[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 140 (Wednesday, October 2, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H12255-H12259]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   MILITARY INFILTRATION OF THE HOUSE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, 3 months ago, I was looking at Business 
Week magazine and I came across an article that caught my eye. It was 
called ``Newt's War Games''. It talked about how the Speaker of the 
House had asked the Pentagon for military officers to be put in his 
office to help him assess strategy and tactics for maintaining party 
unity. That was the quote in the magazine. ``Party unity'' implies 
heavy partisan activity.
  Obviously this revelation concerned me a lot, because this House has 
very stringent rules about who can be working in our offices for very 
good reasons. We say that only fellows, if we have fellows in our 
office, they must be supported by outside third-party groups. We are 
not allowed to go solicit volunteers in our office or allow volunteers 
in our office. And if we want detailees from other agencies, House 
rules say detailees can only come to a committee and that is only after 
the committee gets permission from the Committee on House Oversight, 
and then the agency sending the detailee is to be reimbursed. Well, 
none of these things have happened in this case. The officers have come 
over and this has been going on now for a very long time. I guess, as I 
stated before, the biggest concern is the work that they are doing and 
partisan activities.
  If you go back and look at the record, the Speaker himself was quoted 
as saying that the 1994 campaign was a theater level campaign plan, or 
what we often call a TRADOC, a training and doctrine command thing. He 
said its implementation was just masquerading as a public relations 
device.

                             {time}   1415

  After the 1994 election, he wanted DOD to supply him with these 
officers to help him pass the Republican agenda. I find it incredible 
that the Pentagon would comply.
  I asked the Pentagon how many people were there, what this was 
costing, what services were they from, and that was in June. We have 
still not heard a thing. However, a reporter has told me that when he 
was talking to one of the staff people in Secretary Perry's office, 
they said, ``Oh, that Schroeder woman. She is retiring, we will just 
out wait her. We do not have to answer.'' I find it amazing that even 
the Pentagon thinks they are above the law.
  At the same time all of this was going on, I remind you, this House 
was doing away with the Caucus on Women's Issues, the Black Caucus, the 
Hispanic Caucus, the Environmental Caucus, and the Democratic Study 
Group. We were doing away with all of those on the basis we did not 
want those different bipartisan groups meeting here. But, by golly, in 
the interim, we have the Pentagon infiltrating this Congress through 
different offices and working on highly partisan activities.
  A lot of people would say, why in the world would the Pentagon do 
this? The only reason I can see is it has been profitable for them. 
They ended up with a Pentagon number that was almost $12 billion more 
than the administration had asked for. So there was indeed a great 
payback.
  I got a big kick out of it, because the Armed Forces Journal this 
month gave me both a congressional dart and a congressional laurel. 
They said, first of all, my concern about this issue was just too 
conspiratorial. How in the world could I think that having these 
military officers deployed to key congressional offices mean that they 
were going to get increases in their budget?
  But then it went on to say they did wish that I would look into which 
services these different people were from, because it could have fed 
the inter-service rivalry.
  That does not make sense. If it fed the interservice rivalry, it 
probably also fed the increase in the budget.
  Then they went on to give me a laurel, pointing out that I was 
correct in condemning the Secretary of Defense for not having any way 
of tracking these. There is no system, he does not know where they went 
or who they are, or at least that is what we are hearing.
  If we have military officers, which cost us a lot, that are trained 
to do military things, that are deployed around, and they do not know 
where they are and they do not know what they are doing, that truly is 
astounding. So the Armed Forces Journal gave me a laurel for that. The 
bottom line is, a couple weeks ago I filed a freedom of information 
request, and we are continuing to try to get to the bottom of this.
  Mr. Speaker, I know my time is up, but I would like to include for 
the Record the articles around this to make this issue even clearer. I 
certainly hope this Congress gets to the bottom of this mess and stops 
the violation of our laws.
  Mr. Speaker, 3 months ago a small story in Business Week caught my 
eye. Entitled ``Newt's War Games,'' the story revealed that the Speaker 
of the House had asked the Pentagon for military officers to help him 
assess strategy and tactics for maintaining party unity.
  This revelation raised, in my mind, several concerns. First, the 
officers working for the Speaker violate House rules governing fellows 
and detailees.
  Fellows are supposed to be sponsored by a third-party sponsoring 
organization. Congressional offices cannot solicit or recruit 
volunteers. That is clearly not the case with the military officers 
working in the Speaker's office. The military officers are volunteers, 
not fellows, and the Speaker has recruited them.
  Detailees can only be requested by committees, and then only 
following strict guidelines. Among the strict guidelines is that the 
requesting committee obtain approval from the House Committee on 
Oversight and that the committee reimburse the executive branch agency 
for the cost of the detailee. None of these rules are being followed by 
the Speaker's office.
  Even more outrageous, the military officers are working on partisan, 
political activities in the Speaker's office, which is a violation of 
DOD regulations.
  The Speaker himself is quoted at a meeting of military officers as 
saying that the 1994 campaign was ``a TRADOC [Training and Doctrine 
Command] theater-level campaign plan.'' He described the Contract With 
America as a ``training, implementation document masquerading as a 
public relations device.'' After the 1994 election, he requested DOD to 
supply him with officers to help him pass the Republican agenda in the 
104th Congress. Incredibly, the Pentagon happily obliged.
  Some of you may recall that when the Republicans took over the House 
following the 1994 elections they moved quickly to abolish the caucuses 
that represented women, Blacks, Hispanics, and environmentalists. They 
even eliminated the venerable Democratic Study Group, a research entity 
so respected that even Republicans belonged to it.
  But the Republican leadership could not tolerate dissent, could not 
tolerate differing opinions.
  But, at the same time, unbeknownst to the public until now, the newly 
elected Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, was making arrangements to 
install a secret team of military officers in his office to help him 
strategize and pass the Contract With America.
  What did the Pentagon get out of this deal? It's hard to tell, 
because everything has been so secret, but clearly the Pentagon is 
happy when it makes Members of Congress happy. When it can make the 
Speaker of the House happy, well, that approaches ecstasy in military 
circles.
  You may have noticed that the House passed a DOD authorization bill 
giving the Pentagon almost $12 billion more than the administration 
requested. That's not a bad return on DOD's investment in the Speaker's 
office.
  Earlier this year, the Speaker issued orders to pump millions of 
dollars into California in hopes of influencing the elections out 
there. Were the Speaker's secret military team involved in those 
efforts--identifying military installations to receive additional 
moneys?

[[Page H12256]]

  Ever since that July 1 article in Business Week, I have been trying 
to get the Pentagon to provide me with documents about its secret 
arrangement with the House Speaker. The Secretary of Defense has 
refused to answer the letters.
  Fortunately, Roll Call, via the Freedom of Information Act, is 
beginning to uncover the facts. The September 30 issue carried a long, 
detailed expose', with more to come.
  I would like to reprint the Roll Call article, along with some other 
related clippings, and my correspondence, as yet unanswered, with the 
Pentagon.

               [From the Armed Forces Journal, Oct. 1996]

       In August, Rep. Pat. Schroeder (D-CO) inserted a statement 
     in the Congressional Record noting that there were numerous 
     military servicepeople working in congressional offices. 
     Schroeder attributed the Pentagon's willingness to provide 
     detailees to its thirst for increased appropriations. It's 
     true that the high command is usually very willing to provide 
     detailees. But it was wrong to attribute the prevalence of 
     detailees to some of nefarious conspiracy. Most of the people 
     detailed to Congress are very professional people. Congress 
     benefits from their military experience and knowledge, while 
     they gain valuable insight into the political process. It's 
     no conspiracy. However, if Schroeder's genuinely interested 
     in pursuing this subject, she should ask to what degree the 
     detailees pay out inter-service rivalries.
       Although Rep. Pat Schroeder (D-CO), gets an AFJI Dart for 
     her August statement on military detailees to Congress (she 
     observed that the Office of the Secretary of Defense has no 
     system for tracking which servicepeople go to which offices), 
     she also gets a Laurel. These should be such a system. If, as 
     she alleged, there have been ethical lapses, they should be 
     investigated. Schroeder did a service by discovering an 
     element of the civil-military relationship that needs to be 
     examined, systematized and, where needed, purified.
                                                                    ____


                   [From Business Week, July 1, 1996]

                            Newt's War Games

       Newt Gingrich is calling in the military to quell 
     rebellions by conservative Republican freshmen. The Speaker 
     has asked three officers on loan from the Pentagon to help 
     assess strategy and tactics for maintaining party unity. The 
     most recent brush with disaster came on June 13 when a mutiny 
     by 15 frosh nearly sank Gingrich's 1997 budget blueprint. The 
     Georgian, a former Army brat who never served, is an avid 
     student of military history.
                                                                    ____


                     [From Roll Call, July 1, 1996]

                           General Gingrich?

       Is House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga) improperly using 
     military officers and facilities for political work? That's 
     the question raised by a spate of recent stories. Gingrich 
     himself has been silent on the subject; it's time he spoke 
     up.
       The flap began when Business Week reported that Gingrich 
     had asked three officers on loan from the Pentagon to assess 
     the GOP leadership's strategy and tactics for maintaining 
     party unity. This led Rep. Pat Schroeder (D-Colo) to demand 
     an explanation from Defense Secretary William Perry. 
     Gingrich's press secretary, Tony Blankley, then said not to 
     worry, the officers are Congressional fellows working in 
     Gingrich's office ``to learn the culture of the Congressional 
     decision-making process.''
       But then, Roll Call learned that several military officers 
     were participating in a military-style ``after action 
     review'' on how the GOP leadership nearly lost a fight over 
     its own budget earlier this month. And the Wall Street 
     Journal reported that Gingrich has sent GOP leaders and their 
     aides to US Army Training and Doctrine Command facilities to 
     learn how the military conducts such ``after action reviews'' 
     This surely would cross the line of using government 
     facilities for partisan political work. When he was asked 
     about all this, House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas) 
     last week defended the Speaker with faint praise, saying that 
     Gingrich ``has a keen mind'' and is fascinated with military 
     thinking. Gingrich needs to explain for himself.
                                                                    ____


               [From the Washington Times, July 8, 1996]

                 Do Military Officers and Politics Mix?

                             (By Rick Maze)

       To House Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia, the proposition 
     must have seemed clear. He wanted a military-style, after-
     action report to show why the Republicans nearly lost a June 
     vote on their balanced budget plan.
       So he turned to four military officers, on loan to his 
     office as part of a one-year congressional fellowship 
     program, to provide one.
       Gingrich's order to the four officers, one from each 
     service, has opened questions about the purpose and value of 
     loaning military officers for nonmilitary duties.
       Rep. Patricia Schroeder, D-Colo., a senior member of the 
     House National Security Committee, complained that the ``use 
     of military officers for partisan political activity is, in 
     my view, totally improper.''
       So now Schroeder wants the Department of Defense to explain 
     how and why there are military officers working for Congress.
       Gingrich spokesman Tony Blankley defended the assignment, 
     however, insisting the officers, assigned to the speaker's 
     office since March, are not involved in partisan politics.
       The four officers are Navy Cmdr. William Luti, Marine Lt. 
     Col. Drew Bennett, Air Force Maj. William Bruner III and Army 
     Maj. Mike Barron. All four declined to be interviewed for 
     this article.
       Gingrich's aides said they saw nothing wrong with the 
     assignments. The whole ides of the fellowship is to provide 
     some military members with an education in the legislative 
     process, they said.
       Reconstructing why the Republican leadership only won a 
     June 12 vote on the 1997 budget resolution by a narrow 216-
     211 margin was a learning process for the officers, and also 
     helped Republicans learn where they failed.
       ``This program, like other fellowship programs, is designed 
     to mutually benefit the fellow and the office in which he or 
     she serves,'' Blankley said. ``The fellows are here to learn 
     the culture of the congressional decision-making process, 
     while the office benefits from the perspective the fellow 
     brings from his or her profession outside the legislative 
     process.''
       Congressional fellowships, involving a one-year assignment 
     to a congressional office, are not new. But the practice is 
     growing, according to defense officials and congressional 
     aides.
       Although defense officials and congressional aides said no 
     one keeps count of how many officers are given fellowships 
     each year, they estimate there are hundreds of military 
     officers participating in a loose-knit fellowship program.
       ``No one has a good handle on how many people. It isn't 
     that kind of program,'' said a Senate Democratic aide who 
     asked not to be identified. By contrast, the White House has 
     a formal fellowship program for military officers in which 
     people apply for assignments, are screened and selected, the 
     aide said.


                           who gets the jobs

       For congressional fellowships, it is usually a member of 
     Congress who asks that the military detail an officer to the 
     staff, the aide said.
       Sometimes, this is done by name, sometimes by what kind of 
     expertise is sought and sometimes by just a general request, 
     the aide said.
       Fellowships are a benefit to politicians because they get 
     an additional staff member at no cost.
       The military benefits by keeping a potentially supportive 
     politician happy and, perhaps, by gaining a pipeline into 
     congressional dealings.
       Indeed that pipeline has been a problem at times. The 
     Senate Armed Services Committee has at various times banned 
     such officers from attending closed-door executive sessions 
     where defense policy is made, precisely because of leaks that 
     were reaching the services or defense agencies from which the 
     officers came, aides said. Congressional fellows are now 
     allowed to attend closed meetings on behalf of their 
     sponsoring senator, however. ``It was a problem with just one 
     or two people,'' said a long-time aide.


                             hazardous duty

       The hazards of outside-the-military assignments were made 
     clear in the Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages scandal of the 
     1980s, when Marine Corps Lt. Col. Oliver North faced scrutiny 
     for his work on the National Security Council.
       In a new case, Army civilian Anthony Marceca is in the 
     middle of a controversy involving an assignment to the White 
     House that ended in 1994.
       Marceca, who now works in an Army criminal fraud unit, was 
     called to testify before Congress about FBI background 
     reports he requested and screened while on loan to the White 
     House security office. This wasn't his first detail outside 
     the Army. In 1989, he spent nine months on loan to the Senate 
     Committee on Indian Affairs as a special investigator.
       But congressional aides said Marceca and North don't 
     represent the typical experience.
       Said one Senate aide: ``Our biggest problem with 
     fellowships is that, as the number increases, it is taking 
     more officers away from military duties at the same time the 
     services have gotten smaller.''
                                                                    ____


               [From the Air Force Times, July 15, 1996]

 Fellowships Draw Political Heat--Schroeder Complains That Military is 
                      Used in Partisan Activities

                             (By Rick Maze)

       To House Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia, the proposition 
     must have seemed clear. He wanted a military-style, after-
     action report to show why the Republicans nearly lost a June 
     vote on their balanced-budget plan.
       So he turned to four military officers, on loan to his 
     office as part of a one-year congressional fellowship 
     program, to provide one.
       Gingrich's order to the four officers, one from each 
     service, has opened questions about the purpose and value of 
     loaning military officers for nonmilitary duties.
       Rep. Patricia Schroeder, D-Colo., a senior member of the 
     House National Security Committee, complained that the ``use 
     of military officers for partisan political activity is, in 
     my view, totally improper.''
       Schroeder wants the Department of Defense to explain how 
     and why there are military officers working for Congress.
       Gingrich spokesman Tony Blankley defended the assignment, 
     saying the officers

[[Page H12257]]

     assigned to the speaker's office since March are not involved 
     in partisan politics.
       The four officers are Air Force Maj. William Bruner II, 
     Marine Lt. Col. Drew Bennett, Army Maj. Mike Barron and Navy 
     Cmdr. William Luti. They declined to be interviewed for this 
     article, referring questions to Gingrich's press office.
       The whole idea of the fellowship is to provide some 
     military members with an education in the legislative 
     process. Reconstructing why the Republican leadership won a 
     June 12 vote on the 1997 budget resolution by a narrow 216-
     211 ratio was a learning process for the officers while it 
     helped Republicans learn where they failed, leadership aides 
     said.
       ``This program, like other fellowship programs, is designed 
     to mutually benefit the fellow and the office in which he or 
     she serves,'' Blankley said. ``The fellows are here to learn 
     the culture of the congressional decision-making process, 
     while the office benefits from the perspective the fellow 
     brings from his or her profession outside the legislative 
     process.''
       Congressional fellowships, involving a one-year assignment 
     to a congressional office, are not new, although the practice 
     is growing, according to defense officials and congressional 
     aides.
       Gingrich is not the only member of Congress to have 
     military officers working for him. Although defense officials 
     and congressional aides said no one has kept count, they 
     estimate there are hundreds of military officers 
     participating in a loosely knit fellowship program.
       ``No one has a good handle on how many people. It isn't 
     that kind of program,'' said a Senate Democratic aide who 
     asked not to be identified. The White House has a formal 
     fellowship program for military officers in which people 
     apply for assignments, are screened and selected, the aide 
     said.
       For congressional fellowships, it is usually a member of 
     Congress who asks that the military detail an officer to the 
     staff, the aide said. Sometimes this is done by name, 
     sometimes by what kind of expertise is sought and sometimes 
     by just a general request, the aide said.
       Fellowships are a benefit to politicians because they get 
     an additional staff member at no cost, according to 
     congressional aides who asked not to be identified. The 
     military benefits by keeping a potentially supportive 
     politician happy. The services may also get a pipeline into 
     congressional dealings, aides said.
       With many senators sponsoring congressional fellows, the 
     Senate Armed Services Committee has at various times banned 
     military officers on congressional staffs from attending 
     closed-door executive sessions where defense policy is made 
     because word was leaking back to the services or defense 
     agencies from which the officers came, aides said.
       ``It was a problem and with just one or two people,'' said 
     a longtime aide, who noted congressional fellows are now 
     allowed to attend closed meetings on behalf of their 
     sponsoring senator.
       The attention brought to Bennett, Luti, Bruner and Barron 
     sends a new warning to potential fellows, whether service 
     member or civilians working for the military, and civilian, 
     about the risks of temporary assignments.
       The hazards of outside-the-military assignments were made 
     clear in the Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages scandal of the 
     1980s, when Marine Lt. Col. Oliver North faced scrutiny for 
     his work on the National Security Council.
       In a new case, Army civilian Anthony Marceca is in the 
     middle of a controversy involving an assignment to the White 
     House that ended in 1994.
       Marceca, who now works for an Army criminal fraud unit, was 
     called to testify before Congress about FBI background 
     reports he requested and screened while on loan to the White 
     House security office.
       This was not his first detail outside the Army. In 1989, he 
     spent nine months on loan to the Senate Committee on Indian 
     Affairs as a special investigator.
                                                                    ____


                    [From Roll Call, Sept. 30, 1996]

 General Gingrich Ices the 104th Congress--Speaker Deployed Art of War 
                       in His Plan for the House

                           (By Damon Chappie)

       At the US Army's Fort Monroe, where onlookers once watched 
     the Civil War clash between the Monitor and the Merrimack, 
     the trading of war stories by some of the military's finest 
     strategists is a daily occurrence.
       But on a warm spring day last year, generals and colonels 
     gather to hear tales from a different sort of commander, 
     House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga), fresh off his greatest 
     victory.
       ``The 1994 campaign was a TRADOC, theater-level campaign 
     plan, executed by building small-unit cohesion, delegating 
     throughout with mission-type orders, and designed to have 
     real-time capability to respond to an opponent that was 
     changing, period. I know it was. I have lived it,'' Gingrich 
     declared to the assembled officers.
       What's a TRADOC? It's Army-speak for the Training and 
     Doctrine Command, headquartered at Fort Monroe, Va., where 
     officers come to learn about fighting the modern war. In 
     Gingrich-speak, it's the place to go to learn about fighting 
     the modern political war.
       And as Gingrich, the stepson of a career Army combat 
     officer who never served in the military himself, candidly 
     admitted, ``Almost every major thing I have done for over a 
     decade has been directly shaped by TRADOC.''
       In numerous trips to Fort Monroe and other Army 
     installations across the country since he was elected to 
     Congress in 1978, Gingrich learned lessons that, he told the 
     senior officers last year, ``changed my entire life.''
       The Speaker has had a well-publicized fascination with 
     other management theories, borrowing heavily from the likes 
     of such corporate gurus as W. Edwards Deming. But, as 
     documented in Army memos and tape-recordings obtained by Roll 
     Call, it has been military inspiration that has guided 
     Gingrich's generalship of the House Republican revolution.
       Gingrich himself explained this in a series of freewheeling 
     discussions with the senior officers who developed the modern 
     Army's tactics. Those conversations, during visits by the 
     speaker to Fort Monroe in 1993 and 1995, were recorded on 
     nearly ten hours of audio-tape by the Army and obtained by 
     Roll Call under the Freedom of Information Act.
       And if the contract was basic training, Gingrich has 
     introduced other military concepts to the House throughout 
     his Speakership:
       Gingrich bolstered his staff with four military fellows, 
     one from each of the four services, an unprecedented step for 
     a sitting Speaker.
       ``The Speaker has for a long time been impressed with the 
     methodologies often employed in the military in order to 
     better understand and improve their own operation,'' said 
     House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas) after news stories 
     appeared this summer about the military fellows in the 
     Speaker's office. ``We were going to raise a tremendous 
     amount of anger, therefore, what we ought to do is go ahead 
     and get to a balanced budget so there was an upside to the 
     downside. Because otherwise we would cut spending just enough 
     to piss everybody off but not enough to achieve anything. And 
     there was no way to avoid cutting spending. * * * And so, I 
     began just casually saying the week after the election, we're 
     going to get to a balanced budget by 2002.''
       House Budget Chairman John Kasich (R-Ohio) and Senate 
     Budget Chairman Pete Domenici (R-NM) resisted at first but 
     finally relented. ``What I was trying to do was create a core 
     of a paradigmatic breakthrough'' that was designed to 
     outflank then-Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan).
       If a balanced budget by 2002 was the accepted standard, 
     Dole ``sure as hell wasn't going to be to my left,'' Gingrich 
     said.
       Gingrich, in his discussions at TRADOC, offered many of his 
     own ideas on military policy, freely giving his advice on how 
     the Army could improve its work. In addition to stressing 
     that the Army should seek to expand and integrate its 
     futuristic doctrine to the other service branches, the 
     Speaker called for a new emphasis on fighting ``small wars'' 
     and the establishment of a unified command to combat 
     terrorism.
       But Gingrich readily acknowledged that ``I've learned more 
     out of this place than it's learned from me. So I'm doing 
     pretty well. So far, the balance of trade looks pretty good. 
     * * *''
       At Fort Leavenworth, in Kansas, Gingrich said he had to 
     relearn his thinking about ``small unit cohesion'' because 
     ``I wasn't doing it right.'' But eventually, he got it right 
     and used the concept to ensure victory after victory in the 
     first months of the new Congress.
       Along with hundreds of pages of additional documents 
     obtained under FOIA, the tapes provide new insights into the 
     deep fascination and symbiotic relationship that Gingrich has 
     developed with the military.
       Most striking is the explicit way in which the Speaker has 
     sought to adapt the Army's war-fighting concepts to his own 
     political battles--from Gingrich's early days at GOPAC, his 
     Republican training center, to his command these past two 
     years of House Republicans during victories on welfare reform 
     and spending cuts and a decisive defeat in the balanced 
     budget battle.
       From the most theoretical discussion of military doctrine--
     featuring terms like ``digitized battlelabs,'' ``center of 
     gravity,'' ``operational art,'' and ``commander's intent''--
     to the very practical use of the Army's standard field 
     manual, Gingrich, ever the history professor, is the most 
     eager of students, the tapes and other documents show.
       One military-style lesson, Gingrich told the TRADOC senior 
     officers in May 1995, was applied in the much-touted 
     ``Contract with America,'' which the Speaker said was not a 
     political public-relations effort as much as a basic training 
     document.
       ``Nobody fully understands this,'' he confided to the 
     generals and other officers, ``but if you think of the 
     `Contract with America,' it was, in fact, a training 
     implementation document masquerading as a public relations 
     device which allowed us--and it was designed for this 
     purpose--it was designed, because we felt we were in control. 
     It was designed as a training implementation document so the 
     freshmen when they arrived and the brand new chairmen could 
     not be normal.''
       ``It guaranteed that from Election Day through April, early 
     April, that the House Republican party would have to behave 
     in a deviant manner from what it would normally be expected 
     to do. The theory being is that if you could get them through 
     the first 100 days being deviant, that the deviancy would 
     become normal'' Gingrich said.

[[Page H12258]]

       Gingrich bolstered his staff with four military fellows, 
     one from each of the four services, an unprecedented step for 
     a sitting Speaker.
       At the Pentagon, according to a source who declined to be 
     identified, the fellows working in Gingrich's office were 
     called ``Shali's interns,'' referring to the favor by Gen. 
     John Shalikashvili, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staffs, 
     who sent up the fellows to Gingrich.
       One of the Army fellows, Gingrich said in the tapes, is 
     ``in any meeting I have that he wants to be and he is working 
     directly with my staff in understanding the rhythm of what 
     we're doing.''
       Military-style ``after-action reviews,'' assessing the 
     performance of an operation, were conducted on the battles 
     over the 1995 spending bills and the razor-thin vote this 
     year on the budget. Another after-action review, GOP sources 
     said, is being contemplated by the leadership to assess this 
     session.
       Gingrich ordered the GOP leadership staff as well as junior 
     Members to attend training seminars at Fort Monroe and other 
     bases around the country.
       The project, led by Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich), 
     ``represents Speaker Gingrich's-Majority Planning Group that 
     the Speaker wants to act as a TRADOC,'' according to an Army 
     memo.
       The group, which attended sessions on the ``operational art 
     of war,'' included Reps. Chris Shays (R-Conn), J.D. Hayworth 
     (R-Ariz), Sue Myrick (R-NC), and James Talent (R-Mo). 
     Gingrich, according to Army documents, wanted to train the 
     Members to the level of ``a good captain.''
       ``He is always fascinated with questions of methodology, 
     technique, style, and it is his belief that using and 
     learning the methods often employed in the military as 
     management tools can be beneficial to us.''
       The study of military strategy, said Tony Blankley, 
     Gingrich's spokesman, ``is an important part of his life.''
       In the tapes, Gingrich says that his relationship with the 
     Army's doctrine center took off in 1979, his first year in 
     Congress, but even then, he had a general's long-term view of 
     a military campaign. ``I first came down here as a freshman 
     in 1979 because I figured it would take a generation,'' he 
     said last year.
       ``He's been coming down here for 15 or 20 years,'' said 
     Joel Hedenstrom of TRADOC's Congressional liaison office. 
     ``Newt has had a great interest in TRADOC for many, many 
     years. He has steeped himself in military doctrine. I think 
     it stems from his being a historian and a military brat.''
       In 1993, as he prepared for the final drive that routed the 
     Democrats from their entrenched position as the House 
     majority, Gingrich told the TRADOC senior officers that ``my 
     interest in what you're doing is at a passionate level of the 
     user. You talked earlier about being able to provide assets 
     to people who are sent to combat environments. I am in combat 
     every day, so I have a real user desire to figure what's the 
     state of the art on training, what is the state of the art on 
     doctrine, the state of the art on technology, because I will 
     literally take that back and transfer it back into the 
     civilian system as rapidly as I can figure out how to do 
     it.''
       And Gingrich has been true to his plan. Not only the 
     contract, but also nearly every significant event of this 
     Congress has been framed by the Speaker in military terms.
       Gingrich, in the tapes, said he studied the battles of 
     Arthur Wellesley, the Duke of Wellington, ``because I think 
     our budget fight is a lot like the Peninsular Campaign,'' a 
     campaign in Portugal and Spain in the early 1800s that 
     eventually led to Wellington's ascendance and Napoleon's 
     abdication.
       In another ``quick war story'' for the officers, Gingrich 
     described how he pushed his GOP Congressional allies to 
     accept the idea of balancing the budget by 2002.
       At Fort Leavenworth, in Kansas, Gingrich said he had to 
     relearn his thinking about ``small unit cohesion'' because 
     ``I wasn't doing it right.'' But eventually, he got it right 
     and used the concept to ensure victory after victory in the 
     first months of the new Congress.
       And Gingrich ordered his troops about like the most 
     seasoned of generals. He told GOP Whip Tom DeLay (Texas), who 
     had just beaten Gingrich's best friend, Rep. Bob Walker (R-
     Pa), for the job, that ``it's not your job to count votes. 
     It's your job to ensure victory.''
       The strategy, Gingrich recalled, had worked.
       ``Just one quick war story. The Whip wanted a huge office 
     space in the Capitol. I mean, it was the Taj Mahal of all of 
     our [office space]. And I looked at him, and he said, `I've 
     got to have this much space because I don't have enough 
     money, and I'm going to convince each of my deputy whips that 
     they have a little office in the Capitol if they will then 
     assign one of their staff from their personal office, so we 
     can have this massive vote-counting system.'
       ``And I said, `Understand this. I will have your ass if we 
     lose a vote.' And he looked at me, he said--he got a big 
     grin, and he said, `Deal.' And so I gave him the things. And 
     we came a couple of times close, I just stared at him when we 
     had a couple of very close votes.
       ``And I said, `I am watching you.' He said, `We are going 
     to win.' ''
       For Gingrich, it was a demonstration that the ``ultimate 
     responsibility of the commander'' is to define victory.
       ``And he shouldn't accept the command if he can't get to a 
     definition of victory or success that he believes--it is 
     professionally irresponsible.''
                                                                    ____

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                    Washington, DC, June 21, 1996.
     Hon. William Perry,
     Secretary, Department of Defense
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Perry: I am extremely troubled by the 
     disclosure in the current issue of Business Week that Speaker 
     of the House Newt Gingrich ``has asked three officers on loan 
     from the Pentagon to help assess strategy and tactics for 
     maintaining party unity.''
       Would you be so kind as to tell me (1) why the Pentagon is 
     detailing officers to the Speaker; (2) how many officers have 
     been detailed; (3) what duties the officers have been given 
     by the Speaker; and (4) what are the estimated annual 
     salaries of these officers:
       Second, I request copies of any and all communications 
     between the Pentagon and Speaker Gingrich concerning this 
     arrangement. I also request copies of any written 
     communications, memoranda, etc., on the aforementioned 
     ``party unity'' project.
       Third, I would like to know, for the record, whether it is 
     a legitimate use of taxpayer funds for military personnel to 
     be providing advice on ``maintaining party unity,'' which is 
     clearly a partisan objective.
       Please respond at your earliest convenience.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Pat Schroeder,
     Congresswoman.
                                                                    ____

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                    Washington, DC, June 24, 1996.
     Hon. William Perry,
     Secretary, Department of Defense
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Perry: On June 21 I wrote to you concerning 
     a report in Business Week that the Pentagon has loaned House 
     Speaker Newt Gingrich several military officers ``To help 
     assess strategy and tactics for maintaining party unity.'' On 
     Friday, according to the Associated Press, the Speaker's 
     press aide confirmed that four officers are assigned to his 
     office, but denied that they have any ``responsibilities in 
     connection with achieving `party unity.' ''
       That denial notwithstanding, Roll Call reports in today's 
     edition that Speaker Gingrich ``has ordered a military-style 
     review to help the House leadership determine how they nearly 
     lost this month's budget vote.'' Assisting in the review, the 
     story continues, are ``several military officers on loan to 
     the Speaker's office from the Pentagon.'' The officers' 
     involvement was confirmed by several Members of Congress and 
     GOP staff, according to Roll Call.
       The use of military officers for partisan political 
     activity is, in my view, totally improper.
       I would like an answer by COB Thursday, June 27, to the 
     questions I raised in my June 21 letter.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Pat Schroeder,
     Congresswoman.
                                                                    ____

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                    Washington, DC, June 25, 1996.
     Hon. William Perry,
     Secretary, Department of Defense,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Secretary: In reference to my inquiries of June 21 
     and 24 concerning the military officers detailed to the 
     office of Speaker Newt Gingrich, I would like to bring to 
     your attention an article, ``General Newt,'' that prepared in 
     the Wall Street Journal on December 18, 1995.
       According to the Journal story, the ``U.S. Army Training 
     and Doctrine Command has the mission of helping develop a 
     force to fight the battles of the next century. It is also 
     helping Speaker Newt Gingrich fight the political battles of 
     today.''
       The story details how ``members of the Republican 
     leadership and their staff'' have been studying ``military 
     planning and training methods'' at the ``Tra-Doc'' centers at 
     Fort Monroe and Fort Leavenworth. More significantly in light 
     of the disclosures of the past week, the story quotes a Lt. 
     Col. David Perkins, who was at the time working out of 
     Speaker Gingrich's office ``helping the leadership run 
     military-style `after-action reviews' to identify lessons 
     learned from the handling of major bills.''
       The Journal story indicates that the use of military 
     officers by the Speaker has much deeper and more complex 
     roots than simply the odd officer who happened to wander onto 
     Capitol Hill to brush up on a civics lesson. Needless to say, 
     I reiterate my serious concerns about the appropriateness of 
     using military officers to assist in the partisan activities 
     of the leadership of the house.
       I would like to add to my requests of June 21 and 24 that 
     you provide me with the requested information for the entire 
     period of Mr. Gingrich's speakership. I would also like to 
     have copies of any and all ``after-action review'' memoranda 
     or reports written by the military officers.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Pat Schroeder,
                                                    Congresswoman.

[[Page H12259]]

     
                                                                    ____
            Schroeder Files FOIA Request on Military Fellows

       Representative Pat Schroeder (D-CO) today filed a Freedom 
     of Information Act request for copies of all documents 
     pertaining to the military personnel on loan to members of 
     the House and the Senate.
       Schroeder has questioned the use of military personnel by 
     members of Congress after reports that the Speaker of the 
     House, Newt Gingrich had used officers on loan from the 
     Pentagon to study how to maintain Republican party unity. 
     Schroeder filed the FOIA request after three letters to 
     Secretary of Defense, William Perry sent last June went 
     unanswered.
       ``Assigning military personnel to work in Congressional 
     offices raises some serious conflicts of interest. Moreover, 
     the Pentagon has no idea how many people are over here, or 
     what they are doing,'' Schroeder said. She added, ``this lack 
     of accountability is ridiculous and is costing the taxpayers 
     millions.''
       The letter, which appears below, was sent to the Chairman 
     of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense, and 
     the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force.
       ``Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act and the 
     Privacy Act I hereby request copies of any and all documents 
     including, but not limited to, letters, memoranda, and e-
     mail, for the period January 1993 to date between members of 
     congress (both House and Senate) and [DOD/Army/Navy/Air 
     Force/Joint Chiefs] concerning the assignment of interns, 
     fellows, or detailees to congressional offices. The request 
     includes any documents between [DOD/Army/Navy/Air Force/Joint 
     Chiefs] officials in reference to congressional requests for 
     such assignments.
       ``I also request copies of any and all [DOD/Army/Navy/Air 
     Force/Joint Chiefs] regulations on the subject of interns, 
     fellows, and detailees.''
                                                                    ____

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                               Washington, DC, September 28, 1996.
     Hon. William Perry,
     Secretary, Department of Defense,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Perry: The disclosure in the September 30 
     Roll Call that military personnel and facilities have been 
     and are continuing to be used for partisan political purposes 
     is extremely troubling. These activities are no doubt a 
     violation of DoD and House regulations, not to mention 
     federal law.
       But instead of taking action to do something about this 
     scandal, you have ignored it.
       As you are well aware, I asked you for information about 
     these activities last June, three months ago. Not only have 
     you not answered my letters, I haven't even received the 
     courtesy of an acknowledgement. As a result, six weeks ago I 
     filed a series of Freedom of Information Act requests. I am 
     sure your staff is doing its best to bury these requests. In 
     fact, one of your staff members recently told a reporter--
     ``oh, she's retiring, we'll just wait her out.''
       Your stonewalling on my inquiries into the use of military 
     personnel comes in the wake of a string of troubling 
     disclosures involving the defense department: the abandonment 
     of POW's in North Korea; the bungling of the investigation 
     into the Gulf War syndrome; the negligence in Saudi Arabia 
     that resulted in the deaths of 19 Americans; and the 
     discovery of certain U.S. army training manuals that 
     advocated torture, blackmail, and other illegal, immoral 
     activities.
       I would like a full report about the use of military 
     personnel in the congress and I would like it now.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Pat Schroeder,
     Congresswoman.

                          ____________________