Слике страница
PDF
ePub

Senate, and the measure will soon be sent to the White House for the President's approval.

I do not know whether the President will approve or veto this measure. I am convinced that he should give it his approval. I am sure he would do this if it were not for the crowd of ultrareactionaries who surround him and use their baneful influence to defeat all legislation that is designed to break the power of big business and give the masses a square deal. But if the President should again veto the measure his veto will not mark the end of the McNary-Haugen bill. A veto will serve to strengthen the demand for this legislation, and the next Congress will favor this bill by an increased majority which will insure its enactment even over a third presidential

veto.

The arguments against the enactment of this legislation have crumbled one by one because they could not stand the acid test of intelligent analysis and thoughtful consideration. By high tariff laws the Federal Government has stabilized the manufacturing industry which has insured higher prices for manufactured commodities than could be obtained without these tariff laws. By the transportation act and the law creating the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Federal Government has stabilized the transportation industry and enabled the railroads to secure higher rates and larger net profits than were possible without this legislation. By the Federal reserve act the Federal Government has stabilized banking and finance, regulated interest rates, controlled loans and credits, and made the banking and financial pursuits safe and profitable. By numerous acts of Congress the Federal Government has stabilized big business and commerce and tremendously increased the profits of those who engage in these vocations. By orders of utility boards and public-service commissions the Federal Government and States have stabilized the business of street-railway companies, electric-light companies, water companies, telephone companies, and other lines of business, increasing their profits at the expense of the general public. By the Adamson law and numerous other acts the Federal Government has stabilized labor and enabled the organized wageworkers to secure higher wages and more satisfactory working conditions. In short, the Federal Government and State governments have by class legislation and special privilege laws stabilized and increased the profits of every great industry except agriculture. According to the Coolidge-Mellon-Hoover-Jardine theory every great basic industry except agriculture should be nursed, petted, babied, and favored by the Government, but when agriculture asks for a little of the same kind of medicine that the Government has been granting unstintingly to these other vocational groups, the door of the White House is slammed in the faces of the American farmers. If Congress and the President would only try half as hard to find a remedy for the farmers' ills as they have worked to aid the manufacturing, transportation, banking, and business interests, a satisfactory solution of the farm problem would have been found long ago.

But the industrial East is in the saddle, riding booted and spurred, roughshod over the agricultural classes. Big business gets all the legislation it wants, but the agricultural classes are given scant consideration by the Coolidge-MellonHoover-Jardine oligarchy. How long will the American farmer be deluded by the false philosophy of the industrial East? How long will the western farmer continue to carry hay and water | to the eastern industrial elephant? How long will the 30,000,000 American people who depend either directly or indirectly on agriculture for a livelihood be satisfied with the few crumbs that fall from the table laden with bounties and legislative favors for the special-privilege classes? And how long, O how ong, will the western Republicans submit to the party lash in the hands of a few eastern Republicans who worship at the altar of special privilege, use the party of Lincoln, Grant, Garfield, and Blaine to accomplish their sinister and selfish purpose and feather their own nests, and whose sordid and shortsighted leadership and opposition to farm-relief legislation have driven agriculture dangerously close to the abyss of bankruptcy?

In this connection I want to express my appreciation of the very valuable service rendered by my colleague from Missouri [Mr. RUBEY]. From the beginning of the fight for farm relief he has been on the firing line, working in season and out of season to secure the enactment of legislation that would relieve the American farmer of the unjust handicap under which he has so long labored. He has never faltered in his devotion to the interests of agricultural classes.

As a member of the Committee on Agriculture that framed the McNary-Haugen bill, Mr. RUBEY rendered the people of his district and the farmers of the Nation a very valuable service. He was faithful in attending the meetings of this important

committee. He patiently and industriously aided in framing this legislation. His understanding of the farm problem, his sympathy for the farming classes, his ripe experience as a legislator, his sound judgment and admirable qualities of mind and heart enabled him to render a service to agriculture the value of which can not be easily computed. Many times when the fate of this bill hung trembling in the balance the vote of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. RUBEY] turned the tide and gave the friends of farm relief a majority in the committee, and I understand at times the committee was so evenly divided that this bill probably would not have been reported out in its present form had it not been for the vote and influence of Mr. RUBEY. I am indeed glad to bear testimony of the great value of the service Mr. RUBEY has rendered to his district and the country at large, and I indulge the hope, which I am sure is concurred in by all the Members of this body, that he may be reelected and that the people of his district may continue to have the benefit of his valuable services.

Nor can I forego the opportunity to commend the splendid services of my colleague from Missouri [Mr. CANNON] in this fight for equality of agriculture. Ever since I came to Congress his office has been close to mine, and I have been intimately associated with him in legislative matters. Times without number I have consulted him with reference to pending legislation.

I soon found that his judgment was sound, that he was well informed on economic problems, that he was an expert parliamentarian and thoroughly familiar with the legislative machinery, and that his heart was on the right side of every issue, especially the agricultural question. In the five-year battle to pass the McNary-Haugen bill it has been my privilege and pleasure to fight side by side with him, and in this long struggle he has never faltered. From the first he realized the nationwide distress of agriculture and the absolute necessity for the enactment of legislation that would place agriculture on a parity with other industries; and having put his hand to the plow he never looked back, never compromised on any essential provision of the measure, and never surrendered. When the outlook was most discouraging he never lost confidence in the cause and never doubted that ultimately a worth-while farm relief bill would be enacted based on the McNary-Haugen formula. In the recent contest he rendered the agricultural classes of the Nation a service the value of which can not be measured in dollars and cents.

I am proud of the record made by my Democratic colleagues of Missouri on farm legislation. Every Democratic Member from rural Missouri voted for and loyally supported the McNaryHaugen bill, thereby demonstrating their interest in the welfare of their constituents and their capacity to render their districts and the Nation efficient service.

From what I have said about my colleagues Mr. RUBY and Mr. CANNON having had an active part in securing the enactment of the McNary-Haugen bill it must not be assumed that my other Democratic colleagues from Missouri were any less active in support of farm-relief legislation. As I have said, every one of my Democratic colleagues from rural Missouri gave their votes and aggressive support to this legislation. But in the fight to put over the legislative program of the American farmers I have been very closely associated with Mr. RUBY, a member of the Committee on Agriculture, and with Mr. CANNON, each of whom have given special attention to the farm problem, while my other Democratic colleagues from Missouri being on other committees, though not neglecting farmrelief legislation, were nevertheless compelled to give much of their time to the important problems coming before their committees for consideration. In other words, every Democratic Representative from rural Missouri has kept the faith and have a 100 per cent record on farm-relief legislation.

Mr. BLACK of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks in the RECORD on the subject of the control of farm surplus.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?

There was no objection.

Mr. BLACK of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the agricultural surplus control bill, commonly referred to as the McNary-Haugen bill, passed the House of Representatives May 3 by a vote of 201 to 121. I voted in favor of the bill because I believe it makes a serious and well-directed effort to deal with what I regard as our greatest economic problem, to wit: The marketing of the surplus of our farm products in a way so as to prevent such surplus from bankrupting the growers who produce it. When, as a Member of Congress, I have voted upon measures affecting agriculture, I have supported every measure which I thought would be helpful to the farming industry. In doing so, I have

not felt that I was supporting class legislation, but legislation | which ranged, for example, from around a low figure of 10 for the benefit of the whole community.

Mr. Speaker, there are many problems of farm production, but I shall not discuss them to-day because, notwithstanding the many difficulties attending production, the fact remains that our farmers manage to produce as much of the basic farm commodities as the world needs, and in some years more than the world will use, at a fair and living price to the grower under present marketing conditions.

The big economic problem which confronts us, for example, in the cotton industry, and one that is worthy of the efforts of our best minds to solve, is to market it at a price which will yield a fair profit to the grower and will not bankrupt him when it happens that a surplus is produced.

The present glaring defect in our marketing system is illustrated by the fact that in 1925 we produced a crop of 16,000,000 bales and sold it for $500,000,000 more than a crop of around 18,000,000 bales produced in 1926. And in 1927 we produced a crop of 12,700,000 bales and sold it for as much as we sold our 18,000,000 crop in 1926.

Thus we have the unsound situation of rewarding the producer for producing less and penalizing him to the point of bankruptcy for producing more. Surely some way must be found by which that situation will be corrected. What we need to do is to develop a better marketing system, so that the price of our product will not be stagnated by a temporary surplus. Control the surplus and manipulation of the market will be impossible. Leave the surplus uncontrolled and it will be very difficult to work out any marketing system which will save the farmers from heavy losses.

So the remedy lies in the control of the surplus by some adequate surplus-control agency. What do we mean by a surplus? I would define it to mean that part of the crop which if marketed during the usual 12 months of consumption depresses the price of the whole crop to a point where it is unprofitable to the grower. Farm surpluses are in part within the control of the producer and in part they are beyond his control.

To state it another way, farm surpluses are due in part to acreage and the use of fertilizer, both of which are, of course, under the control of the farmer and in part to the seasons and insect damage, over which he has but little control. None, of course, as to seasons, and not very much as to insect damage. Therefore if surpluses are reasonably controlled so as to put farming upon a more profitable and stable basis, two agencies must work together to accomplish that end.

First, I am convinced after the best study I can give to the problem the Government must set up some kind of machinery along the lines of that provided in the McNary-Haugen bill for the control of the surpluses when they occur; and second, the farmers must cooperate by diversifying their crops and not planting too much acreage in any one particular commodity. Any plan of Government control of the surplus will fail unless it receives a reasonable amount of cooperation from the farmers themselves. Can we get that cooperation from the farmer? I think so.

I see no reason why the farm board such as would be set up by the McNary-Haugen bill could not secure cooperation with the farmers to an equal degree as the Federal reserve board is able to secure cooperation with the Federal reserve banks and their member banks. Of course, the cooperation which the Federal reserve system receives from its member banks and the cooperation which the member banks in turn receive from the Federal reserve system is very far from being perfect, but I do not want to abolish the Federal reserve system because it does not work perfectly. Because we think it would be impossible to frame a law which would cure all the defects in our present marketing system, is no reason why we should oppose doing anything at all.

There are some people who oppose any legislation to aid the farmer in the control of his surplus by Government help because they say it would be too paternalistic. Now, if the protective tariff is not the essence of paternalistic legislation, then I do not know the meaning of the word "paternalistic." | Does the North and East propose to release any of the protection which they enjoy under the paternalistic Fordney-McCumber tariff law? Oh, no; they do not. Entrenched behind a tariff wall as high as any ever enacted by an American Congress and which I voted against, they propose to hold on to all the protection they have and to set up a cry of "Too paternalistic" every time it is proposed to give the farmers of the West and South a degree of protection comparable to that which they enjoy.

So let it be clearly understood that I believe that something can be done by the Government such as is provided in the McNary-Haugen bill to stop the radical and demoralizing fluctuations in the prices of basic farm products, fluctuations

cents a pound for cotton in December of 1926 to a figure around 25 cents in the early part of September, 1927, and then back to 18 cents a pound by December, 1927, a fluctuation of $75 a bale over a period of less than 12 months. No business in the world can enjoy any degree of stable prosperity under such wide fluctuations of prices. Something must be done to correct it.

I think the operation of the McNary-Haugen bill would do much to correct these evils. The McNary-Haugen bill does not provide any compulsory control of acreage. I would not have supported it if it had done so. Social cooperation must be voluntary if it succeeds. It crumbles under compulsion. And that is especially true of the Anglo-Saxon race. It is in our blood to want to be free.

So the McNary-Haugen bill contains no provisions whatever which would give the Federal farm board established under its provisions any compulsory control over acreage. The farmer would still be free to plant whatever he wants to plant and whenever he wants to plant it. But I do not doubt that the great majority of American farmers would be willing to give the board a sufficient amount of cooperation to make the plan of surplus control a success. Not perfection, of course. Any new law of this importance must necessarily pass through its experimental stages. But a start must be made somewhere if we are ever to solve this great problem of surplus control of farm products. The McNary-Haugen bill would make the start, and for that reason I was glad to give it my support.

Pro

Let us develop the resources of our land, call forth its powers. mote all its great interests to see whether we also in our day and generation may not perform something worth while to be remembered.

stirring call to service in this great basic industry should still Thus spoke Daniel Webster nearly a century ago, and his

strike a responsive chord in the heart of every citizen who is interested in the happiness and welfare of the American people. AGRICULTURAL SURPLUS CONTROL BILL

Mr. BOWMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks in the RECORD on the McNary-Haugen bill. The SPEAKER. Is there objection? There was no objection.

Mr. BOWMAN. Mr. Speaker, the recent consideration of the McNary-Haugen farm relief bill in the United States Senate was responsible for the introduction of two amendments to the bill affecting the fruit growers of the United States. One amendment was introduced by Senator Neely, of West Virginia, and the other one was presented by Senator COPELAND, of New York. These amendments are designated as the Neely and the Copeland amendments.

The Neely amendment sought to relieve the fruit growers from the operation of the equalization fee without destroying the loan and credit features of the bill. The adoption of this amendment would have made available to the fruit growers of the United States every needed facility for storing and marketing their products. Because of the perishable character and nature of fruits, the equalization fee was not favored by the growers; but, for exactly the same reason, the credit and loan provisions of the said bill were most desirable.

The effect of the Copeland amendment, which was adopted in the Senate, is most disastrous to the fruit growers. It eliminates fruits from every provision of the McNary-Haugen bill. In other words, fruit, as a commodity, is an outcast. This amendment denies to the fruit growers of the country the rights and advantages guaranteed to the producers of other agricultural commodities and places their fate in the hands of the commission merchants. It denies credit and loan facilities of the United States Government to the producers of fruit, and reaffirms and reestablishes the present policy of securing loans and credits from commission merchants, who arbitrarily fix a low market price for the producer and a proportionately high price to the consumer. It leaves the fruit grower at the mercy of the commission merchants, and neither the grower nor the public is benefited. This is the aim and objective of the Copeland amendment.

The adoption of the Copeland amendment was most significant. It was a decided victory for the commission merchants and all allied associations and the organizations in the business of buying and selling fruits. It was particularly gratifying to those organizations which have constantly opposed and contended against all cooperative movements to assist and aid the farmers. In the April 14, 1928, issue of The New York Packer, a trade publication devoted to the interest of commercial growers, packers, shippers, and receivers of fruit, vegetables, melons, and so forth, with offices in Kansas City, New York, Cincinnati, Chicago, and Los Angeles, almost a column is devoted to the most gratifying success of the Copeland amendment under the glaring headlines:

Fruits and vegetables eliminated from McNary-Haugen bill. Trade associations have been active in support of the amendment and the pressure of a flood of telegrams pouring into Washington from members of the trade throughout the country was a factor in winning the battle.

This is a bold confession. We can now begin to understand. The adopted amendment is the result of legislative propaganda. Under a Chicago date line of April 13 the same article continues:

The force of the fruit and vegetable trade organizations was felt in Washington this week when telegrams from members of the various trade associations throughout the country poured into the offices of Senators. The joint council representing members of the Western Fruit Jobbers' Association, International Apple Shippers' Association, and the National League of Commission Merchants has been active in its support of the Copeland amendment, excluding fruits and vegetables from the bill.

William Garfitt, secretary of the Western Fruit Jobbers' Association said yesterday that members of his organization had been flooding Washington with telegrams in support of the Copeland amendment. Under a Detroit date line of April 13 the following is published as a part of the said article:

The Detroit branch of the National League of Commission Merchants sent the following telegram to United States Senator JAMES COUZENS: "We, the undersigned members of the Detroit National League of Commission Merchants, hereby request that you use your influence and support to the Copeland amendment in final action by the Senate pending, which would exclude fruits and vegetables from the operation of the McNary-Haugen relief bill (3555), as the original bill as drafted would prove very harmful to the entire fruit and vegetable business of the United States."

The article gives another report, under a New York date line of April 13, as follows:

The legislative committee of the New York Mercantile Exchange held a meeting Monday to consider the McNary-Haugen bill, which is attracting the attention of not only the members of the produce trade of the country but also that of the merchants in all other lines of business. President Droste issued a letter later to the trade calling attention to the circular which was issued by W. F. Jensen, president of the Federated Agricultural Trade of America, condemning the measure. Mr. Droste urged immediate action against the measure. He also included a list of the United States Senators and all the Members of the House of Representatives of the State of New York and urged the trade to take up the matter immediately with their Representatives, protesting against the passage of the bill.

The above press dispatches are quoted to show the extent of the propaganda released by various organizations opposed to any system of cooperation and credit for the American farmer. Anyone who is familiar with the character and nature of said organizations and associations will know the truth of my statement. The dispatches also prove that the McNary-Haugen bill as amended in the Senate is most satisfactory to the middleman. D ring the discussion and consideration of said bill in the House of Representatives every effort was made to adopt amendments similar to the Copeland amendment. The House rejected these amendments, and the bill was finally passed without any amendments similar to the Neely or Copeland amendments. The House bill still keeps the fruit growers under the provisions of the equalization bill, which is very objectionable to the growers. This objection should be removed in conference. The Senate and House bills are now in conference, and it is hoped that an amendment removing fruit growers from the equalization fee and at the same time permit them to enjoy the privileges of the credit and loan provisions will result. This is what the fruit growers desire. In doing this the McNary-Haugen bill will, in fact, be a relief measure for the fruit growers of the United States instead of an enabling act to assist the commission men.

CHIPPEWA INDIANS OF MINNESOTA

Mr. LEAVITT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H. R. 10360) to confer additional jurisdiction upon the Court of Claims under an act entitled "An act authorizing the Chippewa Indians of Minnesota to submit claims to the Court of Claims," approved May 14, 1926, and agree to the Senate amendments.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Montana asks unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H. R. 10360) and agree to the Senate amendments. The Clerk will report the bill and the Senate amendments.

The Clerk read the title of the bill and the Senate amendments.

[blocks in formation]

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 11577) making appropriations for the Department of Agriculture for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1929, and for other purposes, having met, after full and free conference have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows:

That the Senate recede from its amendments numbered 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 14, 24, 41, 42, 44, 47, 48, 60, 62, 63, 64, 66, 74, 77, 83, 88, and 94.

That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendments of the Senate numbered 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 43, 45, 46, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 58, 68, 71, 72, 73, 75, 78, 79, 81, 82, 89, 90, 91, 95, 96, 97, and 101, and agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 27: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 27, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed insert "$515,200"; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 28: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 28, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed insert “$105,650"; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 29: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 29, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed insert "$277,140"; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 36: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 36, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed insert “$8,945,135"; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 39: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 39, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed insert "$11,147,895"; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 40: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 40, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed insert “$775,000"; and the Senate agree to the

same.

Amendment numbered 57: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 57, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed insert "$245,000”; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 61: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 61, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed insert "$210,000"; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 65: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 65, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed insert "$8,870,105"; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 67: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 67, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed insert "$11,145,105"; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 69: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 69, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed insert "$52,743, of which sum $10,000 shall be immediately available"; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 70: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 70, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed insert "$1,293,613"; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 76: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 76, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed insert "$1,966,658"; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 87: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 87, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed insert "$725,000"; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 92: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 92, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed insert "$4,228,060"; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 93: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 93, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed insert “$5,568,280"; and the Senate agree to the same.

The committee of conference have not agreed on amendments numbered 56, 59, 80, 84, 85, 86, 98, 99, 100, and 102.

L. J. DICKINSON,

E. H. WASON,
JOHN W. SUMMERS,

J. P. BUCHANAN,
JOHN N. SANDLIN,

Managers on the part of the House.

CHAS. L. MCNARY,
W. L. JONES,

HENRY W. KEYES,

LEE S. OVERMAN, WM. J. HARRIS,

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 bill (H. R. 11577) making appropriations for the Department of Agriculture for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1929, and for other purposes, submit the following statement in explanation of the effect of the action agreed upon and embodied in the accompanying conference report as to each of such amendments, namely:

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

On No. 1: Removes the inhibition inserted by the Senate against the issuance of price forecasts with respect to wheat. On No. 2: Removes the inhibition inserted by the Senate against ascertaining, collating, or publishing any data or information which it is the duty of another department or bureau to ascertain, collate, or publish.

On No. 3: Inserts a title.

On Nos. 4, 5, and 6: Strikes out the appropriation of $15,000 inserted by the Senate for the publication of a handbook on fruit and vegetable diseases.

On No. 7: Corrects a title.
On No. 8: Inserts a title.

On No. 9: Inserts a comma.

On No. 10: Inserts a total.

On No. 11: Inserts the word "for On Nos. 12 and 13: Corrects a title. On No. 14: Corrects a total.

On No. 22: Strike out the words "not to exceed " in connection with an amount reappropriated, to conform to certain requirements of the Comptroller General.

On No. 23: Corrects the amount of an allocation for administrative and operating expenses.

On No. 24: Strikes out the provision inserted by the Senate forbidding the payment of indemnities for the destruction of tuberculous cattle if the indemnity value is fixed by any arbitrary maximum.

On No. 25: Provides an additional $1,200 for increases in salaries of veterinarians.

On No. 26: Strikes out the words "not to exceed " in connection with an amount reappropriated, to conform to certain requirements of the Comptroller General.

On No. 27: Provides $5,000, as appropriated by the Senate, for increased facilities for a poultry experiment station at Glendale, Ariz.; and strikes out $10,000 which had been appropriated by the Senate for nutrition researches.

On No. 28: Corrects the amount allocated for experiments in poultry feeding and breeding.

On No. 29: Provides $20,000 for scientific investigations relative to the outbreak of the disease known as anaplasmosis; strikes out $10,000 provided by the Senate for cattle-grub investigations; strikes out $10,000 provided by the Senate for research work concerning the disease of contagious abortion of animals; and strikes out $50,000 provided by the Senate for poultry investigations.

On No. 30: Strikes out the words "not to exceed" in connection with an amount reappropriated, to conform to certain requirements of the Comptroller General.

On No. 31: Provides an additional $1,600 for increases in salaries of veterinarians.

On No. 32: Strikes out the words "not to exceed" in connection with an amount reappropriated, to conform to certain requirements of the Comptroller General.

On No. 33: Corrects the amount to be allocated for expenditure in regulating the preparation, sale, shipment, etc., of hog cholera serum.

On Nos. 34 and 35: Strikes out the words "not to exceed" in connection with amounts reappropriated, to conform to certain requirements of the Comptroller General.

On No. 36: Corrects a total.

On No. 37: Provides an additional $26,260 for increases in salaries of veterinarians.

On No. 38: Strikes out the words "not to exceed" in connection with an amount reappropriated, to conform to certain requirements of the Comptroller General.

On Nos. 39 and 40: Corrects a total and the amount allocated for salaries in the District of Columbia.

BUREAU OF DAIRY INDUSTRY

On Nos. 41 and 42: Strikes out the additional $13,000 appropriated by the Senate for dairy industry investigations. On No. 43: Inserts a title.

On No. 44: Corrects a total.

BUREAU OF PLANT INDUSTRY

On No. 45: Provides an additional $10,000 for the study of the phony disease of peach trees.

On No. 46: Provides an additional $5,000 for citrus canker eradication in cooperation with the State of Florida.

On Nos. 47 and 48: Strikes out $44,200 appropriated by the Senate; $25,000 for rubber research, and $19,200 for varietal studies of cotton.

On No. 49: Restores the House cut of $4,000, to administer the coloring provision of the Federal seed act and enforce the instead of the word "or." provision against interstate shipment of misbranded seeds.

WEATHER BUREAU

On No. 15: Provides $7,000 for expenses and improvement of a meteorological station at Greensboro, N. C.

On No. 16: Provides an additional $48,500 to complete program of maintenance of 13 stations for supplying weather information to Air Service of the Army.

On Nos. 17 and 18: Corrects a total and adjusts the amount available for personal services in the District of Columbia.

BUREAU OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY

On No. 19: Provides an additional $2,300 for increases in salaries of veterinarians.

On No. 20: Strikes out the words "not to exceed " in connection with an amount reappropriated to conform to certain requirements of the Comptroller General.

On No. 21: Provides an additional $8,400 for increases in salaries of veterinarians.

LXIX-525

On No. 50: Provides $5,000 for investigations concerning wheat smut.

On Nos. 51 and 52: Strikes out the words "not to exceed" in connection with amounts reappropriated, to conform to certain requirements of the Comptroller General.

On No. 53: Provides $2,500 for the study of diseases of the wild blueberry in Florida.

On Nos. 54 and 55: Provide $10,000 for field station at Umatilla, Oreg., under "Dry-land agriculture."

On No. 57: Provides $5,000 additional for apple washing to remove effects of arsenical spray, and strikes out the amount of $15,000 appropriated by the Senate for additional studies relative to the precooling of fruits before shipment.

On No. 58: Restores the House cut of $22,500 under the appropriation for forage crops.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

On No. 61: Increases the appropriation for "Planting national forests" in the sum of $10,000, instead of $20,000 as proposed by the Senate, to increase the capacity of the nursery at Monument, Colo.

On No. 62: Strikes out $20,000 provided by the Senate for silvical and other experiments at the Lake States Experiment Station.

On Nos. 63 and 64: Strikes out $30,000 provided by the Senate as an additional amount for the construction and maintenance of roads, trails, etc., in the national forests.

On No. 65. Corrects a total.

On No. 66: Strikes out the provision inserted by the Senate allocating $10,000 of the appropriations for the Forest Service for acquirement of additional lands for forest-tree nurseries. On No. 67: Corrects a total.

BUREAU OF CHEMISTRY AND SOILS

On No. 68: Restores the House cut of $13,000 under the appropriation for "Agricultural chemistry," for investigations relative to spoilage of canned goods, metallic poisons, etc.

On No. 69: Provides an increase of $10,000, instead of an increase of $15,000 as contained in the Senate amendment, for prevention of farm fires, etc.

On No. 70: Corrects a total.

BUREAU OF ENTOMOLOGY

On No. 71: Provides an additional $5,000 for investigations relative to substitutes for arsenical sprays.

On No. 72: Restores the House cut of $4.410 for investigations of the European earwig.

On No. 73: Provides an additional $5,000 under "Insects affecting cereal and forage crops," for investigation of the feasibility of shipment of alfalfa meal the entire year.

On No. 74: Strikes out the Senate increase of $15,000 for investigations relative to the cattle grub.

On No. 75: Strikes out the words "not to exceed" in connection with an amount reappropriated, to conform to certain requirements of the Comptroller General.

On Nos. 76 and 77: Corrects a total and the amount allocated for salaries in the District of Columbia.

BUREAU OF BIOLOGICAL SURVEY

On No. 78: Restores the House cut of $1,480 for a new clerk in the Washington office.

On No. 79: Provides $30,000, as appropriated by the Senate, for construction of a dam at Cold Springs Creek, on the Montana National Bison Range.

On No. 81: Strikes out the words "not to exceed " in connection with an amount reappropriated, to conform to certain requirements of the Comptroller General.

On No. 82: Retains the Senate increase of $5,000 for elk and buffalo investigations.

On No. 83: Strikes out $12.000 provided by the Senate for investigations relative to the woodcock.

BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

On Nos. 87 and 88: Retains the Senate increase of $10,000 for investigations relative to the uses of cotton, and strikes out the Senate increase of $50,000 for grading and marking of meats.

On No. 98: Striking out the word "may" and inserting in lieu thereof the word "shall," making it mandatory instead of discretionary for the Secretary of Agriculture to incur obligations in the full sum of $7,500,000 authorized to be appropriated for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1929.

On Nos. 99 and 100: Appropriating for restoration of roads destroyed by the floods of 1927 as follows: $2,654,000 in Vermont, $653,300 in New Hampshire, and $1,889,994 in Kentucky. On No. 102: The total of the bill, which will be affected by action taken on the other amendments in disagreement. L. J. DICKINSON,

E. H. WASON,

JOHN W. SUMMERS,

J. P. BUCHANAN,
JOHN N. SANDLIN,

[blocks in formation]

Amendment No. 56: Page 33 of the bill, line 16, insert: "Horticultural experiment station, Cheyenne, Wyo.: To enable the Secretary of Agriculture to carry into effect the provisions of the act entitled 'An act providing for horticultural experiment and demontration work in the semiarid or dry-land regions of the United States,' approved March 19, 1928, including the erection of buildings and fences, the construction of irrigation facilities, the employment of persons, and for other necessary expenses, to be immediately available, $100,000.” Mr. DICKINSON of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I move to recede and concur with an amendment which I send to the Clerk's desk.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Iowa moves to recede and concur with an amendment, which the Clerk will report. The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment No. 56: Moved by Mr. DICKINSON of Iowa: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate No. 56, and agree to the same with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the matter inserted by said amendment, insert the following: "Horticultural experiment station, Cheyenne, Wyo.: To enable the Secretary of Agriculture to carry into effect the provisions of the act entitled 'An act providing for horticultural experiment and demonstration work in the semiarid or dry-land regions of the United States,' approved March 19, 1928, including the erection of buildings and fences, the construction of irrigation facilities, the employment of persons, and for other necessary expenses, to be immediately available, $100,000: Provided, That the limitations in this act as to the cost of buildings shall not apply to this paragraph."

The motion was agreed to.

The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the next amendment in disagreement.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment No. 59: Page 36, line 11, strike out "$4,216,436" and

On No. 89: Insert the word "stocks" in lieu of the word insert" $4,439,636.” "stock."

66

On Nos. 90 and 91: Provides $10,000 for Shanghai office. On Nos. 92, 93, and 94: Corrects the totals and the amount allocated for salaries in the District of Columbia.

PASSENGER-CARRYING VEHICLES

On No. 95: Authorizes $175,000 as provided by the Senate, instead of $165,000 as proposed by the House, for purchase, maintenance, etc., of passenger-carrying vehicles.

FOREST ROADS AND TRAILS

On Nos. 96 and 97: Appropriates $7,500,000 as provided by the Senate, instead of $6,500,000 as proposed by the House, for construction of forest roads and trails.

EIGHTH INTERNATIONAL DAIRY CONGRESS

On No. 101: Provides $10,000, as proposed by the Senate, for expenses in connection with the Eighth International Dairy Congress.

The committee of conference have not agreed to the following Senate amendments:

On Nos. 56 and 59: Providing $100,000, as appropriated by the Senate, for a horticultural experiment station at Cheyenne, Wyo.

On Nos. 80, 84, 85, and 86: Providing $54,500 for work relative to predatory animals and rodents, $7,500 for investigations concerning fur-bearing animals, and correcting the totals and the amount allocated for salaries in the District of Columbia as they may be affected by action on the two amounts contained in the Senate amendment.

Mr. DICKINSON of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House recede and concur with an amendment.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Iowa moves to recede and concur with an amendment, which the Clerk will report. The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment No. 59: Moved by Mr. DICKINSON of Iowa: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate No. 59, and agree to the same with amendment, as follows: In lieu of the sum inserted by said amendment, insert $4,380,436."

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Amendment No. 80: Page 53 of the bill, line 6, strike out $595,500 " and insert "$657,500."

Mr. DICKINSON of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I move to recede and concur with an amendment which I send to the desk.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Iowa moves to recede and concur with an amendment, which the Clerk will report. The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment No. 80: Moved by Mr. DICKINSON of Iowa: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate No. 80, and agree to the same with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the sum inserted by said amendment insert" $650,000.”

The motion was agreed to.

« ПретходнаНастави »