FT is NOT about "trusting President Obama". FT is NOT just about the TPP.

[Jim Lane]

120. There's an official Parliamentarian who makes rulings.

The automatic discharge from committee wouldn't even require a ruling because it's automatic.

On the 15th day, if even one Senator wants a vote and demands it, I think the Parliamentarian (if being remotely honest) would rule that it was required, and the Senate would then have to vote in favor of an appeal from the Parliamentarian's ruling. Because that appeal would be ridiculous, even the deadline on the full Senate vote would have more impact than a mere gentleman's agreement.

You're correct that Congress usually misses the budget deadline. The difference is that there's no ready enforcement mechanism. The current situation is typical, in that each chamber passed a budget resolution, but they were different, so they had to be reconciled. By the deadline (April 15), they hadn't been reconciled. For that situation, your question is apt -- what can anyone do? There's no bill to vote on.

For a trade deal under TPA, the situation is different. There's no issue of reconciliation because the deal can't be amended. It's comparatively easy to comply with the deadline: You take the unamended bill as submitted by the President and put it up for a vote, yes or no.

Hatch-Wyden-Ryan did involve some concession by the administration. Was it "a reasonable concession"? This reflects the practice, honed by Congressional Republicans, of taking the extreme position, and then agreeing to some modification to look reasonable. The fundamental question is whether there should be ANY fixed deadline on Congressional consideration of the bill. With the budget, the deadline is at least part of an overall budgeting scheme, with specific appropriations acts following the overall budget resolution. The appropriations acts need to be done in time for the fiscal year. With a trade deal, there's no particular deadline, hence no reason for the unusual practice of curtailing the process. That the compromise means that the unjustified curtailment is slightly less restrictive than what Obama wanted doesn't make it a reasonable deal.