mr. chairman , i yield myself such time as i may consume . 
mr. chairman , my amendment would prohibit the food and drug administration from appointing scientists who have conflicts of interest to fda advisory committees . 
the amendment does not change current law ; it simply makes sure that the fda is adhering to current law . 
the fda is charged with protecting the public health and , to assist with this mission , the fda relies heavily on advisory committees composed of outside scientists to guide the agency policy on the safety and effectiveness of drugs and medical devices when questions arise regarding those products . 
while the fda is not bound by the decisions of these panels , the agency itself calls advisory committees one of its most important resources for helping to regulate the over 150 , 000 marketed medical products that the fda oversees . 
because of the critically important nature of these committees , there should be no question as to whether the committee members are looking out for the public health . 
but recent fda actions have created serious doubts about whether committee members are serving only the public interests and , as a result , industry biases now taint many advisory panel decisions . 
over the past few years , the fda has routinely waived conflict of interest prohibitions and appointed scientists with direct conflicts of interest to serve on these critical public panels . 
these appointments completely undermine the objectivity of this outside advice and bias the committee 's recommendations , which are reached by a vote of the panel members , some of whom have financial ties to the products being reviewed by that very same panel . 
there have been numerous high-profile examples of this over the past 18 months . 
just this past april , for example , the fda convened an advisory committee to examine whether or not to allow silicon breast implants back on the market . 
that committee contained a scientist who had just recently made a promotional video for a manufacturer of those implants . 
two months prior to that , the fda convened an advisory panel to review the safety of cox-2 inhibitors , drugs like vioxx , which have caused tens of thousands of heart attacks and strokes . 
ten of the 32 scientists on that panel had direct financial links to the manufacturers of those drugs . 
when it came time for the committee to make its recommendations , those ties made all the difference . 
without the votes of the ten conflicted scientists , two of those three drugs and the cox-2 inhibitor class would have been voted down by the panel , instead of receiving the very narrow support and approval they did as a result of those conflicted scientists ' votes . 
last year , when there was a huge controversy around the link between antidepressants and suicide , especially among young people , the fda convened an advisory panel to make recommendations on how the agency should handle those drugs . 
three of the 11 scientists on that committee had been paid consultants to the manufacturers of those antidepressants . 
these examples are just the tip of the iceberg . 
advisory panels on oxycontin , oncology drugs , even over-the-counter athletes ' foot creams , all had scientists with conflicts of interest . 
almost every advisory committee meeting begins with an fda statement waiving the conflicts of interest of some of the scientists on that panel . 
if you think that scientists who rely on drug companies for their financial wherewithal are going to recommend that the fda take action that will harm the company that is paying them , then you are living in a fantasy world . 
the fda claims that it can not find enough qualified scientists without conflicts of interest to fill its advisory committees . 
this statement is laughable on its surface and an insult to the thousands of independent doctors across this country . 
it is also not accurate . 
as the medical journal , the lancet , recently editorialized , `` it is hard to believe that in a country with 125 medical schools , not to mention the pool of international experts , the fda can not find experts who do not have financial ties with companies whose products are under review. '' of course , the fda can find scientists without conflicts of interest . 
they just do not want to do it , and they are not doing it . 
advisory committees are critical parts of the fda 's regulatory scheme , and they should be free of any direct conflict of interest . 
without this , there is no way to assure the public that a panel 's recommendations are fair and unbiased and in the interest of the public health . 
after one of the most tumultuous years in the fda 's history , this amendment is needed to restore the public 's confidence and integrity that has been lost in the fda 's advisory system . 
a wide range of public health groups support this amendment , and numerous recent editorials have called for this kind of reform . 
i urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment . 
mr. chairman , i reserve the balance of my time . 
