Page:GPO-CRECB-1937-pt2-v82.pdf/13

1937 on his farm will be exempted from any storage requirement; furthermore, that ensilage put up by the farmer for his own use will not be counted in connection with producing for market, in connection with the marketing quota. In the first place, it would be very difficult to determine the matter, and it seems to us only fair that where corn is put up in the form of ensilage, and for use on the farm, the farmer might well be exempted from the provisions of the proposed act.

Mr. GILLETTE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Idaho yield?

Mr. POPE. I yield.

Mr. GILLETTE. With the amendment to which the Senator has just referred in mind, is it the Senator's thought to exempt from the provisions of the act ensilage which is fed to meat-producing animals for market, or the products of which are going to market?

Mr. POPE. Yes; that would be true.

Mr. GILLETTE. I will ask the Senator if that is not going to defeat the purpose of the bill, in determining production of corn for market? If the Senator will permit me, the thought was to hold the farmer to an adjustment contract if he is producing corn for market, or if he is feeding to animals the meat products of which go to market. The only exemption we have provided is as to corn for home consumption, for the use of the family, the work animals, or animals the products of which do not go into the market. Is it the Senator's thought, in offering this amendment, that we are to open the field again, and if ensilage is put in the silo and fed to cattle, and the corn products used in that method, instead of husking it and putting it in the crib, the farmer is to be exempted from the adjustment contract?

Mr. POPE. That is the effect of the amendment. I think it is a question of debate as to what extent ensilage is fed to hogs and other livestock. My information is that it is not fed to any great extent, and that this exemption would not have any serious effect upon the purpose and effect of the act. It would be very difficult to administer, as the Senator can see. Since the Senator comes from a great corn-producing State, I should be glad to have his opinion as to whether ensilage is used, to any considerable extent in the feeding of livestock, or to such an extent as would impair the effectiveness of the proposed law.

Mr. O'MAHONEY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Idaho yield?

Mr. POPE. I yield.

Mr. O'MAHONEY. If the Senator from Iowa will pardon me——

Mr. GILLETTE. Certainly——

Mr. O'MAHONEY. I was going to say that I think it would be well not to consider this amendment at this time.

The Senator from Idaho yesterday read an amendment which has had the consideration of the Department of Agriculture, with respect to the effect on the incomes of producers of livestock, and it seems to me that the amendment now proposed by the Senator from New York is of so much importance in connection with the same problem that the two amendments ought to be considered together. Of course it is a departure from the regular order for an amendment of this kind to be considered until after the committee amendments are disposed of. I feel that the Senator from New York should not insist upon his request for consideration of his amendment at this time.

Mr. POPE. It is entirely agreeable to me that it be considered later, when the amendment which I offered in connection with dairying is presented.

Mr. COPELAND. So far as I am concerned, Mr. President, I have no objection, except that I thought we had an understanding yesterday that all the matters which had to do with the feeding of dairy cattle should be considered together at this time.

Mr. McNARY. Mr. President, I do not find myself in accord with any of the statements made. The purpose of the Senator from New York is to take dairying out of the operation of all the provisions of the bill. The purpose of the amendment I introduced on behalf of the milk cooperators, as well as the amendment proposed by the Senator from Idaho, is to deal with the acreage diverted for soil conserving and soil-building purposes so as not to expand the dairy industry. That is the distinction between the two theories.

The Senator from New York is discussing a wholly different problem, raised yesterday by the Senator from Idaho or the Senator from Oregon. They are dealing with diverted acres. The Senator from New York is attempting to take out of the bill any matters appertaining to its application to the dairy industry. I can see no reason why we cannot deal with the Senator's problem quite apart from the dairy or livestock problem, which I wish to present in my own time, when we reach the stage of individual amendments.

Mr. GILLETTE. Mr. President, the Senator from Idaho honored me with an inquiry, and I shall answer it as best I can. It is a well-known fact that in the corn areas 85 percent of the corn is marketed on the hoof, as we call it, or in meat-producing animals. Any corn quota such as we have devised here must of necessity take into consideration the 85 percent, rather than the 15 percent. It is also common practice in feeding stock to feed ensilage. A large portion of the com crop is put into silos and fed to the cattle for fattening, as well as to hogs; and if we are exempting from the provisions of the bill the presentation of an adjustment contract and the necessity for conforming with it corn that goes into animals in the form of ensilage or in the form of ear com, in my opinion, it will be destructive of the purpose of the bill.

Mr. COPELAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. GILLETTE. Gladly.

Mr. COPELAND. Would the Senator object to this amendment if it were modified to read "Corn shall also be deemed consumed on the farm if used for ensilage to feed dairy cattle"? That would be a relatively small amount.

Mr. GILLETTE. Mr. President, I realize fully what the Senator from New York has in mind and I sympathize with it; but may I suggest to him that if that were done it would stimulate more than any one thing he could imagine the competition in building up the dairy industry in competition with the industry in his own State, because if the farmers in the State of Iowa and in other States could use corn for the purpose of feeding it to dairy cattle and marketing the milk and butter and cheese they would have every incentive to do it and would not be bound by the provisions of the law.

Mr. COPELAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further?

Mr. GILLETTE. Certainly.

Mr. COPELAND. If I and the rest of us who are interested in the dairy farmers sit silent when this bill is passed, I suppose the dairy farmer then will thrive as he never has before. Is that the view of the Senator?

Mr. GILLETTE. Mr. President, I may state as a preliminary to my answer that I am a dairy farmer. Before I came to Congress I milked cows and sold the products, and I have every sympathy with the dairy farmers. I am interested, as the Senator is interested, in dairymen in connection with the pending bill and its administration. However, I greatly fear that what the Senator is trying to do would destroy the very thing he has in mind by way of protecting them from the administrative features of the bill.

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, will the Senator from Iowa yield to me?

Mr. GILLETTE. I yield.

Mr. ELLENDER. Is it not a fact that under the bill the dairy farmer can become a cooperator if he desires, and produce all the corn he wants to produce?

Mr. GILLETTE. He must become a cooperator in order to receive the benefits if he is feeding his corn to dairy cattle.

Mr. POPE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me?

Mr. GILLETTE. I yield.

Mr. POPE. Is the Senator familiar with the amendment which I read yesterday in the course of the discussion of