"These questions have frequently engaged the attention of Congress and have been the subject of many inquiries. The steel industry is one of the great basic industries of the United States, with ramifying activities affecting interstate commerce at every point. The Government aptly refers to the steel strike of 1919-20 with its far-reaching consequences. The fact that there appears to have been no major disturbance in that industry in the more recent period did not dispose of the possibilities of future and like dangers to interstate commerce, which Congress was entitled to foresee and to exercise its protective power to forestall. It is not necessary again to detail the facts as to respondent's enterprise. Instead of being beyond the pale, we think that it presents in a most striking way the close and intimate relation which a manufacturing industry may have to interstate commerce, and we have no doubt that Congress had constitutional authority to safeguard the right of respondent's employees to self-organization and freedom in the choice of representatives for collective
bargaining."The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the committee amendment on page 19, beginning at line 10.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. McGILL. Mr. President, what was done with the committee amendment on page 8, beginning with line 14?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is informed that that amendment was agreed to on yesterday.
Mr. McGILL. I made that inquiry because the language just adopted is a transposition of that language. I thought the language on page 8, beginning on line 14, had gone over at the request of the Senator from Oregon [Mr. McNary].
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That amendment was agreed to.
Mr. McGilL. Very well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. May the Chair have the attention of the Senator from Oregon [Mr. McNary]? The parliamentary clerk has called the Chair's attention to the fact that there was an amendment on page 14 which the Senator yesterday asked to go over. Does the Senator desire to have that amendment considered now? The clerk will report the amendment.
The Legislative Clerk. On page 14, line 8, strike out—
Cotton, 45,500,000 acres.
Mr. McNARY. Mr. President, I have disclosed my disapproval of this discrimination against wheat and corn on two occasions. I might repeat that when this bill was taken about the country the farmers were told that it would apply equally to these various commodities. We find that the bill before us is not the same proposition at all. I take a similar view to that taken by the Secretary of Agriculture. The Senator from Idaho just quoted him favorably. The Secretary agrees with me that there should be no difference in the matter of soil depletion base acreage for any commodity. I know that whatever motion I make would not prevail. I do not want to hinder the reasonable disposition of the bill. But I do think, along with the Secretary of Agriculture, and I think in common with every wheat grower and every corn grower in this country, that this is rank discrimination. Similar limitation on corn and rice and tobacco has been removed. Again I commend the perspicacity of the cotton members of the committee. Together with the Secretary of Agriculture, I should like to see all those commodities placed on the same footing. Let us either cut out the base acreage as to wheat and corn or apply it to tobacco, cotton, and rice. I have appealed to the authors of this bill on several occasions to attempt what I would call fair treatment to the producers of these great commodities and not unjustly discriminate against them.
With that statement, Mr. President, I want to vote against the proposition, and I shall have to content myself by casting a negative vote against it.
Mr. BARKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendments on page 14 from line 8 to line 18, inclusive, be voted on as a whole. They all involve the same proposition.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous-consent request of the Senator from Kentucky? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
Mr. POPE. Mr. President, I wish to say that the corn and wheat producers—the leaders who have been instrumental in the preparation of this bill—are the ones who desire the amendment in this form. They think it is to their best interests. They do not agree with the Senator from Oregon that the provision discriminates against the corn and wheat growers. I indicated yesterday and two or three times before that the result reached would be the same so far as allotted acres are concerned. The only thing that can be said is that there are two different methods of arriving at the same result. The representatives of the corn growers and wheat growers appear to desire this method of approach. The representatives of the cotton growers and the growers of rice and tobacco prefer the other method of approach. But the result is exactly the same, and no discrimination is being made against the growers of any of those commodities, because the result is the same.
Mr. McNARY. Mr. President, I take sharp issue with the able Senator from Idaho. I can quote from as many wheat growers and corn growers as he can. I have had numerous letters in opposition to this discrimination. I wonder how many farmers the Senator asked about this matter when his committee went to the country with this bill. The answer must be none of them, because the bill did not contain any difference in the manner of declaring seeding acreage. Therefore, it was not an issue at that time.
Mr. POPE. If the Senator will yield, I will say that in the discussions we had with reference to this matter there were not any complaints on the part of corn and wheat growers.
Mr. BARKLEY. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
Mr. BARKLEY. Under the order heretofore entered, how many speeches may a Senator make on the same amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order which the Chair assumes the Senator makes is well taken.
Mr. McNARY. Mr. President, I am out of order; but, to show how different I am from some others, yesterday the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. BARKLEY] spoke five times against the rule, but I was too gentlemanly to invoke it. [Laughter.] I obey it, however, in view of his invocation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the committee amendments on page 14, commencing on line 8 and going down to line 18.
The amendments were agreed to.
Mr. McGILL. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
Mr. McGILL. What was done with the amendment on page 18, beginning with the insertion in line 2?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Those amendments were agreed to on yesterday.
May the Chair have the attention of the senior Senator from Idaho [Mr. Borah]? The parliamentarian calls the Chair's attention to the fact that the Senator had an amendment to offer at this place in the bill. Does he care to proceed with it now?
Mr. BORAH. On page 7?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On page 6, line 21, going over to page 7.
Mr. BORAH. Mr. President, in view of the adoption of the amendment offered by the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Overton], I do not desire to hold that committee amendment open any longer. If there is any chance of changing the provision, it will have to be by an amendment to the original text; so I do not care to hold the committee amendment open longer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question, then, is on agreeing to the amendment commencing on line 21, page 6, and going over to line 17 on page 7.
The amendment was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the next committee amendment.
