624 AGRICULTURAL RELIEF Congress ‘we would have a mollycoddle mess of laws and legislation here that would not be in keeping with the great country we represent. For my part, I do not propose to come here and argue with you gentlemen about the Haugen bill you are going to report out. You have heard all this testimony. It has not been my pleasure to be here. But the thing I want to impress upon you is this: To pass legislation that will bé enacted into law at this session. If you find you have made mistakes, and you are bound to find some mistakes in any of this legislation, then you can correct them later. If I was an opponent of the equalization fee—and I believed that the legislation with the equalization fee could be passed immediately and approved, although I was an opponent to the equalization fee 1 would vote for it in order to get the legislation. That is my stand here; and that is just exactly how I feel about it, because if the equalization fee did not prove satisfactory we could repeal it and, on the other hand, if we passed it without the equalization fee and found it does not work you can put the equalization fee into legislation. I have just this suggestion to make: If you do not take the deben- ture plan—and I always favored the Haugen bill; I still favor the Haugen bill—instead of making a direct appropriation of $400,000,000 in this bill, it would be my judgment to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to issue his certificates to get whatever money the board might require when operating upon any particular nonperishable product—when it comes to nonperishable products; and then when the board has taken this surplus off and held it until the market shall have consumed it, they can return to the Treasury the money used, and thereby you do not have to come to Congress every time to get an appropriation; you do not have to come to Congress every time to have a bill passed. You have a permanent and working scheme that has already been put into law; and that is the objection, as I understand, to the proposition of leaving out the equalization fee; that you get the board, you get your money and then after a while you have to come back to Congress again. But if you will put an automatic, workable provision in there that the Secreatry of the Treasury, upon the call of the board, may issue his certificates and furnish the money required in that particular emergency, to be repaid on nonperishable articles as secured in the market and returned to the Treasury, it seems to me, gentlemen, that then you have set up a permanent arrangement. You can go ahead, report the bill out with the equalization fee; and then, they argue, if you do that, why, then Congress can run in here and pass another bill. Why, gentlemen, you see how long it has taken you now to get this bill out. Then where is the argument? If you adjourn anywhere in June, do you think you will be able to get in and pass another bill? And what kind of shape is the fellow going to be in who votes for a bill to be vetoed. In my own Demo- cratic country where I come from there are hundreds of Democrats down there who still think that the President may be right about the proposition, and they differed with me when I said it was con- stitutional—if you have to go in a Democratic country, what will it do in a country of the Congressman’s own political persuasion as to the question of the constitutionality of this bill? _ If you are going to pass the bill, and should the President approve it, then you have got to have two years’ litigation in the courts to