Hastert, Frist Said to Rig Bill for Drug Firms

[Guest guest]

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020906R.shtml

 

Hastert, Frist Said to Rig Bill for Drug Firms

By Bill Theobald

The Gannett News Service

 

Thursday 09 February 2006

 

Frist denies protection was added in secret.

 

Washington - Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and House Speaker

Dennis Hastert engineered a backroom legislative maneuver to protect

pharmaceutical companies from lawsuits, say witnesses to the

pre-Christmas power play.

 

The language was tucked into a Defense Department appropriations

bill at the last minute without the approval of members of a

House-Senate conference committee, say several witnesses, including a

top Republican staff member.

 

In an interview, Frist, a doctor and Tennessee Republican, denied

that the wording was added that way.

 

Trial lawyers and other groups condemn the law, saying it could

make it nearly impossible for people harmed by a vaccine to force the

drug maker to pay for their injuries.

 

Many in health care counter that the protection is needed to help

build up the vaccine industry in the United States, especially in

light of a possible avian flu pandemic.

 

The legislation, called the Public Readiness and Emergency

Preparedness Act, allows the secretary of Health and Human Services to

declare a public health emergency, which then provides immunity for

companies that develop vaccines and other " countermeasures. "

 

Beyond the issue of vaccine liability protection, some say going

around the longstanding practice of bipartisan House-Senate conference

committees' working out compromises on legislation is a dangerous

power grab by Republican congressional leaders that subverts democracy.

 

" It is a travesty of the legislative process, " said Thomas Mann,

senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank.

 

" It vests enormous power in the hands of congressional leaders and

private interests, minimizes transparency and denies legitimate

opportunities for all interested parties, in Congress and outside, to

weigh in on important policy questions. "

 

At issue is what happened Dec. 18 as Congress scrambled to finish

its business and head home for the Christmas holiday.

 

That day, a conference committee made up of 38 senators and House

members met several times to work out differences on the 2006 Defense

Department appropriations bill.

 

Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., the ranking minority House member on the

conference committee, said he asked Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, the

conference chairman, whether the vaccine liability language was in the

massive bill or would be placed in it.

 

Obey and four others at the meeting said Stevens told him no.

Committee members signed off on the bill and the conference broke up.

 

A spokeswoman for Stevens, Courtney Boone, said last week that the

vaccine liability language was in the bill when conferees approved it.

Stevens was not made available for comment.

 

During a January interview, Frist agreed. Asked about the claim

that the vaccine language was inserted after the conference members

signed off on the bill, he replied: " To my knowledge, that is

incorrect. It was my understanding, you'd have to sort of confirm,

that the vaccine liability which had been signed off by leaders of the

conference, signed off by the leadership in the United States Senate,

signed off by the leadership of the House, it was my understanding

throughout that that was part of that conference report. "

 

But Keith Kennedy, who works for Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., as

staff director for the Senate Appropriations Committee, said at a

seminar for reporters last month that the language was inserted by

Frist and Hastert, R-Ill., after the conference committee ended its work.

 

" There should be no dispute. That was an absolute travesty, "

Kennedy said at a videotaped Washington, D.C., forum sponsored by the

Center on Congress at Indiana University.

 

" It was added after the conference had concluded. It was added at

the specific direction of the speaker of the House and the majority

leader of the Senate. The conferees did not vote on it. It's a true

travesty of the process. "

 

After the conference committee broke up, a meeting was called in

Hastert's office, Kennedy said. Also at the meeting, according to a

congressional staffer, were Frist, Stevens and House Majority Whip Roy

Blunt, R-Mo.

 

" They (committee staff members) were given the language and then

it was put in the document, " Kennedy said.

 

About 10 or 10:30 p.m., Democratic staff members were handed the

language and told it was now in the bill, Obey said.

 

He took to the House floor in a rage. He called Frist and Hastert

" a couple of musclemen in Congress who think they have a right to tell

everybody else that they have to do their bidding. "

 

Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind., also was critical of inserting the

vaccine language after the conference committee had adjourned.

 

" It sucks, " he told Congress Daily that night.

 

Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va., another member of the conference committee,

was upset, too, a staff member said, because he didn't have enough

time to read the language. The final bill was filed in the House at

11:54 p.m. and passed 308-102 at 5:02 the next morning.

 

The Senate unanimously approved the legislation Dec. 21, but not

before Senate Democrats, including several members of the conference

committee, bashed the way the vaccine language was inserted.

 

" What an insult to the legislative process, " said Sen. Robert

Byrd, D-W.Va., a member of the conference committee. Byrd is

considered the authority on legislative rules and tradition.

 

President Bush signed the legislation into law Dec. 30.

 

When asked about Frist's earlier denial, spokeswoman Amy Call

said: " Bill Frist has fought hard to protect the people of Tennessee

and the people of the United States from a bioterror emergency and

that's what he did throughout this process. "

 

Hastert's office did not provide a response.

 

Not against the Rules

 

The practice of adding to a compromise bill worked out by

bipartisan House-Senate conference committees, while highly unusual,

is not thought to violate congressional rules.

 

Some Senate and House Democrats have proposed banning the practice

as part of broader attempts at ethics reform in Congress.

 

They, consumer groups and others with concerns about possible harm

caused by vaccines charge that the move was a gift by Frist to the

pharmaceutical industry, which they point out has given a lot of

campaign cash to the Nashville doctor through the years.

 

" The senator should be working to ensure there are safe vaccines

to protect American families rather than protecting the drug

industry's pocketbooks, " Pamela Gilbert, president of Protect American

Families, said in a statement. The group is an alliance of consumer,

labor and advocacy organizations.

 

Frist has received $271,523 in campaign donations from the

pharmaceutical and health products industry since 1989, according to

the Center for Responsive Politics, a watchdog group.

 

He is also a possible candidate for president in 2008.

 

In the interview, Frist reiterated how important he thinks the

vaccine protections are.

 

" The United States of America, if a pandemic occurs, is totally

unprepared, " he said. " And the only way we are going to be prepared is

rebuilding our manufacturing base to build a vaccine infrastructure

that can be timely and responsive. We don't have it today. "

 

Frist has long advocated liability protection for vaccine makers,

and it was widely reported that he would attempt to attach the

legislation to the Defense Appropriations bill because it is

considered must-pass legislation.

 

Ken Johnson, senior vice president of the Pharmaceutical Research

and Manufacturers of America, said that, while the group favors

liability protection, it did not take a position nor did it lobby on

behalf of the law that passed.

 

-------