296 
AGRICULTURAL RELIEF 
Mr. KiLcorE. I think that this very distinct difference exists there: 
As I understand your proposition, it is that you would have the same 
board provided in the Crisp bill, the same provisions, with the alterna- 
tive to loan from a revolving fund? 
Mr. Fort. You have got it in the Haugen bill. 
Mr. KiLcore. That is right. In other words, to loan from the 
same revolving fund; with the equalization fee to make good any 
losses? 
Mr. ForT. Yes. 
Mr. KiLgore. I think it would do this, that when you put it up 
to a cooperative association or its subsidiaries, or a stabilization 
corporation, that it had the responsibility for directing, that it would 
hesitate to operate under the loan provision and would ask for 
putting the equalization fee provision into effect. 
Mr. Fort. But they would fix the same price in either case, would 
they not, if they fixed the prices at all, as I think they would have to 
under the equalization fee? 
Mr. KiLgore. I do not think so. I think they would have, with 
the equalization fee provision—if they were going to have the 
equalization provision there—that they could afford to stabilize the 
price at a higher level than they could under the loan provision. 
Mr. Fort. All right. Now, if that is true, what happens to the 
argument that the equalization fee will be a curb on production if 
it is going to be used to get a higher price than could be otherwise 
gotten? 
Mr. KiLGORE. As a deterrent on production? 
Mr. Fort. Yes. 
Mr. KiLcore. In the case of the equalization fee it is used— 
mean the equalization fee is a contribution—a compulsory contri- 
bution, I will put it, to a fund that is used to buy surplus or to 
guarantee any losses on a surplus that is bought with a loan from the 
revolving fund for handling the surplus. 
Mr. Forr. I asked you a different question this time, Doctor: I 
say if your proposal is to use the equalization fund to stabilize at a 
higher price than the loan bill fund would permit you to stabilize at, 
what then happens to the argument that the equalization fee will be a 
deterrent on overproduction? You are contending the equalization 
fee proposal is going to get a higher price than mere stabilization 
would? 
Mr. KirLgore. Yes. Let me tack this right onto the statement I 
made there about what the equalization fee is: That the equalization 
fee would be used in effect for each producer of a surplus to buy back 
and own his own surplus. 
Mr. Fort. In effect, but he would not carry it in his own yard. 
Mr. KiLcore. No; but he would know thaf he owns it. 
Mr. Fort. No. 
Mr. KiLcore. Well, we would agree to disagree there. 
Mr. Fort. He might know that his cotton sold at 18 cents in New 
elon, but he got 1714. He might know that. 
+ r. KiLcore. But do you not believe that a cooperative, through 
! js subsidiary or stabilization corporation that had a hundred 
; oun bales of surplus cotton that had been bought with the 
qua xagiion, ioe or the equalization fee had guaranteed the loan, 
OTS ore rowers know that they had and owned in their 
on a hundred thousand bales of cotton?