AGRICULTURAL RELIEF 243 Illinois, Texas, and part of Kansas and part of Nebraska and other sections is exported in place of the flour derived from the high-protein wheat. Am I right? Mr. WELLER. My investigations seem to indicate that. It is my firm belief that that is exactly what happens. Mr. Menges. Now, then, in order to make the tariff effective, there must be some legislation in regard to the price of wheat; there must be some specification, don’t you think, or am I mistaken? Mr. WeLLER. Simply if we cut out our Canadian wheat and make them pay a tariff, it would affect us. I do not think that you would have to specify the type of wheat, unless you are going on that refund plan, like you are going to see to it that the flour exported is actually made out of northern spring wheat. They might have to specify on that, but as I would see it, if you are going to make the tariff effective on wheat you simply put a tariff on it—for instance, in the cost of producing a farm crop the overalls, the clothing that goes on that farmer, that is part of his cost production; that is what he is wearing out as well as the machinery he is using. So if the theory of having tariff-free materials and supplies for the product of the Ameri- can farmer that goes in export, we ought to be allowed to wear out our clothing out there free of duty, according to that theory. Mr. MENGES. You do not answer my question. Mr. WELLER. I do not see that it would be necessary to differ- entiate between the different kinds of wheat, if you are actually going to put a tariff on wheat. Mr. MenGgEs. I mean a tariff that will, instead of benefiting the miller, benefit the farmer; that is the thing I am driving at. Mr. Wyant. I represent a great manufacturing section of the United States. Many of the products of these factories enjoy a protective tariff. It has been estimated that 85 cents out of every dollar’s worth of the manufactured products of these factories are expended by the workmen for the purchase of food products and clothing from the farmers. Now, if this be a fact, would you support a tariff bill which brings such great revenue to the farmers? Mr. WELLER. Providing that I got on my farm products the price above the world standards in the same proportion that you get beyond world prices for your product—yes, I would support a tariff bill. But if I could not have that eventually I would be forced to the conclusion that as a good business man that I ought to make you compete in the world markets the same as I am competing with world markets. Mr. Wyant. As I understand it, you are in favor—as an agricul- tural man— of being placed upon the same basis as the manufacturer? Mr. WELLER. Yes, sir; I want the benefit of world prices for my product the same as you get the benefit of world prices for your product. I would think that would be fair. We want to do business on the same level. Incidentally, I might say we have no ficht with any other farmer; we have no kick on the soft wheat man. Mr. Wyant. I have supported the McNary-Haugen Bill. Mr. WELLER. I am glad of that. Mr. Wyant. I am one of the few men of the East that did. Mr. WELLER. I kind of thought you had when I looked into your eves. too.