it is an amendment which was proposed by persons from the Department of Agriculture.
Mr. McNARY. Let me remark to the able Senator that he has reported this bill. It is before us. Under the bill, as we studied it, the folks back home thought the local committees were going to have much to do with this question of marketing quotas. It occurs to me, without an explanation, that we are taking the matter away from the local committees, and we are going away off from the farm and the farmer's friends and associates and neighbors back to the State bureaucracy, someone high up in the councils of the State—perhaps the department of agriculture in a particular State—whereas we thought the farmer wanted to deal through his local committee. It may be a good thing, but I should like to have the Senator explain why this edition of the bill was changed from one or two of the others after the measure was presented to the Senate.
Mr. McGILL. Mr. President, in order to pass upon this amendment, I think we must take the two amendments together. The amendment adds, after the words "The Secretary shall provide, through", the words "the State, county, and", and then, after "local committees of farmers", the words "hereinafter provided"—that is, the local committees and the State and county committees as hereinafter defined in the bill.
Without any language added to the provision as originally framed, it would merely read:
The Secretary shall provide, through local committees of farmers, for farm marketing quotas.
And he would not be required to use those which had been selected by the farmers themselves. I think that was the reason for the amendment.
Mr. GILLETTE. Mr. President, yesterday afternoon, in considering another committee amendment, the Senate took action with reference to a very similar matter; but that matter pertained to the assignments of the soil-depleting acreage down through the various administrative units to the local units. The Senate, by action, provided that the soil-depleting acreage of each farm should be allotted by the local committee of farmers set up within that administrative unit, as hereinafter provided. Having in mind at that time the fact that this amendment would come up at a later period, I called attention to it and suggested that a similar amendment would apply to this provision when it came to the matter of allotting the compulsory provisions of a control program; and I am still convinced that we ought, as far as possible, to keep that, as we hoped to do all through the bill, locally controlled, especially as it pertains to the individual farm.
In examining this particular provision, however, it seemed impossible, without entirely changing the language, to oppose the committee amendment without putting ourselves in such a position that we could not amend the language at a later time.
I sincerely hope there will be no objection to this particular amendment going over at this time, in order that we may see if we cannot meet the situation by a proper amendment.
Mr. BARKLEY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. McNARY. I yield to the Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. BARKLEY. I am wondering whether this language really eliminates local committees. It says that "the Secretary shall provide, through the State, county, and local committees" for these quotas. Might not that be interpreted to mean that if a county quota is to be made, it shall be done through the county committee? I do not know whether there would be such a thing as a State quota upon any crop or not; but if such a thing were contemplated, it would have to be done through a State committee; or, if it were a local quota, it would still be done through a local committee. I am wondering to what extent this language eliminates the local committees in fixing these quotas.
Mr. McNARY. Mr. President, that is a very easy question to answer.
When copies of this bill were distributed the farmers were told that they had to deal with local committees on this important subject of fixing the quotas on their farms. For some reason not yet assigned, the bill was amended to include State and county committees. We know what that means—that the State will dominate the county, and the county will dominate the local committee, and there will be no local committees in an effort to function under this section. That is very, very obvious. We are getting away from the community. We are getting farther away from the county. We are not only getting away from the county but we are going back to the State authority, which takes the whole control away from the farmer.
I am not going to press the matter, in view of the statement of the Senator from Iowa that he intends to offer an amendment if the amendment goes over; and I shall be glad to consent to its going over.
Mr. GILLETTE. Mr. President, in further reply to the inquiry of the distinguished majority leader, I will state that the difference between the pending amendment and the one on which we acted yesterday is this:
In the section assigning the allotments of the depleting base acreage there was definite provision that the Secretary of Agriculture shall assign the State quota, shall assign the county quota, shall assign the administrative unit quota; and the language requiring the State and county committees to participate in assigning quotas to the individual farms was manifestly out of line, because they had no function to perform. The quotas were to be assigned from central headquarters here in the Agricultural Department.
While I am just as anxious as the Senator from Oregon is to retain the control of the local committee, there is in the pending measure no provision for assigning the State quota or the county quota. There is simply the general provision that "the Secretary shall provide, through the State, county, and local committees" for the marketing quota for each farm. I hope we can work out an amendment which will retain in the bill the local committees selected by the farmers themselves, consisting of all the farmers eligible to receive contracts within an administrative unit, so that they may assign to the individual farms the marketing quotas.
Mr. BARKLEY. Mr. President, let me ask the Senator a further question. Suppose this function were limited altogether to local committees, and that the aggregate of all the decisions rendered by the local committees should accord to any State a larger quota than its proportion among the other States growing the same product would permit, what then would happen? Would there be anybody who would adjust the matter so as somewhat to even things up as among the States?
Mr. GILLETTE. The Senator is referring to this particular provision dealing with marketing quotas?
Mr. BARKLEY. Yes.
Mr. GILLETTE. No; the provision here is that the Secretary shall provide through these various Units, down through the local committee, for the acreage or quota for each farm. It is because that is the only provision on the subject, and that it is general in its nature, without specifying what functions the State committee shall perform, what functions the county committee shall perform, or what functions the local committee shall perform, that I think it should be clarified. I want the Secretary to have power, when he imposes a marketing quota, to determine, if that is the purpose of the bill—I am not speaking for myself personally——
Mr. BARKLEY. If the matter is to go over, I do not think we need discuss it further now. I have no objection to its going over.
Mr. BORAH. Mr. President, before the amendment goes over, I wish to refer back to subdivision (c) on page 25, with reference to the so-called referendum:
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
