out in regard to functions, relations with Congress, and in relation to public opinion; and the likelihood that the National Security Council will be a permanent feature of American government.'

The military and U.S. foreign policy planning. Journal of international affairs, v. 7, No. 2, 1954: 139-222.

Morton, Louis. The decision to use the atomic bomb. Foreign Affairs, v. 35, January 1957: 334-352.

"Background to the decision to use the bomb on Japan in World War II; and military considerations in arriving at the decision."

Murphy, Robert. Interlocking elements in our national security. Department of State Bulletin, v. 36, Mar. 25, 1957: 475-479.

Discusses "the interlocking role of the various elements going into our national security. In essence these boil down to four elements-political military, economic, and psychological."

Murphy, Robert D.

The interrelationship of military power and foreign policy. Department of State Bulletin, v. 31, Aug. 30,

1954: 291-294.

Murphy, Robert D. The soldier and the diplomat. Foreign Service Journal, v. 29, May 1952: 17-19, 49-50.

Norris, John G. Congress takes over-military decisions shift from Pentagon. Washington Post, July 4, 1959: A7.

Phillips, Thomas R. Unqualified agencies make defense budget decisions. Register and Defense Times, v. 80, Aug. 1, 1959: 21.

"The failure of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to correlate the budget with strategic requirements has put this decision in the hands of the money men ***. The money men, the Defense Department comptroller and the Bureau of the Budget, keep on dividing up the pot in the same proportion that it has been divided previously without regard to changing weapons systems and separate service requirements.'

Radway, Laurence I. Uniforms and mufti: what place in policy? Public Administration Review, v. 18, Summer 1958: 180-185.

Civil-military relations in determining defense policy.

Reinhardt, George C., and William R. Kintner. Policy: matrix of strategy. U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, v. 80, February

1954: 144-155.

"National policy should provide the basis of strategy and thus determine the character of military operations through which strategy is expressed ***. Illustrations from the military history of the U.S. and other countries showing the relationship between national policy and strategy."

Rogers, Lindsay. Our brass-bound foreign policy. Reporter, v. 7, Oct. 28, 1952: 14-16.

On the influence of military authorities on our foreign policy. Snyder, Richard C., and Glenn D. Paige. The United States decision to resist aggression in Korea: the application of an analytical scheme. Evanston, Ill., Graduate School, Department of Political Science, Northwestern University [1959], 341-378 p.

"*** article is part of a larger effort to learn more about the character of one vital decision, to study decision making as an action process *** Foreign policy decision making is regarded as a special case of decision making in complex organizations ***."

Stimson, Henry L. The decision to use the atomic bomb. Harper's, v. 194; February 1947: 97-107.

Sunderland, R. The soldier's relation to foreign policy. U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, v. 69, September 1943: 1170-1175.

Warner, Albert L. How the Korea decision was made. Harper's magazine, v. 202, June 1951: 99–106.

"There is reconstructed here the play-by-play account of what went on. The story comes from the memories of a number of the top participants in the Washington conferences."

Wylie, J. C., Jr. Reflections on the war in the Pacific. U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, v. 78. April 1952: 351–361.

"Evaluation of World War II strategic decisions and actions."

F. CONGRESS

1. BOOKS

Acheson, Dean G. A citizen looks at Congress. [1st ed.] New York, Harper [1957]. 124 p.

Brief analysis of Congress, the Presidency, and legislative-executive relations which is of special interest given the author's experience in national security policy processes and decisions.

American Academy of Political and Social Science, Philadelphia. Congress and foreign relations; edited by Thorsten V. Kalijarvi [and] Chester E. Merrow. Philadelphia, 1953. 245 p. (Its Annals, v. 289.)

Partial contents: The place of Congress in foreign relations, by Ernest S. Griffith. The Senate in foreign relations, by Guy M. Gillette. The Committee on Foreign Relations, by Alexander Wiley. The House of Representatives in foreign affairs by James P. Richards.

Com

The Committee on Foreign Affairs, by Robert B. Chiperfield. mittees touching foreign relations indirectly, by Michael H. Cardozo. Influence of noncongressional pressures on foreign policy, by Franklin L. Burdette. Congress and the Department of State, by Ben H. Brown, Jr. Executive-congressional liaison, by Estes Kefauver. Information and intelligence for Congress, by H. Alexander Smith.

Congressional travel abroad and reports, by A. S. J. Carnahan. The meaning of the term "advice and consent," by Mike Mansfield. Making treaties and other international agreements, by John W. Bricker. Financial aspects of congressional participation in foreign relations, by Eli E. Nobleman. Party responsibility for foreign policy, by John M. Vorys. The future of Congress in foreign relations, by Thorsten V. Kalijarvi. Bailey, Stephen Kemp, and Howard D. Samuel. Congress at work. New York, Holt [1952]. 502 p.

A collection of case studies by which the authors "have tried to describe the Congress in terms of dynamic human behavior, rather than in terms of static organizational patterns and barren procedural rules."

Carroll, Holbert N. The House of Representatives and foreign affairs. Pittsburgh, University of Pittsburgh [1958]. 365 p.

A study of the organizational structure and legislative processes employed by the House of Representatives in dealing with foreign policy. The author seeks to depict the enhanced role of the House resulting from the mutual security arrangements and foreign economic policies of the United States.

Cheever, Daniel S., and H. Field Haviland, Jr. American foreign policy and the separation of powers. Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1952. 244 p.

A history of executive-legislative relations in the conduct of foreign policy.

Dahl, Robert A. Congress and foreign policy. [1st ed.] New York, Harcourt, Brace [1950]. 305 p.

A basic study of Congress and foreign policy, which hold that "if one scrutinizes Congress with some care, the conclusion is unavoidable that the national legislature, as it now plays its exacting role on the world stage, is remarkably ill-suited to exercise a wise control over the nation's foreign policy." Dennison, Eleanor E. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Stanford University, Calif., Stanford University Press; London, H. Milford, Oxford University Press [1942]. 201 p.

"Relations with the President, p. 21-26. Relations with the Department of State, with particular examples, p. 26-32. Chapter 3-The Committee and the Clayton Bulwer treaty. Chapter 4, 5-The Committee and the Permanent Court of International Justice. All of these chapters are well footnoted. Well selected bibliography."

Galloway, George B. Congress and Parliament, their organization and operation in the U.S. and the U.K. Washington, National Planning Association, 1955. 105 p. (Planning pamphlet, No. 93.)

A general comparison of the internal machinery and methods of the U.S. Congress and the British Parliament.

Galloway, George B. The legislative process in Congress. New York, Crowell, 1953. 689 p.

A standard work on the U.S. Congress.

Griffith, Ernest S. Congress, its contemporary role. 2d rev. ed. New York, New York University Press, 1956. 207 p.

The author undertakes "an analysis of Congress under the Constitution, of its place in the governmental setting, of the way in which it is responding to a changing age."

Huzar, Elias. The Purse and the Sword; control of the Army by Congress through military appropriations, 1933-1950. Ithaca, N.Y., Cornell University Press, 1950. 417 p.

Essential for the study of Congress and the security policy process. Westphal, Albert C. F. The House Committee on Foreign Affairs, New York, Columbia University Press; London, P. S. King & Staples, 1942. 268 p. (Studies in history, economics and public law, ed. by the Faculty of political science of Columbia University, No. 493.)

"The Introduction * * * states that the President has more freedom in the conduct of foreign affairs than he does in the formulation of foreign policy. Congressional participation found in tariff, appropriations, arms embargo, neutrality, etc. ****. Congress responsible for expressing aspirations of its constituents; and a brief history of the development of the Committee.'

Young, Roland A. The American Congress. New York, Harper [1958]. 333 p.

An attempt "to place the various facets of the legislative process into a framework which will reveal the functional interrelation of its various parts. In doing so, it indicates some areas where our knowledge is incomplete as well as the absence of broadly accepted standards for governing the behavior of the members concerned."

Young, Roland A. Congressional politics in the Second World War. New York, Columbia University Press, 1956. 281 p.

The role Congress played in fighting World War II. Presents view that "Congress quickly adjusted itself to the conditions of war, and it was by no means the anachronism which many * * * predicted it would be."

2. ARTICLES

Bipartisanship. Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, v. 13, July 29, 1955: 897-904.

Primarily concerned with congressional activities in the field of foreign affairs with emphasis on the extent of bipartisanship.

Bipartisan consultations on foreign policy_matters. In remarks of William F. Knowland, Congressional Record [daily ed.], v. 101, Mar. 4, 1955: 2025-2027.

"A compilation of the meetings and appearances of the Secretary of State with bipartisan congressional groups for the years 1953, 1954, and 1955, to date, together with a list of bipartisan consultations on foreign policy matters with congressional leaders and committees."

Bradshaw, Mary E. Congress and foreign policy since 1900. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, v. 289, September 1953: 40-48.

Brown, Ben H., Jr. Congress and the Department of State. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, v. 289, September 1953: 100-107.

Chiperfield, Robert B. The Committee on Foreign Affairs. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, v. 289, September 1953: 73-83.

Cohen, Benjamin V. The evolving role of Congress in foreign affairs. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, v. 92, Oct. 25,

1948: 211-216.

Colegrove, Kenneth. The role of Congress and public opinion in formulating foreign policy. American Political Science Review, v. 38, October 1944: 956-969.

Congress and U.S. foreign relations. Congressional Digest, v. 30, February 1951: 35-64.

Congress weighs the "military" factor in the Administration's foreign policy. Congressional Digest, v. 30, December 1951: 291-320.

Contents: Development of the military controversy. Issues in the present dispute. Are military aspects of the present administration's foreign policy sound? Is a congressional curb on the executive military power needed?

Cook, Donald C. Work of the Preparedness Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Armed Services. Federal Bar Journal, v. 11, March 1951: 231–237.

Eleazor, Frank. He controls 55 cents of your tax dollar. Nation's Business, v. 43, December 1955: 32-33, 68-71.

Tells "how Representative Carl Vinson, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, matches military spending to the country's defense needs."

Gillette, Guy M. The Senate in foreign relations. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, v. 289, September 1953: 49-57.

Graebner, Norman. Politics in foreign policy. Current History, v. 28, January 1955: 7-14.

An illustrative article on the influence certain politicians in Congress have upon the power of the executive to conduct foreign affairs.

Griffith, Ernest S. The place of Congress in foreign relations. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, v. 289, September 1953: 11-21.

Henkin, Louis. The treaty makers and the law makers: the law of the land and foreign relations. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, v. 107, May 1959: 903–936.

“*** finds that the powers of Congress are far wider than believed, and suggests for consideration that the same factors which render a matter proper subject for a treaty may also render it appropriate for independent Congressional legislation under the federal foreign affairs power."

Hilsman, Roger. Congressional-executive relations and the foreign policy consensus. American Political Science Review, v. 52, September 1958: 725–744.

Hughes, Thomas L. Foreign policy on Capitol Hill. Reporter, v. 20, Apr. 30, 1959: 28-31.

An evaluation of the role played by the Congress in the formulation and execution of American foreign policy, especially as manifested during the recent past.

Humphrey, Hubert H. The Senate in foreign policy. Foreign Affairs, v. 37, July 1959: 525–536.

Admitting that the major responsibility for our foreign relations rests with the President, Senator Humphrey feels that the Congress still has much influence. Here, he discusses the role of the Senate.

Kalijarvi, Thorsten V. The future of Congress in foreign relations, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Jv. 289, September 1953: 172-177.

Kampelman, Max M. Congressional control vs. executive flexibility. Public Administration Review, v. 18, Summer 1958:

185-188.

Defense Department reorganization proposals seen in the context of legislative-executive relations in military matters.

Kilday, Paul J. The office of the legislative branch in the formulation of national security policy. Extension of remarks, Congressional Record [daily ed.], v. 101, Feb. 24, 1955: A1195-A1199.

A review of the powers granted Congress by the Constitution in the field of national defense.

McConaughy, James L., Jr. Congressmen and the Pentagon. Fortune, v. 57, April 1958: 156-162, 166-168.

"A few more than a dozen Senators and Representatives, most of them selected according to seniority rather than expertise, determine the effectiveness of Congress in military affairs. How good is their record?" Morton, Thruston B. Congress and foreign affairs. Social Science, v. 30, October 1955: 236-238.

Examination of the relationship, especially since World War II. Perkins, James A. Congressional investigations of matters of international import. American Political Science Review, v. 34, April 1940: 284-294.