|
Washington - The
House Appropriations Committee today adopted language written by
U.S. Representative Maurice Hinchey (NY-22) expressing concern over
an apparently dishonest response from the Food and Drug
Administration to a question Hinchey posed at a hearing. The measure
was included in the Agriculture Appropriations Bill for fiscal year
2005.
"At a hearing with the FDA Commissioner, I
raised questions about a conflict of interest involving the FDA's
Chief Counsel," said Hinchey, a member of the Agriculture
Appropriations Subcommittee. "The FDA's response to my question
intentionally omitted critical information in order to hide a
potentially inappropriate commercial relationship. For our committee
to fulfill its oversight responsibility, we need to be able to trust
the answers given to us by the agencies. The language I added to the
bill was needed to put the FDA on notice that such behavior will not
be tolerated."
At a subcommittee hearing earlier this year,
Hinchey questioned FDA Acting Commissioner Lester Crawford about the
relationship between the agency's Chief Counsel and the drug company
Pfizer. Hinchey has raised concerns about the FDA's general counsel
office weighing in on civil suits in support of drug companies. The
FDA subsequently responded to Hinchey in writing, as required. In
that response, the FDA stated that the Chief Counsel had "worked an
average of less than 80 hours per year" for Pfizer during the three
years immediately preceding his tenure at FDA. Hinchey later learned
Pfizer had paid $415,000 for the Chief Counsel's services during
that period, including $356,000 in 2001 alone.
"The agency hid information that belies its
claim that the Chief Counsel had a 'minimal relationship' with
Pfizer," Hinchey added. "This intentional deception is not
acceptable."
The Agriculture Appropriation Subcommittee
writes the spending bill that includes the FDA's discretionary
funding allocation. As such, it has the responsibility to oversee
the manner in which the agency expends its resources.
|
