CREEPY CONGRESS

#CREEPYCONGRESS  #NAKEDEMPERORS  #DEEPSWAMP

Published in Newsmax.

“Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

The darker side of Washington unfolds around us - Members getting drunk to the point of falling off bar stools and then being dragged to the House Floor to vote; married Members hitting on and picking-up young female staffers and interns; lobbyists bringing attractive female “associates” with them to draw Members to their tables. It was stomach turning. We, sadly, could only shake our heads in amazement and shame. We pledged to rid the House of this culture of moral abandon if we ever got control of the Chamber.

What an insane place it was.  Could the Republicans actually change such a dysfunctional and abusive environment?  A close friend and colleague walked in on his boss having sex with a young female staffer in the middle of his desk. The married Congressman immediately fired this senior legislative aide and warned him that he would make sure he never worked again in Washington if he ever told people the real reason he was let go.

House staffers would relate countless stories of staffers they knew who had to do personal errands and favors for House Members or face immediate dismissal. Tantrums by Members, sometimes resulting in physical harm, sometimes in mass firings of their staffs, were commonplace. Our running joke was that the U.S. House of Representatives was America’s largest adult daycare facility.

We encountered ever stranger evidence of the most corrupt, dysfunctional, and surreal operating environment in any of our professional careers. The fact that this abuse and mayhem was being fueled by public funds appalled all of us.

Every hour that went by unearthed amazing stories of abuse and chaos. Were they fact or fiction?  Some overlapped material already known, but others broke new ground for audacity…this was flagrant abuse of congressional power. “It’s almost too much to bear. What kinds of people are running this place? This is madness!”

The worst stories related to how sexual favors were demanded by both supervisors and Members. They told of how stress and hopelessness led to fist fights and, in one case, a knife fight. They told us of how their supervisors and the Capitol police looked the other way.  Everyone seemed scared of what powerful Members and their handpicked managers would do to them… this sickened us. Was this really happening in America?

These horrific descriptions are excerpts from the book “Naked Emperors” that was published in 2008 [https://www.amazon.com/Naked-Emperors-Failure-Republican-Revolution/dp/0742558819/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1511223742&sr=8-1&keywords=faulkner+%22naked+emperors%22].  It revealed rampant abuse dating back to the 1970s, documented with over 300 footnotes and countless interviews. 

In 2008, the public was not ready to confront just how bad Congress had become.

Thankfully, victims are now more willing to come forward and the media is more willing to believe them.  Decades of damage occurred because few wanted to risk reprisals from the powerful they unmasked. It is tragic to think of all the lives that are forever damaged by not stopping this sooner.  Too many politicians and journalists callously looked the other way. 

Finally, Congress seems to be coming to grips with its institutionalized abuse. House Speaker Paul Ryan has mandated sexual harassment training for both Members and staff.  He is the first Congressional leader saying he is willing to stop the systematic and systemic cover-up of their toxic work environment. 

We can only hope that Ryan and the Republicans are sincere and that the era of Congressional perversion and abuse may finally be over. 

[Scot Faulkner advises corporations and governments on how to save billions of dollars by achieving dramatic and sustainable cost reductions while improving operational and service excellence. He served as the Chief Administrative Officer of the U.S. House of Representatives.  He also served on the White House Staff, and as an Executive Branch Appointee.]

Conservative Chaos Theory

This was published in Politico

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/a-vacuum-of-conservative-leadership-85961.html?hp=r19

By Scot Faulkner & Jonathan Riehl

The continuing crisis in Washington illustrates many things: A dysfunctional, wholly unproductive Congress, a total lack of long-term thinking or leadership from either party, and nonstop partisan bickering. Aside from these systemic problems the past few weeks also illustrate the complete and utter breakdown of conservatism as a force in politics. Republicans may complain of an intransigent President. But President Obama, at least, has an agenda. The Republicans have none. There is no conservative vision, no conservative agenda, no conservative movement.

Others have argued that an emerging problem on the right is the lack of any conservative identity aside from disliking, disparaging, or despising the President and his agenda. Years of opposing instead of proposing has put more nails in the coffin of responsible conservatism. The strategic defeats of 2012 laid bare the vacuum of conservative leadership. The Christmas crisis draws that vacuum into stark relief.

Some may agree, along with the Senate Majority Leader, that the only job of current Republican legislators is to stop anything Obama wants to do. Earlier conservative Congresses have seen it as their primary task to throw sands in the gears of liberal administrations. The problem is that this Republican Congress is not backed by any intellectual or policy foundation that would replace that which they oppose. These Republicans, unlike earlier movement conservatives, are, to borrow a phrase, full of sound and fury but signifying nothing.

A favorite film of ours, David Lean’s masterpiece “Lawrence of Arabia,” offers some valuable lessons, providing a cautionary tale on the difference between warfare and governing. In the movie, T.E. Lawrence and his Bedouin army become experts at blowing up trains, but fall into utter chaos when they try to govern Damascus. Current conservatives hone their demolition skills, while avoiding governing skills. Recently, Sean Hannity admonished Republicans on his radio show to, “forget about governing – focus on fighting”. Worse yet, Republicans are now taking a two week recess instead of building their public case for an alternative approach to budgeting and governing. Instead of oversight hearing exposing government waste and proposing management reforms, they are waiting to pounce on the President’s inaugural address, State of the Union speech, and official budget submission. The Republican game book of defensive guerilla tactics is a recipe for marginalization.

Conservatives love to heap praise on Ronald Reagan, though their mythologizing often masks the hard fought political battles and compromise which led to his election. Movement conservatives devoted years preparing for that election, preparation that included a conservative cohort in Congress wrecking President Carter’s trains and tearing-up his rail lines on a daily basis. Our parliamentary warfare was designed for a purpose – every bill defeated was one less law we would have to reverse once Reagan was President.

The difference between 1978-1980 and the current warfare is that that earlier generation had a core understanding of what was to come. Reagan and the conservative movement that propelled him had a clear vision of what was needed to revive America, defeat communism, and reform government. Reagan was able to articulate that vision in a way that resonated with a majority of the nation not because he had a handful of focus-grouped magic phrases, but because his rhetoric conveyed an actual political and cultural vision grounded in a concrete conservative philosophy.

The current Republican “leadership” offers no vision, because it is no longer grounded in the conservative tradition. Their only vision is further disruption. There is nothing conservative about this. In fact, it smacks more of leftist anarchy. Great conservative thinkers like Friedrich A. Hayek, for example, were championed by Reagan and Thatcher precisely because they sought to create order out of chaos.

The current Republican leaders have indeed become experts at blowing up trains. Both sides display skill at stopping things and ratcheting up the rhetoric in their favored media echo chambers. But the real problem is that both sides have lost the ability to govern. These Republicans (we hesitate to even refer to them as conservatives) have no plan or vision for bringing order out of the chaos they continue to foment. Common ground has vanished. Worse, it is viewed as the domain of the weak.

Wreaking havoc with your opponents is necessary when you are preparing the way for political victory and a fundamental change. However, what if there is no plan after battlefield victory? Republicans have forgotten the lessons of their own conservative movement’s history, which waged tactical political warfare only in the service of a positive political vision, not for warfare’s sake alone, and not for the vilification of an enemy.


FISCAL FOLLIES

Washington policy officials and pundits take note – you have all flunked Governing 101, Management 101, Civil Discourse 101, Budgeting 101, Accountability 101, and Reality 101. Republicans also failed Communications 101 & Politics 101. Democrats passed these courses with honors in creative fiction writing.

No one is telling the truth about anything relating to the Fiscal Cliff. Americans will begin suffering from Washington’s mass delusion and hysteria by mid January 2012. Wage earners will see a reduction in take home pay with their first pay checks. Some government contractors will get termination notices around the same time because of the consciously severe cuts under the Sequester.

The damage from going over the Fiscal Cliff will remain limited because of the possibility of retroactive fixes being dated back to January 1, 2013. However, this expectation unravels at the end of February if there is no budget deal. Even a superficial, “kick the can down the road again” deal would avoid this expectation cliff. This gives everyone two months to do something before the bottom really falls out.

How did America get in this mess?

Blame the Republicans – starting in 1995, the Republicans in Congress could have held wall-to-wall hearings exposing trillions of dollars in ongoing waste, fraud, and abuse. Mountains of Inspector General Reports, Government Accountability Office Reports, and watch dog organization reports would have been easy pickings for years. By exposing the mind-boggling array of how Americans’ money is squandered would have built a mandate for real change. Republicans never pursued this course. In fact, they remained tongue-tied on how to cut spending through the 2012 elections. When they did offer ideas, they went for ideological cuts, like Public Broadcasting.

Republicans also made every effort to box themselves into a stereotype of defending the rich and abandoning the poor. They never explained that every penny wasted hurts everyone. These pennies include nearly $1 trillion a year in outrageous tax loopholes for corporations, the wealthy, and even foreign gamblers.

Blame the Democrats – the Democrats have refused to focus on spending because the moment they acknowledge that spending can be cut they lose their argument that the federal government needs more of our money. They made budget cutting a partisan issue. This is truly sad for America. Way back in the 1970s, Senator Proxmire (D-WI) issued “Gold Fleece Awards” exposing government waste. Liberal journalists like Jack Anderson railed against waste where ever it was found. Even the National Enquirer had fun with “goofy grants”. Waste was waste and the public embraced aggressive oversight across the political spectrum. This all ended during the Administration of George HW Bush when Democrats realized extorting more taxes required silence on how the money was really being spent.

Blame the media – reporters and commentators love a crisis. They embrace false deadlines and refuse to discuss that these deadlines are based upon fiction, because their countdown clocks and their breathlessly chasing after every rumor attracts viewers and readers. There is no incentive for telling the truth - that everything could be avoided within seconds if everyone sobered up and grew-up.

America is confronted with a parade of “naked emperors” who trumpet that what they are doing is real, and that we are fools if we do not comprehend how hard it is to get off the treadmill of more debt, more taxes, and more spending. Who will be the first voice in the crowd to begin laughing at them and demanding honesty?

Origins of the Congressional Record

This article was published in Constituting America

http://www.constitutingamerica.org/blog/blog/category/guest-constitutional-scholar-essayists/scot-faulkner/

Article 1, Section 5, Clause 3


Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.

Documenting public processes have been part of governing since the rise of early civilizations. From the Sumerians in 2500 BC, to ancient Egypt and Babylon, governments have kept journals of their actions and public meetings.

The Founding Fathers knew the importance of maintaining a Journal of Proceedings from the English House of Commons. James Wilson, a member of the Committee on Detail which compiled the provisions of the draft Constitution, was a follower of the great British parliamentary scholar Sir William Blackstone. He quoted Blackstone’s Oxford 1756 lectures, which underscored the importance of a public record for holding officials accountable, “In the House of Commons, the conduct of every member is subject to the future censure of his constituents, and therefore should be openly submitted to their inspection.”

The Constitution’s “Journal of Proceedings” wording flows from the Articles of Confederation. In March 1781 the Continental Congress approved the following provision: “…and shall publish the Journal of their proceedings monthly, except such parts thereof relating to treaties, alliances or military operations, as in their judgment require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the delegates of each state on any question shall be entered on the Journal, when it is desired by any delegate; and the delegates of a state, or any of them, at his or their request shall be furnished with a transcript of the said Journal, except such parts as are above excepted, to lay before the legislatures of the several states.”

But what is the Journal? Every day the Congress approves the “Journal” of the previous session. This is the official outline of actions taken during the previous meeting of each Chamber, like a set of minutes. It is codified in Section 49 of Thomas Jefferson’s 1812 Parliamentary Manual that governs Congressional operations. Members of Congress do not approve the Congressional Record. That transcript of House and Senate proceedings has a colorful history.

The transcribing of Congressional debate was begun by private publishers. House and Senate proceedings, roll calls, debates, and other records were recorded and published in The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States (1789–1824), the Register of Debates in Congress (1824–1837), and the Congressional Globe (1833–1873).

During the 36th Congress [December 5, 1859 to March 3, 1861] it was decided that federal funds should be used for transcribing Congressional proceedings and that the Government Printing Office should publish the verbatim record. The Congressional Globe was contracted to provide stenographers in the House and Senate Chambers. In 1873, the Globe’s contract was not renewed, and the Congressional Record was born. The Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate now oversee documenting and transcribing the verbatim proceedings of their respective chambers.

The Congressional Record is still not an accurate verbatim transcript of the proceedings and debate for each Chamber. Members routinely insert remarks and documents after the fact. While these “revised and extended remarks” help Members explain their actions, they are considered “secondary authorities” when it comes to determining legislative intent. Secondary authorities are generally afforded less weight than the actual texts of primary authority during Judicial review.

The chronicling of Congress has come almost full circle. While the Congressional Record remains the official transcript of proceedings, CSPAN, a nonprofit private entity, provides live coverage of each Chamber. The cameras are owned and maintained by the Architect of the Capitol, while their operations and broadcasts are operated by staffs of the Chief Administrative Officer in the House and the Secretary of the Senate. CSPAN receives the signal and airs it on its various cable television channels. Live House broadcasting began on March 19, 1979 while Senate coverage commenced on June 2, 1986.

Tale of Four Audits

Rep. Bill Thomas (Chairman of House Oversight Committee) confers with John Lainhart (Inspector General)

When people “Google” my name, “Management and Financial Irregularities in the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer” pops-up. My supporters know the real story behind this report while my detractors use it as a handy device to dismiss everything I say and write.

This report was the third of four audit reports related to my tenure. It is a saga discussed in detail in my book “Naked Emperors”. For those who have not read the book, and even for those who are familiar with the story, a “SparkNotes” version of what happened is in order.

My book focuses on the forces for and against reforming the U.S. House of Representatives after the historic election of 1994. The four audits became battlegrounds for these forces to collide in shaping the reality of the moment.

Audit #1 – Price Waterhouse – Report No. 95-HOC-22, July 18, 1995.

This is covered on pages 237-238 in “Naked Emperors”.

This report was billed as the first truly independent audit of the U.S. House of Representatives. All prior reports were internal or heavily influenced by House Leadership and especially by the Committee on House Administration (CHA).

The report was an historic indictment of previous mismanagement of the Congress. Price Waterhouse found such a lack of policies, procedures, and documents that it could not render an opinion. This report would serve as the basis for the reform of the House and a validation of Leadership’s and my approach to strategic change. Surprisingly, Rep. Bill Thomas (R-CA) as Chairman of the new Committee on House Oversight (CHO) chose to suppress any release and media coverage of this major document.

House leaders and I thwarted Thomas’ subversion and got the story out to the American public. In retrospect, Thomas’ attempt at sabotage was about crippling the reform effort so that little or no change would actually occur. He had been forced by House leaders to finally acquiesce to some key reforms in June, his stalling tactics having delayed these reforms since March. Thomas was furious that the July audit proved his effort to preserve the status quo was ill advised.

Audit #2 – Price Waterhouse – Report No. 96-HOC-05, July 30, 1996.

This is covered on pages 270-273 in “Naked Emperors”.

This report was poised to give the House a “clean” audit. However, at the last minute, Thomas refused to update the CHO’s mass mailing procedures, thereby downgrading the report to a “qualified opinion”. Allies of the reforms considered this further sabotage by Thomas.

Thomas also tried to force Price Waterhouse to criticize the way the reforms had been implemented with specific attacks on my team and me. Thomas threatened to end the Price Waterhouse contract if they refused. This highly unethical and possibly illegal effort was exposed and the Speaker took Thomas to the “woodshed” during a meeting of the reform leaders. However, no other sanction occurred and Thomas continued his efforts to tarnish the reforms.

Audit #3 – KPMG - Report No. 96-CAO-15, December 31, 1996.

This is covered on pages 283-291 in “Naked Emperors”.

Thomas proceeds with hiring a more malleable group of auditors (KPMG) to attack the reforms and the CAO. KPMG is given the deadline of having their criticisms of the CAO and the reforms published in time for the House Republican Conference's consideration of House Officers for the 105th Congress. I uncover the plan and appeal to the John Lainhart, House Inspector General, to be an honest broker in the matter. The IG reports back to Thomas, who uses it as a way to remove me as CAO. The reason given for my removal was “inappropriate” ex parte contact with the IG, a minor version of what Thomas was caught at in August without any sanction.

I wrote a fully documented rebuttal to the audit report (available on www.scotfaulkner.com ). This rebuttal was never included in the report.

Audit #4 – KPMG - Report No. 97-HOC-12, September 24, 1997.

This is covered on pages 292-294 in “Naked Emperors”.

Thomas decides that purging me, and my inner circle, is not enough. In order to consolidate power in the newly revived Committee on House Administration (CHA), Thomas needs to completely revise history. He demands a special IG report describing the CAO and his allies as hampering House reform and portraying Thomas and the CHO as the true leaders of the reforms. Thomas also wants to erase my credibility in Washington, DC. Dozens of CAO staffers and reform allies alert Newt Gingrich to Thomas’s power play and his misuse of House resources for personal vendetta. Gingrich, once again, does nothing to curtail Thomas. While media accounts, and several books describe what really happened in the 104th Congress, the final IG report remains the first item found on some web searches.

Thomas achieved his goals, going on to be a major power in the House, and ultimately cashing-in for a lucrative lobbying position.

Political Hams & Hotdogs

The following was published in The Washington Times

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/aug/8/political-hams-and-hot-dogs/

The latest polls show Americans' confidence in Congress at an all-time low. Gallup's 14 percent rating is 4 points below the 18 percent that ended the Democratic Party's 40-year hold on Congress in 1994, and 5 points below the 19 percent that drove the GOP from power in 2006.

These indicate starkly that both parties disappoint Americans. This new low transcends specific issues, like the Iraq war. Gallup began tracking confidence in Congress in May 1973. That means Congress weathered the Vietnam War, Watergate, recessions and gas lines while maintaining higher voter confidence. The new low underscores major institutional weaknesses in how Congress conducts itself in the 21st century.

It has long been said that, "No man should see how laws or sausages are made." In my years of performance consulting I have, in fact, seen sausages made. At the world's leading hot dog factories, you see prime cuts of meat being processed in a clean and efficient environment operated by dedicated professionals devoted to quality assurance. I devour hot dogs knowing the integrity of these producers' brands is at stake with every bite.

It is, therefore, dismaying that Congress does not share the same concern about brand integrity as hot dog producers. Instead of a sausage factory, the House projects the image of a huge freshman dorm on a college campus. Everyone is adjusting to living away from home for the first time. Just like college freshmen, they mess around all term and then pull all-nighters to get the minimal work done. Occasionally, they even seek extensions. Look at the end of any congressional session. After many recesses House members will stay in round the clock to complete their work, and then pass a continuing resolution to avoid approving a real budget.

Just like a freshman dorm, the House is a mix: party animals, druggies, slackers, social climbers, jocks, idealists, activists and scholars. During my years as a House staffer and as its chief administrative officer, I encountered nearly half of members and staff displaying some form of addictive behavior including ego, power, greed, sex, drugs and alcohol.

In particular, freshman members and almost all staff can get away with anything, and do. The national media have no interest in the addictions of these small fry. They, therefore, develop an air of invincibility and unaccountability that carries them through their careers. Their lifestyle choices may only catch up with them if they aspire to a major policy position.

This dysfunction was borne out by the dozens of members attending the drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs I managed, and the documents I signed each week relating to legal actions against them. These documents, as many as 50 a week, included bankruptcies, garnishment of wages and court orders relating to not paying alimony and child support.

Recently, the House of Representatives passed its legislative branch appropriations. House members spent an hour discussing the naming of the overblown Capitol Visitor's Center, debating whether culinary school students should practice in the Members' Dining Room and bickering over turf with the House Administration Committee. There was also much posturing over how "green" to make the House's operations.

There was no mention of finding ways to open Congress to the public. Official House Web sites reveal virtually no movement toward new technologies to expand citizen engagement. Where are the podcasts of hearings? Where are the blogs for oversight? It is impossible to e-mail some committee staffs. Many members block e-mails from outside their districts. How is a concerned citizen to gain the attention of a national advocate on their particular issue?

The answer to these questions is the same since the Continental Congress. You can write a letter to a member or work through a lobbyist. I once wrote a member about preserving a Civil War battlefield and got inundated with letters on veterans' benefits.

Members are not listening or paying attention to what is happening. Congress has not learned a thing from the voter rebellions of 1994 and 2006. It is not just time for new blood and third parties but to rethink how we make representative government work in the 21st century.

The Way to Keep the House

Published in the New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/23/opinion/22faulkner.html?_r=0

CORRUPTION was widely considered a principal cause of Republican losses in November. Now that Democrats are preparing to take charge of the House of Representatives for the first time since 1994, they would do well to adopt a reform agenda that will help keep the new majority out of ethical trouble — and its members out of jail.

However, if the new Democratic majority functions anything like the old one, they — and we — are in for trouble. The Democrats’ previous administration of Congress was amazingly dysfunctional — an operation that allowed the least ethically inclined members to rob the place blind, as both the House Bank and Post Office scandals confirmed. Less heralded problems were perhaps even more telling.

In 1994, House operations were essentially designed to launder funds to support incumbents. Most member services, including printing, mailing and the photography studio, were hidden in large revolving accounts. There was no way to tell who was spending what. Those fees that were traceable were usually mere shadows of the true costs to taxpayers.

At the time, personal services to members and staff — beauty parlors, barbershops, shoeshine stands and gift shops — were all losing money. Members could buy office furniture for their personal use, paying one dollar for a leather chair or $1.75 for a mahogany executive desk. Incompetent managers permitted sordid abuses of patronage, including sinecures for mistresses and relatives.

None of this was revealed because accounting practices for the House’s nearly $1 billion annual budget were surreal. Most of the House’s expenditures could not even be documented. Figures were compiled on antiquated handwritten ledgers and were riddled with errors. District office leases were negotiated over the telephone with little or no paperwork.

There were no inventories of House furniture or equipment. A five-story warehouse in Washington, occupying a third of a city block, was stuffed with everything from 19th-century antique clocks to packing crates loaded with office supplies. Yet the warehouse was not even listed on the books.

House accounting practices were so wretched that when the first real independent audit of the House was attempted in 1995, auditors concluded that too little financial information existed for them to render judgment.

During the 104th Congress, from 1995 to 1997, a bipartisan reform effort cleaned up some of the worst abuses. Members reorganized House operations, placing a respected former Secret Service agent in charge of a revamped sergeant-at-arms office as well as naming me to the new position of chief administrative officer, in charge of overseeing management changes. Competitive job postings, an open and fair procurement process and other reforms replaced the traditional patchwork of patronage, cronyism and collusion.

Reform paid handsomely. In less than two years the House received a “clean” audit from Price Waterhouse and realized budget savings of $148 million. An additional $39 million in savings was reinvested in networked computers to bring the House into the information age. In addition, excess furniture was sold at auction, the mysterious warehouse was closed and member services actually began generating profits.

However, as revolutionary passion faded and incumbency extended, the Republican majority backed away from the ultimate reform: true transparency of House operations.

Democrats will soon be in a position to pick up the torch. For starters, they should publish House finances online and make them fully searchable. My office produced a prototype Web site for the Republicans in 1996 but they squashed it. Our intent was to develop reporting formats and explanatory notes understandable to everyone. But this was more disclosure than the leadership could stomach.

In addition, Democrats should make all House meetings viewable online. The House should install two digital cameras in every committee and subcommittee room, with one facing the rostrum and another facing the witness table. The Republicans rejected an earlier version of this proposal in 1995, saying, in effect, “Not that public!”

This expansion of public access would erode the power of K Street lobbyists who use “insider” information gleaned from committee meetings to justify their fees. If everyone can see the same thing at the same time, much of the lobbyists’ cachet will evaporate. And if Democrats truly want to exercise oversight of the executive branch, something we haven’t seen for a while, Web- and pod-casting will make sure Americans can watch oversight hearings in their entirety without news producers mediating the proceedings.

These fundamental reforms would reshape government to serve all Americans. They would improve democracy, rebuild faith in government and — are you listening, Democrats? — quite likely extend the majority status of any party that is open and honest enough to enact them.

Scot M. Faulkner was the chief administrative officer of the House of Representatives from 1995 to 1997.