cd142-unethical-rules

CD142: Unethical Rules

The 115th Congress has begun! In this episode, we take a quick look at that government funding law that sets up an April funding crisis for this new Congress and we take a closer look at the shady new rules governing the 115th House of Representatives.


Please support Congressional Dish:

  • Click here to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin

  • Click here to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon

  • Mail Contributions to: 2244 Oak Grove Rd, P.O. Box 30507, Walnut Creek, CA 94598

  • Click here to shop on Amazon – Congressional Dish will receive a referral commission.

Thank you for supporting truly independent media!


Contact PayPal

If you would like them bring back the feature that allows you to choose your own monthly subscription amount, please contact PayPal:

Thank you!


Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes


Bills/Laws Discussed in this Episode

HR 2028 "Further Continuing and Security Assistance Appropriations Act" (Continuing Resolution)

Bill Highlights

Funds the government until April 28, 2017

Funds the War on Terror until September 30, 2017

Exception for Trump's Defense Secretary Appointment

  • Expedites the process for passing a bill that allows General James Mattis to be nominated as Defense Secretary by granting an exemption to the National Security Act of 1947 that prohibits the nomination of someone who has retired from the military within the previous seven years.

115th House Rules


H.R. 26: Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2017(REINS Act)

  • Highlighted in the 113th Congress in CD038: Wasting July
  • Forces Federal agencies to get Congressional approval before enacting major rules

Sound Clip Sources

House Proceeding: January 3, 2017
  • Congressional Record (full transcript)

  • 3:30pm ESTRep. Steny Hoyer: Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman knows, there is a provision in the rules that are proposed which are not in the rules of the last Congress, which give us great pause because we think it tends to put Members in a difficult place from a constitutional perspective and from a freedom-of-speech perspective. The rule, of course, of which I speak is the rule that relates to empowering the Sergeant at Arms to levy fines.
    May I ask the gentleman first: Did the Rules Committee find that there was any precedent for such a provision in rules historically? Rep. Pete Sessions: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much. I would like to refer to something which I believe has been made available, and, if not, I would be very pleased to do it. The House has delegated fining authority, section 1103 of the Manual, where the House incorporates, by reference, title I of the Ethics in Government Act. Under this section, if a financial disclosure is filed late, the filer is subject to a $200 filing fee. It is a fine by another name that is administered by the House Ethics Committee. So what I am suggesting to you is we have seen where there has been the backup of rules that have been backed up by the levying of a fine, and I believe that is what the gentleman is seeking.

  • 3:22pm ESTRep. Steny Hoyer: If I may conclude, as the gentleman knows, and I won’t say thousands, but hundreds of pictures were taken just an hour ago on this floor—hundreds. We were in session, not in recess. *Rep. Pete Sessions: If I could address that, and I want to do this very gingerly because I do not want to start a battle here. The gentleman and I both know what caused this action was a deep, deep feeling that many Members on your side had about a particular issue. It resulted in what could be seen as—and I saw it as—a protest. Look, we are used to that in this body, people being upset. We are not used to people violating the rule, and it already was a rule that you cannot use, for recording purposes, those devices. We did not make this up. That was already a rule. So it became an advent of a protest.

  • 3:23pm ESTRep. Steny Hoyer: Very frankly, I think the gentleman is correct; it was a pro- test which gave rise to this rule which I think is ill-advised, but I understand the difference. The protest was because—and as Rules chairman, the gentleman probably knows this better than anybody else—we asked for an amendment that we thought 85 to 90 percent of the American people were for. We didn’t get transparency, we didn’t get openness, and we did not get an opportunity to express our views. That is why we are so concerned because we think, frankly, this is analogous to a gag rule: to shut us down, to shut us out, and to shut us up.

Democrats Stage a Sit-In by Trevor Noah on The Daily Show, June 23, 2016.
  • Trevor Noah explains the Democrat's House floor protest
Middle East Security Challenges hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (aired on C-SPAN), April 22, 2016.
  • General James Mattis on the biggest threats to the United States (Iran)
Global Challenges and US National Security Strategy, Senate Committee on Armed Services, January 27, 2015

Additional Reading


Additional Information

  • Sergeants at Arms, United States House of Representatives History, Art, & Archives.

Cover Art

Design by Only Child Imaginations

OCI

How you can help the show...

Congressional Dish Voicemail Line: (339) 707-0307