Page:Congressional Record Volume 81 Part 3.djvu/15

1937 Mr. McREYNOLDS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Martin] to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much what the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Martin] said, but we have given this all kinds of study. We feel the term should be 2 years, which is a reasonable time, just as the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shanley] stated. If there is any reason to change the law next year, and if it is desired by the Congress to do so,* it may be changed, but we do not want to be forced to take this matter up next year unless necessary. We feel that 2 years is the proper limitation, and I, therefore, hope the membership of the House will vote down the 1-year proposition and leave it at 2 years, which we have suggested.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Martin] to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shanley ].

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. Martin of Colorado) there were—yeas 45, noes 97. So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.

Mr. LUCKEY of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I offer a substitute amendment for the amendment offered by the gentleman from Connecticut.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Luckey of Nebraska as a substitute for the amendment of Mr. Shanley : Page 20. line 19, after section 4, strike out the entire section through page 23, line 12, ending “this section shall apply equally to aU belligerents" and Insert "(a) whenever the President shall have Issued the proclamation.”

Mr. McREYNOLDS (interrupting reading of amendment).

Mr. Chairman, a point of order. .

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. McREYNOLDS. The gentleman Is offering an amendment as a substitute for the entire section. It is not germane to the amendment of the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shanley], which is a limitation, and is not a substitute for the amendment. The amendment of the gentleman from Nebraska is not a limitation and is not germane to the pending amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair sustains the point of order on the ground the amendment offered by the gentleman from Nebraska is clearly not a substitute for the amendment offered by the gentleman from Connecticut.

The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Connecticut.

The question was taken, and the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. FISH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to strike out section 4 (a).

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Fish: Page 20, line 19. strike out all of subeectlon (a).

Mr. FISH. Mr. Chairman, apparently there are several schools of thought to be considered in respect to neutrality legislation—those who prefer discretionary powers being given to the President; those who favor mandatory legislation by the Congress; and those who are in between, who favor neither one but believe that American shipping should carry goods and commodities at its own risk.

This section is the crux of the bill, It Is short, and everybody ought to get a copy of the bill and see what paragraph (a) of section 4 does, It is the paragraph which discriminates against American shipping, It permits the President of the United (States to say that certain commodities shall not be carried by American ships to belligerent nations, It gives the President discretionary power to wreck the American merchant marine, If this section Is adopted, we delegate and surrender our constitutional power to lay embargoes to the President.

My proposition is simply this: Strike it ah out, including the lines reading:

The President shall by proclamation from time to time definitely enumerate the articles and materials which It shall be unlawful for American vessels to transport.

If that delegation of embargo power Is stricken out, then we hope to insert an amendment to the effect that American ships will be considered the same as any other ships, and can carry the same commodities, except they shall do so at their own risk.

If this is done, then we protect our American merchant marine and our own shipping. If we do not do it, this is what happens:

First, we surrender—and a good many Members of Congress are getting tired of delegating away our own constitutional powers—to lay embargoes to the President, who in turn will probably delegate it to some subordinates in the State Department to legislate for us; and to legislate against whom and against what? Why, American shipping and American commerce, so neutral nations, Japan, England, and others, can come over here, take our trade, and profit by it, thus literally destroying our own merchant marine.

Mr. MAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FISH. I yield.

Mr. MAY. I am just a little puzzled to understand the gentleman’s position now as compared with what it was an hour or two ago, when he favored absolute abandonment of the high seas. The gentleman now argues we are liable to destroy our commerce.

Mr. FISH. Not at all. As I stated before, I take a middle course. I am willing to modify our rights regarding the freedom of the seas. I do not think we should permit our ship6, as we did in the World War, to go to belligerent nations to get us into war simply for the sake of profit and greed. I want to modify that right, and I want American ships to take our commodities on the same basis as foreign ships, but to take the commodities at their own risk.

Mr. MAY. Does the gentleman believe this bill leads to the abandonment of the high seas by our commerce?

Mr. FISH. Certainly a modification of it.

Mr. MAY. Yet the gentleman is going to vote for it?

Mr. FISH. I never said I would vote for it. There are many things in the resolution I do not like.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. FISH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 5 additional minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York?

There was no objection.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a question?

Mr. FISH. I yield.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. With respect to this provision, which prohibits American ships from carrying certain commodities to belligerent nations, it is the sinking of American ships which might involve us in war and not the sinking of other ships, is it not? This is to prohibit our ships under certain conditions from carrying commodities to belligerent nations, so as to prevent our becoming involved in war.

Mr. FISH. This amendment practically destroys American shipping. If the provisions are carried out by the President and he proclaims American ships cannot carry certain commodities to belligerent nations, then we transfer such trade to England, Japan, or to the other big shipping nations.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. However, the gentleman docs not believe any President would exercise this power unless there were an emergency?

Mr. PISH. The very purpose of the bill under this section is to discriminate against American shipping, There is no other purpose in it. All you have to do Is to read the section, It you want to give up your embargo power, If you want to say to the President and the subordinates in the fit ate Department, “Go ahead and discriminate against American ships and give this trade to other foreign nations", then adopt this section, because that Is the very purpose of it, There is no other meaning to it whatever.

We spend millions of dollars each year to build up our merchant marine. We spend hundreds of millions of dollars to build up our Navy, If this paragraph goes through, you might as well scuttle the Navy and the merchant marine or lock them up In Chesapeake Bay, and make a Laughingstock of the strongest and greatest Nation In the world by saying, “We do not dare carry our own trade; we are going to turn it over to someone else.”