Page:GPO-CRECB-1937-pt2-v82.pdf/18

1072 reference to corn. Those terms would represent the 10 percent as we now have it and would add 5 percent to the meaning of the term "normal" in the bill. If we are to be guided by the Secretary's letter, we should reject the amendment of the Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. FRAZIER. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. in the chair). The Senator will state it.

Mr. FRAZIER. Does the pending amendment include an increase in wheat as well as in corn?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. It does not. The amendment of the Senator from Wyoming affects corn only.

Mr. FRAZIER. I suggest to the Senator from Wyoming that he include wheat as well as corn in his amendment.

Mr. O'MAHONEY. Mr. President, I am not speaking for a wheat-growing State. I did not presume to incorporate wheat in the amendment; but if the Senator from North Dakota cares to perfect the amendment by offering such a change, I shall be very glad to accept it.

Mr. McGILL. Mr. President, I do not think the Senator from Wyoming quite means what he said in his last statement. In this section the committee amended the percentage of wheat, but did not amend the percentage of corn.

Mr. O'MAHONEY. The committee cut the wheat percentage from 20 to 10, and the Senator from North Dakota is objecting to that.

Mr. McGILL. The same argument does not apply. We did not change this section insofar as the percentage of corn is concerned. We made a change later on as to what the term "normal" means. We did that as to wheat, and we also changed the percentage of wheat.

Let us take a vote on the question with reference to com and also a vote with reference to wheat, but they ought not to be voted on together. There is a difference in the argument applicable to them.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment offered by the Senator from Wyoming, on page 24, line 11, to strike out "10 percent" and insert "15 percent."

Mr. FRAZIER. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.

Mr. FRAZIER. can an amendment be made to the amendment to include 15 percent on wheat also?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. After the amendment of the Senator from Wyoming is disposed of, the Senator from North Dakota can offer such an amendment.

Mr. ADAMS. Mr. President, I wish to direct an inquiry to the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. ] as to the second portion of the amendment. On page 67 of the bill is a definition of what constitutes a normal supply of various agricultural commodities, and that normal supply so defined is the basis of the compilation to be made on page 24.

Mr. O'MAHONEY. That is correct.

Mr. ADAMS. In that definition a normal year's supply of wheat is domestic consumption and exports plus 10 percent thereof as an allowance for a normal carry-over; for cotton, a normal year's domestic consumption and exports plus 35 percent; rice, an increase of 10 percent; for tobacco, an increase of 175 percent; but corn, and corn alone, is held down in computing the normal supply for the purpose of this computation to the actual consumption and exports.

I inquire of the Senator from Wyoming if he knows why there should be this apparent discrimination against corn?

Mr. O'MAHONEY. I have found no adequate explanation of that difference. I do not know why corn should be treated upon a different basis from any other of the so-called surplus commodities.

Mr. ADAMS. The argument which was addressed to the Senator from Wyoming was that if his amendment should be adopted and 7 percent added on page 67 to compute the normal supply of corn, then when we went back to page 24 we would have 17 percent, but in the case of wheat as it now stands it would be 20 percent. In other words, we are not bringing corn to a parity with wheat under the amendment proposed by the Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. O'MAHONEY. The Senator from Colorado is exactly right about that as I see it.

Mr. McGILL. Mr. President, the bill as originally drawn—the language on page 67—defines a normal supply of corn as "a normal year's domestic consumption and exports, plus 5 percent." That 5 percent was stricken out by the committee. In the case of wheat, the standard is the normal domestic consumption and exports, plus 10 percent. There is every reason in the world why "normal," as to the consumption and exports of wheat, should be greater than that as to corn because the export of corn is almost nil, but there is a great deal of wheat on the export market. In my judgment, the loan values on wheat ought not to be as high as on corn. We have changed the definition of "normal" for wheat, as I recall. I think the original bill defined "normal" to mean all domestic consumption and exports, plus 20 percent. We have reduced it to 10 percent, and have reduced corn 5 percent, and have really treated them in about the same way. I think there has been no discrimination. The reason for the difference is that one is more on an export basis than the other.

Mr. ADAMS. One of the fundamentals of the bill is the establishment of an ever-normal granary. In other words, it is hoped that during the good years a reasonable surplus will be accumulated to tide the country over the years when there may be a deficit. As between wheat and corn, there is this difference: I come from a State that produces relatively more wheat than corn, but corn affects other domestic industries probably more than wheat. We have the livestock industry dependent upon corn. It seems to me there is certainly as much reason for having an adequate supply for carry-over of corn from the good years as in the case of wheat. In this particular, from the standpoint of the feeder of livestock, none of us want the feeder of livestock to be caught in a jam and unable to feed his livestock. We are interested in fair prices for the producer of com and we want adequate supplies of feeding material for the producer of livestock. It seems to me that if we treat corn as asked in the amendment of the Senator from Wyoming, it would be only fair.

Mr. McGILL. This has no application to the amount to be produced or the amount to be put in the granary. This has to do only with the time when the farmer has a right to vote relative to a marketing quota.

Mr. ADAMS. It all goes back to the question of the quota on page 24 of the bill, because those provisions are all tied together.

Mr. O'MAHONEY. As the Senator from Colorado has so well stated, with respect to every other commodity there is a specific provision in the bill for carry-over, but there is no provision in the bill for carry-over of corn. In other words, the quota provisions, the election provisions, the restrictive control provisions with respect to other commodities, do not go into effect until there is a substantial carry-over; but with respect to corn they go into effect almost immediately. From the point of view of the livestock industry it seems to me impossible to conceive why that exception should be made, and how we can avoid feeling that it constitutes a different interpretation of the law from the viewpoint of the livestock industry.

Mr. McGILL. Mr. President, I still contend the percentage we are providing has to do only with when the time quotas shall go into effect, not with the amount produced or carry-over or anything of the sort. Probably it is not as necessary to have as large a carry-over as we sometimes think. As I understand, throughout a good many years of our history we have never had a shortage of corn except during the recent drought. That was the only time in the history of the country. We have always had more than an ample supply. We have never had a shortage of wheat, regardless of the drought, but have more than an ample supply, and have had an ample supply at all times.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. ] to the committee amendment.