since his Homeland Security Plan includes "stockpiling vaccines", guess pharm industry will be also covered along with whole bandwagon...
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/reuters20020717_275.html
July 17
— By Andrea Shalal-Esa
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The emerging market for homeland security looks like a gold mine for defense companies and other contractors, but industry is reluctant to rush in unless government protects it from multi-billion-dollar lawsuits that could follow another terror attack.
President Bush on Tuesday unveiled a national strategy to beef up security around the country after the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States.
While U.S. industry is keen for a foothold in a market that could exceed $100 billion in coming years, some firms have already refused to bid on contracts because they view the liability risks as too great, said David Colton, vice president of the Information Technology Association of America (ITAA).
"There is a huge liability component that is unusual in this instance because we have an enemy actively seeking to defeat the technology," said Colton, whose group represents 45 companies actively involved in homeland security.
"Without a risk-sharing mechanism in place, the threat of exposure is so high they are already voting with their feet not to provide the technology," he said.
Northrop Grumman Corp. President Ron Sugar last month told lawmakers his company would be wary of bidding for new homeland security contracts unless the government was willing to cover potential losses not covered by insurance.
Northrop did a pilot program to modernize mail handling by the U.S. Postal Service, but is holding off on a second phase to install biohazard detection equipment, unless the government agrees to indemnify it, said spokesman Randy Belote.
THERE ARE PRECEDENTS
"If a terrorist attacks ... a company could become a target of lawsuits in the billions that could bankrupt it," said one senior executive at a large defense firm. "We view that as an unfair transfer of risk to a private sector industry."
The executive, who asked not to be named, said no security technology was 100-percent effective, and it would be unfair to hold companies accountable if, for instance, an extremist group succeeded somehow in getting explosives past a bomb detector.
But he said there was no question a company should clearly be liable if it willfully installed defective technology.
"We're not looking for a handout. All we want is for the government to indemnify us against unreasonable risks."
His company objected to potential liabilities on one deal, which it later lost, and was now pursuing less risky projects.
Rep. Thomas Davis, a Virginia Republican, has introduced legislation that would expand federal laws which already allow the government to cover catastrophic losses in certain national security ventures, such as satellite launches. Another law limits liability in the nuclear power industry.
"The problem is there's no corollary for homeland defense technologies," said David Marin, legislative director for Davis. "And it doesn't cover claims when a technology is sold to state and local governments or commercial users."
Davis's proposal was approved by the House Government Reform Committee in a 30-1 bipartisan vote last week, but must still win approval from the full House of Representatives.
Marin said the bill required companies to buy the maximum insurance available to be eligible for government guarantees.
EXTEND PROTECTIONS
It would extend protections to the U.S. Postal Service, on the frontlines of homeland security during last fall's anthrax mail attacks, and 19 other agencies like the Justice Department and CIA, which are not covered under current law, as well as the new Transportation Security Administration (TSA).
Despite some initial reluctance, the TSA did indemnify Boeing Co. for a huge bomb detection contract it won last month, capping the level at $4 billion, Colton said.
The legislation calls for protections only for projects deemed high-risk, and would bar government payouts if there was "willful misconduct of any qualified seller."
Colton said his group was lobbying hard for the bill.
He said it was tough to estimate how much the bill could eventually cost, but said the federal government could cap any protection it offers companies. Payouts under existing indemnification plans have been limited, although Washington did pay out for the Three Mile Island nuclear accident. Chris Hellman, analyst at the Center for Defense Information, said the industry proposal "reeks of opportunism. I've just seen too many special interest groups who view Sept. 11 as a way to get into the federal coffers."
He acknowledged homeland security was a new challenge, which merited a reexamination of current business practices. But he said he would prefer to see full-blown congressional hearings on the matter before any legislation was approved.
