want of a better term, whereby the news commentators, editors, and publishers agreed to submit to the appropriate agencies of Government or to George Creel and his colleagues, information they had received. They got clearance in that way from the centralized bureau. I believe the President could very readily set up some sort of bureau of that character upon which there would be representation from the press, representation from radio, representation from the public; and, as Walter Lippmann in a very interesting article in the New York Herald Tribune pointed out, we could do this without the loss of any of our rights and without risking the loss of public criticism which is so essential to good government. If the press and the radio are called upon openly to assist in setting up this sort of voluntary censorship and are continuously represented in the administration of the censorship it will work satisfactorily, for responsible newspapermen and radio commentators are quite able to recognize and enforce the distinction between information which is off the record and information which can be published.

It is far better to have this sort of voluntary control over press and radio setup by some sort of Executive order rather than have compulsory censorship by legislative fiat. The English system is one of voluntary action and agreement between press, radio, and government. It works admirably well in England. It does not preclude criticism of the government, because they know in England wisely and prudently that it is only an aroused public opinion which can for example get rid of an inefficient, worthless officer of the government or officer of the armed forces. Criticism is freely permitted. The truth can be told. The only restraint is that the report or communication cannot be such as to give aid and comfort to the enemy. I think we could well pattern after the English system. Indeed, I hope that the Executive authority not only under the power that we give him in this bill but under his present powers will set up some sort of a bureau of the character that President Wilson set up during the last war. There were some abuses of power, but they can be avoided. We can readily profit by our experience during that last war.

Mr. GUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Springer].

[Mr. SPRINGER]. The other provision of the bill, and I refer to title III, with respect to "trading with the enemy," has practically the identical provisions, as I understand it, that the bill contained which was in force during the last World War. There has been added by the Judiciary Committee an extra precaution under section 401 of this measure. This precaution relates to the time such proposed law would terminate. This extraordinary power must end when the war is over. No one knows who will be President when this war ends, and provision is made for the termination of this proposed law by concurrent resolution of both Houses of the Congress. This provision assures the right of the representatives of the people to recapture this great and extraordinary power, and to again vest the power in the people when this war ends. Mr. Chairman, I dislike to vest great power in the President of the United States. Vast power has been delegated to the President-greater than has been delegated to any other President of this great Nation.

These powers rest upon those declarations. We have declared war against Japan, Italy, and Germany, and the executive branch insists these powers are essential now to enable us to prosecute this war successfully.

The trading with the enemy provision in title 3 is necessary now. In the last World War under the Trading With the Enemy Act this Government took over $500,000,000 worth of property and held it until after the war, and then adjudications were made by the Alien Property Custodian.

Up to this time our Government has already taken over $7,000,000,000 worth of money, credits, and other property. There is no sense in this Government holding this $7,000,000,000 worth of property inactive, allowing it to rust, plants to remain idle, and bear the expense of its maintenance. This bill gives the Government the right, not only to take it over, but to convert it, to sell it, or to use it, and that is one important amendment to the Trading With the Enemy Act, and it ought to be adopted.

Your committee was not idle and did not fail to scrutinize, this important measure when it came before us from the Executive branch. There are several important amendments that were put into this bill by your Committee on the Judiciary.

I wish to call your attention to page 7. The bill that was brought to us was very broad, indeed. It provided to make active and vitalize all acts, actions, regulations, rules, orders, and proclamations that had been made theretofore, from October 6, 1917, when the Trading With the Enemy Act was first passed. Amendments were adopted by our committee; but your committee, realizing that we must protect the Government for its actions during recent months when it took over this $7,000,000,000 of assets and property of foreign nations, made the necessary provisions in this bill.

Another thing that your committee insisted be written into the bill is our right to recapture these extraordinary powers given to the President. And how was that done?

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. GUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

Mr. ROBSION of Kentucky. In section 401 it is provided that this act shall remain in force during the continuance of the present war and for 6 months after the termination of the war. This is too uncertain. We might quit fighting as we did in the World War on November 11, 1918, but there was no real declaration of peace for more than 2 years. Now if we should quit fighting and the Executive was not willing to declare that the war was over, perhaps we could not fix the 6 months because we could not tell whether the war was over or not; perhaps no treaty of peace had been made or accepted-we never did ratify the Treaty of Versailles-so we wrote into this bill that both Houses of Congress, one concurring with the other, could at any time recapture these powers. Congress might not be able to repeal this act. We might pass the law, and it would go to the President and he would veto it. Then we would have to have a two-thirds majority, but under the provision put in this bill we can recapture

or stop these powers simply by a majority vote of both Houses. It is insisted these extraordinary powers are necessary. We will put them in the hands of the President. We have given him the money; we have given him the power; Congress will give him the men and the ships and the planes, and then the American people will hold him and those who are associated with him responsible if they do not give America victory.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. GUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. O'Hara].

Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Chairman, in the consideration of this bill today I am reminded of the fact that last evening over our national radio systems it was celebrated with dramatic effect the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the birth of the Bill of Rights. It occurred to me that in discussing this bill there are, perhaps, powers granted herein affecting the Bill of Rights greater than in any single act of this Congress. Yet we all recognize that under war conditions or under extraordinary conditions, certain powers must be vested in the President, as in the control of the property, moneys, and securities of foreign countries and foreign nationals with whom we are at war. The matter which troubled me about this bill was the fact that when the bill was originally presented to the Committee on the Judiciary, the committee was very much dissatisfied with the drafting of the bill, and as a result I think a much improved bill has been brought out of your committee and one which plainly sets up what is intended to be the law by which all of us are to be guided.

I was particularly grateful to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Williams] for his observations as to the effect of sections A and B of title III. I certainly feel that that language should be applicable only to the properties of a foreign national or a foreign country, and I am particularly grateful to him for his observation that there was no question that the Trading With the Enemy Act, as passed in 1940, was intended solely to apply to foreign nationals.

Mr. WALTER, Mr. Chairman, I offer the following amendment, which I send to the desk.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. WALTER: Page 6, line 2, after the word "President", strike out the word "may" and insert the word "shall."

Mr. WALTER. Mr. Chairman, under the bill as written the President may require whoever is appointed Alien Property Custodian-and I assume that such a person will be appointed-to keep a record of the transactions that take place during the tenure of his office. It seems to me that, conferring the tremendous powers conferred under this section on some individual, we should compel that person to keep a full and complete record of all the transactions that take place, and I submit that this is a very reasonable thing to expect. I urge the adoption. of the amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

The amendment was agreed to.

68-002-76- -22

4. Senate Debate of December 17, 1941 (Excerpts)

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. President, I move that the Senate take up for consideration Senate bill 2126.

Mr. VAN NUYS. Mr. President

Mr. REYNOLDS. I yield to the Senator from Indiana.

Mr. VAN NUYS. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of House bill 6233, to expedite the prosecution of the war effort.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

Mr. TAFT. Mr. President, I inquire what bill is it?

Mr. VAN NUYS. Yesterday the House passed House bill 6233 which is identical with Senate bill 2129 passed by the Senate, except for one simple provision, making it mandatory instead of optional to file certain reports, which I will explain later on.

Mr. TAFT. I have no objection.

Mr. McNARY. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry. What is the question before the Senate?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question before the Senate is the request of the Senator from Indiana [Mr. Van Nuys] that the Senate proceed to the consideration of House bill 6233. Is there objection to that request?

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill (H.R. 6233) to expedite the prosecution of the war effort, which was read twice by its title.

Mr. VAN NUYS. Mr. President, yesterday the House passed a bill identical with the one which we had under consideration and passed yesterday, Senate bill 2129. The House made one change. It changed the word "may" on page 6, line 14, to "shall." The bill at that point refers to reports required of the Alien Property Custodian, or whatever agency the President may designate for the custody of alien property. The change makes such reports mandatory instead of optional. It strengthens the bill along the line proposed in some of the committee amendments yesterday. I was in consultation today with Chairman Sumners, of the House Committee, and I ascertained that his committee will agree to all the amendments adopted by the Senate yesterday. If the Senate will permit that additional change in the bill, it will make it unnecessary for the bill to go to conference, and it can be enacted at once.

Mr. BARKLEY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. VAN NUYS. I yield.

Mr. BARKLEY. From the parliamentary standpoint, the House bill having been passed and messaged to the Senate, and the Senate bill having been passed and messaged to the House, is it the purpose of the

Senator from Indiana to take up the House bill and move to strike out all after the enacting clause and include the text of the Senate bill as passed yesterday, with the additional amendment which the House has put into its bill?

Mr. VAN NUYs. That is my purpose.

**

Mr. VAN NUYS. Mr. President, I now move to strike out all after the enacting clause of the House bill, and insert the provisions of Senate bill 2129 as passed yesterday, with one change; namely, on page 6, line 14, of the Senate engrossed bill, strike out the word "may" and insert the word "shall", so as to read:

And the President shall, in the manner hereinabove provided, require any person to keep a full record of, and to furnish under oath, in the form of reports or otherwise, complete information relative to any act or transaction referred to in this subdivision

And so forth.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment in the nature of a substitute, offered by the Senator from Indiana. The amendment in the nature of a substitute, was agreed to.

The amendment was ordered to be engrossed, and the bill to be read a third time.

The bill (H.R. 6233) was read the third time, and passed.