Mr. SMITH, from the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany S. 859] The Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, to whom was referred the bill (S. 859) to provide for loans to farmers for crop production and harvesting during the year 1935, and for other purposes, having considered the same, recommend that the bill do pass with the following amendments: On page 2, line 24, insert "$500" after the word "exceed". On page 5, line 3, strike out the following "$50,000,000" and insert in lieu thereof, "$100,000,000". The committee, after considering the situation, believed that the class of farmers that this money would reach cannot qualify under the existing law, because the only collateral they have is the prospective crop to be made in 1935. It is estimated that a large percent of the farmers of the country cannot qualify under the new Farm Credit Act, which requires stock, a financial statement, and unpledged property sufficient to justify the loan. Continuance of this so-called "seed loan" in no way interferes with the operations of the Farm Credit Act in that it reaches a class that that law cannot reach. Criticism has been made that the passage of this legislation will, in a measure, nullify the effort that is being made by the Administration to reduce production. This is not true, for under the liberal terms granted the Administrator of the act those receiving aid under the act may be required to sign a contract to reduce in the same proportion that is now being required under the Agricultural Adjustment Act. The administration is making every effort to lessen unemployment. Without this act, millions of farmers and farm laborers will have to seek other employment, which would necessarily add to the ranks of the distressed and unemployed. For 6 years this so-called "seed loan" has enabled millions of farmers and farm laborers to be employed on their own premises, making a living for themselves and paying back to the Government, in some States, as much as 100 percent of the loan. The committee was unanimous in recommending the passage of this legislation, for in their opinion it is the most practical method of aiding unemployment and, at the same time, retaining the self-respect of those who receive the aid and with less cost to the Government. The increase in the total amount asked for as compared to the law of last year was based on the increase in the cost of seed, fertilizers, etc., as compared to last year. A further reason for the increase was because of the condition in the drought-stricken areas of the West. From every agricultural State in the country there have come requests for the continuance of this salutary provision on the part of the Government, and the committee unanimously solicits the favorable action of the Senate at the earliest possible time. 74TH CONGRESS 1st Session SENATE { REPORT REGULATION OF SHIPMENT IN INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE OF PETROLEUM JANUARY 17 (calendar day, JANUARY 18), 1935.-Ordered to be printed Mr. POPE, from the Committee on Mines and Mining, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany S. 1190] S. 1190 is a substantial but somewhat elaborated reenactment of section 9 (c) of the National Industrial Recovery Act relating to the interstate shipment of petroleum and the liquid products, derivatives, and blends of crude petroleum, any part of which was produced, refined, processed, transported, withdrawn from storage, or otherwise handled in violation of any State law or valid orders, rules, or regulations prescribed thereunder. When the National Industrial Recovery Act was enacted it con tained section 9 (c), which read as follows: The President is authorized to prohibit the transportation in interstate and foreign commerce of petroleum and the products thereof produced or withdrawn from storage in excess of the amount permitted to be produced or withdrawn from storage by any State law or valid regulation or order prescribed thereunder, by any board, commission, officer, or other duly authorized agency of a State. Any violation of any order of the President issued under the provisions of this subsection shall be punishable by fine of not to exceed $1,000, or imprisonment for not to exceed six months, or both. Recently the Supreme Court of the United States in the Panama and Amazon cases held this section unconstitutional. The decision of the Court held in effect that Congress did not possess the power to delegate to the President authority to prohibit or not to prohibit as he might see fit the interstate shipment of petroleum and its products, produced in violation of State laws or regulations. A pertinent portion of the Court's opinion is as follows: Thus, in every case in which the question has been raised, the Court has recognized that there are limits of delegation which there is no constitutional authority to transcend. We think that Section 9 (c) goes beyond those limits. As to the transportation of oil production in excess of State permission, the Congress has declared no policy, has established no standard, has laid down no rule. There is no requirement, no definition of circumstances and conditions in which the transportation is to be allowed or prohibited. If Section 9(c) were held valid, it would be idle to pretend that anything would be left of limitations upon the power of the Congress to delegate its lawmaking function. The reasoning of the many decisions we have reviewed would be made vacuous and their distinctions nugatory. Instead of performing its lawmaking function the Congress could at will and as to such subjects as it chooses transfer that function to the President or other officer or to an administrative body. The question is not of the intrinsic importance of the particular statute before us, but of the constitutional processes of legislation which are an essential part of our system of government. Sixth. There is another objection to the validity of the prohibition laid down by the Executive Order under Section 9(c). The Executive Order contains no finding, no statement of the grounds of the President's action in enacting the prohibition. Both Section 9(c) and the Executive Order are in notable contrast with historic practice (as shown by many statutes and proclamations we have cited in the margin 14) by which declarations of policy are made by the Congress and delegations are within the framework of that policy and have relation to facts and conditions to be found and stated by the President in the appropriate exercise of the delegated authority. If it could be said that from the four corners of the statute any possible inference could be drawn of particular circumstances or conditions which were to govern the exercise of the authority conferred, the President could not act validly without having regard to those circumstances and conditions. And findings by him as to the existence of the required basis of his action would be necessary to sustain that action, for otherwise the case would still be one of an unfettered discretion as the qualification of authority would be ineffectual. The point is pertinent in relation to the first section of the National Industrial Recovery Act. We have said that the first section is but a general introduction, that it declares no policy and defines no standard with respect to the transportation which is the subject of Section 9(c). But if from the extremely broad description contained in that section and the widely different matters to which the section refers, it were possible to derive a statement of prerequisites to the President's action under Section 9(c), it would still be necessary for the President to comply with those conditions and to show that compliance as the ground of his prohibition. To hold that he is free to select as he chooses from the many and various objects generally described in the first section, and then to act without making any finding with respect to any object that he does select, and the circumstances properly related to that object, would be in effect to make the conditions inoperative and to invest him with an uncontrolled legislative power. Section 1: Section 1 declares the policy of Congress with regard to the obstruction of interstate and foreign commerce and the burden. placed thereon by the shipment of contraband oil and declares it to be the policy of Congress to cooperate with the several States to conserve deposits of crude oil situated within their limits and on the public domain. The section further defines "contraband oil" as used in the act. Section 2: The transportation of contraband oil in interstate or foreign commerce is prohibited by this section and provides that all common carriers and other means of transportation shall be governed by the provisions of the bill. Section 3: Provides that the President or his duly designated agent or agency shall prescribe and promulgate such rules and regulations as may be found necessary to effectuate the purposes of the act. Section 4: Prescribes penalties for the violation of the act. It also invests the several district courts of the United States with jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violation of the act or any order, rule, or regulation prescribed thereunder by injunction or other process. Section 5: Authorizes suit by any person adversely affected by any order, rule, or regulation prescribed under the provisions of the act. This section provides a remedy for any person who may contend that his rights have been infringed. Section 6: Provides that the President may delegate any of his functions and powers under the act to such officers and agents as he may select. The Committee on Mines and Mining feels it is highly important that this bill should be speedily enacted. It does not pretend to go beyond the general scope of section 9 (c), which was held objectionable by the Supreme Court. Its enactment will in effect reenact section 9 (c). There are those who favor more comprehensive legislation for the control of the oil industry. The committee is not passing on the merits of that question at this time. It is reserved for future consideration. For the present the committee regards it as necessary and highly desirable that the bill in the form in which it has been reported be speedily enacted by the Congress. |