|
Hastert, Frist said to rig bill for drug firms
Frist denies protection was added in secret
By BILL THEOBALD
Gannett News Service
02/29/06 "The
Tennessean" --- -- 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. •
Copyright © 2006, tennessean.com. All rights reserved.
Translate
this page
(In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to
those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational purposes.
Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the
originator of this article nor is Information Clearing House
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.) |
