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.
I wish to say to the authors of this measure that it seems to me they ought to give further consideration to the question of the referendum. No one can tell from this provision what the referendum is to be, how it is to be taken, whether it is to be taken by vote, or by liftilig up hands, or by a canvass of the county committees, or how.
This is a very important matter, and there ought to be some specification of the manner in which the referendum is to be taken. What is a referendum? Is it a secret vote, so that the farmers may be protected? A day or two since I received a letter from a farmer in upper New York in which he said that on the referendum up there with reference to potatoes, out of some 200 potato raisers only 9 men in the county voted, and he gave the reasons why that was so. They did not want to be recorded against it; they did not want to be identified with being against it, although they were; so they stayed away. There ought to be some real protection on the question of referendum.
What I want to bring to the particular attention of the Senate in connection with this proposition is that the Secretary shall by proclamation suspend the operation of the national marketing quota, and so forth, and, as provided in this very clause:
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.
In other words, the farmers are notified in advance that if they vote against the quota, the benefit of commodity loans will be wiped out and withdrawn. That is practically notice to them that they are losing a very important benefit under the terms of the bill, as previously provided for in the bill in relation to loans on all commodities, if they vote against the quota. I think it ought not to be there. Of course, that is provided in the text and we cannot deal with it now, but I trust we shall do so later.
Mr. McGILL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. BORAH. Certainly.
Mr. McGILL. I do not believe the provision that there shall be no loans means what the Senator has in mind. It is merely to protect the Government. A marketing quota should be had, in order to obtain reasonable prices for the commodity in question, and if it cannot be had, the Government ought not to be called upon to make the loans. That is the object of the provision.
Mr. BORAH. What is the Senator's conception of a referendum under this provision? How shall the vote be taken and how shall the farmers' views be ascertained?
Mr. McGILL. I assume it will be done very much as it was done under the former Bankhead Cotton Act. We have no way of setting up machinery in advance for conducting an election throughout the various States with reference to the question. It is simply one provision in the measure which provides a way whereby the farmer may vote upon a marketing quota.
Mr. BORAH. It is an important matter, and I ask if there will be any verity in a referendum when taken unless there is some protection to the farmer expressing himself, something in the nature of a secret vote. The farmers are perfectly aware of what may follow in case they do not agree to the program.
Mr. McGILL. Referenda of this character have been taken under former programs, under the corn and hog program while it was in effect, under the cotton program while it was in effect, and under the tobacco program while it was in effect. I never heard of any complaint with reference to the manner in which those referenda were conducted or that the farmer was not given a fair opportunity to express himself.
Mr. BORAH. Then the Senator has not heard all the facts.
Mr. McGILL. I think I have heard a great many of the facts, because I have lived most of my time in a State where we produce corn and wheat.
Mr. BORAH. Unless there is some degree of secrecy about the matter, some protection in that respect, I do not think any real referendum can be taken.
Mr. McGilL. We have then had a great many elections in the United States when no real election was held. I remember when I was a boy that a voter had to go and call for the party ticket he wanted, and thus let it be known to the election board how he was going to vote.
Mr. BORAH. That was during the period when the boss voted the people in sufficient numbers to carry the election. That is just the gentleman I want to get rid of in this matter.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Gillette] asks that the amendment on page 26, lines 20 and 21, be passed over. Without objection, the amendment will be passed over.
The clerk will state the next committee amendment.
The next amendment was, on page 27, line 1, after the word "market", to strike out: "The marketing quota for any farm shall be the amount of the current crop of the commodity produced on the farm less, first, the normal yield of the acreage on the farm devoted to the production of such commodity in excess of that percentage of his soil-depleting base acreage therefor which is equal to the percentage of the national soil-depleting base acreage specified in the proclamation of the Secretary, and, second, any amount of such crop placed under seal pursuant to the provisions of section 4" and insert in lieu thereof the following: "The marketing quota for any farm shall be the amount of the current crop of the commodity produced on the farm less the normal yield of the farm acreage planted to such crop in excess of the percentage, as proclaimed under this section, of the farm's soil-depleting base acreage for such crop", so as to read:
(e) The Secretary shall provide, through the State, county, and local committees of farmers hereinafter provided, for farm marketing quotas which shall fix the quantity of the commodity which may be marketed from the farm. Such farm marketing quotas shall be established for each farm on which the farmer (whether or not a cooperator) is engaged in producing the commodity for market. The marketing quota for any farm shall be the amount of the current crop of the commodity produced on the farm less the normal yield of the farm acreage planted to such crop in excess of the percentage, as proclaimed under this section, of the farm's soil-depleting base acreage for such crop. In no event shall the marketing quota for any farm be less than the normal yield of half of the soil-depleting base acreage for the farm.
Mr. McNARY. Mr. President, I gave some study this morning to the language as expressed in the pending amendment, which is a modification of the original text. I was trying naturally to ascertain what would be the marketing quota of a farmer producing wheat and com. It is a very important thing for the farmer to know how much he can produce on the acreage which he is allowed to cultivate, seed, and harvest under permission of the Secretary of Agriculture. It must be remembered that the farmer is to be harnessed and is to be told how much of his land he may farm by planting and cultivating and producing. I worked out this formula and I want to see if I have interpreted it correctly.
I take the base acreage as 10 acres. I am trying to apply the language to the actual condition of a farmer owning 10 acres, all cultivable. The amount of current crop I assume is 20 bushels per acre. Multiplying 10 by 20, if all the farm were employed, he would then produce 200 bushels if he were let alone. But he has had to submit to the dictation of the Secretary of Agriculture. The percentage of reduction fixed by the Secretary might be 10 percent or 25 percent or 50 percent, but I am trying to draw a moderate picture of the figures, so I have assumed the percentage of reduction is 10 percent. Accordingly we take 10 percent of 10 acres and we find by that process of arithmetic that we have arrived at a result of one acre.
The Secretary has told him that he cannot produce anything on 1 acre of his 10 acres. The normal yield of that 1 acre is 20 bushels. I am making this simple because this
