[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 16648-16649]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  CRITICIZING DRUG LIABILITY PROVISION

  (Mr. EMANUEL asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute.)
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, the first Vioxx lawsuit to reach trial is 
currently being played out in Texas. The case focuses on the needless 
death of Robert Ernst, a produce manager at Wal-Mart who also ran 
marathons and worked as a personal trainer. He took Vioxx for 8 months 
before he died of an irregular heartbeat.
  As the New York Times reports today, it turns out that Merck and 
other pharmaceutical companies may have knowingly misrepresented the 
dangers of its drug, Vioxx, to doctors and patients and the public as a 
whole. Yet, while this trial is going on, this Congress is planning on 
protecting the pharmaceutical industry from such lawsuits.
  On the right side of the screen, a family is fighting an injustice. 
On the left side of the screen, this Congress is mounting a rear-guard 
action to protect the pharmaceutical industry. If next week we plan on 
bringing up the medical malpractice legislation and have a blatantly 
beneficial provision for the pharmaceutical industry and only the 
pharmaceutical industry, I

[[Page 16649]]

will introduce the Vioxx amendment to strip the bill of this provision.

                          ____________________