AGRICULTURAL RELIEF 631 
Mr. LANkFoRrD. I voted for the Haugen bil i 
about that a little later. gon bill befors, snd L wil tal 
The real question before this Congress is to work out some plan to 
help the farmer get a better price for his products. Let me say just 
here that I voted for the McNary-Haugen bill every time; I voted 
for the McNary-Haugen bill, Mr. Kincheloe, when I was the only 
member of the delegation from Georgia to vote for it. I voted for 
it later when some other Members from Georgia joined me. 
Mr. AsweLL. Are you for it now with the equalization fee in it? 
Mr. LankForp. I would probably vote for it with the equalization 
fee in there, although I am not an enthusiastic supporter of the 
equalization-fee idea. 
I wish to say, I think it would be better for this committee to report 
the McNary-Haugen bill out without the equalization fee if it is re- 
ported at all. I would much prefer for the committee to do that. 
I have never been a strong advocate for the equalization fee. It was 
suggested a little while ago that the equalization fee is not a tax. 
That is true. It may not be a tax in the accepted term. But, regard- 
less of whether a tax or not, the farmer, when he pays it, will think it 
is a tax. He will feel it is a tax, and not only will he feel it is a tax, 
but he will resent it being left in the bill. 
Mr. AswerL. Do you think you ought to vote your conviction 
whether you get a law or not? 
Mr. LaNnkForD. I am in favor of so amending the bill as to secure 
the passage of a good law at this time, if possible. I would not be 
in favor, let me say, of so amending this bill as to make it objection- 
able simply because we want to secure a law. There is danger always 
in legislation, as I see it, that goes just far enough to amount to an 
excuse of a bill, and yet not do what it ought to do for the farmer; 
and then the American farmer would feel like we had passed some- 
thing for him, later on become dissatisfied with it and disheartened 
and not be willing even to have a stronger and better bill passed; 
and those who oppose real farm relief would later on say, “You 
have done this. You have passed a bill for the farmer. It is a failure. 
Why take up more time with farm relief?” 
I'do favor the passage of a bill which will be real farm relief. 1 
would not favor a bill which I thought would not help the farmer, 
but which might wreck his hopes for a measure in the future. 
Mr. KincHELOE. Mr. Lankford, is the McNary-Haugen bill as it 
is drawn and pending before the committee, with the equalization 
fee eliminated, your choice of the bills so far pending before the 
committee? 
Mr. Laxkrorp. No; I would prefer the bill I introduced, Mr. 
Kincheloe. But of the bills other than mine to which the committee 
has given consideration and upon which you had hearings before 
you came to my bill, I would prefer the McNary-Haugen bill with 
the equalization fee eliminated—T would prefer that to the Crisp- 
Curtis bill. 
Mr. KincaELOE. Or the debenture plan? 
Mr. Lankrorp. I think the debenture plan could be passed along 
with the McNary-Haugen bill; as they are not inconsistent. You 
might pass the debenture plan and raise money for the farmer in 
that way through the sale of debentures, and still pass the MeN ary- 
Haugen bill. They are not inconsistent at all, as I see it; they 
could be worked in harmony: they could be worked both at the same