Headline: Hastert, Frist said to rig bill for drug firms

[spanone]

Check it out folks. Frist and Hastert screwed the working public while they slept.

~snip~ Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and House Speaker Dennis Hastert engineered a backroom legislative maneuver to protect pharmaceutical companies from lawsuits, say witnesses to the pre-Christmas power play.

The language was tucked into a Defense Department appropriations bill at the last minute without the approval of members of a House-Senate conference committee, say several witnesses, including a top Republican staff member.

http://tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060209/NEWS02/602090405

[SpiralHawk]

1. The Republican culture of corruption

is vast

[in_cog_ni_to]

2. Isn't that illegal?...I mean adding it to the bill without approval?

Did anyone know about it at the time...other than them? Do the Democrats know about it NOW? If so, what can be done about it?

The corruption never stops! They STILL don't stop. THAT tells me they know Democrats will NEVER be in power again to investigate them because THEY OWN THE EVOTING MACHINES. They have the elections locked up and will continue their reign of terror forever. Honestly, with all the scandals being exposed, one would think they would back off on their corrupt agenda, but they aren't doing that...THEY CONTINUE full steam ahead. That tells me one thing...the elections are fixed solid.

[onenote]

5. illegal. no. unethical. yes

[havocmom]

9. AND done often lately

'Sign here, we'll fill in the contract later' is NOT how a legislative body protects America. It is a tool of cons and criminals.

[in_cog_ni_to]

11. How can that not be illegal??? Senators are voting on something

they don't know even exists! They cannot get away with this shit any longer! Someone has to stop them.:(

[onenote]

13. what law requires a senator to know what they vote on?

Doesn't exist. As a voter/constituent, you expect a basic level of competence and integrity from your elected representative, so you expect him/her to have an idea about what they're voting on. And most members are provided summaries of what is in the legislation they are considering. But how can you prove whether they read it or not? You cant. Even in the situation described in the OP, its clear that some members knew, before they voted, what was in the bill and voted for it anyway. How it got there raises an ethical issue, since its simply bad form to go around the conferees that way. And to the extent that information about the inclusion of the drug manufacturers provision in the bill was not included in any summary of the bill presented to members, that too is unethical.

onenote

[Coexist]

3. surprise, surprise...

I am so numb, nothing shocks me anymore.

The question is - will the MSM care?

[myrna minx]

4. Under the cover of night the cockroaches

have their banquet. :puke: K&R

[lakeguy]

6. 'Many in health care counter that the protection is needed to help

build up the vaccine industry.' why don't just come out and say that the drug company multimillionaire CEOs don't want to pay for their f-ups! of course they won't pay it all, it will be the shareholders who pay the most. now no one will pay, except the dead who won't be told the true risks of what they are taking thanks to legislation like this.

[TheFarseer]

8. why can't we just study the proposed vaccines properly

so that no one will need to sue? Oh yeah, because the bush cronies at the FDA have to produce results THIS QUARTER to their corporate masters.

[AzDar]

7. Goddamn! So they can just insert anything they like into legislation

AFTER it has been signed?? This is a total corruption of the Democratic process. Where is the OUTRAGE???

[Sydnie]

10. That is the same time and bill that Stevens added the ANWR crap to

That must have been the deal that was made to get ANWR out. The deal must have been to leave this garbage in and take the ANWR out.

We knew this was also added at that the time they were debating that bill. Go back and look at the threads from that debate. Stevens was pissed because he was being smacked down and no one else was for doing the same thing.

[Dunvegan]

12. Well...that theory goes a long way toward explaining the intensity...

...of Stevens hissy-fit.

[onenote]

14. no it wasn't after it was signed, it was before it was enacted

The House and Senate conferees met and worked out the final language of the bill resolving differences in the versions passed by the two chambers. The conference bill then has to go back to the two chambers for a final vote. What happened here is that the conferees (or at least some of them) believed that the drug provision was not in the final compromise version and claim that it was added to the version that was presented for a final vote without their knowledge.

onenote

[unblock]

15. what difference does it make what it says, bush will "interpret" it anyway

they can pass a bill to give a tax cut to orphans and bush can "interpret" it to mean that an invasion of iran is authorized.

these people are a JOKE.

[mzmolly]

16. Yep, typical.

:(