342

AGRICULTURAL RELIEF
The CrarrMaN. Are you for the bill, for cutting the tariff in two
Are you in favor of cutting the tariff on wheat from 42 cents to 21
cents?

Mr. Goss. Not until investigation has been made.

The CramrmaN. And the finding of the Tariff Board is that they
are entitled to 42 cents a bushel ?

Mr. Goss. I think that probably you misunderstood me.

The Cuamrman. Are. you repudiating the findings of the Tariff
Board ?

Mr. Goss. I think probably you misunderstand just our attitude.
By establishing the rate of export debenture it does not interfere
with the tariff rate at all. The tariff rate will remain at 42 cents
a bushel.

The CuamrMan. I am talking about this gratuity to be forced on
the farmers, which they object to. You proposed to give them 21
cents instead of 42 cents. Why do you not give them all that they
are entitled to, 42 cents, according to the finding of the Tariff Board?
We have a bill under the equalization fee; it would give the full
benefit of the tariff, minus the equalization fee. Any schoolboy
10 or 12 years old can tell us exactly what the equalization fee would
be, and what the benefit would be.

Take for an illustration: It is suggested here in marketing 800,-
000,000 bushels of wheat, of which 200,000,000 is exported, to take
out of the Treasury before it is put in $42,000,000 and turn it over
to the farmer.

Under the equilization plan, exporting 200,000,000 bushels and
advancing the price equal to the tariff and cost of bringing the wheat
here to 50 cents a bushel, would net the producers 3714 cents profit,
or, in other words, $300,000,000. The farmers would get $300,
000,000 instead of $42,000,000 to be extracted from the Treasury and
paid over to the farmers. Under the equalization plan the farmers
would be ahead $258,000,000 and the Treasury would be ahead $42,-
000,000. Are we fooling the farmers by giving them $300,000.000
instead of $42,000,000¢

Mr. Goss. As I stated, it was not my purpose to discuss .the Mec-
Nary-Haugen bill. -

The CrmarmaN. I would like to have you discuss it.

Mr. Goss. But, I think you have not stated the proposition cor-
rectly, Mr. Haugen, in that you have stated that the farmer would
receive but $42,000,000. under this. You have not figured that the
farmer would also receive 21 cents a bushel on the 600.000.000 bushels
marketed in America.

The CuamrmaN. Under the equalization plan, they would get 50
cents a bushel on the 800,000,000 bushels, minus 1215 cents, cost of
equalizing the price, or net 3714 cents a bushel. Under the deben-
ture plan, assuming that the price would advance 21 cents a bushel,
on the whole 800,000,000 bushels, they would get 21 cents a bushel on

the 200,000,000 bushels exported, out of the Treasury, or $42,000,000,
and 21 cents a bushel on the 600,000,000 bushels sold on the domestic
market or $132,000,000. The difference between 21 cents under the
depentire plan, and 3715 cents under the equalization plan would
be 16 1 cents or $132,000,000 in favor of the equalization plan. In
other words. the difference hetween the $42.000.000 out of the Treas-