In King vs. Weiner, it was no contest

Believe it or not, in my 18 years in the U.S. Senate, I engaged in many heated debates with my colleagues. I have observed, and history has proven, that political battles benefit the people.

In the case of Weiner vs. King, this was certainly the case.

On July 29, New York Congressmen Anthony Weiner and Peter King engaged in a shouting match on the House floor over votes on a bill that would have provided $7.4 billion in medical aid to the first responders after the attacks of Sept. 11, who are suffering from illnesses as a result of their service.

However, Weiner’s outburst had nothing to do with the good of the people. Instead, his ranting and raving was a weak attempt to cover up the fact that he and Speaker Nancy Pelosi manipulated the democratic process.

King gained the upper hand when he pointed out that it was Pelosi, Weiner and their Democratic colleagues who insisted that the bill be passed with a two-thirds vote rather than the typical majority.

Under the rules of the House, a bill needs only a simple majority — 218 votes — to pass. Pelosi had counted more than 250 votes in favor of the bill. Unbeknown to King, however, Pelosi and the Democratic leadership decided to utilize a procedure known as a suspension vote, whose passage requires two-thirds of the House rather than a majority. Suspension votes are seldom used; in fact, for as long as I can remember, it has only been used for uncontroversial bills, such as naming a post office. However, deploying the procedure on this critical bill made it virtually impossible to pass.

If Weiner and the Democratic leadership were truly interested in the health and welfare of those who suffered debilitating health problems as a result of their service at the World Trade Center site, they would have called for a simple vote rather than a suspension vote.

King called the process “phony hypocrisy,” saying that the Democrats could have easily passed the bill at the time if they really wanted to. And he was right.
With November fast approaching, Democrats won’t go near any controversial bills, like health care or immigration.