146 
AGRICULTURAL RELIEF 
charges the merchant would have to add to the fee for equalization. 
Now, under the Crisp bill plan, if they stabilize at this same 17-cent 
price the first year, the farmer is going to get 1614 cents instead of 
1514 cents? 
Mr. KiLcore. Yes. 
Mr. Fort. Do you think the difference between their getting 1514 
cents and 1614 cents will stop production—hold down production? 
Mr. KiLcorE. I do not think that will hold down production just 
in itself, without other.factors that come in there, and which I want 
to discuss. 
Mr. Fort. Then, if it will not operate for that purpose, then the 
only difference in your equalization fee proposal the first year is that 
the farmer gets a cent a pound less the first year under the equaliza- 
tion fee bill than he would under the Crisp bill? 
Mr. KiLcore. Yes, under the terms of your illustration. 
Mr. Fort. But you feel that the proposal is permanent under the 
equalization fee and might fall down the second year under the—— 
Mr. KiLgore. I think it might. 
Mr. Fort (continuing). Because of the fact that under either bill. 
the board might operate to take substantial losses? 
Mr. KiLcore. Under the equalization fee; yes. 
Mr. Fort. It will only take substantial losses if the economic value 
of cotton is less than the price at which they stabilize, will it not? 
Mr. KiLcore. Except for carrying charges, yes. 
Mr. Fort. And that economic value of cotton has got to be less 
than the price they stabilize for quite a few years before they will 
take any losses, is it not? 
Mr. KiLcore. It is pretty hard for me to follow you, just what 
you are driving at. 
Mr. Fort. It is a simple question. 
Mr. WirLiams. He wants you to make his case for him, Doctor. 
[Laughter.] 
Mr. KirLcore. I just wanted to ask him if that was the final 
question he had. 
Mr. Fort. I do not want to keep you all day, Doctor. You and I 
could argue over this problem for several weeks. But I am. going to: 
stop there, if you want to. 
Mr. KinGore. That is just as you like. But you raised the 
question a bit ago that if there were a considerable loss—I do not 
remember just the figure you had in mind—possibly $50,000,000—-in: 
the operation of cotton, that Congress would not hesitate to make a 
reappropriation to take care of that loss under a loan bill. Was that 
my understanding of your thought there? 
Mr. Fort. I do not know that I said at $50,000,000. But I 
personally think that if the plan works, if any plan works to produce 
the desired result with assistance to the farmers. that Congress will 
not stop there. 
Mr. KiLcore. I am wondering if in the loan bills you would go 
far enough to say that they would absorb losses in case they were 
incurred, or that if you did not want to put it that way that auto- 
matically the revolving fund would be kept up to the amount 
designated in the bill, $300,000,000 or $400,000,000. 
Mr. Fort. The loans bill do say that the Government absorbs 
the loss to the extent exactly as in the Haugen bill, that it charges the 
osses against profits of future operations.