The Peregrine Gallery
presents
BILL FRIST
Sightings from The Catbird Seat
~ o ~
From Source Watch:
William Harrison Frist, M.D. is a Republican U.S. Senator from Tennessee. He was first elected in 1994. Since 2003, he has served as Senate majority leader. He is frequently mentioned as a potential candidate for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination....
Personal Wealth
Frist's net worth was between $15 million and $45 million based on his financial disclosure forms released in 2005. [13]...
Controversy
Shielding vaccine companies
In what has been described as a brazen move by Senator Frist and House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL), the lawmakers covertly inserted language [in December 2005] in a fiscal year 2006 Defense spending conference report—the bill, H.R. 2863, was ultimately signed into law as Public Law 109-148 —that would grant certain legal immunity to vaccine manufacturers, even in cases of willful misconduct. This language was added quietly and in the dead of night, receiving no debate on the House floor.
Despite strong opposition from congressional members, Frist and Hastert used their power in the Senate and House to force the language through. The potential impact of this addition is that American citizens would have little legal recourse in the event of serious injury or death resulting from vaccines designed to combat an avian influenza pandemic. Several news articles have reported that both Frist and Hastert (and others, including Hastert's son) benefited from their actions. The Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) is purported to be the key author of the language additions. This trade association represents virtually all major vaccine manufacturers.
Medical school experiments
While in medical school, Frist obtained cats from animal shelters, under pretense of adoption as pets, for school research experiments in which he killed the animals. In a 1989 autobiography, Frist described his deception in obtaining these shelter cats as "heinous and dishonest". He attributed his behavior to the pressures of school. The incident sparked controversy after a 2002 Boston Globe story repeated the account.
Saddam Hussein and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Ahead of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, Frist repeatedly emphasized that a central reason for military action was that Saddam Hussein's regime possessed weapons of mass destruction which posed a potential threat to the U.S. "Let there be no mistake about our Nation's purpose in confronting Iraq -- Saddam Hussein's regime poses a clear threat to the people of United States, its friends and its allies, and it is a threat that we must address now," he said in a speech to the Senate on March 7, 2003. [16]
In an opinion column in the Washington Post shortly afterwards, Frist invoked a medical metaphor to justify the invasion. "Getting rid of Saddam Hussein's regime is our best inoculation. Destroying once and for all his weapons of disease and death is a vaccination for the world," he wrote. [17] However, three months later, in an interview on NBC's Today Show, Frist downplayed the threat of weapons of mass destruction as a justification for the war. "I'm not sure that's the major reason we went to war," he said. [18]...
HCA-Conflict of interest allegations
Frist placed his investments in a blind trust when he joined the Senate to avoid accusations of conflicts of interest. Asked in a television interview in January 2003 whether he should sell his Hospital Corporation of America stock, Frist responded, "Well, I think really for our viewers it should be understood that I put this into a blind trust. So as far as I know, I own no HCA stock." However, Frist's blind trust provided him with regular updates on the status of his assets.[21]
Some have suggested that this is because compliance with Senate ethics rules requires disclosure of the blind trust portfolios, and that no Congressperson can be unaware of their holdings.[22]
HCA-Medicare investigation
Hospital Corporation of America was the subject of a decade-long Federal investigation into double-bookkeeping and suspected criminal fraud involving the bilking of Medicare, Medicaid, and Tricare (the federal program that provides health insurance to members of the military and their families).
During this period no one in the Frist family had any executive position in HCA. HCA has paid a total of $1.7 billion in fines, the largest fraud settlement in U.S. history. Shortly after Frist assumed his position as Senate Majority Leader, a final fine of $631 million was assessed and the ongoing Justice Department investigation into HCA was dropped.
Rick Scott, who had been hired to run the company after Frist's brother's retirement, quickly left the company. Frist's brother, a billionaire, returned to HCA to get the company back on track; in addition, HCA was allowed to continue its Medicare contracts.[23] [24]
Insider trading allegations and the SEC Investigations
On September 20, 2005, the Associated Press reported that Frist sold his HCA shares, which had been in a blind trust, two weeks before the company announced that earnings would not meet expectations, which caused a substantial drop in the share price.
A spokeswoman said that Frist told the trustee who managed his HCA shares to sell them on June 13, and Frist had no control over the exact date when they were sold. Frist further claimed that the order was given to avoid allegations of conflict of interest over his participation in healthcare legislation, and that he possessed no non-public information when the stock was sold.
The U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York has issued subpoenas to investigate the sale, and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating. Frist has retained the Washington, D.C. law firm of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr to defend him in connection with these investigations.
FEC Violation
On June 1, 2006, the FEC announced that Frist violated federal campaign finance laws by failing to report a $1.44 million loan jointly taken out by Frist 2000, Inc. and by Frist's 1994 campaign committee, Bill Frist for Senate, Inc.
Only the 1994 committee disclosed the loan, while the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) requires 100% disclosure of all loans taken out by campaign committees. Frist was fined $11,000 by the FEC for the violation. [25]
Financial disclosures
It was reported by the AP that Internal Revenue Service forms showed that Frist and his wife are the only trustees managing a family foundation. However, he has not been listing his position as head of these foundations on his Senate disclosure forms. These disclosure forms are made public by law and the last year that a tax form was avaliable for the foundation was in 2004. During this year the foundation had more than $2 million in assets.
In response to a phone call by the AP regarding this matter, Frist's spokeperson stated that "It was recently discovered that Senator Frist's Senate financial disclosure forms may contain some inadvertent errors which are under review and will be promptly corrected by amending his financial disclosure."[26]...
Named one of the "most corrupt"
In both 2005 and 2006, the group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington singled out Frist as one of the most "corrupt" members of Congress, and filed a complaint with the Senate Ethics Committee calling for an investigation of the stock sale, an alleged cover-up, and an allegedly mishandled disclosure of a campaign loan. [28]
Frist denies any violation of campaign finance laws; others have claimed that, because Frist has no formal relationship with HCA, he cannot be an "insider" for purposes of insider-trading prohibitions under the securities laws, and that SEC investigations of sales in advance of important announcements are routine.[29].
However, under §10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, any person who trades in securities for personal profit, using confidential information misappropriated in breach of a fiduciary duty to the source of the information, may be held both civilly and criminally liable according to the U.S. Supreme Court. [30]
Thus, if Frist traded on information illegally passed to him by his relatives, he could be convicted under the Securities Exchange Act.
www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bill_Frist
May 19, 2006
Hawaii governor Lingle lobbies
GOP for Akaka Bill passage
Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle wrote a letter to Republicans in the U.S. Senate urging passage of the controversial Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act (S. 147), commonly known as the Akaka Bill after Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii), its main proponent.
In a letter dated May 15, 2006 addressed to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Lingle cited a recent report by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission that urged defeat of the measure on the grounds that it is racially based, calling it a "misguided action" and saying that it was based on a "grossly flawed understanding of the history of Hawaii and of the law itself."
Lingle cited the fact that Native Hawaiians were governed by their own leaders prior to Western contact, and that the U.S. itself recognized Hawaii as a sovereign nation and entered into treaties with it as far back as 1826. After the overthrow of the monarchy and Hawaii's subsequent annexation in 1900, the government of the former kingdom was "subordinated to the federal government," Lingle said, asserting that Native Hawaiians' relationship to the U.S. has been political in nature rather than purely racial. She claims that this relationship was not adequately reflected in the Civil Rights Commission's report.
Opponents of the Akaka Bill have disputed the accuracy of Lingle's claims, as well as those of her Attorney General, Mark J. Bennett. They point out that throughout the Hawaiian Kingdom period, through the annexation of Hawaii and into statehood, no racial group in Hawaii ever had an exclusive government for their race alone, and that the Akaka Bill specifically creates a new government based on race, not on politics.
Attached to her letter was a three-page summary written by Hawaii Attorney General Mark Bennett, outlining the state government's criticisms of the CRC's report. Bennett said that the report reflected "a complete lack of understanding of this country's longstanding practice of dealing specially with its native peoples."
Bennett also cited congressional precedent in legislation that compares the situation of Native Hawaiians to that of Native Americans. Bennett sums up the criticism by saying that there is "simply no legal or moral distinction between Native Hawaiians and American Indians or Alaska Natives, that would justify denying Native Hawaiians the same treatment other Native American groups in this country currently enjoy."
According to the Civil Rights Commission's report, a panel of experts briefed the commission on January 20, 2006; and public comment was solicited until March 21, 2006. The Commission noted that most of the comments received were in opposition to the legislation, and that while the supporters "took great pains to analogize the situation of Native Hawaiians with those of Native Americans," many of the opponents argued, "in very personal terms, that the proposed legislation would be inconsistent with basic American principles of equality, traditional Hawaiian values, and their own personal ethics."
In the end, the Commission recommended against passage of S. 147 as reported out of committee, or any similar bill that "would discriminate on the basis of race or national origin and further subdivide the American people into discrete subgroups accorded varying degrees of privilege."
Two of the seven commission members reportedly rejected the conclusion and are expected to file formal dissents.
Frist had pledged to file a cloture motion before the Senate to bring the measure to a vote when the body returns from May recess. Should 60 of the 100 senators approve the cloture motion, a vote would occur after a maximum of 30 hours of debate. The bill, if approved by the Senate, would still need to pass the House by the end of the year.
October 15, 2005
DeLay Reaction
By John Dawson, www.worldmag.com
It will surprise no one in Washington that former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) is a sinner. His Democratic counterpart, Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and DNC party chair Howard Dean have called him corrupt following indictments stemming from a fundraising sandal in Texas that forced him to step down from his leadership position. But Democrats are talking politics.
DeLay friend Mark Souder (R-Ind.) knows the former leader from dealings in the House and from a Capitol Hill Bible study.
“I’m definitely a DeLay ally,” Mr. Souder says. “ I call him the greatest repenter I’ve ever met. He struggles with anger and aggression.”...
The cumulative effect of the DeLay indictments, investigations into a stock sale by Sen. Majority Leader Bill Frist, and ongoing FBI probes into fundraising by GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff are making conservatives nervous...
www.worldmag.com/subscriber/displayarticle.cfm?id=11144
* * * * *
VISIT
THE PEREGRINE GALLERY
To View More Birds of Prey!
JACK ABRAMOFF - HENRY PAULSON - GALE NORTON
FAYE KURREN - NANCY JOHNSON - PETER SAVIO
BRUCE BABBITT - BEN BENSON - DAVID COLE
HAUNANI APOLIONA - JEFF WATANABE
COLBERT MATSUMOTO - LINDA LINGLE
(...with more to come!)
* * * * *
For even more
Birds of Prey
GO TO
\/
A Connecticut Yankee in King Kamehameha’s Court
APCOA: Vultures in the Parking Lot
Carlyle Group: Birds That Drink From Cesspools
Citigroup: Vampires in the City
Confessions of a Whistleblower
Dirty Money, Dirty Politics & Bishop Estate
The Eagle Hooded: The 9-11 Coverups
Gensiro Kawamoto: How to Pluck a Billionaire
Nests of the Insurance Vampires
The Consuelo Zobel Alger Foundation
The Silence of the Whistleblowers
The Vultures in Maunawili Valley
Sukamto Sia: The Indonesian Connection
Vultures of the Sandwich Isles
MORE OF THE CATBIRD'S FAVORITE LINKS
FAIR USE NOTICE. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml . If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Last Updated on May 16, 2007 by The Catbird