Drug Company Backlash Hits Fever Pitch
in Congress
By Robert Novak, Chicago
Sun-Times
Thursday, July 17, 2003
Republican Rep. Jo Ann Emerson
of Missouri, who tearfully changed her vote three weeks ago to pass the
prescription drug subsidy bill by a single vote, sent a private memorandum
Monday to House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert. What about my payoff, she asked,
referring to another vote to permit re-import of cheaper drugs.
Emerson need not have worried.
House Republican leaders do not like re-importation, but such is its support
that they must bring up the bill next week for probable passage. The
pharmaceutical industry's pleas that cheap drugs from Canada will undermine
research for new wonder drugs go unheeded. The more political, if less credible,
argument of a threat to the safety of American patients also fails.
Agents of pharmaceutical
manufacturers have been working furiously ever since the promise made to Emerson
in the wee hours of June 27. Indeed, nobody outdoes the drug makers in their
bipartisan array of high-priced lobbyists or their bipartisan campaign
contributions. Yet, with their very existence at risk, the pharmaceuticals
encounter loathing on both sides of the aisle in Congress as part of a broader
epidemic of anti-corporate hysteria.
Demand for re-importing
American drugs, at a dramatically lower cost to consumers because of Canadian
price controls, is no longer confined to Democratic politicians from northern
border states. The bill pushed by Emerson is sponsored by Rep. Gil Gutknecht, a
Minnesota Republican with a 95 percent lifetime American Conservative Union
rating. Emerson is a cradle Republican (88 percent ACU), the daughter of the
legendary GOP operative Ab Hermann.
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay
kept Gutknecht's proposal out of the prescription drug bill. He won Emerson's
vote for the prescription bill during an emotional 2:30 a.m. encounter by
promising a separate vote on the Gutknecht bill. That gave the usually adept
Republican leadership time to win opposing votes, but their efforts so far have
fallen short. Such stalwart free-market Republican House members as Jeff Flake
of Arizona and Ron Paul of Texas support re-imports. So does pioneer supply-side
economist Arthur Laffer.
Laffer's fellow supply-sider,
Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute, found himself the only person in the room
opposing the Gutknecht bill when he testified before a House Reform subcommittee
June 25. ''Rather than subsidizing new drugs for seniors,'' said Moore, ''the
government should withdraw from this industry altogether. The free enterprise
system will bring these life-saving new wonder drugs to market more rapidly and
more affordably than will government.'' Moore's thesis was totally rejected by
the subcommittee chairman, doughty Indiana conservative (97 percent ACU) Dan
Burton.
That is bitter fruit for an
industry that in the 2002 election cycle contributed $16.3 million to
Republicans and $4.4 million to Democrats. Its roster of big-time lobbyists
includes Haley Barbour, Tommy Boggs, Ann Wexler, Rick Hohlt and Vic Fazio.
''I had no idea that positions
were so hardened, and it seems to me driven by a visceral contempt for the drug
industry,'' Greg Scandlen of the Galen Institute told his conservative e-mail
correspondents Sunday. ''I don't know where that anger is coming from. I don't
buy the idea that the anger is based just on differential pricing.''
It may be coming from
dead-of-night legislative ploys to extend drug company patents and shield
vaccine makers from lawsuits by families of autistic children (enraging Burton,
grandfather of an autistic child). One pharmaceutical lobbyist, asking that his
name not be used, has a theory: ''It's the image of arrogant white boy CEOs, no
women or minorities, flying around in Lear jets.''
Beyond pharmaceuticals, the
nation that has built amazing wealth through the profit motive may have embarked
on a populist temper tantrum against corporate America. The outrage voiced by
Democrats has infiltrated Republican ranks. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's
denunciation of the drug companies for ''putting profits ahead of people'' wins
surprising Republican assent.
In truth, American companies
have provided drugs for the world that scored victories over heart disease,
diabetes, cancer, polio and other maladies, but now may be deprived of research
funds. Would George W. Bush cast his first veto to save the geese that laid the
golden eggs?
DISCLAIMER:
All information, data, and material contained, presented, or provided here
is for general information purposes only and is not to be construed as
reflecting the knowledge or opinions of the publisher, and is not to be
construed or intended as providing medical or legal advice. The decision
whether or not to vaccinate is an important and complex issue and should
be made by you, and you alone, in consultation with your health care
provider.
"A foolish faith in authority is the worst enemy of truth."
-- Albert Einstein, letter to a friend, 1901
"I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves, and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education."
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William C. Jarvis, September 28, 1820
"What's the point of vaccination if it doesn't protect you from the unvaccinated?"
-- Sandy Gottstein
"Who gets to decide what the greater good is and how many will be sacrificed to it?"