The New York Daily News is reporting that, after a marathon negotiating session late last night and continuing into this morning, Senate Democrats have struck a deal to pass the 9/11 first responders bill with Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), who has been blocking the bill because of its cost. Coburn, along with fellow-obstructionist Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY), managed to extract huge concessions, bringing the total compensation package to $4.3 billion, down from an original pool of over $7 billion. The “time span was also significantly limited to five years each for the health treatment program.”

“I’ll stand in the way of anything that doesn’t make sense and doesn’t spend our money wisely, so you know, it doesn’t matter what the issue is, we’re in such a hole, Jon, that we don’t have the luxury of not getting things right,” Coburn told ABC News today after announcing the deal.

Last night on CNBC, Coburn defended his obstruction of the bill and his insistence that it lavishes too much money on dying 9/11 first responders, saying “we’re spending four times as much money as we need to.” Coburn said that the actual cost of pre-deal bill would be $11 billion (he disputed the way the Congressional Budget Office scored it), and suggested that it was not paid for, saying, “we don’t have an extra $11 billion right now.” Watch it:

Of course, the bill would not require an “extra” $11 billion. The bill is entirely paid for by offsets, some of which were changed at the GOP’s behest. As ThinkProgress has noted, these offsets — which at one point included a tax on foreign corporations — led the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to lobby against the measure.

Meanwhile, on MSNBC’s Countdown last night, guest host Chris Hayes brought on Ground Zero worker T.J. Gilmartin, who recounted his disturbing interaction with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) on the bill earlier this month. Gilmartin told his heartbreaking story about losing his ability to breath properly after working in the toxic dust at Ground Zero, how he can no longer work, and has “nothing left.” Still, he said he has no regrets about volunteering to work after 9/11. Speaking hypothetically to Coburn, Gilmartin asked, “what about the responders in Oklahoma?” “What are you going to tell them as they get sicker and sicker and start dying and they need help? Are you going tell them, ‘Well, I had a to bicker like a 5 year old in kindergarten’?” Watch it:

Yesterday, the Federal Communications Commission passed “network neutrality” regulations, which aim to ensure equal access to all legal Internet content. Service providers will not be allowed to block rival services, nor will they be able to divide traffic to certain sites into fast and slow lanes, thus giving priority to preferred web content providers. The new regulations are still opposed by many open internet groups for not going far enough, and came after years of debate and millions of dollars of lobbying.

The announcement of a new federal regulation prompted a characteristic outburst from conservative leaders, who have consistently fear-mongered against net neutrality regulations as an evil progressive scheme to control the Internet. On the Senate floor, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) accused the Obama administration of trying to “nationalize” and “control” the Internet; radio host Rush Limbaugh also said Obama just took over the Internet (at the behest of George Soros, of course) and suggested Hugo Chavez would be jealous:

– McCONNELL: Today the Federal Communications Commission is expected to approve new rules on how American access information on the Internet. There’s a lot of people rightly concerned. … The Obama administration, which has already nationalized health care, the auto industry, insurance companies, banks, and student loans, will move forward with what could be the first step in controlling how Americans use the Internet by establishing federal regulations on its use….The Internet is an invaluable resource. It should be left alone. As Americans become more aware of what’s happening here, I suspect many will be alarmed, as I am, at the government’s intrusion. They’ll wonder, as many already do, if this is a Trojan horse for further meddling by the government.

– LIMBAUGH: Today the FCC approved a proposal by chairman Julius Genachowski to give the FCC power to prevent broadband providers from selectively blocking web traffic. And that’s just a ruse. Net Neutrality is not what this is really all about. This is about the feds wanting to control the Internet just as they control the public airwaves. They want to be able to determine who gets to say what, where, how often — they want to be able to determine what search services are providing what answers to your queries. It’s total government control of the Internet, and the regime has just awarded it to itself.

It’s another gleaming aspect of free speech, free market, private industry Obama has decided to take over as a Christmas present to himself and the Democrat National Committee and to Mr. Soros. He’s even beaten Hugo Chavez to the punch. Chavez is just talking about taking over the Internet in Venezuela; Obama has got it done.

Watch a compilation:

Elsewhere, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) tweeted that “unelected, unaccountable Democrat FCC commissioners are taking over the Internet.” Incoming Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) released a statement blasting “yet another government takeover.”

Of course, these provisions do nothing of the sort. Network neutrality rules are explicitly designed to prevent anything like Internet censorship or control — they prohibit providers from being able who gets to “determine who gets to say what, where, how often,” in Limbaugh’s words. In fact, as noted, open Internet groups like Free Press believe the new rules do not go far enough because they do not protect the Internet over mobile devices, and contain exemptions for companies like AT&T. Needless to say, there is nothing in the provisions that would allow the government to censor or control Internet access.

These complaints about network neutrality are almost completely divorced from the reality of the new provisions — but they are nothing new. For months, Limbaugh and Glenn Beck have been sounding these same notes; for example, on May 6, Beck said network neutrality would “control every aspect of the Internet…. We are losing our country.” These claims are wildly inaccurate, but almost exactly mirror the messaging being pushed by the telecom industry and its front groups. Americans for Prosperity has frequently labeled network neutrality a “government takeover.” ThinkProgress has documented how Beck’s statements about network neutrality in particular are almost identical to the industry’s spin.

This morning before a jubilant audience, President Obama signed the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell repeal bill into law. At the ceremony, Obama said, “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’ We are a nation that welcomes the service of every patriot. We are a nation that believes all men and women are created equal. Those are the ideals that generations have fought for. Those are the ideals we uphold today.”

But yesterday, in a last minute effort to derail the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) tried to subvert today’s great civil rights achievement. McConnell tried to attach an amendment to the stripped-down National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that would have required the Service Chiefs to certify that implementation did not compromise military readiness or unit cohesion. The amendment would have likely extended the current certification process — which already includes the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and President Obama — and undermined the intent of the legislation and the wishes of military leadership. From McConnell’s amendment:

Purpose: To include the Chiefs of Staff of the Armed Forces in the certification required with respect to the repeal of the policy of the Department of Defense concerning homosexuality in the Armed Forces. [...]

At the end of subtitle J of title V, add the following:
SEC. 597. INCLUSION OF CHIEFS OF STAFF OF THE ARMED FORCES IN CERTIFICATION REQUIRED REGARDING REPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE POLICY CONCERNING HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE ARMED FORCES.

Republicans have long sought to include the Service Chiefs because, as a group, the Chiefs are generally less sanguine about repeal than Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen. During their testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee in early December, two of the Service Chiefs endorsed the Pentagon Working Group’s recommendation to lift the ban, while two others had mixed reactions. Gen. James Amos, the commandant of the Marine Corps, has warned lawmakers that repeal could endanger the lives of Marines. Regardless of their views, however, all four Chiefs said they trusted Gates to address their concerns before eliminating the policy and warned Republicans that expanding the certification process could undermine the chain of command:

Senator THUNE: Do you believe that the implementing legislation, if in fact this moves forward, should allow for the chiefs, the servicemembers, any of you, to certify? [...]

General CASEY: Senator, as I said to Senator Lieberman, I am very comfortable with my ability to provide input to Secretary Gates and to the Chairman that will be listened to and considered. So you could put it in there, but I don’t think it’s necessary. [...] It might take it up a notch. But believe me, I will make sure that my views are heard. The other thing. If you put that into the law, I think it undercuts the Goldwater-Nichols, that we’ve been trying to put the Chairman as the principal provider of military advice. So that’s something for the committee to consider.

Senator THUNE. Anybody else care to comment on that?

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Sir, I’m very comfortable with the access and the input that we’ve had. In fact, as the report came along I could see the changes that we were recommending. So I have no concerns whatsoever about my advice not being heard.

Watch it around 4:30:

Sources close to the negotiations say that Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) objected to McConnell’s amendment and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) also opposed the measure.

Cross-posted on The Wonk Room.