623 STATEMENT OF HON. TOM D. McKEOWN, REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA AGRICULTURAL RELIEF Mr. McKeown. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, [ am not in very much shape to discuss this legislation this morning. Mr. AswieLL. What is the matter? Mr. McKeown. My seed loan bill did not pass the Budget. ‘Laughter.] Gentlemen, I want to congratulate this committee on the pains- taking and the careful manner in which you have studied this farm question for the last four years. At the last Congress you passed the McNary-Haugen bill. It was vetoed. Now you have the question back here again. I think that the fact that I voted for the McNary-Haugen bill every time would at least class me as a man who is favorable to farm legislation. I just do not like the idea of carrying water up the hill and then carrying it back down the hill. I do not mind carrying water up the hill, but I do not care about bringing it back down the hill and spilling it. I thought I was right when I voted for the McNary-Haugen bill with the equalization fee in it. But here is a situation: The farmers in some other parts of the country may be in a situation where they can wait until we thresh out all the niceties about this bill and settle all the constitutional questions, but my famers in my country are not in that condition. It will not make any difference to them after two years when you get the constitutional question threshed out whether you do anything or not, because they will be all wiped off of the earth if things go like they have in the past. I have had some telegrams from one farm organization saying they wanted the MeNary-Haugen bill or nothing. Well, I am sure if you pass this bill with the equalization fee and constitutional objections in it they are going to get nothing and they will get what they asked for. But that is not my idea of settling these propositions. I have thought all the time that it would not be a bad idea to take the Haugen bill, because I think it has been carefully drawn and considered, eliminate the unconstitutional features and pass that bill, for the reason that Congress is not going to adjourn this session of Congress for all time to come. And if it 1s a subsidy of $400,000,000 it lacks $200,000,000 yet of being the amount the farmers lost on wheat during the war. So, if you give this $400,000,000 as a clear subsidy it would still not be doing more than you have done for some other people. But here is the main consideration: Suppose we say we are not roing to surrender our principles. That is just like a lot of fellows who are standing on their rights on automobile right of way. There are a lot of fellows in the graveyard who stood on their rights as to automobile right of way, and there are going to be a lot of fel OWS smashed up in this thing if we are standing on our principles and our rights. Co . ir einles and Of course, I do not believe in Congress giving up its princip its convictions, because they are the Tawmaking body of bis Sula g. But you have got to be practical, men, as you go don egies on d is the result of different opinions of men, out of which grows so 1c lezislation. 1f everybody agreed to everything that came up