States will be involved if the President, in the midst of the
game of war, is allowed free rein to juggle with embargoes,
because every move he would make would be bound to be
Unneutral toward some country engaged in the war.
[Here the gavel fell.]
Mr. LUDLOW. Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 4 additional minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Indiana?
There was no objection- ,
Mr. MARTIN of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. MARTIN of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I understood that all debate on this amendment expired after the gentleman from Indiana used his 8 minutes. The CHAIRMAN. On the conclusion of the gentleman’s remarks all time will have expired on the pending amendment.
Mr. KVALE. Then, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that that agreement may be set aside. I object to the extension of time requested by the gentleman from Indiana and ask for recognition. I have sought recognition. I have a bona fide amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has informed the gentleman from Minnesota that at the proper time the Chair will recognize him, when he offers the amendment. Under the rules of the House all debate on the pending amendment will have expired upon the expiration of the remarks of the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. KVALE. Is the pending amendment an amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana? The CHAIRMAN. The pending amendment Is an amendment offered by the gentleman from Connecticut.
The gentleman fron Indiana is recognized for 4 additional minutes.
Mr. LUDLOW. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Johnson] in his speech said that the President already has power enough to get this country into war at any time. That being true—and it is true—does he not have power enough in all conscience, and why should we give him any more war power?
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LUDLOW. I cannot yield; my time is too limited.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. The gentleman mentioned my name.
Mr. LUDLOW. I am sorry, but I cannot yield. The best interests of the people of America and of posterity demand that these discretionary provisions, which comport with a dictatorship but ill become a republic, should be voted down overwhelmingly.
It is no wonder that this House of Representatives—which is still, I hope, the refuge of the people—broke into applause when the able gentleman from New York [Mr. O’Connor 1, In opening this neutrality debate last Friday, said: Personally this right—
The right to declare war is one right of Congress I should never vote to surrender to any Executive.
In the Interest of our common country and the perpetuation of our heritage of freedom, which we hope to hand down unimpaired to our children and our children’s children, when we write a permanent neutrality law that 1* to stand for all time, we should remember our obligation to posterity, We should oppose with all our might a further centralization of the war power In America and should stand for a decentralization of that power to the people themselves, Let those who have to suffer and, if need be, to die and to bear the awful burdens and griefs of war have something to say as to whether war shall be declared. In Hitler-controlled Germany and Mussolini-controlled Italy absolute domination over the lives and happiness of the people rests with one man, whose will for war or peace cannot be challenged. We do not want to raise any of the Hitler and Mussolini breed in this country. Let us keep our soil sacred to the cause of liberty. [Applause.]
Mr. MARTIN of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the pending amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Martin of Colorado to the amendment offered by Mr. Shanlet: Strike out the figures ”1939" In the last line of the amendment and insert in lieu thereof the figures "1938."
Mr. MARTIN of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. MARTIN of Colorado. I understand there is no debate allowable on this amendment to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may have 5 minutes.
Mr. MARTIN of Colorado. I have not attempted to secure time because of my understanding that no further debate would be allowed.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate has expired on the Shanley amendment. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MARTIN of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I have already expressed my views briefly on this legislation- I have stated that this was the most experimental, the most novel, and speculative legislation perhaps ever considered by an American Congress. I am referring to section 4.
His original neutrality legislation, the present law, was given a tryout for a period of just 1 year and it was not particularly experimental or speculative. It is a very simple, definite proposition to place an embargo on arms, ammunition, and war equipment, on loans and credits to foreign nations, and to keep Americans off of belligerent vessels. It is very easily appraised and administered. Now we are entering a vast, new, exploratory field in which we cannot even conjecture what the possible results will be or in what it may involve this country. I want to repeat what I said the other day that when the time comes, as it must under this legislation, we surrender not only the freedom of the seas but the use of the seas, as well as all of our foreign trade. Bear in mind we are not merely giving up something under this legislation known by a term that is very difficult to define—freedom of the seas—we are going to give up absolutely the use of the seas by all American ships for all purposes. That is exactly what this legislation means, and in addition we will give away all of our trade with the world. This is the way it must work out in practice if we are to avoid the sinking of American ships. This was settled in the World War.
I am not so confident as some of the proponents of extreme neutrality legislation appear to be, that when this program is put into effect In war the national reaction to it will be what they hope It will be. Perhaps quite the contrary may be the case.
We have passed many important emergency bills In this Congress, a number of them much more important than this one and we have put a limitation in those bills of 1 year. We limited the original act to 1 year and I can see no reason on earth why we should not limit this legislation to 1 year, We may learn something within the next 12 months, We may be able to come back within the next 12 months and legislate differently, more informatively, There will be a Congress here a year from now, so why attempt to tie the hands of the administration for 2 years?
Mr, SHANLEY, Will the gentleman yield?
Mr, MARTIN of Colorado, I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
Mr, SHANLEY, The gentleman from Colorado does not mean to say we cannot amend this bill next year?
Mr. MARTIN of Colorado, Certainly not, There Is no need, from that standpoint, for a 1-year or a 2-year limitation. We can leave it wholly free from limitation and come back here next year and repeal or amend It if we want to, or we can do that 3 months from now. If my amendment fails, I shall vote for the gentleman’s amendment.
Mr. SHANLEY. I am glad to have the gentleman's statement on that.
[Here the gavel fell.]
