|
It is exempt from the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which is designed to assure
public participation in and oversight of such councils.
Eli Lilly, an Indianapolis-based
company with 43,000 employees, found itself at the center of
controversy last winter when Congress was considering the
Homeland Security Act.
A debate erupted over language in
the bill that would have indemnified drug companies like Eli
Lilly from lawsuits relating to its vaccines, which some critics
believe can cause autism in children. The language was approved
and then later rejected.
Eli Lilly has been hit with a wave
of class-action lawsuits in the past three years.
“Those lawsuits had nothing to do
with national security. Now [Eli Lilly sits] on the advisory
council,” said Rep. Jan Schakowsky (Ill.),
a Democratic member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
One of Schakowsky’s chief concerns
is the council’s exemption from FACA. Last year, when she was a
member of the Government Reform Committee, Schakowsky
unsuccessfully fought against FACA and Freedom of Information
Act exemptions in the Homeland Security Department.
“This is exactly what I was
worried about,” she said.
Eli Lilly spokesman Edward
Sagebiel defended Taurel’s position on the council.
“Mr. Taurel takes his role very seriously,” Sagebiel said.
“I don’t have a problem with them
being on any board. My main concern is to make sure they don’t
try to stick that language back [in legislation],” said Rep. Dan
Burton (R-Ind.), a subcommittee chairman on Government Reform.
Non-corporate members on the
council include former Rep. Lee Hamilton (D-Ind.), Washington,
D.C., Mayor Anthony Williams (D), Utah Gov. Michael O. Leavitt
(R) and Jared L. Cohon, president of Carnegie Mellon University
in Pittsburgh.
Overall, Schakowsky thinks the
council is lopsided toward business interests. “It’s not that we
don’t want the private sector represented on the council; it’s
the imbalance.”
The council has six representatives from the corporate sector.
Danielle Brian, executive director
of the Project on Government Oversight, a leading watchdog
group, also has criticized the makeup of the council. In a July
8 letter to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge,
Brian called Eli Lilly “a questionable player.”
Brian also expressed concerns that
taxpayer money could be used to shore up private sector
security, citing, among others, the presence of Richard
Davidson, CEO of the Union Pacific Corporation, on the council.
“Because the job of protecting the
railroad system falls not to federal or state law enforcement
but to the rail companies and their security employees, his
presence on the council is a prime opportunity to push the
burden of increased security upon taxpayers instead of the
companies,” Brian wrote.
Some observers believe that the
private sector can play as critical a role as federal and local
governments in many areas of homeland security, especially
chemical plants and cybersecurity.
Since the Sept. 11,
2001, attacks, corporate spending to guard against terrorism has
increased only 4 percent, according to a report released this
month by the Conference Board, a business research group.
The study is based on a nationwide
survey of 331 business security officials. More than half of the
companies in the survey generate $1 billion in revenue per year. |
