all four of those tests, do not, in fact, meet a single one of them.
First, with respect to the constitutional question, it is enough to say that the bill proceeds upon the theory that anything, however remote, which may be presumed to affect interstate commerce is within the constitutional power and authority of the Federal Government. A Government agency is to be empowered to decree how much a farmer may plant and how he shall dispose of his crop and to what use he shall put his idle acres, upon the theory that all these things affect interstate commerce, and hence may be controlled by the Federal Government. No court has ever taken any such view, and, in fact, the courts have invariably put a wholly different construction upon the commerce clause of our Constitution. If the theory upon which this bill rests its validity should now be approved by the courts, the result would be to confer upon the Federal Government unlimited and unchecked power and authority over every citizen in every walk of life and in nearly every detail of his daily life.
It could then be argued that the size and kind of a factory a manufacturer decided to build—indeed, the kind of an education a youth decided to secure—could be presumed ultimately to affect interstate commerce, and hence could be lawfully controlled by the Federal Government.
I do not believe any such doctrine will ever be upheld by the courts. The pending bill, under existing constitutional precepts, is utterly indefensible and far and away beyond the Federal power.
As to the question of whether the program contained in the bill could be successfully administered and would prove of aid and benefit to the particular classes of farmers which it is sought to help, it is enough to say that there is no assurance on that score, but, on the contrary, very grave doubt, and very considerable opposition from various farmer groups.
As to the question of the effect and consequences of any such program of artificial scarcity and attempted price boosting upon the country as a whole and upon the workers in industry in particular, it is self-evident that the inevitable consequence would be increased cost of food and clothing, plus increased taxes, both contributing to still further increases in the cost of living.
The bill itself is silent on what it will cost to carry out the program and as to who is to be taxed to pay the cost; and the proponents of the bill have frankly declared that they do not know what the ultimate cost will amount to and explain why by its very nature the total cost is impossible of accurate forecast. The estimates have ranged from seven hundred and fifty million to fifteen hundred million dollars annually as compared with $500,000,000 being currently expended for the aid and benefit of the farmers under the 1935 farm bill, the so-called soil-conservation control program. These estimates have been made by various Senators, who have been asked to give their estimates on the floor of the Senate Chamber. The so-called soil conservation or control program will, it is said, cost somewhere between the figures named.
It has been suggested by the proponents of the bill that Congress may limit the cost of this new program by the simple expedient of limiting the appropriation to whatever figure Congress sees fit—perhaps to the present $500,000,000 figure. But such a contention ignores the simple fact that the bill before the Senate undertakes to promise to the farmer parity prices, as well as scheduled acreage payments, and promises to take over all surpluses in maintaining an "ever-normal granary," and that if Congress enacts such a program and legislates such promises and the payments from the Treasury are not forthcoming we shall have perpetrated a swindle upon the farmer through the bill. It is utterly unconscionable to set up a plan of parity payments to the farmer unless we intend to appropriate the funds to meet the payments; and if that be done, then without a particle of doubt we are embarking upon huge additional governmental expenditures at a time when there are the most compelling reasons for refraining from imposing new and permanent burdens upon the Federal Treasury and the taxpayers.
Mr. President, in conclusion, for all these reasons, briefly stated, I cannot support the bill pending before the Senate. I believe it ought to be recommitted to the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry for further study and for entire revision, and I intend so to vote.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the amendment reported by the committee.
The amendment was agreed to.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will state the next committee amendment.
The next amendment was, on page 25, line 7. after the words "of the" where they occur the first time, to strike out "national soil depleting base acreage for the commodity computed on the basis of the national average yield for the commodity" and insert "soil-depleting base acreage of each farm", so as to read:
The Secretary shall determine and specify in such proclamation the amount of the national marketing quota for the commodity both in terms of the quantity which may be marketed and in terms of a percentage of the soil-depleting base acreage of each farm. The amount of the national marketing quota for the commodity shall be so fixed as to make available during the marketing year at least a normal supply of the commodity and in no event shall it be less than the normal supply for the commodity adjusted by deducting, first, the carry-over available for marketing and, second, the quantity not produced for market, nor, on the other hand, shall it in any case be greater than the ever-normal granary supply level similarly adjusted.
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment was, on page 25, line 23, before the word "farm", to insert "such", so as to read:
(c) Between the date of the issuance of the proclamation specified in subsection (b) (which shall not be later than 15 days prior to the beginning of the marketing year) and the effective date of the national marketing quota, the Secretary shall conduct a referendum of farmers producing the commodity who would be subject to such farm marketing quotas to determine whether such farmers are opposed to such quotas with respect to the current crop of the commodity. If more than one-third of the farmers voting in the referendum oppose such quotas for the commodity, the Secretary shall by proclamation suspend the operation of the national marketing quota with respect to the current crop of the commodity and shall further proclaim that surplus reserve loans shall not be available thereafter with respect to the commodity during the period from the date of such proclamation until the beginning of the second succeeding marketing year.
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment was, on page 26, line 10, after the word "supply", to strike out "of any major agricultural commodity", so as to read:
(d) If the total supply as proclaimed by the Secretary within 45 days after the beginning of the marketing year is less than that specified in the proclamation proclaimed by the Secretary under subsection (b), then the national marketing quota specified in the proclamation under subsection (b) shall be increased accordingly.
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment was, on page 26, after line 16, to strike out:
(e) No marketing quota shall be placed in effect with respect to any crop of a major agricultural commodity harvested prior to 1938.
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment was, on page 26, at the beginning of line 20, to strike out "(f)" and insert "(e)"; and in the same line, after the word "through", to insert "the State, county, and".
Mr. McNARY. Mr. President, this probably is a wise suggestion in the form of an amendment; but I should like to have one of the Senators in charge of the bill explain why the language in the original edition of the bill has been changed to include "State and county," thereby taking away much of the jurisdiction, power, and authority which heretofore was lodged in the local committees under the original edition of the bill.
Mr. McGILL. Mr. President, I will say to the Senator that I did not offer this amendment in the committee. I think
