The House adjourned this morning without considering energy legislation. Nancy Pelosi and company were quick to make an exit, turning off the lights and the microphones in their wake. But some House Republicans stayed on the floor. At 3:30pm, they're still on the floor staging what's being called an "uprising" and a "revolt."

The lights are off. The microphones are off. CSpan isn't taping it. Nancy Pelosi "sent Capitol Police to clear the press gallery [and] lock the doors" according to news on RedState, but "Reps. Bunt, Shadegg, and Hoekstra have been taking turns remaining with media in the gallery in order to keep it open."

This revolution is not being televised. But thanks to online communication we know about it. It's on blogs like RedState, it's on the Twitter feeds of Reps. Culberson, Boehner, and Hoekstra. And now it's spreading as one person brings it up to another. I just mentioned it to a non-political friend in Texas. Her response? "Wow. This is like old school politics. This is amazing!"

This revolution is not being televised, but who the hell cares? To borrow from Rep. Culberson's tweet this morning: "Here is a powerful use of social media - when they turn off the mike we can still communicate."

The Majority on the Committee on House Administration is later today proposing new rules which would severely restrict constituent access to their Member of Congress and limit the ability of those Members to adopt new technologies. In an **Internet Freedom Alert** Memorandum (pasted in-full below) by Republican Leader John Boehner, he says of the Rule:

The Committee on House Administration is considering a new rule that could bring this trend to a screeching halt. The Committee is considering the adoption of new rules that would require outside websites such as YouTube to comply with House regulations before Members of Congress could post videos on them. Under the proposal, the House Administration Committee would develop a list of “approved” websites, and Members of Congress could post content only such websites. The rule has been proposed by the Democratic chairman of the Commission on Mailing Standards, Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA), and is being considered for adoption by the Committee on House Administration, chaired by Rep. Robert Brady (D-PA). A copy of Rep. Capuano's letter is available at http://gopleader.gov/UploadedFiles/Capuano_letter.PDF.

This Rule is extremely troubling on several fronts. First and foremost, limiting constituent access to an "approved list of third-party websites" threatens the openness and access provided only through the Internet to constituents, limiting constituents to use a handful of "currently hot"/approved sites and force Members of Congress to ignore emerging websites that could quickly become the next outlet for conversation with their constituents.

Second, how exactly does the CHA plan to enforce this Rule? Do they control the Internet? For example, Republican John Culberson and Democratic Congressman Tim Ryan have been leading with their use of Twitter. And where would the Committee on House Administration come down on Rep. Tim Ryan's interview with Internet evangelist Robert Scoble on Qik? Would they force Qik to yank the video? How ridiculous.

Beyond those two points, this Rule shows a clear misunderstanding of the access which the Internet provides to constituents and Members of Congress to have a very real, open, level and honest relationship at a minimal/if any cost to the American taxpayer.

As you may recall, last year I helped co-author a non-partisan report known as "The Open House Project." The report was authored by a number of citizens who wear all stripes: Democrats, Republicans, Independents, etc. urging Congress to better use the Internet to provide more access, availability, openness, and honesty to the annals of Capitol Hill.

Of note, Robert Bluey of the Heritage Foundation and I served as the two Republican coordinators of the project. Past TechRepublican coverage here and here.

At the press conference announcing the report, Republican Leader John Boehner made it a point to attend the press conference to announce his endorsement of the project:

Both Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer sent letters endorsing the project.

As a former House staffer extremely familiar with the Rules governing a Members web-use (we broke them all and won a major award for it) I co-authored the chapter in The Open House Project urging Congress to modernize or eliminate the Rules limiting a Members use of the Internets. Here's an op-ed we co-wrote on the issue last year.

One of the more interesting findings in our analysis was that not a single complaint had ever been filed against a Member of Congress for their web-use (only exception was when a Member email outside of their Congressional district).

The bottom-line is that the Committee on House Administration should re-think it's entire position on the Internet--especially now that they are trying to reach government's long arm into the lives of a citizens use of the Internet to better connect with their Member of Congress.

UPDATE 3:13 PM: John Wonderlich who headed up The Open House Project has weighed in with a strong post urging the House to get with the picture:

If Members can use whatever brand of inkpen, or any brand of paper, or buy whatever shoes they want, they should be given radically expanded freedom to use the Internet, and make the same empowering discoveries that their constituents are. Even if that same pen was once used to scribble a ransom note.

The Committee on House Administration still has a line to draw, and plays an important function through the Franking Commission in preventing abuse of taxpayer funded resources. The restrictions, however, should reflect a balance between the liability they’re meant to avoid, and the potential benefits Congress could realize. The conflict of interest (or undignifiedness), is minimal, at best, and the potential benefits are nothing short of revolutionary.

Citizens are overcoming their fears about engaging online, and Congress should follow suit.

Congressional staff working on reforming Franking restrictions should be praised for their efforts, and Republican Leader Boehner should be praised for his bold stance on such reforms.

Also, Soren Dayton at The Next Right has a post which argues that this play by the Democrats could be a partisan move to keep the Republicans from communicating effectively:

Who gets technology? Either, as Capuano noted to the Post, ""To me, the Web is a necessary evil like cellphones," or House Democrats are trying to make it harder for the opposition to get their message out.

====================
FULL MEMO RELEASED BY REPUBLICAN LEADER JOHN BOEHNER
====================
**** Internet Freedom Alert ****

From: House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH)
TO: Online Community & Activists
RE: An Attack on Internet Free Speech
DATE: 08 July 08

I’m writing to alert you to an attack on free speech that is making its way through Congress. This attack, which should concern activists of all political affiliations across the ideological spectrum, comes in the form of a new congressional rule that would prohibit Americans from viewing content published by Members of Congress on websites that are not “approved” by the Committee on House Administration, the panel that creates rules governing the internal operations of the U.S. House.

Millions of Americans today utilize free, unregulated and uncensored websites like YouTube on a daily basis to not only obtain information from their elected leaders about what’s going on in their government, but to also give feedback and easily share that information with others. The advent of new media technology has empowered American citizens with real-time information about the policy debates and actions being undertaken by Congress. This has increasingly forced Congress to become more transparent and made it easier for American citizens to hold their elected leaders accountable.

The Committee on House Administration is considering a new rule that could bring this trend to a screeching halt. The Committee is considering the adoption of new rules that would require outside websites such as YouTube to comply with House regulations before Members of Congress could post videos on them. Under the proposal, the House Administration Committee would develop a list of “approved” websites, and Members of Congress could post content only such websites. The rule has been proposed by the Democratic chairman of the Commission on Mailing Standards, Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA), and is being considered for adoption by the Committee on House Administration, chaired by Rep. Robert Brady (D-PA). A copy of Rep. Capuano's letter is available at http://gopleader.gov/UploadedFiles/Capuano_letter.PDF.

If the proposed rule is adopted, the free flow of information over the Internet between Americans and their representatives will be significantly curtailed. Americans who currently use free websites like YouTube to obtain uncensored daily information about congressional policy debates will instead be forced to go to websites “approved” by the House Administration Committee in order to continue getting such information. This would amount to new government censorship of the Internet, by a panel of federal officials that is neither neutral nor independent.

House Republicans, led by Reps. Vern Ehlers (R-MI), Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), and Tom Price (R-GA), have expressed their opposition to this attack on Internet freedom and proposed an alternative solution that would allow Members of Congress to continue posting content at sites of their choosing. I will continue to keep you updated as this situation unfolds. For further information, please visit the House Republican Leader website or contact Nick Schaper, my Director of New Media Operations, at nick.schaper@mail.house.gov.

An interesting battle is quietly taking place in the annals of Congress (and online) that probably won't make it very far beyond the Beltway chattering class but is worth noting in this space.

The turse is between Republican Leader John Boehner, Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and House bureaucrats (hired by Pelosi) who interpret silly, outdated, and flawed House Rules governing the use of websites by Members of Congress at their discretion.

The gist of the story is that Leader Boehner's office received approval in August to use the domain name, earmarkreform.house.gov, to serve as the House Republican's hub to reform earmarks. However, just two weeks after the website went live, the House Chief Administrative Officer, Dan Beard, rescinded his approval of the domain name, calling the previous approval a "mistake," and has shut the website down.

Boehner is, rightfully, crying foul. CQ has the full scoop:

[Boehner] said he was convinced the revocation was politically motivated.

“I am writing today to register my protest over this belated change,” he wrote Beard. “Changing its address now will inevitably hamper the effectiveness of the new Web site, much to the convenience of the majority that runs the House.”

Boehner went on to allege that the change was probably related to the continued stream of stories about Democratic House members and their use of the earmarking process.

The response to Boehner:

In a statement, Beard spokesman Jeff Ventura said permission for Boehner to use the Web site was issued mistakenly. He said the CAO had determined that the address violated using a slogan in the name of any site included in the house.gov domain and that Boehner had been asked to “transition” to another address.

“The CAO is now initiating a review” of all House Web addresses “to ensure compliance with traditional formatting,” Ventura said. Any sites that are in potential conflict with the House Administration Committee’s interpretation of the rule will be reviewed by the committee.

He said the House information resources office is “working with Mr. Boehner’s staff to make the transition as seamless as possible.”

Boehner is fighting a good, worthwhile fight that conservative activists could rally behind. In fact, over at Slatecard, our donor analytics show that the issue badge, Cut The Pork, is the #1 most frequently given issue badge and is the #2 issue badge with regard to total donations:

Top Issue Badges By Frequency
1. Cut The Pork: 54
2. Pro-Life: 48
3. Protect & Defend America: 46
4. Jobs & Economy: 36
5. Conservation Of Resources: 33

Top Issue Badges By Total Dollars
1. Protect & Defend America: $9,435.99
2. Cut The Pork: $6,593.00
3. Available and Affordable Health Care: $4,825.00
4. Jobs & Economy: $4,337.00
5. Defeat Radical Islam: $3,525.00

However, the truth of the matter is that, when live and operational, the website probably wasn't actually doing much good with regard to changing the narrative about House Republicans and earmarks. However, it was a strong step in the right direction as a positive embrace of the Internet by Republicans and a very real hub of information/efforts toward one single goal.

But, now, in its death -- we're all writing about the fact that John Boehner's efforts to reform earmarks is being crippled not by a team of appropriators -- but by Nancy Pelosi and her liberal allies.

That's a win for his communications team. A scoop of porridge if you'll have it.

Today’s Conservative Bloggers Briefing, hosted by Robert Bluey @ Heritage featured Robert Novak and Republican Leader John Boehner. Novak came by to talk about his new book, The Prince of Darkness: 50 Years Reporting in Washington, and Congressman Boehner talked primarily about earmark reform.

Read more after the jump...