how much that poor farmer will have to sell. How much will he be permitted to sell?
Mr. POPE. Whether he were a poor farmer or a well-to-do farmer would make no difference.
Mr. McNARY. I do not mean poor in the sense of money. I mean poor in the sense that he is unfortunate in having to go up against this sort of thing.
Mr. POPE. He would be fortunate or unfortunate according to the way one looks at it. In the case to which I have referred, we assume that he produced 30 bushels to the acre.
Mr. McNARY. I made it easy. I said 10 bushels.
Mr. POPE. Ten bushels is his normal production. If he produces 15 bushels per acre, instead of 10, then the amount of excess he would raise would be the amount that would go into the normal granary, if he complied in every other respect.
Mr. McNARY. I did not know this section had any reference to the normal granary.
Mr. POPE. I use that in the sense that it would be stored in the ever-normal granary.
Mr. McNARY. The Senator means stored under seal?
Mr. POPE. Yes.
Mr. McNARY. And he cannot sell?
Mr. POPE. Yes.
Mr. McNARY. He might get a loan from the loan corporation, and the wheat might not go into the ever-normal granary at all.
Mr. POPE. The ever-normal granary is in operation in exactly the same way. The wheat is stored under seal, and whether it is under the marketing quota provision or not, so long as it is stored with a loan against it, it is in the same position.
Mr. McNARY. Will the Senator be able tomorrow to tell that farmer, if he has 200 acres, and produces 10 bushels, what his position would be?
Mr. POPE. I can make the calculation in 5 minutes and tell him now.
Mr. McNARY. Very well. I would like to see it checked up.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time on the amendment has expired.
Mr. POPE. Mr. President, in a colloquy this morning it was stated that an amendment concerning the dairy interests and the matter of ensilage would be prepared and submitted later. That subject seems to lend itself to an amendment of this committee amendment. Therefore, I suggest that the matter go over until the Senator from New York, the Senator from Wisconsin, the Senator from Vermont, and others interested, may present an amendment to cover that matter.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Idaho asks unanimous consent that the amendment go over. Is there objection?
Mr. McNARY. Mr. President, I probably have no objection; I think I am quite in accord with the request. I have an amendment relating to the dairy interests which does not treat the same problem as that presented by the Senator from New York. By his amendment he attempts to exclude the dairy industry from the provisions of the bill. The amendment I have offered is presented upon the assumption that the bill may become an act. Therefore I am attempting to deal with the acreage that is diverted from the normal usage in connection with the expansion of the dairy industry. If one amendment goes over, I want all of the items designed to take the dairy industry out of the bill to go over. Is that satisfactory to the Senator from Idaho?
Mr. POPE. That is satisfactory.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will state the next amendment of the committee.
The next amendment was, under the subhead "Excess-marketing penalty", on page 28, line 4, after "Sec.", to strike out "11" and insert "22"; in line 6, before the word "in", to strike out "any major agricultural commodity" and insert "wheat or corn"; in line 9, after the word "section", to strike out "6 (a)" and insert "14", so as to read:
Sec. 22. (a) It shall be an unfair agricultural practice for any farmer (whether or not a cooperator) to market wheat or corn in excess of his farm marketing quota established for the commodity unless prior to such marketing (1) the Secretary shall have under section 14 released such commodity from marketing quota restrictions.
Mr. McNARY. Mr. President, I am sorry that I have to ask so many questions; that I am not more familiar with the bill. If we have reached the beginning of the penal provisions of the bill as apply to wheat and corn, I do want to say something about a noncooperator. I suppose, however, that under the rule, inasmuch as my remarks would be directed to the text of the bill, I shall have to defer to a later date, and for that reason I shall not discuss it now.
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I desire to amend this amendment on line 9 by striking out the numeral "14" and inserting the numeral "7 ." An error was made.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the amendment to the amendment.
The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
The amendment as amended was agreed to.
The next amendment of the committee was, on page 28, line 10, before the word "the" to insert "in case of corn"; so as to read:
Or (2) in case of corn the farmer shall have absorbed such excess marketing through diverting from the production of such commodity an acreage the aggregate normal yield of which equals or exceeds the amount of such excess marketing.
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment of the committee was, in section 22, subdivision (b), page 28, line 19, after the word "following", to strike out "rates: For any major agricultural commodity except tobacco" and to insert the word "rate"; so as to read:
(b) It shall be a violation of law for any farmer to engage in any unfair agricultural practice that affects interstate or foreign commerce, and for each such violation the farmer shall be liable to pay an excess-marketing penalty at the following rate:
Mr. McNARY. Mr. President, does this penalty apply to all the so-called major agricultural commodities, or just to wheat and corn?
Mr. POPE. I think it applies only to wheat and corn in this place. The cotton and tobacco section contains a similar provision.
Mr. ELLENDER. I may state to the Senator from Oregon that there is a penalty on all commodities. The rate of the penalty is not uniform.
Mr. McNARY. What is the rate? They were all uniform in the original bill we studied.
Mr. ELLENDER. In the case of cotton it is 75 percent of the purchase price, as I recall in the case of tobacco it is 50 percent of the market price——
Mr. McNARY. Or 3 cents per pound, as in the original language?
Mr. ELLENDER. That is correct. Whichever is the higher. In the case of rice the penalty is one-half cent per pound of the excess marketed.
Mr. McNARY. Did the Secretary of Agriculture comment upon this provision?
Mr. ELLENDER. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. McNARY. I ask the Senator from Idaho whether the Secretary of Agriculture commented on this provision.
Mr. POPE. He did not. No suggestion was made by him as to any change.
Mr. AUSTIN. Mr. President, I should like to ask the Senator from Louisiana if he understands that the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to collect penalties and be the custodian of the money of the United States that is not appropriated in any manner by the Congress to him.
Mr. ELLENDER. I may state to the Senator from Vermont that any penalty imposed is collected in the name of the United States Government through the United States district attorneys, and that all recoveries revert to the Treasury.
Mr. AUSTIN. I will ask the Senator if that is what the bill provides, or whether that is something which he thinks it ought to say. I call attention to the lines at the top of page 29, lines 2, 3, and 4:
