3. House Debate of December 16, 1941 (Excerpts) 87 Cong. Rec. 9858-9859, 9861-9867 Mr. SUMNERS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 6233), to expedite the prosecution of the war effort. The motion was agreed to. Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill H.R. 6233, with Mr. Davis of Tennessee in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. By unanimous consent, the first reading of the bill was dispensed with. The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Sumners] is recognized for 1 hour, and the gentleman from Kansas is entitled to recognition for 1 hour. Mr. SUMNERS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I hardly know what additional statement would be helpful to the Committee in the determination of what we ought to do with reference to this bill. As the gentleman from Michigan stated, it is a rather involved bill in a sense, but from the standpoint of what seems to be in the minds of the members of the committee it is a very simple bill. The bill reenacts the Overman Act, eliminating section 3, with such modifications as I believe nobody considers material. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SUMNERS of Texas. I yield. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. I notice that in Title III there is section 303, which provides for the establishment of authority for censorship for communications between this country and other countries. I am wondering if the original Overman Act did not carry such a provision, or if it did, what are the changes between this proposal and the previous act? Mr. SUMNERS of Texas. The Overman Act did carry a provision with regard to censorship. No; I believe it was in the Trading With the Enemy Act. Mr. KEFAUVER. I think the censorship part is in the Trading With the Enemy Act and not the Overman Act. Mr. SUMNERS of Texas. That is correct. It is the Trading With the Enemy Act and not the Overman Act. This bill attempts to bring into one legislative enactment what is regarded to be those provisions of the Overman Act and Trading With the Enemy Act which it is required to legislate relative to now. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Then the provisions with regard to the censorship of communications does not differ materially with what it was in previous law, whether it is the Overman Act or the Trading With the Enemy Act? Mr. SUMNERS of Texas. I think that would be a correct statement. Mr. CELLER. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. SUMNERS of Texas. I yield. Mr. CELLER. Would it not be well to state that there is no domestic censorship involved in this legislation at all? Mr. SUMNERS of Texas. Yes. I think the gentleman understands that. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Yes; I understood that. Mr. SUMNERS of Texas. But I think for all practical purposes it is a correct statement to say that there is no substantial difference. I do not know that there is anything further to be said about it. Mr. KEAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SUMNERS of Texas. I yield. Mr. KEAN. I notice on page 5 that you have included securities, which were not included in the old Trading With the Enemy Act. That makes provision that during any period of national emergency declared by the President for all time he may prohibit the hoarding of securities. What does that mean? Mr. SUMNERS of Texas. To what language does the gentleman refer? Mr. KEAN. I refer to page 5. Mr. SUMNERS of Texas. Has the gentleman made an examination of the provisions of existing law, appearing in the appendix of the report? Mr. KEAN. I looked at the changes in existing law on page 4 of the report, and it included in existing law the hoarding of gold and silver bullion or currency, but the word "securities" is something new. Mr. SUMNERS of Texas. This possibility is an expansion to incorporate securities. Mr. KEAN. I am just wondering what the hoarding of securities is. Mr. SUMNERS of Texas. I do not know. Mr. KEAN. It seems to me that under the language of this section the administration could say to anybody that he had too many securities. Mr. ROBSION of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SUMNERS of Texas. I yield. Mr. ROBSION Of Kentucky. Under the provisions of the Trading With the Enemy Act and the alien property custodian features under the old law, they could just take over property, securities, plants, and so forth, and hold them; but under the provision we are now considering the Government cannot only take them over and hold them but can use them as well. Mr. KEAN. I do not believe this refers to foreign securities only, but might be construed to refer to securities held by anybody in the United States. Mr. SUMNERS of Texas. I do not believe so. This is simply a section dealing with alien enemies. Mr. KEAN. If it deals only with alien enemies I think it is perfectly all right. Mr. SUMNERS of Texas. I believe there is no doubt about that. Mr. JENKINS of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. JENKINS of Ohio. The gentleman may have covered the point I am about to ask him for; I was not here when he started. Has the gentleman covered the main differences between this bill and the powers granted to President Wilson in the first World War? Mr. SUMNERS of Texas. I made the general statement that I believed for all practical purposes we may say there is no substantial difference. Some modifications have been made that were deemed necessary. Guided by experience certain modifications have been made, but I believe I can state generally and that the members of the committee will generally agree, that there is no substantial difference between the provisions of this bill and the similar grants of power in the Overman Act and the Trading With the Enemy Act. Mr. JENKINS of Ohio. One further question, if the gentleman please. Mr. SUMNERS of Texas. Certainly. Mr. JENKINS of Ohio. I have the most profound respect for the gentleman and his committee but have wondered whether there was any controversy at all over this bill. The reason I am asking these questions is so that if I am asked about the bill I will know something about it, and want to say that the great Judiciary Committee of the House considered it and unanimously agreed on its report. Mr. SUMNERS of Texas. The Committee on the Judiciary did examine the bill. We recognize that it was a technical matter and pretty difficult for us to know all the details. The committee was largely persuaded by the discovered facts, the recognized facts, that there is no substantial difference insofar as the committee could discover between the powers we propose to grant to this President and the powers which President Wilson had. That is about as much as I can say. Mr. LEA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SUMNERS of Texas. I yield. Mr. LEA. I have noticed with interest that the bill includes title III, an amendment to the Trading With the Enemy Act. This is a subject matter which is within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. I recognize that this is no time to quibble over the question of committe jurisdiction in view of the national situation, but title III has no direct relationship to the other sections of the bill. It would seem therefor to be a case where apparently our committee's jurisdiction has been invaded. I hope it is not the purpose of the gentleman's committee to attempt permanently to take this jurisdiction away from the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee which originally reported the bill to the House. Mr. SUMNERS of Texas. To whatever degree this particular bill trespasses upon the jurisdiction of the great Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, I am sure the Committee on the Judiciary will not attempt to hold this as a precedent. * Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HANCOCK. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota. Mr. O'HARA. I call the gentleman's attention to subdivisions (A) and (B) of section 301 of title III. One of my colleagues has called my attention to some of the language in these sections. There is no question that it is the intention of this bill to regulate and control the property and securities of foreign countries and nationals thereof, but the language there is confusing. I think we should clear up some of that confusion. For example, on line 16 on page 5, this and the following language might cause confusion about whether or not it means both foreigners and citizens of this country. [Here the gavel fell.] Mr. GUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 additional minutes to the gentleman from New York. Mr. HANCOCK. I believe the gentleman will find the limitation quite clear. If the gentleman will look at line 15, he will find that this whole section applies to property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest. It deals with alien property. Mr. O'HARA. Yes; but it then reads by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Of course, if it were not in the United States we would not have jurisdiction of it. I believe there is some confusion in the language. There is no question about the intention of the committee that this is to deal only with foreign property. That is the point to which I call the gentleman's attention. Mr. GWYNNE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HANCOCK. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa. Mr. GWYNNE. Does not the gentleman think that the entire bill covers nothing but aliens and alien property? There is no question about that, is there? Mr. O'HARA. I still say you have to be careful of this language. Mr. HANCOCK. It is perfectly clear that it is intended by section 301 to deal only with property, bullion, gold and silver coins, foreign exchange, evidences of indebtedness, securities, and all kinds of real and personal property belonging to aliens. Mr. VORYS of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. VORYS of Ohio. Referring to paragraph (A) of section 301, found on page 5 of the bill we have, will the gentleman point out how that is limited to foreign property in any way? Mr. HANCOCK. That is the language of the present law, I may say to the gentleman. Mr. VORYS of Ohio. It is not quite the language of the present law. In any case, we are reenacting it here under a heading, "Trading with the enemy." The language before me simply permits the President during any period of national emergency, not necessarily war, to investigate, regulate, or prohibit importing, exporting, hoarding, melting, or earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion, currency, or securities. Mr. HANCOCK. (A) has to do with the investigation, regulation, and control of various forms of securities, money, and bullion. (B) has to do with the investigation, regulation, and so on, of other forms of property. The limitation is this, and I quote from lines 14 and 15 on page 11: Any property in which any foreign government or a national thereof has any interest. This limitation applies to both (a) and (b), as I see it. Mr. VORYS of Ohio. Where does the gentleman read those words? Mr. HANCOCK. I shall have to get the new bill. Most of us have studied the old bill. Lines 14 and 15, page 11. Mr. KEFAUVER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HANCOCK. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee. Mr. KEFAUVER. I believe the gentleman is probably mistaken about subsection (a) of section 301 applying only to nationals of a foreign country. Apparently the purpose of subsection (a)—and I think it is absolutely necessary-is to prohibit our own citizens from sending money or currency into other countries which might be our enemies, or to prevent them from hoarding securities or money that might be needed by this country. So, I think that provision in subsection (a) does apply to our own nationals, but I think it is absolutely necessary that the power should be given to the President in wartime. Mr. HANCOCK. The gentleman, I think, is partially correct, so far as Americans are concerned. The law which we passed in 1933 prohibited the hoarding at least, of gold bullion. Other types of hoarding should be taken care of in a different bill. This one is intended to apply to alien property. Mr. KEFAUVER. I think substantially the only difference between this provision and what the law is, is that one says "securities" on page 5, whereas the present law probably defines "securities" as evidences of indebtedness. Mr. VORYS of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. VORYS of Ohio. Would the gentleman explain what the preventing of hoarding of securities means and what that has to do with trading with the enemy beyond the fact that something is in the present law and, of course, the hoarding of securities is not in the present law? [Here the gavel fell.] Mr. GUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman 2 more minutes. Mr. HANCOCK. Let me go along for a moment. There is another very important change in section 301 from the present Trading With the Enemy Act. Under our former law I think we still have power to seize enemy alien property and under our present law of export control we have considerable additional power over alien property, but this goes much further and gives the agents appointed by the Government the power to seize any property, any and all alien property, whether belonging to friend or enemy, and to put it into use. This is a power that has never been enjoyed before by any specific provision and it is important. It gives us the right to utilize the property we take over. The bill covers considerably more ground in this respect than the old act. I assume the purpose is this: Quite frequently there will be property bound for some neutral country which it is expected will eventually reach an enemy, and in that event the Custodian of Alien Property is authorized under this bill to seize that property and to utilize it for our own purposes. This is a power that was not granted in 1917, when a similar bill was passed. The acquittance provision at the bottom of page 6 is in the present law: Any payment, conveyance, transfer, assignment, or delivery of property or interest therein, made to or for the account of the United States, or as otherwise |