GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 517 



lems. There are a lot of things we do agree on. I would not be the one 

 to say there was no support for flexible support principles, or any pro- 

 gram in agriculture. 



I have been in meetings where there are farmers who believe that 

 kind of a program will work with their respective commodities and 

 they seem to want to try. 



I think we have had to a major extent many of the things that are 

 included in the Aiken bill back through the thirties. I remember the 

 struggle with the parity payments when we were trying to get the 

 farmer's head above water and when the provisions in the law were 

 permissive and not mandatory. They just did not work. 



Cotton never got above 10 cents a pound until we got the 85 percent 

 mandatory loan that raised it overnight from 9 to 16 cents. 



We do not think these programs have hurt anybody down in our 

 country. We think our State has benefited as much as any State in 

 the Union. 



We have a substantial interest in cotton, a substantial interest in 

 peanuts, and our major interest is in tobacco, being third, I think, 

 among the States from the standpoint of the cash income in the 

 Nation. 



In addition to that we have better than $50,000,000 income from 

 poultry and sixty million-odd dollars in income from dairying and 

 substantial livestock interests. 



We want to work with all the different interests of this country in 

 helping them to get the type of program they want. 



But we fail to see how a program that denies a man support when 

 he needs it worse could be helpful to him. 



We fail to see how a passive progi'am or a permissive program and 

 not a positive progi-am could be more favorably accepted by people 

 when other conditions are as they are at this time. 



I believe in putting it squarely up to the farmer and I deny the 

 charge that the farmers are regimented- when they are given the right 

 to vote. 



When 66% percent of the farmers agree to adjust their production, 

 they are running the show and the Government is not running it. 



They are not being regimented. They are running their own pro- 

 gram. We believe in that kind of program. If the other fellow does 

 not want it we want him to have what he wants. 



Mr. Pace. You are willing for the hog and corn farmers to have 

 whatever program they want? 



Mr. Shaw. Exactly the kind of program they want, regardless 

 of what it is. 



Mr. Pace. And you do not think that the whole philosophy of the 

 Farm Bureau should be controlled by those two commodities ? 



Mr. Shaw. No, I do not, and I do not think the American Farm 

 Bureau wants to do that. I submit that by a majority vote on the board 

 of directors and through the voting delegates the majority report shows 

 that that is what the American Farm Bureau is for. 

 Mr. Pace. It is pretty close, though, is it not ? 



Mr. Shaw. Well, it was pretty close at times. I thought it was un- 

 fortunate that we could not get together but I do not think it is 

 too bad because it does show that you have an organization that is 

 democratic and one that operates in a democratic fashion. 



