Page:GPO-CRECB-1937-pt2-v82.pdf/17

1937 provision for a 5-percent carry-over. In other words, the domestic consumption, the exports, and 5-percent carryover were to constitute the normal supply. Then there was this provision above normal supply, which represents the point when marketing quotas may go into effect, depending upon the vote of the farmers. So, as I understood the matter, the Secretary referred to the cushion, or the percentage of carry-over in the normal supply, in his letter.

Mr. O'MAHONEY. I am not referring to the Secretary's letter, and I may say that I have not talked over this particular amendment with him personally; but I have talked it over with certain experts in the Department, and it is my understanding that this amendment is in general agreement with the point of view of the Department.

Mr. McGILL. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, in the bill as it was originally introduced the term "normal supply" as applied to corn meant a normal year's domestic consumption and exports, plus 5 percent. I have not had the matter called to my attention in just the manner proposed by the Senator's amendment.

Mr. O'MAHONEY. I have offered an amendment to that provision also.

Mr. McGilL. If the Senator has an amendment to that provision, does he intend to restore the 5 percent to normal?

Mr. O'MAHONEY. Yes; I am going to ask that that be restored. As a matter of fact, our amendment provides for 7 percent.

Mr. McGILL. Then that would increase the amount of corn on hand 10 percent more than the bill now provides for before a marketing quota could go into effect?

Mr. O'MAHONEY. No; the provision which is being amended here deals only with calling these meetings; and, as I think has already been very well pointed out, the meetings are more or less pro forma. As the bill provides, the Secretary shall within 15 days call a meeting to obtain the facts; and, of course, the facts will already be very well known. The truth of the matter is, the farmers will be appealing to Washington for the facts.

Mr. McGILL. If the Senator from Iowa [Mr. ] has no objection to the amendment, I do not know that I should raise any; but I feel that the two provisions should be considered together.

Mr. POPE. Mr. President, if the Senator from Wyoming will yield, I desire to say that those who prepared the bill, including very able representatives of the corn growers of illinois, and I think in Iowa and some from Kansas, were very positive in their opinion that the bill should remain as it is with reference to 10 percent in connection with the corn quota.

So far as my State is concerned, I have no particular concern about this amendment. We do not raise corn for market to any practical extent; but those who prepared the bill, and those who have been presenting the bill to farmers all over the country, and particularly corn farmers, are insistent that they be given an opportunity to put into effect these marketing quotas without accumulating such a surplus of corn as would be represented here—15 percent, according to the Senator's amendment, and another 5 percent, which would be 20 percent, before a marketing quota could go into effect.

Mr. O'MAHONEY. This matter, of course, goes to the very heart of the problem. No one can have followed this discussion from the day the bill was brought before the Senate to this minute without realizing that, dealing as we are with a limited number of agricultural commodities, we are setting in motion a chain of causes which inevitably will affect dozens of other agricultural commodities. We have spent I do not know how many hours discussing the effect of this bill upon the dairy industry. It is perfectly obvious that if we take certain acreage out of the production of one commodity, we turn it over to the production of another commodity. To prevent a surplus in one commodity, we stimulate the production of another. As a result all sorts of proposals are being made to restrict the use of the diverted acreage. It is perfectly obvious that we are dealing with an integrated problem; but in this bill we are trying to increase prices for the producers of a limited number of commodities.

Corn is a commodity which is marketed chiefiy through livestock. If we unduly restrict the supply of corn, we immediately affect the livestock industry. Therefore, I am frankly seeking to avoid the imposition of the restrictive effects of this bill on corn until the surplus is so great that it is necessary to do it to protect the corn farmer. I do not believe that the restrictive effects should be imposed every year, as they will be under this bill, with the almost certain result that the livestock industry will be very harmfully affected thereby; and since the Department of Agriculture is in accord with the general purpose of the suggestion I make, and since the bill as reported by the House Committee on Agriculture is in accord with this suggestion, I hope it will be adopted by the Senate.

Mr. McGilL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a moment before he takes his seat?

Mr. O'MAHONEY. I yield.

Mr. McGILL. If the amendment proposed by the Senator should be adopted, and then if the amendment he proposes on page 67 should be adopted as to what "normal" shall mean, the marketing quotas would not go into effect until there was 10 percent more corn on hand than is now provided for by the bill. While the amendment is in the portion of the section dealing only with the hearings to be called by the Secretary, or to be conducted by him, nevertheless the very next section provides that—

If the Secretary determines on the basis of such hearings that the total supply for the commodity will exceed the normal supply therefor by more than the percentage above specified, he shall proclaim the amount of such total supply and that, beginning on the 15th day after the date of the proclamation, a national marketing quota shall be in effect—

Mr. O'MAHONEY. Yes; the Senator is right about that.

Mr. McGILL. Therefore, the percentage which the Senator is now seeking to add does have to do with the amount on hand at the time when a marketing quota could be put into effect. As the bill is now drawn, the normal supply of corn, being the domestic consumption and carry-over and exports, would be 2,375,000,000 bushels. Under the provisions as they now are contained in the bill, with the committee amendments, should there be 10 percent more than that, the Secretary would be called upon to establish the marketing quota and hold a referendum. If the Senator's amendment is agreed to—if the Senator's time is up I will address the Chair and take the floor—he will have raised the percentage 5 percent in this section, from 10 to 15 percent; then he will go over to page 67 and add 5 percent there to what "normal" means, and will, in effect, say that before a marketing quota can be voted upon by the com producers, there shall be 20 percent more than the bill now provides.

That is the effect of the Senator's two amendments.

I do not agree that we are seeking to cut down production in a way that will be a detriment to the people of the country generally engaged in other activities or in producing other commodities. This matter has been presented to the corn farmers of the country quite thoroughly, in my judgment, and to some of the very best informed corn farmers of the country. They objected to having the 5 percent added to what would constitute a normal supply. They objected to having a greater amount on hand before they should have the right to vote as to whether a marketing quota should be enforced upon them.

In my judgment, the Senator's amendment should be rejected. The committee amendment is identical with the language of the original bill so far as the commodity of corn is concerned. The Senator proposes to add to that, and later proposes to add to what shall be the normal supply. The Secretary of Agriculture, in his letter, if we are to be guided by his judgment—and, of course, we should take it into consideration in determining what we shall do—stated, as I understood, that he desired the terms of the original bill with