36 
AGRICULTURAL RELIEF 
have refused to try them, and then the marketing agreements come 
later. 
Mr. CrLark. Just a minute. Where does this go in? 
Mr. Gray. It goes in section 7 of Chairman Haugen’s bill, on page 
9. Just add one more condition, and give it the number which is 
necessary. It will be three, I suppose. 
The answer of myself, speaking for the American Farm Bureau 
Federation, the answer of these other gentlemen who will speak to 
you later, is and will be that if that section is lifted out of Chairman 
McNary’s bill and put into Chairman Haugen’s bill, relative to 
marketing agreements, in section 7, it gives all of those who advocate 
loans as being the solution of this surplus question a run for their 
money. There is an opportunity for trying out the loaning pro- 
visions. If they fail, or if the cooperatives refuse to try it—which 
latter will be most likely—then the Federal farm board goes into 
the marketing agreement, the levying of the equalization fee, and 
such like. 
My answer to Congressman Williams, then, is this: As I said awhile 
ago, about the Federal farm board, if it refuses to abide by the find- 
ings of these advisory councils representing 50 per cent of the aggre- 
gate production of a commodity, the board will have some very 
difficult explaining to do. In a similar way, let me say that anyone 
who opposes the try-out of the equalization plan in this kind of a bill, 
with that section lifted from Senator McNary’s bill into Chairman 
Haugen’s bill, will have some very difficult explaining to do. 
Mr. WiLLiams of Illinois. That is not an answer at all to my 
question. I asked you to state, and I think you should state to this 
committee, because I think the committee has a right to know, and 
I think the Congress has a right to know and this country has a right 
to know, whether you are here now demanding the enactment of a bill 
containing an equalization fee or nothing. 
Mr. Gray. We are demanding the enactment of a bill containing 
the equalization fee. 
Mr. Wirriams of Illinois. You know that means nothing. You 
are bound to know that. 
Mr. Gray. I do not agree that it means nothing. 
Mr. WirLiams of Illinois. The President vetoes the bill passed by 
this Congress, because the President says it is unconstitutional and 
will destroy American agriculture, and you turn around and request 
that again. You are bound to know, as we all know, that the Presi- 
dent has objection to the equalization fee which that language will 
not overcome. 
Mr. Gray. This language permits every test that is necessary to 
find out whether the equalization fee is constitutional and is legal. 
Mr. WirLiams of Illinois. It is putting the equalization fee in 
operation, the thing that the President said in his message is uncon- 
stitutional and will destroy American agriculture. You are bound 
to know that the President of the United States is not going to back 
up and sign a bill with a provision of that kind in it, and you are 
here asking Congress to do a foolish thing in passing a bill that is 
sure to meet the veto, and we all go back home, you and me, and our 
constituents will say, “What have you done for the farmer?” We 
say, “Three cheers for the farmer. We passed this bill and the 
President vetoed it.” They will sav to the Members of Congress,