Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
4526102
label
National Farmers Union Convention, Minneapolis, MN, March 13, 1968
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4526102
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
National Farmers Union Convention, Minneapolis, MN, March 13, 1968
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Speeches
subjects
Agriculture
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4526102
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1968-03-31
month
3
year
1968
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1968-03-01
month
3
year
1968
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
dcbdc6afdb0299ac
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D24, folder "National Farmers Union
Convention, Minneapolis, MN, March 13, 1968" of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press
Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The Council donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box D24 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
NATIONAL FARMERS UNION CONVENTION
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA -- MARCH 18, 1968
"THE FAMILY FARM IN THE SPACE AGE"
LET ME SAY AT THE OUTSET THAT I AM
INDEED VERY PLEASED TO HAVE BEEN INVITED TO
PARTICIPATE AT THIS IMPORTANT CONVENTION.
THROUGH MY YEARS OF CONGRESSIONAL
SERVICE, I HAVE ALWAYS HELD YOUR FINE ORGANI -
ZATION IN GREAT RESPECT, AND THOUGH WE MAY
HAVE DIFFERED FROM TIME TO TIME, I HAVE ALWAYS
FELT THE FARMERS UNION HAS SINCERELY AND
EFFECTIVELY WORKED FOR THE BETTERMENT OF
FAMILY FARMING IN OUR GREAT NATION.
SOME SKEPTICS HAVE ASKED IN RECENT
YEARS, "JUST WHAT GOOD IS THE FAMILY FARM
AMYHOW ISN'T IT AS OLD FASHIONED AND AS OUT
OF DATE IN THIS MODERN AGE OF SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY AS THE HORSE AND BUGGY?"
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
WELL, YOU KNOW AND I KNOW THAT THE FAMILY
-2-
EARM IS THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC BACKBONE OF
AN AGRICULTURAL ESTABLISHMENT THAT IS THE ENVY
OF THE WORLD. I NEED NOT CITE TO YOU ALL THE
FIGURES ON THE CONTRIBUTION THAT MODERN FAMILY
FARMS ARE MAKING TO THE HIGH STANDARD OF
LIVING THAT AMERICA ENJOYS. BUT A FEW
REMINDERS MIGHT BE IN ORDER.
THE AMERICAN CONSUMER TODAY IS HARVEST-
ING THE REWARD OF OUR EVER-INCREASINGLY
EFFICIENT AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION AND MARKET-
ING SYSTEM. A RECENT REPORT ISSUED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SHOWED THAT IF IT
WERE NOT FOR THE SHARP GAINS IN FARM EFFICIENCY
DURING THE PAST TWO DECADES EVERY AMERICAN WOULD
BE PAYING MORE FOR HIS FOOD AND ENJOYING IT LESS
WHILE THE OUTPUT PER MAN-HOUR IN
MANUFACTURING HAS INCREASED 2.7% PER YEAR
SINCE 1948. THE OUTPUT IN AGRICULTURE HAS
INCREASED BY 5% PER YEAR.
IN 1948, THE NUMBER OF MAN HOURS USED
-3-
FOR ALL FARM WORK TOTALED 16.5 BILLION. IN
1966, THIS FIGURE HAD DROPPED TO 7 BILLION MAN
HOURS.
FARM PRODUCTION INCREASED NEARLY 40
PER CENT DURING THE SAME PERIOD.
OR, STATED ANOTHER WAY, IN 1948 ONE
FARM WORKER SUPPLIED ABOUT 14 OTHERS WITH FOOD
AND FIBRE. TODAY HE SUPPLIES 42 OTHERS.
DURING THE SAME TIME, THE NUMBER OF S
CONSUMERS HAS INCREASED BY 40 PER CENT, WHILE
THE NUMBER OF WORKERS EMPLOYED IN THE FOOD
INDUSTRY INCREASED BY ABOUT 12 PER CENT.
LET US STOP RIGHT HERE AND ASK "WHO
PROVIDED THIS MIRACULOUS ECONOMIC GROWTH?"
THE ANSWER, OF COURSE, IS FAMILY-SIZED
AGRICULTURAL UNITS.
YET, AS YOU KNOW, THE FAMILY FARMER
IN THIS COUNTRY HAS NOT SHARED IN THE ECONOMIC
REWARDS THAT SHOULD BE HIS FOR THESE TREMENDOUS
CONTRIBUTIONS. FRANKLY, I KNOW OF NO GREAT
LIBRARY
-4-
ECONOMIC GROUP OF CITIZENS IN OUR SOCIETY
WHICH TODAY EARNS LESS MONEY THAN IT DID 20
YEARS AGO
NO GROUP, THAT is, EXCEPT
FARMERS. IN 1947, REALIZED NET FARM INCOME
WAS $17.0 BILLION. IN 1967 IT WAS $14.5
BILLION.
IN THIS PAST YEAR OF 1967, WE HAVE
SEEN REALIZED NET FARM INCOME FALL $1.9 BILLION
BELOW THE PREVIOUS YEAR. CAN YOU IMAGINE ANY
OTHER GROUP IN OUR SOCIETY TAKING A $1.9
BILLION PAY CUT.
IN MY HOME STATE OF MICHIGAN, THE DROP
WAS %. HERE IN MINNESOTA, IT WAS 11%. NET
INCOME PER FARM ALSO DROPPED IN SPITE OF A
DECLINE OF APPROXIMATELY 100,000 IN THE NUMBER
OF FARMS.
AT THE SAME TIME, THE PARITY
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
RATIO.
.
THAT MEASURING ROD OF RELATIVE
PROSPERITY IN AGRICULTURE
DROPPED TO 74.
THIS IS THE LOWEST ANNUAL LEVEL FOR THE PARITY
-5-
RATIO SINCE 1933.
IN 1967, OUR AGRICULTURAL EXPORTS WHICH
ARE SO IMPORTANT TO THE BALANCE OF TRADE
SITUATION WERE DOWN 7% BELOW THE PREVIOUS YEAR.
THE DAIRY IMPORT-EXPORT PICTURE BECAME
PARTICULARLY DISTURBING LAST YEAR. IN 1967
THERE WERE 2.9 BILLION POUNDS OF MILK
EQUIVALENT IMPORTED, WHILE ONLY 364 MILLION
POUNDS WERE EXPORTED. THIS IS MOST DISTURBING
IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT JUST FOUR YEARS AGO
(IN 1964) OUR DAIRY IMPORTS WERE ONLY 830
MILLION POUNDS OF MILK EQUIVALENT AND OUR
EXPORTS WERE A HOPPING 6.9 BILLION POUNDS.
THESE FIGURES SHOW QUITE DRAMATICALLY
AND QUITE PAINFULLY HOW THE AMERICAN DAIRY
FARMER HAS BEEN CAUGHT IN A VICIOUS SCISSOR
OF RISING IMPORT COMPETITION AND DECLINING
EXPORT OPPORTUNITY.
THERE ARE, OF COURSE, OTHER ALARMING
AND WORRISOME STATISTICS THAT SHOW OUR FARMERS
-6-
ARE IN FINANCIAL TROUBLE. BUT I KNOW I NEED
NOT REPEAT THE OBVIOUS, SO LET ME SAY ONLY THAT
I FOR ONE CERTAINLY REALIZE THE DIFFICULTY.
OF COURSE, RECOGNIZING THE EXISTENCE
OF A PROBLEM AND DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT ARE
TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
AS ONE OF MY LADY COLLEAGUES IN THE
HOUSE ONCE SAID AT A RULES COMMITTEE HEARING
AFTER MEMBERS OF THAT COMMITTEE HAD BESTOWED A
SERIES OF FLOWERY ACCOLADES UPON HER, "AH,
GENTLEMEN, FIRST THE MOVOCAINE. THEN THE
NEEDLE."
I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE THAT THE
AVERAGE FAMILY FARM OPERATOR IN THIS COUNTRY
IS NOT IN THE SOUNDEST FINANCIAL SITUATION.
WHAT THEN CAN WE DO?
LET'S LOOK AT THE POLITICAL REALITIES
IN WASHINGTON. A PARTY OTHER THAN THE ONE TO
WHICH I BELONG NOW CONTROLS BOTH HOUSES OF
THE CONGRESS, AS WELL AS THAT LARGE WHITE
BERALD FORD LIBRARY
-7-
BUILDING ON PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE WHERE ALL THE
IMPORTANT DECISIONS OF DAY-TO-DAY GOVERNMENT
ARE MADE. THAT BEING TRUE, WE MUST FIRST ANAL-
YZE THE PROPOSALS MADE BY THE PRESIDENT IN HIS
RECENT FARM MESSAGE.
AS YOU RECALL, HE ASKED FOR THE
PERMANENT EXTENSION OF THE AGRICULTURAL ACT
OF 1965. HE ALSO CALLED FOR A THREE-YEAR
LAW
EXTENSION OF PUBLIC'480, THE FOOD FOR PEACE
PROGRAM. HE SOUGHT A "FOOD BANK" IN WHICH
GRAIN FARMERS WOULD BE THE SOLE DEPOSITORS.
HE ASKED FOR HEARINGS TO BE HELD ON FARM
BARGAINING. HE CALLED FOR THE ENACTMENT OF
NEW PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ACT LEGISLATION
AND FINALLY, HE MADE SOME GENERALIZED COMMENTS
ABOUT RURAL RENEWAL.
LET ME OFFER A FEW COMMENTS ABOUT EACH
OF THESE RECOMMENDATIONS.
IN URGING THE EXTENSION OF THE 1965 ACT
THIS YEAR, THE PRESIDENT SAID, AND I QUOTE:
-8-
"TO TERMINATE THE 1965 ACT WOULD BRING
CATASTROPHE AND RUIN TO MANY FARMERS.
"CASH PRICES TO THE FARMER WOULD FALL--
AND THERE WOULD BE NO GOVERNMENT PAYMENTS TO
CUSHION THE IMPACT. FARM INCOME COULD DROP
BY AS MUCH AS ONE-THIRD--BACK TO 1959 LEVELS.
"--WHEAT PRICES WOULD DROP TO ABOUT
$1.10 A BUSHEL-COMPARED WITH THE 1967 BLEND
PRICE OF $1.89, INCLUDING THE WHEAT CERTIFICATE.
"--CORN PRICES WOULD DROP TO ABOUT
75.CENTS A BUSHEL, COMPARED WITH A BLEND PRICE
OF $1.30 IN 1967.
"--COTTON WOULD SELL FOR 18 CENTS A
POUND, COMPARED WITH 42 CENTS IN 1967 WITH
PRICE SUPPORT PAYMENTS.
"--WITH LOWER GRAIN PRICES, LIVESTOCK
SUPPLIES WOULD SOON OVER-BURDEN THE MARKET
SO THAT LIVESTOCK PRICES WOULD DECLINE BY AT
LEAST 10%."
LET ME SAY HERE AND NOW THAT I DON'T
-9-
THINK THERE HAS EVER BEEN A MORE BLATANT
ATTEMPT TO MISLEAD THE CONGRESS OR THE PUBLIC
THAN THE WORDS I JUST READ TO YOU FROM THE
PRESIDENT'S FARM MESSAGE.
IN EACH INSTANCE, AS IT APPLIES TO
COTTON, FEED GRAINS AND WHEAT, THERE ARE
PERMANENT STATUTORY AUTHORITIES ON THE LAW
BOOKS WHICH WOULD APPLY IF THE 1965 ACT SHOULD
EXPIRE AT THE END OF THE 1969 PROGRAMS FOR
THESE CROPS.
FOR WHEAT, FOR EXAMPLE, THE BASIC FARM
LAWS OF 1938 AND 1949 PROVIDE FOR A MANDATORY
WHEAT CERTIFICATE PROGRAM FOR THE 1970 CROPS.
PRICE SUPPORTS ON DOMESTIC AND EXPORT COULD GO
TO 90% OF PARITY. FARMERS WOULD, OF COURSE,
HAVE TO APPROVE THIS MANDATORY PLAN IN A
REFERENDUM.
FOR FEED GRAINS THESE SAME LAWS GIVE THE
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE DISCRETION TO SET
FORD
LIBRI
SUPPORT PRICES FROM 50 TO 90 PER CENT OF PARITY.
-10-
ON COTTON, A MANDATORY PROGRAM WITH
PRICE SUPPORTS AT 65 TO 90 PER CENT OF PARITY
WOULD ALSO GO INTO EFFECT IF THE 1965 ACT
SHOULD EXPIRE.
BOTH THE HOUSE AND SENATE AGRICULTURE
COMMITTEES ARE GOING TO HOLD HEARINGS ON THE
1965 ACT. WHETHER THEY BRING AN EXTENSION TO
THE FLOOR OR NOT, I THINK FARMERS, THE GENERAL
PUBLIC AND THE CONGRESS SHOULD ALL REALIZE
THAT A PREDICTION OF "CATASTROPHE AND RUIN"
IN THE EVENT OF NO EXTENSION THIS YEAR IS
SOMEWHERE BETWEEN PURE PUFFING AND INCREDI-
BILITY.
PUBLIC LAW 480 WILL, OF COURSE, BE
ESTENDED ONCE AGAIN. THIS PROGRAM HAS
ENJOYED BI-PARTISAN SUPPORT SINCE ITS INCEPTION
IN 1954, DURING FORMER PRESIDENT EISENHOWER'S
ADMINISTRATION. IN EXTENDING THE ACT, HOWEVER,
ALL OF US ARE GOING TO TRY TO RELATE IT TO OUR
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS PROBLEMS, TO MAKE IT
-11-
OPERATE AS A MORE POSITIVE INFLUENCE ON
DOMESTIC FARM PRICES, AND TO EMPHASIZE EVEN
MORE THE NEED FOR "SELF-HELP" BY UNDER-
DEVELOPED NATIONS TEETERING ON THE BRINK OF A
FOOD-POPULATION DISASTER.
GRAIN RESERVE LEGISLATION WILL NO
DOUBT ALSO BE CONSIDERED BY THE APPROPRIATE
COMMITTEES. I WOULD CERTAINLY HOPE THAT
NEITHER THE HOUSE COMMITTEE NOR THE SENATE
WOULD BRING FORTH A BILL LIKE LAST YEAR'S
PROPOSAL OF THE ADMINISTRATION. ANY LEGIS-
LATION WHICH GIVES THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE
THE POWER TO DUMP GRAIN ON THE MARKET WILL,
IN MY OPINION, ONLY COMPOUND THE DIFFICULTY
FACING FARMERS.
PERSONALLY, I FEEL THAT ALL GOVERNMENT
GRAIN STOCKS SHOULD INSTEAD BE FULLY INSULATED
FROM THE MARKET AT LEVELS WHICH WILL RAISE
MARKET PRICES, NOT DEPRESS THEM.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
FARM BARGAINING, I EXPECT, WILL BE
-12-
MOSTLY THE SUBJECT OF HEARINGS AND DISCUSSION
THIS YEAR, ALTHOUGH THE "AGRICULTURAL FAIR
PRACTICES ACT" -- S. 109 -- SHOULD BE CLEARED
BY THE HOUSE THIS WEEK.
THE PRESIDENT'S PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS
BILL HAS NOT BEEN INTRODUCED IN THE HOUSE SINCE
ITS REFERRAL TO CAPITOL HI LAST FALL, AND THE
PRESIDENT'S RURAL RENEWAL PROPOSALS APPEAR TO
BE PRETTY MUCH A RE-STATEMENT OF PREVIOUS
LEGISLATION CONSIDERED BY THE CONGRESS.
AT THE PRESENT TIME, THEN, THE ONLY
PART OF THE PRESIDENT S RACKAGE THAT APPEARS
HEADED TOWARD CERTAIN ENACTMENT THIS YEAR IS
THE EXTENSION OF PUBLIC LAW 480.
THE HEARINGS ON THE 1965 ACT AND
ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TO CONGRESS CAN, IN MY
OPINION, BE EXTREMELY USEFUL IF THEY ARE
DIVORCED FROM PARTISAN POLITICS. I AM,
UNFORTUNATELY, NOT OPTIMISTIC THAT THE
GERALD FORD LIBRABA
ADMINISTRATION WILL TAKE AN OBJECTIVE
-13-
POSITION ON THESE MATTERS, PARTICULARLY IN
VIEW OF THE INCREDIBLE PROPHESY OF "CATASTROPHE
AND RUIN" MADE IN THE FARM MESSAGE. THE
AMERICAN FARMER NEEDS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR
HIGHER INCOME, NOT JUST MORE OF THE SAME.
ANY HEARINGS ON OUR MAJOR COMMODITIES
SHOULD INCLUDE TESTIMONY FROM FARMERS UNION
AS WELL AS THE OTHER GENERAL FARM AND COMMODITY
ORGANIZATIONS. ACADEMIC, ECONOMIC AND LEGAL
EXPERTS SHOULD ALSO BE CALLED.
THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND FINDINGS OF THE
NATIONAL FOOD AND FIBRE COMMISSION SHOULD
RECEIVE CAREFUL PUBLIC AND CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW.
THIS REPORT SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO WITHER
AND DIE FROM INDIFFERENCE AFTER SO MUCH TIME
AND TALENT HAVE BEEN SPENT PREPARING IT.
THESE HEARINGS SHOULD, I FEEL,
REALISTICALLY EXPLORE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
THE PRESENT COMMODITY PROGRAMS. WHERE
WEAKNESSES ARE FOUND, BETTER MEANS OF PROVID+NG
-14-
INCOME PROTECTION TO FAMILY FARM AGRICULTURE
MUST BE DEVISED.
AT THE SAME TIME, WE SHOULD ALLOCATE
SUFFICIENT RESOURCES TO PROMOTE ADEQUATE
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND EDUCATION, FUND THE
REA AND RTA PROGRAMS AND AMPLE AGRICULTURAL
CREDIT, AND CONTINUE OUR SOIL, WATER AND
FORESTRY CONSERVATION AND SERVICE PROGRAMS.
A $10 BILLION ANNUAL EXPORT MARKET
SHOULD BE WITHIN OUR GRASPS IN THE NEAR FUTURE.
RURAL DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE EMPHASIZED
WITH FAMILY FARMS RATHER THAN CORPORATE
CONGLOMERATES AS THE KEYSTONE.
YES, AMERICAN AGRICULTURE IS VITALLY
IMPORTANT, BOTH TO THE NATION AND TO THE
PROMOTION OF PEACE IN THE WORLD.
THE MODERN FARM FAMILY, IN MY OPINION,
IS MAKING A TREMENDOUS CONTRIBUTION TOWARD THE
WELL-BEING OF ALL OUR CITIZENS.
AND YET THERE ARE THOSE WHO SAY THAT
-15-
FARMERS ARE NO LONGER IMPORTANT IN OUR
POLITICAL PROCESS. I NOTICED IN THE FARMERS
UNION NEWSLETTER OF SEPTEMBER 22 OF LAST YEAR
THAT MY COLLEAGUE, THE CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE
AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE, WAS QUOTED AS FOLLOWS:
"POAGE TOLD AN IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY
AUDIENCE THAT THE FARM BLOC IN CONGRESS NO
LONGER EXISTS, THAT NEITHER POLITICAL PARTY IS
DEEPLY CONCERNED WITH AGRICULTURE, AND THAT
BOTH PARTIES FEEL THEY MUST DO WHATEVER IS
NECESSARY TO WIN BIG CITY VOTES."
LET ME TELL YOU AS ONE VOICE OF THE
LOYAL OPPOSITION THAT MY FRIEND FROM TEXAS
WAS PROBABLY HALF RIGHT WHEN HE SAID THAT !
OR, PUT ANOTHER WAY, I CAN AGREE WITH
HIM 50% ON THAT ISSUE
AS FAR AS HIS
PARTY IS CONCERNED, BUT I CERTAINLY DO NOT
ACCEPT THAT DESCRIPTION FOR MY PARTY.
FORD LIBRARY
I WON'T BELABOR YOU HERE WITH A
POLITICAL PITCH -- YOU WILL BE EXPOSED TO PLENTY
-16-
OF THAT FROM VARIOUS QUARTERS DURING THE
BALANCE OF THIS YEAR. I WILL ONLY POINT OUT
THAT OUR HOUSE REPUBLICAN TASK FORCE ON
AGRICULTURE, HEADED BY MY DISTINGUISHED
COLLEAGUE FROM MINNESOTA, ODIN LANGEN,
RECENTLY SET FORTH THE IMPORTANCE OF THE FARM
VOTE IN OUR NATIONAL ELECTIVE PROCESS.
AS A FARMER ONCE TOLD ME, "WE MAY BE
OUT-NUMBERED, BUT WE SHOULDN'T BE OUTSMARTED."
THAT IS THE THOUGHT I WOULD LIKE TO
LEAVE WITH YOU TODAY AS WE CONSIDER THE FAMILY
FARM IN THE SPACE AGE. LET'S ALL RECOGNIZE
THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS KEY ELEMENT IN OUR
SOCIETY. ITS IMPORTANCE IN TERMS OF ECONOMIC
GAIN TO OUR SOCIETY IN GENERAL, ITS CONTRIBUTION
TO SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, AND ITS CONTINUING
IMPORTANCE IN THE POLITICAL PROCESS ALL TRANS-
CEND MERE NUMBERS.
THE KEY ROLE OF FAMILY AGRICULTURE IN
SPACE AGE AMERICA DEMANDS AND ASSURES THE
-17-
CONTINUED CONCENTRATION OF NATIONAL POLICY
UPON ITS PROBLEMS. THIS HAS BEEN TRUE
THROUGHOUT OUR HISTORY. IT IS JUST AS TRUE
TODAY. THANK YOU.
-END-
FORD & LIBRARY 07V230
REMARKS OF CONGRESSMAN GERALD FORD (R-Mich)
Republican Leader
United States House of Representatives
AT NATIONAL FARMERS UNION CONVENTION
Minneapolis, Minnesota - March 18, 1968
THE FARM FAMILY IN THE SPACE AGE
Let me say at the outset that I am indeed very pleased to have been
invited to participate at this important convention.
Through my years of Congressional service, I have always held your fine
organization in great respect, and though we may have differed from time to
time, I have always felt the Farmers Union has sincerely and effectively worked
for the betterment of family farming in our great nation.
Some skeptics have asked in recent years, "Just what good is the family
farm anyhow? Isn't it as old fashioned and as out of date in this modern age
of science and technology as the horse and buggy?"
Well, you know and I know that the family farm is the social and
economic backbone of an agricultural establishment that is the envy of the
world. I need not cite to you all the figures on the contribution that modern
family farms are making to the high standard of living that America enjoys.
But a few reminders might be in order.
The American consumer today is harvesting the reward of our ever-
increasingly efficient agricultural production and marketing system. A recent
report issued by the Department of Agriculture showed that if it were not for
the sharp gains in farm efficiency during the past two decades every American
would be paying more for his food and enjoying it less.
While the output per man-hour in manufacturing has increased 2.7 per cent
per year since 1948, the output in agriculture has increased by 5 per cent per
year.
In 1948 the number of man hours used for all farm work totaled 16.5
billion. In 1966, this figure had dropped to 7 billion man hours.
Farm production increased nearly 40 per cent during the same period.
Or, stated another way, in 1948 one farm worker supplied about 14 others
with food and fibre. Today he supplies 42 others.
During the same time, the number of consumers has increased by 40 per cent,
while the number of workers employed in the food industry increased by about
12 per cent.
Let us stop right here and ask "Who provided this miraculous economic
growth?" The answer, of course, is family-sized agricultural units.
Yet, as you know, the family farmer in this country has not shared in the
economic rewards that should be his for these tremendous contributions. Frankly,
I know of no great economic group of citizens in our society which today earns
less money than it did 20 years ago ... no group, that is, except farmers.
FORD
In 1947, realized net farm income was $17.0 billion. In 1967 it was $14.5 billion.
LIBRARI
In this past year of 1967, we have seen realized net farm income fall
$1.9 billion below the previous year. Can you imagine any other group in our
society taking a $1.9 billion pay cut?
In my home state of Michigan, the drop was 9 per cent. Here in Minnesota,
it was 11 per cent. Net income per farm also dropped in spite of a decline of
approximately 100,000 in the number of farms.
At the same time, the parity ration
that measuring rod of relative
prosperity in agriculture
dropped to 74.
In 1967, agricultural exports which are so important to the balance
of trade situation were down 7 per cent below the previous year.
The dairy import-export picture became particularly disturbing last year.
in 1967 there were 2.9 billion pounds of milk equivalent imported, while only
304 million pounds were exported. This is most disturbing in view of the fact
that just four years ago (in 1964) our dairy imports were only 830 million
pounds of milk equivalent and our exports were a whopping 6.9 billion pounds.
These figures show quite dramatically and quite painfully how the American
dairy farmer has been caught in a vicious scissor of rising import competition
and declining export opportunity.
There are, of course, other alarming and worrisome statistics that show
our farmers are in financial trouble. But I know I need not repeat the obvious,
so let me say only that I for one certainly realize the difficulty.
Of course, recognizing the existence of a problem and doing something
about it are two different things.
As one of my lady colleagues in the House once said at a Rules Committee
hearing after the members of that committee had bestowed a series of flowery
accolades upon her: "Ah, Gentlemen, first the novocaine, then the needle."
I think that we can all agree that the average family farm operator in
this country is not in the soundest financial condition. What then can we do?
Let's look at the political realities in Washington. A party other than the
one to which I belong now controls both houses of the Congress, as well as that
large white building on Pennsylvania Avenue where all the important decisions of
day-to-day government are made. That being true, we must first analyze the
proposals made by the President in his recent farm message.
As you recall, he asked for the permanent extension of the Agricultural Act
of 1965. He also called for a three-year extension of Public Law 480, the Food'
for Peace Program. He sought a "Food Bank" in which grain farmers would be the
sole depositors. He asked for hearings to be held on farm bargaining. He called
for the enactment of new Packers and Stockyards Act legislation and finally, he
made some generalized comments about rural renewal.
Let me offer a few comments about each of these recommendations.
In urging the extension of the 1965 Act this year, the President said, and
= quote:
- 3 -
"To terminate the 1965 Act would bring catastrophe and ruin to many
farmers.
"Cash prices to the farmer would fall -- and there would be no government
payments to cushion the impact. Farm income could drop by as much as one-third --
back to 1959 levels.
"-Wheat prices drop to about 1.10 a bushel -- compared with the 1967 blend
price of $1.89, including the wheat certificate.
"--Corn prices would drop to about 75 cents a bushel, compared with a blend
price of 41.30 in 1967.
"--Cotton would sell for 18 cents a pound, compared with 42 cents in 1967
with price support payments.
"-With lower grain prices, livestock supplies would soon over-burden the
market so that livestock prices would decline by at least 10 per cent."
Let me say here and now that I don't think there has ever been a more
blatant attempt to mislead the Congress or the public than the words I just read
to you from the President's farm message.
In each instance, as it applies to cotton, feed grains and wheat, there are
permanent statutory authorities on the law books which would apply if the 1965 Act
should expire at the end of the 1969 programs for these crops.
For wheat, for example, the basic farm laws of 1938 and 1949 provide for a
mandatory wheat certificate program for the 1970 crops. Price supports on
domestic and export wheat could go to 90 per cent of parity. Farmers would, of
course, have to approve this mandatory plan in a referendum.
For feed grains these same laws give the Secretary of Agriculture discretion
to set support prices from 50 to 90 per cent of parity.
On cotton, a mandatory program with price supports at 65 to 90 percent of
parity would also go into effect if the 1965 Act should expire.
Both the House and Senate Agriculture Committees are going to hold hearings
on the 1965 Act. Whether they bring an extension to the floor or not, I think
farmers, the general public and the Congress should all realize that a prediction
of "catastrophe and ruin" in the event of no extension this year is somewhere
between pure puffing and incredibility.
Public law 480 will, of course, be extended once again. This program has
enjoyed bi-partisan support since its inception in 1954 during former President
Eisenhower's Administration. In extending the Act, however, all of us are going
to try to relate it to our balance of payments problems, to make it operate as a
more positive influence on domestic farm prices, and to emphasize even more the
need for "self-help" by under-developed nations teetering on the brink of a food-
population disaster.
Grain reserve legislation will no doubt also be considered by the appropriate
committees. I would certainly hope that neither the House Committee nor the Senate
LIBRARY
would bring forth a bill like last year's proposal of the Administration.
Any legislation which gives the Secretary of Agriculture the power to dump grain
on the market will, in my opinion, only compound the difficulty facing farmers.
Personally, I feel that all government grain stocks should instead be fully
insulated from the market at levels which will raise market prices, not depress
them.
Farm bargaining, I expect, will be mostly the subject of hearings and
discussion this year, although the "Agricultural Fair Practices Act" - S.109 --
should be cleared by the House this week.
The President's Packers and Stockyards bill has not been introduced in the
House since its referral to Capitol Hill last Fall, and the President's rural
renewal proposals appear to be pretty much of a re-statement of previous legislation
considered by the Congress.
At the present time, then, the only part of the President's package that
appears headed toward certain enactment this year is the extension of Public
Law 480.
The hearings on the 1965 Act and alternatives available to Congress can,
in my opinion, be extremely useful if they are divorced from partisan politics.
I am, unfortunately, not optimistic that the Administration will take an objective
position on these matters, particularly in view of the incredible prophecy of
"catastrophe and ruin" made in the farm message. The American farmer needs the
opportunity for higher income, not just more of the same.
Any hearings on our major commodities should include testimony from Farmers
Union as well as the other general farm and commodity organizations. Academic,
economic and legal experts should also be called.
The recommendations and findings of the National Food and Fiber Commission
should receive careful public and Congressional review. This report should not be
permitted to wither and die from indifference after so much time and talent have
been spent preparing it.
These hearings should, I feel, realistically explore the effectiveness of the
present commodity programs. Where weaknesses are found, better means of providing
income protection to family farm agriculture must be devised.
At the same time, we should allocate sufficient resources to promote adequate
agricultural research and education, fund the REA and RTA programs and ample
agricultural credit, and continue our soil, water and forestry conservation and
service programs.
A $10 billion annual export market should be within our grasps in the near
future.
Rural development should be emphasized with family farms rather than corporate
conglomerates as the keystone.
Yes, American agriculture is vitally important, both to the nation and to the
promotion of peace in the world.
-5-
The modern farm family, in my opinion, is making a tremendous contribution
toward the well-being of all our citizens.
And yet there are those who say that farmers are no longer important in
our political process. I noticed in the Farmers Union Newsletter of September 22
of last year that my colleague, the Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee,
was quoted as follows:
"Poage told an Iowa State University audience that the farm bloc in Congress
no longer exists, that neither political party is deeply concerned with
agriculture, and that both parties feel they must do whatever is necessary to win
big city votes."
Let me tell you as once voice of the loyal opposition that my friend from
Texas was probably half right when he said that
or, put another way, I can
agree with him 50 per cent on that issue
....
as far as his party is concerned,
but I certainly do not accept that description for my party.
I won't belabor you here with a political pitch -- you will be exposed to
plenty of that from various quarters during the balance of this year. I will only
point out that our House Republican Task Force on Agriculture, headed by my
distinguished colleague from Minnesota, Odin Langen, recently set forth the
importance of the farm vote in our national elective process.
As a farmer once told me
"We may be outnumbered, but we shouldn't be
outsmarted."
That is the thought I would like to leave with you today as we consider the
family farm in the space age. Let's all recognize the importance of this key
element in our society. Its importance in terms of economic gain to our society in
general, its contribution to social responsibility, and its continuing importance
in the political process all transcend mere numbers.
The key role of family agriculture in space age America demands and assures
the continued concentration of national policy upon its problems. This has been
true throughout our history -- it is just as true today.
Thank you.
AT CONDITIONS only
PRINT -
[The 1984 VISITAR
1008 CRIT
MYZE CVTS
prosper
-
THAN MAY
NOT DISTRIBUTED
NOTE:
72 ID ACG MAT
BUT onr
COMPLY
10 120 son
-
AME and 11-
10" BENALD WEWOW R.
FORD
W DE OUT
LIVERSE
(80)
- 00
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR RELEASE AT 6:30 p.m. CST (7:30 p.m. EST)--
Monday, March 18, 1968
An Address by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich., at the National Farmers Union
Convention, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
"THE FAMILY FARM IN THE SPACE AGE"
Let me say at the outset that I am indeed very pleased to have been invited
to participate at this important convention.
Through my years of Congressional service, I have always held your fine
organization in great respect, and though we may have differed from time to time,
I have always felt the Farmers Union has sincerely and effectively worked for
the betterment of family farming in our great nation.
Some skeptics have asked in recent years, "Just what good is the family
farm anyhow? Isn't it as old fashioned and as out of date in this modern age
of science and technology as the horse and buggy?"
Well, you know and I know that the family farm is the social and economic
backbone of an agricultural establishment that is the envy of the world. I need
not cite to you all the figures on the contribution that modern family farms are
making to the high standard of living that America enjoys. But a few reminders
might be in order.
The American consumer today is harvesting the reward of our ever-increasingly
efficient agricultural production and marketing system. A recent report issued
by the Department of Agriculture showed that if it were not for the sharp gains
in farm efficiency during the past two decades every American would be paying
more for his food and enjoying it less.
While the output per man-hour in manufacturing has increased 2.7% per year
since 1948, the output in agriculture has increased by 5% per year.
In 1948, the number of man hours used for all farm work totaled 16.5 billion.
In 1966, this figure had dropped to 7 billion man hours.
Farm production increased nearly 40 per cent during the same period.
Or, stated another way, in 1948 one farm worker supplied about 14 others
with food and fibre. Today he supplies 42 others.
During the same time, the number of consumers has increased by 40 per cent,
while the number of workers employed in the food industry increased by about
12 per cent.
(more)
-2-
Let us stop right here and ask "Who provided this miraculous economic
growth?" The answer, of course, is family-sized agricultural units.
Yet, as you know, the family farmer in this country has not shared in the
economic rewards that should be his for these tremendous contributions. Frankly,
I know of no great economic group of citizens in our society which today earns
less money than it did 20 years ago 1 no group, that is, except farmers.
In 1947, realized net farm income was $17.0 billion. In 1967 it was $14.5 billion.
In this past year of 1967, we have seen realized net farm income fall $1.9
billion below the previous year. Can you imagine any other group in our society
taking a $1.9 billion pay cut?
In my home state of Michigan, the drop was 9%. Here in Minnesota, it was
11%. Net income per farm also dropped in spite of a decline of approximately
100,000 in the number of farms.
At the same time, the parity ratio,
that measuring rod of relative
prosperity in agriculture
dropped to 74. This is the lowest annual level
for the parity ratio since 1933.
In 1967, our agricultural exports which are so important to the balance of
trade situation were down 7% below the previous year.
The dairy import-export picture became particularly disturbing last year.
In 1967 there were 2.9 billion pounds of milk equivalent imported, while only
364 million pounds were exported. This is most disturbing in view of the fact
that just four years ago (in 1964) our dairy imports were only 830 million pounds
of milk equivalent and our exports were a whopping 6.9 billion pounds.
These figures show quite dramatically and quite painfully how the American
dairy farmer has been caught in a vicious scissor of rising import competition
and declining export opportunity.
There are, of course, other alarming and worrisome statistics that show our
farmers are in financial trouble. But I know I need not repeat the obvious, so
let me say only that I for one certainly realize the difficulty.
Of course, recognizing the existence of a problem and doing something about
it are two different things.
As one of my lady colleagues in the House once said at a Rules Committee
hearing after members of that committee had bestowed a series of flowery accolades
upon her: "Ah, gentlemen, first the novocaine, then the needle."
I think we can all agree that the average family farm operator in this
country is not in the scundest financial situation. What then can we do?
(more)
-3-
Let's look at the political realities in Washington. A party other than the
one to which I belong now controls both Houses of the Congress, as well as that
large white building on Pennsylvania Avenue where all the important decisions of
day-to-day government are made. That being true, we must first analyze the
proposals made by the President in his recent farm message.
As you recall, he asked for the permanent extension of the Agricultural Act
of 1965. He also called for a three-year extension of Public Law 480, the Food
for Peace Program. He sought a "food bank" in which grain farmers would be the
sole depositors. He asked for hearings to be held or farm bargaining. He called
for the enactment of new Packers and Stockyards Act legislation and finally, he
made some generalized comments about rural renewal.
Let me offer a few comments about each of these recommendations.
In urging the extension of the 1965 Act this year, the President said, and
I quote:
"To terminate the 1965 Act would bring catastrophe and ruin to many farmers.
"Cash prices to the farmer would fall--and there would be no government
payments to cushion the impact. Farm income could drop by as much as one-third--
back to 1959 levels.
"--Wheat prices would drop to about $1.10 a bushel compared with the 1967
blend price of $1.89, including the wheat certificate.
"--Corn prices would drop to about 75 cents a bushel, compared with a blend
price of $1.30 in 1967.
"--Cotton would sell for 18 cents a pound, compared with 42 cents in 1967
with price support payments.
"--With lower grain prices, livestock supplies would soon over-burden the
market so that livestock prices would decline by at least 10%."
Let me say here and now that I don't think there has ever been a more blatant
attempt to mislead the Congress or the public than the words I just read to you
from the President's farm message.
In each instance, as it applies to cotton, feed grains and wheat, there
are permanent statutory authorities on the law books which would apply if the 1965
Act should expire at the end of the 1969 programs for these crops,
For wheat, for example, the basic farm laws of 1938 and 1949 provide for a
mandatory wheat certificate program for the 1970 crops. Price supports on
domestic and export wheat could go to 90% of parity. Farmers would, of course,
have to approve this mandatory plan in a referendum.
(more)
-4-
For feed grains these same laws give the Secretary of Agriculture discretion
to set support prices from 50 to 90 per cent of parity.
On cotton, a mandatory program with price supports at 65 to 90 per cent of
parity would also go into effect if the 1965 Act should expire.
Both the House and Senate Agriculture Committees are going to hold hearings
on the 1965 Act. Whether they bring an extension to the floor or not, I think
farmers, the general public and the Congress should all realize that a prediction
of "catastrophe and ruin" in the event of no extension this year is somewhere
between pure puffing and incredibility.
Public Law 480 will, of course, be extended once again. This program has
enjoyed bi-partisan support since its inception in 1954, during former President
Eisenhower's administration. In extending the Act, however, all of us are going
to try to relate it to our balance of payments problems, to make it operate as
a more positive influence on domestic farm prices, and to emphasize even more
the need for "self-help" by under-developed nations teetering on the brink of a
food-population disaster.
Grain Reserve legislation will no doubt also be considered by the appropriate
committees. I would certainly hope that neither the House Committee nor the
Senate would bring forth a bill like last year's proposal of the Administration.
Any legislation which gives the Secretary of Agriculture the power to dump grain
on the market will, in my opinion, only compound the difficulty facing farmers.
Personally, I feel that all government grain stocks should instead by fully
insulated from the market at levels which will raise market prices, not depress
them!
Farm Bargaining, I expect, will be mostly the subject of hearings and
discussion this year, although the "Agricultural Fair Practices Act" -- S. 109 --
should be cleared by the House this week.
The President's Packers and Stockyards bill has not been introduced in the
House since its referral to Capitol Hill last fall, and the President's rural
renewal proposals appear to be pretty much a re-statement of previous legislation
considered by the Congress.
At the present time, then, the only part of the President's package that
appears headed toward certain enactment this year is the extension of Public
Law 480.
The hearings on the 1965 Act and alternatives available to Congress can,
in my opinion, be extremely useful if they are divorced from partisan politics.
I am, unfortunately, not optimistic that the Administration will take an objective
(more)
-5-
position on these matters, particularly in view of the incredible prophesy of
"catastrophe and ruin" made in the farm message. The American farmer needs the
opportunity for higher income, not just more of the same.
Any hearings on our major commodities should include testimony from Farmers
Union as well as the other general farm and commodity organizations. Academic,
economic and legal experts should also be called.
The recommendations and findings of the National Food and Fibre Commission
should receive careful public and Congressional review. This report should not
be permitted to wither and die from indifference after so much time and talent
have been spent preparing it.
These hearings should, I feel, realistically explore the effectiveness of
the present commodity programs. Where weaknesses are found, better means of
providing income protection to family farm agriculture must be devised.
At the same time, we should allocate sufficient resources to promote
adequate agricultural research and education, fund the REA and RTA programs and
ample agricultural credit, and continue our soil, water and forestry conservation
and service programs.
A $10 billion annual export market should be within our grasps in the near
future.
Rural development should be emphasized with family farms rather than cor-
porate conglomerates as the keystone.
Yes, American agriculture is vitally important, both to the nation and to
the promotion of peace in the world.
The modern farm family, in my opinion, is making a tremendous contribution
toward the well-being of all our citizens.
And yet there are those who say that farmers are no longer important in
our political process. I noticed in the Farmers Union Newsletter of September 22
of last year that my colleague, the Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee,
was quoted as follows:
"Poage told an Iowa State University audience that the farm bloc in Congress
no longer exists, that neither political party is deeply concerned with
agriculture, and that both parties feel they must do whatever is necessary to
win big city votes."
Let me tell you as one voice of the loyal opposition that my friend from
Texas was probably half right when he said that!
Or, put another way,
I can agree with him 50% on tha issue
as far as his party is concerned,
but I certainly do not accept that description for my party.
(more)
-6-
I won't belabor you here with a political pitch -- you will be exposed to
plenty of that from various quarters during the balance of this year. I will
only point out that our House Republican Task Force on Agriculture, headed by my
distinguished colleague from Minnesota, Odin Langen, recently set forth the
importance of the farm vote in our national elective process.
As a farmer once told me, "We may be out-numbered, but we shouldn't be
outsmarted."
That is the thought I would like to leave with you today as we consider
the family farm in the space age. Let's all recognize the importance of this key
element in our society. Its importance in terms of economic gain to our society
in general, its contribution to social responsibility, and its continuing
importance in the political process all transcend mere numbers.
The key role of family agriculture in space age America demands and assures
the continued concentration of national policy upon its problems. This has been
true throughout our history. It is just as true today. Thank you.
###
Distribution : 20 capies to Mc. Ford
M Office Copy
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR RELEASE AT 6:30 p.m. CST (7:30 p.m. EST)--
Monday, March 18, 1968
An Address by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich., at the National Farmers Union
Convention, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
"THE FAMILY FARM IN THE SPACE AGE"
Let me say at the outset that I am indeed very pleased to have been invited
to participate at this important convention.
Through my years of Congressional service, I have always held your fine
organization in great respect, and though we may have differed from time to time,
I have always felt the Farmers Union has sincerely and effectively worked for
the betterment of family farming in our great nation.
Some skeptics have asked in recent years, "Just what good is the family
farm anyhow? Isn't it as old fashioned and as out of date in this modern age
of science and technology as the horse and buggy?"
Well, you know and I know that the family farm is the social and economic
backbone of an agricultural establishment that is the envy of the world. I need
not cite to you all the figures on the contribution that modern family farms are
making to the high standard of living that America enjoys. But a few reminders
might be in order.
The American consumer today is harvesting the reward of our ever-increasingly
efficient agricultural production and marketing system. A recent report issued
by the Department of Agriculture showed that if it were not for the sharp gains
in farm efficiency during the past two decades every American would be paying
more for his food and enjoying it less.
While the output per man-hour in manufacturing has increased 2.7% per year
since 1948, the output in agriculture has increased by 5% per year.
In 1948, the number of man hours used for all farm work totaled 16.5 billion.
In 1966, this figure had dropped to 7 billion man hours.
Farm production increased nearly 40 per cent during the same period.
Or, stated another way, in 1948 one farm worker supplied about 14 others
with food and fibre. Today he supplies 42 others.
During the same time, the number of consumers has increased by 40 per cent,
while the number of workers employed in the food industry increased by about
12 per cent.
(more)
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
-2-
Let us stop right here and ask "Who provided this miraculous economic
growth?" The answer, of course, is family-sized agricultural units.
Yet, as you know, the family farmer in this country has not shared in the
economic rewards that should be his for these tremendous contributions. Frankly,
I know of no great economic group of citizens in our society which today earns
less money than it did 20 years ago à 1 . no group, that is, except farmers.
In 1947, realized net farm income was $17.0 billion. In 1967 it was $14.5 billion.
In this past year of 1967, we have seen realized net farm income fall $1.9
billion below the previous year. Can you imagine any other group in our society
taking a $1.9 billion pay cut?
In my home state of Michigan, the drop was 9%. Here in Minnesota, it was
11%. Net income per farm also dropped in spite of a decline of approximately
100,000 in the number of farms.
At the same time, the parity ratio,
...
that measuring rod of relative
prosperity in agriculture
dropped to 74. This is the lowest annual level
for the parity ratio since 1933.
In 1967, our agricultural exports which are so important to the balance of
trade situation were down 7% below the previous year.
The dairy import-export picture became particularly disturbing last year.
In 1967 there were 2.9 billion pounds of milk equivalent imported, while only
364 million pounds were exported. This is most disturbing in view of the fact
that just four years ago (in 1964) our dairy imports were only 830 million pounds
of milk equivalent and our exports were a whopping 6.9 billion pounds.
These figures show quite dramatically and quite painfully how the American
dairy farmer has been caught in a vicious scissor of rising import competition
and declining export opportunity.
There are, of course, other alarming and worrisome statistics that show our
farmers are in financial trouble. But I know I need not repeat the obvious, so
let me say only that I for one certainly realize the difficulty.
Of course, recognizing the existence of a problem and doing something about
it are two different things.
As one of my lady colleagues in the House once said at a Rules Committee
hearing after members of that committee had bestowed a series of flowery accolades
upon her: "Ah, gentlemen, first the novocaine, then the needle."
I think we can all agree that the average family farm operator in this
country is not in the soundest financial situation. What then can we do?
(more)
-3-
Let's look at the political realities in Washington. A party other than the
one to which I belong now controls both Houses of the Congress, as well as that
large white building on Pennsylvania Avenue where all the important decisions of
day-to-day government are made. That being true, we must first analyze the
proposals made by the President in his recent farm message.
As you recall, he asked for the permanent extension of the Agricultural Act
of 1965. He also called for a three-year extension of Public Law 480, the Food
for Peace Program. He sought a "food bank" in which grain farmers would be the
sole depositors. He asked for hearings to be held on farm bargaining. He called
for the enactment of new Packers and Stockyards Act legislation and finally, he
made some generalized comments about rural renewal.
Let me offer a few comments about each of these recommendations.
In urging the extension of the 1965 Act this year, the President said, and
I quote:
"To terminate the 1965 Act would bring catastrophe and ruin to many farmers.
"Cash prices to the farmer would fall--and there would be no government
payments to cushion the impact. Farm income could drop by as much as one-third--
back to 1959 levels.
"--Wheat prices would drop to about $1.10 a bushel--compared with the 1967
blend price of $1.89, including the wheat certificate.
"--Corn prices would drop to about 75 cents a bushel, compared with a blend
price of $1.30 in 1967.
"--Cotton would sell for 18 cents a pound, compared with 42 cents in 1967
with price support payments.
"--With lower grain prices, livestock supplies would soon over-burden the
market so that livestock prices would decline by at least 10%."
Let me say here and now that I don't think there has ever been a more blatant
attempt to mislead the Congress or the public than the words I just read to you
from the President's farm message.
In each instance, as it applies to cotton, feed grains and wheat, there
are permanent statutory authorities on the law books which would apply if the 1965
Act should expire at the end of the 1969 programs for these crops.
For wheat, for example, the basic farm laws of 1938 and 1949 provide for a
mandatory wheat certificate program for the 1970 crops. Price supports on
domestic and export wheat could go to 90% of parity. Farmers would, of course,
have to approve this mandatory plan in a referendum.
(more)
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
-4-
For feed grains these same laws give the Secretary of Agriculture discretion
to set support prices from 50 to 90 per cent of parity.
On cotton, a mandatory program with price supports at 65 to 90 per cent of
parity would also go into effect if the 1965 Act should expire.
Both the House and Senate Agriculture Committees are going to hold hearings
on the 1965 Act. Whether they bring an extension to the floor or not, I think
farmers, the general public and the Congress should all realize that a prediction
of "catastrophe and ruin" in the event of no extension this year is somewhere
between pure puffing and incredibility.
Public Law 480 will, of course, be extended once again. This program has
enjoyed bi-partisan support since its inception in 1954, during former President
Eisenhower's administration. In extending the Act, however, all of us are going
to try to relate it to our balance of payments problems, to make it operate as
a more positive influence on domestic farm prices, and to emphasize even more
the need for "self-help" by under-developed nations teetering on the brink of a
food-population disaster.
Grain Reserve legislation will no doubt also be considered by the appropriate
committees. I would certainly hope that neither the House Committee nor the
Senate would bring forth a bill like last year's proposal of the Administration.
Any legislation which gives the Secretary of Agriculture the power to dump grain
on the market will, in my opinion, only compound the difficulty facing farmers.
Personally, I feel that all government grain stocks should instead by fully
insulated from the market at levels which will raise market prices, not depress
them!
Farm Bargaining, I expect, will be mostly the subject of hearings and
discussion this year, although the "Agricultural Fair Practices Act" -- S. 109 --
should be cleared by the House this week.
The President's Packers and Stockyards bill has not been introduced in the
House since its referral to Capitol Hill last fall, and the President's rural
renewal proposals appear to be pretty much a re-statement of previous legislation
considered by the Congress.
At the present time, then, the only part of the President's package that
appears headed toward certain enactment this year is the extension of Public
Law 480.
The hearings on the 1965 Act and alternatives available to Congress can,
in my opinion, be extremely useful if they are divorced from partisan politics.
I am, unfortunately, not optimistic that the Administration will take an objective
(more)
-5-
position on these matters, particularly in view of the incredible prophesy of
"catastrophe and ruin" made in the farm message. The American farmer needs the
opportunity for higher income, not just more of the same.
Any hearings on our major commodities should include testimony from Farmers
Union as well as the other general farm and commodity organizations. Academic,
economic and legal experts should also be called.
The recommendations and findings of the National Food and Fibre Commission
should receive careful public and Congressional review. This report should not
be permitted to wither and die from indifference after so much time and talent
have been spent preparing it.
These hearings should, I feel, realistically explore the effectiveness of
the present commodity programs. Where weaknesses are found, better means of
providing income protection to family farm agriculture must be devised.
At the same time, we should allocate sufficient resources to promote
adequate agricultural research and education, fund the REA and RTA programs and
ample agricultural credit, and continue our soil, water and forestry conservation
and service programs.
A $10 billion annual export market should be within our grasps in the near
future.
Rural development should be emphasized with family farms rather than cor-
porate conglomerates as the keystone.
Yes, American agriculture is vitally important, both to the nation and to
the promotion of peace in the world.
The modern farm family, in my opinion, is making a tremendous contribution
toward the well-being of all our citizens.
And yet there are those who say that farmers are no longer important in
our political process. I noticed in the Farmers Union Newsletter of September 22
of last year that my colleague, the Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee,
was quoted as follows:
"Poage told an Iowa State University audience that the farm bloc in Congress
no longer exists, that neither political party is deeply concerned with
agriculture, and that both parties feel they must do whatever is necessary to
win big city votes."
Let me tell you as one voice of the loyal opposition that my friend from
Texas was probably half right when he said that!
Or, put another way,
I can agree with him 50% on tha issue
as far as his party is concerned,
but I certainly do not accept that description for my party.
(more)
-6-
I won't belabor you here with a political pitch -- you will be exposed to
plenty of that from various quarters during the balance of this year. I will
only point out that our House Republican Task Force on Agriculture, headed by my
distinguished colleague from Minnesota, Odin Langen, recently set forth the
importance of the farm vote in our national elective process.
As a farmer once told me, "We may be out-numbered, but we shouldn't be
outsmarted."
That is the thought I would like to leave with you today as we consider
the family farm in the space age. Let's all recognize the importance of this key
element in our society. Its importance in terms of economic gain to our society
in general, its contribution to social responsibility, and its continuing
importance in the political process all transcend mere numbers.
The key role of family agriculture in space age America demands and assures
the continued concentration of national policy upon its problems. This has been
true throughout our history. It is just as true today. Thank you.
###
R.FORD STERANT
March 18, 1968
I'm told President Johnson made one of his surprise public
appearances outside a military base to address you this
morning.
According to the news reports we got in Washington, the
President appealed to you to join in "a program of national
austerity." That should be easy -- American farmers have been
on an austerity program ever since the Johnson Administration
took over,
I also saw some pickets as I came in carrying signs saying
"Impeach LBJ."
I'm not here to advocate that -- we have an orderly American
method of changing Presidents every four years -- and this is one
of those years!
And, of course, I'm not here to boost the political fortunes
of any other Democrat. I believe in the two-party system, and
despite the preponderance of Democratic news this past weekend,
the name of the other national party is still the Republican Party.
Seriously, I think it took courage for the President to come
into McCarthy country escorted only by his Vice President.
As I left Washington, I heard a bunch of teenagers chanting:
"Bobby Shaft=O's on TV
"Lyndon's Coonskin on his knee
"He'll come back to be V.P.
GERALD R. FORD LIBRARY
"Pretty Bobby Shaft-O."
-2-
I'm not going to get into the middle of a family fight
among Democrats. A guy can get hurt doing that.
I've spent all this morning and afternnon at the regular
Spring meeting of the National Republican Coordinating Committee.
And I can tell you one thing about this meeting behind closed doors.
We were -- every one of us -- deeply and primarily concerned;,
not with partisan political advantage in this crucial election
year, but with how we can best help this nation survive its
difficulties between now and November.
And when President Johnson told you he didn't want the
Communist enemy in Hanoi to win something in Washington that
he hasn't been able to win on the battlefield in Vietnam, I
say to you the Communist enemy will never get any such notion
from our Republican leadership.
If the President really means what he says about everybody
tightening their belts in America -- everybody, NOT just the
farmers -- he will have strong Republican support in the Congress.
IBRAR,
FOR RELEASE UPON DELIVERY
March 10, 1968
Office of the White House Press Secretary
(Minnespolis, Minnesota)
THE WHITE HOUSE
TEXT OF THE REMARKS OF THE PRESIDENT
AT THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION CONVENTION
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA
I'm happy to be here.
I don't believe anyone can claim that I am a new recruit to the
farmer's course.
You and I wear many of the same campaign ribbons. Some of them
represent victories--and some defeats. Mine go back to the
thirties. Yours go back 66 years--during which the Farmers Union
has led the way in rural America. You have produced great
leaders--like Jim Patton and Tony Dechant, and your fine state
presidents. Much of the legislation that has helped the American
farmer to a better day bears the Farmers Union brand.
I know what the farmer wants - and I want you to have it.
-- You want a fair price for your product--and you will
have it.
-- You want assurance that rising costs will not wipe
out a lifetime investment--and you will have it.
-- You want parity- a fair deal, an even chance to share
in the rich and good life of this good nation--and
you will have it.
-- You want the justice, the decency and the opportunity
that every American has the right to claim as his
native right.
-- And you will have them.
So long as I am your President you will always have my understand-
ing, my admiration and my wholehearted support in fighting for
these goals.
We know that it will be a fight. We know there are many who oppose
our goals.
MORE
-2-
There are those who have forgotten that without farms, there would
be no factories, no cities.
There are those who no longer believe in the partnership between
farmer and government--who tell us its time to "get the government
out of agriculture."
There are those who fail to realize that many of the problems of
urban America are a reflection of failures in rural America.
You know, as I do, that the farmer's problems are the problems of
all America. And you know that the solution to those problems
will require the sympathy and the understanding and the help of
each of us.
So I did my spring planting a little early this year. Three weeks
ago, I sent Congress a message on the farmer and rural America.
That message will sound mighty familiar to the Farmers Union--
because you have designed much of it--and supported all of it.
I have asked Congress to extend the Supply Management Programs of
the Food and Agriculture Act of 1965 - this year - with permanent
authority because the farmer shouldn't be asked to grow more than
the market can take at a fair price.
I have asked Congress to continue the direct payment programs of
the 1965 Act--they are the difference between profit and loss for
many farmers each year.
I have asked Congress to extend the Food for Freedom Act for an
additional three years--because it is right for this nation to
help hungry peoples from our abundance - and because it is good
business for our farmers to build new markets in other lands.
I have asked Congress to authorize a national food bank--a
security reserve of wheat, feedgrains and soybeans--which would
give the farmer higher prices, protect the consumer from food
scarcity, and provide the government with an emergency food
"cushion" in reaching supply-management decisions.
I have asked Congress to help find the ways to give the farmer
more bargaining power in the marketplace. As you have so many
times before, the Farmers Union is leading the way in this fight.
Finally, I have asked Congress for programs to bring parity of
opportunity to rural America - more farm credit - rural jobs -
decent housing - adequate diets - the chance to lead a full and
productive life.
MORE
-3-
During the months to come, you will hear these programs cussed
and discussed. It won't be easier to pass them. It will be even
harder this session because this is - as I remember - an election
year.
Some voices today express doubt that the American farm and the
American farmer can survive. They say we must sacrifice that
priceless heritage--that American dream on the altar of progress.
I say they are just as wrong as they can be.
If the farmers of America speak up courageously and forcefully in
their own behalf--if we and you together have the patience and
determination to preserve and improve our agricultural programs--
if we trust our hopes and not our fears, American agriculture can
prosper as never before.
And rural America can continue to stand for that which is best in
all America.
There is another area in which all Americans - farmers and city
dwellers must demonstrate - that same courage, patience and
determination.
For many years we have been engaged in a struggle in Southeast
Asia to stop the onrushing tide of Communist aggression. This
tide threatens to engulf that part of the world. It threatens
our own security and that of our allies.
The blood of our young men has been shed in this cause. They
know why we are there. They have seen the evidence of the enemy's
determination to conquer those who seek to be masters in their
own house.
Our fighting men know, from the evidence in their eyes, that we
face a ruthless enemy. They know from the carnage of the enemy's
treacherous assaults that he has no feelings about the deliberate
murder of innocent women and children in the villages and cities
of South Vietnam.
They are not misled by propaganda or by the effort to gloss over
the actions of an enemy who has broken every truce, and who makes
no secret of his intention to conquer by force the people of South
Vietnam.
At the same time, during these past four years we have made
remarkable strides here at home. We have opened the doors of
freedom and full citizenship and opportunity to 30 million people,
MORE
-4-
and we have sustained the highest level of prosperity for the
longest period of time ever known.
But the time has come when your President must ask you to join in
a total national effort to win the war, to win the peace, and to
complete the job at home.
I ask you to join in a program of national austerity to insure
that our economy will prosper and our fiscal position will be
sound.
The Congress has been asked to enact a bill which will impose
upon the average citizen an additional one cent for each dollar
of taxes. I ask you to bear this burden in the interest of a
stronger nation.
I am consulting with the Congress on proposals for savings in the
national budget. If it is the will of the Congress, we shall make
such reductions. They will postpone many needed actions.
All travel outside the Western Hemisphere by government officials
and private citizens which is not absolutely essential should be
postponed. I have already called for savings and cuts in
expenditures and investments abroad by our business enterprises.
We are going to intensify this program.
Most of all I ask your help and your patriotic support for our men
who are bearing the burden of battle in Vietnam. We seek not the
victory of conquest, but the triumph of justice. We will win.
I am deeply aware of the yearning in our country for peace. We
are a peace loving nation. There is none among you who desires
peace more than your President. We hope to achieve a just peace
at the negotiating table. But if the enemy continues to insist--
as it does now-that the outcome must be determined on the battle-
field, then we will win the peace on the battlefield.
To reach that peace will require your sacrifice, your understand-
ing, your help, and your cooperation.
# # #
Remarks
Vice President Hubert Humphrey
National Farmers Union
Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 10, 1968
"The farm was here before the factory
...
Merica was built on 2 foundation of farms and ranches
supplying the food and fiber for a bountiful and restless nation.
"It was the farmer's qualities--his hard work and perse-
verance, his independence and initiative--which gave strength to
E nation's character.
"Agriculture, our first industry, remains our greatest.
It is the vital center of our economy--fueling our industry and
commerce, feeding our people and the hungry of the world
"But the /merican farmer, who helped to build America's
prosperity, still does not fully--or fairly--share in it."
Those are not the words of Tony Dechant--though they might
well be.
Those are words from President Johnson's new message to
the Congress on agriculture.
And the unfair, unjust peradox of inadequate incomes for
the very industry and the very people who provide the keystone
of American prosperity is what that message is designed to correct.
Inadequate farm income means more than an unfair break for
the farmer.
It means the entire rural economy held back.
It means transferring poverty from 2 rural setting to an
urban slum--a cruel gamble and = disservice to all.
It means infringement of 2 fundamental American freedom--
freedom to choose where to live and where to work--for millions
of young Americans who can see no future on the farms and home-
steads they love.
Now you and I have been getting together off and on over
the last few years to read the health chart on /merican agricul-
ture.
The chart didn't look too good back in the 'Fifties--
higher and higher outlays by the taxpayer for farm programs, and
less and less income for the farmer.
The chart has turned up in the 'Sixties
...
net farm
income up 55 percent today
...
exports at an all-time high of
6.8 billion dollars in 1967
inventories below a billion
dollars for the first time since 1953.
But you know and I know that the patient is still a long
way from perfect health.
And all of us who have struggled with the complexities of
farm legislation over the years know that there aren't any miracle
remedies on the shelf.
There is, however, in this year's farm message, the most
comprehensive, reasoned, clear and bold farm program ever set
down by any American president.
It is your program. Your leaders had a great deal to do
with what it says, and you've been for everything that's in it.
The Johnson-Humphrey Administration says to the American
farmer: We don't presume to take care of you. But we do mean
to work closely with you as partners to see that you can fully
and fairly take care of yourselves in the marketplace
...
at
home and abroad
now and for years and decades to come.
Let's take a closer look at that message.
Point one calls for a permanent extension of the Food and
Agriculture Act of 1965.
As long as the farms of America produce more than we can
consume, we are going to need machinery to balance supply and
demand--to avoid the income-depressing, farm-killing cycle of
glut and scarcity.
This year the Food and Agriculture Act of 1965 faced its
severest test. Increased wheat and feed grain allotments for
1967 crops were followed by a series of unforeseen events: World-
wide bumper crops, smaller total demand--and lower prices for the
farmer.
But I submit to you that the 1965 Act passed the test this
year. Its direct payments provided the margin between profit and
loss for a great many farmers-- an additional 48 cents for each
bushel of wheat--15 cents for each pound of cotton-20 cents for
each bushel of corn.
-2-
You know what the alternative would have been without the
Act--lower cash prices and no government payments to cushion the
impact. Indeed the specialists tell us that farm income could
have dropped as much as a third--back to 1959 levels
wheat
at a dollar and ten cents a bushel
corn at 75 cents.
The President explicitly recognizes that the present act
can be improved, and we mean to work closely with you to improve
it.
But let's extend it permanently now, so that the farmer,
like any other businessman, can do his planning in advance and
never be the innocent victim of a program lapse.
Point two: A three-year extension of the Food for Freedom
Act.
Last year you and your fellow American farmers kept
literally millions of people in developing countries around the
world from starvation. You improved the diets of millions more.
In a world that knows too much of hate and selfishness,
our food aid programs have stood out year after year as a
humanitarian beacon of hope. That in itself is ample justifica-
tion for the Food for Freedom program.
But there is more than the humanitarian justification.
Food aid has meant economic development which in turn has created
new markets for American agricultural products. Japan, Turkey,
Greece, Italy, Spain and many countries which have received
assistance under U. S. food aid programs are now among our best
dollar customers for farm exports.
Food aid is more than good-neighborliness. It is good
business.
And, in a hungry world, strong, productive, independent
American family farms amount to no less than a massive defense
system in the cause of peace. No other nation can equal it.
Food power--and the food aid programs which you and I have
fought so hard for over the years--are America's exclusive tool
for building a safer, freer world.
This nation should pay its producers a fair price for that
food power--and use it to the full.
Point three of the President's message is creation of a
national food bank for wheat, feed grains, and soybeans.
-3-
The food bank would serve multiple purposes--protecting
the consumer against food scarcity
protecting the farmer
against falling prices
and further cushioning the ups and
downs that are part of any commodity program.
This program has three critical ingredients:
--4 reserve owned by farmers under strengthened reseal
provisions in the price support program. The Johnson-Humphrey
Administration has always believed that farmers should be able
to retain their equity as long as possible, and that the inventory
in the hands of the Commodity Credit Corporation should be reduced
to a safe minimum. That is why we recently extended the reseal
privilege to warehouses:
--Authority for the Secretary of Agriculture to buy
additional reserves at market prices--without waiting until
prices drop to support levels;
--Insulation of the food bank from the commercial market.
We introduced legislation for a food bank of this kind in
the Congress last year. Now let's pass it.
Now point four is perhaps the most important, and all the
other programs are calculated to support it: Increased bargain-
ing power for the farmer in the American marketplace.
As Tony Dechant reminded the National Farm Institute
last month: "The farmer is the only businessman left in America
who is still forced to sell his products at wholesale prices set
by somebody else
and to buy his production supplies at
retail prices, also set by someone else.
Real and effective bargaining power for the American farmer
is long overdue--especially in livestock, poultry, fruits and
vegetables which are not covered by price support and payment
programs.
I am happy to say that a great young senator, Walter
Mondale, has introduced a bill in the Senate along the lines of
the National /gricultural Act that Tony Dechant and Bill Thatcher
have been urging for so long.
We still don't know all the "how's" of effective farm
bargaining. But we know it is possible
it is necessary
and the Johnson-Humphrey Administration is for it.
The Farmers Union has a long-standing record of building
farm cooperatives. Cooperatives have already increased the
-4-
farmer's voice in the marketplace, and will be a crucial element
in future bargaining strength.
But let me also re-emphasize that partnership between the
farmers and government is essential to bargaining power.
When you have the machinery to maintain a reasonable supply-
demand balance--and only then--farm bargaining power increases.
When you allow farmers to reseal their grain, farm
bargaining power increases.
When you improve nutrition for children under School Milk,
School Lunch, Food Stamp and domestic donation programs, farm
bargaining power increases.
When you reduce unemployment, help people lift themselves
out of poverty, and enable more Americans to afford a decent diet,
and this Administration has done those things, farm bargaining
power increases.
When you negotiate an international commodity agreement,
as Tony Dechant and others helped us do last summer in the Kennedy
Round trade negotiations in Geneva, farm bargaining power increases.
And it is bargaining power that can put the American farmer
firmly on his own two feet in the American marketplace.
Finally, there are proposals to improve the general
quality of life in rural America for all who live there and all
who wish they could.
"Operation Outreach," begun last year, will continue to
bring 90 federal programs designed to improve everything from
health to housing
from education to economic development
right into the countryside.
Parity for the American farmer will mean little without
parity for his community
parity in everything that belongs
to a modern American standard of living for every rural citizen:
Meaningful job opportunities
decent housing
adequate
diets
the chance to lead a full and productive life.
My fellow Minnesotans know very well that I am reluctant to
talk politics--especially when there is an election only a few
months away.
But you are practical people--and passing farm programs is
a very practical business.
-5-
Farm bargaining power is going to be tested on election
day in November.
On election day you are going to negotiate a four-year
contract--and it won't be subject to renegotiation.
On election day you are going into the marketplace of
political decision to decide what happens to American agriculture--
and to all those programs the Formers Union has fought for long
and hard.
Today we have a president whose record is clear and
unequivocal.
We have a President who has fought as a senator and in
the White House for American agriculture
for fair prices
with a decent profit for the farmer
for protection from the
speculator and the unpredictable forces of the market
for
the health and welfare of rural America.
He believes in parity for American agriculture
in
full and equal opportunity for every farm family and agricultural
producer.
I doubt if you've forgotten the effects of the Republican
neglect a few years ago.
Farm income dropped a full 20 percent in eight years--
down two and a quarter billion dollars. By 1960 the Commodity
Credit Corporation held eight billion dollars worth of stock.
I know what that meant here in Minnesota and throughout
the country--and I don't think this nation or its food producers
can afford to go through it again.
Yes, American agriculture has a good friend in President
Lyndon Johnson.
But it takes more than a strong, determined, friend-of-the-
farmer in the White House to ennct sound farm legislation.
Much of what I have discussed today has to get through the
Congress before it can do America's farm economy any good.
And there is nothing automatic about Congress adopting
farm programs any more--particularly when senators and representa-
tives from rural districts vote against them. We can no longer
depend on = strong bipartisen farm bloc like the one we had until
the 1950s.
-6-
Keep this in mind when you look over your congressional
candidates in the months ahead.
Find out where they and their supporters stand on farm
prices
and farm programs
and farm bargaining.
Take a look, also, at the list of sponsors of the Curtis
bill - - a proposal to eliminate all farm programs.
It also includes the names of some of the Republicans who
voted 110 to 14 to kill the 1965 Farm Act. Democrats, farm and
city alike, provided the margin to get that bill through.
As Sam Rayburn used to say, "Any donkey can kick a barn
down, but it takes a good carpenter to build one."
So I urge you to ask some pointed questions before you
step into the polls. There is a lot of unfinished business ahead
of us in American agriculture and it is going to take builders,
not barn wreckers, to finish it.
# # #
-7-