Those are the words from the Congressional Record, and I stand by my guns.

Senator DowNEY. Mr. Chairman, I have no desire to misquote any Senator and that is really not important in any event. What is important: That this particular bill would give the Government of the United States in any emergency or in any war, the power to seize summarily all or any part of our newspapers, magazines, and radios, if, in the opinion of our Chief Executive, he thought that was in the interests of national defense.

Now, regardless of whether any Senator here would or would not believe that that might or might not be advisable, at least that power is very clearly in this bill.

Senator LODGE. Mr. Chairman.

Senator REYNOLDS. Senator Lodge.

Senator LODGE. May I make an inquiry? I want to say, in the first place, that I think Mr. Patterson has shown a very fair and almost a model attitude in connection with this committee on this bill, because he tried to meet the objections that have been raised, and make new drafts, and come back to meet objections, and I certainly appreciate it a lot.

I have never seen any member of the executive branch who sought to cooperate as well as he has.

I would like to find out-I don't know whether Judge Patterson is the one to answer me or whether Mr. Coy is, and I haven't been able to get an answer to it yet, why the definition of "property" was narrowed in the second draft and is now expanded in the third draft. Has anything happened to account for that change?

Mr. Cor. Senator Lodge, I was just speaking to Senator Bridges about that very thing. The difficulty, in being specific about the items that you may want to requisition, is your lack of vision about what may be the needs, or where the shortages may be, and in the last war you had 17 or 18 different statutes, each attempting to be specific about what it was you wanted at the particular time you passed the statute.

Even those statutes, all 17 of them, didn't cover all the things that were needed, and as the Secretary indicated, they had to take stuff that wasn't covered by statute and did take stuff that wasn't covered by statute. That is the reason for the general language relating to the needs of defense.

I think it might be possible to further limit it to meet Senator Downey's objection here, if it were deemed pertinent to do so, by relating the needs of defense to the production of the equipment for the

services.

Senator LODGE. I can see why you want to have it general, but here in the second draft we had a fairly concrete definition of it and why the change, that is what I want to know.

Mr. Cor. I think the change is related to the fact that those limitations there might be so limiting as to not permit you to requisition materials you might need. I can't give you instances where shortages will occur in a year from now, for example.

Senator LODGE. And you wouldn't want to be willing to get legislation at that time?

326025-41-pt. 2- 2

Mr. Cor. I think, if there might be a reason for doing it, that is the way they did it in the last war. But you would be faced with the problem of amending the law each time you wanted it, or had to have it, on the basis of the situation then existing.

One of the difficulties, Senator, in this defense program, it seems to me, has been one of not being able to foresee the shortages that were occurring, ahead of time.

Senator LODGE. Now, in the second draft we used the language, "for the purpose of equipping the armed forces of the United States." Now we use the phrase, "For the defense of the United States." What is the matter with using the language "for the purpose of equipping the armed forces of the United States"?

Mr. Cor. I don't think there is any.

Senator HILL. The only reason I could think of, why you might not want to use that language, would you expect, in any way to invoke the powers under this bill, in connection with your 11 weeks' program.

That is part of our policy declared by Congress, written into law. It is as much a part of our defense, in many ways, in the minds of at least some of us, as the equipment and preparation of our own Army and our own Navy.

Mr. Cor. I think Senator Lodge will agree with that. He is thinking in terms of production and equipment needed by the Army. Senator HILL. If you use the words, "the armed forces of the United States," then you could not invoke the powers under this bill, if this bill became law, anyway, so far as your lend-lease program is concerned.

Senator CHANDLER. I am not going to agree to that limitation in my own amendment.

Senator HILL. Somebody is going to raise that question, because I can foresee that.

As I visualize our defense, we have taken two definite steps, one to build up and strengthen and fortify our war arm forces and the other to help Britain with her armed forces.

If you put that limiting language in there, then you could not devote the powers under this bill so far as you are helping Britain. I am just thinking out loud.

Senator LODGE. May I ask a question there?

Does the Senator want to favor having the property requisitioned for the disposal of a foreign government?

Senator HILL. Yes; I know of no reason why we shouldn't in this particular case. I think it is as important for the armed forces of Britain to have the best possible equipment and to be in the best possible state of preparation as it is for our forces.

They are the first line against this Hitler scourge. There is no question about that. They are the first line against the Hitler scourge. So long as that first line against the Hitler scourge holds, they can't get to the second line, which is you and me and the rest of us, so I want that first line to hold, and therefore I am willing to invoke any power necessary, certainly so far as property is concerned, to hold that first line, and I think that was the thought in the passage of the lendlease bill.

We didn't want to go into war. We didn't want to use manpower, the lives and blood of our sons, but so far as property is concerned, we are willing to go to the limit to hold that first line.

Senator BRIDGES. Aren't you willing to limit it more like the second bill here?

Senator HILL. Well, of course, what we are talking about now is not so much this second bill, in that it specifies what property we have in mind. We are thinking now on the question raised by Senator Lodge about limiting it to only that property that would be used by our own armed forces, and I wouldn't want to put that limitation.

I want to use it for the armed-I would want to use this power, if need be, not only for our own armed forces, but to hold that first line.

Senator SCHWARTZ. There is nothing to prevent us from sending some of our own material to Britain or lending or leasing it, and that, in turn, would produce the shortage that would warrant us in going ahead under this bill.

Senator DOWNEY. I think what Senator Schwartz says is undoubtedly true. While I theoretically agree with Senator Hill on this, I can't see the basis for his concern. The United States Government has the power to seize anything, under this bill, it wants for its armed forces. It can then manufacture it for itself, or it then has the power to turn over that aluminum or quicksilver or nitrate or quinine, or whatever it might be.

Senator HILL. I projected that thought, not so much to answer the question, but that Mr. Coy, who has a very great responsibility, as I understand it, in the administration of the Lend Lease Act, might give us his judgment.

He has an insight into the operation of this Lend Lease Act that I do not have. I want to be sure. What do you think is proper?

Mr. Cor. I would agree with you. I have, perhaps, misinterpreted Senator Lodge's statement, because I have been thinking in terms of possible limitations to the production of goods, in answer to the question Senator Downey had raised, that he thought we might go beyond that and take newspapers and money and other things. I certainly think that it should be applicable to the Lend Lease Act.

Senator LODGE. Well, I am not a lawyer and I just know what has been testified to on page 32 of the hearings. I will read this: This is myself speaking to Judge Patterson :

You uttered a good phrase, Mr. Secretary, when you said you intended to use these powers to equip the armed forces. Would you have any objection to adding to that: "The powers enumerated in that act," and I am not giving anything verbatim, but roughly, "the powers enumerated in this act shall be used solely for the purpose of equipping the armed forces of the United States"?

Mr. PATTERSON. The direct answer is "No." Of course I wouldn't have any objection to that. I think that could be included in the very first paragraph. Senator HILL. I think that is what you had in mind when you used the words "national defense."

Senator LODGE. The words "national defense" are used to cover a great many things that no human being ever thought was national defense before. When you say "equipping the armed forces" it is much more definite.

Mr. PATTERSON. That is all right with me.

Judge PATTERSON. I may say that the lend lease proposition had not occurred to me when I said that. I can just develop this thing very briefly the way it lay in my mind.

The bill was conceived of originally as purely a military measurea measure designed to expedite the equipment of our troops in the field, to promote it and to facilitate it.

There were certain incidents that had occurred that we, in the War Department, thought had delayed and retarded the equipment of our troops in the field.

We thought it was up to me to leave no stone unturned whatsoever to try to get them thoroughly equipped as soon as possible, so, purely as a military measure and with that thought in mind, we asked for the introduction of the first draft, which had the broadest definitions that could be thought of, all property, real or personal, useful for national defense.

The introduction of the measure encountered a great deal of criticism. Newspapers seemed opposed to it. They were fearful of the great scope of those powers and of their possible abuse.

We had no such thing in mind as the instances that were conjured up, but there they were, and when I first appeared before the committee they were presented to me, and it was suggested by the committee that, perhaps, some more guarded language could be used that would achieve and meet the ends we had in mind, and particularly deal with the cases, of which I gave some instances to the committee, where we had been delayed in getting what we thought were essential items of equipment-machine tools and certain articles, like stores of aluminum and things of that sort.

Now, the second measure adopted some language that was far more guarded. It did meet, however, the cases that we thought we needed relief for. It was not as broad as the first. It would be conceivable that we might have to come back for a broader grasp of authority, although I think the words "munitions and supplies" cover a great many things.

Now, the third measure was not ours, although it was submitted to us, and I am content was that, too. That is broader language on this particular question raised by the Senator from Massachusetts, as to equipping the armed forces, on further reflection and the aspect of defense aid to Britain, and we would prefer to say, as it says here in the measure as it was, "to promote the national defense" rather than "for the equipping of the armed forces."

I hadn't thought of that at all. I had in mind the very problems that confronted me when I said that the

Senator LEE. You favor this substitute, then?

Judge PATTERSON. Well, gentlemen, it is all alike to me. will suit us.

Either one

Senator DOWNEY. Mr. Chairman, may I ask the Secretary if it wouldn't meet his idea, and likewise that of Senator Lodge, to just interpolate in this, "to produce for our armed forces" or for the armed forces of any other nation that the President has the power to furnish under the lend-lease bill?

Judge PATTERSON. Well, I am not sure that would be as good, Senator. I am thinking now of the case of the Maritime Commission.

You have put me on my guard here against committing myself to some language where I don't see the effect of it, and you will remember that Admiral Land came here and testified in support of, I think it was, the second draft. In any event, I am not sure that the Maritime Commission would be covered by that and, of course, it is quite important, I think, that he get the machinery and materials he needs for the construction of, say, merchant ships.

Mr. Coy. Mr. Chairman, may I say just a word?

Senator REYNOLDS. Surely.

Mr. Coy. There seems to be a little impression that the Secretary and I are at odds about this bill. We are not at all. We both want a requisition bill, and we want it badly, because the need is imminent. We need it now and we have needed it in past weeks.

At the time when this revised bill was drafted the reason for redrafting it was to meet some of the objections in terms of limitations which are written into section 1 of the bill now, so that we might appeal to this committee and get a bill reported out of the committee and before the Senate for consideration and get a requisition bill.

That was the purpose of it. The revision was discussed with the Secretary and he had no objection to it, and I am sure he has no objection to it now.

I think this bill is an acceptable bill to the War Department, as well as to any other persons who are interested in a requisitioning bill, from the standpoint of promoting the defense. Is that a correct statement?

Judge PATTERSON. Yes, sir; entirely so. The bill was submitted to me, as you say, and I said, "That is all right with me."

If the committee wants some further limitations, this section 2 of the third draft, requiring return of the property-that is O. K.; that is all right.

Senator LEE. On the other hand, Mr. Coy, is the other bill satisfactory to you?

Mr. Cor. The second bill-I raised the question about the second bill from the standpoint of the limitations that are written into it, and on the question of whether or not you wanted to continue to enact legislation to meet specific needs as they arise, and are then crises, instead of anticipating now that there will be shortages which will have to be met and will need requisitioning power immediately.

Senator BRIDGES. If you happen to have before you the copy of the second bill, could you point out to us what power you will need beyond the specific description there on page 4?

Mr. Cor. I don't have it; and, Senator, I am sure, without reading it, I can't point out to you that.

It is just a question of what you are able to anticipate in the way of needs. The power in the bill, in the second draft, with respect to the limitations, is as broad as the power in the third draft, and the limitations are as to what is set out here.

Senator CHANDLER. Mr. Chairman, let me read to him just a

moment.

Right directly on that point, from the President's letter:

Some of the other foreseeable needs, at the present time, include machine tools, stocks of aluminum, and other raw materials, and German-controlled patents, but they would obviously not cover the complete needs of the Government even for a very short period; and the Government, if its powers were limited to them, would be unable to obtain other types of equipment and property promptly if the owners demand exorbitant prices or refuse to sell altogether.

I know you don't want to limit, because, when you do that, you speculate on the War Department's and the President's defense of the United States, and you are going to limit it if you are not careful, with these specific limits of power, I mean for time, and so forth.