AGRICULTURAL RELIEF 631
Mr. LANkFoRrD. I voted for the Haugen bil i
about that a little later. gon bill befors, snd L wil tal
The real question before this Congress is to work out some plan to
help the farmer get a better price for his products. Let me say just
here that I voted for the McNary-Haugen bill every time; I voted
for the McNary-Haugen bill, Mr. Kincheloe, when I was the only
member of the delegation from Georgia to vote for it. I voted for
it later when some other Members from Georgia joined me.
Mr. AsweLL. Are you for it now with the equalization fee in it?
Mr. LankForp. I would probably vote for it with the equalization
fee in there, although I am not an enthusiastic supporter of the
equalization-fee idea.
I wish to say, I think it would be better for this committee to report
the McNary-Haugen bill out without the equalization fee if it is reported
 at all. I would much prefer for the committee to do that.
I have never been a strong advocate for the equalization fee. It was
suggested a little while ago that the equalization fee is not a tax.
That is true. It may not be a tax in the accepted term. But, regardless
 of whether a tax or not, the farmer, when he pays it, will think it
is a tax. He will feel it is a tax, and not only will he feel it is a tax,
but he will resent it being left in the bill.
Mr. AswerL. Do you think you ought to vote your conviction
whether you get a law or not?
Mr. LaNnkForD. I am in favor of so amending the bill as to secure
the passage of a good law at this time, if possible. I would not be
in favor, let me say, of so amending this bill as to make it objectionable
 simply because we want to secure a law. There is danger always
in legislation, as I see it, that goes just far enough to amount to an
excuse of a bill, and yet not do what it ought to do for the farmer;
and then the American farmer would feel like we had passed something
 for him, later on become dissatisfied with it and disheartened
and not be willing even to have a stronger and better bill passed;
and those who oppose real farm relief would later on say, “You
have done this. You have passed a bill for the farmer. It is a failure.
Why take up more time with farm relief?”
I'do favor the passage of a bill which will be real farm relief. 1
would not favor a bill which I thought would not help the farmer,
but which might wreck his hopes for a measure in the future.
Mr. KincHELOE. Mr. Lankford, is the McNary-Haugen bill as it
is drawn and pending before the committee, with the equalization
fee eliminated, your choice of the bills so far pending before the
committee?
Mr. Laxkrorp. No; I would prefer the bill I introduced, Mr.
Kincheloe. But of the bills other than mine to which the committee
has given consideration and upon which you had hearings before
you came to my bill, I would prefer the McNary-Haugen bill with
the equalization fee eliminated—T would prefer that to the Crisp-Curtis
 bill.
Mr. KincaELOE. Or the debenture plan?
Mr. Lankrorp. I think the debenture plan could be passed along
with the McNary-Haugen bill; as they are not inconsistent. You
might pass the debenture plan and raise money for the farmer in
that way through the sale of debentures, and still pass the MeN ary-Haugen
 bill. They are not inconsistent at all, as I see it; they
could be worked in harmony: they could be worked both at the same