themselves these democratic countries must aim themselves
to the teeth.
America is usually a peaceful nation, but still the Fascist states compel us to Increase our armament and to spend billions for preparedness. England and France, the two great European democracies, are our first line of defense. If you strike out the enacting clause of this bill, and prevent the passage of this neutrality bill that would give the President discretionary powers to help our European democracies, whose very safety is being jeopardized by the dictators of Europe, we may become the next victims of the wrath of the Fascist nations.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that the British Empire is our first line of defense, and their military strength is our military strength, and their safety is our safety. We should cooperate in every way that we can to protect the parliamentary constitutional democracies of England and France. I would even be in favor of canceling the debts that they owe to our country in order to proclaim to these dictatorial, fascistic nations who are Jeopardizing the peace of the world that the material and financial resources of the United States are behind the two great powerful parliamentary constitutional democracies, England and France, in their endeavor to preserve their democratic forms qf government. Such a move by us would insure world peace.
Two potent reasons compel me to advocate such a policy: First, we are a part and parcel of the Anglo-Saxon civilization, of which we are all proud and which we all want to see- perpetuated. The fall of the British Empire would be a terrible catastrophe for Anglo-Saxon civilization. We simply cannot remain indifferent to the destinies of this Empire; when it is attacked we must come to its aid. The three great democracies, France, the British Empire, and the United States, must either defend the democratic regime or be destroyed separately. Either all three democracies will survive and then make the rest of humanity democratic or they will all be destroyed. It is for this reason that from the point of view of our own interests, as a democracy, we cannot be indifferent to an attack of the Fascist powers against any major democratic country in Europe. There is not one American citizen with an understanding of the international situation who would be indifferent to such an attack. Thus, our neutrality legislation cannot disregard these two factors—the British Empire as our first line of defense and the British Empire as the center of Anglo-Saxon civilization, of which we are a part and in whose survival we are vitally interested.
It is possible that in the future a major Fascist power will attack and destroy a minor democratic state in whose existence America, as a democracy, is interested. Can it be said that American democracy will look indifferently at such an attack? Every American citizen will resent it and will side with the victim. A democratic government as ourselves niUst express in its policies the sentiments of the majority of its population.
The neutrality legislation that we are now enacting for a period of 2 years, giving our President discretionary power, is only experimental. We can always improve it. Absolute neutrality is only found in death. Our American neutrality policy, therefore, should and must always be relative and elastic, and not rigid and absolute.
I sincerely trust that the motion of my distinguished colleague from Washington to strike out the enacting clause do not prevail, and that this splendid neutrality bill that is now being debated, amended, and considered be passed. [Applause.]
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York has expired. All time has expired.
Mr. COFFEE of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my motion to strike out the enacting clause.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection?
There was no objection.
Mr. COFFEE of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I offer the following amendment, which I send to the desk and ask to have read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Corm of Washington: Page 20, line 17, after the word "revocation”, strike out all of section 4 of said bill, commencing with the word “export”, on line 18, page 20, to and including the word “belligerents", In line 12, page 23, and Insert In lieu thereof the following:
"Sec. 4. (a) Whenever during any war in which the United States is neutral the President shall find that the placing of restrictions on the shipment from the United States to belligerent countries of certain articles or materials used in the manufacture of arms, ammunition, or Implements of war, or in the conduct of war, will serve to promote the security and preserve the neutrality of the United States, or to protect the lives and commerce of nationals of the United States, or that to refrain from placing such restrictions would contribute to a prolongation or expansion of the war, he so proclaim, and It shall thereafter be unlawful to export, or attempt to export, or cause to be exported, or sell for export, such articles or materials from any place In the United States to any belligerent country named In the proclamation, or to any neutral country for transshipment to or for the use of any such belligerent country in excess of a normal amount, in quantity and kind, of exports from the United States to the respective belligerent countries prior to the date of the proclamation, such normal amount to constitute the average of shipments during a previous period of years to be determined by the President: Provided. That no restriction or prohibition Imposed under this section shall under any circumstances be applied to food or medical supplies: Provided further, That no such articles or materials may be transshipped from the boundaries of the United States, as hereinabove delimited, until all rights, title, and Interest therein shall have been transferred to some foreign government agency, institution, association, partnership, corporation, or national. The shipper of such articles, or materials shall be required to file with the collector of the port from which they are to be exported a declaration under oath that there exists in American citizens no right, title, or Interest in such articles or materials, and to comply with such rules and regulations as shall be promulgated by the President. Any such declaration so filed shall be a conclusive estoppel against any claim of any American citizen of right, title, or interest in such articles or materials.
Insurance written by American underwriters on any articles or materials, the exportation of which Is prohibited by this act, or on articles, carried by an American vessel or airship contrary to subsection (a) of this section shall not be deemed an American Interest therein, and no insurance policy issued on such articles or materials and no loss incurred thereunder shall be made a basis of any claim put forward by the Government of the United States: Provided further, That subsequent to said proclamation by the President it shall be unlawful for any vessel or aircraft of the United States to carry such articles or materials to any belligerent country, or to any neutral country for transshipment to or for the use of any such belligerent country.
(b) The President shall, by proclamation, definitely enumerate the articles or materials the exportation of which Is to be restricted, and he may, from time to time, modify or revoke, In whole or In part, any proclamation Issued by him under this section when he shall find that the conditions which caused him to issue his proclamation have ceased to exist or have so changed as to Justify, In his opinion, such modification or revocation.
(c) The President shall, from time to time, by proclamation, extend such restrictions as are Imposed under this section to other countries as and when they may become Involved in such war.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the adoption of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington. The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. Coffee of Washington) there were—ayes 24, noes 81.
So the amendment was rejected.
Mr. KVALE. Mr. Chairman, I offer the following amendment, which I send to the desk.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Kvale: Page 23. after line 12, insert a new section to read as follows:
"Sec. 5. Any provisions herein Included shall apply to communications, controls, including cable, radio, and mall dispatches, and to give to the President full authority to amplify, restrict, or curtail such services as may to him seem required In the Interest of peace or of averting possible or actual hostility."
Mr. KVALE. Mr. Chairman, I shall not intrude upon the patience of the body more than to say that if this amendment is embodied in the bill it will allow the conferees to touch a subject which is important in my mind which should not have been ignored in the preparation of a measure as vital as this.
Mr. McREYNOLDS. Mr. Chairman, this is a question that would have to be given serious consideration. It might be a good thought, but we cannot afford to accept it and put It in the bill under these conditions. It is too far-reaching.
The CHAIRMAN. The question Is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota.
