Page:GPO-CRECB-1937-pt2-v82.pdf/20

1074 Mr. McGILL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me?

Mr. POPE. I yield.

Mr. McGILL. In order to make the matter clear, and confining ourselves to the views expressed by the Secretary of Agriculture, as stated in his letter, and not the views merely of someone in the Department of Agriculture, I think the Secretary is very clear that his desire is that on page 67 of the bill there be added, in defining the term "normal supply of corn," the words "exports plus 5 percent as a carry-over," the same as it was in the original bill.

The portion now sought to be amended by the Senator from Wyoming is exactly as it was in the original bill. The only change the Secretary approves or asks for is the addition of the words "5 percent" in the definition of the word "normal" as constituting a carry-over.

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

Mr. POPE. I yield.

Mr. ADAMS. The Senator from Kansas and the Senator from Idaho state that this 10-percent provision is identical with the Secretary's request. Merely, as a matter of mathematics, in one particular that is not accurate, because the 10 percent applies to the normal supply, to which the Secretary would have added 5 percent. So there is at least 10 percent of that 5 percent which is eliminated. In other words, it was 10 percent of 105 percent, rather than 10 percent of 100 percent.

Mr. McGILL. That is correct.

Mr. POPE. That is a very small matter; but if the Senate should see fit to restore the 5 percent in the normal supply then with the 10 percent provided in the bill as it is, without the amendment, the wishes of the Secretary would be met.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. ] to the committee amendment on page 24, line 11, to strike out "10 percent" and insert "15 percent."

Mr. O'MAHONEY. On the amendment I ask for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered, and the legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. BYRNES (when his name was called). I have a general pair with the senior Senator from Maine [Mr. ]. I transfer that pair to the junior Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. ] and vote. I vote "nay."

The roll call was concluded.

Mr. LOGAN. I have a general pair with the senior Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. ] who is absent. I transfer that pair to the senior Senator from Connecticut [Mr. ] and vote. I vote "nay."

Mr. SHIPSTEAD (after having voted in the negative). I have a pair with the senior Senator from Virginia [Mr. ]. I find that the Senator from Virginia has not voted, so I withdraw my vote.

Mr. MINTON. I announce the pair of the Senator from Utah [Mr. ] with the Senator from Washington [Mr. ]. The Senator from Utah, if present and at liberty to vote, would vote "yea." The Senator from Washington, if present and at liberty to vote, would vote "nay."

I announce that the Senator from Washington [Mr. ], the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. ], and the Senator from Delaware [Mr. ] are detained from the Senate because of illness.

The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. ] is detained because of illness in his family.

The Senator from Arizona [Mr. ], the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. ], the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. ], the Senator from Nevada [Mr. ], and the Senator from New York [Mr. ] are detained in important committee meetings. The Senator from Virginia [Mr. ], the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. ], the Senator from Utah [Mr. ], the Senator from Illinois [Mr. ], the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. ], the Senator from Maryland [Mr. ], and the Senator from Montana [Mr. ] are detained on important public business.

Mr. AUSTIN. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. ] has a general pair with the Senator from Maryland [Mr. ]. The Senator from New Hampshire is absent on official business.

The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. ] is necessarily detained. His general pair has been previously announced.

The result was announced-yeas 37, nays 38, as follows:

YEAS—37

NAYS—38

NOT VOTING—21

So Mr. amendment to the committee amendment was rejected.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The question recurs on agreeing to the amendment of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, on page 24, line 8, to strike out "Cotton, 15 percent; wheat, 20 percent; field corn, 10 percent; tobacco, 10 percent; or rice, 10 percent" and to insert "Wheat, 10 percent; corn, 10 percent."

The amendment was agreed to.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The next amendment of the committee will be stated. The next amendment of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry was, on page 24, line 22, after the word "current", to strike out "crops of such commodity" and to insert "crop of such commodity; but no such proclamation shall be issued with respect to the current crop of any commodity if the Secretary has reason to believe that during the first 3 months of the marketing year for such crop of the commodity the current average farm price for the commodity will be more than the parity price therefor."

Mr. WALSH. Mr. President, I desire to ask the indulgence of the Senate while I make a very brief statement as to my position on the farm bill.

The farm bill now before the Senate, embracing elaborate and complicated plans and devices for extending governmental control over agriculture, for lifting the prices of wheat, corn, cotton, tobacco, and rice by restrictions upon production and storage of surpluses, and promising several sorts of bonus payments and crop loans, presents four major questions—four tests by which the measure must be judged.

First. Are the provisions of the bill within the clear and well-defined constitutional power and authority of the Federal Government?

Second. Will the program, if sanctioned by Congress, have the intended result and prove of manifest aid and benefit to the farmer?

Third. Will the program, if effectuated, prove detrimental to the other groups within our 48 States, the workers in our mines and factories, and in our shops and offices, and our railroads?

Fourth. Will the program, if fully carried out, impose additional burdens upon the Federal Treasury and the taxpayers?

From my own examination of this long and complex bill, and in the light of what has been revealed during the progress of the debate in the Senate, I am compelled to conclude that the proposals contained therein, so far from meeting