Sens. Mike Lee, Rand Paul are holding up 9/11 victims fund

https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-act...ate-to-vote-on-9-11-victims-bill-by-wednesday
Senate to vote on 9/11 victims bill by Wednesday
BY JORDAIN CARNEY - 07/18/19 03:02 PM EDT

The Senate will vote next week on a House-passed bill to extend the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund.

Under a deal reached on the Senate floor, lawmakers will vote on the bill by next Wednesday. As part of the agreement they are expected to also vote on two amendments to the bill, one from Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and one from Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.).

The bill, which passed the House in a 402-12 vote, would reauthorize funding through fiscal 2090. It's expected to easily pass the Senate.

Lee, before setting up the agreement, stressed that he supported extending money for the fund, which pays out claims for deaths and illnesses related to the attack, but had concerns for how long the House bill would extend it for.

"In Washington ... this is a recipe for trouble. As we all know, finite authorizations are how Congress ensures that taxpayer money actually gets to its intended beneficiaries and not simply lost in government bureaucracy somewhere," Lee said.

His amendment would authorize $10.2 billion for the fund over the next 10 years. It would authorize an additional $10 billion after that.

"My amendment would not block or delay the bill's consideration, let alone its passage," he added.

Paul's amendment is expected to offer a way to pay for the House bill.

The agreement comes after Paul blocked passage of the bill on Wednesday, saying he wanted an opportunity to vote on an amendment that would offset the costs.

"It has long been my feeling that we need to address our massive debt in the country," he said. "And therefore any new spending ... should be offset by cutting spending that's less valuable. We need to, at the very least, have this debate."
A spokesperson for Paul later told The Hill that Paul "is not blocking anything," adding that he is "simply seeking to pay for it."

Paul's floor move sparked fierce backlash from supporters of the legislation, even though it was only a temporary setback. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) had previously pledged that he would bring up the House bill before lawmakers leave for the August recess.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) both thanked Lee for helping set up the agreement to vote on the bill, but specified that they will oppose the amendments from Lee and Paul.

"I understand the 72 years is a recipe for trouble, but the truth is the timing is limited for this bill because these men and women aren't going to survive. So many of them are already sick and dying," Gillibrand said.

Schumer added that he didn't think "they have much of a chance of winning, but there's a right to offer them." He said he expects the vote to take place Tuesday.

"For the first time we cannot only see the light at the end of the tunnel, we're getting very close to getting out the tunnel," Schumer said. "I expect by Wednesday we'll be out of that tunnel."

Schumer and Gillibrand told reporters that they have the votes to override a veto from Trump. But, Schumer added, that "I don't think he will veto it."

--Updated 3:34 p.m.
https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-act...ate-to-vote-on-9-11-victims-bill-by-wednesday
Click to expand...
 
Valli6 said:
Jon Stewart and other guy ("John Feel"?) bad mouthing Rand Paul and Mike Lee on Fox news for not making an exception for their pet bill. Stewart complained that Rand voted for a bill that cut taxes, but didn't just pass this - he's unable to grasp the concept that tax cuts don't increase spending or the deficit. They said they're "cherry picking" when to be fiscally conservative. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
uhh? The Trump tax cuts increased the deficit, as they were predicted to do. Why can't you grasp that concept?
 
Influenza said:
uhh? The Trump tax cuts increased the deficit, as they were predicted to do. Why can't you grasp that concept?
Click to expand...
They didn't increase spending. AND as Rand states "pay go" was in the tax bill when it passed - later they removed it against Rand Paul's objections.
 
"Hard to beat the emotional impact of saying something is “for the 9/11 victims and first responders”. May even beat “it’s for the children”.

True. It's even harder when you fight for these people (911 first responders) & they die. I personally was involved with these folksback in 2010 & had to distance myself from their cause because a few sick people I met & liked.. died.. Couldn't handle that

So. although Rand is correct in sticking to fiscal responsible principles.. this issue is tough.

I don't like Jon Stewarts politics, but give him credit for taking up this worthy cause. (even if they have gone overboard with trying to ram it through without proper fiscal discussion)
 
vita3 said:
"Hard to beat the emotional impact of saying something is “for the 9/11 victims and first responders”. May even beat “it’s for the children”.

True. It's even harder when you fight for these people (911 first responders) & they die. I personally was involved with these folksback in 2010 & had to distance myself from their cause because a few sick people I met & liked.. died.. Couldn't handle that

So. although Rand is correct in sticking to fiscal responsible principles.. this issue is tough.

I don't like Jon Stewarts politics, but give him credit for taking up this worthy cause. (even if they have gone overboard with trying to ram it through without proper fiscal discussion)
Click to expand...

This is why there is no hope for this country. Everything is an emotional, "worthy cause". You name it, welfare for immigrants, welfare for old people, welfare for young people and single mothers and people in floods or hurricanes and on and on. If government doesn't pay for everything, people will be dying everywhere from disease, starvation, or killed by all those terrorists that surround us.

Did it ever occur to people they could donate money? Instead they want government to pay for everything, because that money is considered to be free. As dumb and indoctrinated and emotional as the average person is, there is no hope. Even so-called liberty lovers make endless exceptions to their principles.

It's just a question of time before everything implodes.

We have totally forgotten the Constitution. Here's a good article explaining how it once guided our leaders:

https://www.hoover.org/research/unconstitutional-congress

Even expenditures for the most charitable of purposes were routinely spurned as illegitimate. In 1794, James Madison wrote disapprovingly of a $15,000 appropriation for French refugees: "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

This view that Congress should follow the original intent of the Constitution was restated even more forcefully on the floor of the House of Representatives two years later by William Giles of Virginia, who condemned a relief measure for fire-victims. Giles insisted that it was not the purpose nor the right of Congress to "attend to what generosity and humanity require, but to what the Constitution and their duty require."

In 1827, the famous Colonel Davy Crockett was elected to the House of Representatives. During his first term of office, a $10,000 relief bill for the widow of a naval officer was proposed. Colonel Crockett rose in stern opposition and gave the following eloquent rebuttal to the bill:

“"We must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not attempt to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money."”

After he sat down and a vote was taken, instead of unanimous approval as had been assumed, the measure failed with only a few votes in support of it. (Legend has it that Crockett, one of the poorest members of the House at that time, was the only one to contribute substantially to a private charitable fund for the widow.)

In a famous incident in 1854, President Franklin Pierce was pilloried for vetoing an extremely popular bill intended to help the mentally ill. The act was championed by the renowned 19th-century social reformer Dorothea Dix. In the face of heavy criticism, Pierce countered: "I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity." To approve such spending, argued Pierce, "would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."

Grover Cleveland, the king of the veto, rejected hundreds of congressional spending bills during his two terms as President in the late 1800s, because, as he often wrote: "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution."

Were Jefferson, Madison, Crockett, Pierce, Cleveland, and the countless other lawmakers during that age merely hardhearted and uncaring penny pinchers, as the federalists often charged? Did they not have within them sympathy for fire victims? Or the mentally ill? Or widows? Or impoverished refugees?

The answer is of course they were not uncharitable scrooges. They simply felt honorbound to uphold the Constitution. They perceived--we now know correctly--that once the genie was out of the bottle, it would be impossible to get it back in. Any unwarranted government interference, no matter how righteous or well-intended, would be, as Madison put it, "but the first link of a long chain of repetitions." Of course, we now know just how remarkably prescient Madison and his colleagues were.
Click to expand...
 
tommyrp12 said:
Fox had a panel discussion about Rand. Smears and lies again. @22:50
Click to expand...


Such BS. First statement should have been in big capital letters "RAND PAUL WANTS A VOTE ON LEGISLATION" and that he absolutely was not "blocking" the bill. You know being a -- gasp-- Senator that votes on legislation.

Not even a single person from Rand's side on the panel. Cavuto tried but he was stuck being moderator with no counterpoint. Also one -Rubin-- is a progressive activist. The other two while nominally Republican are a local politician the other attached to the Trump political campaign. In other words political hacks. Both of which have obvious incentives to not say or do anything unpopular.
 
Valli6 said:
They didn't increase spending. AND as Rand states "pay go" was in the tax bill when it passed - later they removed it against Rand Paul's objections.
Click to expand...

thanks for clearing that up.. although i watched the video yesterday and heard rand talk about that, it didnt register in my brain... so thank you once again.
 
" simply asking for a vote on an amendment to offset the cost."

If we closed Ft. Campbell, would that offset the cost Senator? Cut tobacco subsides?, coal subsidies? Privatize the TVA? Sheesh! I can think a lot of things which benefit the state of Kentucky from the federal government which gutless Rand doesn't have a problem spending money on which could be used to offset 9-11 first responder costs.

I hear Rand's writing a new book. It's called "How to be an Asshole for Dummies" I'm sure holding up money for 9-11 First Responders will have its own chapter.
 
Badger Paul said:
" simply asking for a vote on an amendment to offset the cost."

If we closed Ft. Campbell, would that offset the cost Senator? Cut tobacco subsides?, coal subsidies? Privatize the TVA? Sheesh! I can think a lot of things which benefit the state of Kentucky from the federal government which gutless Rand doesn't have a problem spending money on which could be used to offset 9-11 first responder costs.

I hear Rand's writing a new book. It's called "How to be an Asshole for Dummies" I'm sure holding up money for 9-11 First Responders will have its own chapter.
Click to expand...

Yep it's been Rand who has been holding this up for years and years. :rolleyes:
He's not the asshole dummy here, you are.
 
What level of tragedy is necessary to warrant perpetual payment from the taxpayer and if it was so popular, why can't they set up a private charity to oversee as much?

I would interested in the bill if they garnished Cheney et al. but it is silly to think of the government as the righter of wrongs.

Jon Stewart is also quite charitable.. with other people's money. How about he forego payment for his next circus and show Americans what it means to be charitable?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Brian4Liberty
  • Featured
Sen. Ron Johnson on Tucker: Forbidden questions about 9-11, the COVID vax and America’s looming bankruptcy.
Replies
3
Views
91
Brian4Liberty
Brian4Liberty
jmdrake
Rand Paul introduces "REINS" act to rein in the administrative state
Replies
13
Views
2K
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
PAF
The 9/11 Attacks Exposed Major Government Failure, But Americans Learned the Wrong Lessons
Replies
0
Views
110
PAF
PAF
J
Israel and U.S. Neocons Did 9/11 to Drag U.S. into War with Israel’s Enemies
Replies
15
Views
789
unknown
unknown
T
Senator Rand Paul Calls U.S. Support for Saudis a “National Disgrace”
Replies
3
Views
1K
PAF
PAF
Back
Top