The House is poised to approve a spending bill for next year that cuts the budget of Congress by over 6 percent, as lawmakers try to show the voters back home that they understand the need for belt tightening in the halls of Congress.
"Wasting taxpayer dollars sends the wrong message to the American public," said Rep. Richard Hanna (R-NY), who won an amendment Thursday night to limit spending by members of the House on vehicle leases.
Last month, I detailed how a number of members in both parties were spending big money each month from their office accounts to lease vehicles for official business.
This plan from Hanna would say that no more than $1,000 could be spent each month; that would probably crimp the current spending of about 10 members of Congress according to the latest expense reports from the House of Representatives.
My numbers show these lawmakers with auto leases of $1,000 or more:
Del. Pedro Pierlusi (D-Puerto Rico) $1,400/month
Rep. Dennis Rehberg (R-Montana) $1,299.98
Rep. Ed Towns (D-New York) $1,285.06
Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Illinois) $1,258.76
Rep. John Conyers (D-Michigan) $1,251.66
Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) $1,139.26
Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-NC) $1,129.82
Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Illinois) $1,027.53
Rep. Chip Cravaack (R-Minnesota) $1,000.00
Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas) $1,000.00
As the House finishes work today on this budget bill for the Legislative Branch, there will be one very closely watched vote dealing with an ethics watchdog office that was created several years ago to help the Ethics Committee review possible cases.
The Office of Congressional Ethics though could be in for a big budget hit, as members of both parties feel the new ethics office has overstepped its bounds and stepped on toes in both parties.
Rep. Mel Watt (D-NC) wants to cut funding for the OCE by 40% ($619,200), and he'll get a vote on that Friday morning.
One final interesting note about this bill is that certain amendments were not allowed for consideration on the House floor by the Rules Committee, because of a misconception about this bill.
Rep. Anne Marie Buerkle (R-NY), a newly elected member, had offered amendments to do away with money for the Senate Majority Leader's office, the Senate Budget Committee and more - but none of her amendments were ruled in order.
That's because of the way this bill is organized - the House starts off by adding in money for all operations of the Legislative Branch - except for the Senate.
By custom, Senators add in their own money to this budget bill later on.
As a freshman, Buerkle evidently didn't know that, so she had no idea that her amendments to trim money from Senate operations weren't even germane at that point.
It reminds me of years ago when a group of freshmen Republicans held a news conference to denounce the big spending by Congress on their own budget.
The group cited how the Congressional budget bill started in the House at one figure and then doubled after going to the Senate.
At the end of the news conference, I took one of the members aside and explained to him that when the House approves that bill, it includes only the money for the House.
Then, I explained, Senators add in money for their operations - that's why it more than doubled.
I do remember that it drew me a quizzical look. But when you've been around for a few years, you pick up a few things along the way.
