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?