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-