Minority Leader Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi stood strong on the side of American workers and voted against the President, as did most of Virginia’s Congressional delegation. Five of Virginia’s Congressional Representatives voted in support of the President’s bill to give him fast track authority, with three of them being Republicans. [read_more] They were Democrats Gerry Connolly and Don Beyer and Republicans Barbara Comstock, Robert Hurt, and Scott Rigell. Complete vote in the House here.
The President took unusual steps to lobby Congress for the passage of the bill, including attending a Congressional softball game yesterday and lobbying on the Hill today. This was a huge defeat for Obama and may doom his fast track authority to pass the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact.
41 comments
[…] are Scott Rigell (2nd), Robert Hurt (5th), and Barbara Comstock (10th). As we reported earlier, those three voted to give Obama fast track authority. Of course that was not their first vote against conservative […]
Connie!
I don’t believe any of the Republicans are in bed with Boehner or Obama who supported TPA. Are you saying Darrell Issa is in bed with with Obama because he voted yes? I don’t think so.
I trust Barbara to do the rght thing even when no one is looking. She is smart and does her research on the issues she is voting on. She has been accused for being in the bed with Boehner on this site yet she took the opposite vote of Boehner on the issue.
You can disagree with the vote these elected officials take but everyone needs to do their own research before throwing Republicans under the bus. There is so much misinformation on these various blog sites that folks get all unraveled without understanding why the official voted the way they did in the first place.
No one is surprised by Barbara’s plea for 10 million dollars (more than what the President asked for) to preserve the already protected battlefields that the wealthy have no intention of developing anyway. It is part of the conservation funnel scheme. She needs to be held accountable for her record and funding requests. http://www.readthehook.com/88910/scenic-treasure-how-conservation-lines-pockets-rich
Barbara Comstock is a unique RINO interested in stripping property rights too. Shame on her!
Support Funding for the American Battlefield Protection Program
From: The Honorable Robert C. “Bobby” Scott
Sent By: paige.schwartz@mail.house.gov
Date: 3/9/2015
Help Save America’s Hallowed Ground
Support Funding for the National Park Service’s American Battlefield Protection Program
Dear Colleague:
America’s preserved Revolutionary War, War of 1812, and Civil War battlefields are living monuments to the courage and sacrifice of those who served during these formative conflicts in our nation’s history. These beautiful and timeless landscapes are outdoor classrooms that inspire our young and draw millions of tourists each year.
Unfortunately, many of these battlefields remain unprotected and are extremely vulnerable to development. In fact, according to the National Park Service, development has already erased the historic character of 50 Civil War battlefields and more than 300 of the 677 nationally significant battlefields and associated sites from the Revolutionary War and War of 1812.
One of the most effective tools for saving these hallowed battlegrounds is a competitive matching grants program administered by the National Park Service’s American Battlefield Protection Program. To date, this unique program that encourages state, local and private investment in battlefield preservation has been used to save more than 23,000 acres nationwide. Every federal dollar that is appropriated is matched at least 1-1.
I hope you will join me in urging the Appropriations Committee to fund the American Battlefield Protection Program at its authorized level of $10 million in the FY 2016 Interior Appropriations bill. This request is slightly above the President’s request of $8.9 million for the Program.
By including this funding for these grants, the American Battlefield Protection Program will be able to continue serving as an excellent example of sensible, cost-effective land conservation policy in action.
The program was first authorized in 2002, when President George W. Bush signed into law the Civil War Battlefield Preservation Act and was expanded to include Revolutionary War and War of 1812 battlefields in December 2014, when President Barack Obama signed into law the FY 2015 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 113-291). The program is authorized for up to $10 million a year through 2021.
If you have any questions or would like to become a signatory of this letter, please contact David Dailey in my office at extension 5-8351 or at David.Dailey@mail.house.gov, or Andrew Robreno in Rep. Barbara Comstock’s office at extension 5-5136 or Andrew.Robreno@mail.house.gov by close of business Wednesday, March 18, 2015.
Sincerely,
BOBBY SCOTT BARBARA COMSTOCK
Member of Congress Member of Congress
Barbara Comstock is very smart and understands the complexities in governing. I trust her immensely and she has not made me regret supporting her.
Rather than trash her on this blog why not ask her for reasoning behind her vote of support. Barbara does her homework. She is worthy of the trust and confidence of her constituents.
Issa voted to support the bill like Barbara and no one ever accused him of being in bed with Obama.
Trash? This post didn’t insult her, it did point out that she voted wrong, which is very different from insulting her.
What all of this amounts to is a warning from a Conservative blog to shape up and take notice of the fact that a lot of people are unhappy with what she has done.
And trust is earned through actions taken once elected to office, not from just getting into that office.
As for asking her (or her staff) what her reasoning is to support TPP, sorry to have to break it to you, but she ain’t tellin’. I’ve called multiple times requesting to speak with someone who can explain her vote, and also emailed, and it’s tight radios silence. Her latest newsletter yesterday discusses every other bill (all of tertiary significance in the scheme oft things) that she’s voted on, but not wisp of a hint of a reference to the most important bill in many years, the TPP. I don’t see we can be faulted for thinking she just wants this to go away, quietly, and does NOT want to be held accountable. Why should we trust her if she won’t even explain herself??
Peter Rush
No, I am not going to blindly ‘trust’ a politician solely because she’s smart and does her homework. Many say the same things about Obama. Comstock needs to prove herself to conservatives and so far her record is not good.
Let me be a contrarian here about free trade. Yes, it works just like Walter Williams says it does. Work goes to those who are efficient and leaves those who are not. The latter find something else that they’re efficient in.
The problem with free trade is that it ignores the long term unemployment of workers and the disruptions to whole communities and towns. Just as in the communist system, it treats people like ciphers.
Free trade is good for big business. It is not good for workers or small business. From a political viewpoint, as long as the GOP is mainly aligned with big business, it’s got a problem getting the votes. And why wouldn’t it.
Voting yes to either bill just does not cut. Goodlatte voted yes to the second bill. Trying to play on both sides of the fence.
This is a sell out of America. Do not be fooled.
See the Goodlatte aye vote at the link below. Again, do not be fooled.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/114-2015/h362
[…] In Virginia, four Republicans, Barbara Comstock Robert Hurt and Scott Rigell, all of whom call themselves “conservatives” at the drop of a hat – and they’ll drop the hat – voted to give the President fast track authority. […]
Jeanine, only 3 Republican’s did the right thing today.
Congressman’s Wittman, Brat, and Griffith are the only Republican’s from Virginia in the U.S. House who did the right thing today.
The rest are Liberal’s in bed with President Obama.
Today, the President, a Democrat, and the leadership in the Republican controlled House, sold out the American middle-class for corporate campaign and PAC money.
The country had to rely on the likes Nancy Pelosi and the Unions, along with a few genuine Conservative Republican’s to save us.
Republican’s and President Obama are now sleeping in the same bed.
Say it ain’t so?
Sorry for the confusion. The bill referred to in the article is House bill 361, http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2015/roll361.xml
The correction should be Hurt, Forbes and Goodlatte.
No, different bill. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2015/roll361.xml
Minority Leader Pelosi and her caucus soundly reject the first vote on the GOP/Obamatrade package (the TAA component) in the house calling for the “protection of the American worker”. No matter if you buy her premise or rational the optics come through clearly that the Republican majority in the Senate and large numbers in the House, as well as the majority of the announced Republican presidential candidates, stand with Obama and the international corporate interests pushing the bill, while the Democrats reject their own seated president in support of the American worker. I suppose it just demonstrates the fact that if you give a group of idiots a majority they are still at the end of the day a group of idiots. That ship you see on the horizon by the way is the GOP 2016 presidency sailing out of sight.
Ted Cruz and Scott Walker are sure on that ship, true. But we still have Rand Paul and other presidential contenders who are NOT in bed with Obama & Boehner.
You might want to correct this post. Goodlatte voted for this bill.
Oops, you are correct. I will edit the post. Thanks for letting me know.
Very sorry to tell you Robert Hurt (Republican 5th District) also betrayed us – voted AYE.
No, not on this final bill, http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2015/roll361.xml
Check again, Jeanine – Hurt (VA) is in the ‘AYES’ list – one of the 126; along with Comstock and Rigell.
Oops again, it appears you are correct.
Good lord! Layoff the bottle while you are making this stuff up.
That’s at least twice that Comstock has voted to support Obama on major legislation.
And if she voted the other way, you’d accuse her of voting with Nancy Pelosi.
She and Rigell are in the minority on this one. Perhaps you might want to explain why. Readers would be interested in knowing. Thanks Spiker.
Also of note, Rigell voted correctly and then spoke with another congressman and then went and changed his vote. I’m pretty sure that congressman he spoke to was not one of his constituents…
I haven’t spoken with her on the matter, so I can’t and won’t speak for her.
But I’m sure most if not all of the supporters of the bill agree with the consensus of economists that free trade is overwhelmingly good for the economy, and don’t agree with Bernie Sanders and labor unions that free trade is bad for the American people.
MOST free trade is a good idea, this bill is not. It gives too much authority to the President.
If you say so.
Too much authority and CAN’T BE TRUSTED!
This bill consists of several components and if you are to believe those that claim they have reviewed the material (in the Capital basement under lockdown) and what Wikileaks’ has made available, it contains both immigration and climate change provisions, certainly not your typical free trade agreement. In many ways it looks more like a treaty document then a trade agreement. Therefore the lack of transparency and questions of executive constitutional constraints need to be shared with the public prior to any finalization. Dismissing that with a quip regarding free trade being bad for the American people is really missing the whole point.
There are several complex issues to be negotiated between the U.S. and the participating countries. These types of negotiations are always conducted in secret. See: every single piece of trade legislation ever passed.
However, it’s not even possible for any of those claimed “provisions” to impact U.S. law. That would take an act of Congress.
The bottom line is that far-left liberals are toeing the union line, and the so-called “liberty” movement is toeing the populist protectionism line, and using opposition to Obama as a cover. Actually–scratch that. Obama isn’t even the #1 enemy anymore. It’s other Republicans.
I would like to think that the idiotic zealotry with “RINO-hunting” would end the moment it involves climbing in bed with the Pelosi-Warren-Sanders wing of the Democratic Party. It’s crystal clear now that the objectives of the movement are not to govern, or even enact free market policy. It’s to prove that you are more conservative than others (including Ronald Reagan, who’s damn near a heretic now). All the more reason why to feel exuberant after the results of last Tuesday’s primary.
You misunderstand what the TPA (fast track) entails as it in effective modifies the congressional role in both approval process and amendment ability to proposed legislation as specified in the Constitution to nothing more then a simple majority up or down vote. It in effect strips that piece of Congressional power and places it in the hands of the executive administration. This is not comparable to any previous trade agreement process and to claim otherwise is totally disingenuous. If you feel Ok with this usurpation of the Constitution that is your right but many Americans do not agree. regarding your last paragraph I generally silly rants are both a waste of effort and a negative impact on the points you are attempting to make.
To Stephen Spiker:
Giving you the benefit of the doubt, do you understand this legislation, because from your comments it would appear that you don’t. Because if you do, then you are willfully misrepresenting it in your posts. But if you are ignorant of it, then your first job is to become more familiar with it.
The vast preponderance of this bill has NOTHING TO DO WITH HELPING MAKE TRADE FREER. The preponderance is about helping the transnational megacorporations who were the only people at the table writing this bill outside of the US Trade Representative, feel “secure” in their investments in various countries. Among other things, it will allow drug companies to repatent their drugs, eliminating most generic drugs and jacking up drug costs into the stratosphere for tens of millions of Americans who can barely afford them now. Tell, me, are you OK with this as the price you feel we need to pay to get whatever benefits you think this brings us?
It will let foreign corporations sue the Federal, state, county and/or local
governments when laws they have enacted are accused of threatening to reduce their future profits, and a 3-member panel of trade lawyers will adjudicate this at the WTO. I have to assume you are fine with this complete abdication of our national sovereignty and the right Americans have fought to preserve for 250 years to govern ourselves and pass our own laws. This isn’t about being conservative or liberal, it’s about being patriotic versus backing the global conspiracy of trans-national corporations to run the world. Talk about world government! This is it, brother, and it takes a huge step toward coming into existence if the TPP becomes the law of the land.
And by the way, once passed, then the Administration goes to work for months to write the detailed specific legislation to implement it, which entails “harmonizing” existing domestic law with the new language of the TPP, which is to say, CHANGING U.S. law to comply with the terms of the TPP. Tell us, Mr. Spiker, why you feel this is a price you are OK with paying to get what? An empty promise that we can export cars and rice to Japan? Dream on if you believe U.S. exports will get much boost from this.
Peter Rush
Voting for obama program once might be a freshman mistake, Twice, hardly. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. She needs to be counseled.
I’m pretty sure she gets plenty of counsel. Remember: she overwhelmingly won the nomination, then again overwhelmingly won the general election. Both times, she faced a serious challenger, and both times she dominated, through hard work and good positioning on the issues.
I’d trust someone with that kind of political savvy and electoral success to have their finger on the wishes of their constituents over the likes of Jeanine Martin.
I think you can certainly debate her grasp on the wishes of her constituents (of which I am one) but my major issue is her perceived understanding of the articles of the US Constitution as they pertain to several of her key votes to date. I would love to hear her rational, perhaps TBE could provide a platform for her to do so.
Q. Why is it that “true conservatives” sound like they are reading talking points from Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders?
A. Shut up, RINO!