posted Thursday, November 21st 2002	E-mail this article  Printable version

Who came to Eli Lilly's aid? No one's saying

Tucked into the homeland security bill's historic reworking of the federal government is exactly the sort of standard operating procedure that makes typical taxpayers throw their hands up and wonder how they can ever get their arms around the system.

After talking for months about reworking government agencies to better defend American soil against terrorism, seeming minutiae comes tumbling out in huge ways at the last minute, surprising clueless congressmen and leaving average-guy citizens with absolutely no chance to weigh in before Washington types hit the highway.

Take the inclusion of special legal immunity for pharmaceutical companies, such as Eli Lilly & Co., buried in the homeland security bill.

The provision -- which, according to a report in The Washington Post, Senate leaders had to promise to yank next year to guarantee the bill's passage Tuesday night -- would retroactively shield pharmaceutical companies from certain lawsuits, similar to ones filed against Lilly that claim vaccines played a role in children's autism.

Presumably, the stipulation in the bill would help the company with strong Lafayette ties better predict the risk of pumping out products that counter terrorist threats. So maybe we should cheer the largesse of Congress and whoever dropped that nugget into the bill.

Then again, perhaps we should reserve the applause until U.S. Rep. Dan Burton has left the room. Burton, who has an autistic grandson, was busy reeling in his support for the homeland security bill once he found out that he had inadvertently agreed to the pharmaceutical companies' legal shield. "Instead of passing legislation to take away the rights of families with vaccine-injured children, we should be passing legislation to try to help them," Burton said.

Frustrating is how conveniently the provision came together -- or almost came together -- with no one standing up to take credit or blame. Eli Lilly -- whose CEO, Sidney Taurel, was appointed to the White House Homeland Security Advisory Council -- claimed no knowledge of it. Senators gave credit to House Republicans, and vice versa. In the end, it smelled like a special favor, no matter how anyone denied it.

Consider the sequence of fingers pointed and responsibility deflected, and you understand why people still trying to figure out who their new congressman will be don't bother to vote or even pay attention. So much of what happens in Washington sounds noble in a headline: Homeland Security. Leave No Child Behind. The Patriot Act. Stripped of their wrapping, they often reveal a jumble of gifts and unintended consequences that leave typical Americans motionless.

Homeland security is what we all want. The way it has been put together -- with exemptions from the Freedom of Information Act, stiff penalties for government whistle-blowers and seemingly special favors for big campaign donors -- isn't.

Other Opinion Headlines from Thursday, November 21st 2002