The pace and surprising nature of the actions of President Trump in the last 10 days have kept our eyes on the White House, but there is also drama brewing at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Back in January, the House met to conduct its first act of governance – establishing the rules of order for the 115^th Congress. Even in this seemingly routine act there are all the elements of a soap opera — hints of cronyism, secret weapons, revenge, and even some comedy.

The opening act got the most attention. A midnight effort (well not actually midnight, but it was late in the day on the Martin Luther King Day Holiday) to slip a provision in the rules that would gut the Office of Congressional Ethics. It was immediately spotted by the eagle eye community of congressional watchdogs from across the political spectrum and an 18-hour campaign of tweets, phone calls to offices, and unflattering headlines (including a tweet from Mr. Trump) pushed House leadership to pull this provision. We were thrilled with this outcome, as we have long championed the OCE’s importance in watching out for taxpayers.

After the drama of the OCE, the rest of the rules package seems less exciting, but there are multiple provisions that are problematic for taxpayers. For example, the rules direct the Congressional Budget Office to ignore potential revenue from federal lands when calculating the cost of transferring ownership to local or state governments or other entities. Previously, any valuable energy resource like coal, oil, gas, or timber located on the land was considered part of its value, and would be counted as a loss that would have to be offset if the federal government gave it away. In other words, the House just decreed, lands that you, I, and every other taxpayer own can a) be given away for free; and b) we’re going to pretend all the coal, gas, water, recreational opportunities, and other resources on these lands no longer exist. Talk about alternative facts.

Another new rule states that the records of the Member Representational Allowances, the funds elected members of Congress use to run the daily operations of their offices, from leasing vehicles to paying staff, are solely the “personal property” of the Members and not subject to public disclosure.  Remember the now-disgraced and indicted former member of Congress Aaron Schock (R-IL)? Those MRA accounts are exactly where constituents used to be able to see and judge for themselves if they thought a $40,000 Downton Abbey-inspired office was a good use of taxpayer money. Or whether a lawmaker should be able to claim reimbursement for driving 150,000 miles more than what shows on the vehicle’s odometer.

Also tucked away in the rules package and innocuously called “Separate Orders” is something called the “Holman Rule” which dates back to the mid-1800s and was finally abandoned in 1983. Under this rules change, appropriations bills could be amended on the House floor to strike funding (or “retrench” in the language of Washington) for certain specific jobs or entire offices in the federal agency the appropriations bill covers. The Holman Rule is being given an experimental, one-year test period. But that’s long enough to do real mischief.

For instance, a floor amendment could be used to remove all funding for the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs. But let’s be honest; it’s far more likely such a tool would be used to surgically remove either specific civil servants who have done something to draw the ire of the member offering the amendment, or to strike entire offices that perform work the member doesn’t like. Taken to the most ridiculous extreme, a specific auditor could find his or her salary removed from the appropriations bill that includes the Internal Revenue Service if they have questioned the tax return of the wrong congressman, or prominent donor to that person. It’s worth noting that the Holman Rule is not limited to members of the executive branch.

And, if in fact that day came that one Member of the House decided to use the Holman rule against another Member of the House, the aggrieved member could not photograph that event or livestream it on Facebook or Periscope or any other social media service, because the new House Rules prohibit photography and livestreaming from the floor of the House.  Failure to comply with this rule results in personal fines for $500 for the first offense, $2500 for repeat offenders.  And while C-Span might be there to cover it, the Majority party has long controlled the placement of the cameras, so whether or not we get to see that scene would be up to them.

There’s still more. The rules were changed to ease ending Obamacare (a.k.a. the Affordable Care Act) by making repeal exempt for challenges that it would increase spending outside the ten-year budget window. And there is one more issue pending – a potential return of earmarks, the special interest provisions that were banned starting in 2011. In response to calls for their return, Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) promised an examination of the issue and that recommendations be presented to the conference by the end of March. Stay tuned.

Media often focus on the theatrics and showmanship that the bully pulpit gives any president. But the nuts and bolts of legislating play out in Congress. And some of the rule changes made this year mean taxpayers need to pay attention to the high and low drama unfolding in the People’s House to ensure we make government work for taxpayers.