Then follows the sentence providing that—
Any farmer failing to furnish such proofs in the manner and within the time provided shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof be subject to a fine of not more than $100.
It might be that a violation of the regulations would be involved there; but I have already stated today that when we reach that point the Senator from Kansas [Mr. McGill] and I will move to strike out the provision as to penalty.
Mr. BYRD. The provision as to penalty for what violation?
Mr. POPE. For the violation specified in the bill.
Mr. BYRD. Does the Senator mean there is going to be no penalty for the violation of any of the provisions of the bill?
Mr. POPE. No penalty for the violation of the specific provision which I have just read.
Mr. BYRD. That is to say, there will be no penalty for failure on the part of the farmer to keep records and furnish those records to the Secretary of Agriculture?
Mr. POPE. There will be no penalty provided if this language is stricken out.
Mr. BYRD. How will the Secretary of Agriculture then enforce his regulations if no penalty is provided?
Mr. POPE. The Senator can answer that question as well as I can. The provisions may be of some value without the penalty provision. But the Senator, I take it, and others, have objected so strenuously to any penalty for that violation that the Senator from Kansas [Mr. McGill] advised me that he expects to make a motion to strike out that language, which has been so offensive to the Senator from Virginia and to others, which will leave the situation where there will be no penalty for violation of those provisions. That will be the situation.
Mr. BYRD. I want to get clear exactly what the Senator means. Does the Senator mean that there is no penalty for violation of subsection (e) on page 30?
Mr. POPE. I think the Senator is confusing the word "violation" with "penalty." If the farmer should fail to furnish the proof and to do the other things specified, there would be a violation; but if the penalty provision is stricken out, the law would simply stand and be dependent upon the cooperation of the farmers in furnishing the records required according to law.
Mr. BYRD. What I am endeavoring to make clear is this: In the event the farmer did not do what the Secretary of Agriculture told him to do, would not that be an unfair agricultural practice?
Mr. POPE. I should not construe it as being an unfair practice. I think "unfair practice" refers to the provisions contained on pages 28 and 29, and the failure to furnish proof would not be an unfair agricultural practice.
Mr. BYRD. The Senator, then, assumes that the only unfair agricultural practice referred to in the bill is when a farmer sells in excess of his marketing quota?
Mr. POPE. I think so. That is my present understanding of the matter.
Mr. BYRD. Let me ask the Senator again in regard to subsection (c) on page 29, which provides:
(c) Whenever, after investigation, the Secretary has reason to believe that any farmer has engaged in any unfair agricultural practice that affects interstate or foreign commerce and so certifies to the appropriate district attorney of the United States, it shall be the duty of the district attorney, under the direction of the Attorney General, to institute a civil action in the name of the United States for the recovery of the penalty payable with respect to the violation.
What does that subsection refer to?
Mr. POPE. It refers to the 50-percent penalty for selling beyond the marketing quota.
Mr. BYRD. In other words, the only unfair agricultural practice that is established by the bill is when the farmer sells in excess of the marketing quota?
Mr. POPE. Yes. I have so stated, and I think that is correct. That is my understanding.
Mr. McNARY. Mr. President, have I any time on the amendment?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. An amendment is pending before the Senate on which the Senator has not spoken.
Mr. McNARY. Very well.
Mr. COPELAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to permit me to insert something in the Record?
Mr. McNARY. I yield.
Mr. COPELAND. I have here a telegram sent to me from the New York State Grange, representing 135,000 members, opposing this bill. I ask to have it printed in the Record.
I have also a letter from Jamestown, N.Y., containing the signatures of representative people, two being milk producers, a producer distributor, a grocer, the president of a building and supply concern, a feed and poultry farm owner, the owner of a farm implement agency, and so forth. The signers of this letter are so representative of the opposition to the bill in my State that I ask unanimous consent to have the letter printed in the body of the Record in connection with my statement. I also ask to have printed in the Record a letter from the Oneida County Pomona Grange.
There being no objection, the telegram and letters were ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
Senator Royal S. Copeland,
The Senate:
New York State Grange, 135,000 members, urge recommittal of new farm bill. All compulsory features must be omitted.
———
Senators Wagner and Copeland,
Congress of the United States.
Gentlemen: Please present to the Congress of the United states the enclosed request regarding proposed legislation concerning crop control and crop insurance (ever-normal granary). The signers of the petition are all residents of Jamestown and vicinity in Chautauqua County and State of New York. They are either engaged in dairying or are vitally interested in its success. All are property owners and men of responsibility in their own business. In the order of signing are, first, two milk producers; second, a producer-distributor; third, manager of a chain grocery; fourth, president of the largest building supply concern of the city; fifth, a milk producer; sixth, feed dealer and poultry farm owner; seventh, owner of farm implement agency and gasoline station.
We ask for your attention to this request of some of your constituents.
Yours truly,
Jamestown, N. Y., R. F. D. 5.
———
We, the undersigned residents of Chautauqua County, State of New York, hereby petition the Congress of the United States that all proposed legislation regarding crop control and crop insurance (ever-normal granary) be dropped, because:
First. These laws would be economically dangerous and unsound.
A. The expense of administering will add to our heavy tax burden.
B. Budget needs balancing, Federal spending excessive for 6 years.
Second. These laws will be contrary to the principles of our democratic government.
A. Are class legislation.
B. Stifle individual initiative under guise of Federal control.
Third. Will arouse jealousy of those classes not receiving benefits.
Clinton W. Perry,
Route 5, Jamestown, N. Y.
G. W. Carter,
Route 5, Jamestown, N. Y.
C. M. Johnson,
30 Mason, Falconer, N. Y.
Chas. Lindbeck,
Rural route, Jamestown, N. Y.
L. D. Eaton,
Route 5, Jamestown, N. Y.
H. E. Adams,
Route 5, Jamestown, N. Y.
J. W. Lindston,
Route 5, Jamestown, N. Y.———
We, the members of Oneida County Pomona Grange, feel that the suggested amended farm-relief bill does not meet the needs of the American farmer, and would create a system of regimentation detrimental to the best interests of the Nation as a whole. Therefore we suggest a militant opposition to the passage of said bill be made.
Fraternally submitted.
Brother Milton Harris,
Brother Frank Heilig, Jr.
Brother William Garlick.
