Army Relations With Congress

Relying on extensive candid interviews from members of Congress and staff on defense authorization committees and senior Army general officers, Scroggs provides a strong insider analysis with recommendations. He examines the impact of culture on the varying abilities of public agencies, specifically the Army, to pursue its organizational interests through lobbying or liaising Congress.

Scroggs argues that despite structural similarities in how the four military services approach Congress, differences in service culture affect their relative success in achieving their goals on the Hill. Scroggs draws four major conclusions. First, despite a law prohibiting lobbying of Congress by public agencies, Congress views lobbying or liaising by public entities, especially the military services, not only as a legitimate activity, but essential to Members carrying out their constitutional responsibilities.

Second, relative to the other services, the Army is viewed by Congress as the least effective in its lobbying. Third, the Army's patterned approach with Congress is largely a function of its unrecognized and uncompensated culture in the unique terrain of the nation's capital. Fourth, because of the need for balanced service representation to Congress, relatively less effective Army efforts have troubling implications for national security and Army self-interest.

Review: From Bunker Hill to San Juan Hill to Pork Chop Hill, America's Army has always fought with fervor...the exception has been Capitol Hill, where our Army has a long history of failing to make its case in the Battle of the Budget. Steve Scroggs incisively explains why this has been the case--and what might be done in the nation's interest to permit our Army's needs to be more effectively expressed in the halls of Washington. -Norman R.

Augustine Former Under Secretary of the Army Chairman of the Executive Committee, Lockheed Martin Corporation