Frist, Hastert Aid Vaccine Companies

http://rollcall.com/issues/51_65/news/11630-1.html

Frist, Hastert Aid Vaccine Companies
By John Stanton
Roll Call Staff
December 20, 2005

In a late-night move that could be worth billions of dollars to a small group of major drug manufacturers, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) inserted language into the fiscal year 2006 Defense Department spending conference report.

http://thinkprogress.org/?tag=Congress

Frist Infects Defense Bill

On Sunday night, Frist and Hastert inserted an stealth provision into the 2006 Defense Appropriations spending report “that protects vaccine manufacturers from product liability claims in the event of a viral pandemic, such as one caused by avian flu.” But not only is this provision unrelated to defense appropriations spending, it was inserted after conferees had signed off on the report and will benefit foreign-owned corporations:

Observers familiar with the procedural history of conference reports said that they were unaware of any precedent for inserting language after conferees had signed off on the report. … If the law is applied as Frist and other supporters intend, it will represent enormous financial relief for a small group of largely foreign-owned pharmaceutical companies that have worked to promote vaccine liability protection.

Sanofi Pasteur, one of the corporations set to gain from Frist’s provision, has given $5,000 to the senator’s PAC.

More from slingshot.org: here here and here.

it was inserted after conferees had signed off on the report and will benefit foreign-owned corporations:

And if Frist and Hastert worked together to get this, don't we have a conspiracy?

And thanks for the link.

Denny, got kids? Vaccinated? Think they'll have kids? Think they'll be vaccinated? Convinced that rich kids never have problems with vaccines?

The definition of Republican is "short-sighted."

inserting this language? Is there something perhaps to hide about the breaks given to these companies? (Rhetorical questions only) Same as spygate, why couldn't they go through the proper court? :sarcasm:

when they don't have to (such as what they ate for lunch) these crooks do not know how to work within the law or parliamentary procedure. Being law abiding is so foreign to them, not working by stealth is so foreign to them, they do not know how function within the structure of the law. It is as if they resent and have so much contempt for this country and its laws and precedents, that even when they *could* work with the structure, they choose not to out of total spite. I can't quite flesh out my thought right now. I don't know if I'm making any sense.

:kick: