Page:GPO-CRECB-1937-pt2-v82.pdf/14

1068 this matter, and which is this morning prihted, in connection with the dairying features of the bill? Has the Senator read that? I propose to call it section 66, and it will appear at the end of the bill.

Mr. GILLETTE. Mr. President, I am not at all familiar with it. The first time I had it called to my attention was when the Senator rose a while ago and I propounded an inquiry to him with reference to it.

Mr. POPE. This is the amendment to which the Senator from Wyoming referred a few minutes ago as having been prepared by the Department rather carefully to deal with the whole dairying problem. I should be interested in the Senator's judgment on the effect of it in accomplishing generally the purposes which the Senator has in mind.

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

Mr. GILLETTE. I yield.

Mr. DUFFY. In my State, one of the leading dairy states, perhaps, the farmers for years and years have been carefully building up their dairy herds and have produced just enough corn to fill their silos. They have not sold any; it has not gone out into the market at all. As I understand the way the bill would operate, if there were some sort of a national quota, the farmer would either have to cut down or sell off his herd, or he would have to go out where he could, somewhere, in the market, and buy green corn, in the stalks, in order to fill his silo, or else remain with his silo, say, two-thirds or three-quarters full.

Mr. GILLETTE. He could become a cooperator, and he would have to become a cooperator, under the bill. He would be tendered an adjustment contract if he was feeding in that way and could comply with the provisions of the bill.

Mr. DUFFY. As I understand, the bill differs from the House bill. There are no areas provided; it would apply all over the country. There would be no particular corn areas provided.

Mr. GITLETTE. I am not familiar with that.

Mr. DUFFY. In the bill in the House there are certain areas provided where the law can apply as to corn.

My point is that the dairy farmer in my State thinks it is eminently unfair to him, who has never helped to create a surplus in the corn market, who has never sold any corn, who has only produced enough corn to fill his silos in order to get his herd through the winter. Now he is faced with the situation where he has the acreage available, he has been cultivating his soil in accordance with the soil-conserving practices during the year, and suddenly he will find himself up against the proposition that he will not even be allowed to raise enough corn on his farm to fill his silo in order to take his herd through the winter.

It is said he can cooperate and get some benefit payments, but he has his herd, developed over a long course of years, and he will have to sell it or dispose of it in some other way. I do not think the dairy farmers of my State would feel that I was properly representing them if I supported the bill with that kind of a provision in it.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, will the Senator from Iowa yield?

Mr. GILLETTE. I yield.

Mr. HATCH. During the discussion which has proceeded I think perhaps there may have been some misunderstanding as to the effect of the amendment. I was about to ask whether the Senator from New York would not have his amendment printed and let it go over for the day, so that we could study it and see just what its effect would be. Would the Senator from New York be willing to do that?

Mr. COPELAND. I am perfectly agreeable to that. If that is to be done, I suggest that the other amendment, which the Senator from Idaho [Mr. ] will present, be printed also, so that we may have that, too.

Mr. POPE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Iowa yield?

Mr. GILLETTE. I yield.

Mr. POPE. May I inquire what point we have reached in the bill?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The parliamentary situation is that unanimous consent was given for the consideration of the amendment offered by the Senator from New York to the text on page 72.

Mr. O'MAHONEY. Mr. President, I thought that before consent was granted there was an interposition. I took the floor, and, while not making a formal objection, I did ask the Senator from New York to let the amendment go over, and he has now granted that request.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on passing over until tomorrow the amendment of the Senator from New York.

Mr. McNARY. Mr. President, I think it is proper, but I do not want any limitation as to tomorrow, because we might not reach it until several days after tomorrow. May we have an understanding that it merely goes over without prejudice?

Mr. GILLETTE. Mr. President, before that is done I should like to say a word. I have every appreciation of the difficulty which has been referred to by the Senator from Wisconsin. This is so important to the dairy farmers, it is so important that an amendment be not adopted that would destroy the bill, I think it should be approached with a great deal of care. So far as I am concerned, I should be glad to have it go over and to see if something could be worked out. I doubt very much whether anything can be worked out, but I hope something can be.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair has been informed by the parliamentary clerk that the use of the word "tomorrow" in a request of this kind means when the Senate is ready to take the matter up, and does not necessarily mean the next day.

Is there objection to the request? The Chair hears none, and the amendment of the Senator from New York [Mr. ] will be passed over.

The clerk will state the next committee amendment.

The next committee amendment was, on page 24, line 1, to strike out the heading—

Marketing quotas.

The amendment was agreed to.

The next committee amendment was, on the same page, in line 2, to insert:

Establishment of quota.

The amendment was agreed to.

The next committee amendment was, on page 24, in line 4, after the word "for", to strike out "any major agricultural commodity" and insert "wheat or corn", so as to read:

Whenever on the thirtieth day prior to the beginning of the marketing year for wheat or corn.

Mr. McNARY. Mr. President, when this bill was taken out into the country and read to the country folks the marketing quota applied to all of the commodities mentioned in the bill. As I recall, now the marketing quota, particularly in this fashion, does not apply to cotton, tobacco, and rice.

Mr. POPE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield at that point?

Mr. McNARY. I yield.

Mr. POPE. I call the attention of the Senator to the fact that the marketing quota does apply to those commodities, but not at this point in the bill. The cotton quotas are to be found, for instance, on page 31, and the tobacco and rice quotas are found later in the bill.

Mr. McNARY. Oh, yes; they apply, but not in the manner that wheat and corn are dealt with.

Mr. POPE. Substantially so.

Mr. McNARY. Oh, no. I will demonstrate that to the Senator before I get through. It is just another discrimination against the producers of wheat and corn.

Mr. President, in presenting this matter it is necessary to look at lines 8, 9, and 10 on page 24. There the percentages are given which appertain to the establishment of quotas. The language is stricken out. I should like to ask the Senator from Idaho [Mr. ] or the Senator from Kansas