Snail speed on aid for 9/11 community proves bipartisan agreement no guarantee

Michael Barasch

Submitted photo/InsideSources

Bipartisanship creates the opportunity for progress, but it does not create the momentum. The experience of the 9/11 community reveals that passing meaningful legislation requires more than consensus. Progress requires unfailing advocacy and a commitment by leadership to treat the issue with urgency.”

Tell Us What You Think

What are your thoughts on fast-tracking healthcare and compensation 25 years later for first responders, survivors and families of 9/11? Tell us in 300 words or less at yourvalley.net/letters, or email your comments, name, address and contact number to AzOpinions@iniusa.org.

OPINION — Bipartisan support is often treated as the clearest sign that legislation is likely to become law. When Republicans and Democrats agree that a problem must be addressed, it may seem as though the most difficult obstacle has already been overcome. 

After more than two decades advocating in Washington on behalf of the 9/11 community, I have learned that bipartisan agreement is critical.

However, I’ve also seen that it is rarely enough. 

I have sat in meetings with lawmakers from both parties who agreed that first responders, survivors and families should be given healthcare and compensation. I have watched elected officials publicly express their support for official measures put in place to protect those who became sick after 9/11. Yet even when there was broad agreement on the underlying issue, progress was never automatic. 

Support must be converted into urgency, leadership and sustained action.

A bill may have dozens of co-sponsors and widespread support, but it can still stall if congressional leaders do not prioritize it. Thousands of bills are introduced during each session of Congress, and only a small percentage receive the attention, committee action and floor time required to advance. 

This is among the most important lessons I have learned: Lawmakers can sincerely support a cause without making it an immediate legislative priority. 

It is important to understand the implications of that distinction. It requires more than signing a letter to move legislation forward. Without sustained pressure from sponsors and committee chairs, a broadly supported bill can remain stuck for months or even years. 

Many people assume that controversial legislation fails because the two parties cannot agree. Legislation with bipartisan support can face an equally frustrating problem: procedural delay. 

Issues related to committee jurisdiction and budget negotiations can prevent a bill from advancing. Additional delays can occur when elections introduce new lawmakers, forcing advocates to restart parts of the process. 

For the 9/11 community, these delays have never been abstract. Over the last two decades, I have traveled to Washington countless times alongside sick first responders, survivors and the families of those we have lost. I have met with members of Congress, advocated in their offices for legislation and worked alongside advocates, such as Jon Stewart and the FealGood Foundation, to keep the issue in front of key congressional decision-makers. 

That persistence became especially important during the repeated fights to reauthorize and fully fund the World Trade Center Health Program and the Sept. 11 Victim Compensation Fund. Every extension required persistent pressure on Congress until action was taken. 

Those efforts helped secure more than $3 billion in additional federal funding for the World Trade Center Health Program and preserve compensation for tens of thousands of responders, survivors and families living with 9/11-related illnesses. For those affected, congressional delay was never simply procedural. It meant waiting for medical treatment, critical financial support and the certainty that these programs would still exist when they needed them most. 

Paradoxically, holding lawmakers responsible for advancing a bill can become more difficult when the bill has widespread support. When nearly everyone says they support a measure, no individual lawmaker may feel compelled to push for its passage.  

Successful advocacy requires identifying lawmakers who are willing to become champions, not simply supporters. Champions use their influence, engage congressional leadership, resolve objections and continue pressing until the legislation receives a vote. 

Bipartisanship creates the opportunity for progress, but it does not create the momentum.

The experience of the 9/11 community reveals that passing meaningful legislation requires more than consensus. Progress requires unfailing advocacy and a commitment by leadership to treat the issue with urgency. Agreement may open the door, but sustained pressure is what ultimately moves legislation through it. 

Michael Barasch is an advocate for the health and compensation rights of 9/11 responders, survivors and their families. He wrote this for InsideSources.com. Please submit comments at yourvalley.net/letters or email them to AzOpinions@iniusa.org. We are committed to publishing a wide variety of reader opinions, as long as they meet our Civility Guidelines.