Слике страница
PDF
ePub

such plants in St. Louis, and they as well as farmers who have been selling to them would be very severely affected by the unique proposal advanced by the gentleman from Kansas.

In St. Louis there are no public stockyards. There are yards across the Mississippi in East St. Louis, 111. The farmers of Missouri and near-by States sell large numbers of their hogs direct to the packing plants in St. Louis to their entire satisfaction. If the gentleman's bill should ever pass, the ultimate result of its effect would be that the farmers of Missouri would have to haul or send their hogs right by the doors of our St. Louis packers, take them across the river into Illinois at an added expense of hauling, bridge tolls, and marketing charges, and then the St. Louis packers would have to go over into Illinois, buy these Missouri hogs, and haul them back into Missouri again, paying a heavy switching charge, having the animals damaged, bruised, and crippled by additional handling and generally encountering a heavy increase in the cost of their operations. The producer would receive fewer net dollars, the manufacturer's cost would be increased, and if the money wasted in (his fashion could be made up at all it would have to mean a greater cost of meat.

Moreover, it would be a serious question whether our St. Louis packers doing business under such conditions could compote successfully with some other* packers not situated as they nre. Our packers could not move, because you can not put a packing house on wheels. Even if you could put a packing house on wheels, what benefit would that be to the farmers of Missouri, who now get the greatest possible returns for their pigs by selling them to the nearest buyer in St. Louis? The prices, incidentally, are based on the public terminal markets' prices, grade for grade. The economic loss resulting from any bill such as the gentleman's would amount to something between $50 and $75 a car—a loss which would have to be stood largely by the farmer, partly by the packer, and partly by the consumer.

The fact is that under the bill introduced by the gentleman from Kansas the Secretary of Agriculture—and nobody knows how some future Secretary might interpret the proposed law for some particular class or locality—may post as a public yards any packer or any shipper or any feeder or any farmers, or all of them, if they own or operate private yards. Also, the bill provides that any farmer selling to a posted stockyards privately owned by a shipping association or packer may complain to the Secretary of Agriculture, whereupon the Secretary may hold a hearing on behalf of the discontented farmer in any way the Secretary desires. There is nothing in the bill to give the privately owned posted yards a guaranty that it will be cited for a hearing only when there is reasonable ground for a hearing. Some one might just imagine that lie had a grievance and still throw the private yards into a hearing. If the shipper or shipping association manager were forced to go to such a hearing his work would absolutely cease while he was so occupied. When small organisations like the packers we have in St. Louis, various parts of the Corn Belt, and elsewhere as well, are forced to apjK-ar, their chief operating officers must stop their operating and productive work and busy themselves with preparing for and attending whatever hearing they might be called upon to attend.

The gentleman might also be interested in observing that a great majority of the farmers in the Corn Belt and in the West are unalterably opposed to his bill which, while it ostensibly is directed at preventing packers from buying livestock direct, actually would have the effect of preventing farmers, individually or collectively, as the case might be, from selling their livestock direct, and the testimony Is that they have found It extremely profitable to do so inasmuch as by so doing they are able to market their stock in the most economical manner, saving themselves heavy marketing charges.

Among other organizations that have opposed this legislation is the Iowa Cooperative Livestock Shipi>ers, which is a State federation of local cooperative shipping associations of Iowa. There are approximately 640 shipping associations in Iowa and those associations have about 100,000 members. They handle approximately 60,000 carloads of livestock a year, mainly hogs. The position taken by the Iowa Cooperative Shippers has been that this bill would restrict the number of outlets available for selling their livestock. There are in Iowa 19 so-called concentration yards owned by packers and 13 packing plants. Each and every one of these so-called concentration yards and 13 local plants purchases livestock direct from farmers or farmers' cooperatives. There are several plants, especially in such States as Iowa, Minnesota, and adjacent States that purchase 100 per cent of their livestock direct from farmers or from farmers' cooperatives. The farmers of various localities have found it profitable to sell direct to packers and they are against any legislation which would prevent them from continuing to do so.

They are selling this year In one State alone more than 4,000,000 hogs direct to packers.

It may also be of Interest to know that the American National Livestock Association, the Oregon Cattle Raisers' Association,, the Nebraska Stock Growers' Association, the Utah Cooperative Livestock Exchange, the Wyoming Stock Growers' Association, the Texas Cattle Raisers' Association, the Fayette County (Ohio) Producers' Co. and a large number of other important cooperative and farmers' associations are opposed to the bill and to the idea embodied in it.

The opposition of the farmers' cooperatives and shipping associations has lieen so strong that, as was to be exacted, proponents of this legislation have drafted amendments which purport to exempt them from the oiwutlon of the measure. That might l>e all very well, but such an amendment would not help the individual farmers, or even the cooperative associations, who desire to sell their own property to some packer a few miles away and to whom for years they have been selling hogs to their entire satisfaction; that is, getting the high dollar for the fruits of the farmers' own labor in raising the hogs for market. The best evidence that this system of marketing has been satisfactory to millions of individual farmers all over the United States is that they continue to sell their hogs this way and not a few who used to sell their animals entirely in the terminal markets are now following the practice of selling their animals direct to some conveniently located packing house. Some individual farmers have l>een selling their hogs this way for 30 or 40 years, and even if cooperative and shipping associations should be exempted from the operations of this bill, in so far as posting their yards and so on is concerned, the bill still would prohibit freedom of action on the part of farmers individually and collectively who want to sell their own hogs direct and packers who want to buy the farmer's hogs direct. If you eliminate a buyer, you at the same time affect sellers, because, obviously, you can not sell direct if somebody else is prevented from buying direct. Here is an arrangement that is mutually satisfactory to buyer and seller. Personally, I do not believe that Congress will ever even seriously consider abridging the individual's right of contract and freedom of action in any such manner as is proposed.

Tlie gentleman made some other statements during the course of his remarks which were—unintentionally, I am sure—not quite accurate, or at least they were not complete.

The gentleman charged that packers who own private yards at terminal markets are depressing prices on those markets by buying a portion of their hog requirements direct from farmers or direct at their plants from farmers and their associations and cooperatives.

The fact that packers located at the terminal markets may have bought some of their hog requirements through private yards and, therefore, will need to buy fewer bogs on that particular market in no way tends to depress hog prices because the supply to be sold on the market has been reduced along with the demand. It is obvious that the reduction in the supply automatically offsets any reduction in demand.

The gentleman then infers that the present low level of hog prices is a result of manipulation of the livestock market. I have found some very interesting figures touching on this point: figures which show conclusively that the lower level of hog prices is a direct result of the lower prices which packers obtained for pork. For example. I have compared the price of fresh and cured pork products on the Chicago market on March 1 of 1928 with the prices of those same products on March 1. 1927. I have a table taken from official figures issued by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics of the United States Department of Agriculture. It shows interesting comparisons: Pork prices at Chicago; fresh pork products

[table]

It will be noted from these tables that declines In the nine principal pork products have ranged from 40 to 11 per cent, with nn arithmetical average decline of 26.5 per cent. In the case of four fresh-pork items shown the declines have averaged 36.6 per cent. Against this we have a decline of only 31 per cent in the price of hogs at Chicago on March 1, 1928, as compared with March 1, 1027, according to figures published by the Chicago Daily Drovers Journal. These figures show clearly, in my opinion, that the decline in hog prices is due to one thing—a parallel and equal decline in the price of pork.

In other words, regardless of the decline in the export demand and regardless of whether or not there has been an increa.se in the hog supply and hog marketings, hog prices went down because the consumer would not absorb our pork supply except at lower levels, which necessitated declines in wholesale pork prices as much as 8% cents per pound. It is unnecessary, I am sure, to point out that when a packer is forced to sell his meat at wholesale at drastically lower levels, a decline in hog prices is inevitable.

The gentleman from Kansas confessed he did not know whether there has been an increase in the supply of hogs. It is interesting to observe that (luring January, 1928, the receipts of hogs at the seven leading markets were 20 per cent greater than during January, 1927. and, furthermore, during February, 1928, receipts of hogs at these seven leading markets were 60 per cent greater than during February of last year. The aggregate increase for the two months over the same two months of last year was 38 per cent. Surely these figures indicate clearly that the supply of hogs coming to market has Increased and furnishes in itself ample reason for a corresponding decrease in the prices which have been paid for those hogs.

Disregarding the present situation, however, the gentleman stated that the drop in the prices of hogs took place about seven months ago. That is true. Prices of hogs seven months ago were appreciably lower than they had been one year before that. According to figures published by the Drovers' Journal, the average hog price at Chicago during July, 1927, was 28 per cent below the price for July, 1926. The price in August, 1927, was 21 per cent below the price in August, 1928; but prices of pork products at that time showed even greater declines. The figures of the Buretiu of Agricultural Economics for the week ending July 30, 1927, and the corresponding week of 1926 are shown in another tabulation.

Pork price* at Chicago

[table]

We see from this table that the decrease of 21 to 28 per cent in the price of hogs was accompanied by an equal decline in the wholesale prices of pork products. Thus, whether we look at the figures for a week ago or seven months ago, or any other time, we only find proof that the price of hogs is determined by what consumers are willing to pay for the amount of pork which those hogs produce. It was the lower price of pork, gentlemen, and not direct marketing or alleged market manipulation which has been responsible for the lower level of hog prices.

At another point the gentleman asks that producers be permitted to sell their hogs on a competitive and open market instead of one which is under the absolute "control" of !he purchaser. The producer is entirely free to do this now if he so desires. Official figures issued by the United States Department of Agriculture show that two-thirds of the entire hog supply is marketed through the public markets, which always have been considered open and competitive. Furthermore, the one-third of the hog supply which is marketed direct to the packer is marketed in that way only because the producer chooses to market his hogs that way. If the producers were not satisfied with the prices and conditions which they obtain in selling direct, it is obvious that they would market all of their livestock through the public markets, or in some other way. No producer is compelled to send his hogs direct to any packer. He does so only because he chooses to do so.

The gentleman next turns his attention to the technique of country buying. He infers that packers select a favorite dealer

in each town, authorize him to pay higher prices than the market in order to drive competitors out of business and thereby create a monopoly for themselves in that community. Then, the gentleman says, the packers apportion and divide territory so that they will not have to compete with each other. In this same connection, however, representatives of the United States Department of Agriculture point out that every Iowa county has from 2 to 14 outlets for its hogs, and all but 9 counties have 4 or more buying agencies.

The statement that packers apportion territory among themselves is unsubstantiated by the gentleman, probably because he can point to no instance of apportionment. If, however, the packers have attempted to apportion territory among themselves such fact would constitute no argument whatever in favor of additional legislation. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of the antitrust acts well knows that under the provisions of the Sherman Act any agreement by the packers to apportion territory is now and has been unlawful ever since the enactment of that law in 1891. Aside from this, however, section 202, Clause F, of the packers and stockyards act of 1921, reads as follows:

It shall be unlawful for any packer to <f) conspire, combine, agree, or arrange with any other person (1) to apportion territory for carrying on business In commerce, or (2) to apportion purchases or sales of any article In commerce, or (3) to manipulate or control prices in commerce.

We thus see that the laws of the United States now in full force and effect are ample to correct any situation such as tbe gentleman has described. All that he or those who are urging passage of this bill need to do in this connection is to bring the facts to the attention of the Secretary of Agriculture for the filing of complaint. No additional legislation whatever is necessary.

The gentleman then makes the statement that, as a result of what he describes as the selected shipper plan, the packers are enabled to get the best hogs in any territory without competition, with the result that the inferior hogs are shipiied to the central markets and thus set the price for good hogs which are produced direct. The fact is that the packers do not make a practice of taking only selected hogs when they buy direct. In most cases they take entire droves which may contain hogs of all grades, with the result that there still is a plentiful supply of choice hogs being shipped to the central markets. Even when the packer does buy only choice grades direct he is obliged to pay the price for such grades which has been established on the central markets each day, and the law of supply and demand establishes a separate price for each grade and weight. Incidentally, hundreds of buyers are on each of the terminal markets, not just the buyers of packers who buy in the country. The prices of these different grades are readily available to producers through Government reports, radio, and newspapers, and by the telephone.

There is no justification, therefore, for the charge that direct marketing of choice grades of hog results in depressing the prices for the choice grades. The contrary is nearer the truth. Choice hogs are in great demand on all terminal markets. If some have been bought direct in the country, it would seem to follow that the supply on the terminal markets would be lessened, but the demand would be almost the same; hence the price should be higher than otherwise would be the case.

I find also a statement to the effect that there is no agency to guarantee the farmer fair grading and weighing on his direct shipments, since the packer himself fixes the grade, weight, and price. In commenting on this unfair inference I should like to point out that the very fact that farmers continue to market their hogs direct to packers, and in many cases have been doing so for 20 or 30 years, and that the fact that this practice has been increasing during recent years, indicates clearly that the grading, weighing, and pricing are satisfactory to the farmer, otherwise he would not market his hogs in that manner.

At another point the gentleman states that in a good many cases the producer of hogs who does not "stand in" with the packers can not sell his hogs at all. Surely any producer anywhere can ship his hogs to one of the public markets whenever he wishes and get them sold promptly regardless of whether he is or is not in favor with some packer. No farmer needs favors from some packer. The farmer bus hogs and the packer must have his raw material. It is a business proposition purely and simply.

The next of the statements on which I wish to comment is one to the effect that the packer who has bought some of his hogs direct lays off the public market until later in the day, with the result that there is no competition all day and with the effect that hog prices are lowered. I should like to point out that the time of day In which the buying takes place in no way affects competition. The plain fact is, however, that hog prices are determined by the total supply of hogs and the total demand for hogs—as influenced by the demand from consumers of pork—and not by the time or place or method of purchase.

As a matter of fact, staying out of the market in the early part of the day is not a new practice nor one which can be attributed to direct marketing. It is merely a phase of buying and is directly comparable to the case where a market agency will hold its hogs at higher prices than the market during the first part of the day.

Staying out of the market is not, however, practiced to any extent. The bulk of the packers are willing to bid, and do bid, on hogs soon after they are yarded and presented for sale. There is occasionally a situation where buyer's and seller's views as to price do not immediately meet to the extent of promptly causing an active market, and sometimes things are dull for an hour or two while this adjustment is going on, but it does not take as long for buyer and seller to meet on the price of livestock as it does on many other articles; some are quicker; some are longer.

We do not believe there has been any reason for complaint in recent years because of lack of bids reasonably early in the morning from buyers, and even if there was less activity for longer periods it would have no bearing on the direct marketing problem.

The gentleman then quotes the Secretary of Agriculture to the effect that the direct marketing system will, in fact, if it h»is not already done so, impair and ultimately break down the open competitive public markets where livestock is bought and sold, and where prices are established. In this the present Secretary does not agree with his predecessor, Henry C. Wallace.

Direct marketing in no way imperils the existence of the central markets. It is obvious that the many packers who have enormous sums of money invested at the central markets are as interested as anyone alse in maintaining the markets at which they are established. Moreover, the great bulk of the buying is done through the central markets.

As for the suggestion that direct marketing already may have broken down the public markets, I think I need only call attention to the combined increase of 38 per cent in the receipts of hogs at the seven leading markets during January and February of this year as compared with the same two months of last year. From these figures it would seem that the open competitive markets were healthy and flourishing.

It is only fair to observe that charges which have been made from time to time against the packing industry have been quickly disproven by mere reference to official Government figures showing livestock prices, meat prices, and the rate of packers' profits.

In conclusion, I wish only to point out that producers of livestock and their representatives in Congress need not fear that direct marketing will bring about the downfall of the central markets, or that it will in any way affect adversely the price of hogs. What they should fear is the effect of unwise legislation which would restrict the processes of the packing industry, for such action would only curtail the outlets and marketing privileges of the livestock producers themselves. The Hope bill they should fear for an additional reason, namely, that even if amended it would tend to discourage cooperative direct marketing of livestock.

It is a fundamental principle of cooperative marketing and good marketing practice for individual farmers to get the produce of the farms to what Is termed the farmer's consumer by the most direct route possible—passing by the door of the middlemen wherever possible or desirable. This is exactly what is being done now and increasingly developed in the marketing of livestock direct to packers. The economic saving by this method amounts to $50 or more per car of livestock marketed, some of this accruing to the producer and some to the packer. It also helps the consumer because it tends to decrease the spread between the farm and the table, a thing which for years has been recognized as being highly desirable for producers and consumers as well.

The packers in St. Louis who will be affected if this bill becomes a law number over 50. Many are in my district, and their existence practically depends upon their ability to purchase part of their kill direct.

Several thousand of my constituents v.'lio are now employed by these packers will also be affected if the business of their employers is curtailed.

Missouri has just completed a ,$00,000.000 good-roads program, the Federal aid being advanced in part to afford good roads for the farmer to bring his products to market by truck. Thousands are now saving freight rates by using these roads, and they will resent any attempt to prevent them from marketing

their hogs direct to the packer where they receive the market quotations without any deductions for yardage, water, feed, and so forth.

PIXK)D PROTECTION ON WHITE RIVER, ARK.

Mr. WOOD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table Senate Joint Resolution 135 and consider the same.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Indiana asks unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table Senate Joint Resolution 135 and consider the same in the House as in Committee of the Whole. Is there objection?

There was no objection.

The Clerk read the joint resolution, as follows: Senate Joint resolution (S. J. Reg. 135) making an emergency appropriation for flood protection on White River, Ark.

Whereas tlic disastrous floods of 1927 destroyed millions of dollars' worth of property along the White River, State of Arkansas: and

Whereas the efforts to hold the levees along that stream exhausted the entire resources of the levee districts; and

Whereas the funds to build said levees aud keep them In repair is raised by a tax levied on the lands; and

Whereas the lant dollar under the constitution these lands can be taxed for that purpose has been exhausted; aud

Whereas the Government under the flood control act has assumed Jurisdiction over these levees; and

Whereas these levees are now being threatened with destruction by a flood now raging on White River; and

Whereas there are no available funds appropriated to strengthen and hold these levees against the impending flood: Therefore be it

Resolved, etc.. That there is hereby appropriated out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise- appropriated the sum of $25.000. or so much thereof an may be required, to be expended under the direction of the Chief of Engineers of the United States Army and the Mississippi River Commission to strengthen and hold levees on the White River Id Woodruff and Monroe Counties, Ark.

Sue. 2. The Chief of Engineers of the United States Army or the Mississippi River Commission, or both, are hereby authorized to expend «ald sum, or so much thereof as may be required, to strengthen or hold said levees.

The SPEAKER. The question is on the preamble.

The question was taken, and the preamble was stricken out.

The Senate joint resolution was ordered to be read a third time, was read the third time, and passed.

On motion of Mr. Wood, a motion to reconsider the vote whereby the resolution was passed was laid on the table.

FLOOD CONTROL

Mr. REID of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up the conference report on the bill (S. 3740) for the control of floods on the Mississippi River and its tributaries, and for other purposes, and I ask unanimous consent that the statement be read in lieu of the report.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Illinois asks unanimous consent to call up the conference report on the bill (S. 3740) and asks unanimous consent that the statement be read In lieu of the report. Is there objection?

There was no objection.

The Clerk read the statement.

The conference report and statement are as follows:

CONFERENCE REPORT

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the House to the bill (S. 3740) for the control of floods on the Mississippi River and its tributaries, and for other purposes, having met, after full and free conference have agreed to recommend aud do recommend to their respective Houses as follows:

That the House recede from its amendments numbered 13, 17, 18. 19, and 20.

That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendments of the House numbered 1. 2, 3, 4, 5. 6, 7. 8, 10, 11, 12, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28. 29, 30, 32. and 33, and agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 9: That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the House numbered 9. and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by said amendment, insert the following: "but nothing herein shall prevent, postpone, delay, or in anywise interfere with the execution of that part of the project oil the east side of the river, including raising, strengthening, and enlarging the levees on the east side of the river "; and the House agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 14: That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the House numbered 14. and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by said amendment insert the following:

"; (e) provide without cost to the United States, all rights of way for levee foundations and levees on the main stem of the Mississippi River between Cape Girardeau, Mo., and the Head of Passes."

"No liability of any kind shall attach to or rest upon the United States for any damage from or by floods or flood waters at any place: Provided, twiccve.r, That if in carrying out the purposes of this act it shall be found that upon any stretch of the banks of the Mississippi River it is impracticable to construct levees, either because such construction is not economically justified or because such construction would unreasonably restrict the flood channel, and lands in such stretch of the river are subjected to overflow and damage which are not now overflowed or damaged by reason of the construction of levees on the opposite banks of the river it shall be the duty of the Secretary of War and the Chief of Engineers to institute proceedings on behalf of the United States Government to acquire either the absolute ownership of the lands so subjected to overflow and damage or lloodage rights over such lands."

And the House agree to the same.

Amendment numlK-red 15: That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the House numbered 15, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by said amendment insert the following:

"Sec. 4. The United States shall provide flowage rights for additional destructive flood waters that will pass by reason of diversions from the main channel of the Mississippi River: Provided, That in all cases where the execution of the floodcontrol plan herein adopted results in benefits to property such benefits shall be taken into consideration by way of reducing the amount of compensation to be paid."

And the House agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 16: That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the House numbered 16, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by said amendment insert the following: "which in the opinion of the Secretary of War and the Chief of Engineers, are"; and the House agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 1!3: That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the House numbered 23. and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by said amendment insert the following:

"Including levee work on the Mississippi River between Rock Island, 111., and Cape Girardeau, Mo., and on the outlets and tributaries of the Mississippi River between Rock Island and Head of Passes in so far as such outlets or tributaries are affected by the backwaters of the Mississippi: Provided, That for such work on the Mississippi River between Rock Island, 111., and Cape Girardeau, Mo., and on such tributaries, the States or levee districts shall provide rights of way without cost to the United States, contribute SUVs per cent of the costs of the works, and maintain them after completion : And provided further, That not more than 1)510,000,000 of the sums authorized in section 1 of this act shall be expended under the provisions of this section.

"In an emergency, funds appropriated under authority of section 1 of this act may be expended for the maintenance of any levee when it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Secretary of War that the levee can not be adequately maintained by the State or levee district."

And the House agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 31: That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the House numbered HI, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by said amendment, insert the following:

"The sum of $5,000,000 is hereby authorized to be used out of the appropriation herein authorized in section 1 of this act, in addition to amounts authorized in the river and harbor act of January 21, 1927, to be expended under the direction of the Secretary of War and the supervision of the Chief of Engineers for the preparation of the flood-control projects authorized to be submitted to Congress under this section: Provided further, That the flood surveys herein provided for shall be made simultaneously with the flood-control work on the Mississippi River provided for in this act: And jn-ovid^d further, That the President shall proceed to ascertain, through the Secretary of Agriculture and such other agencies as he may deem proper, the extent to and manner in which the Hoods in the Mississippi Valley may be controlled by proper forestry practice."

And the House agree to the same.

Pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution No. 34, it is recommended that in the first proviso to section 10 the words "board created in section 1 of this act" be stricken out, and in lieu thereof the words " Mississippi River Commission" be inserted.

Frank R. Reid,
C. F. Cubby,
Roy G. Fitzgerald,
Riley J. Wilson,
W. J. Driver,

Managers on the port of the House.
W. L. Jones,
Duncan U. Fletcher,
Chas. L. McNABT,
Jos. E. Ransdelt,
Hiram W. Johnson,
Managers on the part of the Senate.

STATEMENT

The managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the House to the bill (S. 3740) for the control of floods on the Mississippi River and its tributaries, and for other purposes, submit the following written statement explaining the effect of the action agreed on by the conference committee and submitted in the accompanying conference report, as to each of such amendments, namely:

SECTION 1

On No. 1: Strikes out the Secretary of War as a member of the planning board.

On No. 2: Provides for one civil engineer as a member of the planning board, instead of two as proposed by the Senate.

On No. 3: Provides that the civil engineer shall be chosen from civil life.

On No. 4: Provides that the planning board shall consider the plans recommended by the Mississippi River Commission.

On No. 5: Inserts the language proposed by the House, providing that the planning board shall recommend to the President such action as it may deem necessary to be taken in respect to the engineering differences between the two flood-control plans, the President's decision to be followed in carrying out the project. The planning board is to have no other authority in regard to the project except as set forth in this section.

On No. 6: Strikes out the word "further" as proposed by the House.

On No. 7: Strikes out the word "as" as proposed by the House.

On No. 8: Strikes out the words "as those protected by levees constructed on the main river" as proposed by the House.

On No. 9: Inserts the language proposed by the House, with the additional insertion, after the word "of," in line 22, on page 3, of the words " that part of." This is in the nature of a perfecting amendment and does not change the sense of the House amendment.

On No. 10: Inserts the new paragraph at the end of section 1, as proposed by the House, providing that all unexpended balances of appropriations heretofore made for flood control on the Mississippi River under the flood control acts of 1917 and 1923 shall be available for expenditure under this net, except section 13.

SECTION 2

On No. 11: Strikes out the word "additional," as proposed by the House, from the phrase "no additional local contribution to the project herein adopted is required."

SECTION 3

On No. 12: Strikes out the words "local interests" and inserts the words "the States or levee districts," as proposed by the House, in line 8, on page 5.

On No. 13: Strikes out the words "the title to" proposed to be inserted by the House, in line 15, on page 5.

On No. 14: Inserts the language proposed by the House, but changes the latter part of the last paragraph of the section so as to clarify the meaning.

SECTION 4

On No. 15: Strikes out the first paragraph of the section, as proposed by the Senate, and inserts in lieu of the amendment proposed by the House a provision which has been agreed upon by the conferees, to the effect that the United States shall provide flowage rights for additional destructive flood waters that will pass by reason of diversions from the main channel of the Mississippi River. The amendment agreed to by the conferees also contains a proviso to the effect that where the flood-control project results in benefits to property, such benefits shall be taken into consideration by way of reducing the amount of compensation to be paid. This provision is similar to existing law.

On No. 10: Inserts the language proposed by the House, to the effect that the opinion of the Secretary of War is to decide what lands, easements, or rights of way are necessary to be acquired, and adds that the opinion of the Chief of Engineers is also to be followed.

On Nos. 17, 18, 19, and 20: Strikes out the language proposed by the House and restores the language of the Senate, in the last proviso in section 4, the House amendment not having been considered essential or important.

Section e

On No. 21: Strikes out the language, proposed by the Senate, and inserts the word "Funds," as proposed by the House, in lino 10, on page 8.

On No. 22: Inserts the words "section 1 of," as proposed by the House, in line 11, on page 8.

On No. 23: Strikes out the language, proposed by the Senate, and inserts the language, proposed by the House, with the additional provision that for levee work on the Mississippi Kiver between Rock Island, III., and Ca|>e Girardeau. Mo., the States or levee districts shall provide rights of way, pay one-third of the work, and maintain the levees when completed.

SECTION 7

On No. 24: Strikes out the words "below Cane Girardenu, Mo.," as proposed by the Senate, so that the emei-gency fund may be used for rescue work or repair or maintenance on any of the tributaries of the Mississippi.

On No. 25: Inserts the language, proposed by the House, which would authorize the emergency fund to be used to repair levees destroyed by the flood of 1927.

SUCTION 8

On No. 26: Inserts the new paragraph at the end of (he section, as proposed by the House, providing that the salary of the president of the Mississippi Kiver Commission shall be $10.000, and the salary of the other members of the commission shall be $7,500.

SECTION 9

On No. 27: Strikes out the entire section, as proiiosed by the Senate, and inserts the language, proposed by the House, providing that the provisions of sections 13, 14. 16. and 17 of the river and harbor act of March 3, 1809, shall be applicable to all lands, waters, easements, and other property and rights acquired or constructed under the provisions of this act.

SECTION 10

On No. 28: Inserts the language, proposed by the House, providing that the surveys authorized by the river and harbor act of January 21, 1927, in addition to those set forth in House Document No. 308, Sixty-ninth Congress, first session, shall be prosecuted as speedily as practicable.

On Nos. 2!) and 30: Strikes out the language, proiiosed by the Senate, and inserts the language, proposed by the House, naming the tributaries for which flood-control projects shall be preimred.

On No. 31: Inserts the new paragraph at the end of the section, as proposed by the House, with the additional provisions that the flood-control projects on the tributaries of the Mississippi shall be submitted to Congress, anil that the forestry Investigation may be undertaken by such other agencies as the President may deem proper as well as by the Secretary of Agriculture.

Section u

On No. 32: Strikes out the language, proposed by the Senate, and inserts the language, proposed by the House, to the effect that if the levee between Tiptonville, Term., and the Obiou River, in Tennessee, is found feasible and is approved by the President, it shall be built.

SECTIONS 13 AND 14

On No. 33: Inserts the two new sections, proposed by the House, section 13 providing for a modification of the floodcontrol project on the Sacramento Kiver. Calif., and section 14 providing that contracts for the- sale of land shall contain a provision that no Member of Congress is interested in the sole.

The conferees have agreed to recommend that section 10 be amended to provide that the surveys of the tributaries shall be reviewed by the Mississippi Kiver Commission instead of the planning board. This change is recommended in order to make this section consistent with the provision in section 1 that the planning board shall have no power or authority except to consider the engineering differences between the two plans for flood control on the lower Mississippi. This recommenda

tion of the conferees was authorized by House Concurrent Resolution No. 34, adopted by the House and Senate on May 7, 1928.

Frank R. Reib,
C. F. Cuwr,

ROY G. KlTZGEBALD,

ItiLey J. Wilson.
W. J. Drivkk,
Managers on thf part of thf House.

Mr. REID of Illinois. Mr. Si>eaker, I move the adoption of the- conference report.

The SPEAKER. The question is on agreeing to the conference it-port.

Mr. DENISON. Mr. Speaker, I nsk the gentleman to yield to me for live minutes.

Mr. REID of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, first I yield five minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Fkkak].

Mr. FREAR. Mr. Speaker and gentlemen of the House, this flood control bill as now re|H>rted by the conferees is accepted, as I understand it. by the Attorney General and by those who were in the President's conference. They have agreed to it as a compromise, and to my mind it is a very satisfactory compromise, depending upon the legal interpretation that is to be had hereafter. I shall speak of one or two points which were in controversy and were discussed In the House quite fully during debate upon the bill. In section 3. it will be remembered, there is a provision relating to forcing waters across the Mississippi River by reason of levees constructed by the Government, and the consequent damage to those living on the opposite side of the river. In section 3 there has now been inserted this provision:

lands In such strotch of the river siiI>jiH'toc] to overflow and damage which art not flow overflows! or damaged by reason of the construction of levees on the opposite banku of the river.

Any additional damage caused by the Government should be paid, so far as the damage is concerned. The only criticism that rises in my mind is whether or not the Government should buy the llowage rights instead of permitting the damage to be recovered by court action.

Mr. GARRETT of Tennessee rose.

Mr. FREAR. In Just a moment. In section 4 the same result, apparently, is reached, to be determined by legal construction of the word "additional " inserted before '•destructive Hood waters." The chairman of the committee will correct me if I am not stating this correctly. That word provides, in effect, that in these flood ways, where they have been used heretofore for flood ways, no damage can be collected from the Government unless it is "additional" damage due to the construction of levees. Where the use of the flood ways creates additional overflow because of greater flood* caused by the works, then the Government might properly be held responsible to the extent of providing land for such additional overflow or flowage rights. Actual damages to be recovered by court action would be preferable.

Those are the two principal provisions In controversy. Of course, the effect of this change is to strike out the enormous expenditure of two or three hundred million dollars for buying up whole flood ways that we have had in the bill heretofore.

Mr. BOX rose.

TIIK ADMINISTRATION PLAN ACCKPTKD UY CONFKKKHS IS 100 PKlt CBNT BKTTKR THAN THE SENATE BILL

Mr. FREAR. In just a moment. A third proixisition which, to my mind, is important provides that benefits shall be charged or credited or offset against any damages, which is certainly proper and has been our contention at all times. The commission feature now in the bill is, of course, far preferable to that which was provided in the Senate bill, and the bill as presented to yon by the conferees, as influenced by the advice of the President and his advisers, in my judgment is 100 per cent better than the bill as it came from the Senate. It is also far preferable to the bill that was discussed here in the House. As long as it is also acceptable to those who have the final say in its determination, 1 am satisfied with it. [Applause.]

A brief examination has only been afforded of all the amendments, but the conference report on the Hood control hill in some respects presents an entirely different bill from that which passed the Senate unanimously or that which was afterwards reported to the House by the House committee and thereafter passed.

A VETO WOL'LD HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED. IT TVILI/ NOT BE NEEDED NOW TO GET FAIK FLOOD LEGISLATION

In the week's discussion of the flood control bill when before the House different objectionable features connected with the

« ПретходнаНастави »