578 GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 



a two-price sj^stem. In other words, you could give the marketing 

 quotas on the domestic market and then if a cotton grower wants to 

 grow for export, he could grow under that two-price system. 



Mr. Goss. That is correct. There are several kinds of two-price 

 systems and if you give us a board and sufficient time for discussion, 

 we would like to discuss the two-price method. 



Mr. PoAGE. I think there is considerable merit in that system. You 

 may recall that I have heretofore introduced legislation for a two- 

 price system or domestic allotments as relates to cotton. There has 

 not been much general interest in it and I hope there will be more 

 interest in it in the future. Certainly such a plan has the advantage 

 of maintaining production and keeping these acres in use that some 

 of these plans would probably throw out of use. We can keep more 

 labor busy and provide a wider range of employment in this country 

 if we can maintain a two-price system and export rather than have 

 to simply reduce our production. 



Mr. White. Will you yield? 



Mr. PoAGE. Yes. 



Mr. White. Mr. Goss, in connection with this farm board that you 

 are proposing, I recall the Hoover Farm Board and if I recall its 

 activities correctly, it was one of the most bungling boards that I 

 have ever seen in all my existence. 



Can you give us any assurance that your board would function any 

 better than that board did? 



Mr. Goss. Of course, my assurance would not amount to anything, 

 but we think it would. In the first place, we think the Farm Board, 

 which was given certain moneys to do certain jobs and then the money 

 was taken away for a support program which could not work under 

 the conditions, really was blamed for some things that they did not 

 do. But this is an altogether different board with altogether different 

 powers. I do not believe there is anything comparable between the 

 two boards. It is not only different because its job would be different, 

 but its method of selection should be different and its responsibilities 

 should be different. I think they are quite incomparable. 



Mr. White. I know you are quite sincere, Mr. Goss, and I do not 

 impugn your motives one bit. I have listened to you testify here and 

 I have great respect for your opinions and your desires to help the 

 farmer. 



Just one other question. I will read the question I have written 

 down for you. Under normal conditions, as long as there is undevel; 

 oped land available and as long as the production of a commodity is 

 profitable to the producers thereof, the production of that commodity 

 will expand until it becomes unprofitable unless expansion is regulated. 

 This unregulated expansion will break the general price level and 

 wreck the economy of the Nation and the world. Do you believe that ? 

 I do. 



Mr. Goss. I believe that it is possible to maintain our national 

 income at a level where we will consume our normal production in a 

 normal way, provided we take care of some crops which we histori- 

 cally raise on an exportable basis. I do not think it is possible for us 

 to reduce our wheat and our cotton to domestic requirements. We 

 must develop ways to handle surpluses in those crops that we have for 

 export in such a way that those surpluses, big or little, will not destroy 



