fore, I sincerely ask that the House vote down the proposed amendment.
Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KLOEB. I yield.
Mr. FERGUSON. If I do not misinterpret the gentleman, my amendment striking out section 4 would make the bill conform to his personal desires.
Mr. KLOEB. No. It would have satisfied me in the beginning, but I am wholeheartedly for section 4 now with the 2-year limitation, because I believe, and wish to impress this upon my friends and the Members of this House, that it is wholesome and proper that certainly within the next 2 years this House again take up this question and discuss these neutrality problems in the interest of the peace and safety of the United States. I do not believe we should foreclose discussion or virtually foreclose it by making these provisions permanent. It is well that we keep our minds open, that we test carefully these important steps that we are taking, and that your committee in the House and this body, acting under the direction of its committee, carefully take on these great problems. They should be opened to discussion again, certainly within a period oft the next 2 years.
Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield further?
Mr. KLOEB. I yield.
Mr. FERGUSON. In my estimation the gentleman from Ohio is one of the best-informed Members of the House.
Mr. KLOEB. I thank my friend.
Mr. FERGUSON. I wish he had stood by his original con-1 victims on this bill and not been influenced by the wave of popular opinion.
Mr. KLOEB. Mr. Chairman, having stated my position, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I heartily endorse the amendment of the gentleman from Oklahoma. I have stated before my position on so-called neutrality legislation. On Tuesday last, the 16th, in general debate, I said the measure that I believe would be the greatest protection to this country is the reenactment of the present so-called neutrality law. So far as I can tell, no one is really anxious to pass this legislation. Apparently the President does not ask for its passage. Apparently the State Department does not ask for its passage. Surely our fine Secretary of State, Mr. Hull, cannot want its passage, as, if this section remains in the bill, the reciprocal-trade agreements with belligerent countries will be but scraps of paper and gone with the first breath of war; and he has repeatedly stated in effect that the greatest aid to peace is a free flow of trade among countries. Mr. Chairman, neutrality is the most important subject the Congress has considered thus far. It has been considered, with one or two minor exceptions, in a nonpartisan way, as it should be, in an American way. This has been proved by the action of the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. McReynolds], in accepting the amendment of the gentleman from Connecticut, which improves the bill by limiting its operation to 2 years. I maintain, however, that during that time this country could easily be embroiled in war as a result of this section. Looking back over the years that have intervened since the World War, every Member will remember that we were in that war less than 2 years. Thus, within the 2 years of the life of this bill, it would be possible to engage in and complete a great world war.
Mr. DONDERO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. I yield.
Mr. DONDERO. As I understand the amendment of the gentleman from Oklahoma, its adoption would mean that there would go out of the bill that provision which spells the only difference between the law as it stands now and the bill before the House.
Mrs. ROGERS of, Massachusetts. As I understand, the gentleman is correct.
Mr. FERGUSON. That is correct.
Mr. DONDERO. In other words, we would still have the old neutrality law that Is on the books, but which expires on the 1st of May.
Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry I cannot yield further.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kloeb] has stated there Is a great public demand that shipping on the high seas be controlled during war. I find that there is a great public demand for peace. The debate on the floor of the House proves that we are all groping in the dark, but that we are all, each and everyone of us, striving to find the right way, if that be possible, to maintain peace, to keep this country at peace.
But we ail know from press reports of conditions existing in our own country and conditions existing across the sea that everyone in this country, as well as across the sea, is in a supersensitive state. If the President of the United States should change the rules of the game after the game has started, or after the war has started, it would undoubtedly be considered an unneutral act by one nation or the other; there would be reprisals and we would be at war. Let us stay steadily in session, if it be necessary, to enact proper legislation.
[Here the gavel fell.]
Mr. FADDIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the pro-forma amendment.
Mr. KOPPLEMANN. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. KOPPLEMANN. When the eminent chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, in statesmanlike fashion, took the floor he offered a motion restricting all debate on this section to 30 minutes.
Mr. McREYNOLDS. Is the gentleman making a speech about me?
Mr. KOPPLEMANN. I am offering a parliamentary inquiry. He moved that all debate on this section be concluded in 30 minutes.
Mr. McREYNOLDS. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the gentleman is not stating a parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. KOPPLEMANN. If the gentleman will give me a chance, I will state it.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will rule at the end of the gentleman’s statement of the parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. McREYNOLDS. Is the Chairman going to listen to a speech?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair wants to hear what the parliamentary inquiry involves.
Mr. KOPPLEMANN. The 30 minutes was intended for the benefit of the House. Almost from the time that that motion was agreed to by the House the members of the committee, one after another, have secured time. I presume I know the answer to the parliamentary inquiry already, but I want to call it to the attention of the Members of the House. I make the point that the members of the committee are consuming all of the time.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair does not consider that the gentleman has stated a parliamentary inquiry. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Faddis] is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FADDIS. Mr. Chairman, I am sure that most Members of the House approach the consideration of the question of neutrality with a great deal of reluctance. We realize that it is a question full of complications, and full of possibilities of future complications which no one at this time can foresee. In fact, it is a question full of dynamite. I fully share the apprehensions of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Wadsworth] in respect to this legislation.
There is, however, an ardent public demand for neutrality legislation, which demand is based upon the popular belief that it will keep us out of war. There are those who believe that the more mandatory the provisions of this legislation are the more certain it is to keep us out of war. They believe it can be made to work automatically like a pop valve
