Tuesday, June 26, 2007

They demand a role call. We demand a recall.

It is easy to tell when someone in Congress wants to make a political statement regarding a particular piece of legislation, or the procedures to enact that legislation. They demand a role call vote so that they can point to their vote in pride and opposing votes in derision.

Such is the point of Rep. Flake's demand for a recorded vote yesterday on his amendment to HR 2771 - a $3.1 billion appropriations bill that funds the legislative branch of government. Congressman Crazy voted "yes" on this amendment, which reduces the amount used to fund the printing of copies of the Congressional Record by $3.2 million. Score one for Republican fiscal responsibility. Score another one for Republican hypocrisy.

According to comments reported in the Congressional Record (H6994) this is or is not about what it purports to concern.
Mr. Flake. Let me point out, just as with any program that is not an entitlement, everything is subject to appropriation. The Government Printing Office is not bound, no pun intended, to print as many copies as they think they need. They can print as many as they have money for. We were very careful in taking $3.2 million, to take only the printing costs for half of the number that are printed already. I think that is reasonable.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, I really believe that we should approach this in the appropriate way. If we want to change the statute and go to electronic production of the Congressional Record, that is what we should do. We should not simply hamstring the GPO by requiring them to print a Congressional Record and not ensuring they have adequate funds to do that, when they are already in a deficit situation.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

What a waste of time over a trivial matter. That $3.2 million pales in comparison the to amounts that the Republicans saved by not adequately funding trauma care for Iraq vets. Yes, Rohrabacher voted to save money there also.

Make that score 2 for hypocrisy.

No comments: