Such penalties shall accrue to the United States and shall be payable to and collected by the Secretary.
Mr. ELLENDER. I had particular reference to cotton, rice, and tobacco, and not to corn and wheat.
Mr. AUSTIN. Does the Senator think a different provision was made with reference to corn?
Mr. ELLENDER. I think it was the intention of the authors of the corn and wheat sections to make all penalties revert to the Treasury.
Mr. AUSTIN. Does the Senator believe that the bill expresses any such intention as that?
Mr. ELLENDER. That is my understanding as to all penalties that may be imposed under the bill, whether they are collected in connection with wheat or corn or any of the other commodities named in the bill.
Mr. AUSTIN. Does the Senator from Idaho understand that the bill provides for covering these penalties into the Treasury of the United States?
Mr. POPE. Mr. President, I know that to be the intention. I do not now recall the specific language. I will check the bill and find out; but I am certain that was the intention.
Mr. BARKLEY. Mr. President, under the general law, unless an act specifies to the contrary, where money is recovered in the name of the United States as a penalty, through the district attorneys, under the orders of the Attorney General, as provided in the next subsection, the money automatically goes into the general fund in the Treasury.
Mr. AUSTIN. I always supposed that to be true, and that is why, when this matter was called to my attention, I thought it ought to be considered.
Mr. BARKLEY. I think that is the law. It would not be necessary to provide in this bill for that because, unless it is otherwise provided, the money would go into the general fund in the Treasury.
Mr. AUSTIN. It is provided otherwise here. The bill provides:
Such penalties shall accrue to the United States and shall be payable to and collected by the Secretary.
Mr. BARKLEY. Not to the Secretary, of course, in his personal or official capacity. Even if they were paid over to his Department, they would have to go into the Treasury.
Mr. AUSTIN. I think these words should be amended in some manner so that the provisions will not be inconsistent.
Mr. BARKLEY. Yes. The amendment would not be in order now, anyway.
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I invite the attention of the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Austin] to the language in lines 10, 11, 12, and 13, on page 29, wherein authority is given to the Attorney General to institute suits in the name of the United States for recovery of the penalty payable with respect to violations.
Mr. AUSTIN. That is true. I have no question about those lines. My question related to lines 2, 3, and 4, which seem to be out of line with the general law.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the amendment on page 28, line 19.
The amendment was agreed to.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The next amendment will be stated.
The next amendment of the committee was, on page 28, line 22, before the word "and" to strike out "under section 14 (d))" and insert "by the Secretary under this act"; so as to read:
Fifty percent of the parity price as proclaimed at the beginning of the marketing year by the Secretary under this act and in effect at the time of the violation.
The amendment was agreed to.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The next amendment will be stated.
The next amendment of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry was, on page 28, in line 23, after the word "violation", to strike out the semicolon and "for tobacco, 50 percent of the price for which sold, or 3 cents per pound in case of flue-cured, Maryland, or burley, and 2 cents per pound in case of all other types, whichever is the higher."
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, does this excess marketing penalty apply to a cooperator as well as to a noncooperator?
Mr. POPE. Yes. That would be my opinion of the matter. Anyone who violates a provision and markets a commodity in excess of the amount established would be subject to the penalty.
Mr. McNARY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. BYRD. I yield.
Mr. McNARY. I think that question is well answered by the language of the bill found in lines 4 and 5.
Mr. POPE. I think so, too.
Mr. BYRD. Then the Senator confirms the fact that the penalties will apply to a noncooperator as well as to a cooperator. Will the Senator please make clear what is regarded as an unfair agricultural practice? Under the terms of this penalty provision, we give to the district attorney the right to haul into the Federal courts any farmer who is guilty of an unfair agricultural practice. What is an unfair agricultural practice?
Mr. POPE. I think it means marketing in excess of the quota.
Mr. BYRD. What else?
Mr. POPE. That is all, so far as the bill provides.
Mr. BYRD. Does it mean the violation of regulations as promulgated by the Secretary of Agriculture?
Mr. POPE. There is no provision in section 22 to that effect. There may be other provisions following, concerning which the Senator may raise the question at the time we reach them.
Mr. BYRD. Under the terms of the bill, has not the Secretary the right to promulgate numerous regulations which would have the full force and effect of law? And if a farmer violates any of those regulations is he not guilty, and may he not be punished under this section?
Mr. POPE. I think not. There may be a provision which the Senator would desire to call to our attention later on; but I think, from reading the matter now under consideration, there is no such provision. If the Senator finds such a provision later on in the bill, I shall be glad to discuss it with him.
Mr. BYRD. Does the Senator make the statement that the regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Agriculture cannot be enforced?
Mr. POPE. I make no such statement, I will say to the Senator. I am merely discussing what is now before the Senate, namely, section 22, under the title "Excess Marketing Penalty." So far as I read it, there is no provision that a violation of a regulation made by the Secretary of Agriculture would be an unfair marketing practice.
Mr. BYRD. Let us assume that a farmer violates some regulation of the Secretary of Agriculture. In what way can that farmer be punished and compelled to obey the regulation?
Mr. POPE. I do not recall a provision dealing with that matter. There may be one later on in the bill. I do not now recall a provision dealing with the matter. If the Senator finds one later in that connection I shall be glad to discuss it with him.
Mr. BYRD. It is useless to give the Secretary of agriculture power to establish rules and regulations unless some penalty is provided in the event those rules are not obeyed by any farmer; so I should like to have the Senator point out exactly what the penalty is, and how it is to be enforced.
Mr. POPE. Since this discussion began, my attention has been called to page 30, following the provision under immediate discussion on pages 28 and 29. The Senator will note that in subsection (e) it is provided:
(e) Farmers engaged in the production of wheat or corn shall furnish such proof of their acreage, yield, storage, and marketing of the commodity in the form of records, marketing cards, reports storage under seal, or otherwise as may be necessary for the administration of this section and prescribed by regulations of the Secretary.
