AGRICULTURAL RELIEF thing in your bill that would make it an inducement for them to operate? Mr. LankrorD. Absolutely. Mr. Apxkins. They have a right to go into all that stuff-—and sign contracts to limit production and marketing now. Mr. LankrForp. They have a right to that now. Mr. Apxkins. And they do not operate under it? Mr. Lankrorp. That is right. Mr. Apkins. They have tried it and fallen down. The point 1 have in mind is whether simply passing this bill of yours would induce them to do it. Mr. Liankrorp. Simply because with my bill there would be ma- chinery set up to establish borrowing powers at the average price at which a commodity had been sold for last 10 years. Therefore their price would be stabilized at a very satisfactory amount to them, and there would be all kinds of reasons for them to sign the contract. Mr. Apkins. Do you think the additional borrowing power would be an inducement? i Mr. Lankrorp. Absolutely. The great trouble with the farmer to-day is that he can not control his sales. He can not control the time when he is going to sell his commodity. Why? Because his taxes are due, his Interest is due, or because his bank note is due. He must sell his cotton. But cotton is down in price. He can not wait for it to go up. But if my bill goes into effect he can borrow the average price at which the cotton has been selling for the past 10 years and put his cotton up as the sale security. My bill would stabilize the price at the figure at which he could borrow. He would sign the contract because he would know that unless enough signed it to make it effective, the contract would not go into effect, and he would know that whenever enough signed it to carry it into effect then the price would be stabilized. So I think that the plan is really worth while, and I submit it to the committee for their careful consideration. Let me say this—I presume the committee is anxious to adjourn, and I will hasten to a conclusion. Let me say just this much on the McNary-Haugen bill before 1 resume my seat. I feel that a man has a right to criticize his own self, and I think a man who votes for the bill should be permitted to criticize that bill, especially when he may vote for it again. 1 started to say a little while ago, and some one interjected a question and changed my line of thought, that the equalization fee was danger- ous for political reasons; and then I said we should not be controlled by that to a great extent, and yet we are all more or less selfish, some more so than others. But let us get away from the political side of it. Here is another danger in the equalization fee: If the McNary- Haugen bill passes it will either make the cooperatives of the country or break them. They will have had their opportunity. People will say: “The cooperatives got the law they wanted and it failed to work.” It will either mean their destruction or their salvation. All right. Now, will the equalization fee be popular with the American farmer? Will the American farmer want to pay it! Will it force the American farmers to go into the cooperatives, or will he feel like he is being mistreated? Will he feel like he is having to carry a burden he does not want to carry; will he feel like unjust 638