« ÎnapoiContinuă »
There is, however, one further point which was not made. It is critically important that the Government's export control program continue without interruption or lapse. Accordingly, the Administration again wishes strongly to urge that this legislative proposal include a provision amending the Export Administration Act to make it permanent legislation, as the Administration supported draft recommends.
We have been advised by the Office of Management and Budget that there would be no objection to the submission of this report to the Congress from the standpoint of the Administration's program.
C. E. HASLAM, General Counsel.
Chairman ZABLOCKI. Does the gentleman from New York, Mr. Bingham, wish to comment?
Mr. BINGHAM. Yes, Mr. Chairman, This question of permanent authority for the Export Administration Act was discussed when the major bill was before us, and the committee decided at that time to provide a 2-year authorization for the Export Administration Act. This gives us an opportunity to review what is being done. There really, as I see it, is no more reason why we should provide a permanent authorization for this type of law than for other bills that come up for annual or biennial authorization. If there is a 2-year period, there will be pressure of time on both the Congress and the administration to act in a timely fashion.
If, for some reason, we should come up against the deadline without having agreed on an extension, there would also be the possibility of extending for 1 month or 2 months without change, the kind of thing that is done with appropriations, when appropriations run out. So this is not a matter we have not given consideration to; we have. We feel this is an important law and one which the Congress should review periodically, and it seems to us appropriate that at the end of the period of time for which Congress has authorized it, that it expire. That was the way it was done in the principal bill. I do not see any reason to amend that in the bill now before us.
Chairman ZABLOCKI. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Derwinski. Mr. DERWINSKI. I have a question, Mr. Chairman. By the way, is there someone representing the Justice Department?
Chairman ZABLOCKI. Would you please come to the table and identify yourself by name and office?'
STATEMENT OF BRUNO A. RISTAU, CHIEF OF THE FOREIGN LITIGATION UNIT, CIVIL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Mr. RISTAU. Bruno Ristau, the Chief of Foreign Litigation in the Civil Division.
NUMBER OF EXECUTIVE ORDERS BASED ON TRADING WITH
THE ENEMY ACT
Mr. DERWINSKI. If I may direct your attention to this bill before us, sir. In view of the deletion in section 101 (a), page 1, lines 8, 9, and 10, striking "or during any other period of national emergency declared by the President" from existing law, I am wondering if the Justice Department has been asked for an opinion on a number of Executive orders or other Presidential determinations that have been based on the present Trading With the Enemy Act.
Mr. RISTAU. We have, Mr. Derwinski, of course, participated with the subcommittee in the drafting of this legislation. There has been consultation with the various agencies within the executive department. The specific question that you, sir, have raised, to my knowledge, was not asked, although the various Executive orders that have been issued by the President from time to time are eventually reprinted in the bound volume that I believe all committee members have.
Mr. DERWINSKI. In other words, we do not have an up-to-date tabulation of the number of orders?
Mr. RISTAU. Not to my knowledge, sir.
STATEMENT OF LEONARD E. SANTOS, ATTORNEY ADVISER, OFFICE
POWERS AVAILABLE SHORT OF DECLARED WAR
Mr. DERWINSKI. One other followup question, Mr. Chairman. Would this deletion affect the President's ability to base Executive orders in the future on the Trading With the Enemy Act notwithstanding the grandfather clause in the bill?
Mr. RISTAU. With the deletion in section 101, Mr. Derwinski, if you are referring to the Trading With the Enemy Act now, as it will read after this legislation is enacted, he will be able to promulgate Executive orders under the Trading With the Enemy Act only in time of proclaimed war, not in time of a national emergency. That provision is being removed from the Trading With the Enemy Act. So that the Trading With the Enemy Act after it is amended will be strictly a wartime measure.
Mr. BINGHAM. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. WHALEN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DERWINSKI. Let me ask one other question. This is the point I was trying to get to. We live in a day and age where formal declarations of war have become obsolete. In fact, since 1945, the end of World War II-any war, not just the wars we have been involved with, war between many other nations, have tended not to be preceded by an official declaration and that is the point I am getting to.
What is the effect of this deletion of the President's ability to base Executive orders? As I understand your answer, sir, unless there was a formal declaration of war that should this legislation pass as presented to us, the President would not be able to issue any Executive orders under the Trading With the Enemy Act if a declaration of war were not made.
Mr. RISTAU. That is correct.
Mr. WHALEN. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. DERWINSKI. Yes.
Mr. WHALEN. That is what title II has done, to give the President that authority to issue certain Executive orders in the event that an emergency is declared. Of course, the emergency process comes not under this bill but under the National Emergency Act, which was passed by the previous Congress.
Mr. BINGHAM. Would the gentleman yield to me?
Mr. DERWINSKI. Yes, of course.
Mr. BINGHAM. I would just like to point out there are certain limited powers that can be exercised under the Trading With the Enemy Act which the President would not be authorized to exercise under the International Emergency and Economic Powers Act. They include the power to seize property. The power to freeze assets he would have. The power to seize records is another one which would not be included, although the power to require and secure access to records he would have.
The other power has to do with the actions with respect to bullion and so on. With respect to domestically held assets, we did have the testimony from Mr. Bergsten that the Treasury Department and the administration said that there are powers in other provisions of law sufficient to give the executive the power to move in the area of domestically held assets.
Mr. DERWINSKI. I have no other questions, Mr. Chairman. I yield back my time.
Chairman ZABLOCKI. Are there any other questions?
Chairman ZABLOCKI. The Chair will entertain a motion.
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move that H.R. 7738, as amended, be reported favorably to the House.
Chairman ZABLOCKI. And that the Chair take all nesessary action for expeditious consideration?
Mr. BINGHAM. Yes.
Chairman ZABLOCKI. All those in favor signify by saying "aye." [Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman ZABLOCKI. Opposed, "no."
Chairman ZABLOCKI. The ayes have it and H.R. 7738 is reported out unanimously.
If there is no further business before the committee, the Chair will adjourn the meeting until further notice.
[Whereupon, at 2:10 p.m., the committee adjourned, subject to call of the Chair.]