340 
AGRICULTURAL RELIEF 
Mr. Fort. May I ask you another question right there? And 
then I will yield, Mr. Kincheloe: Would you still feel that the 
debenture should be awarded when there was a world shortage in 
wheat or in our cotton crop when the price in the world market 
was already substantially above our production cost or anybody 
else’s? : 
Mz. Goss. The bill provides that under conditions of that kind the 
board may reduce the debenture or eliminate it for a limited period 
or eliminate it entirely. The bill works on this principle. 
Mr. Fort. In other words, you have no relation to the price at all, 
except—the only relation your board has to the question of price 
in the world market is that when the price exceeds production costs 
the debenture would disappear or could disappear. 
Mr. Goss. Yes, that is the idea. 
Mr. Fort. In other words, there is no price regulation or con- 
sideration of that feature whatever in the bill? 
Mr. Goss. I think not. I do not know just what you have in mind 
when you ask that question. 
Mr. Fort. The board would have no consideration of the subject 
on world prices, except when those prices reached a point above 
American production costs. 
Mr. Goss. The bill plainly states that when an emergency exists 
wherein, by reason of a surplus, world prices dominate American 
markets, holding them at figures below the cost of production, these 
rates shall be applied. In other words, the discretion is left with the 
board to establish the rates to fill the emergency gap on crops which 
are distressed by reason of world conditions. 
1 Me, Forr. So that then it would only operate when prices were 
own? 
Mr. Goss. If in the judgment of the board that was the only time: 
it is left entirely to the judgment of the board, Mr. Fort. 
Mr. Fort. To their unrestricted judgment? 
Mr. Goss. To the unrestricted judgment of the board. 
~ Mr. AnpreseN. That plan would work out the same as the scheme: 
in the McNary-Haugen bill, would it not? If you should take the 
money out of the Treasury and substitute a revolving fund for the 
equalization fee and it would work out in principle the same way. 
Mr. Goss. No. There is quite a little difference. It is not my 
purpose to discuss the McNary-Haugen bill. It was just this par- 
ticular measure, but the McNary-Haugen bill does not of necessity 
aim to meet the difference in the cost of production between home 
and abroad ; the McNary-Haugen bill would provide an export cor- 
poration—I do not know just how it is worded—to buy up the 
surplus. The corporation might buy up the surplus to a point 
where it would raise the price a dollar above the world’s markets, or 
any other amount, but it would not of necessity be just the difference 
m cost of production between home and abroad. The people who 
A te Za of surplus which would be taken off of the 
Kel 1 C y-Haugen bill would determine just the amount 
of aise. In price. 
Mr. ANDRESEN. And the purpose of the McNary- ill i 
&% the farmer the full benefit of the tarift RA Hangen tall is to 
pe a Yes; the purpose is the same; the machinery is quite