Exhibit…well, not A, but it’s up there:

The CRS report describes the dilemma for members of the majority who face such motions, by stating that they “have the effect of creating a diffcult political choice for Members who support both the underlying measure and the amendment contained in the motion to recommit.” It goes on:

If such proponents of the measure vote for the motion to recommit with “non-forthwith” instructions, they are voting to send the measure back to committee, delaying or potentially killing the bill and perhaps breaking with their own party. However, if such Members vote against the motion to recommitthey may be on public record as having voted against a policy that they (and perhaps their constituents) strongly support.

The report then notes that such a vote could later become the subject of a political ad. With the new rules change, Democrats are protecting themselves from the kind of accountability that Republicans faced when they were in the majority, and which majority Democrats also faced prior to their loss of Congressional control in 1994.

“The new rules basically shield them from taking embarrassing votes,” said Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wisc.), ranking member of the House Budget Committee. “It denies us the ability to have clean votes based on our policy alternatives.” Note how Ryan’s language echoes that used by Fitzgerald 100 years ago.

The hypocrisy astounds, though it shouldn’t. And as noted, they will regret this rule change when (not if) they lose power.