Your Turn - Abramoff Influence vs Frist/ Pharma Influence

[Guest guest]

Feel free to forward:

Here's your opportunity to speak to millions of politically engaged

Americans.

Those of you who want to put your two cents in on liability provisions

included in the DoD report can take advantage of Open Line Friday

and the line-up of guests discussing lobbying and the Abramoff scandal.

I have pasted Rep. Obey's floor speech below so you can use

it for some talking points.

I'm listening to all of this coverage of Jack Abramoff.They are talking about how Abramoff bribed members

of congress to insert language in conference in conference

reports and push favorable legislation. I am seeing all the

same similarities to what has been going on with Senator Frist

and Gregg over the years. Yet where is the press investigating

this exchange of legislation for contributions?

Remember to be careful with the screeners. You should not

mention vaccines or autism until you get on the air. Also before

asking your question or making your comment, tell the host (with

any luck it will be Lamb) you would like an opportunity

to respond.

Challenge the guests. Why aren't they looking at Sen. Frist and

Gregg and all the legislative business they do for drug companies?

How is what is going on with this liability legislation any different

from what Jack Abramoff has been doing? Frist is inserting language

in conference reports and pushing favorable legislation in

'must pass' bills.

The press are very thin skinned so politely express your

dissatisfaction with their coverage on this issue.

There will be a lot of people calling in on this issue so get your

re-dial finger ready. If we can get four or five calls in then

they will know this is something people are interested in.

Washington Journal: Support Democrats (202) 737-0002Washington Journal: Support Pres. Bush (202) 737-0001Washington Journal: Support Others (202) 628-0205

Call-InOpen PhonesC-SPAN, Washington Journal

08:00 AM EST1:00 (est.) LIVE

Call-InLobbyingC-SPAN, Washington Journal Knott , Center for Public Integrity

09:00 AM EST0:30 (est.) LIVE

Call-InLobbyingC-SPAN, Washington JournalTom Edsall , Washington Post

09:30 AM EST0:30 (est.) LIVE

Call-InAbramoff InvestigationC-SPAN, Washington Journal , American League of Lobbyists

Here is an excerpt from Obey's speech below.

"The Conference Committee ended its work with anunderstanding, both verbal and in writing, that there would be

no -- I repeat no --legislative liability protection language

inserted in this bill. And because the Majority told us it did not

want any compensation program for victims to come out of the

discretionary portion of the budget, no funding was provided for

that either. But after the Conference was finished at 6pm,Senator Frist marched over to the House side of the Capitol about

four hours later and insisted that 40 pages of legislation - which I

have in my hand - 40 pages of legislation that had never been seen

by Conferees be attached to the bill. The Speaker joined him in that

insistence so that, without a vote of the Conferees, that legislation

was unilaterally and arrogantly inserted into the bill after the

Conference was over in a blatantly abusive power play by two of the

most powerful men in Congress. We then discovered that this

language provided all sorts of insulation for pharmaceuticalcompanies and that this insulation applied not just to drugs developed

to deal with the flu, but in fact applied to a far broader range of products." "In essence, the provisions allow the Secretary of HHS to issue adeclaration that has the effect of almost completely prohibitinglawsuits in state or federal courts by persons whose health was injured

against manufacturers and various others for compensation for injuries

caused by the use of "covered countermeasures." That determination

would bar lawsuits against a wide range of "covered persons" involved

with the countermeasures-including manufacturers and their suppliers,distributors, state and local governments and their employees involved

with use of the countermeasures, medical personnel prescribing and

administering the countermeasures, and so forth. This is very broad

power indeed to ban lawsuits. Unlike the language requested by the

Administration, the Division E language is not limited to products to

combat a flu pandemic. Rather, it applies to any drug, vaccine, medical

device or other products useful in dealing with anything the Secretary

considers to constitute a public health emergency or that could constitute

an emergency in the future."

Entire Obey statement below... House Committee On Appropriations, Democratic Staff R. Obey (WI-07), Ranking MemberFor Immediate ReleaseContact: Kirstin BrostDecember 22, 2005202-593-1310Obey Statement on Defense Appropriations Correction BillA Shameful End to a Shameful CongressWASHINGON -Dave Obey (D-WI), Ranking Member of the House AppropriationsCommittee, made the following statement this afternoon on the billstripping the provision to allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge(ANWR) from the Defense Appropriations Conference report:"Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object:"More than a year ago, when Mr. was elected Chairman of theAppropriations Committee, he came to me and asked if we could have anunderstanding that we would express our substantive differences butstill cooperate in moving bills forward in an orderly way once thosedifferences had been expressed. We did that."Time and time again, the Minority was denied the opportunity to offerdifferent sets of priorities, priorities that did not offer huge taxcuts for those who have the most in society, paid for with cuts in education,health care, and worker protection for those who have the least.Despite the fact that the rules of the House were used to block our efforts toobtain on-the-record votes on a number of our alternatives, Democratscontinued to cooperate procedurally, even as we made clear ourdifferenceson policy."The Republican Majority wanted to finish all of these bills by the endof the fiscal year, and we did not procedurally obstruct them because whilewe differed strongly with the values that lie behind their budgetpriorities, we respected the fact that they are in the Majority and we respect

and revere this institution. But because of internal divisions between theMajority party - divisions within the House GOP caucus and divisionsbetween House and Senate Republicans - the fiscal year ended with the

Labor-HHS bill and the Defense appropriations bill that represent 67

percent of the discretionary spending in our budget bill still being hung up

in the legislative process. "Now in the closing days of this Congress, the Republican Leadership hasdecided to use the must-pass Defense appropriations bill to force downthe throats of the American people a number of wholly unrelated gifts tospecial interests. They decided to hold funds for our troops hostage in orderto force Congress into removing protections against oil drilling in ANWR.To make room for their tax giveaways, they even imposed a second round ofcuts to education, health, worker protection, and even imposing a $4 billioncut in military spending. "Senate action yesterday has corrected one provision inserted in thebill by abuse of power - the strong-arm attempt at drilling in ANWR -

and for that I mildly applaud the Senate. I led the opposition to ANWR's

inclusion in the Conference and I am happy that the Congress was not

blackmailed into accepting it. "But frankly Mr. Speaker, continuing under my reservation, ANWR was notthe biggest problem with the Conference report. The biggest problem is thatit shortchanges our economic future by refusing to make adequateinvestments in education and it cruelly neglects to strengthen support for

programs that help provide critical health care services to people who

desperately need them. But we have lost that fight. This Congress has made

the decision to cut critical health, education, worker protection, and social servicefunding by $3 billion below last year's level. What I find to be so gutlessabout Congress' performance on this bill is that those cuts could notpass the Senate on a roll call vote, so the Majority party had to arrange fortheir Senators to duck this vote and hide from accountability by arrangingfor the bill to be passed without a roll call vote. That means the Majorityparty has denied critical help to families most in need of help, but hasnot had the courage to forthrightly defend their votes to the peopleaffected in the public arena. This bill makes that problem $1.4 billion worse

for those programs and because of the across-the-board cut, it makes otherill-advised cuts in critical funding for the FBI, local law enforcement, and it

even cuts an additional $4 billion out of the defense bill. If I could doanything to change that, I would. But it is clear that the die is cast. "Continuing under my reservation Mr. Speaker, there is a secondoutrageous problem with this bill. The Majority has turned the proposal to

prepare for a flu pandemic into a giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry."When the President requested $7 billion to begin a much belated crashprogram to develop a new generation of vaccines and antiviral drugs tocombat a potential flu pandemic, the Republican Majority responded bycutting it in half. When I asked Senator s in Conference why weshouldn't fund the rest of the Administration's request so that it wasclear that the government had a long-term commitment to the development

of needed vaccines and antivirals, he responded that because liability protectionlanguage for manufacturers was not being adopted, long-range fundingshould be withheld. The Conference Committee ended its work with anunderstanding, both verbal and in writing, that there would be no --

I repeat no --legislative liability protection language inserted in this bill.

And because the Majority told us it did not want any compensation programfor victims to come out of the discretionary portion of the budget, nofunding was provided for that either. But after the Conference was finished at6pm, Senator Frist marched over to the House side of the Capitol about fourhours later and insisted that 40 pages of legislation - which I have in myhand - 40 pages of legislation that had never been seen by Conferees beattached to the bill. The Speaker joined him in that insistence so that, without avote of the Conferees, that legislation was unilaterally and arrogantlyinserted into the bill after the Conference was over in a blatantly abusive powerplay by two of the most powerful men in Congress. We then discoveredthat this language provided all sorts of insulation for pharmaceuticalcompanies and that this insulation applied not just to drugs developed to dealwith the flu, but in fact applied to a far broader range of products. "In essence, the provisions allow the Secretary of HHS to issue adeclaration that has the effect of almost completely prohibitinglawsuits in state or federal courts by persons whose health was injured

against manufacturers and various others for compensation for injuries

caused by the use of "covered countermeasures." That determination would

bar lawsuits against a wide range of "covered persons" involved with thecountermeasures-including manufacturers and their suppliers, distributors,state and local governments and their employees involved with use of thecountermeasures, medical personnel prescribing and administering thecountermeasures, and so forth. This is very broad power indeed to banlawsuits. Unlike the language requested by the Administration, theDivision E language is not limited to products to combat a flu pandemic.

Rather, it applies to any drug, vaccine, medical device or other products

useful in dealing with anything the Secretary considers to constitute a publichealth emergency or that could constitute an emergency in the future. "Although a rationale often offered for lawsuit protection is that it isneeded to encourage manufacturers to develop and produce new treatments,the protections of Division E are not limited to new or experimentalproducts. Rather, nothing in the language would prevent the Secretary fromproviding protection against lawsuits to drugs that have been on the market fordecades."Further, the language explicitly prohibits any judicial review, ineither federal or state court, of the Secretary's decisions to grant immunityfrom lawsuits. If anyone believes that the power is being exercised toobroadly, or even in violation of the law, they apparently would have no remedyother than asking the Secretary to change his mind or asking Congress to amendthe law."Although proponents point to provisions of this language that make anexception and allow lawsuits in cases of willful misconduct, thatexception is so narrowly drawn as to be almost meaningless. First, the provisiondefines "willful misconduct" as acts taken "intentionally to achieve awrongful purpose", knowing there is no legal or factual justification,and in disregard of known or obvious great risk. Basically, Mr. Speaker, theonly conduct that would permit a lawsuit under this definition isprobably conduct so egregious as to be criminal in nature. "However, even this highly restrictive definition of "willfulmisconduct" doesn't seem to have been enough restriction on lawsuits to satisfy

the authors of Division E. They added yet another provision that allows theSecretary of HHS to promulgate regulations further narrowing the scopeof actions that could give rise to a right to sue. Then, there's yetanother provision that says if the conduct in question is regulated under theFood and Drug Act or Public Health Service Act, a lawsuit for willfulmisconduct can be brought only if the federal government has taken enforcementaction against that conduct. Finally, the language makes various changes tothe normal rules of civil procedure to add further obstacles anddifficulties in front of a potential plaintiff. In short, as a practical matter thereis virtually no right for anyone to sue about anything covered by aSecretarial determination under this language."In summary, the Administration asked for some very broad liabilityprotections for manufacturers and others involved with countermeasuresagainst pandemic flu - and the Administration's proposal was widelycriticized as going too far. With Division E of the Defenseappropriations Conference report, Congress would be providing even broader

protection, potentially covering a wide range of drugs, vaccines and devices farbeyond what is needed to deal with the flu. "Further, this denial of the right to sue is more sweeping than providedin the case of childhood vaccines, or in the case of smallpox vaccine. Inthe smallpox case, manufacturers are protected by basically substituting thefederal government as defendant-with the scope of potential lawsuitsagainst the federal government narrowed but not eliminated. "Now Mr. Speaker, I recognize that some sort of liability protection orindemnification that would be necessary and appropriate to encouragedevelopment and manufacture of some measures to deal with pandemic fluand I would support such reasonable language, language that has been reviewedby a Committee that knows what it is doing in a process that allows forpublic comments. But there are real doubts as to whether it needs to be thisbroad. Its worth noting that Sanofi Pasteur, our only domestic fluvaccine manufacturer, has already signed contracts with the federal governmentto make avian flu vaccine and has already delivered some lots, rather thanrefusing to proceed until legislation like this is enacted. Similarly,Roche has been supplying Tamiflu for the national stockpile and activelyseeking contracts to supply more. "The result of this legislative action was a provision in the pendingbill that prevents anyone who is a victim of a faulty vaccine from being ableto obtain compensation in the courts. It says that if you become seriouslyill because of mistakes in the manufacturing, that you lose your right tosue for compensation, but you can seek compensation from the government.But guess what -- the problem is that no money was provided for that fund.So anyone who gets sick would have to lobby Congress to put money in themoney in the fund before they can collect. Thus, people injured lose theirright to sue, but are not guaranteed any alternative means of covering theirmedical bills, lost earnings and other costs."Mr. Speaker, the Committee system was created years ago to ensure thatto protect the public interest, legislation would be carefully reviewedbefore it was placed before the body for consideration. But that protectionwas arbitrarily by-passed by the Leadership in both Houses. "This is the second time that this Congress has supinely done thebidding of the pharmaceutical industry in the dead of night. The first time, avote was held open for three hours while the Republican Majority twisted armsto create the complex and ridiculously confusing prescription drug billthat our seniors are now so desperately trying to understand - a bill thatwas ushered through this institution by over 600 lobbyists and thatprotected companies by preventing the government from even attempting to

negotiate lower drug prices. "If I thought that denying unanimous consent on this bill would forcethe Majority to eliminate that language I would object. But, Mr. Speaker,it has also been made quite clear to me that the Majority will not relenton the language that insulates drug companies. So Mr. Speaker, I want itto be clear that the action to insert this special interest language in thebill is in my view a corruption of the legislative practices of the House.When Congress returns in January, I intend to raise a question about theprivileges of the House that are highlighted by this action because ithas brought discredit to the House and should disturb every Member whoserves here. No Member of Congress, no matter how powerful, should be able tounilaterally insist that provisions that were never discussed and neverdebated in the Conference should be slipped in to that Conference reportwithout a vote of that same Conference."This is what happens when there are no checks and balances, when oneparty controls the White House, the Senate, and the House and respects nolimits on its own use of power. We have been placed in the this positionbecause the House Republican Leadership has sent Members home for the Christmasholidays with the message to the Senate that we would not be here evenif the Senate changed the legislation the House sent. That wasirresponsible and the country will pay the price. This institution will pay a priceas well, in terms of diminished respect from the people we were elected torepresent. Members on both sides know it and it is time to have amodicum of respect for the way we do the people's business. "This is a shameful and shabby way to the end the worst session ofCongress I've experienced in 36 years in Congress. I most reluctantly withdrawmy reservation because lodging an objection at this point would simplydelay the shameful inevitable."