Congressman loses his nut on the House floor

[Memnoch]

And here I thought only Ozzie politicians screamed and ranted at each other in Congress/Parliament/etc.




And what was it all about? A bill to provide more medical care to US first responders to the 9/11 WTC tragedy.

Washington (CNN) -- A verbal flash-fire erupted on the House floor Thursday night over nine-year battle to pass a benefits bill for emergency workers who were first on the scene of the 9/11 attacks. Frustrated with Republican votes against the $7.4 billion measure because Democrats suspended the rules to prevent them from offering unrelated amendments -- and at the same time requiring a two-thirds majority to pass -- Democratic Rep. Anthony Weiner excoriated the minority party. "It's Republicans wrapping their arms around Republicans rather than doing the right thing on behalf of the heroes," Weiner said during an impassioned, 90-second speech. "It is a shame. A shame! If you believe this is a bad idea to provide health care--then vote no! But don't give me the cowardly view that 'Oh, if it was a different procedure.'" The bill failed to get the 291 votes it needed for passage, polling just 255 votes. But that 255 votes easily surpassed the 218 needed for a simple majority. Democratic New York Rep. Carolyn Maloney -- the sponsor of the bill who has been working on the legislation since just after terrorist attacks -- is working to convince her party's leadership to hold a simple majority vote before the ninth anniversary of the attacks. She told CNN Friday that passing the bill under suspension rules was "a very high bar." "My goal is to have it on the floor again under regular rule, majority rule, which would require only 218 votes. We clearly had the 218 votes to pass it," Maloney said. Texas Rep. Lamar Smith, another Republican, opposed the legislation on the basis of cost. He called the bill an "irresponsible overreach" that "does not contain the necessary protections to safeguard taxpayer dollars from abuse, waste and fraud." "I think this is another example of the Democrats' insatiable appetite for the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars," Smith said Thursday night on the House floor. But Rep. Pete King, R-New York -- who actually voted in favor of the bill -- tipped the debate in another direction, focusing on the Democratic tactic that kept the Republicans from offering up an amendment on illegal immigration. "But what we are doing tonight is a cruel hoax and a charade," King said from the House floor, every bit as passionately as Weiner would moments later. "Everyone knows that this bill will not get the two-thirds majority required on the suspension calendar. Everyone also knows that this bill would pass with a clear majority if the Democrat leadership would allow it to come to the floor under the regular procedures of the House. "The reason H.R. 847 is not being brought up under regular order is because the majority party is petrified of having its members face a potential vote on illegal immigration," he said. "You can blame it on the Republicans -- and I've been strongly critical on the Republican position on this issue -- but the reality is you could pass this bill if you wanted to." King's words set off Weiner. "It takes great courage to wait until all Members have already spoken and then stand up and wrap your arms around procedure," Weiner began. "We see it in the United States Senate every single day when Members say, 'We want amendments. We want debate. We want amendments, but we're still a 'no.'' And then we stand up and say, 'Oh, if only we had a different process, we'd vote yes. "You vote yes if you believe yes," he said. "You vote in favor of something if you believe it's the right thing. If you believe it's the wrong thing, you vote no.'' King tried to interject, but Weiner refused to yield the floor. "The gentleman gets up and yells, trying to intimidate people into believing he's right -- he is wrong!" Weiner shouted. "The gentleman is wrong! The gentleman is providing cover for his colleagues rather than doing the right thing!" "I will not stand here and listen to my colleague say, 'Oh, if only I had a different procedure that allows us to stall, stall, stall and then vote no.' Instead of standing up and defending your colleagues and voting no on this humane bill, you should urge them to vote yes, something the gentleman has not done," Weiner concluded, punctuating his final words with an index finger in the air. King told CNN Friday that if the bill went to simple majority vote he "would sit with the Democrats all day and defend the bill against the Republicans." Weiner defended his outburst and acknowledged that many people are unhappy with what they see as partisan bickering in Congress, but he said that many people may not understand what's actually happening. Suspending the rules for certain votes, he said, "is a common procedure ... used all the time." "Frankly, it was beyond a lot of people's understanding why anyone would want to politicize this and make it a long, drawn-out fight," he told CNN. http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/07/...sponders.bill/

[Hindsight]

..love a person who's passionate about their work. Good on him!

[Felix The Assassin]

This is typical of what happens when one does not get their way. Dems always appear prim and proper for the Sunday morning shows, but on the floor, they act like the spoiled, over paid children they are.

Since they did not allow Repub intervention for this bill, they needed 2/3 vote and lost. A shame really, but it is what it is!

[Timber Loftis]

Originally Posted by Felix The Assassin This is typical of what happens when one does not get their way. Dems always appear prim and proper for the Sunday morning shows, but on the floor, they act like the spoiled, over paid children they are. Since they did not allow Repub intervention for this bill, they needed 2/3 vote and lost. A shame really, but it is what it is!

Riiiight.

Explainify to me, then, why the Republican INSIST on shoving an unrelated anti-immigration measure into a bill that's about helping out heroic first responders to one of our nations greatest tragedies. Firemen and policemen getting thrown under the bus by Repugs who hate Mexicans.

Aren't we generally against stuffing bills with unrelated pork measures and hobby projects?

[Memnoch]

Here's the CS Monitor's take on things.

Anthony Weiner rant reveals why nobody likes Congress Rep. Anthony Weiner was apoplectic that Republicans didn't pass a bill to help 9/11 first responders Thursday. But the full story suggests that both parties share blame – and sheds light on why only 11 percent of Americans have confidence in Congress. Rep. Anthony Weiner’s outburst on the House floor Thursday night had all the most compelling elements of political theater. The New York Democrat shouted. He pointed. He flailed. And most importantly, he castigated the opposing party. (See video here.) But Congressman Weiner’s tirade on the House floor – as well as his finger-wagging confrontation with Republican Rep. Peter King Friday on Fox News – is more than just an amusing illustration of an ill-tempered year in Washington. The reasons why members of Congress are so angry at each other are, in many respects, the same reasons why everyone else is so angry at Congress – an institution in which only 11 percent of Americans have confidence, according to a recent Gallup poll. In short, the story of Anthony Weiner and the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act is a parable of how obstruction, political brinksmanship, and an aversion to putting principle over politics – by both parties – resulted in institutional gridlock of both comic and tragic proportions. Make no mistake, the Zadroga Act is very popular on both sides of the aisle: It has 115 co-sponsors in the House, including 15 Republicans. The bill would set aside money to pay the health-care costs for first responders to the 9/11 attacks in New York City, many of whom deal with respiratory issues caused by the dust and debris that day. Yet on Thursday, only 12 Republicans voted for the bill, and it failed. Why? Politics. Ahead of elections, parties tend to slowly abandon actual achievement in favor of forcing the opposition to take a “poison pill” – forcing a vote that might prove to be embarrassing, and thus good campaign fodder. In this case, Republicans decided earlier this week to introduce an amendment to the Zadroga Act that would prevent any first responders who were illegal immigrants from collecting the health benefits. There had been no serious discussion previously about whether any 9/11 responders were illegal immigrants. But getting Democrats to vote in favor of benefits for any potential illegal immigrants would anger voters in conservative districts. Voting against it would anger Hispanics – a key Democratic constituency. Republicans wanted to set up a lose-lose situation for Democrats. Of course, there were also many conscientious objections to the bill by Republicans, arguing that there was already a fund for these responders and that the bill, as written, encourages waste and fraud and adds to an already enormous deficit. Yet the math suggested the bill, without any amendments, had more than enough votes to pass. So the Democrats responded in kind. Instead of allowing Republicans to tack on controversial and potentially damaging amendments, the majority employed a procedure to preclude any new amendments. The caveat: Now the Zadroga Act needed a two-thirds majority to pass. In essence, Democrats made their own “poison pill” out of the bill. The two-thirds threshold forced Republicans either to willingly eat humble pie or to oppose the bill and be open to charges that they were abandoning the heroes of 9/11. In the end, the Zadroga Act fell 35 votes short of the two-thirds majority, and a bill supported in all likelihood by a majority of Americans and without doubt by a majority of the House itself was defeated. And the shouting began. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politic...likes-Congress

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally Posted by Felix The Assassin This is typical of what happens when one does not get their way. Dems always appear prim and proper for the Sunday morning shows, but on the floor, they act like the spoiled, over paid children they are.

Like that one Democrat who screamed "You Lie!" to the president when referring to a situation that existed soley in his own head? Oh wait, he wasn't Democrat.

I think this guy is actually a real-life hero. Fair play to him for standing up for the rest of us rather than playing to where the money is.

And, he is usually quite outspoken and passionate on morning shows 'cuz i've seen him before now. Think there's one video with him yelling at some nitwit on Fox for spreading lies about healthcare as they do. Now, I haven't seen him that upset before, but, I agree with him 100% and would prolly say the same.

[Felix The Assassin]

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior Like that one Democrat who screamed "You Lie!" to the president when referring to a situation that existed soley in his own head? Oh wait, he wasn't Democrat. I think this guy is actually a real-life hero. Fair play to him for standing up for the rest of us rather than playing to where the money is. And, he is usually quite outspoken and passionate on morning shows 'cuz i've seen him before now. Think there's one video with him yelling at some nitwit on Fox for spreading lies about healthcare as they do. Now, I haven't seen him that upset before, but, I agree with him 100% and would prolly say the same.

And prolly lose the vote just like he did? Wow! Talk about an inability to understand American politics. This vote was for first responders, not big money, so he has failed his people!

[SecretMaster]

What the Republicans did is utter bullshit. What jives me even more is the whole ideology of "lets not give fudning to the illegal immigrants who were first responders"

Whether or not they were in this country legally or not should not make a damn difference. It's boils down to an issue of humanity and empathy, something that transcends any political or social affiliation. Any illegal immigrant who aided and assisted in helping people during the 9/11 attacks didn't say "well I'm not American, I shouldn't help these people"

They had basic empathy and compassion towards their fellow human kin. Should we not show them the same respect and gratitude? Illegal or not doesn't make a ■■■■■■■ difference. Anyone who helped that day deserves something. They were being genuine human beings, and every idiot that voted no on this bill should be ashamed.

"Oh sorry even you risked your life with the intention of saving and helping lives during this huge crisis, we aren't going to help you out because some arbitrary piece of paper says you aren't part of our imaginary, conceptual group."

This shit seriously needs to stop.

[Memnoch]

Why was the need to include amendments to the bill so important? End of day because both sides were trying to score petty political points for use in their re-election campaigns the 9/11 responders - illegal and legal - were the ones who got shafted.

[Papa Schlumpf]

Here's Jon Stewart's take on this. And apparently Republicans really like their business cronies to have offshore bank accounts, as that seemed to be part of their refusal to play ball as well.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/we...esponders-bill