When the budget bill for the Congress comes to the House floor as early as today, Republicans will prevent a wide open debate on the measure, even though they spent much of the last four years railing against similar moves by Democrats.
31 different amendments were submitted to the House Rules Committee for the Legislative Branch spending bill - but the ground rules for debate of the Congressional budget will only allow 16 of those amendments to be offered on the floor, one of which bans styrofoam cups in the Capitol complex, while another would get rid of certain lightbulbs.
And don't jump to the conclusion that Republicans decided not to allow amendments by Democrats - for example - Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) submitted eight amendments, but was only allowed to offer three of those during House debate.
Rep. Anne Marie Buerkle (R-NY) offered four amendments, but none of them made the grade. They included ideas like ending funding for the Office of the Senate Majority Leader and the budget committees of the House and Senate.
Why do I note the restrictions on amendments to this spending bill? Well, this is the first appropriations bill considered under the new Republican Congress that has had limits on amendments; when Democrats used such "structured" rules, Republicans denounced such restrictions as undemocratic and unfair.
Just last week, the House approved an Energy & Water spending bill that used an "open" rule - which means no limit on amendments, as long as they were germane to the bill.
The defense budget bill was considered under an open rule. So was the Agriculture spending bill.
There were no restrictions on the Homeland Security budget or the spending bill for Veterans and Military Construction.
But the sixth budget bill to come up for next year - on the budget for Congress and the Legislative Branch - will have amendment limitations.
Certainly it's just a coincidence that it happened on the budget bill dealing with the Congress, right? (Insert your answer here.)
Regardless of the reason, this is often what one might describe as the natural evolution of the new majority party in the House, which soon finds that all the talk of openness and free-wheeling debates aren't as attractive when you are actually running the show.
In recent years, both parties in the House have sought to limit the number of amendments offered by the other party on budget bills, worried that the process will be used more to score political points than to promote real debate and legislative action.
So what amendments will be allowed on this bill? Here's the list:
Rep. Sanford Bishop (D-GA) would transfer Member Transition Activities funds to increase the Capitol Police fund by $1,000,000 in order to establish a Security Fund for Member's District Office Security Upgrades.
Rep. Mel Watt (D-NC) would reduce funding for the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) by 40% ($619,200)
Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) would reduce funding for the Joint Economic Committee by $1,050,750 (25%)
Rep. Broun also would reduce funding for the Office of Compliance to the FY 2008 Level ($467,000 reduction)
Rep. Nan Hayworth (R-NY) and Paul Gosar (R-AZ) would cut the $632,780 increase in funding for the Botanic Garden
Rep. Broun would reduce funding for the Botanic Garden to the FY 2008 Level ($3,192,000 reduction)
Rep. Jason Altmire (D-PA) would restore $1 million in funding to the Thirty-Year Mass Deacidification Program with the Library of Congress’ Salaries and Expenses Account. The bill as reported by the Appropriations Committee reduces the the Thirty-Year Mass Deacidification Program by 17.7%.
Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-IN) would reduce the Government Printing Office by $4,946,140.80 by transferring $3,414,150.29 from Government Printing Office, Congressional Printing and Binding, and $1,531,990.51 from Government Printing Office, Office of Superintendent of Documents to the Spending Reduction Account.
Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) and Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT) would prohibit the use of funds for polystyrene containers in the food service facilities of the House of Representatives.
Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) would require all mail funded by the Members’ representational allowance and from funds for official mail for committees and leadership offices of the House bear the official letterhead of the Member, committee, or office involved.
Rep. Flake would prohibit Members, committees, and leadership from using funds from this Act to purchase online ads that link to a website maintained by Members, committees, and leadership offices.
Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) would provide $2.5 million for the congressional Office of Technology Assessment and reduce funding for the House Historic Buildings Revitalization Trust Fund by the same amount.
Rep. Erik Paulsen (R-MN) and Rep. Candice Miller (R-MI) would prevent the distribution of printed legislation to member offices unless a member requests the legislation.
Reps. Paulsen and Miller would prevent funds from being used to distribute printed copies of the Congressional Record to member offices. Members would still be able to receive copies online and from the legislative resource center.
Rep. Glenn Thompson (R-PA) would prohibit any funds in the bill from being available to purchase, acquire, install, or use any medium screw base compact fluorescent lamp or light bulb (CFL).
Rep. Richard Hanna (R-NY) would state that none of the funds may be used by the Chief Administrative Officer to make any payments from any MRA for the leasing of a vehicle in an amount that exceeds $1,000 in any month.
That last amendment will be interesting, because it would block lawmakers from spending more than $1,000 per month to lease a vehicle.
Many Americans might say that figure could be even smaller, but no one else would be allowed to offer such an amendment on the House floor.
So much for an open and free-wheeling debate.
Plus ça change plus c'est la même chose.
