18
AGRICULTURAL RELIEF
Everybody seems to be agreed that the big question is how to dis-
pose of surpluses, or how to establish a balanced production. Many
believe it is beyond the power of the producers, or Congress, to estab-
lish a balanced production. Many agree that the equalization fee is
necessary in order to preserve advantageous markets, and to prevent
surpluses from unduly depressing the prices obtained for such com-
modities. In other words, to enable the producers to market their
commodities in a way so as to share in the benfits of protective laws
already established. The question then is, ‘“Are the producers
entitled to the benefits of the laws already established?’ If so, and
if the equalization fee is required to accomplish the desired results,
why strike it out as suggested? If the farmers are entitled to share
in our protective laws already established; if not to be accomplished
through the plan suggested, it seems fair to ask how is it to be other-
wise accomplished? No one has suggested a substitute. If any,
why not let us have it?
Mr. KincHELOE. I want to talk about the procedure to-morrow.
Mr. Gray, I do not know who is here. Is it the plan of you gentle-
men and your desire to designate who should appear before the com-
mittee and when?
Mr. Gray. 1 will let Doctor Kilgore speak.
Mr. KiLcorg. Yes, sir; we are ready.
Mr. KincHELOE. Do you gentlemen want to come before the com-
mittee the first thing to-morrow?
Mr. KiLcore. We are ready.
Mr. KincHELOE. Is that satisfactory to all the farm organizations?
Mr. KiLcore. It is.
Mr. KiNcHELOE. I move we adjourn.
The Crairman. Before we adjourn, may I finish my statement.
What is next suggested in the declaration of policy, “From causing
undue and excessive fluctuations in the markets for such com-
modities.” Are we for that? Are we going to carry out the declara-
tion of policy? If not, what is to be substituted? Without a sub-
stitute. we have. as has been stated, little left but the enacting clause.
What I wish to suggest, as I did before, is that no one has suggested
anything to take the place of the equalization fee. Now then, if the
equalization fee is eliminated, what is to be substituted for it? Many
have suggested a subsidy. I believe that only one of the numerous
farmers and representatives of the various farm groups appearing
here in support of the measure has expressed himself in favor of a
subsidy, even though they might be justified in accepting it, consider-
ing the billions of dollars in subsidies granted to others. No, the
producers are not, here asking for charity, but on the contrary they
are vigorously protesting against it. All that is asked is, that they
be permitted to market their products in a way that will give them
the benefits of protective laws already established, and to thus insure
them the American price level. If so, they are willing to pay their
share of the cost of equalizing the price, and receive their propor-
tlonate share of the benefits. What they want is a law that will make
the desired relief permanent. Not a temporary subsidy, wholly
dependent upon appropriations from time to time, which might
keg the whole purpose sought, but as before stated, permanent
a a - In other words, one that will place the farmer on an equality
organized industry in respect to our protective laws.
