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