AGRICULTURAL RELIEF

441

Mr. Fort. And if they did operate at a 16 or 17 cent price on an
18,000,000-bale crop, how much in dollars and cents do you think
we would be asking the Government to assume as a possible loss?

Mr. KiLGorE. You are asking me an impossible question.

Mr. Fort. Do you think it would run over $50,000,000?

Mr. KiLGore. I just would not want to guess about it, and not
because I do not want to answer your question.

Mr. Fort. The board has got to get at it under the Haugen bill?

Mr. KiLGorE. Yes; and they have got a protection in the equaliza-
tion fee to make good any losses, and they can afford to make a more
liberal guess in the interest of the producer than you can possibly
make with the loan bill. That is the only thing I want——

Mr. Fort. You have got to guess either way.

Mr. KiLcore. Yes; until you get experience in operation.

Mr. Fort. Exactly, Doctor. But what I am trying to get at is
you say the Crisp bill will fail because of first year’s losses—that is,
the first year’s guess; and it is the first year’s guess under the Haugen
bill, either way. Now, you are as well posted on this general subject
as any man who has appeared before this committee on cotton.
Your guess should be as good as the board’s guess, and I am asking
you to make it.

Mr. KirLcore. M+
operated under the 10-

Mr. Fort. It would
Haugen bill?

Mr. KinLcore. Yes; we can assume that for the purpose of dis-
cussion. But, under thie loan bill, if they did sustain a loss they
might not operate any more.

Mr. Fort. I know you did say that, and I am trying to see whether
this loss is going to be big enough in your judgment.

Mr. Kincore. I think the chances are it would.

Mr. Fort. Then, what do you mean, $20,000,000, $30,000.000, or
$40,000,000 it might be?

Mr. KiLcore. I would not want to figure the amount.

Mr. Fort. I do not think $10,000.000 would stop Congress from
appropriating.

Mr. KiLGcore. I do not think se.

Mr. Fort. 1 do not think $20,000,000 would stop Congress.

Mr. Kivcore. But it would not take much of a decline to run
costs and losses up to $40,000,000 or $50,000,000.

But let me remind you of this: We are talking about cotton
where there is a greater possibility of operating under a loan bill.
If you take wheat or the tariff-protected products, then we know
we are facing tremendous losses. »

Mr. Fort. We appreciate your position there. But we are
talking about cotton. You are the cotton expert.

Mr. KiLgore. May I just state this over—you were not here a bit
ago? I stated—and I stated it as the result of my honest thought—
that a mere cotton bill that might be effective for cotton and not for
other crops would be merely effective temporarily with cotton.

Mr. Fort. I agree with you.

Mr. KiLcore. Because of the fact that any measure that does not
interstabilize between the different agricultural commodities is not
going to be permanent.

R6160—28—SEKR E. PT 8—