector and private sector work. and if not, what legislative

changes could help avoid potential conflicts of this nature in the future? with respect to the first question, any objective observer with a basic understanding and access to google what concluded that existing oci regulations most certainly cover conflicts between a contractor and private sector work. as for the second question, the oci language in the far, which has relay and -- which has or made unchanged since 1984, should be revisited. it is no longer reflective of modern procurement practices and the sophisticated bottom of oci case laws that have developed over the past several decades. oci's are generally separated into three categories, but most relevant today is what is referred to as an impaired objectivity oci. which may arise for a contractor's outside business relationships, create an economic incentive to provide under a government contract. experience suggests that oci's

are more likely to occur in contracts involving certain services, such as management support services and consultant or other professional services. the far requires a contracting officer to avoid neutralized or mitigate significant potential conflicts before contracts award. to fulfill this obligation, contracting officers depend on contractors to disclose actual or apparent oci's. the failure to disclose information required by the oci clause can lead to a multitude of adverse consequences. including contract termination, prosecution from both statements -- for false statements, false claims liabilities or suspension. given the potentially severe consequences for failure to disclose the actual or potential oci, most experienced contractors take affirmative steps to identify potential conflicts of interest and the best of their ability, mitigate them by for example, developing

firewalls, executing nondisclosure agreements, or shifting work to a neutral unaffiliated third party. policy issues highlighted in the house report must be considered against a backdrop of a growing local consensus on the importance of internal ethics and compliance programs, designed to prevent, detect, and mitigate ethics and corruption risks. given the heightened corruption risk and compliance obligations associated with government contracts, most sophisticated government contractors have invested heavily in ethics and compliance programs to reduce the risks they face. moreover, given the increased oci risks associated with contracts involving management support and consulting services, contractors providing services of this nature would be expected to dedicate a greater proportion of their compliance resources to this particular aspect of their compliance program. notably, nearly adopting an oci policy is not enough. an official policy that appears strong and protected it's

virtually meaningless if ignored. to be clear, and occasional violation or deviation does not mean that compliance program is ineffective. however, evidence of a systemic disregard for compliance policies and procedures, particularly when committed by senior leaders, is often very strong evidence of a weak culture of compliance. in 2011, the fark council thoughtfully proposed a revision of the farce oci rules that address numerous outside issues. although the rule was withdrawn, the house report reminds us that it is time to revisit the work the council began over a decade ago and bring greater awareness to the important issue. thank you for the opportunity to discuss this important matter with you. i would be pleased to answer any questions. >> thank you for your testimony. i recognize myself for five minutes. attorney general healy, your investigation revealed that mckenzie helped drug companies increase opioid sales and fight

against meaningful regulation of opioids. based on your investigation, mckinsey advised purdue to undermine federal drug safety measures and if so, how? >> thank you, congresswoman. the answer to that is absolutely. and it is infuriating. in a span of many years, if you go back to 2008, there was a time when the fda was actually trying to create a safety program for oxycontin. and impose stricter standards. at that time, mckinsey was actively coaching purdue on how to band together with other opioid companies to fight against those stricter safety requirements. the fda never implemented the stricter requirements. and of course the opioid epidemic kept getting worse. i submitted today mckinsey's own

email from their very own files as the first exhibit, with my testimony. from their own mouth, marketing to produce ambassadors, that their relationship basically with the fda was something that would benefit purdue. and his bottom line. you move forward to 2013, another example, this is at a time when americans were overdosing and dying of opioids. mckinsey is telling the settlers to turbocharge oxycontin sales. by relentlessly targeting doctors who wrote the most dangerous prescriptions for the most patients at the highest doses possible. a calculated effort to specifically target those prescribers, this is from mckinsey, as a way to boost more ox east sales by purdue. mckinsey consultants went so far as to actually get in the car

with produce sales representatives, to go pitch opioids to doctors. then mckinsey wins -- went to produce national meeting to push their scheme to sell more drugs. we saw that mckinsey, time and time again, works directly with purdue to oppose efforts directed at safety and knowing what was happening in terms of people becoming sick, overdosing, and dying. mckinsey design schemes to get more people on opioids and as a result, more people suffered and died. and i want to raise something as well that i find really appalling. one thing that we uncovered is that as thousands of people in america were dying, mckinsey was working with purdue to salvage the opioid business with health insurance companies. there was more pressure being

brought to bear and more recognition that prescription opioids, which in massachusetts alone have accounted for two thirds of all overdoses and our state since 2009. that while this is happening, more focus and attention is being brought to bear, mckinsey was advising purdue on how to deal with this. in particular, with insurance companies. so here's what mckinsey proposes. they propose paying a rebate to insurance for each patient who overdoses. they are showing that paying a rebate could be a quote attractive option for purdue. if the payment was in the range of 6000 or $14,000 for each patient who was harmed. the money would not go to the patient, it would go to the insurance company to encourage them to keep paying for produce drugs. we do not believe that this rebate ever got traction, it is evidence that mckinsey should not be in this business and it is emblematic of the kind of activities that mckinsey engaged in with purdue.

to answer your question, it is absolutely undermining public safety. chair malone: our committee found mckinsey made more than a hundred $40 but mckinsey has never public a disclose how much it made working for private opioid companies. how much money as your firm paid by purdue and other opioid manufacturers? >> congresswoman, i do not have that number today, but i am happy to dig that up and come back to this committee. chair malone: attorney general, how much was mckinsey paid by purdue >> do you know? >> forgive me. $86 million. >> $86 million. that is a lot of money and that is just one of four companies that they were paid privately. and we know what kind of advice that bought with that money. advice on how to fight drug

regulation and increase the bottom line, knowing it would lead to more overdoses. i have many questions, but my time is almost expired and i want to stick very strictly with the five minutes, because ag healy has a moment before she has to leave and i want more people get to her. but could you please make a commitment that you will give to this committee the documents that we have requested? by friday? >> chairwoman, as we have made very clear, our intent is to work fully with this committee. the answer to all the scope of questions that you have answered and will continue to do that. so i think as we had indicated going into this, we are not done answering your questions. >> thank you. very briefly, will you commit to turning over the complete client list and staffing information the committee requested in november? a november letter by

this friday? >> we will continue to keep working with you, congresswoman, on the questions that you need. our team is intent on helping to answer your questions. >> the families destroyed it deserve accountability from your company and we get it. my time is expired. i now recognize the gentlelady from north carolina. she is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. if i go over a little bit, you kept talking could opioids available on our streets are crucial to preventing overdoses. that is why i introduced a return act which aims to pave the way for drug takeback programs to provide incentives for individuals to turn in their unused opioids for destruction. civilly put, we need to keep these drugs off our streets and prevent illegal opioids, such as

fenton all from ever crossing our border. mr. dillon, would you agree to stopping the illicit trafficking of fenton all across our southern border is the most boring thing we can do to limit opioids overdose deaths? thank you. mr. dillon: absolutely. >> with the administration's actions such as moving to rescind title 42 and moving to stop obstruction of -- destruction of the border wall -- construction of the border wall. mr. dillon: anything that prevents drug traffickers from entering into the united states is a good thing. anything that allows a free flow of individuals without screening across our southwest border allows drug traffickers, human traffickers, terrorists, and others to freely enter the united states, so anything that prevents that is a bad thing. >> so you think that finishing construction of the border wall will help cbp gang -- gain

operational control and slow drug traffickers? mr. dillon: absolutely, any barrier helps border protection. if you visited the border, border patrol will tell you that a wall, a barrier of any kind delays the entry of illegal entering into the united states gives them an opportunity to apprehend those in the visuals. >> is just common sense. to ask another question? mr. dillon: a point i would like to make, and fiscal year 2021, this is the highest year on record for assaults of cbp officers in history. i think that demonstrates what is happening on our southwest border today. >> thank you. during your tenure as a drug enforcement administration, you ever saw the first annual decrease in overdose deaths in 30 years. the chump dhs set an all-time high for the amount of drugs seized at the border. and the trump administration afforded a record about federal grant into addiction and public

health programs. what should we do to build off of those successes? mr. dillon: increased border security. we need to reestablish law enforcement relationship with mexico. it is critical for the drug enforcement administration to be able to fight drug traffickers at home, where they live, in mexico. right now, drug traffickers, as a result of the policy of the mexican administration, have free reign in mexico. they have free reign at the border. there are literally hundreds, if not thousands of drug traffickers associated or members of drug cartels. the sinaloa cartel, this you jnc cartel right here in the united states. we to attack them at all levels. >> republicans have sent five letters to the chairwoman and we are hearing bidens practice and the need to secure the southern border. so far, we have not heard anything -- had any hearings on this issue. if we do not address the crisis at the southern border, will we be able to stem the tide of

opioid use in this country? mr. dillon: absolutely not. i believe that if we do not security southwest border, the drug cartels will continue to flood this country with even more fenton all, methamphetamine, cocaine. it is important to recognize also that americans are dying at record numbers from methamphetamine and cocaine overdoses. refocusing on fenton all because we see more americans dying as a result of opioids, but there are other drugs that are killing americans. we have record overdose deaths year and the only way to stop it is to stop the drugs from coming into the u.s.. a majority are coming to the southwest border. >> you touched on my last questions and that comment, but let's just say altogether, there is a lot at stake on the southern border. if we do not stop this drug trafficking. you have mentioned the transnational criminal organization cutting into our country. are they going to continue to

grow and import their violence into the u.s.? mr. dillon: there is no reason for them not to. this is a multibillion dollar trade grid we have dollars involved in a global criminal organization, fighting for every dollar. you can expect violence to increase as a result. >> thank you. i did not need my time. chair malone: as announced at the beginning of the hearing, attorney general healy has to stop at 11:00. we thank you for your testimony. you are excused pretty we will pause for a moment while ms. feiner gets on the camera. thank you for your leadership. >> thank you.

the gentlelady from the district of columbia is recognized for five minutes. ms. norton? ms. nolan -- ms. norton: thank you madam chair. for this important hearing. it is only in recent years that mckinsey's role in helping purdue to flood our communities with highly addictive painkillers has come to light. two weeks ago the committee released an interim staff report that found that mckinsey did not just work for both fda and purdue, they staffed some of the exact same people for those

contracts. when a government contractor uses the exact same personnel for both private sector and public sector work, are there any potential red flags or conflicts of interest? chair maloney: thank you for your question. analysis is a vast intensive analysis. nevertheless, depending on the nature of that work, if there is potential significant overlaps, there could raise significant red flags about the presence of an oci. ms. norton: you're the global managing partner of mackenzie -- mckinsey. you've held roles with responsibility over mckinsey operations. the book therefore clearly stops with you.

when did you first become aware that mckinsey staff had the same consultants, and federal regulators and private companies? >> thank you, congresswoman and i would also just start by fully recognizing the travesty that this crisis has had in america. we lost several of our colleagues and the epidemic as well. as you know, i became our global managing partner in july of last year. ms. norton: is that when he became first aware? >> that is when i came into this current role. i became aware of our staffing actually on this particular issue which was associated with my responsible these around that time. ms. norton: every sickle one of the 37 fda contracts -- every sickle one of the contracts by the committee had at least one

mckinsey consultant to also consulted for purdue pharma. the committee found at least 22 consultants to wear at fda -- who worked at fda and at opioid manufacturers since 2008. on one project, in 2000 11, mckinsey consulted for an fda office responsible for multiple drug safety matters on setting that offices priorities for, and i'm quoting, strategic priorities. they asked mckinsey to help way -- and again, i am quoting, the impact on the health of the u.s.. at least four of nine mckinsey consultants work on the same contract, on this contract and work for purdue at the same time. are there today consultants working on federal government contracts you are also working

for private sector clients with business before those agencies? >> congresswoman, i am aware that we have some contracts in place today. with the fda, for example, i am not aware of any of the current staff members who also worked in industry. i will point you to the fact that this notion of conflict of interest, i would go to professor tiller men. it is not in the individuals. it is rooted in the nature of the work. ms. norton: will you commit today that mckinsey will stop staffing products from -- projects from agencies with federal clients. >> i will commit today and remain committed that we will not staff on any topical areas that are in direct conflict, congresswoman.

that is the nature of oci, sar. we to compliance with that incredibly seriously. -- we take compliance seriously. we take disclosure seriously and we will make absolute sure that we comply with all the rules and regulations that are appropriate with that. ms. norton: thank you. i just want to say that just yesterday, the fda announced it would not be engaging in any further contracts with mckinsey. it is calling on federal agencies to reevaluate whether they should be spending taxpayer time on that firm. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. i would like to thank the committee chair since we are having this hearing.

i don't think we have too many hearings on the drug companies. mr. grothman: and the effect they have in our bureaucracy. right now in the most recent twelve-month time, from a legal drug overdose, i will ask mr. dillon could he comment on those deaths and which drugs in particular do you think are responsible for 110,000? mr. dillon: which drugs are most responsible? the opioids are as a general category. that would include synthetic opioids such as fentanyl and natural opioids like heroin trade and prescription drugs. they are grouped together and responsible for the vast majority of the overdoses. mr. grothman: i'm told fentanyl is the biggest of the bunch could wear to the drugs come from? mr. dillon: they are imported as

fentanyl into mexico and brought by the cartels across our southwest border. chemicals come from china into mexico, the drug cartels manufactured fentanyl and bring across the southwest border. mr. grothman: i was told by my local dea guy that he thought 100% of the debts came from fenton abroad across from the southern border. -- deaths came from fentanyl. that is speculative. mr. dillon: i hate to say 100%, but there is virtually no -- that i know of, a licit fentanyl manufacturing occurring in the united states, but it is almost entirely in foreign countries and is brought into the u.s.. mr. grothman: could you comment -- i was down on the border last week and it is so frustrating to see 110,000 deaths and nobody seemingly caring very much. you would think at a minimum we would begin to try to cut off

the spigot and go the opposite way right now. we have less drugs being captured because the border patrol is busy doing other things. could you comment on our efforts being made to stem the tide of drugs across the southern border ? it seems that goes up 80,000 dead, 100 thousand dead, 110,000, could you comment on that? mr. dillon: i want to say that the men and women of the border patrol and customs and border protection i know are doing their very best. they are overwhelmed. i view the border at this point as essentially an unguarded border and the cartels are aware of that. they are absolutely -- they plan at times to search migrants to the border, so that they can take -- i'm sorry, border patrol off the line. so i believe at this point, large swaths of our southwest border are essentially unprotected, allowing for anybody, drug traffickers, human

traffickers, terrorists, to cross our border at will and enter into united states. mr. grothman: would you say that we as a government care about the 110,000 who died last year and still have an open border? mr. dillon: i believe that what's -- in my view, border policy, immigration policy, one cannot ignore national security. national security part of that is looking at how these drug cartels are affecting and killing our citizens. so in my view, it is impossible to have a border policy that does not also take into account national security. mr. grothman: ultimately, people should go to prison or suffer some penalty for that i would think. some people consider sales or trafficking in fentanyl or other deadly drugs non-violent crime. do you consider that nonviolent? mr. dillon: i could not disagree more with that contention. you have over one thousand

americans murdered by drug traffickers. talk to any individual who is lost a family member. look in their eyes and you will see the pain. this is a violent crime, this is not a victimless crime. drug trafficking has created -- mr. grothman: do you think we should increase the man to mom -- the mandatory minimum on fentanyl? mr. dillon: we absolutely should be increasing the mandatory minimum. i believe inventory midmonth for drug traffickers and i believe it should be increased. incarceration works, putting drug traffickers in jail works. right now, we have overdose deaths because supply is high. the only way to attack the supply is to seize those drugs and put traffickers in jail. mr. grothman: thank you. final question, there are allegations, which are believed by the way, that the relationships between regulatory agencies and pharmaceutical industries are too cozy. and as a result, there are some

drugs we are not looking into. do you believe that sometimes the relationship between big pharma and drug companies is too cozy in this country? mr. dillon: that's not something i can address. i can say that when i was head of the dea, there was no cozy relationship between dea and the pharmaceutical companies. >> the germans time has expired. thank you very much. -- the gentleman's time has expected a call the gentleman from georgia who is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. mr. stern field, isn't it true that since 2008 the food and drug administration has paid mackenzie more than $140 million? in taxpayer money? >> we have been surveying the food and drug administration and its effect. >> received $140 million over that time, correct?

>> i don't know the exact number, but it sounds about right. >> isn't it also a fact that $40 million of those fees came from the fda center for drug evaluation and research, which oversees numerous opioid-related programs? mr. sternfield: i don't have the splits by program. if that is of interest, i am happy to provide that back to the committee. >> sure, but i mean, you won't disagree with the fact that your firm, mckinsey, took money from the fda's center for drug evaluation and research, which oversees numerous opioid-related programs, correct? you won't disagree with that? >> no, i would agree with you that we did work on what is called -- that's the background for that. it might make sense to also

describe will be actually did. the committee knows it covers all drugs. not just opioids. >> it does include opioids though, correct? >> it does. >> isn't it true mr. stern field that at the same time that mckinsey was taking money consulting from the fda that mckinsey was also consulting with the opioid manufacturers, including purdue pharma, johnson & johnson, pharmaceuticals, and also indo international. >> we worked with a host of pharmaceutical companies. >> at the same time you're working with the federal government, correct? >> we were, congressman. >> when was it that mckinsey first alerted the federal government to the fact that you are also working with the opioid

companies? mr. sternfield: if you look through our history of our work with the fda, in our proposal, we made multiple mentions in our proposals in our experience in the pharmaceutical industry. >> when did you first alerted the federal government that you were working for the opioid companies at the same time? >> i cannot point to the first specific interest -- instance, but i could take you there were over 40 references for one partner in particular about our work with pharmaceuticals. and 20 over a. of several years with experience with opioids. >> is in it a fact that why was receiving money from the federal government that it failed to disclose to the federal government that it was also taking money from the pharmaceuticals? isn't that correct? mr. sternfield: i think that is incorrect, congressman, with

respect. we made very clear that we were working with the industry and opioids in particular. >> with the federal government, are you contending that mckinsey let the government know that it was also taking money from the pharmaceutical industry? mr. sternfield: i will figure out. >> the industry actually. mr. sternfield: congressman, i looked for total references and there isn't any, but i can go back and get you when the first day -- i agree as recently as yesterday, we've seen the fda come out on record and speak about the work that we did with them. and our relevant experiences in the industry and in opioids. i will go back and give you the first date. >> i would like for you to do that. and do you believe it is proper for a company, a private company, to contract with the taxpayers of america through the

federal government for money to advise the federal government on how to combat the opioid epidemic while at the same time taking money from the opioid industry, to help them turbocharge profits? is that correct? mr. sternfield: i one hundred percent agree that would not be appropriate. our work for the federal government was not specific with focused on combating the opioid epidemic. we were working both sides. that would be a conflict of interest. >> the time has excited for >> thank you, you'll back your -- the time has expired. thank you, i yield back. >> mr. norman is recognized for five-minutes. mr. norton: as you pointed out, who is allowing somewhere close

to 540,000 lumps, which are five football stadiums of 79,000 people, into this country, not knowing where they came from, not knowing what they were representing. there is not one question that has been posed to the biden administration as to why you not securing the border. there is not one democrat that is not having title 42 remain in effect. all we need is to put it to a vote. and we heard tom who used to be a director, who was head of the border patrol, again, a dark picture for what is happening to this country under this administration, under his watch, the president, bidens watch. and what it is doing to the children, who as you mentioned, mr. dillon, are dying. do you see the issue that

defense in all -- the fenton all and all opioids coming across are a direct result of the policies of this administration ? >> i want to say that i believe that an open border allows drug traffickers free reign to bring in any drugs or any contraband they want, so any policy that does not secure our border absolutely is a policy that is resulting in overdose deaths every day. so to answer your question, are the policies of this administration allowing for traffickers to enter into the u.s.? the answer is yes. mr. norman: used to be under the trump administration, now, we are having close to 500 thousand people -- 585,000 people a month coming into this country and were not knowing where they're going, whether doing.

what in your opinion should be done to stop this. mr. dillon: we need to do two things that away. we need to secure the border so that border patrol can go back and actually interdicting drug trafficking, seizing their drugs, arresting them and prosecuting them. we also need to establish a law-enforcement relationship with mexico. more than a year ago, the mexican government essentially made it possible for the drug enforcement administration to operate -- made it impossible to operate. we have the most number of agents and offices in mexico, for obvious reasons. that is where the drug traffickers are who are killing our citizens every day with their poisons. we need -- the administration needs to immediately reestablish those relationships. it needs to hold mexico speed to the fire. it needs to tell mexico that we will not tolerate what is essentially looking like a narco state on our southern border. we will not tolerate mexico allowing drug trafficking organizations like the cartel to

pour drugs into the u.s.. those are two priorities, there are other things that need to be done, but those are the two that need to be done immediately. mr. norman: i have been to the border as many have. i do not think this president has been to the border. i do not think the vice president has been to the border. other than asking about it, i do not really see the fault that this is a serious situation in this country. do you agree that border patrol agents that i have met with and others are totally demoralized, totally feel like the handcuffs are on them, not on the criminals? mr. dillon: i have not attended to visit the border and visit with those law-enforcement agents since i was the da administrator, but i have read accounts of that. and i absolutely believe that to be the case. i cannot imagine how if you joined customs and border protection, if you joined border patrol, if you joined ice and basically your hands are tied,

you're not allowed to do your job that were joining to do, that your morale is very high. so i would agree that that is the case. mr. norman: this is a tragedy that is going to be hard to recover from. it's a violation of the constitution could we have an invasion taking place before our eyes and nothing is being done about it. for the families that are having that dead child or the dead relative due to a drug overdose, that is certainly no excuse. mr. dillon: i would point out that during the trump administration we succeeded for the first time since 1990 at bringing drug overdose deaths down, so there is hope. with the correct policy, it can be done. we can succeed at bringing these members down. we can be successful with the right policies. mr. norman: thank you for your testimony, i yield back. >> i recognize the gentleman from illinois, misses kelly, for five minutes. rep. kelly: mr. sternfels, i

want to ask you about purdue pharma. he started working for them in 2004, is that correct? mr. sternfels: i think that is about right. rep. kelly: mckenzie had a few engagements with purdue in 2004 and 2005. most occurred at the mckenzie re-engagement with purdue in 2008. is that correct? mr. sternfels: i think so. most of it wound down in 2014. rep. kelly: in 2007, when you before mckenzie reengaged with purdue, the company and three -- misleading about oxycontin addict and this and it's potential to be abused up it at that point several states had also sued purdue for misleading claims about oxycontin's addictive potential, and yet mckinsey's work continued for the next decade. according to information obtained by the committee, from 2008 to 2017, mckinsey had 65

engagements with purdue pharma or its affiliates. many of these involved working to increase the profitability of oxycontin. during this period, hundreds of government entities sued purdue for its harmful practices. once more, your consultants were tracking those lawsuits for purdue. one 2017 presentation to purdue, and i quote, 128 lawsuits and federal state and local governments filed against purdue this year. now implied oxycontin may have been a driver of the opioid crisis. your company was clearly aware of the harms you are causing. did mckinsey ever consider cutting ties with purdue during this period? mr. sternfels: thank you for the question. you are right that we had a long

history of serving purdue. as you will know, we also exited opioids on her own decision in 20. -- in 2019. and i apologized for our work with purdue and other opioid manufacturers. we fully recognize it fell short of our standards. and it is why we pivoted to settle with the states and spend over $575 million on prevention and treatment. so we're all in in being part of the solution going forward. i think the root of this is while our intent was not to fuel an epidemic, in any of our work, i think we failed to recognize the broader context of what was going on in society around us. and that is why we put new policies and protocols into place to prevent this kind of stuff from happening again. rep. kelly: all right. it was not until more than a decade after be engaging with purdue to boost sales of oxycontin, and after making

untold millions of dollars in consulting fees for this work, that mckinsey issued a public apology in fueling the opioid epidemic, as you just said. but for over a decade, mckinsey advised purdue on how to boost sales of oxycontin, while tens of thousands of people were dying each year from opioid overdoses. it is time for accountability and transparency. the american people deserve the truth about your company's role in this epidemic. and i yield back. chair maloney: the gentlelady yields back -- -- rep. norton: the gentlelady yields back. i recognize mr. cloud for five minutes. i move on, therefore, to recognize the gentleman from louisiana, mr. higgins. rep. higgins: thank you for

holding this hearing. i'm going to try and bring some perspective to this conversation. street perspective. my perspective. louisiana overdosed deaths have increased since 2018. here are some specific numbers. from 1165 from 2018 to 1926 in 2020. virtually doubled overdosed deaths. but the opioid crisis in america is constantly a moving target for law enforcement and this committee should be focused on the actual challenges that america faces right now. mckinsey obviously was involved in grey areas and arguably criminal areas of their interaction with opioid disbursement across the country. and they are being held to account. they settled with 49 of 50

states, and we should acknowledge that as a committee and move onto to the actual threat to our country, which is fentanyl pouring over the border. over the course of the last 30 years, the opioid threat has changed. back in the mid-1990's, oxy showed up. my dea friend will know this. oxy showed up, was very powerful and it was frightening. but by 2007 or so, ocy was moved aside by hydrocodone. hydro, tabs. they were horrible and were available like candy on the street. it was very easy to get a prescription. so-called pain management was a destruction of untold scores of thousands of american families. each one had a story. in 2019 as a street cop, i

welcome the new resident into our community. that was a resident part of being a good cop. somebody moves in, you get down and talk to them. lady moved into a single wide trailer. with her daughter and granddaughter. the family seemed very happy for a while. i kept an eye on the family. over the course of a year things that are to go wrong. and i knew it was about drugs. and i knew that was about -- i watched that family disintegrate. the daughter left with the granddaughter. could not deal with the mother anymore. the mother was addicted. i had to take her dog away from her because she was abusing her dog. she was spiraling downwards, further and further. one night i got a call from the daughter to the police department, the dispatched me to the house, she had not been able to return mother. this is one story, one story,

america. tie attention. -- pay attention. because this story is multiplied by the millions across our country. the daughter called, she could not return mom. i got to the house, i didn't have a warrant but i kicked the door. the grandmother laying there dead, empty bottle, and a filthy single wide. she died in squalor and filth, dead by tabs. the story multiplied again and again. every cop knows the story. by 2014 or so, the tabs were gone. laws were changed up here in this body, schedules were changed on that drug, doctors started restricting the prescription. it was in that era, i suppose mckinsey was responsible for what they are responsible for. and they have been held for

account. it is our southern border now where fentanyl is pouring across the entire country. leading cause of death, my god. we are not discussing the border in this committee? americans are dying. fentanyl is 80 to 100 times more powerful than morphine. a backpack of that junk will kill a whole city. it's pouring into our country. directly as a result of the policies coming out of our own white house. our own white house is killing americans with fentanyl pouring across the border. we want to talk about litigation and settlements from mckinsey, a company that had to deal with pushing rx drugs. they should be held to account, but they are being held to account. that is the american way.

this committee should be focused on existing threats. madam chair, i yield. rep. norton: i now recognize the gentleman from illinois for five minutes. rep. krishnamoorthi: i wanted to draw your attention to a different topic. mainly, dual labs and vaping. there are two complaints i have before me. one by the alaska attorney general, again, juul, from 2020, as well as another complaint filed by city and county of denver, colorado, against the same. along with some other defendants. mckinsey is not one of the defendants, but it is mentioned within each of these complaints. i will draw your attention to paragraph 155 of the alaska complaint in which it says that in 2018, at least of 2018,

mckinsey and company had been retained by juul labs to conduct market research regards to e-cigarettes and teen preferences with regards to e-cigarettes. you don't have any evidence of this particular fact, correct? mr. sternfels: congressman, what i do know is we stopped all work for vaping, and that from my understanding, our work would juul was actually focused on youth prevention while we worked with them. and with our new client framework that i had mentioned earlier, this ended up saying, look, what is going on in society means that we should not actually be doing work with vaping. rep. krishnamoorthi: so yes, there was an engagement with juul, at least through 2018, under the topic heading, largely youth e-cigarette prevention. let me just go over some of the work that was done.

in paragraph 156 of this complaint it says mckinsey and company surveyed teens 13 to 17, generating over 1000 responses. and as part of that survey that mckinsey conducted, it found that teens co-favorite flavors were mango and mint. you don't dispute those findings, correct? mr. sternfels: i do not dispute the findings. what i understand is that work was to then exclude those flavors to drive prevention. at least my understanding of the work. rep. krishnamoorthi: well let me tell you what juul ended up doing with that conclusion. in november 2018, the fda basically warned juul that it had to stop selling flavored e-cigarettes, because those flavored e-cigarettes are what hooked young people onto vaping. juul decided that they would stop selling all flavors, except

mint e-cigarettes. possibly because they found that one of the co-favorite flavors that teens had identified in your survey was meant. -- was mint. i presume you would have counseled them to stop selling mint e-cigarettes, correct? mr. sternfels: congressman, i am not an expert on flavors of vaping. what i can tell you as a father of three teenagers, i am 100% in agreement about the concerns around vaping, particularly for youth. i do know that our work was focused around making recommendations around youth prevention. rep. krishnamoorthi: i guess what i am saying mr. sternfels, is if you are finding found that mango and mint flavors were teenagers' co-favorite flavors as part of your survey, and you had been engaged to prevent vaping among youth, i presume

that you would have counseled juul not to sell mint e-cigarettes following the conclusion of your survey, right? mr. sternfels: i am not familiar with our specific recommendations, congressman. i do know that part of the reason we decided to exit the category entirely was the belief that even a work focused on youth prevention was not having the effect in the broader society. rep. krishnamoorthi: let me jump in for one second. i am sorry for into carpeting -- for interrupting, i just have limited time. i would respectfully request that you and mckinsey please produce this particular survey, along with your recommendation coming out of the survey. because it is very important to my investigation as chair of the economic and consumer policy subcommittee into the youth vaping epidemic. i should tell you that following our investigation, the trump administration then banned these

flavors, except -- except for menthol and tobacco flavored e-cigarettes. mint and menthol are extremely close in taste preferences among youth. so, can you commit to producing those documents to us? mr. sternfels: can i commend you for focusing in on this area? i am equally worried as a father of three teenagers on this. i would be happy to work with you, following up on what your specific questions are in regards to vaping, to answer any questions you may have after the testimony today. rep. norton: the gentleman's time has expired. i recognize the gentleman from texas, mr. cloud, for five minutes. rep. cloud: last term, we had seven hearings on the border in this committee hearing. we have seen videos of the majority members now that were at the border crying tears.

today, we're here to talk about an opioid epidemic while the number one killer in the united states among young people is fentanyl. i am from south texas, and so regularly i hear stories from farmers ann landers. i just left a meeting with farmers and ranchers to come here. i will constantly hear about their fences being run over from bailouts. we hear from families who are afraid to let their children roam their own property because of what is going on. i've visited the facilities where over 50% of young women admit to being abused along the journey. just recently we had a texas national guard member, bishop evans, who drowned while trying to save what he thought were some migrants trying to make their way here, and it looks more like they were trafficking drugs into our country. yet this committee refuses to have a hearing on this.

mr. dhillon, you mentioned that under the truck administration, -- trump administration, something happened with the drug overdose issue in our country which was remarkable, actually. can you speak to that? mr. dhillon: i believe it was in 2018 we saw drug overdose deaths decrease for the first time. a little over 4% or 5%. and that was the first reduction that we saw, i believe since 1990. and i believe that was as a result of the aggressive policies. and i'm here talking mostly about enforcement, but is also to remember that prevention and treatment are absolutely critical in fighting the opioid crisis. during the trump administration we prioritized prevention, we prioritized treatment, and we prioritized enforcement. and i believe that is why we saw overdose deaths dip that year. a same aggressive approach with enforcement, which has to be an

important part of that to reduce supply, i think would also have a similar effect. rep. cloud: you mentioned prevention and enforcement. would you connect the enforcement that happened at the border as a prevention mechanism? would you say data suggests that is a connection? mr. dhillon: we talk about prevention as education. in my day it was, this is your brain on drugs. but yes, prevention in the sense of preventing drugs from coming into the u.s. i described that as a supply issue. one of the things we learned in the opioid crisis is supply matters. an increase in supply results in an increase in open to it -- in overdose deaths. enforcement has to be a critical part of that, which means the only way to keep supply doubt is to stop those drugs from coming across our southwest border. and a secure border is actively critical to that. rep. cloud: you mentioned mexico, it was interesting the term you used, it is becoming a narcos state.

can you speak to that little bit? mr. dhillon: the government designates certain countries as a narcos state. i am not saying that the government has done that, but what i am saying is that the way mexico is now treating drug traffickers, in my view, not harshly at all. that its affirmative efforts to undo the cooperation, the law enforcement cooperation between the u.s. and mexico, is effectively turning mexico into a narco state. there are parts of the company that are completely controlled by drug traffickers. so we need to recognize the national security risk of an open border. we have what is verging on a narco state on our southern border. rep. cloud: and what is interesting about that as we are beginning to see certain communities, even in california, where cartels are beginning to take over certain communities. we are seeing that now being established, albeit in pockets, but here in the united states as

well. the biden administration policy, their open border policies have created a reversal of this trend for sure. right now the big issue in the public sphere is title 42 a. and there's an understanding -- i have been to the border several times over the last year -- that that is the last thing holding any shred of security. we understand nancy pelosi does not want to bring a title 42 bill to the floor. but there is a mechanism. we need seven more democratic members to support in order for us to force a vote on the title 42 bill. i would encourage the members of this committee, 15 of which who said we needed to repeal tidy 42 because of the false story about boarding patrol -- border patrol members whipping migrants -- rep. norton: the gentleman's time has expired.

the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. rep. desaulnier: thank you, madam chair, and thank you for your tenacity on this subject. it is so important. it's hard to believe that we can here have a hearing that would be worse in terms of business behavior than the one that we had with the sackler family and purdue pharma. it is very, very upsetting to hear this testimony. a company, mckinsey, that i used to respect. cannot imagine having my children working for mckinsey, mr. sternfels. ms. feiner, congratulations to you for your work. makes me proud of being a native for massachusetts. let's talk a little about what you uncovered about the communication of trying to cover up the actions by mckinsey.

in 2018, an investigation into purdue began closing in on mckinsey, their employee, a partner at mckinsey, emailed another partner to ask if we should do anything other than eliminating all of our documents and emails. a month later, he emailed himself a note to quote, delete old documents from laptops. pr referring to purdue pharma. ms. feiner, did you uncover evidence in your investigation that mckinsey consultants they have taken even additional steps to hide or cover up their actions? ms. feiner: thank you for your question. yes, we did uncover documents about obstruction, deleting emails and documents relating to mckinsey's work for purdue. and because they discussed destroying evidence right after

we filed our lawsuit, we concluded a term in our judgment requiring mckinsey to automatically preserve every email or instant message by every mckinsey employee working on anything anywhere in the world. people at mckinsey and other companies engaging in this reprehensible conduct should know when your company and your executives do something that you do not want uncovered, the right answer is to not do it. no one should think that they will be allowed to hurt people and keep it secret. and one astonishing fact that we uncovered is that there were people inside of mckinsey who saw these red flags, they saw these conflicts, and they said, we should be treading carefully here. there are conflicts between industry, our industry clients like purdue, and our regulator clients. and they went ahead and they changed recommendations and documents anyway. conduct like this should never

happen, especially when it affects american lives. that is why we banned mckinsey from the opioid business forever. and i am pleased to hear today that they are no longer working for juul. i think those kind of changes and conduct's are a result of this committee's efforts and are on forces -- and our office's efforts. rep. desaulnier: you heard the comments by the managing partner of mckinsey about things being taken out of context. can you, based on your investigation, the overall theme of mckinsey's responsible behavior, how do you respond to what i think is obvious cajun? -- of obvious cajun -- ms. feiner: just look at the types of recommendations they were making two purdue -- making to purdue at the height of this crisis. thousands dying. they were working with companies

like purdue, like johnson & johnson, to turbocharge opioid sales. that is the height of irresponsibility at a time they were also working inside the fda, learning how that agency works, and trading on their insider knowledge to get their private clients. rep. desaulnier: the testimony today strikes me as encouraging to continue behavior, at least defending it, making light of that behavior in spite of the apology. ms. feiner: i think this is par for the course that companies that engage in misconduct like this. it is not surprising to hear that their answers are defensive. the real thing this committee is doing in our investigation is, is to look at what they were saying at the time they were engaging in this conduct. and those actions and those words speak volumes. rep. desaulnier: mr. sternfels, have you done a comprehensive analysis of what communication happened within the company? and will you turn over -- turn

any of that over to the committee, as the chairman has suggested? mr. sternfels: we have done a comprehensive analysis of the communications and document retention and policies associated with that are actually critical for us. it is why the two colleagues he made mention of were terminated as soon as we actually realized they violated our document retention policy. chair maloney: the gentleman's time is expired, regretfully. now we recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. keller, you are recognized for five minutes. rep. keller: i would like to thinker witnesses. the opioid epidemic to needs to affect millions of americans. the cdc reports that from april of 2020 to april of 2021, there were 100,000 deaths caused by overdoses, and three quarters of those were due to opioid.

clearly, it's a devastating problem that is happening and it deserves congressional attention. but it is not a standalone problem. president biden and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle if used to address the glaring source of illicit drugs in our country, the unsecured southern border. in fiscal year 2021, customs and border patrol seized 11,000 pounds of fentanyl at our southern border. that is enough to kill 2.5 billion people. think about that. the amount of fentanyl that would have flooded american communities without cbp intervention would have been sufficient to kill one third of the earth's population. they issued their first public safety alert in six years, warning the public about fentanyl-laced prescription pill look-alikes. and we have heard what happened

in 2018, when we saw the first reduction in overdoses. and i think that is partly due, as was mentioned by my colleagues, to the fact that we were taking the security of our southern border seriously during the trump administration. so, mr. dhillon, as a former dea acting administrator, how do you think the current situation at the border is affecting the d.a.'s ability to keep life-threatening substances off our streets? mr. dhillon: it is making it very difficult. if you combined the efforts of mexico to essentially make it impossible for dea to operate there, an open border, you are essentially forcing dea to fight the battle against the drug cartels on our home turf. so that means the dea is only able to really attack drug

traffickers now once the drugs yet into the u.s. and you are going after the traffickers here locally. extraditions over the last year of drug traffickers from mexico has decreased significantly. during the trump administration we had a number of extraditions from mexico for wanted drug traffickers. that has ended. so that means we cannot even prosecute drug traffickers in mexico because even if we could collect the evidence, which we can't now because of the poor relationship that mexico has created with low -- with u.s. law enforcement, we cannot even get them here because the government is not extraditing them. so the job has become astronomically higher for all law enforcement in the u.s. rep. keller: so what would you recommend, what actions should we take as government officials to help the dea and the commission to stomp out illicit substance trafficking at our southern border? mr. dhillon: i think from a policy perspective, securing the

border is the first thing. that is where the drugs are coming from. it is just common sense that we need a more secure border. but we also need to take the battle to the drug traffickers where they live. which means dea needs to be able to work effectively with mexican law enforcement in mexico where we can work with them to go after drug labs there, which the dea has done in the past. where we can collect evidence against high-level drug traffickers and he cartels. we can give that evidence the u.s. attorneys here in the u.s. who can indict pressure needs to be put on mexico to reengage the u.s. in a cooperative manner to allow us to do our jobs. >> thank you, i appreciate that. it is a serious issue. i heard my colleagues talk about vaping and things that are serious issues, but we talk about these things and then we voted on the bill to legalize marijuana for recreational use. we have to get serious if we are

concerned about addiction, it is a health epidemic, and we need to make sure we treated that way and not make it easier to have that happen. if my colleagues are serious about addressing the opioid crisis, they should be serious about securing the southern border. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from michigan is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. bob, do you know what the term hyperbolic means? >> no, can you help me. >> i want to show you an example. in 2020 after mckinsey's work for purdue pharma came to light, your firm admitted it did not adequately acknowledge the epidemic imploding in our communities are a terrible impact of opiate misuse and addiction on millions of families across the country. then the committee, the great

work of the committee continued the investigation and found mckinsey did not just failed to acknowledge the severity but behind closed doors your staff and team routinely disregarding all the information that was coming clearly to you all regarding the mass poisoning in the first place. i would like to put up an email from 2018 where mckinsey's government practice discussed how a senior partner at mckinsey who served opiate manufacturers -- the person wrote, quote, the word epidemic and crisis are hyperbolic. bob, it means marked by language that over exaggerates the truth. more than half a million people in the united states have died of opiate overdoses since 1999, do you agree, yes or no, calling

half a million deaths is hyperbolic? >> i'm still confused on the question. >> you said it was exaggerated, you are saying a half a million people is not a crisis to literally have a half a million people die of opiate overdose, that is what you said in an emailed. >> i have been clear. we view it as an epidemic. >> for 15 years the strategy at mckinsey failed the marketing representatives targeting doctors who wrote high numbers of prescriptions including those that ran pill mills. that is trafficking, correct? aren't you trafficking? >> i would not say that our work on any aspect in marketing is

trafficking. >> i know you wear suits and do not consider yourself drug traffickers but let me give you information here. when the fda announced new restrictions in 2013 on opiates including a warning for pregnant women, mckinsey consultants at purdue had doubts this morning which change the behavior of high prescribing doctors and emailed about the safety concerns. i would like to put one such email on the screen. laura on your team, she said, i'm most curious to see high riders notice this smiley face. it is safe to assume that refers to prescribers that were writing high numbers of prescriptions for opiates, would you agree? >> give me a second to read the email.

>> those were the exact prescribers mckenzie was advising purdue to target, correct? >> from my understanding, this email chain refers to how we could help her do comply with new fda restrictions. i agree the smiley face is totally inappropriate. >> you are trafficking and making money off of poisoning people. why do you think your employee would put a smiley face next to a question if high riders would notice a warning had been put on oxycontin for pregnant women? >> i cannot guess as to why there was a smiley face. i know the string relates to how we help purdue comply with new fda regulations. >> you are happy to think this warning would not derail mckinsey's trafficking drugs while mckinsey was celebrating

blood money and communities were being torn apart. 86% of overdoses in my district in detroit were due to overdoses from opiates. did you know that? >> i did not know that. >> behind that number was a human being, do you understand? can anyone explain the difference between mckinsey cartel and people like pablo escobar, i am all ears. you may be wearing suits and have fancy offices but you are doing the same thing. >> her time has expired. we are trying to keep on record. mr. fallon from texas. >> today the majority party wants to discuss the business practices and conflicts of interest of mckinsey, that is well and good. i have been here a year and a half and we have not talked about the southern border. what we should also be talking about is the business practice

is an conflict of interest of some members of congress who choose to shamefully and blatantly ignore the root causes of 100,000 american deaths, our fellow citizens due to drug overdoses. 75% of which are opioid overdoses. where do these drugs come from? how do they get here? who is responsible for bringing them? today what we should really be talking about, we should have a hearing, discussing some say the border crisis -- it is not even a crisis anymore, it is a border catastrophe. if these trends continue, it will be cataclysmic. the border christ must catastrophe and cataclysmic events are responsible for 100,000 of our citizens deaths. in 2021 the dea in phoenix,

arizona seized 9.5 million fentanyl laced pills designed to look like prescription drugs. u.s. customs and border patrol sees 11,000 pounds of fentanyl, enough to kill every american eight times over. in 2021 almost 200,000 pounds of methamphetamine was seized. the mexican drug cartels are making wild profits, record profits, and it is not just with narcotics smuggling but smuggling human beings. we talked about or to patrol a few weeks ago, and they told us cartels are charging $4000 per person. in march 221,000 known illegal border crossers, 60,000 who got away.

300,000, you do the math, that is a billion dollars in a month. the estimates are the drug cartels gdp is between $15 billion and $25 billion on the narcotics and but this is making 10 billion smuggling human beings. the answer is not to obfuscate and ignore and put your head in the sand. we had the homeland security director say in front of a committee that the border was secure. then he gets caught saying it is chaos, so which one is it? is that hyperbole or a lie? the crisis is not getting better. it is getting worse. where is the majority of the fentanyl that gets into the country produced? >> it comes from mexico,

produced in mexico or shipped from china to mexico. the bottom line is it all ends up in mexico and comes across the border. >> china, no friend of the united states. our greatest threat. methamphetamine, where is most of that produced? >> mexico. meth labs are rampant in mexico. >> the high-tech labs that we saw are in mexico. >> as the acting administrator of the dea, i visited one of those labs. they exist and produce enormous amounts of methamphetamine. deck technology can be applied to fentanyl. -- that technology can be applied to fentanyl. >> how do these drugs get to our country? >> by land across the southern border. >> as americans, if we are not

safe, we are not free. we need to ensure we use title 42 to secure the border. and reimplement the migrant protection protocols that worked when president trump turned the flood into a trickle, and now it is a flood again. support legal migration by building walls with gates because this is not about migration. there will be migrants coming to this country, and there should be, but we want to support legal migration and oppose illegal migration. we will find out in november what the american people think about this. >> the gentleman yields back. i recognize the gentlelady from missouri. >> thank you, chairwoman for this timely hearing. my hometown is one of the

deadliest cities for overdose deaths among black people. last week the university of missouri st. louis released data that showed opioid overdose deaths among black people in st. louis increased 560% in the last six years. 560% in six years alone. i am heartbroken by this preventable loss of life, and as a congresswoman i am outraged. we are demanding answers from one of the most evasive and secretive consulting companies in the world, mckinsey and company. they have worked for and advised opioid manufacturers like purdue and the federal agency responsible for relating them, the fda. over 15 years mckinsey raked in nearly $1 billion in government contracts that included

assisting the fda to determine what drugs are safe. at the same time they would make untold millions consulting with companies like purdue to help them exploit loopholes at the fda. there are dire applications of corporations crafting public policy behind closed doors. the process of discovering the extent of mckinsey's role in fueling the opioid crisis, lawmakers have an obligation to call for accountability and justice, transparency and honesty, and apologies and reparations. the families and friends of the 500,000 people who have died from an overdose since 1999 deserve answers. congress deserves answers, and those who have died or whose lives have been destroyed because of opioids deserve accountability. please respond a simple yes or

no, if mckinsey required to disclose conflicts of interest for bidding for government contracts? >> we are. >> another yes or no question, was it a conflict of interest to consult with the fda about the safety of drugs like oxycontin while profiting from oxycontin through purdue? >> we did not comment on the safety of drugs such as oxycontin or any other drug in our work with the fda. >> is your company willing to submit documentation to the committee confirming that mckinsey's relationship with purdue was not a conflict of interest? >> we have been very transparent with this committee on both our work with purdue, and we are happy to provide any more transparency, and also with her work with the fda. if there are any questions on either side, i'm happy to work with you.

we believe in transparency. >> i take that as a yes that you will be willing to submit documentation to the committee. thank you so much. when oxycontin sales were low, mckinsey's sales representative -- purdue adopted this advice. why would mckinsey have this position? >> thank you for your question. mckinsey did a lot of work with the data and found out and sold advice to purdue that the highest prescribers were the most likely to write oxycontin prescriptions. that is the same advice they told johnson & johnson. 25 times more than their counterparts, those of the doctors you can see was sending

purdue sales reps, 25 times more than the counterparts. they were the most profitable target. they did not care if those doctors were writing safe prescriptions. looking at the data, the odds were that they were not. purdue paid sales reps to visit these doctors over and over again. we tracked every time purdue visited a massachusetts doctor and every time someone in massachusetts died of an overdose, and purdue targets were 10 times more likely to prescribe opioids to patients who overdosed and died. across the nation, thousands and thousands of purdue patients died. >> thank you for those insights. as a nurse who has seen the devastation opioids have caused in my community, i'm troubled by these tactics. committees -- communities like mine have suffered for decades. companies like purdue and

consultants like mckinsey -- >> the gentleman from florida. >> thank you, we are wasting more time in congress. this hearing, although the opioid epidemic from pharmaceutical manufacturers in the united states was a serious problem in our country for a time, many states like mine in florida, like massachusetts and so many others have gone through legislation at the state legislative laevel to deal with any over prescription of opioids. we have a new opioid crisis, and it is not from big pharma and the united states. it is from the drug cartels who operate pharmaceutical sites below the southern border in mexico. we all know this. i was on the southern border a week and a half ago. it was my third trip to the

southern border. the president of the united states has not been, the vice president was there for about three hours. members of this committee have been there multiple times in the last 15 months, and the thing we are told consistently by border agents on the ground, the people tasked with securing our country, is that it is the president's radical policies on immigration at the southern border have led to massive increases in trafficking fentanyl and methamphetamines, heroin, cocaine into the united states. the fentanyl trafficked into the united states is being laced into pills by the cartels because fentanyl is 40% more addictive than crack cocaine. the drug cartels are lacing this into everything they traffic into the united states, and that is what is leading to the deaths of american citizens primarily

by fentanyl and opioids using illegal drugs. we understand what happened with this company and what they were doing with the fda, but that was 10 years ago. why are we focused on an issue from 10 years ago were most of the legislative victims have already occurred? are we getting a pound of flesh for talking points? the real issue happening now is how we are treating trafficking of people and drugs into the united states. i'm sorry you came here today because we are wasting your time. i was told you had one question this hearing, and you are prepared. what we are talking about today has no impact on the united states currently. what does impact the united states is the fact the drug cartels are utilizing our ineffective border policies to traffic more drugs into the

united states. that may give a picture how this is working. the coyotes are marketing to people in countries all over the world, not just the northern triangle countries. if you pay us a couple thousand dollars, we will traffic you into the united states. it will take you about 3-5 years to get in legally, but if you do it our way, you can get in in a month. they are doing this all over the world. the drug cartels are allowing the coyotes to move people across the border, and they are getting a piece of the action. by some estimates, they made $7 billion allowing people to be trafficked into the united states. anything that moves across the southern border into the united states, the drug cartel is paid whether it is legal or illegal to come into our country. the immigration policy currently by joe biden and secretory

mayorkas is that border agents are to begin processing amnesty claims at the southern border, and the border patrol is not allowed to make a determination on credible fear. they are only allowed to begin the processing of people coming into the united states, and they are given a day in court in front of an asylum judge, but those hearings are at a minimum six months to three years. instead of saying people need to claim asylum or amnesty at a u.s. embassy in their home country, or if their country does not have a u.s. embassy, at the next closest embassy, the biden administration is allowing people to travel 2, 3, 4, 5 sometimes six different countries passing consulates to come to our southern border, enter illegally and force border agents to process people as opposed to securing the border.

that is what is happening. under homeland security, the office of orr is putting people on airlines all over the united states and sending them everywhere. if we were serious we would have secretary mayorkas and ask him about the real threat -- >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> they are using radical immigration policy by joe biden to kill more americans here. >> the gentlelady from california, ms. order, is recognized -- ms. porter, is recognized for five minutes. >> i hope you can hear me if i do not shout. is your position that mckinsey working for the fda and opioid manufacturers at the same time did not create a conflict of interest?

>> that is my position to be clear. >> i appreciate your clarity. let's look at what mckinsey employees told pharmaceutical companies. mckinsey consultants bragged to opioid maker, purdue pharma, that there fda work, quote, improved purdue's ability to influence the regulatory environment. that is a mckinsey statement, quote, mckinsey's fda work improved, will improve purdue's ability to influence the regulatory environment. mckinsey word for purdue at the same time it was working for the fda. should mckinsey have disclosed to the fda that it was helping opioid manufacturers influence drug safety regulations? >> i will start with your direct

question. we do not view our work at the fda as the same time working with pharmaceutical companies, including opioids, as a conflict because the topics were different. >> i know you say you worked on -- i read your testimony -- you worked on broad systemic issues, is your claim. are you suggesting that working on things like the design, organizational structure, resource allocation, staffing, building the bones of a drug safety system does not get regulations actually enforced against an entity like purdue? if your work for the fda was so important, did it have influence on what they did in the world with drug manufacturers? >> no, it did not. >> you charged the government cannot do important work? >> i did not say the work was

not important, i said it did not influence their decision with respect to pharmaceutical companies. it may be worth the committee understanding what we actually did with the fda. this is the kind of work mckinsey performed for the fda. it was implementing technology solutions so we could have a repeatable process. it was taking paper out of processes that had too much paper. it was putting visibility were people were allocated so fda employees could be more productive to help save taxpayer money. we did not design the processes or set policy, we made some core processes more efficient and effective to make the fda more effective. >> shouldn't the fda has been allowed to make its own decision about whether or not your company's work for purdue did or did not create a conflict?

why should you and your company be the decision-maker here? who made you conflict of interest czar? >> we are not a conflict of interest czar. >> did you disclose to the fda mckinsey's work at the same time , that mckinsey was working at the same time it was working for the fda that it was working for purdue? did you disclose that to the fda? >> we made clear in multiple instances that the individuals involved had experience in pharmaceutical -- >> they did not have experience, they were the identical humans working for both at the same time. did you tell the fda, did you make the disclosures and allow the government to decide if there was a conflict of interest? >> when we assessed the work

request from the fda, we brought professionals, our legal team to understand if there was a conflict of interest. we verified the work was different. >> that is you putting yourself as the czar of conflicts. your scheme worked well for mckinsey, mckinsey got contracts, purdue got rich, and america got addicted. since 2008 mckinsey earned 140 million dollars in contracts from the fda, and you did not ever disclose your work for purdue. you did not disclose or conflict of interest. since you did not disclose her conflict of interest, will you return the $140 million to the fda? >> i will point you to the fda statement as recent as yesterday where they highlight that our work was not related to opioids or the pharmaceutical industry. >> i recognize that gentle man from kentucky.

he is recognized for five minutes. >> i appreciate representative porter's questions about disclosure. i hope you share our passion for wanting administration officials to have full disclosure with their conflicts of interest when we talk about in january the biden family's lack of disclosures, work with the who after the outbreak of covid from the wuhan lab. we look forward to working with you on that quest for disclosures. welcome back to the committee. as you have heard from members on our side of the aisle, we are concerned about what is going on with the southern border. you cannot have a conversation about opioid abuse without talking about the southern border. unlike my friends on the other side of the break aisle, we did on this committee, we went at

least two times. many members have been seven or eight times. other members live on the border. it is a daily struggle. will we be able to stem the crisis of opioids in this country without focusing on the southern border? >> no. >> would you agree policies that failed to address the situation at the southern border is exacerbating the opioid epidemic is cartels smuggle drugs and over border patrols? >> that is correct. >> do you agree that cartels manufacture synthetic opioids in clandestine labs on the mexican side of the border? >> they import them from mexico finished or manufacture them in labs. >> i was in a town called

hartford, kentucky talking to the sheriff. they had a big crystal meth bust, the biggest they ever had in kentucky. 100% they verified from drug agents was manufactured in a lab across the border in mexico. they carried it across the border with our lax border policies. it is unbelievable. when the cartels manufactured these synthetic opioids, were they obtaining the precursors chemicals from? >> largely china, india also but largely china. >> china, china. we wonder if this administration is compromised by china because of hunter biden, and now we have learned hunter biden's uncle

dealings with china. it seems like this country, we know china is contributing to the drug problem. we know china played a leading role in covid-19. we know china covered up a lot that went on in that wuhan lab but this administration does not want to talk about china. that is why we keep talking about hunter biden, because we wonder if this administration is compromised on china because of the president and his son and his brother's shady business dealings in china. we found out on our second border trip that the cartel smuggled people and drugs in their operations.

is that correct? >> yes, the cartels control all passage to the united states. you cannot get from mexico to the united states without going through a cartel member. >> are they using human smuggling operations to facilitate drug smuggling? >> yes, they profit from human smuggling and can use them to bring drugs into the u.s.. >> i appreciate the concern about opioid crisis in america, we share your concern, much of what we talked about has been litigated and there have been many reforms made with respect to the american opioid producers . the problem with opioids on the southern border, and this administration has an open border policy facilitating -- we need to have hearings with

administration officials to talk about the biden border crisis. >> the gentleman from vermont is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. let me get right to it. i want to thank all the witnesses for being here but i do want to direct my questions to mr. stearnfell. after president trump nominated alex azar, mckinsey consultants drafted a transition memo to share with him. that covered six broad topics in the third was an important topic of tackling the opioid epidemic. i would like to bring up that memo so you can look at it.

the draft of that section originally presented had strong language about the severity of the opioid crisis, and it emphasized the length between prescription opioids and epidemic. it read, despite significant attention and effort, the opioid crisis continues to inflect devastating consequences on the health and well-being of people in this country. millions of americans are addicted to opioids. approximately 95 million americans use prescription painkillers in the last year, more than use tobacco. i regard that is candid and complete. but the final version was distilled to an anodyne statement, quote, you are well aware of the major challenges

associated with the opioid and heroin epidemic. my question is what happened? what happened to the completing clear language replaced by the anodyne sanitized language? >> i would start with the notion of transition memos for democrats and republicans taking office -- >> you do not have to give me a dialogue about the transition memos. the language was candid and complete, then anodyne. why? >> the memos cover the entire department. if you read the memo entirely, it covers many topics under hss, the opioid epidemic, we named it

six times at least in the final memo. >> let me go onto to the next question. i'm not finding that as an explanation. mckinsey did significant work for purdue pharma, and the task mckinsey had was to help the terrible sackler family. more and more drugs got more and more people addicted. that was the day job for the governmental agencies that were tasked to stem the opioid epidemic. how can mckinsey justify a day job facilitating the efforts of the biggest drug dealing family in the history of the country, and it's not job was to help the government address the problems

that the drug family caused during the day? tell me how that works. >> i want to be very clear, i'm not here to defend the work we did with purdue. i have noted clearly it fell short of our standards, and i apologize for that work. it was part of the reason we led to the accelerated settlement with the state ag, and part of the solution, the $575 million that we paid. >> i appreciate that. >> i also want to be clear. the work we did with the fda focused on improving their processes. it was agnostic of any pharmaceutical specific drug including opioids, and the fda is on record multiple times saying that. >> i will ask the professor, do

you have any comments on this? >> i think there has been almost a hyper fixation on subject matter overlap. it is important to keep in mind the crux of an oci analysis is biased. the language in many agency clauses and the language in fda contracts ask companies to report the existence of any facts that would cause a recently prudent person to question impartiality because of the appearance of bias. by focusing on subject matter, you are only taking a piece of it. all of these need to be factored in when you do an analysis of this matter. >> mr. davis.

>> thank you, madam chairman. according to your website, mckinsey boasts it is a trusted advisor and counselor to many of the world's most influential businesses and institutions. your life sciences practice in particular holds itself out as a leading consultancy for pharmaceutical and medical products. in december, 2020 after mckinsey entered into a $573 million settlement with state attorney general's, for mckinsey's role

contributing to the opioid epidemic, your company issued an apology for work for purdue. mckinsey did opiate work for companies other than purdue, isn't that right? yes or no answer. >> that is correct. >> thank you. nearly six months ago this committee requested that mckinsey turn over all documents from its risk committee regarding its opiate and drug consultant work. i think we deserve to know how mckinsey's risk processes failed at purdue. it also requested client lists and products from opiate distributors.

they all played a pivotal role in this epidemic. you have not turned over these materials. can you recount -- can we count on you to produce these documents to the committee? >> i want to make clear our work with distributors and pharmacies did not cover opioids. i also want to stress our collaboration to turn over 375,000 pages of material which relate to pharmaceutical companies beyond purdue. some related to opioids that you have documents on. if there are further questions you are interested in, i would be happy to continue to work with you to answer those questions. we know we are not done answering your questions. >> you cannot get those to us in a week or something close to

that? >> -- >> two weeks ago in response to the report, mckinsey issued a statement that said, quote, we understand the scrutiny around our past client service for opioid manufacturers. this statement echoed your december 20 pledge to continue to cooperate fully with the authorities investigating these matters. you cannot claim to be accepting accountability without committing to transparency. this committee identified 22 mckinsey consultants who worked for the fda and purdue at the same time.

the committee asked what other pharma companies they work for, and you have not told us. congress cannot develop legislative reform to address these issues without fully understanding the extent of mckinsey's conflict of interest. as a start, when you commit to providing the committee with a list of these consultants, private sector clients, as requested by the committee? >> i would start by agreeing with you on the notion of transparency and accountability, those are fundamental for you and us. we have been very clear around the 22 consultants. we do not hide the fact that they worked for the fda and pharmaceutical companies. we do not believe there is a conflict of interest given there was no bias or overlap in topic areas. >> let me reclaim my time.

thank you for your answers. today's hearing illustrates the dangers of allowing mckinsey to operate behind its code of silence. mckinsey's conflict of interest, not just in dollars and cents but in human lives. without transparency, there can be no accountability. i think you, madam chairman and yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman from virginia is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. conley? >> thank you, madam chair.

i want to thank our witnesses. i yield back. >> congresswoman presley, you are recognized. then we will go to mr. conley. >> thank you, madam chair, and thank you to the committee staff we dropped the report detailed this immoral role mckinsey played in furthering the opioid epidemic. as attorney general healy mentioned, families in massachusetts have been disproportionately impacted by this crisis. the overdose death rate in my state is twice as high as the national average, and though still in lives are disproportionately people of color. the district i represent, we hear from health centers and addiction recovery centers. your apologies feel empty and

insincere and p.r. responses, because mckinsey was profiting off of the hurt and horror for years with zero remorse. in 2013 mckinsey presented purdue pharma, run by the sackler family, with a strategy to turbocharge sales of oxycontin. was this the first time mckinsey deployed the turbocharge strategy? >> no. mckinsey had been doing similar work for purdue for a long time. it started early, and it used the same destructive playbook with another client, johnson & johnson in regards to opioids. this is not the first time mckinsey pulled out this playbook for an opioid client. >> in fact, documents obtained by the committee shall in 2011

mckinsey consultants launched a project to turbocharge johnson & johnson's flagship opioid. mckinsey helped identify the vision that would write high numbers of prescriptions. in one johnson & johnson presentation, mckinsey stated it had key mckinsey experts who implement similar efforts at other pharma companies. what other companies had mckinsey worked with on these sales strategies outside of johnson & johnson? >> congresswoman, i apologize if you think our stance is insincere. we take this deadly seriously, and it is why we are here today and why there is nothing more important than being transparent and accountable with all of you. if a full list of the work we do in terms of pricing work, revenue work with opioid

manufacturers is of interest, i will get you that. >> thank you. >> i look forward to that information. that is the information i will be looking for. we know mckinsey had strategies to spread opioids like wildfire, and the strategies were ones they perfected elsewhere. mckinsey pushed a turbocharge strategy at purdue and johnson & johnson, but we need more documents to see what other pharmaceutical companies you worked with. will you finally commit to providing the committee with all the information we have requested? >> as i have said many times

today, i'm fully committed to continuing to work with the committee. we know we are not done answering your questions. we want to pursue that until you feel you have the answers that you need. >> thank you. you have been complicit in creating this countries crisis of opioids and profiting off the pain of millions of families. you have raked in millions every year, offering an apology, while avoiding responsibility is worthless. what you have done is unconscionable, unacceptable, families are robbed of loved ones by your consulting expertise, and mckinsey and company must be held accountable. i yield back. >> the gentleman from virginia, mr. conley. >> thank you, madam chairwoman. sorry to be in and out of this

hearing, i have been in nato meetings. forgive me for being in and out. i was listening to some of my colleagues. the oxycontin part of the opioid crisis begin south of the border, is that right? >> thank you for that question. the real crisis begin with prescription opioids and largely with produce misconduct. >> but they were located south of the border? >> no, they were not. they were located right in new york. >> goodness. i would not know that. the source of oxycontin, the

production of it must be south of the border, right? >> no, in the united states, rhode island and north carolina. >> it is not mexican or central american doctors writing these prescriptions but american doctors north of the border? >> you are correct. >> my gosh. listening to some of my friends on the others of the aisle, i had a different impression. i even thought maybe purdue pharma, which is the heart and soul of the opioid crisis in america that led to 100,000 deaths this last year alone, i thought it must be based in a country south of the border. listening to the rhetoric of my friends. the opioid crisis began with the presidency of joe biden, right? this began about a year and a

half ago, is this right? >> that is incorrect. it started in the late 1990's. >> my gosh. i'm learning something every second. thank you. let's talk a little bit about phrases like turbocharge. what was turbocharge about, who came up with it? >> mckinsey. mckinsey had multiple meetings with purdue in produce offices, fancy restaurants, and with the settlers they told them the way to maintain a high level of oxycontin sales was to turbocharge the sales engine, motivate the sales force, give them target lists with the highest prescribers in the country and have sales reps visit them relentlessly and incentivize the sales reps, and to stick to their call plans.

mckinsey assembled those. that is what turbocharging was, to keep the sale of oxycontin going. >> for the record, is mckinsey headquartered south of the border? >> no, it is not. >> in this country, ok. did that turbocharge program morph into something called evolved excellence? >> it was all part of the same plan to increase oxycontin sales at a time when regulators were trying to reduce opioid prescriptions in the united states. >> if we can put on the screen, they developed a rewards program called wildfire. i even see a picture of our previous president. are you familiar with this rewards program? >> i am familiar with the idea

mckinsey looked for many ways to incent sales representatives to turbocharge oxycontin sales, and this was one of them. >> they used phrases like cash prizes that are significant and meaningful as part of the rewards program, enormous prestige and celebrity status within the company if you met certain sales goals. is that correct? >> yes. >> my time is going to expire. 600,000 americans are dead, many still struggling with addiction. do you have any regrets you want to share with the committee? >> thank you, congressman. i regret that we did not act sooner, sir. if i could play this over, i would have put client articles

in a decade earlier, i would have reached a settlement faster, and we would have pivoted from serving manufacturers despite whatever goals there were. and to actually be part of the solution. a regret would be to have acted sooner. >> must be comfort to those who lost loved ones in this epidemic. i yield back. >> before we close, i would like to offer the ranking member an opportunity to offer his closing remarks. >> thank you. i think our witnesses for being here today. madam chair, thank you for having a history lesson for us today about what happened with big pharma and mckinsey many years ago. it is really not sincere to have

a full committee hearing about the opioid crisis and not have any witnesses, not have any discussion about what is going on on the southern border, because the fentanyl crisis is the opioid crisis. this is the drug crisis affecting every american today right now in the present. today we witnessed outrage about opioid overdose deaths. republicans share their outrage over opioid overdose deaths, we all have those in our districts. we heard representative porter expressed concerns mckinsey did not disclose compex of interest when doing contract work with the fda. republicans strongly share her concern. we want full disclosure of every potential conflict of interest.

that is one role the house oversight committee plays, that is why we requested so many hearings with respect to the origination of covid-19, with respect to hunter biden and the shady business dealings that we believe have left the biden administration compromise with china. it is always at the root of every conflict we have in america now. we heard many democrats express anger with purdue pharma and mckinsey in their past wrongdoings, and republicans share your anger. my question to democrats is this, you have heard today republicans express our concern, outrage and anger with the biden administration and their open border policy. do you share our concern?

the biden border crisis is bringing fentanyl, crystal meth and every drug imaginable across the border. if you share our outrage, join us in going to the southern border, listen to the agents, join us when we request hearings, and let's have a bipartisan hearing about the crisis on the southern border, and get the appropriate biden officials to see what they are doing about it. let's not just talk about past litigation. let's talk about the present and what we will do about it in the future. this is the drug issue that this committee needs to be focusing on. the fentanyl coming across the southern border. i will conclude by asking all americans for you to hold a bipartisan hearing on the border

crisis that is bringing in so many drugs and has led to 100,000 fentanyl deaths in the last year alone. i yield back. >> i think all my colleagues and panelists for your participation today. over 500,000 americans have died from an opioid overdose, and that number continues to climb every day. today's hearing represents a critical step in ensuring public accountability for those responsible for the nations opioid epidemic. not just the opioid manufacturers or their billionaire owners, but their hired guns who hid behind in board rooms. we now know purdue and the sacklers were relying on mckinsey's consultants to create

the roadmap to flood america with addictive painkillers. mckinsey pushed the most horrific advice on how to more o our hardest hit communities. today we learned that mckinsey reaped at least $86 million in revenue from consulting purdue alone. they consulted for other companies on their marketing strategies, and over 140 million from the fda. mr. stern felt, i am very disappointed that you continue to deny that mckinsey's consulting for the fda and opioid manufacturers presented a conflict of interest. and you defended your company's failure to disclose this

information to the fda, despite the overwhelming evidence of the conflicts presented today. what we need now from mckinsey is that you claim to repeatedly support. and that is, transparency. we expect you to fully comply with the committee's document request by this friday so that we can see how widely and deeply your firm's conflicts of interest run. we, many of us on this committee introduced to legislation today to address these conflicts of interest, and we intend to continue seeking legislative solutions to prevent companies like mckinsey from putting profits over americans health and safety. we look forward to working with you to get these documents, and

we look forward to working with you in passing this legislation. i would like to add, in closing, that not only are we all very grateful to our panelists for the remarks, and i want to commend my colleagues for participating, very, very passionately today in this important conversation. with that and without objection, all members will have five legislative days within which to submit extraneous information into submit additional written questions for the witnesses to the chair, which will be forwarded to the witnesses for their response. i ask our witnesses to please respond as promptly as you are able. this hearing is adjourned.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2022] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [indiscernible conversations]

>> today on c-span, the house is back at 10:00 a.m. eastern for speeches followed by legislative business at noon. members are considering a bill that expands the president's ability to send military aid to ukraine. on c-span two, the senate returns at 10:00 a.m. eastern. a vote expected whether or not to start negotiations with the house to reach a final agreement on the semi conductor manufacturing bill peered at 10:00 a.m. on c-span3, testifies about dhs operations in front of the house judiciary committee. at 1:00, secretary of state antony blinken about budget