section 202 (c) (1) of the National Security Act if these present agencies are to be expanded or new agencies are to be created, or if the weapons systems of the respective services are to be transferred from one military service to another. The Congress cannot properly abdicate its responsibility in this field and the subcommittee is of the opinion that the transfer authority over new weapons systems should no longer be valid after the proposed amendment is adopted.

Further study of these agencies may justify the present extent of their operations-or-conversely-may require their dissolution. We recognize the attractiveness of consolidated functions in procurement activities, for example, in time of peace. We are not yet convinced, however, that these centralized agencies can function successfully in time of war. The amendment proposed would validate what has been done not because we are convinced it is right, but because we are unable to now determine whether it will meet the test of war. In short, these agencies, the ones we are concerned about, have been in existence for too brief a period for a definitive analysis of their effectiveness in time of peace or war.

The amendment will not deprive the Secretary of Defense of his policy control over all the armed services. The amendment is based on the requirement implicit in the Constitution that the Congress and the executive branch of Government work together in the interest of national security.

The Department of Defense this year submitted a reorganization proposal for the Department of the Army. It met no objection in the Congress because in the opinion of the Committees on Armed Services it was a sound reorganization that would improve the efficiency of the Army. There is no reason to believe that the Congress would not take similar action with regard to any other sound proposal that was submitted to it. But considering the manner in which the present law has been interpreted, and as future Secretaries of Defense and General Counsels may also interpret the law, the time has come for Congress to reassume its responsibility in this area, and reassert its authority.

We propose an amendment to the National Security Act as follows: Section 202 (c) is amended by adding at the end of clause (8) the following clause: "(9) The provisions of clauses (4) and (6) will not be effective after 1963. Actions taken by the Secretary of Defense under clauses (4) and (6) of this subsection prior to this date are hereby validated but no activity or function being conducted or performed by any military department or military service on the effective date of this act will be transferred, consolidated, or assigned to any agency heretofore created under the authority of this section, or any other provision of the National Security Act of 1947, as amended, except pursuant to the provision of section 202(c)(1) of the National Security Act of 1947, as amended."

We also recommend that the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services appoint a subcommittee in each Congress to observe closely the Department of Defense in all aspects of its organization.

In accordance with the instructions of the chairman, we have examined into the defense agencies.

We can only conclude that the Congress has lost control of the organization of the Department and cannot carry out its responsibility unless we amend the National Security Act as suggested.

Respectfully submitted.

I have read the foregoing report and find myself in full accord with the conclusions and recommendations.

Approved.

(S) Carl Vinson
CARL VINSON,
Chairman.

AUGUST 13, 1962.

85066

MILITARY RESERVE POSTURE

REPORT OF SUBCOMMITTEE NO. 3

ON

MILITARY RESERVE POSTURE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

EIGHTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

AUGUST 17, 1962

Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON: 1962

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

CARL VINSON, Georgia, Chairman