Blaming the Democrats For 9/11 Responders Bill

[erpowers]

Can someone explain what is going on concerning the Democrats and the 9/11 responders bill? I am not completely clueless about this issue, but it seems media coverage of this issue is changing. In addition, I have never heard the complete story from the beginning. When the story first came out it seemed that it was reported that the Republican tried to attach a meaningless amendment to the bill in order to force Democrats to vote for or aganist an unpopular issue. As a result of the amendment being place in the bill the Democrats decided to use a particular procedure to bring the bill to a vote. Once the bill was brought to a vote most Democrats voted for the bill while most Republicans voted against the bill.

After the vote, Representative Anthony Weiner angerily criticized Republicans. Days later a contraversy erupted when Representative Peter King blamed Democrats for the bill's failure. Since then there have been people in the media who have followed suit and tried to blame the Democrats for the results of the vote. This morning Representative Weiner was on Morning Joe discussing the issue. Joe Scarborough was trying to criticize Representative Weiner and the Democrats claiming they should not have brought the bill to the floor under the rules which they did.

So, can someone explain to me what actually happened? I do not blame the Democrats for the failure of the bill. More republicans could have voted for the bill. However, I do want to have an understanding of what happened.

[Winterblues]

1. Democrats decided to use a different rule on this bill that made it

where two thirds were needed to pass it..In this political climate is it even possible to get two thirds on anything? They used this procedure so there couldn't be any amendments added but they did so knowing it had zero chance of passing. So yes it is entirely the Democrats fault it did not pass.

[erpowers]

3. Disagree

I disagree with you on this issue. Democrats were trying to prevent the Republicans from placing an amendment that would have prevented any illegal immigrants who were at ground zero from getting any of the money. Republicans should not have tried the amend the bill in such a way. Yes, the Democrats could have just voted down the amendment, but the Republicans should not have played politics with the issue.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

5. Right. The pubs wanted to have their political cake and eat it, too.

Pubs wanted to look good voting for the 911 bill AND make the Democrats look bad (in some quarters) for killing their evil little amendment. And that's even assuming that the bill would pass by simple majority if the Hispanic caucus (and any sympathizers) bailed.

[offmybrain]

2. taken from Wiki

In the United States Senate, Rule XVI prohibits amendments that propose general legislation to appropriations legislations. To prevent a point of order from killing the amendment, a Senator may offer a motion to suspend rule XVI, paragraph 4, essentially making the order germane. This motion requires a 2/3 majority to approve, meaning that it rarely passes. It should not be confused with a motion to waive the Budget Act, which requires a 3/5 vote to pass and applies to amendments that spend in amounts that exceed the levels set out in the annual budget resolution, as well as many other financial issues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_the_rules_in_the_United_States_Congress

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/07/30/9.11.responders.bill/index.html

[CJCRANE]

4. The bottom line is: most Republicans voted *against* the 9/11 responders.

A "no" vote is still a "no" vote.

They voted against the bill not against the procedure.(If they voted against the procedure then they're idiots).

It's indefensible either way.