Mr. EATON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McREYNOLDS. I yield.
Mr. EATON. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the statement our chairman is making ought to gain the support of every man in this House regardless of previous considerations. i for one am strong for it. I think it is a most excellent addition.
Mr. MAAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is presumably a humanitarian one, and that is undoubtedly the intention of its author. I hope that the chairman of the committee is not correct; that the bill permits the sending of relief even without this amendment, and I hope the amendment win be voted down. There is nothing humanitarian about any part of war. Let there be no misunderstanding; when you aid either the army through supplying medical supplies or the civilian population who are backing up the army, you are only prolonging the war and permitting the killing of more soldiers. The thing that ended the World War was not the Allied Armies’ defeating the German Army; it was the collapse of the German people behind the German Army.
Every dollar that we send to help any sufferers—of course, everybody is a sufferer in a war—prolongs the war. The sooner a war is over, the sooner the suffering will stop. Every dollar that you send to buy medical supplies for the combatants or food and clothing for the civilian population behind the army means taking a man’s life.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MAAS. I yield.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. According to the gentleman’s theory the Red Cross and other humanitarian organizations ought not to help relieve suffering in case of war?
Mr. MAAS. Exactly.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Is the gentleman against the Red Cross’ participating in war to relieve suffering?
Mr. MAAS. I am against our assisting in continuing European or other wars by any means. The sooner the collapse comes the fewer men will be killed and the sooner the war will be over. If we send money for ambulances, medical supplies, food, and clothing it means that just that much money will not have to be diverted from the purchase of munitions by warring peoples.
Mr. McREYNOLDS. If the gentleman will permit an interruption, that is the reason it is limited to humanitarian organizations.
Mr. MAAS. What is the difference? If you contribute to humanitarian organizations, then the Government does not have to spend what it otherwise would have to spend for such purposes.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. It is not to be contributed to the Government.
Mr. MAAS. That does not make any difference, it is an Indirect aid to the Government.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. It is to be contributed to Red Cross and other relief organizations.
Mr. MAAS. Every dollar spent in supporting the civilian population behind an army prolongs the war, just as definitely as if you give bullets to the army. Modern wars are not duels between armies; they are basic struggles of peoples; and when we aid the people who are belligerents, we are aiding their armies, we are participating in the conflict, and we shall be drawn into it, regardless. Nothing so inflames a people as the bombing of Red Cross units. If we organize and send abroad such units to aid in places where wars are going on, these units are bound to be shelled or bombed from the air. When an American Red Cross hospital or ambulance is hit while operating in a foreign war zone, the result will be fierce denunciation in this country, with an inflamed public opinion that will put us in a war frame of mind. We are likely to become engaged in wars in which we have no natural concern whatever. Let us mind our own business and keep out of foreign brawls. [Applause.]
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time on the amendment has expired.
Mr. BOILEAU. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Boileau to the amendment offered by Mr. McReynolds: Strike out all after the word “suffering” and Insert In lieu thereof the following: “among noncombatants."
Mr. BOILEAU. Mr. Chairman, first of all let me say that I agree with the statement of the distinguished chairman of this committee when he says that his amendment does not mean anything. I agree with him just 100 percent. His amendment does not mean one single thing except that it serves the purpose, I am sure, of partly confusing this issue. He said that it was his understanding that the bill without this amendment meant exactly the same as it would with the amendment. I agree with him absolutely that it means the same thing either way. It means, Mr. Chairman, that hereafter if this amendment of the gentleman from Tennessee should be adopted, people could not solicit, or collect, or receive funds in this country for the purpose of buying medical supplies, or giving medical aid to a government or to a warring faction in case of civil strife. They permit such collection if they can find someone who has absolutely no interest in the war, who is not acting on behalf of his government, or his faction, or a faction with which he is in sympathy. If they can find such a human being they can make relief collections for him, but they cannot supply it to him if he is acting for his government.
But any man or woman who presumes to be friendly to his government or his own faction would naturally be acting In behalf of his or her own group, faction, or government in receiving the money for medical supplies, medical assistance, or food to relieve human suffering. I submit therefore the amendment offered by the genteman from Tennessee means nothing. If you want to humanize this thing, I suggest you should remove that restriction and enable the people in this country whose hearts, will, and desire is to give assistance to other people along the line of medical aid and assistance, food or clothing for noncombatants, to do so; and that is as far as I go in that respect. The amendment offered by the gentleman goes really further than I do with reference to food and clothing. If the people of this country want to make contributions, let us give those contributions to anyone who will see that they are properly used. You cannot find a person in Spain today, I dare say, who would accept this responsibility, whether it is on the Fascist side or the democratic-government side of the controversy. You could not find anyone who would assume the responsibility of taking this medical aid, assistance, or food and use it in the interest of humanity, because all of them have taken sides and they would insist upon acting on behalf of their own side. They would be an agent of their government. As a result, it would be unlawful to have the money used in that way. It just does not make sense. If we are going to act upon the impulse of our hearts, if we are going to act because we believe it is fair and just to aid a people who are in this distress, let us take away these ridiculous provisions and limitations. [Here the gavel fell.]
Mr. BOILEAU. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 3 additional minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. BOILEAU. Mr. Chairman, I appeal to the Members to bear in mind that the McReynolds amendment means nothing. The gentleman has admitted that.
Mr. McREYNOLDS. The explanation of It.
Mr. BOILEAU. The gentleman will agree with me that his amendment means nothing?
Mr. McREYNOLDS. I agree with the gentleman it means nothing because the same provisions of the amendment are contained in the bill itself.
Mr. BOILEAU. It means nothing. So do not be fooled.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment was offered for the purpose of clarifying something that. did not need clarification.
