No one in Washington wants to admit helping Lilly

Author of rider that shields drugmaker from vaccine lawsuits remains unknown.

By Sheryl Gay Stolberg

The New York Times

December 01, 2002

WASHINGTON -- Lobbyists for Eli Lilly, the Indianapolis pharmaceutical giant, did not have much luck when they made the rounds on Capitol Hill earlier this year, seeking protection from lawsuits over a preservative in vaccines.

Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn., tucked a provision into a bill that went nowhere. When lawmakers rebuffed a request to slip language into domestic security legislation, a Lilly spokesman said, the company gave up.

Now, in a Washington whodunit worthy of Agatha Christie, the provision has been resurrected and become law, as part of the domestic security legislation signed last week by President Bush. Yet in a city where politicians have perfected the art of claiming credit for deeds large and small, not a single member of Congress -- or the Bush administration -- will admit to being the author of the Lilly rider.

"It's turning into one of Washington's most interesting parlor games," said Dave Lemmon, spokesman for Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., who has promised to introduce legislation to repeal the provision. "There's a lot of guessing, a lot of speculation as to who did this."

The provision forces lawsuits over the preservative, developed by Lilly and called thimerosal, into a special "vaccine court." It might result in the dismissal of thousands of cases filed by parents who contend that mercury in thimerosal has poisoned their children, causing autism and other neurological ailments. Among them are Joseph and Theresa Counter of Plano, Texas, devoted Republicans whose party allegiance has run smack into family ties.

The Counters' 6-year-old son, Joseph Alexander, was normal and healthy until he was 2, they say. Then he took an unexplained downward slide. Today, the boy struggles with words. He cannot zip his pants, snap buttons or tie his shoes. His parents say tests eventually showed that he had mercury poisoning, which they attribute to vaccines. They sued last year.

"I know that our legislative system can be very, very messy at times," said Joseph Counter, a political consultant, who with his wife has spent many thousands of dollars on medical care and therapy for their son. "But for them to attempt this, in the dead of night? It disgusts me. This morning, I am ashamed to be a Republican."

With lawmakers now scattered across the country, Washington is rife with speculation about who is responsible for aiding Lilly, a major Republican donor. During the 2002 election cycle, the company gave more money to political candidates -- $1.6 million -- than any other pharmaceutical company, with 79 percent of it going to Republicans, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit research group that monitors campaign finances.

Critics of the provision, mainly Democrats and trial lawyers, are quick to point out that the White House has close ties to Lilly:

• The elder George Bush sat on Lilly's board in the late 1970s.

• The White House budget director, Mitch Daniels, is a former Lilly executive.

• The company's chairman and chief executive, Sidney Taurel, was appointed in June by President Bush to serve on a presidential council that will advise Bush on domestic security.

The White House, however, has said that it did not ask Congress for the provision. Rob Smith, a spokesman for Lilly, said the company's lobbyists "made absolutely no contact with Mitch or anyone in his office about this," and that Taurel "did not at any time ask" for any favors.

"It's a mystery to us how it got in there," Smith said of the provision.