"Reid believes a deal has been reached to pass 9/11 health bill"

[Clio the Leo]

Senate aims to move forward on 9/11 first responders health bill
By Michael O'Brien - 12/22/10 08:50 AM ET
Senate Democrats have scheduled a key vote Wednesday on legislation helping rescue workers who responded to the 9/11 attacks.

Senate Democrats have scheduled a key vote Wednesday on legislation helping rescue workers who responded to the 9/11 attacks.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said that the Senate will hold a cloture vote at around noon to see if the bill providing healthcare benefits to 9/11 first responders can get the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster.

If the Senate votes to end debate and no Senate Republicans throw up procedural hurdles, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Wednesday morning that the House will be waiting to approve the bill.

Hoyer said Wednesday that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) had told him that Reid "has an agreement" that can get the 9/11 bill through the Senate and to the House by early afternoon.

Hoyer said he had spoken with Reid on Wednesday morning, and that the top Senate Democrat believed that a deal had been reached with Republicans to pass the stalled legislation on what's shaping up to be the last day of the lame-duck Congress.

"I just got off the phone 10 minutes ago with the majority leader of the Senate, Harry Reid … and he indicates that he believes he can get a bill to me," Hoyer said on the liberal Bill Press radio show.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/134777-911-health-bill-set-for-key-noontime-test-vote-in-senate

(fingers crossed)

[phleshdef]

1. Geez, Harry Reid is working his ass off.

How much sleep has that guy gotten the past few weeks?

[Clio the Leo]

3. lol did you hear Sen. Kyl at that press conference the other day?

(he wants to go home) "Senate leadership is trying to squeeze too much in! We show up, hold some votes, debate START, vote on some judges, then it's time to go home for dinner, then we have to get right back up and do it all again!" poor baby.

[Teaser]

16. Dear John Kyl:

What you are experiencing is called a "A Job". You may have noticed, over the past few years, that money would periodically appear in your bank account. This phenomenon is also associated with having "A Job."

It is understandable that you should be experiencing this confusion. Many people, and many of your constituents do not have "A Job". As such, a certain level of unfamiliarity with the concept is to be expected. However, to avoid future embarassments, it is probably wise to continue doing the "work" associated with this "job" without complaining.

[democrat_patriot]

20. Best. Response. Ever.

Please email that to his office. And KO.....

[prolesunited]

23. Awesome!

You should e-mail that to his office. It certainly epitomizes what life is like inside the bubble.

[Robb]

25. Well done.

:rofl:

[RichGirl]

37. Love it....

Don't send it to him...it'll get buried. Send to NYT "Open letter to Sen Kyl".

[Phx_Dem]

2. I wish we could keep this lame duck. They're doing a hell of a job!

:patriot:

[Clio the Leo]

4. lol perhaps Congress should ONLY be in session for three weeks every other year. nt

[karynnj]

29. I get what you are saying -- but all they accomplishments were based on

Hard, solid. methodical work done earlier in the year - quietly in the committees or in various Senators' offices. For DADT, the quiet effort by people like Levin and Gillibrand in pushing to get the study of the military that really ended up being important in moving the few Republicans needed. On START, the administration worked with about 60 Senators even as they negotiated, then the committees held many hearings - especially the SFRC. Kerry, chairing SFRC, had Lugar as an ally, who has worked on these issues for decades, did everything he could to reach out to Republicans in good faith.

On the 911 bill, this goes to values that both sides should share. It is hard to believe that we couldn't find 2 Republicans to vote for it last time it came up. That said, I am unhappy that some Democrats let us down on the Dream Act. I was listening late Friday to CSPAN, following the START debate, and heard Durbin and Menendez speak. After his own speech and Menendez's one, Durbin said that many members were asking him why he was doing this to them and saying they would toss and turn all night. Menendez replied that is what happens when you know how you should vote for and know you won't.

[no limit]

5. I hope it gets passed but I don't see why they are making deals

making deals implies that the opposition actually has a valid reasoning for their opposition. In this casae the republicans have absolutely no leg to stand on.

[phleshdef]

6. Because making deals is how shit gets done as opposed to just talked about.

Welcome to the real world. If you aren't enjoying your stay, you are free to check out at anytime.

[no limit]

10. Yeah, I remember all those deals the Bush administration was making with democrats

After all, that was the only way to get things done.

[phleshdef]

13. The Bush administration didn't accomplish very much at all.

They got their tax cuts and a shitty medicare bill, I guess maybe the Patriot act which was easy because 9/11 scared everyone into submission for awhile. Bush vetoed damn near everything the last 2 years.

Another thing to consider is that Democrats tend to be reasonable and acknowledge the legitimacy of Republicans to govern when they get elected to do so. The Republicans however do not show Barack Obama the same acknowledgement of legitimacy. They didn't really with Clinton either.

[no limit]

15. Yup, those poor hopeless democrats. And I find it laughable you don't think Bush got alot done

2 tax cuts, medicare prescription bill, patriot act, Iraq war, military tribunals, no child left behind, the ability to spy on americans without a warrent, a huge bank bailout without any strings attached, scary changes to the insurrection act, as well as others that aren't on the top of my head right now.

He did all this with much smaller majorities in congress than the democrats have had for the last 2 years. To say he didn't get much done is laughable. The only thing I remember him failing at was social security privatization.

[phleshdef]

22. I don't count the wars as accomplishments.

The Patriot Act and the wars are wild card issues fueled by the 9/11 terror attacks. That wasn't Bush fighting to get something done. That was the entire country reacting to the shock doctrine.

Warrantless spying wasnt achieved through a bill, it was achieved through an abuse of FISA laws.

I forgot about NCLB. Bush didn't even want to sign the bailout bill, but thank God he did.

A lot of what you listed there were abuses of power and had nothing to do with getting congress to pass landmark legislation.

Considering he had 8 years, the record is still extremely laughable from a legislative perspective. Bush didn't do much with his time at all. He was a lazy President.

[no limit]

24. You seem to have forgotten about the Protect America Act of 2007

here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_America_Act_of_2007

Yes, congress gave the president the authority to wiretap americans without a warrent. And lets not forget this was a democratic congress that gave him this authority.

Everything I listed congress played a hang in, much of it under democrats. But it sure is easy to forget, isn't it?

And the fact you excuse alot of this because of 9/11 is just a little bit ironic. Remember, this discussion is about a bill to give healthcare to 9/11 responders. And the democrats for some reason need to cut a deal in order to get that passed. It would be a fucking joke if so many lives weren't on the line.

[phleshdef]

28. Look, you might name a few more bills. He still didn't accomplish much.

His record for a 2 term President that came into office with surpluses and stability are not very impressive at all.

The only agenda that got any real pursuit was national security... a whole 8 years and all he had to show for it was a bunch of shit that was crafted out of a reaction to his own failure to prevent a terrorist attack to begin with. The bailouts were the same thing if you really think about it.

The only domestic agenda item that Bush got passed that had any real punch behind it were the massive tax cuts. And they had to use reconcilation to do that.

I guess what you are saying is, the Democrats could have randomly put holds on every bill and acted like complete children when the Republicans were in total power before. But they didn't. We don't do that. We govern. Sometimes we make deals to govern. And it doesn't matter if we are right and they are wrong if the fucking bill doesn't ever get passed.

But I guess we shouldn't make deals on principle. We should pride ourselves on being tough and telling everyone how fucking pure we are, because we wouldn't make a deal with the evil obstructionists! Sure, the 9/11 workers never got a damn dime. But we sure were TOUGH and PRINCIPLED, weren't we?

[no limit]

31. You said that congress didn't approve warrentless wiretapping. The act I posted...

...shows you that in fact they did. You are right, I can post much more legislation. But in this case I posted that to directly refute what you said.

As far as you saying they only got stuff done when it came to national security. That's not true, and you know it's not true because we already talked about this above. In addition to the 2 tax cuts you just mentioned he also got a 2 trillion dollar medicare bill. He also got a 1 trillion dollar bank bail out. And he also got no child left behind. So besides pissing all over our civil liberties (with the Democrats happily allowing him to do so) he did get through quite a large domestic agenda. And he did so with far less republicans than the democrats that Obama has.

Again, these are just the things that are directly off the top of my head. There is much more that he did. And he did so in many cases without giving the democrats a damn thing. So I simply don't agree with your argument that he didn't get that much done, or on what he did get done most of it was on national security.

[phleshdef]

33. You refuted nothing.

The warrantless wiretapping was taking place way before the 2007. The 2007 bill still required the FISA court to be notified within 72 hours. It also restricted wiretapping from being targeted at individuals. Congress may have given them more breathing room in that bill but it was years after the fact. The Bush administration was doing the warrantless wiretapping thing for years and it had nothing to do with Congress. My statement stands.

Also, you need to learn how to read. I said the tax cuts were the only domestic item with any punch. I did not say they were the only domestic item period.

Regardless, I could give a shit less. When people have to deal to get something done, thats what they do. It doesn't matter what happened during the Bush administration. To pretend that its not part of the dynamic is pure political illiteracy on your part.

They are making a deal to get these people some help. You will live over it.

[no limit]

34. So let me get this straight. You are sitting here saying that 2 trillion dollars for medicare

no child left behind, and a trillion dollar bank bailout with no limits on bonuses or compensation didn't have any punch? I think just about everyone would disagree with you. But by all means, keep grasping at those straws.

And yes, Bush was illegally wiretapping americans long before the "protect america act". What happened to him for that? Nothing, congress passed a law making what he was doing legal. That's what the protect america act was all about. You can spray perfume on a pile of shit all you want, but congress made Bush's actions which were illegal legal. So when you said earlier that congress had nothing to do with warrentless wiretapping you were absolutely incorrect on that. They passed a law which made wireless wiretapping legal. It allowed Bush to bypass FISA completely as long as the call on one end wasn't in the US. That means if I call my family in Poland Bush could listen in on that conversation without ever notifying anybody.

You can make all the snarky comments you want. You can keep pretending how I am being childish and not living in the real world. But unfortunately none of that changes history, I just wish that you had a slightly better memory so that you actually remembered the Bush years. Because I remember them very well.

[phleshdef]

35. The bank bailout did but it wasn't a domestic agena bill, it was FEMA for the economy.

It was a reactionary bill that was passed because the economy was collapsing. Its not some "make deals for our agenda" type of situation.

NCLB and the medicare bill were expensive jokes. The cost of a bill does not equal the impact of a bill. Expensive, yes. Did they pack any real punch? No. Those bills are, at best, historical footnotes.

Aside from tax cuts, the Bush domestic agenda was virtually nonexistent, which is why we had bridges falling down and zero job growth.

But yea, you are childish if you think deal making is unnecessary when legislating under a partisan system. Thats just common sense stuff.

[no limit]

36. Jesus fucking christ dude. You are saying NCLB and the medicare bill had no effect?

Maybe you should talk to some seniors and teachers about the effect that these 2 polcies alone had. I'm just amazed at what bullshit you're willing to spew just for the sake of not having to admit you were wrong.

Yup, I guess I'm childish for pointing out to you that when it came to the Bush administration deals with democrats were not made. Atleast not in the sense that Bush would give them something. With things like the "protect america act" they took Bush's actions, which were highly illegla, and legalized them. Remember, this is after they gained control in 2006. They gave Bush the power to listen in on any phone call coming in from overseas or going out overseas without any kind of oversight.

Now that we have the white house you are sitting here saying that again the democrats must give in to republicans. Because that's the only way washington will work. Like I said above, if it weren't so sad it would be a fucking joke.

[phleshdef]

40. From a big picture perspective, both were very insignificant bills.

But if you want to kid yourself into think that history teachers will be talking about No Child Left Behind as if it were 3/5ths compromise, you go ahead.

Expensive and shitty does not mean impactful. Thats the way I view those bills. There isn't a damn thing you can do about that view. As I said, you will live over it.

No one said its the ONLY way Washington works. But it is however the way Washington often must work. Your views on whether Republicans had it as hard are completely irrelevant and they offer no merits to the discussion as to whether a certain amount of deal making is necessary to get things done.

[no limit]

41. No, you are right

there is nothing I can do about your wrong view. Because you are the type of person that no matter how many facts are shown to you nothing will change your view.

How many millions of children were affected in poor areas because of the pile of shit that was no child left behind? But I guess since you don't have any children in poor schools that doesn't affect you.

And I love how the new standard you are setting for meaningful legislation is the 3/5ths compromise. What domestic Obama policies do you think we will be reading about in the history books?

And you are absolutely right. The fact the democrats are the ones that ALWAYS have to give in means nothing. It is irrelevent. How can I possibly argue with that brilliant logic on your part.

[phleshdef]

42. Are you saying the 3/5ths compromise wasn't bad legislation that was also meaningful?

And wrong view? At least I don't let my "wrong views" turn me into an insatiable ideologue who sits around and pouts over the Democrats acknowledging the real world as it is instead of the big, shiny pony of fairness they'd like it to be.

[no limit]

43. No, I'm just saying that you moved the goal posts

that in order not to admit wrong when you originally said that Bush didn't really do anything meaningful when it comes to domestic policy you now define meaningful legislation as something that is just as historic as the 3/5ths compromise. If it's not that historic it's not meaningful. I did ask you which legislation Obama enacted that we will be reading about in history books, I don't think you gave me an answer. But again, I guess as long as you weren't directly affected by the pile of shit that was NCLB even if millions of poor kids were, then it didn't mean anything.

I also do appreciate the fact that you are now trying to suggest I'm a racist that thinks the 3/5ths compromise was good. Well played.

[phleshdef]

44. I never set any goal posts. I said and still say his domestic agenda was weak.

It was virtually nothing. 8 years and hardly anything landmark to show for it.

And no one called you a fucking racist. Now you are just making shit up to distract from your original argument, which is suggesting that deal making is unnecessary, which you and everyone else with a drop of common sense knows is completely wrong.

[no limit]

45. The earth is flat

you can post all the pictures of a round earth that you'd like, I'm just going to keep repeating that it's flat.

That is exactly what you are doing here. We talked about no child left being that affected millions of poor children negatively. We talked about Medicare changes under Bush which affected millions of seniors. But you keep repeating that these thigns did not matter. That they had no effect. Well I guess they had no effect on you. But talk to some teachers from schools that had their funding cut because of NCLB to see what effect it had on them. You can also talk to seniors that couldn't afford prescription drugs what changes in medicare meant to them.

And no, you never suggested I was a racist. You just suggested that I supported the 3/5ths compromise which I never even said anything remotely close to.

But honestly you might as well be a republican. Because to they think the same way. As long as something doesn't directly affect them (not being able to afford prescriptions or shitty schools for example) it's not a major issue for them. Which is the exact same argument you are trying to make here.

Have a marry christmas buddy, I'm out.

[vaberella]

8. Because you are dealing with Republicans who HATE Obama and Dems and want us to lose in '12.

I don't see why this is so hard to get. There's no need to even ask the question. That's what they want, they want Obama to fail and they don't give a fuck if the nation fails. You know when all of DU and so many on the left was hating on Obama for the tax compromise---?! The right wingers were loving it. They are like, this is what we wanted. So if millions of people suffered if the tax cuts were expired (because let us not forget that 98% of America who make up the working class were getting cuts in the Bush tax cuts) then they'd get nothing at all and we'd have everyone strapped for cash. They want to make EVERYTHING difficult for a reason. And we have to realize that---Even if we think they have no leg to stand on...they have an extreme right wing base full of violence and loud mouths that put them in office and also makes them act crazy even against their better judgment.

You may think they have no leg, but they do have power. And that was given to them by the American people. Unfortunately Obama has to deal with and us more rational people have to deal with that as well. If we want to get anything done we have to accommodate shit heads who have a good bit of power. Unless you want NOTHING done?

[no limit]

11. In this case they can't even get fox news to support them

I would agree with you when it comes to certain issues. But when it comes to this we don't have to give them shit.

[lunatica]

30. Nothing wrong with deals. It's the caving that's bad

[no limit]

32. Well lets see what this deal is. Might very well be a cave

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

7. I'm afraid that the Democrats will give too much away in terms of not closing

all of the tax loopholes in this bill. We'll see... :sigh:

[mtnsnake]

9. The article didn't mention Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, maybe the best spokesperson for that bill

She has been campaigning passionately for it since day one and doing a marvelous job.

[karynnj]

12. She has been very impressive on this and on other issues

She really is becoming a very good Senator. As one who didn't like the politics around her appointment, which were not her fault and beyond nasty, I am impressed by her seriousness in the hearings where I have seen her answer questions.

Right now, I can see her as the most likely first woman President. (Although there are are other good women Senators.)

[mtnsnake]

14. Definitely. I agree with everything you said about her, karynnj.

Plus she is a very sincere person.

[karynnj]

17. Am I right in assuming by this that you have met her?

She does seem sincere in the causes that she has taken on.

[mtnsnake]

19. Nope, haven't met her yet

I've always been impressed by her, though, even before she became Senator. The district she represented in upstate NY was not an easy one for any Democrat, and she was elected twice there. She seems to have all the tools, although I think she'd be considered a little too centrist here on DU. For the district she used to represent, though, you had to be a bit centrist to stand a chance, and she did her best to satisfy all her constituents, not just some. Now that she's Senator, she has a chance to lean a little more to the left, and that's good.

[harun]

18. WTF happened to Congress? Did the rich make out so good on the tax deal

that the GOP doesn't give a sh*t what the Dem's pass now?

[Parker CA]

26. They want to go home and Reid won't let them until everything is done. Great leverage.

[Parker CA]

27. They want to go home and Reid won't let them until this is all done. Finally some leverage.

[vaberella]

39. Didn't you read Sen. Kyl's comments? Reid is holding them hostage & they want celebrate X-mas. n/t

[WI_DEM]

21. If so another impressive accomplishment of the lame duck session.

[Lucinda]

38. If so...Thank You Jon Stewart & FOX.

And those in congress who pushed hard.

[no limit]

46. Fox???