"You Have To Pass ObamaTrade To See What’s In ObamaTrade"

[ShotgunBlast]

Sounds like something Nancy Pelosi would say, but in reality Paul Ryan made that point by saying in Congressional testimony on Wednesday about the TPP "it's declassified and made public once it’s agreed to".

Wait, what? How do we have "classified" bills? Rand Paul elaborates on his Facebook page:

To me it's common sense: Members of Congress should actually read the bills before voting on them.

But in Washington, common sense is often flipped upside down on its head.

And the latest example is the 800-page Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) - President Barack Obama's secretive trade deal.
The deal's text is kept hidden in a secret room within the U.S. Capitol, unavailable to the American public.
I'm demanding Barack Obama release the final text of the trade deal IMMEDIATELY before final passage is voted on by Congress.

Currently, only members of Congress - and select staff - are allowed to read the deal's text. But we're not allowed to discuss or talk about the contents of the deal outside of the secret room.

And even though most of my colleagues in the Senate admitted they haven't read the text of the bill, many of them recently voted to fast-track it through the Senate.

I've got concerns about voting on any bill that's kept in secret and hidden from the American people.

My question is why are House Republicans supporting a fast-track option which means the bill gets a simple up-or-down vote with no amendments and just requires a simple majority in the Senate for a classified 800-page bill that no one has read? And why does Ted Cruz have concerns about ObamaTrade, but he voted for the fast-track process that makes ObamaTrade easier to pass?

From The Hill:

President Obama's trade agenda survived a bad scare in the House on Thursday when the GOP rule governing debate for the package narrowly survived a 217-212 vote.

Thirty-four Republicans voted against the rule, while eight Democrats backed it.

A handful of pro-trade Democrats withheld their votes, watching the tally closely from the floor. Then, when it was apparent Republicans would not be able to pass the typically partisan measure on its own, they threw their votes in favor all at once.
The tight vote foreshadows the challenge GOP leaders will face Friday, when the House votes on two critical pieces of Obama’s trade agenda: fast-track authority and a separate bill offering help to workers displaced by trade.

GOP opposition to the Trade Adjustment Assistance program, as well as to fast-track, led Republicans to oppose their party’s rule.

Votes on House rules are tests of party discipline. Democrats traditionally vote against rules brought up by the House GOP.

House Republicans could only lose 26 of their own for the rule to pass without help from Democrats. Had the rule failed, the House would not have been able to debate and vote on the trade bills.

The eight Democrats who saved the trade package were Reps. Earl Blumenauer (Ore.), Gerry Connolly (Va.), Jim Cooper (Tenn.), Henry Cuellar (Texas), John Delaney (Md.), Eddie Bernice Johnson (Texas), Ron Kind (Wis.) and Rick Larsen (Wash.).

Republicans have repeatedly had problems with controversial legislation under Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio).

Rep. Matt Salmon (R-Ariz.), a member of the House Freedom Caucus, earlier on Thursday predicted the rule might be in trouble because conservatives were unhappy with the way the bills were structured.

“I think the rule vote is going to be very, very telling. I think there are a lot of members of the Freedom Caucus that may not be supportive of the rule,” Salmon said in an interview with The Hill's Molly K. Hooper.

Thursday’s drama was reminiscent of the House nearly failing to advance the so-called “cromnibus” legislation to fund the federal government in December.

The rule for the $1.1 trillion spending package advanced by just one vote after Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) lobbied conservatives to change their votes. No Democrats swooped in to help with that vote even though many of them supported the underlying legislation.

GOP leaders and the White House for weeks have been lobbying to win members over for fast-track, which would allow Obama to send trade deals to Congress for up-or-down votes.

Bipartisanship gets us crummy things like the Patriot Act, bailouts, indefinite detention, and now ObamaTrade. Two sides of the same coin.

[grumpyMSG]

On it's face, virtually all treaties should be "fast tracked". The State Department negotiates on the President/nations behalf, it is then sent for Senate approval/ disapproval. It is not their place to change treaties.

You wouldn't negotiate to buy a house, then take it to your significant other and have him/ her say "Nope, not unless they paint it white and put a new roof on it." You would do your negotiating/ planning with your significant other before making your offer and the offer would include the discussed changes.

Our President hasn't learned that he should have talked with Congress to build a framework for what is acceptable and what is unacceptable in the proposed treaty.

[ShotgunBlast]

What really irks me is that the few people that have actually read it can't talk about it and that they want a simple majority vote instead of the traditional 2/3 vote for treaties. The fact that there is companion legislation to help displaced workers get retrained does not sit well either.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[MarcSpaz]

You know... I seem to remember something about all bills needed to be made available for public view and opinions, unchanged, for one year before Congress couldd vote on that bill.

Is that not the case? How can Congress be working for the people if the people don't know what they are doing and the people don't endorse it?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[FiremanBob]

Marc, your questions are the right ones. But there has never been a one-year waiting period on bills. There was, however, in 2008 a promise from the future Liar-in-Chief that this would be the most transparent and ethical administration in history.

We weren't told that 2008 was "Opposite Year".