36

AGRICULTURAL RELIEF
have refused to try them, and then the marketing agreements come
later.

Mr. CrLark. Just a minute. Where does this go in?

Mr. Gray. It goes in section 7 of Chairman Haugen’s bill, on page
9. Just add one more condition, and give it the number which is
necessary. It will be three, I suppose.

The answer of myself, speaking for the American Farm Bureau
Federation, the answer of these other gentlemen who will speak to
you later, is and will be that if that section is lifted out of Chairman
McNary’s bill and put into Chairman Haugen’s bill, relative to
marketing agreements, in section 7, it gives all of those who advocate
loans as being the solution of this surplus question a run for their
money. There is an opportunity for trying out the loaning pro-
visions. If they fail, or if the cooperatives refuse to try it—which
latter will be most likely—then the Federal farm board goes into
the marketing agreement, the levying of the equalization fee, and
such like.

My answer to Congressman Williams, then, is this: As I said awhile
ago, about the Federal farm board, if it refuses to abide by the find-
ings of these advisory councils representing 50 per cent of the aggre-
gate production of a commodity, the board will have some very
difficult explaining to do. In a similar way, let me say that anyone
who opposes the try-out of the equalization plan in this kind of a bill,
with that section lifted from Senator McNary’s bill into Chairman
Haugen’s bill, will have some very difficult explaining to do.

Mr. WiLLiams of Illinois. That is not an answer at all to my
question. I asked you to state, and I think you should state to this
committee, because I think the committee has a right to know, and
I think the Congress has a right to know and this country has a right
to know, whether you are here now demanding the enactment of a bill
containing an equalization fee or nothing.

Mr. Gray. We are demanding the enactment of a bill containing
the equalization fee.

Mr. Wirriams of Illinois. You know that means nothing. You
are bound to know that.

Mr. Gray. I do not agree that it means nothing.

Mr. WirLiams of Illinois. The President vetoes the bill passed by
this Congress, because the President says it is unconstitutional and
will destroy American agriculture, and you turn around and request
that again. You are bound to know, as we all know, that the Presi-
dent has objection to the equalization fee which that language will
not overcome.

Mr. Gray. This language permits every test that is necessary to
find out whether the equalization fee is constitutional and is legal.

Mr. WirLiams of Illinois. It is putting the equalization fee in
operation, the thing that the President said in his message is uncon-
stitutional and will destroy American agriculture. You are bound
to know that the President of the United States is not going to back
up and sign a bill with a provision of that kind in it, and you are
here asking Congress to do a foolish thing in passing a bill that is
sure to meet the veto, and we all go back home, you and me, and our
constituents will say, “What have you done for the farmer?” We
say, “Three cheers for the farmer. We passed this bill and the
President vetoed it.” They will sav to the Members of Congress,