Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006

Floor Speech

DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006 -- (Senate - October 27, 2005)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

AMENDMENT NO. 2228

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 2228 already filed at the desk.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, all of us benefit from scientific information and advice provided by many Federal agencies. When we go to the Centers for Disease Control Web site to read about infectious disease threats or turn to the National Cancer Institute to learn about the latest in cancer treatment, we have confidence that we are being provided with honest, accurate, and objective information. We rely on scientists and medical experts serving the National Institutes of Health to make wise decisions based on real science, not politics, to ensure that our investments in medical research will improve the health of Americans for generations to come.

The amendment I offer seeks to ensure that the American people will continue to benefit from the best possible scientific advice and information from the Government's scientific advisers and from the Federal agencies themselves. First, the amendment prohibits the use of Federal funds to ask candidates for appointment to scientific advisory committees to disclose their voting history, their political affiliation, or their opinions on unrelated political topics. When the Federal Government seeks expert medical and technical advice, it should look for the very best experts. It should not limit itself to only those experts who voted for a particular political candidate or who agree with any President's policies or who support the death penalty. That is not how we, in our personal lives, would go about choosing a doctor. It should not be the way our Government seeks out expert scientific advice.

It appears this is exactly what has happened in a number of instances. In the year 2002, Dr. William Miller, professor of psychology and psychiatry at the University of New Mexico, was denied a position on the National Advisory Council on Drug Abuse after he admitted that he had not voted for the President. Dr. Miller was also asked for his views on abortion rights and the death penalty. This was for an appointment to the National Advisory Council on Drug Abuse.

In March 2004, the White House screened a nominee to the Arctic Research Commission, an advisory panel on issues that include Arctic drilling. According to the candidate, Dr. Sharon Smith, a professor of marine ecology at the University of Miami:

The first and only question was, ``do you support the President?''

Following incidents such as these, the National Academies of Science convened a committee to study how the Government should select its science advisers. Earlier this year it issued a report that said candidates for scientific advisory positions should find it inappropriate to be asked to provide nonrelevant information such as their voting record, political party affiliation, or their position on particular policies. The report goes on to compare these types of questions to asking candidates about their hair color or their height.

My amendment would prohibit the use of Federal funds to ask these inappropriate political questions of medical and scientific experts. My amendment also prohibits the use of funds to disseminate scientific information that is false or misleading. This ensures that Americans can continue to have full confidence and trust that scientific information provided by the Federal Government is honest, accurate, and objective.

There is reason to be concerned. In one notorious incident, the key findings section of a 2003 report on health care disparities was rewritten and edited to leave out conclusions about the seriousness and pervasiveness of racial and ethnic disparities in health care. In fact, the word ``disparity'' itself was edited out. The word appears 30 times in the original draft, only twice in the edited version.

Joseph Betancourt, a Harvard professor who served on two Institute of Medicine panels on inequity in health care, said:

I admire the Administration's ability to look at the positive, but it shouldn't come at the expense of the truth.

Eventually, the Department of Health and Human Services admitted it made a mistake and agreed to release the original, more honest version. This kind of incident should not happen again. My amendment prohibits the use of funds to disseminate scientific information that is deliberately false or misleading. This amendment makes sure that all of us can continue to have full faith and confidence in the scientific information that is being provided by our Federal Government.

I urge my colleagues to support scientific integrity in Federal agencies by voting for the amendment.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Source