Is there any reason why a governmental employee making as much as the Vice President should not be required to fill out a public financial disclosure form?

Are you setting a 90-day time limit?

So you think we might need a statutory change?

If you accept the facts as I have stated them, would people in that category not be fairly asked to file public financial disclosure forms?

Are you saying that you are suspending these arrangements while the investigation goes on?

I am very much interested in your views on that as an evaluation which we are going to have to go into greater depth on.

Well, it would require a very intensive investigation to make a determination as to whether that line was crossed.

What is the consequence to an NIH employee who has this kind of a relationship and does not make the required financial disclosure?

Obviously, there can be an inquiry into each individual case to see, on the facts of that individual case, whether there is a violation of the rules and regulations.

So you are saying there need not be a change in the statute? That was my question.

How do you define those broad responsibilities?

Do you think there would be a significant loss of researchers at NIH if there was a blanket prohibition against consulting fees or owning stock in a pharmaceutical company?

I think these rules need transparency, need strengthening, et cetera, but I think it would be a mistake for a complete prohibition.

I think the hearing has been very useful in covering the consensus on public disclosure without any complex definitions.

Are you not in a position, knowing that, to impose a sanction if one is appropriate?

Would not at minimum those individuals fit into the category of the kind of responsibilities which would warrant public disclosures?

Do you think it would be appropriate to ask a man in your position to file a public financial disclosure statement?

The first line is to have transparency with a public disclosure so that people can see what is going on.