the price he shall get for his commodities. If the Senator agrees that surpluses are injurious to the purchasing power of the farmer through depressing the price he receives, I do not see how the Senator then can avoid conceding the necessity of legislation to deal with surpluses and thereby improve purchasing power, along with everything else we may do to increase the use and consumption of commodities the farmer produces.
Mr. O'MAHONEY. I think there is no great amount of harmony between what the Senator is now saying and the contents of this particular amendment.
In 1933 we passed the Agricultural Adjustment Act. When the processing tax under that act was declared invalid the Soil Conservation Act was passed. This Congress and the Congresses which have preceded it since 1933 have done everything in their power to increase the purchasing power of the farmer by legislation of this character and they succeeded—temporarily. The purchasing power of the farmer in 1935 was vastly greater than it was in 1932; but now we are told that that purchasing power is again falling off, in spite of the emergency legislation, in spite of the Soil Conservation Act. It is my contention that until we find a way of putting the industrial population of America to work at something better than security wages, we shall not begin to solve the farm problem.
Mr. POPE. Let me ask the Senator a question. Assuming that he is largely correct in that statement, would the Senator then leave the matter of surpluses unprovided for? Would he go along in his effort to increase the purchasing power of the consumer generally without dealing with the specific problem of the farmer which he has before him?
The farmer now has a surplus of over 200,000,000 bushels of wheat. If present conditions continue under the soil conservation program, he may have next year an additional surplus of two hundred or three hundred million bushels. Then he will be facing an actual, concrete surplus of, say, four or five hundred million bushels of wheat. Would the Senator let that go without any legislation, and rest entirely upon the proposition that somehow we should stimulate purchasing power generally among the consumers? Would he let that matter go, and do nothing about it?
Mr. O'MAHONEY. Mr. President, I will say to the Senator from Idaho that I suspect I shall be found voting for this bill, with the Senator from Idaho.
Mr. POPE. I am glad to hear that.
Mr. O'MAHONEY. I am merely expressing my opinion that the conclusions stated in this amendment are not correct. I do not want it to be understood that I share the point of view set forth in this amendment; namely, that the provisions of this bill are necessary to maintain an orderly flow of certain agricultural commodities.
Mr. POPE. I think if we were preparing findings on the question of the effect of monopolistic prices upon the purchasing power of the consumer—in other words, if we were dealing with the consumer's problem exclusively—we could have some very significant legislative findings, and I expect they would appeal to the Senator more than these findings do; but we are dealing with one of the phases of the problem and making findings upon that phase of the problem, and not attempting to exclude all other considerations that may enter into this great problem.
Mr. O'MAHONEY. Another remark I might make is to the effect that the bill, as reported by the committee and being pressed by the distinguished Senator from Idaho, is based upon a different theory from that presented by the Secretary of Agriculture. I am inclined to agree with the Secretary of Agriculture that the restrictive features, the control features of farm legislation, should not come into play until there is a definite surplus.
Mr. McGIlL. Mr. President, does the Senator believe we have a surplus of wheat when we have 200,000,000 bushels of wheat more than the domestic and foreign markets will take?
Mr. O'MAHONEY. I would be willing to say "no" to that question for the reason that I believe that what is called a surplus by the proponents of this bill could easily be consumed in the United States if we took the proper steps to stimulate consumption. Our trouble is that too many people are too poor to buy what they need.
Mr. McGIlL. Does the Senator take the view that there must be around 400,000,000 bushels of wheat more than we can sell before there is a surplus?
Mr. O'MAHONEY. The opportunity will be presented to me a little later, I believe, to go into a discussion of this matter in greater detail. We shall have no such surplus if the people are all employed. For the present, as I said, I am merely expressing my opinion that the conclusions in this amendment are not well founded.
Mr. McGILL. We have always heretofore regarded about 150,000,000 bushels of wheat as a reasonable carry-over.
Mr. COPELAND. Mr. President, may I ask the Senator from Wyoming what he means by "proper steps to stimulate consumption"? How would he increase consumption?
Mr. O'MAHONEY. The first thing I would do would be to close the door to those monopolistic practices followed by what I believe to be a very small proportion of the industrial leaders of the country, but a sufficiently large proportion to make it impossible for the country to develop as it should develop and to make competition impossible. Too much concentration of economic wealth and power is the greatest impediment to the expansion of private enterprise.
Mr. COPELAND. I thought possibly the Senator meant we might change the practice of our women and have them eat more bread and not slenderize so much.
Mr. O'MAHONEY. I would have them eat more meat, which would be very slenderizing.
Mr. BORAH. Mr. President, we do not have to change the waist lines of the women to have the bread of the country consumed. If all women are permitted to eat, they will all still have slim figures when we get through on the basis of the present production of the United States.
This discussion of a surplus is based upon the fact that the people of the United States are not eating what they ought to have. There is no surplus in the United States except you propose to reduce the population by some 40,000,000 needy people. It is true, by reason of the fact that millions are not getting enough to eat, and necessarily they do not have an ordinary decent standard of living, that there is a surplus, but there is no surplus in the United States except upon that theory. When we talk about 200,000,000 bushels of wheat as a surplus, what is meant is that there are millions of people who cannot get the 200,000,000 bushels of wheat to eat; and we are legislating upon the theory that they are not to have any part or partake of this 200,000,000 bushels of wheat. We are simply closing our eyes and ears and forgetting them.
Mr. McGILL. Is the farmer to be held responsible for the fact that the goods he produces are not properly distributed?
Mr. BORAH. I am not in favor of the farmer being held responsible for it, but I am in favor of holding responsible those who have charge of the legislation of the country which deals with the subject of distribution. Any scheme which seeks to raise farm prices without at the same time dealing with distribution is doomed to speedy failure, and no one knows this better than the farmer. It is amazing to me how people can talk about surpluses when uncounted thousands are praying for that which is called a surplus.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the committee on page 21, commencing in line 4, and extending to the bottom of page 23.
The amendment was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Certain amendments offered by the Senator from New York [Mr. Copeland] yesterday went over. Does he care to have them taken up at this. time?
Mr. COPELAND. Mr. President, the Senator from Idaho [Mr. Pope] is preparing a further amendment, which I think will be very helpful. Yesterday it was agreed, I understood, that two amendments which I offered, one on page 14, line 2, and the other on page 30, line 10, to insert after "corn" the words "for market" should be considered today.
