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
1554412
label
First Debate: Grain Embargoes - Public Record of the President
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1554412
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
First Debate: Grain Embargoes - Public Record of the President
citationUrl
collections
White House Special Files Unit Files
Ford - Carter Debates Files
subjects
Soviet Union
Campaign debates
Grain sales
Presidential campaign, 1976
Trade embargoes
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1554412
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1976-09-30
month
9
year
1976
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1974-12-01
month
12
year
1974
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
74487b0d7868fc0f
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 1, folder "First Debate: Grain Embargoes -
Public Record of the President" of the White House Special Files Unit Files 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. Gerald Ford 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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.
Library
GRAIN EMBARGOES
THE WHITE HOUSE THE PRESIDENT HAS SEEN
WASHINGTON
September 17, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR: DICK CHENEY
FROM:
JIM CAVANAUGA
SUBJECT:
Grain Embargoes
Attached is the public record of the President on
grain embargoes, including his comments and
statements at press conferences as well as a
selected group of news clips. Agnes Waldron pulled
this together and I think did an excellent job.
ISSUE: Farm Policy
Administration Position
The Administration supports farm policies that lead to fair
returns to farmers from market-oriented production and
assures consumers plentiful supplies of food and fiber.
The President said on August 18, 1975:
"Be assured -- and I say this with emphasis -- this Administration's
national farm policy is and will continue to be one of full
production. It is good for everybody. It is a policy of fair
prices and darn good income for farmers through commercial sales
of their products on a worldwide basis."
Presidential Documents
Vol. 11, No. 34, pg. 866
In contrast, for nearly 40 years American agriculture was
dominated by government production controls --- cutbacks and
curtailment of growth in the agricultural plant -- all in the name
of stability. The farmer was "stabilized" with an income only
about two-thirds of the income level of his urban neighbors.
And most of the help from government price-support and acreage
diversion went to those whose incomes were already above the
average, rather than to the smaller farmer.
However, we now have a policy that offers maximum incentive to
those who produce food. The combination of market orientation
and unrestricted production permits farmers to use their resources
fully.
The American farmer has now been freed from dependence on Federal
Treasury payments not to produce. Under the high price support
structure of earlier years, the government -- instead of the
marketplace -- was the highest bidder for farmers' crops. In
1969 farmers received 27 percent of their realized net income
from government payments. Now, they receive only about 2 percent,
principally disaster and conservation program payments.
While per-bushel/per-bale payments have been discontinued, provision
have been retained in farm legislation for government loans on the
major crops; for payments to farmers if prices fall sharply, and
for standby acreage diversion. Loan rates on major U.S. farm
commodities have been set at levels which provide government
financing for farmers who cannot get it from private sources,
but which preclude widespread government acquisition and permit
-2-
these commodities to compete in domestic and world markets.
While government retains a backup role in agriculture, it is
no longer cast in the leading role of farm manager. Farmers are
now producing at record or near record levels with high farm
income because government has finally moved out of the farmer's
way.
In the past few years, the American farmer has shown what he
can do without government controls. He produces enough to feed
more than 215 million Americans, plus millions more overseas.
The government has not curbed the production of wheat or feed
grains since 1973, or cotton since 1972. Sixty million acres,
previously held idle, have been released, and 38 million acres
have been brought back into production. Total acreage planted for
major crops has climbed from about 291 million acres in 1969 to
an estimated 335 million acres planted by farmers for 1976.
What we are really talking about is food security, both here and
abroad. The best food security arises from a policy which en-
courages profits in agriculture; a policy that gives farmers
the economic incentive to maintain and increase production;
and a policy that permits farmers and the trade -- instead of
government -- to carry food reserves. The facts speak for
themselves;
-
Realized net income from farming averaged $26.8 billion from
1973 through 1975. This compares with an average of $12.1
billion in the 1960's.
-
Responding to signals from the marketplace instead of from
government planners., U.S. farmers are growing more grain than
ever before. In 1975 they produced 5.8 billion bushels
of corn and 2.1 billion bushels of wheat.
-
Privately-held wheat stocks on July 1, 1976 totaled an
estimated 540 million bushels, exceeding the previous high
on July 1, 1975 by more than 200 million bushels. On
July 1, 1976, the government owned no stocks of wheat or
corn and held only 17 million bushels of wheat and 59 million
bushels of corn under loan.
Coupled with significant improvements in farm income and changes
in production is a pronounced turnaround in the rural demographic
profile. The average age of U.S. farmers -- which was long
thought to be too high while going higher -- is now going down.
-3-
In 1970 only 14.6 percent of all farmers were under 35 years of
age. At the start of this year, 20.8 percent were below that
age level.
Another trend that has been virtually halted in the decline
in U.S. farm population. The mass exodus of nearly 30 million
people from farms since the beginning of World War II has been
called the greatest migration of its kind in history. It seems
to be nearly over. The business of farming has again become
economically attractive. Rural communities are thriving. This
has given younger people a greater incentive to remain on farms
and to choose careers in agriculture. Between 1970 and 1974 the
average annual decline in farm population was only 1.2 percent.
Such a low rate has not been observed since the end of World War II
when returning veterans poured back onto farms.
The rate of decline of the number of farms has also slowed
significantly. The total decline in the number of farms over
the last four years is less than the decline in 1968 alone.
In the 1970's, under the impetus of a market oriented policy,
U.S. farm exports have continued year after year to surpass all
previous annual export totals. U.S. farm exports have jumped
from $6.7 billion in 1970 to over $22 billion this fiscal year.
Consumers as well as farmers benefit from these exports, which
strengthen the dollar in relation to foreign currencies, making
overseas purchases, including petroleum, easier to afford. The
United States is in the farm export business to stay.
In discussing the importance of exports, the President said on
January 5, 1976:
"I want to remind those who would minimize our national
strength that over one-half of the grain moving across
international boundaries throughout the world is grown
by you, the American farmer, and we are proud of your
efforts and your results
It is imperative that
you maintain the freedom to market crops and to find
customers wherever you can. Strong agricultural exports
are basic to America's farm policy and the freedom of every
farmer to manage his own farm.
"You should be rewarded
for producing each year much
more than we consume at home. You must -- and I emphasize
must -- export two-thirds of each year's wheat crop or cut
back production. You must export 50 percent of our soybeans
or cut back production. You must be able to export more than
55 percent of your rice crop or cut back production. You must
be able to export 40 percent of your cotton or cut back pro-
duction. You must export at least one-fourth of your feed
grain or cut back production.
-5-
"
This agreement is in the interest of both the American
farmer and the American consumer. It prevents the Soviets
from disrupting our markets. As we have seen over the years,
disruptive and unpredictable purchases lead to such problems
as Congressional demands for export control and the refusal
of unions to handle grain shipments. We have now assured
American grain producers that at planting time they will have
a much more reliable indication of how large an export market
there will be at harvest time, and that is good for all of us.
"This American livestock producer will have a better idea of
his feed supply. The American consumer will know that grain
will be moving overseas in a regular flow and be assured there
will be adequate food at home.
"We have transformed occasional and erratic customers into
regular customers. We have averted an outcry every year that
the Russians are coming to make secret purchases in our
markets. The private marketing system has been preserved.
Record exports are moving right now.
Presidential Documents
Vol. 12, No. 2, Pg. 23
Administration Actions
Agricultural Policy Making. On March 5, 1976, President Ford
created a new Agricultural Policy Committee with Secretary Butz
as chairman. This Committee replaced two prior committees and
consolidated and streamlined domestic and international food
policy making under a single group.
General Farm Policies. The Administration supports farm policies
which foster a market-oriented agriculture to return basic
management responsibilities to farmers as they produce for
domestic and export markets.
The Administration supports the Agriculture and Consumer
Protection Act of 1973, which extended and amended the
Agricultural Act of 1970 to assure consumers plentiful supplies
of food and fiber at reasonable costs by allowing for a more
market-oriented production.
There have been no acreage restrictions for cotton since 1972
and none for wheat or feed grains since 1973. This has been
done to insure adequate supplies to meet both domestic and
export demands while avoiding significant inflationary pressures
on food prices. The Administration started a similar program
for rice in 1976 as a result of new rice legislaton signed by the
President in January 1976.
-7-
and negotiation of a long-term agreement on grain sales to the
Soviets. On October 20, 1975, the President announced an
agreement with the Soviet Union on grain purchases and re-
sumption of grain sale negotiations. This agreement, which
relates to five crop years, commencing October 1, 1976, and
running to September 30, 1981, is designed to benefit American
farmers and consumers by providing a framework for regular sales
of wheat and corn. Under this agreement, the Soviet Union is
committed to purchase a minimum of six million metric tons of
corn and wheat annually at market prices. This assures the
American farmer that the Soviet Union will be a regular grain
buyer and calmed consumer unrest over erratic soviet purchases.
On August 12, 1975, Secretary Butz and Japan's Agriculture
Minister announced an informal agreement whereby the Japanese
are expected to purchase approximately 3 million tons of wheat,
3 million tons of soybeans, and 8 million tons of feedgrains
in each of the following three years at market prices.
The Trade Act of 1974 provides the President with the
negotiating tools needed to seek further liberalization of
world trade. The first general round of Multilateral Trade
Negotiations in underway in Geneva with a major goal being a
freer trade system which could benefit American agriculture
through increased exports of farm products. The Administration
holds. the position that trade concessions should be negotiated
for industrial and agricultural goods simultaneously.
In early 1976 the President took a position against restraints
on trade in asparagus and again in early September he took a
similar position on trade in honey.
Palm Oil Policy. On July 29, 1976, the USDA announced that
henceforth the United States would oppose financing by the World
Bank and similar international agencies for the expansion of
palm oil production in other nations for export.
Food Grain Reserves. On September 1, 1975, Secretary of State
Kissinger outlined to the UN General Assembly the U.S. proposal
for an international food grain reserve that would allocate
responsibility for holding reserves based on wealth, production
and trade; provide quantitative triggers for the release and
acquisition of reserves; give assured access to supplies to
nations which fully participate; and grant special assistance
to developing countries.
-8-
Milk. On March 26, 1976, the President signed a proclamation that
stops the evasion of import quotas in nonfat dry milk. The
proclamation establishes a zero import quota on mixtures of
nonfat dry milk and other ingredients.
Secretary Butz on January 3 and October 1, 1975 and again on
April 1, 1976, announced increases in the support price for
milk which provided 80 percent of parity at those times. This
was done to encourage dairy farmers to increase production
and continue dairy farming in the face of higher input costs.
On January 30, 1976, President Ford vetoed S.J. Res. 121, which
provided for milk price supports at 85 percent of parity with
quarterly adjustments in the support levels. The President
stated that the higher supports would saddle taxpayers with
additional spending, would stimulate excessive production of
milk and lead to larger surpluses and would increase consumer
prices. This veto was sustained on February 4 in the Senate.
The President has directed the Secretary of Agriculture to
review dairy price supports quarterly.
Wheat. The Secretary of Agriculture on April 10, 1976, increased
the wheat crop allotment to 61.6 million acres for 1976 from 53.3
million acres in 1975. This measure gives farmers additional
income and disaster protection without disrupting production
for commercial markets.
Sugar. President Ford issued a proclamation on the Establishment
of Tariffs and Quotas of Certain Sugars, Syrups and Molasses on
November 18, 1974, increasing the sugar import quota effective
January 1, 1975, to 7 million short tons in order to encourage
the import of additional sugar for domestic consumption and
thus moderate sugar prices.
In the beginning of August 1976 the interagency task force on
sugar reconvened to investigate causes of sugar price decline
and prospects for domestic sugar producers.
Coffee. The Administration supported the International Coffee
Agreement negotiated in the winter of 1975/76 and ratified by
the Senate in the summer of 1976.
Fuel and Fertilizer Supplies. Fuel and fertilizer monitoring
activities were instituted by USDA in the Spring of 1973 so that
scarce supplies could be reallocated and maximum food production
maintained during a period of scarce input supplies. An
Interagency Fertilizer Task Force continues to monitor fertilizer
exports, plant capacity, and inventories. Fertilizer prices are
down sharply from 1974-75 levels.
-9-
Beef and
Cotton Promotion. The President signed the Beef
Research
and Information Act in May 1976 and the Cotton
Promotiu
Act in July 1976 to facilitate producers' efforts
to pool 1 heir resources for marketing and research activities.
PCL
9/15/76
ISSUE: Rural Development
Administration Position
Rural development means making rural America a better place to
live and to work. To achieve this, rural areas must provide:
-- Improved conditions for economic development (including
a prosperous agriculture and increased non-farm jobs
opportunities) ;
opportunities for human resource development (including
better community, health and education resources and programs) ;
more adequate community facilities and improved physical
environment; and
-- and equitable distribution of these benefits among the
population.
Early in the 1970's the long outmigration of millions of rural
and smalltown people to urban centers reversed. Rural areas
are now growing at a faster rate than metropolitan areas.
Nonmetropolitan non-farm job opportunities are increasing at
a rate twice as fast as job opportunities in city areas. The
principal forces generating changes in rural areas during the
last half of the 1970's will continue to be local community leader-
ship and the free enterprise system. Governmental financial
and technical assistance can supplement, but cannot substitute
for, those two factors. Federal assistance will not be avail-
able in sufficient quantities to determine the course of
development in rural areas. Nor can Federal officials
effectively coordinate developmental processes. State
and local governments and leadership must provide the primary
coordination and direction for community development.
Administration Actions
The Administration policies for a market-oriented agriculture to
meet domestic and export food needs have contributed significantly
to the welfare of rural people. Under these policies, since
passage of the 1973 Farm Bill, average net farm income has
more than doubled over the level of the 1960's. This has had a
major multiplier impact on rural businesses and employment.
The Administration favors efforts by FmHA to supplement credit
available from the private sector and wants to assure that
resources will be provided for a balance of growth between
rural and urban sectors of American society. In this regard,
the Administration is supporting enactment of H.R. 14641, a
-2-
bill which substantially increases the Farmers Home Administration
loan limits for farm operating and ownership loans, and expands
eligibility to include family farm partnerships and corporations.
On July 12, 1976, the President signed the Department of
Agriculture Appropriation Bill for fiscal year 1977, which
increases farm ownership and other agriculture assistance loans
by $150 million over this year, and signed PL 94-305, which makes
it clear that the SBA shall provide financial assistance to small
agricultural enterprises which cannot obtain financial assistance
on reasonable terms from non-Federal sources. This latter action
makes the SBA business loan and disaster loan programs available
to help farmers to finance growth and modernization, to re-
habilitate property damaged by natural disasters and to comply
with certain health, safety and environmental statutes and
regulations.
In addition to major new programs instituted to assist community
development and to stimulate business and industrial growth in
rural America, the Administration has greatly expanded existing
Department of Agriculture programs to provide housing, electricity,
community facilities and other benefits to rural citizens.
In addition to its regular REA loans to help rural areas meet
electric and telephone service needs, the Administration has
implemented the REA loan guarantee program to assure financing
for construction of power generation facilities in rural areas.
During fiscal year 1975, the commitment level for guaranteed
electric loan was $1.2 billion.
The Administration's housing policy for small towns and rural
areas, as well as for urban and suburban neighborhoods, is to
facilitate the development of housing in the private market.
Direct Federal assistance is also provided for low-income families
to enable them to obtain decent housing and suitable living
environments. Three major Federal agencies-the Farmers Home
Administration in the USDA, HUD, and the VA-administer housing
programs which assist rural families of modest means gain access
to ownership or rental of adequate housing. Although HUD is
often depicted as an "urban" oriented agency 20-25 percent of
its subsidized housing assistance is earmarked for non-
metropolitan areas by law. In furtherance of this mission, the
President recently signed the USDA Appropriations Bill for fiscal
year 1977, which provides for over $3.7 billion in housing loans
and grants-an increase of $500 million from the fiscal 1976
appropriated level.
-3-
Our total Farmers Home Administration and Rural Electrification
loan and grant programs were an estimated $8 billion in 1976
versus $1.9 billion 1969. Those FmHA and REA programs break
out this way: Agricultural credit programs in 1976 were an
estimated $1.8 billion, more than twice as large as the $710
million in 1969. Housing loans were over $2.5 billion versus
$498 million in 1969; Community programs, $767 million vs.
$189 million; Business and Industrial programs, $350 million
vs. none; Rural Electrification programs, $2.6 billion vs.
$470 million.
In 1975, the Administration allocated $9.65 million to the
Rural Highway Public Transportation Demonstration Program as
a new grant program under the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973
to improve the quality and effectiveness of public trans-
portation in rural areas. Under this two year demonstration
program the full amount was obligated for 1976 and 1977 programs
along with $15 million of FY 1976 funds.
The Administration has proposed a comprehensive Rural Trans-
portation Assistance Program in a highway bill that would consolidate
several existing programs and give State and local governments
increased program flexibility.
The President has also made two important transportation
regulatory reform proposals which will be very helpful to rural
areas: (1) The Administration's proposed Aviation Act of 1975
will yield major benefits to the nation's air travelers. It will
be especially important to small communities who have suffered a
continuous erosion in the availability of air service, largely
because of the presently overly restrictive regulatory system;
and (2) the proposed Motor Carrier Reform Act will improve service
to small communities by relaxing regulatory restrictions on entry
and pricing which currently make small community freight un-
attractive to some carriers.
The Department of Agriculture has established a program to pro-
vide one-stop Agricultural Service Centers to improve delivery
of agricultural conservation and community development programs
for rural areas. As of July 30, 1976, over 1119 centers have been
designated and about 456 were operational.
Several other departments and agencies of the Federal government
devoted major resources to rural development. These include
the Department of Commerce, the Department of Health, Education
and Welfare, the Department of Housing and Urban Development
-4- -
and the Small Business Administration. Among other Administration
programs which make significant contributions to growth and the
quality of life in the rural sector are programs flowing from the
Housing and Community Development Act, the National Health
Planning and Resource Development Act, and the Comprehensive
Employment and Training Act. On the whole, the Administration
has substantially expanded the scope and the funding levels
of federal programs providing rural development assistance.
PCL
9/1/576
- 70 -
AGRICULTURE
"Over one-half of the grain moving across international
boundaries throughout the world is grown by you, the American
farmer, and we are proud of your efforts and your results
It is imperative that you maintain the freedom to market
crops and to find customers wherever you can. Strong
agricultural exports are basic to America's farm policy
and the freedom of every farmer to manage his own farm
"
- President Gerald R. Ford
January 5, 1976
The two years of President Ford's Administration have
been among the best years in the history of agriculture.
Combining a new market-oriented, full-protection food
policy with expanded markets and a leveling trend in
production costs, producers have increased net farm income
from an average of $24 billion in 1972-73 to a $26 billion
average during the past two years.
Freed of production controls on wheat, feed grains, and
cotton, growers have put over 57 million "set-aside" acres
back to work. Peaceful world conditions coupled with growing
demand have enabled U. S. farmers to expand their exports
in 1976 to an expected $22 billion -- an all-time high.
By comparison, farm exports in 1972 were at $8 billion.
The President's inflation efforts, which have lowered
the rate of annual inflation from twelve percent in the
1973-74 period to roughly six percent today, have also
stabilized the long upward surge in farm production expenses.
These efforts slowed retail food prices rises to three to
four percent in 1976 compared to a fourteen and one-half
percent rise in the 1973-early 1974 period.
The President also launched, in 1974, a far-reaching
effort to relieve emergency global foods needs and to
provide developing nations with economic, trade, credit
and other self-help assistance. He asked all nations to
join in a global food and energy strategy at the 1974
World Food Conference. In the last year, he consummated
a five-year grain sales agreement with Russia that will benefit
both American producers and American consumers. In addition,
the Administration set up a system to continuously monitor
export sales of farm commodities following global shortfalls
in grain production.
- 71 -
Under the leadership of President Ford and
Secretary Butz, the Administration has also:
-- Taken steps to assure that global grain reserves
will be held in private hands and by consuming nations.
-- Made it clear that farm embargoes would be a thing
of the past.
-- Launched a strong effort to reduce Federal estate
taxes to enable farmers to keep their farms in the family.
-- Cleaned up abuses in grain export inspections.
-- Supported bonding of livestock packers so farmers
will receive payment for livestock in case of packer
bankruptcy.
-- Negotiated voluntary import quotas on beef.
-- Announced in July, 1976 a "School Lunch" beef purchasing
program that will help alleviate unprofitable conditions
faced by beef producers.
-- Provided emergency relief to numerous rural areas
affected by drought, flood and other adverse weather
conditions.
-- Increased Commodity Credit Corporation loan rates
(in February, 1976) for corn from $1.10 to $1.25 and for
wheat from $1.37 to $1.50, while reinstating a soybean
loan program with a loan rate of $2.50 per bushel.
President Ford also stopped evasion of non-fat dried
milk import quotas, increased the support price of milk
three times during the past two years to bring it to
80 percent of parity, and embarked upon a massive effort
to relieve farmers and others of unnecessary, costly and
unwise regulation and red tape flowing from Federal depart-
ments and agencies.
As a result of actions by the Ford Administration net
farm assets increased from $313 billion in 1973 to
$427 billion in 1975. During the last two years the decline
in the number of operating farms has been reversed, and the
farm population has been stabilized. In short, progress on
the farm front has been solid and substantial.
THE PRESIDENT HAS SEEN
SUMMARY
Source: Domestic Council
Issues Book
ISSUE:
Grain Exports
Administration Position
On January 5, 1976, the President said:
"I want to remind those who would minimize our national strength
that over one-half of the grain moving across international
boundaries throughout the world is grown by you, the American
farmer, and we are proud of your efforts and your results
It is imperative that you maintain the freedom to market crops
and to find customers wherever you can. Strong agricultural
exports are basic to America's farm policy and the freedom of
every farmer to manage his own farm.
"You should be rewarded
for producing each year much
more than we consume at home. You must -- and I emphasize must
-- export two-thirds of each year's wheat crop or cut back
production. You must export 50 percent of our soybeans or cut
back production. You must be able to export more than 55 percen
of your rice crop or cut back production. You must be able to
export 40 percent of your cotton or cut back production. You
must export at least one-fourth of your feed grain or cut back
production.
"In short, you must export to keep farming profitable in America
You must export if we are to keep a favorable balance of United
States international trade. You must export if you are to
prosper and the world is to eat. This is the farm policy that
is bringing new life to our rural countryside.
"Food, as all of you know, is now our number one source of
foreign exchange. Farm exports last year totaled nearly
$22 billion. Our favorable $12 billion balance in international
agricultural trade offsets deficits in nonagricultural trade.
It strengthens the American dollar abroad. This helps to pay
for the pertoleum and other imports that are vitally essential
to maintain America's high standard of living
"Last summer, the Soviets suffered another extremely short crop.
They, again, turned to the United States' farmers for supplement
grain supplies. A temporary hold on new sales to the Soviets We
made only after they had become our largest foreign customer by
purchasing 9.8 million metric tons of grain -- 375 million bush
There was, as you know, deep concern at that time about our own
corn crop. Although the wheat harvest was nearly completed by
July, our feed grain crop was still somewhat uncertain
Pressures in the Congress were increasing to halt all private g:
sales and put agricultural exports in the hands of a Government
management and control board. I did not, and do not, want the
Government running your business 365 days a year, year in and
year out."
"It was a unique situation that required corrective action
and long term solution. A temporary hold on the new sales
permitted us to work out a five-year agreement with the
Russians. Since then, in the open market we have made sub-
stantial new sales to the Soviet Union and to Poland
"This new agreement now assures that the Russians will
purchase at least 6 million metric tons of U.S. corn and
wheat each year for the next five years In addition
to the annual Russian purchase commitment of 228 million
bushels of wheat and corn, this agreement provides an option
to purchase an additional 76 million bushels annually. All
purchases will be at market prices through the private sector.
If the Russians wish to purchase more than 304 million bushels
in any year, it is possible under the agreement. There is
no arbitrary and inflexible ceiling.
"
This agreement is in the interest of both the American
farmer and the American consumer. It prevents the Soviets
from disrupting our markets. As we have seen over the years,
disruptive and unpredictable purchases lead to such problems
as Congressional demands for export control and the refusal
of unions to handle grain shipments. We have now assured
American grain producers that at planting time they will have
a much more reliable indication of how large an export market
there will be at harvest time, and that is good for all of us.
"The American livestock producer will have a better idea of
his feed supply. The American consumer will know that grain
will be moving overseas in a regular flow and be assured there
will be adequate food at home.
"We have transformed occasional and erratic customers into
regular customers. We have averted an outcry every year that
the Russians are coming to make secret purchases in our
markets. The private marketing system has been preserved.
Record exports are moving right now
11
Presidential Documents
Vol. 12, No. 2,Pg. 23
Administration Actions
The Administration supports farm policies which foster a
market-oriented agriculture to return basic management
responsibilities to farmers as they produce for domestic
and export markets.
-3-
The Administration has supported a policy of no acreage
restrictions for wheat, feedgrains and cotton starting with
crop year 1974. This has been done to insure adequate supplies
to meet both domestic and export demands while avoiding
significant inflationary pressures on food prices. The
Administration will start a similar program for rice in 1976.
President Ford vetoed the Emergency Agricultural Act of 1975
(Farm Bill) on May 1, 1975, because of provisions that would
jeopardize the U.S. competitive advantage in world markets
and lead to government-held surpluses.
The USDA implemented an export monitoring system as required
by the Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973 in
September 1973. In view of the weather-induced shortfall in
U.S. grain and soybean production, Secretary Butz announced
in October 1974 a voluntary export prior approval system as
a means of developing current information on export demand.
On March 6, 1975, the USDA announced the termination of the
voluntary approval system, but retained the weekly export
monitoring system and daily reporting for large sales of grain.
On July 24, 1975, the Department asked grain exporters to
notify the USDA before negotiating further grain sales to
the Soviet Union pending clarification of the U.S. grain
crop situation and negotiation of a long-term agreement on
grain sales to the Soviets. On October 20, 1975, the President
announced an agreement with the Soviet Union on grain purchases
and resumption of grain sale negotiations. This agreement,
which relates to five crop years, commencing October 1, 1976,
and running to September 30, 1981, is designed to benefit
American farmers and consumers by providing a framework for
regular sales of wheat and corn. Under this agreement, the
Soviet Union is committed to purchase a minimum of six million
metric tons of corn and wheat annually at market prices. This
assures the American farmer that the Soviet Union will be a
regular grain buyer.
On August 12, 1975, Secretary Butz and Japan's Agriculture
Minister announced an informal agreement whereby the Japanese
are expected to purchase approximately 3 million tons of wheat,
3 million tons of soybeans, and 8 million tons of feedgrains
in each of the following three years at market prices.
On September 1, 1975, Secretary of State Kissinger outlined
to the UN General Assembly the U.S. proposal for an inter-
national food grain reserve that would allocate responsibility
for holding reserves based on wealth, production and trade;
provide quantitative triggers for the release and acquisition
of reserves; give assured access to supplies to nations which
fully participate; and grant special assistance to developing
countries.
-4-
The Trade Act of 1974 provides the President with the
negotiating tools needed to seek further liberalization of
world trade. The first general round of Multilateral Trade
Negotiations is underway in Geneva with a major goal being a
freer trade system which could benefit American agriculture
through increased exports of farm products. The Administration
holds the position that trade concessions should be negotiated
for industrial and agricultural goods simultaneously.
On March 5, 1976, President Ford created a new Agricultural
Policy Committee with Secretary Butz as chairman. This
Committee replaced two prior committees and consolidated and
streamlined domestic and international food policy making
under a single group.
PCL
5/24/76
Source: Domestic Council Issues Book
ISSUE:
US-Soviet Relations
Administration Position
The President said on March 5, 1976, at Bradley University,
"Let me say very specifically that we are going to forget the
use of the word detente. I said that back in August of 1975,
when I spoke to the American Legion in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
"The word is inconsequential. What happens in the
negotiations between the United States and the Soviet Union,
what happens in the negotiations between the People's Republic
of China and the United States -- those are the things that
are of consequence.
"Now, this Administration believes that we have an obligatio:
not to go back to the cold war where confrontation in effect
took place literally every day of the year. We have an
obligation to try and meet every problem individually,
specifically, every issue as it comes up in an effort to
negotiate rather than to confront, whether it is with the Soviet
Union or the People's Republic of China.
"We can do this effectively if we have the strength
militarily and otherwise to have a two-way street. Now, the
United States, despite what some critics have said, has not
under any circumstances gotten the short end of the deal. We
are good Yankee traders, and we have done darn well by the
United States.
"Now, let's take the grain sales to the Soviet Union. I
know some candidates for the Presidency have said that we
ought to not make any sales, that we ought to buy all the grain
from the farmers and store them in Government-owned warehouses,
put that heavy lid over the price structure of our agriculture
at a cost, as it was some ten years ago, of $1 billion a day,
about $400 million a year.
"That is what it costs to store grain when we were not
selling it overseas. I just don't think we should make our
farm export problem the pawn of the international politics.
By strong, effective negotiations we came out with a good
agricultural deal with the Soviet Union.
"If we get a SALT II agreement that will keep a lid on
strategic arms in the next seven to ten years, it will be to
the benefit of the United States.
-2-
"Let me ask this very simple question: Is it better to have
a mutual limit of 2,400 launchers and 1,320 MIRV missiles --
isn't that better than having 4,000 or 5,000 launchers or 2,000
or 4,000 MIRV missiles?
"Isn't that better for all of us? It really would be better
if we could go below 2,400 and 1,320 as long as we had rough
equivalents between the two super-powers.
"If we had an open thermonuclear arms race, that is not in
the best interest of the United Stares or the world as a whole.
We have an obligation to have rough equivalency that will deter
aggression, either by us or by them and permit us to do some
things that are needed and necessary for the world as a whole,
as well as for the United States.
"Any of these people that challenges us in these kinds of
day-to-day negotiations, issue by issue, problem by problem,
have not been in the ball game. They have lots of rhetoric,
but I don't think they understand the problems."
Presidential Documents
Vol. 12, No. 11, p. 350
From the outset of his Administration, the President has stresse
his commitment to work for improved relations with the Soviet
Union. The effort to achieve a more constructive relationship
with the USSR expresses the continuing desire of the vast majori
of the American people for easing international tensions and
reducing the chances of war while at the same time safeguarding
our vital interests and our security.
The President has stated that the United States is the strongest
nation on earth. Our military might is unmatched. Our economic
and technological strength dwarf any other. Our heritage as a
democracy of free people is envied by hundreds of millions aroun
the world. In virtually every aspect of human endeavor, we are
the most advanced country anywhere.
At the same time, the Soviet Union is a growing superpower.
Because the United States and the Soviets are political opponent
and military rivals, the US-Soviet relationship in this nuclear
age has the most profound implications for global survival. Whe
the President uses the term "peace through strength" to discuss
our approach to the US-Soviet relationship, it is not because
there has been a change in U.S. policy -- it is because he wants
that policy to be clearly understood.
From the U.S. position of strength, it is the President's policy
to assure the security of the United States. In U.S. dealings
with the Soviet Union, it is the President's policy to move be-
yond an era of constant confrontations and crises, to prevent
This is a policy involving mutual restraint, mutual respect and mutual
benefit. There is no give-away, no one-way street. We pursue this
policy because it is in our national interest to do SO.
Administration Actions
In November 1974 at Vladivostok the President and General Secretary
Brezhnev agreed on the general framework for a new strategic arms agree-
ment that will set firm and equal limits on the strategic forces of both sides
through 1985. The United States and the Soviet Union are currently engaged
in negotiations to translate the Vladivostok accord into a formal ten-year
agreement.
We have taken historic and positive steps to limit strategic arms,
steps that safeguard our vital interests while for the first time, promising
to cap the growth of Soviet and American nuclear weapons at equal levels.
Through mutual agreement, we have avoided a very costly and strategically
futile ABM race -- in our current negotiations we are seeking to avoid a
very costly and strategically futile offensive arms race. This is in our
interests; our security is fully safeguarded in this process.
We have successfully negotiated the Threshold Test Ban and Peace-
ful Nuclear Explosives Treaties which impose a 150 kiloton limit on, and
govern the conduct of all underground nuclear explosives.
In trade, we have reached agreements on grain, assuring income to
American farmers and the enormously productive U.S. agricultural sector,
earning foreign exchange for our economy and protecting American consumers
from fluctuations in grain prices due to Soviet actions in the international grain
market. We remain vigilant to ensure that US-Soviet trade does not affect out
national security inter' sts. Our country benefits -- in jobs and dollars -- from
the sale of goods to the USSR. This is not a give-away; it is in our interests.
-- The President has made high-level contacts, including meetings at
the summit, a more normal practice. These discussions have increased
the prospects for solutions to problems in our interest; they have lessened
the risk of US-Soviet differences escalating to the flash-point.
The suspicions and rivalries of more than a generation cannot be swept away
in a short time. Our political rivalry and military competition with the
Soviet Union will continue. As the recent past has shown, our policy requires
us simultaneously and with equal vigor to resist expansionist drive.: and to
shape a more constructive relationship. There is no responsible alternative.
NSC
8/9/76
Source:
News Dictionary 1974
U.S.S.R.
437
However, energy-related loans would remain stalled. Attorney General William
Saxbe notified President Nixon March 21 that the procedures followed by the
bank in the past were legal and could be resumed.
[7] The Export-Import Bank announced May 21 it had approved a $180
million bank credit, at 6% interest, to help finance a $2 billion Soviet natural gas
and fertilizer complex. The largest single such loan to date, it brought
Eximbank credits to the Soviet Union to nearly $470 million. A consortium of
private banks, headed by the Bank of America, would provide a matching loan
at a "blended" interest rate of 7.8%. Worked out by Armand Hammer, chairman
of the Occidental Petroleum Corp., the project called for the import by the U.S.
of Soviet fertilizers in exchange for superphosphoric acid from the U.S.
[8] A bill putting restrictions on U.S. government credit to the Soviet Union
was cleared by Congress Dec. 19 for the President. The bill would extend the
lending authority of the Export-Import Bank for four years at a $25 billion level.
It set a $300 million ceiling on credit to the Soviet Union, which the President
could raise if he found it in the national interest, subject to Congressional
approval. The bill also barred any Eximbank credit for production, transport or
distribution of energy from the Soviet Union. A $40 million ceiling was set on
loans or guarantees for exploration of energy in the Soviet Union. Both the
Soviet Union and the U.S. State Department expressed displeasure at the
adoption of the restrictions. State Department officials said Soviet Ambassador
Anatoly Dobrynin had told Kissinger Dec. 18 that Moscow regarded the credit
limitation as a failure of the U.S. to live up to its side of detente.
[9] Trade pacts. Efforts by a group of Congressmen, among them Sen. Henry
M. Jackson (D, Wash.), led to a trade bill offering the Soviet Union most-
favored-nation status in return for easing restrictions on Jewish emigration.
There was opposition to linking trade with emigration from the Administration.
At a Naval Academy commencement speech June 5, President Nixon said, "We
cannot gear our foreign policy to the transformation of other societies."
[10] A key official in the Ford Administration reported Sept. 7 that Moscow and
Washington had reached agreement on the emigration issue, with the U.S.S.R.
agreeing to permit at least 60,000 Jews and other Soviet citizens to emigrate each
year, a 70% increase over 1973's record emigration figures. President Ford and
Soviet Foreign Minister Gromyko held talks in Washington Sept. 20-21. Ford
had met with Sen. Jackson Sept. 20 before seeing Gromyko. Jackson later told
reporters that "the Russians have come 180 degrees" with respect to concessions
on the issue. He noted that the disagreement over the Administration's trade bill
was no longer between Moscow and the U.S. Congress, but, rather, between the
Administration and Congress with the difficulty centering on the legislative form
and language provisions for U.S. review. A formal compromise between the
nations' positions was detailed in an exchange of letters Oct. 18 between
Kissinger and Jackson. Although there was no specific guarantee in the number
of emigrants to be allowed, a White House statement Oct. 21 said, "It will be our
assumption
that
the rate of emigration
would begin to rise promptly from
the 1973 level." In his letter to Jackson, Kissinger listed the "criteria and
practices [which] will henceforth govern emigration from the U.S.S.R.,"
according to Soviet assurances. They barred punitive actions against would-be
emigrants such as job dismissal or demotion, emigration taxes and
"unreasonable or unlawful impediments" to emigration.
[11] Although Jackson and some U.S. Jewish sources had suggested that the
backlog of Soviet Jewish emigration applications totaled as many as 130,000,
Jewish activists in Moscow estimated the backlog at about 80,000. Jewish sources
were divided on whether applications to emigrate would mount in view of the
438
U.S.S.R.
apparent Soviet concessions. Emigration of ethnic Germans was expected to
reach roughly 6,000 in 1974 and by some estimates could rise to 20,000 in 1975,
according to the Oct. 20 report. Other Soviet ethnic minorities had also shown
interest in emigrating. (The emigration of Soviet Jews to Israel dropped by
almost 50% in 1974, according to official figures released Dec. 20 by the Inter-
governmental Committee on European Migration. The committee said 16,537
Soviet Jews had migrated to Israel since Jan. 1; the total for 1973 was 32,500.)
[12] A comprehensive foreign trade bill was passed by the U.S. Congress Dec. 20,
despite strong Soviet denials that the Kremlin had pledged freer emigration of
Jews as a condition for trade benefits. [See below] The Senate passed the bill by a
72-4 vote; the House passed it by a 323-36 vote. In its final version, the bill gave
the President the authority to eliminate tariffs of 5% or lower, and to reduce by
three-fifths tariffs above 5%. The President could negotiate elimination of non-
tariff barriers, on an industry-by-industry basis, subject to Congressional
approval. Tariffs could be eliminated on goods from developing nations, with
exceptions for Communist countries (but not Rumania and Yugoslavia), any
country restricting supplies to the U.S. in a cartel-like operation and countries
discriminating against the U.S. on trade or refusing compensation for
confiscations. Exemptions also were provided for certain goods, such as shoes,
electronics and watches. The bill called for relief to industries hurt by imports
unless the President found it not in the national interest, but Congress could
overrule him. A major provision of the bill would grant trade concessions to the
Soviet Union if Soviet emigration curbs were eased, especially against Jews.
Congress left the Soviet provision intact despite Soviet disavowal Dec. 18 of any
commitment on its part on the issue.
[13] The Soviet Union Dec. 18 disavowed the compromise agreement on the
extension of U.S. trade benefits in exchange for freer Soviet emigration which
had been set forward in a series of letters revealed by Jackson Oct. 18. The
denial, revealed prior to agreement on the bill by a House-Senate conference
committee that night, was brushed aside by congressmen as a "face-saving"
gesture. The statement distributed by the official Soviet press agency Tass
asserted that "leading circles" in the U.S.S.R. "flatly reject as unacceptable" any
attempts to attach conditions to the extension of trade benefits or to otherwise
"interfere in the internal affairs" of the Soviet Union. Accompanying the
statement, Tass also circulated a letter, dated Oct. 26, from Foreign Minister
Gromyko to Kissinger, in which Gromyko rejected the content of the letter
exchange documented by Jackson as presenting "a distorted picture of our
position."
[14] Soviet grain purchases. Officials of two major U.S. grain exporting firms
agreed Oct. 5 to cancel Soviet orders for corn and wheat valued at $500 million
after meeting at the White House with President Ford, Treasury Secretary
William E. Simon and Agriculture Secretary Earl L. Butz. In a statement issued
later that day, the White House said that at the meeting with representatives of
Continental Grain Co. and Cook Industries Inc., Ford had "expressed his strong
concern about the potential domestic impact that such sales could have at a time
when the U.S. is experiencing a disappointing harvest of feed grains." The
Senate Permanent Investigations Subcommittee had issued a final report July 28
of its study of the controversial sale of massive supplies of U.S. grain to the
Soviet Union in 1972. Butz and two former assistant secretaries, Clarence Palmby
and Carroll Brunthaver, were singled out for responsibility for what the subcom-
mittee termed a "$300 million error in judgment" that had resulted in depleted
U.S. grain reserves, farm product shortages, higher food prices and the current
crisis in the livestock industry. The panel, which was chaired by Sen. Jackson,
was critical of the Administration's handling of the grain sale. "The Russians
U.S.S.R.
439
and the large [U.S.] grain [exporting] companies reaped the major benefits,"
Jackson said. Subsidies costing $300 million were paid to the six exporting firms
serving as middlemen in the deal. These payments were "unjustified," according
to the committee, which added that the government's Commodity Exchange
Authority was "derelict in its oversight responsibility" when it mishandled an
investigation into possible market manipulation by the exporting companies.
The Genral Accounting Office had concluded Feb. 13 that there was no evidence
that the exporting firms had reaped excessive profits from the Soviet deal or
profited from inside information. Three of the companies lost money on the sale,
according to the GAO. However, the exporting companies eventually profited
from the sale, the GAO said, because the Soviet transaction pushed up domestic
grain prices and subsequently, federal subsidies paid to exporters.
[15] Simon announced Oct. 19 that the Soviet Union would be allowed to
purchase up to 1.2 million metric tons of U.S. wheat and 1 million tons of corn,
valued at an estimated $380 million, through June 30, 1975. The Soviets had
agreed not to make any "further purchases in the U.S. market crop this year,"
Simon added. According to arrangements for the new grain sale negotiated by
Simon during an Oct 13-16 visit to Moscow, the Soviet Union also agreed that
shipments would be made in phased intervals to further minimize the disruptive
effects of the purchase on the U.S. market.
Dissidents
[16] Andrei Sakharov. In excerpts from the introduction to a forthcoming
collection of Andrei Sakharov's writings, published by the New York Times
March 5, the nuclear physicist called on "all international organizations
concerned
to abandon their policy of non-intervention in the internal affairs
of the socialist countries as regards defending human rights and to manifest the
utmost persistence." He specifically cited 1.7 million Soviet prisoners suffering
under "malnutrition, pitiless formalism, and repressions."
[17] During the year Sakharov and other protestors appealed to prominent
figures on behalf of a number of imprisoned dissidents, among whom was
biologist Vladimir Bukovsky, who was reported in fragile health in the
punishment cells of a labor camp where he was serving five years of a 12-year
sentence for anti-Soviet activities. It was reported June 14 that Bukovsky had
been moved from the camp to a prison near Moscow. Sakharov began a hunger
strike June 29 to protest "the illegal and brutal repression of political pris-
oners," specifically citing the Bukovsky case. Sakharov said he was taking the
step to reinforce his appeal, made in a letter earlier in the week, to President
Nixon and Soviet leader Brezhnev, to deal with the issue of human rights.
Sakharov said July 4 he had abandoned the hunger strike for medical reasons.
Sakharov, his wife and four other persons signed an appeal to the West on
behalf of mathematician Leonid Plyushch, who was reported near death after
being incarcerated for over a year, it had been reported Feb. 9. Sakharov charged
drugs were used on Plyushch which had removed his ability to read, write or
exercise. Over 500 French mathematicians signed an appeal Feb. 7 for Plyushch
and fellow mathematician Yuri Shikhanovich, also being held in a mental
hospital. Shikhanovich was reported released July 18.
[18] Moscow cut off the TV broadcasts of three major U.S. networks July 2 as
American correspondents, in the Soviet Union for Nixon's visit, tried to send
filmed reports on Soviet dissident activities. Two of the broadcasts included
interviews with Sakharov. Despite several attempts to broadcast explanations of
the interruptions as well as the reports themselves, the networks were each time
blacked out within seconds.
[19] Other dissidents. Viktor Nekrasov, 62, awarded the Stalin prize in 1947 for
COMPILATION OF STATEMENTS
REMARKS OF THE PRESIDENT
AND QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION
AT THE
VAIL SYMPOSIUM
August 15, 1975
QUESTION: Mr. President, in the face of the
growing pressures to increase our food production, what
type of trade-offs do you foresee between coal and
energy development and agriculture, particularly as
they are competing for land and water?
THE PRESIDENT: We are, of course, trying to
expand our overall land available for food production
because the United States, fortunately, is the bread-
basket of the world.
We have this as one of our great assets, not
only from the point of view of helping people in less
well-off countries; from a humanitarian point of view,
but also for the implementation of our national policies
on the international scene.
We want our farmers to have the availability
to produce as much as they can because it is in our
national interest.
If there is a need also for some of this avail-
able land for the development of coal, we will have to
be cognizant of the competing needs. I can't make a
decision here today on how many acres are going to be
reserved for agriculture and how many will be made
available for coal production.
It is like the question we are faced with right
now on whether we should or shouldn't sell additional
grain to the Soviet Union. We have to be cognizant, and
very properly so, of the prices received by the American
farmers.
After all, last fall we urged the American
farmer to produce everything he possible could in wheat,
corn, et cetera and, in return, we impliedly promised
that he would get a fair return on his land, his equipment
and his efforts.
- 2 -
Vail Symposium
August 15, 1975
On the other hand, we can't be lacking in
attention or cognizance because the impact of further
grain sales to the Soviet Union will affect the Consumer
Price Index.
So, it is one of those narrow balanced decisions
where you have to take potentially competing interests
and try to be fair and equitable to all.
In the case of coal -- energy, in this case,
vis-a-vis farmland -- we have to again use our best judg-
ment. We aren't going to tear land up and just turn it
over to coal. On the other hand, we do have, I am sure,
sufficient coal land in the West that can be utilized for
coal production under proper env ronmental restrictions
and still not seriously undercut our food supply in this
country.
I can't give you a percentage figure, but I
can assure you we are not lagging in cognizance of the
problem and will use our very best judgment.
REMARKS OF THE PRESIDENT
AND
QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION
August 20, 1975
Vail, Colorado
QUESTION: Mr. President, we know that you
realize the problem, but I would like to emphasize one
thing that when the present Administration, your Adminis-
tration, asked us to increase production, all of that
production has to be exported because we were producing
more than we needed, and we would just like to emphasize
that we must have access to these world markets.
THE PRESIDENT: I am sure you know that we
have sold so far about 9.8 million tons to the Soviet
Union. They have had a serious crop failure. The
extent of that crop failure is not known precisely at
this time, but I think most knowledgeable people recognize
that they undoubtedly will be in the market for
additional sales.
How much that will be, no one knows at this
time, but if we act, I think, reasonably and rationally
in this situation, the extra production, the full pro-
duction that the farmer was asked to undertake earlier
this year and late last year in the winter wheat crop,
I am sure that the price of wheat, the price of corn, will
be a good price and will return a good net income to
the American farmer.
I think most of you know, I am sure better
than I, that in the last month there has been -- maybe
a month and a half -- there has been an increase in the
price of wheat from around $3 to around $4 a bushel.
The price of corn has gone from roughly $2.50
a bushel up to about $3 a bushel. These price increases
under the market conditions I think are fully justified.
I don't think we want to have the kind of total disturbance
in the market that took place in some of the years past.
It is better for the farmer, I think, to have
a solid income, a good net income, and we are going to
make sure that that takes place.
- 2 -
Vail, Colorado
August 20, 1975
QUESTION: Mr. President, as I am sure you know,
producers are very much concerned about the recent action
of the longshoremen. In the first six months of this
year, the price of wheat went down about one-third to us.
The price of bread did not go down and, in fact, may have
increased.
My question to you now is, can you tell us any
very recent development in the longshoremen's action to
not load our grain?
THE PRESIDENT: It is my judgment that the best
way to solve that problem is to lower our voices and to
try and work out a negotiated settlement.
I expect to be in communication with the
Secretary of Labor, who is in contact with the people in
the labor movement, but it seems to me rather than to
accelerate the confrontation, it is better if we more or
less lower our voides and try to negotiate a settlement.
I think it is obvious that if everybody talks
loudly, it makes it more difficult for us to get an
answer. People get frozen into positions.
I think the differences are soluble, and I am
working on it today to try and bring the parties together
so we can talk in a rational, reasonable way in trying to
protect the interests not only of the farmer, but American
labor, the consumer and the country as a whole.
If we just lower our voices a bit, I think we
can solve the problem so we will ship the grain, the
farmer will get his product on the world market, where it
ought to be, and the consumers' interests will likewise
be protected.
QUESTION: Mr. President, it is a real pleasure
to have you with us. I will thank you for making most of my
speech, and you did a real good job. You sure did.
He knows something about it, and that is just great.
THE PRESIDENT: You know a lot more about it than
I do. I am learning though.
- 3 -
Vail, Colorado
August 20, 1975
QUESTION: Well, I think you just did great. He
was quoting facts and figures that we have been talking
about here the last few days.
As you know, Mr. President, two out of every three
bushels of wheat we produced this year must find a home over-
seas if our wheat farmers are to have the solid income that
you speak about.
And I was so glad to hear your remarks, but our
farmers, our wheat farmers are really concerned that the
gate is not wide open now, and we just hope that it can be
opened, the export gate can be opened wide soon because
they are concerned.
We can export 1.2 billion bushels of wheat and
still have more wheat than we had last year, in fact, enough
for all of our domestic food uses for another year in
1975.
Thank you, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: As I indicated, production is up
about 19 percent, and 90 percent of the total wheat crop of
winter and spring wheat is in already, and the rest will
be in the next month or SO.
Wheat is one of the very important products we want
to sell overseas. Corn is another one. The corn crop --
it won't be as firm by September as the wheat crop will be,
but at least we will have a better fix on where we are. I am
convinced that when we get those facts together and get the
parties down to seeing what we can do, we want the grain
shipped overseas.
As I said in my speech in Des Moines the other
day, last year the total American agricultural shipment
overseas was about $22 billion. We shipped in other
agricultural commodities- I recall, about $10 billion.
So we had a net surplus of roughly $12 billion.
If we had not had that surplus in our balance
of trade from our tremendous agricultural production, this
country would be in serious straits right now, particularly
with the impact of the foreign oil that has risen in price
very substantially, so we need this overseas sale of
American agriculture. And we are going to find a way to make
it certain.
- 4-
Vail, Colorado
August 20, 1975
But I think if we all just cool it a bit. it will
be in the best interests of everybody until we can sit down
and refine the issues in the first place, the issues of the
consumer, from the point of view of one part of our
society.
The maritime industry feels they have been
shortchanged because instead of getting a third of the
grain shipments, as they were promised, they have ended up
with about 21 percent or less. And we are in the process
right now of negotiating with the Soviet Union to try and
get a better freight rate for American bottoms. This
is another aspect of the problem.
It is my recollection that on Monday of this week, -
the Department of Commerce people met with the Soviet
negotiators trying to get a better price, better freight
rate if that is the right term -- so that more arican
bottoms can be involved in the shipment of Am: deen agriculture
to the Soviet Union, SC there are many, many pieces of
this very complicated problem.
And I can assure you that I and this Administration
are on top of it, and we have good people WC: -ng on it.
But if we just cool it a little bit for the time being, then
I am confident we can find some answers,
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
SEPTEMBER 9, 1975
Office of the White House Press Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
The purchase by the Soviet Union of wheat and feed grains in the United
States has been highly erratic over the years. The following table shows
these purchases for recent years, including purchases to date for the
1975-76 season:
Feed
Years
Grains
Wheat
Total
(in millions of metric tons)
1971-72
2.8
0.0
2.8
1972-73
4.2
9.5
13.7
1973-74
3.4
2.7
6.1
1974-75
.8
1.0
1.8
1975-76 (to date)
5.8
4.4
10.2
The considerable variation in large bulk purchases by a single state
trading company contrasts with the more steady purchases of these grains
by such customers as commercial enterprises in Japan and Western
Europe. Because these purchases are highly variable and uncertain,
American farmers have not been able to count on this market in their
planting intentions to the extent they have on other foreign purchasers.
Moreover, highly volatile and unpredictable purchases emerging after
the crop planting tend to contribute to price instability.
It would contribute materially to the interests of the American farmer,
workers in the transportation industries and American consumers, as
well as be in the interests of our customers abroad, if we could develop
a longer-term and more certain purchase understanding with the Soviet
Union, providing among other features for certain minimum purchases.
It will take some time to explore the possibilities of a long-term agreement.
The country must have a new procedure for the sale of feed grains and wheat
to such a large state purchaser as the Soviet Union. I am sending representa-
tives to the Soviet Union at once. I am also establishing a Food Committee
of the Economic Policy Board/National Security Council in my office to
monitor these developments.
(MORE)
September 9, 1975
- 2 -
We have already sold a volume of wheat and feed grains which will take
four to six months to ship at maximum rates of transportation operations.
Accordingly, there is no immediate necessity to decide about further future
sales at this time, and I am extending the present moratorium on sales
to the Soviet Union until mid-October when additional information on
world supplies and demands is available. This extended period should
provide the opportunity to negotiate for a long-term agreement with the
Soviet Union.
Under these circumstances, I am requesting the longshoremen to resume
voluntarily the shipping of American grain while these discussions go
forward, and the matter can be reassessed in the middle of October.
It will be necessary to complete the negotiations over shipping rates
in order to make it possible for American ships to carry wheat and to
assure that at least one-third of the tonnage is carried in American ships,
as provided by the agreement with the Soviet Union which expires on
December 31, 1975, which is also under renegotiation.
#
#
#
INTERVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT
BY
SID DAVIS
WESTINGHOUSE BROADCASTING WASHINGTON
BUREAU CHIEF
STAN BORMAN
BELVA DAVIS
JENNY CRIMM
AND
LYNN JOINER
KPIX-TV
San Francisco, Calif.
Sept. 22, 1975
QUESTION: Mr. Ford, to get on the topic of
energy for a second, it is obvious that Russia needs our
wheat and we need oil. You have been quoted as saying
that it is conceivable and quite possible that America
would negotiate with the Soviets for oil in exchange for
wheat.
Getting out of the possible, the conceivable
realm, is it going to become a reality?
THE PRESIDENT: We have made very substantial,
encouraging, optimistic progress in negotiation with the
Soviet Union for the Soviet Union on a five-year agreement
to buy substantial amounts of American grain, a set
amount as a minimum and potentially more on an option
basis.
This would help to equalize the purchases over
a period of time instead of the wide fluctuations where
one year they buy very little, the next year they buy a
tremendous amount.
We think that a firm, long-term wheat or grain
agreement with the Soviet Union is good for the American
agriculture, for the farmers, for the consumers.
It also will increase the, I think, effectiveness
of detente between the Soviet Union and the United States.
- 2 -
San Francisco
Sept. 22, 1975
We hope to have an answer on this problem
within the very near future and I might add that, if it
is signed, we will also get an additional benefit and
this important here in the Bay area, the West Coast,
in that we will get a better freight rate for American
ships in the delivery or the shipment of American
grain to Soviet ports, which would mean that about 35
American ships would come out of lay-up and go into
the trade and provide more jobs for American seamen.
So it is a complicated but very intriguing
and, I think, important negotiation. I am optimistic
that it will work out.
QUESTION: Yes, but are you going to push for
the oil since we need that so desperately? Are you going
to push for that?
THE PRESIDENT: That is another aspect and
there are discussions and there are potential negotiations
going on between the United States and the Soviet Union,
linking to some extent but not directly, grain and oil.
This is a much more complicated subject. We
have plenty of oil today and an agreement with the
Soviet Union for oil would be sort of a good insurance
policy in case there was an oil embargo from the Middle
East.
If Russia has oil that it wants to sell, and
we need some, which I think would be good insurance, I
think it makes sense to try and get both a grain deal
and an oil deal.
ADDRESS OF THE PRESIDENT
TO THE
JOINT SESSION OF CONGRESS
THE HOUSE CHAMBER
October 8, 1974
America is the world's champion producer of
food. Food prices and petroleum prices in the United
States are primary inflationary factors.
America today partially depends on foreign
sources for petroleum, but we can grow more than
enough food for ourselves.
To halt higher food prices, we must produce
more food, and I call upon every farmer to produce the
full capacity. And I say to you and to the farmers,
they have done a magnificent job in the past, and
we should be eternally grateful.
This Government, however, will do all in
its power to assure him, that farmer, he can sell
his entire yield at reasonable prices. Accordingly,
I ask the Congress to remove all remaining acreage
limitations on rice, peanuts, and cotton.
I also assure America's farmer here and now
that I will allocate all the fuel and ask authority to
allocate all the fertilizer they need to do this
essential job.
Agricultural marketing orders and other
Federal regulations are being reviewed to eliminate
or modify those responsible for inflated prices.
I have directed our new Council on Wage and
Price Stability to find and to expose all restrictive
practices, public or private, which raise food prices.
The Administration will also monitor food production,
margins, pricing, and exports.
We can and we shall have an adequate supply
at home, and through cooperation, meet the needs of our
trading partners abroad.
Over this past weekend we initiated a
voluntary program to monitor grain exports. The
Economic Policy Board will be responsible for
determining the policy under this program.
##
#
#
#
PRESS CONFERENCE NO. 17
of the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
Chicago, Illinois
11:30 A.M. CDT
July 12, 1975
Saturday
QUESTION: Mr. President, the United States is
apparently prepared to approve negotiations of a multi-
term wheat and grain sale with the Soviet Union. Other
countries are facing drought and may ask for sales, too.
My questions are: How much can we sell without
dipping in too much into our harvest this year, and won't
this increase costs of bread and food later this year
to our consumers?
THE PRESIDENT: First, we should thank the
farmers of this country for their tremendous productivity.
We are fortunate in America to be the breadbasket of the
world. Our farmers do a tremendous job in the production
of food. for us and for the world as a whole.
We are anticipating the largest corn crop, the
largest wheat crop in the history of the United States,
but there are some uncertainties.
We hope that there will be a sale to the
Soviet Union. It will be helpful to the American farmer
and will be a reward for his productivity. We hope that
there will be ample supplies of corn, and wheat, and feed
grains so that we can help other nations around the world
through our Food For Peace program.
And if there is this sizeable crop in the
variety of areas, it will mean that we can expand our Food
For Peace program and act in a humanitarian way to the
less fortunate.
I have no idea at this point what the amount
will be of the sale to the Soviet Union, if it does
materialize.
But I think the fact that we can make one is
a blessing, and I hope we do make one, but I want to assure
you, as I do the American consumer, that we are alert to
the danger of too big a sale or too much shipment overseas
because the American consumer has a stake in this problem
as well.
- 2 -
Press Conference
Chicago, Illinois
July 12, 1975
So we have to find a careful line to tread, of
selling all we can, but protecting the rights of the
American consumer and utilizing the productivity of the
American farmer to help our balance of payments, to improve
our humanitarian efforts overseas and to indirectly help
us in our relations with other countries.
QUESTION: But a sale of any substantial size
would mean some increase in a loaf of bread here, wouldn't
it?
THE PRESIDENT: I don't think I am in a position--
or anyone else is in a position- to define what a substantial
sale is. A big sale with big wheat and feed grain and corn
production would have a minimal effect on consumer prices
in the United States.
I can only assure you and the American people
that we are watching all aspects of this problem, and we
will keep alert to any pitfalls or dangers that might
result.
REMARKS OF THE PRESIDENT
AT A
GOP FUND-RAISING DINNER
Chicago, Illinois
September 30, 1975
I speak at this point concerning agriculture,
farm prices. We recognize that agriculture is a great
industry. It participates very significantly in making our
economy strong or weak. Of course, we feel a great debt of
gratitude in this country to the 6 percent of our people who
produce so much food and so much fiber for all of us and
literally millions around the world.
Last year, just about this time, the American
farmers responded to my call for full production, literally
from one fence to another, and every plot of ground that
they could find -- full production.
This year, they have harvested a record wheat
crop, and they expect a record corn crop by the end of the
harvest year.
Obviously, American farmers want -- and they have
every good reason to expect -- to sell all they produce,
either at home or abroad, and I intend to see to it that they
do in a free market and at fair prices.
Profitable and steady grain trading relations
have been built with buyers in Europe, Japan and elsewhere,
and we can count in advance on regular and significant
purchases by those foreign customers.
There is a new element. With the Soviet Union a
relatively new customer, we do not yet -- and I underline
yet -- have that assurance. Soviet grain purchaes have
fluctuated greatly in the last five years, and let me
illustrate the peaks and valleys that we have had in
this relationship.
In 1971-1972, the Russians bought 182 million
bushels of grain from the United States. In 1972 and 1973,
the figure soared to 524 million bushels. In 1973-1974
it dropped to 252 million bushels and then fell sharply,
precipitously to 74 million bushels in 1974 and 1975.
During this crop year, the Russians have
already bought 399 million bushels and are anxious to
buy much more.
- 2 -
Chicago, Illinois
Sept. 30, 1975
Now, these wide fluctuations disrupt our markets
and make it much more difficult for our farmers to plan
properly. Furthermore, these peaks and valleys, these wide
fluctuations, have an undesirable impact on our overall
economy.
To achieve a better result for the farmer, the
consumer, yes, our economy as a whole, I am giving,
personally, priority attention to an agreement with the
Soviet Union that will put agriculture trade on a far more
certain and a far more predictable basis, and agreements
along the lines of the one which we are now concluding
with Poland to assure grain sales over the next five years
at levels considerably higher than in the past and with far
less deviations and fluctuations.
I am confident that in a relatively short period
of time we will reach an agreement with the Soviet Union to
facilitate the sale of this year's bumper crop with firm
assurances of similar sales of considerable magnitude in
future years.
This, in my judgment, will meet all of our needs
at home and keep food prices at a fair and reasonable
level, but more importantly, it will give to us as a Nation
the opportunity to use our great resource -- agriculture --
for humanitarian purposes, for other national interests.
REMARKS OF THE PRESIDENT
AND
QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION
AT THE
NEBRASKA/IOWA WHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE
ON DOMESTIC AFFAIRS AND THE ECONOMY
October 1, 1975
Omaha, Nebraska
Let me assure you the victory will not be
achieved at the expense of America's farmers. Nor will
farmers suffer on the international grain markets from
actions of my Administration.
I know there has been some criticism by some
for a temporary halt to grain sales to the Soviet Union.
If I might, I would like to bring you up to date.
Last year, in a visit to Lincoln, Nebraska, I
urged farmers of this State, as well as farmers throughout
the country, to plant full crops.
I advocated a policy of agricultural production
across the board, full production for the entire Nation.
I am here to tell you that your crops will be
sold and at fair market prices. But, just as important, we
must get the farmer off that roller coaster of up and down
purchases which has been the Russian pattern for the last
five years.
The United States enjoys fruitful and relatively
predictable grain trading relations with Japan and many
European countries. Farmers under those arrangements
know approximately how much will be sold and can plan
for it. Stable trade helps the farmer as well as the
consumer. That is precisely why we are in the process
of negotiating a long-term agreement involving agriculture
with the Soviet Union, and agreements along the lines we
are now concluding with Poland. We must and we will bring
stability, predictability to the planning process of the
American farmer.
Let me illustrate: Soviet grain purchases from
the United States have fluctuated considerably in the last
five years, from a low of about 74 million bushels in one
crop season to a high of 524 million bushels in another.
- 2 -
October 1, 1975
Omaha, Nebraska
(Q. &. A. at W.H. Conference)
So far this season the Soviet Union has purchased
399 million bushels and I can say to you that Russian
sales will be increased beyond that figure, and I think
it will be a good figure.
Under the agreements that we seek, fixed
minimum grain purchases each season by the Soviets will
be established for a five-year period at the going market
price. More importantly, these agreements will be in the
long-term best interest of the farmer as well as the consumer.
Having said that, let me turn to another subject.
Interview with Local Media
October 1, 1975
Omaha, Nebraska
QUESTION: Mr. President, I have been talking
with some grain farmers who are very upset because your
Administration has urced full production, your Secretary
of Agriculture talks about a free market, and yet, when
push comes to shove, they feel that they are being blocked
by the grain embargo.
THE PRESIDENT: We have to look at that problem
in the long-range and still be very cognizant of the short-
term difficulties. What we want are stable, substantial
markets abroad. We have one with Japan. We are in the
process of negotiating one with Poland. We have others
that are in being with European countries.
But, the big potential market on a long-range
basis for substantial annual sales is with the Soviet
Union, and we are very close. I believe that we will end
up with at least a five-year program that will mean firm,
sizeable sales -- five million tons or more per year --
with a possibility of more sales and all at free market
prices in the marketplace in the United States.
The problem in the past has been in the last
five years. One year we sold to the Soviet Union 74 million
bushels of grain. Another year we sold 550 million bushels.
This year, so far, we have sold 320 million bushels.
These wide fluctuations, peaks and valleys, they
aren't good for the farmer. They aren't good for the
country, so we are trying to stabilize a huge market on
a firm basis over a period of time, and if my good farmer
friends will just be a little patient, I think we will do
something they will be very happy with.
THE WHITE HOUSE
REMARKS OF THE PRESIDENT
AND
QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION
AT THE
MID-APPALACHIA WHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE
ON DOMESTIC AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
October 7, 1975
Nashville, Tennessee
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, sir.
QUESTION: Mr. President, I am James Putnam, a
farmer and President of the Tennessee Farm Bureau Federation.
I have a short statement and then the question.
Farmers were asked early this year to go all out
for full agricultural production in 1975 with the promise
by this Administration that farmers would have access to markets
at home and abroad. They have responded with record, or
near record, grain crops.
In view of recent action taken by the
Government concerning the sale and shipment of grain to
Russia and other countries, can we, as farmers and farm
organizations, have faith in this Administration to make
sure these markets are available to farmers?
THE PRESIDENT: The answer is strongly yes. There
has been a temporary syspension for a very good reason. The
farmers did go all out. They have produced a record crop
of wheat at 2,100,000,000 bushels. They have produced a
record corn crop, although we don't have the final figures
of about 5,800,000,000 bushels. They have done, in the
area of soybeans, also, an exceptional record and a record
crop.
Now, we have long-term purchase agreements with
Japan and with other countries. We have had some very
wide fluctuations in the purchase of grain, corn, wheat and
soybeans from the Soviet Union. One year, as I recall, it
was around 55 million bushels, the next year it went up to
599 million bushels, and the next year it dropped down to
75 million bushels. The peaks and valleys have caused serious
disruptions in our markets in the United States.
Nashville, Tenn.
- 2 -
Oct. 7, 1975
Now, what we have done, the Soviet Union has purchased
10.3 million metric tons of grain so far. They have a serious
shortage. There were rumors that they were going to come
into the market at a very substantial figure. At the same
time, we felt, and still feel, that a five year purchase
agreement with the Soviet Union agreeing to buy a minimum
figure of a substantial amount every year with an option to
buy another sizeable number of tons is a better program than
having these peaks and valleys and these wide fluctuations
and variations.
Our negotiators are in Moscow now, they are seeking
to achieve a permanent or a five-year program, as I have
described it. If that is agreed to, there will be a removal
of the temporary suspension of sales and I am certain that
the Soviet Union will come in and buy additional grain in
this crop year which will be very, very helpful and will
coincide with the promise I made, and in the mean time, we
will have gotten an assured market from a sizeable purchaser
for the next five years. It is a negotiation which is in the
best interest of the farmer and in the best interest of the
American consumer, and ween the announcement is made -- and I
think it will come reasonably soon -- I think farmers as well as
consumers will be pleased. And we might be able to combine it,
if I could add as a postscript, a deal that will give us some
Soviet oil as a part of the overall deal which is good insurance
against Mideast oil decisions.
QUESTION: Mr. President, I am Mrs. Harry B.
Caldwell from North Carolina. I am representing the North
Carolina State Grange and the State Granges in this region.
Last fall, and last winter, you called on the
farmers of America for all-out production, and you indicated
that they would have the assurance that you would give them
full support in receiving reasonable prices for the things
that they produced.
Just recently -- I believe it was last week --
Secretary Earl Butz, in a meeting in Chicago, again called
on the American farmers to go all-out in producing the food
and fiber needed for our Nation and to help meet the needs
of the world in 1976.
Now, farmers are born optimists. They really want
to produce, but they need the assurance that they will
receive costs of production, plus a reasonable profit.
- 3 -
Oct. 7, 1975
Nashville, Tenn.
My question is going to be in three parts, all
of them related.
How do you propose that farmers will receive fair
and reasonable prices if they produce the abundance called
for by the Government?
They are related. Do you want to answer that one
now?
THE PRESIDENT: I would be very glad to.
I indicated earlier that we did ask for full
production, and the farmers responded in corn, wheat, soy-
beans. I indicated we have a temporary suspension, but only
for the purpose of getting an assured market of a substantial
amount over a five-year period.
I think it is fair to point out that since the
suspension, which is in effect now for about five weeks,
the price of wheat on the market has gone up from around
$3.75 a bushel to $4.05 a bushel, so even with the suspension
of sales to the Soviet Union, there has not been any drop
in the wheat market.
I believe that is likewise true in the corn market
because everybody knows that the Soviet Union is going to
come back into the market this year and in addition, we
will get a five-year agreement with an assured market of
a substantial amount.
PRESS CONFERENCE NO. 20
of the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
Detroit, Michigan
4:15 P.M. EDT
October 10, 1975
Friday
QUESTION: Mr. President, I am wondering why you
removed the embargo on the Poles and not the Russians? You
said the crop report, after all, was excellent, but you
said you have to go ahead now with the Russian grain deal,
you have to have negotiations on that.
The farmers would like to go ahead and get this
money now and worry about a long-term, five-year grain deal
later. Why don't you just go ahead and remove the embargo
now?
THE PRESIDENT: It is very important to negotiate,
and you can negotiate from strength, I.think, if we make
certain, make positive, that we get a long-term agreement
which is in our best interest in return for additional sales
to the Soviet Union on the crops that they want to buy in
1975.
It is a very simple explanation. We have the
grain, we want a five-year or longer term, and we want a
good arrangement. I think we are coming very close. We
are working very hard at it, and I think we are probably going
to have some results.
But, it is just a matter of good, old Yankee
trader actions, and Yankee traders did pretty well for a
long time in this country. I just think we ought to handle
it that way rather than be too soft or not tough negotiators.
- 2 -
(Press Conference, Oct. 10, 1975)
QUESTION: Mr. President, in view of the apparent
success of the negotiations with the Soviet Union involving
their oil and our grain, are you contemplating or planning
similar discussions with the People's Republic of China
on their oil reserves and their grain either here or when
you go to Peking?
THE PRESIDENT: The agenda for the prospective trip
to the People's Republic has not yet been established.
Secretary Kissinger is leaving for the People's Republic
within the next week or ten days, as I recall. Until he
comes back with the agenda, I don't think I am in a position
to say what it might be.
I caution you--you used one word, Saul, that I think
it is going to work but you were a little overly optimistic
in relationship to grain and oil. All I can say is I am
optimistic but we are dealing with some tough traders and I
don't want to create the impression that it is all signed on
the dotted line because we have some things we want to get
and they, in return, want some things that they want and
until the ink is dry on it, we're not going to make any
announcement.
THE WHITE HOUSE
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
October 20, 1975
The American people -- our many grain farming communities, our workers,
our farmers, and our consumers -- will benefit from the agreement signed
in Moscow today providing for regular and orderly sales of wheat and corn
to the Soviet Union during the next five years. Under this agreement, the
Soviet Union has committed to purchase six million metric tons of grain
per year representing $1 billion in annual export earnings. Accordingly,
I am today terminating the temporary suspension of sales of grain to the
Soviet Union.
The benefits to the American economy are that we have:
obtained a stable, long-term foreign market.
assured a more stable flow of payments from abroad.
--
assured the American farmer that the Soviet Union will be
a regular buyer for grain at market prices.
increased incentives for full production by the farmer.
facilitated the hiring of labor, the purchase of new farming
machinery, and the general stimulation of agriculture and business.
neutralized a great destabilizing factor in recent years.
provided jobs for American transportation workers and seamen.
The United States during this harvest season can rejoice over the best
crop in years.
The favorable economic implications are obvious. We have obtained
Soviet commitment that additional purchase of grain in the current crop
year will not be so large as to disrupt the U.S. market. I have directed
the Department of Agriculture to continue to monitor closely export
sales and the Economic Policy Board/National Security Council Food
Committee to follow closely grain market price trends and related
matters.
The long-term agreement signed in Moscow today promotes American
economic stability. It represents a positive step in our relations with
the Soviet Union. In this constructive spirit, the two governments have
also committed themselves to begin detailed negotiations on mutually
beneficial terms for a five year agreement for the purchase of Soviet
oil. Negotiations will start this month.
###
###
FACT SHEET
October 20, 1975
GRAIN AND OIL TRADE AGREEMENTS WITH THE USSR
The President today announced the signing of an agreement on
purchases by the Soviet Union of U.S. grain. The grain agree...
ment relates to five crop years, commencing October 1, 1976
and running to September 30, 1981. A letter of intent was
also signed to conclude an agreement on sales of USSR crude
petroleum and products to the United States.
BACKGROUND
On September 9, the President announced he would send repre--
sentatives to the Soviet Union to explore reaching a long.-term
agreement on sales of grain. Negotiations have been conducted
in Moscow by Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs,
Charles W. Robinson, assisted by officials of the Department of
Agriculture, the Federal Energy Administration and the Depart-
ment of State. On October 9, the President indicated that
discussions involving the purchase by the United States of
Soviet oil were going on at the same time as the grain
negotiations.
Largely as a result of climate variation USSR production and
trade in grain currently are two of the most unstable elements
in the world grain economy. During the past decade, the USSR
accounted for 80 percent of the annual fluctuation in world
trade in wheat. Changes in yearly production of wheat in the
USSR accounted for 60 percent of the annual fluctuations in
world wheat production while annual fluctuations in total USSR
grain production accounted for 30 percent of annual changes in
overall world grain production.
Variation in Soviet imports of grain has been particularly
marked in this decade. In the 1971-72 crop year total imports
by the Soviet Union were eight million tons of which 2.9
million tons were from the United States. In the following
year, total imports were 21 million tons, of which 13.7 were
from the United States.
The estimated total supply for the United States for the current
crop year is 263.5 million metric tons consisting of 21.4
million tons in stocks and 242.1 million tons in new production.
HIGHLIGHTS OF GRAIN AGREEMENT
1.
Commits the Soviet Union to purchase a minimum of six
million metric tons of wheat and corn annually.
2.
Permits the USSR to purchase an additional two million
tons annually without Government to Government consulta.
tion.
3.
The U.S. Government agrees to facilitate Soviet purchases
under the agreement and not to exercise its authority to
control shipments of these amounts, except that it may
reduce the quantity to be sold in any one crop year if the
estimated total U.S. grain supply is less than 225 million
tons in that crop year.
- 2 -
Fact Sheet
October 20, 1975
The agreement also provides for consultations by the two
Governments in advance of purchases in excess of eight million
tons of wheat and corn in any one crop year. Shipment of grain
under the agreement is to be in accord with the US-USSR Maritime
Agreement.
The Soviets have assured us that their additional. purchases of
grain in the current crop year will not be in a volume which
could disrupt the U.S. market.
Benefits of Grain Agreement
This agreement regularizes Soviet purchases from the United
States. In doing so, it provides a number of benefits:
-- Assures U.S. farmers a market in the USSR for six million
tons of wheat and corn a year for the next five years.
-- The additional assured demand will assist farmers in
making their planting decisions.
-- Reduces fluctuations in world markets by smoothing out
Soviet purchases of U.S. grain.
-- Protects U.S. livestock producers and consumers and
other foreign customers from large purchases of U.S.
grain by the USSR without prior consultation.
-- Provides $4 to $5 billion in potential foreign exchange
earnings (at prevailing prices) for the U.S. over the
next five years.
HIGHLIGHTS OF MARITIME AGREEMENT
U.S. Government representatives concluded negotiations in mid-
September on the establishment of a freight rate for U.S.-flag
ships participating in the carriage of Soviet grain.
Terms of the agreement include:
-- A minimum U.S. Gulf/Soviet Black Sea grain freight
rate of $16.00 through December 31, 1976. This
minimum rate is significantly in excess of the current
market price.
-- An index system for determining monthly grain freight
rates with a Black Sea freight rates in relation to
the index trade (Gulf/Belgium-Holland). This relation-
ship was increased from 1.5 to 1 to approximately
3 to 1.
- 3 -
Fact Sheet
October 20, 1975
-- A credit/debit system which in a low market provides
for the payment by the Soviets of a freight rate
which is higher than the market rate and sufficient
to allow a significant number of U.S.-flag vessels
to participate in the trade; and in a strong market
provides for an offset. When the credit is eliminated,
the rates received by U.S.-flag carriers will be
determined under the new index system.
-- A higher minimum demurrage rate for U.S.-flag vessels.
Since the implementation of the new freight rate on
September 22, 1975, 23 U.S.-flag tankers have been fixed
to carry approximately 873,500 tons of U.S. grain to the
Soviet Union during the month of October and additional
fixtures have been made for November.
OIL AGREEMENT
The letter of intent on crude oil and refined products
contemplates annual sales by the USSR of up to ten million
metric tons (equivalent to about 200,000 barrels per day).
Prices are to be agreed upon.
Under the contemplated agreement, the United States would
have an option to purchase crude oil and products. The
prices for this oil will be mutually agreed at levels which
will satisfy the interests of both countries.
The USSR is the world's largest oil producer. Soviet
production currently averages about 9.5 million barrels
per day. Soviet exports are about 2.3 million barrels
of oil per day, including some 1.4 million barrels to
Eastern Europe and approximately 750,000 barrels a day
to Western Europe. The USSR also imports a small quantity
of oil, about 100,000 barrels a day, largely from Iraq.
The 200,000 barrels a day we could purchase from the Soviets
under this agreement is relatively small when compared to
our current daily consumption of nearly 17 million barrels
and imports of some 6.5 million barrels per day. It would,
however, represent a further diversification of the sources
of U.S. oil imports.
# # # #
THE WHITE HOUSE
REMARKS OF THE PRESIDENT
AND QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION
AT THE RECEPTION
FOR THE
RADIO AND TELEVISION
NEWS DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION
THE STATE FLOOR
January 30, 1976
QUESTION: The House was told today by an Under
Secretary of State that there never really was a grain embargo.
I think the farmers in Iowa and other Midwestern States don't
agree with that statement. He said he did recognize that
there were problems in using agri-power in the world
diplomacy. If that is so, how would you solve those problems?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Soviet Union, about through
the first six months of last year, had purchased roughly
9 million tons of grain including corn, wheat and so forth.
They then came in and wanted to buy a substantial amount
more and they eventually bought another 4 million tons, as
I recollect. At that time, there was some concern about the
production of the corn crop, the wheat crop was not all in
and the net result was we sat down with the Soviet Union and
worked out the grain deal on a five-year basis that provides
a certain market of 6 million tons every year and up to
8 million tons, with an escape hatch over the 8 million tons,
and we authorized them to purchase another 6 million tons in
this 12-month period.
You may have noticed this morning that there is a
solid rumor, as I understand it, that the Soviet Union has
come in and bought some additional corn, a fairly sizable
purchase. I think this is probably going to be done not only
in this case, but others. I am not saying there was an embargo --
there was a hiatus period while we were negotiating a further
sale this year and a five-year agreement overall.
THE WHITE HOUSE
REMARKS OF THE PRESIDENT
AND
QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION
AT THE FARM FORUM
Springfield, Illinois
March 5, 1976
I am firmly opposed to subsidized imports. I
don't want our American farmers competing against the
treasuries of foreign Governments. Let's talk for a minute
about agricultural exports in the record of this
Administration.
We exported a record $21 billion 600 million in
agricultural products last year. Nearly $2 billion of that
came from Illinois. That just did not happen. We worked
at it. You know what those exports mean to your farms,
to your ability to plant and produce, to your income and
to your family's well being.
It is good for you, it is good for Illinois, and
it is good for the country generally. But, let's look
at another accomplishment. We are selling the Soviet Union
$2 billion, or more I should add, in farm products from
the 1975 crop. That is a record, a record compiled during
this Administration, and it is only the beginning of
continued exports to the Soviet Union.
Let me add, farm exports will not be a pawn of
international politics. We want our agricultural production
to promote trade and help keep the peace. We want to keep
your boys on the farms and send your bushels overseas and
at good terms of trade.
I oppose policies which would keep your bushels
at home and send your boys overseas. Last fall, as you
know, we exercised a temporary restraint on grain sales to
the Soviet Union. Today, I would like to review that
situation for you.
- 2 -
March 5, 1976
Springfield, Illinois
At that time, we had already sold the Russians
about ten million tons of grain. Facilities to transport
the grain and the Russian capability to handle incoming
shipments were already committed at capacity for months
to come.
If we had sold the Russians one more bushel of
corn or wheat at that time, it could not have moved for
months. We were then in the midst of negotiations with
the Soviet Government on long-term sales of our wheat and
corn.
Although we welcome the Russians as customers,
I don't think they should come into our market only
when it suits them. I insisted on a long-term grain sales
agreement with the Soviet Union. That is why there was a
temporary halt in sales while we put the finishing touches
on that agreement.
As soon as we got the agreement that we wanted, I
ordered the temporary halt lifted. Since then, the
Russians have come to us for another three million tons.
As we have said before, we remain ready to sell them more
this year if they want it.
That is where we stand on farm exports, but
better yet, because of the agreement we concluded, you are
going to have a regular customer, a regular market in
Russia for no less than six million tons of corn and
wheat each year and maybe much more from 1976 through 1980.
That is a good deal for the American farmer and for the
nation.
Let me emphasize, however, this is only a part
our policy of strengthening our agricultural export
trade. Farm exports thus far in the 1970s will total
thousand one half times more than in the same period in
the 960s.
In addition to the $2 billion in sales to the
Soviet Union, this fiscal year, we expect to sell $6
billion 800 million to Western European nations; $3 billion
200 million to Japan alone and $1 billion 200 million to
Eastern Europe.
I think we can all be proud of that record.
THE WHITE HOUSE
REMARKS OF THE PRESIDENT
AND
QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION
WITH THE
OHIO FARM BUREAU
THE ROSE GARDEN
March 15, 1976
QUESTION: Could I ask you to speak one more time
about the -- our president in Europe said we are being
thought about as an unstable supplier of grain. I think
you said a word about that. But this concern about keeping
exports open seems to be there as well as here.
THE PRESIDENT: I know that some in agriculture
have raised questions about the embargo that we imposed for
several months in 1975. But it was done solely for the
purpose of getting a five-year firm agreement for a minimum
sale of six million bushels (tons) a year to the Soviet Union
with an opportunity for them to buy more.
Now I am convinced that that was in the long-
range interest of agriculture. I can assure you to this
extent: I see no prospects for any reimposition of any
embargo. In fact, I told some Illinois farmers 10 days ago
or 2 weeks ago the changes were literally nil. As long
as we produce and have the capability of selling as we have,
I see not using agriculture -- and this is the important
thing -- not using our farm exports as a pawn in international
politics, period.
SAMPLE OF NEWS CLIPS
Washington Post
December 9, 1974
Use of Food
To Aid U.S.
Interests Hit
Wr
12/9/74
By Dan Morgan
Washington Post Staff Writer
A confidential State Depart-
ment proposal to spend the
major share of this fiscal
year's food aid money in coun-
tries where the United States
has a vital political or security
interest is being questioned at
the top level of government
by advocates of aid for coun-
tries threatened by starvation
and hunger.
Policy makers who have
conferred several times in the
last few days have been un-
able to resolve the split be-
tween the "political" and
"humanitarian" factions. As a
result, President Ford will be
asked to make the final deci-
sion, probably Tuesday, on
which countries receive the
aid for the next six months.
This decision has been put off
for months while authorities
awaited more definitive data
on American crops and the
state of the economy.
Officials are now certain
that the overall value of the
program will be increased in
excess of the $891 million pro-
posed by President Nixon in
April. Mr. Ford pledged in-
creases at the United Nations
in October. However, agencies
are still far apart on whether
the increase should be a token
or a substantial one. Thus as
many as four options may be
presented to the President.
Various documents - in-
cluding a State Department
options paper labeled
"confidential" - were made
available to The Washington
Post by officials who said they
were making them public in a
last-ditch effort to shift the
fiscal 1975 Food for Peace pro-
gram's emphasis to humanitar
ian needs.
At a r
ng in the Agricul
D, A6, Col. 4.
FOOD. From Al
mans letters from Americans us what PL 150 tipe Find not Times had values of STATE mil- support The targe American
an increase in has Peace will to time and oil ni due to
ture Department Thursday
manitarian
assistance
be
and Arrea this Sevill upsed by
tentile) by some to othersis of
Retresent
of
the
Siate
One
surve
choted
NSC
FRO
THE
Total
tomisse
ill
WRISH
SAND
nor
(tates.
eight approved.
Department and the National reasonse Denny Filerman and use allowated univer The Travel Also taken A frand
of the Office of
Security Comeil-both of final to three proparats was :: mill the 141 DEPOSIT a maintantial
and Budget arcued fill - WTV
which are readed by Sports because permite 100.4 milition and 4.8 milions in I'm overall lize of
gram of name Name
the
The
DUT
of
State
Heary
-
is
a
protty
weak
Only
then
on
creams
that
$1.3 billine we
to have
the
million
tons
Dad
of
more
-
inv countries where an Invoice
arched for a Sizable food and
License
contirmed
necessared
111
The
prom
well
home
discrette
are need exists, sources (1)
procrem
the
each
recome
as
day
that
be
made
a
сещатк
or
post
That
sotent
Nixon
Impusury
engierts
purted
Chile South Korea the 1110
that
nature
but
he
sold
he
to
will
disn
questioned
ONB Director Roy L 344
the Kast
WITH
expressing
a
personal
NO
three
alternatives
-
Department
n
said that ## -
18 and # *** clear statement a substomal amount to what expiry NaMe two
low,
And Kissing and
tabled by ONE differed from
Utal the Unded States had an constines where the United the Council
sure Sectitary Eart L. Rule
the other advanced by the
ovacation to here stave are States has a viral political or us Remome Adtisers tear
State Department 110
are day to me with Press
hunder use DE 'rondamental security interest
that risend food
that, in this case OMB NOS
Fund for 11 tital declare
charity but be said the Dount For instance in the middle- proces ende unlimated) (enD to
playing its classal pote in
makin, - this week.
he will trying to make 15215 level plan, Cambodia. View the of come
seems to is that "all nutions
Bittle costinue is University
that Tond and can only be a name Chile, South Kurea, in this which missid week the
While same or his associative
and arguments now and con
students measure and is not a Pakistan, Essa. Jur CS provided at Huming men
are put before the President.
describe him as a "doset Inc
fundamental solution to the dan Syna and Isravi were national thank thiss
Ash and that the Issues HA
manuarian whit would lean
world food problem.
listed
for
low-intered.
tom
10
October
and
November
der study have bried political
cound priority to Ride
One official and that while term efects to buy foud total the Lonen Males opproved
economa and nocial
our commines, others 939
1 decision IN ship vasity its inv million out of total two credits in the Chilesa
Bons
Blk nutitical position is was
creased quantities of food to program of SLI billion
life realize that there are
and that he cannot be ex.
inthiary recime for Total pur-
hundry
nations
would
and
The
name
minute
option
at
CRITICS
totaling
SCA 6
million.
more than two lines of DIE
teated in hard for any
criticism. "we can De accused located 5194 million in credits Time were the best loans
promen be said. "In are Do
pount of view
of cowardite" in taking the in the hanger-stricken nations one all was city nuring the
make a baliotined presentation,
Officials in the humanitar- easy way nus The official - Incia, and Sri name of Market President
it's extential that 11 other in EXPIRATE WHO ver
it
wis
uncersive
whether
the
Tanka as well as 53.8 million Salvador Allende
agencies don't put CARTH all non HI the Throsday menting
fond would ever resch numbry
in food These no
the policy directions then of the Staff Com people,
nations 26 directly to areas
OMB feels Hs job is to present mintee on form and complainted
The original State
pentile, such as school child
them."
that
the
National
Security
ment
memorandem
Tisted
ren mothers. workers on as
OMB officials said last week Council "has a way of coming three suending outions: HW, velogiment projects and retu-
their agency had received to Chose meetines and telling medium and high. The alterna-
sees
The high-option program
adds more than S100 miliion in W
credits to the Assa subcents- "
nent countries and is also in- 11.
creases the size of credits for
food buying to Chile and
South Korea.
According to the memoran-
dum, the medium option
"provides for small political D:
programs with Guines, and
Morocco as well as for and
as
Helth which is on the U.N
list of 32 nations must seriousle
affected by viobal inflation, DATE D.
tieularly expensive food, fuel
and fertilizer imports:
It also would "enable us to
meet the Egat and Syria por
litical requirements." the
memorandum reads
The memo says that the
high option "in effect makes
the Asian subcontinent the
first priority in fond aid." add
ing that "the humanitarian Ta-
tionate is strung: there is do
mestic support for such em
phasis."
One participant at Thurs
day's interagency meeting
charged. however. that State's no
main aim was to give Kis-
"
singer the broadest possible 0
leeway to use food for diplo c
matie and economic purposes.
IT
The critic cited a proposal
to allocate $1.5 million in
C
credit to Jamaica. with when 1
negotiations are now mover
way on the future of U.S.
bauxite de THING was
removed recently from the
U.N. list of needlest nations.
Another official said that a
number of agencies question
credits to Israel
"there's from that
already getting 3 int at and
from the United States in
other forms,"
A State Department official
conceded that security and 10th
litical considerations have
2) high priority in State
tion but he asserved That has
manitarian and also does,
Another offerted
IRM
Your
1100
South
COUNTEY
Washington Post
April 22, 1975
8/22/75 WP
Grain Sales Boost Food Cost 1.5%
By Dan Morgan
Paarlberg, told a news con-
in higher food costs in the
Washington Post Staff Writer
fercuce that the impact
months ahead.
The Department of Agri-
could be greater if the So-
The Labor Department's
culture yesterday predicted
viet Union seeks more grain
that recent American grain
consumer price index for
later, as is expected.
sales to the Soviet Union,
the month of July showed a
The assurances were the
now totaling 10.2 million
highlight of a vigorous of-
2.9 per cent rise in food
metric tons, would raise
fort at the department to ab-
prices above the previous
food prices at home by no
solve the grain deals, of
month. And the Agriculture
more than 1.5 per cent this
blame for last month's food
Department yesterday an-
year.
inflation and to persuade
nounced that it thought food
But a senior official, Di-
consumers that the exports
prices in 1975 would average
rector of Economics Don
are only one of many factors
9 per cent above lasti year.
Earlier it had predicted a 6
to 8 per cent increase.
"Let's don't panic." Agri-
culture Secretary Earl L.
Butz said. "We have record
food supplies, and our policy
of plenty is paying off."
Along with the revised es-
timates of food inflation at
home, the department also
issued a prediction of world-
wide food output which was
gloomier than a month ago
and which projected a much
stronger demand from
abroad for American farm
products.
U.S. grain exports are
now projected at a record 77
million metric tons, up from
the 68.6 million tons fore-
seen a month ago. A metric
ton contains 2,200 pounds.
Butz said yesterday that
he had decided to authorize
farmers to plant an unlim-
ited amount of wheat, feed-
grains, soybeans and upland
cotton next year.
For most of the 1950s and
1960s, when farm prices
were low, the government
ordered farmers not to culti-
vate some of their acreage
to prevent enormous sur-
pluses from building up.
For grains, that practice
ended in 1974, when world-
wide shortages developed
and prices soared.
The price impact of the
Soviet sales has stirred po-
litical controversy since the
first sales were announced
in July.
Assistant Secretary of Ag-
Agriculture Department
riculture Richard Bell said
economists concede that the
it appears that the Soviet
sales to the Soviet Union
Union has bought or con-
will be one factor in the
tracted for 16.5 million met-
faster rate of food price in-
ric tons from abroad, well
flation to the end of the
short of that country's esti-
year, but not the main one.
mated needs of 25 million
They said that as the econ-
tons.
omy continues its recovery,
The department earlier
middlemen in the food dis-
had carried figures showing
tribution chain will pass on
the U.S. share at 9.8 million
higher transportation, en-
tons, but Bell said 400,000
ergy, packaging and labor
more tons had been sold be-
costs to consumers.
fore the July announce-
Wheat exports are seen as
ments.
a minor contributor to food
Statements issued yester-
price inflation because
day in response to news of a
bread is not a big factor in
rise in the consumer price
home budgets, and wheat is
index indicated the sensitiv-
only a small component of
ity of the Soviet grain ship-
the cost of bread.
ments.
The way most consumers
feel the impact of exports is
AFL-CIO President
in higher animal feed prices,
George Meany said that
such. as corn, caused by
staggering" increases al-
strong foreign demand.
ready have hit grain prices
When these prices go too
as a result of the Soviet
high, farmers reduce their
deals. Administration offi-
poultry, dairy, hog and cat-
cials conceded that the So-
fle. Then the supply of ani-
viet sales spurred a specula-
mal products shrinks and
tive boost in the price of
prices for them increase.
grain traded on commodity
So far, Soviet purchases
exchanges for future deliv-
here have been about evenly
ery. But they countered that
divided between corn and
the prices were still well be-
wheat.
low the peaks of 1974.
Of the total 1.5 per cent
Rep. Brock Adams (D-
food price increase resulting
Wash.), chairman of the
from the sales to the Soviet
House Budget Committee,
Union, some will come this
said his committee's analysis
year and the rest will carry
indicates that the current
over into 1976, the Agriculi
sales will have no adverse
ture Department predicted.
impact on the economy if
Officials stressed that
they are kept small.
beef, pork and poultry are
Administration officials
expensive now because far
said the sales could have
mers reduced their livestock
had no impact at all on the
many months ago, long be
July consumer price index,
fore the Soviets bought the
because data for that was
grain.
gathered too early.
In a related development,
the Ford administration
scheduled a meeting for
Tuesday with maritime
union leaders, to seek a
settlement of a dispute
threatening to block the
shipments. The unions an-
nounced that they won't
load grain to the Soviet
Union until it is certain that
consumers won't suffer.
New York Times
VOL.
October 21, 1975
CXXV
NO.
10/21/15
Objective Accomplished
Frank Zarb, administrator of
the Federal Energy Administra-
.S.AND RUSSIA
tion, said the price remained
among the "major" features to
be worked out and that the
AGREE ON YEARS
United States would insist on
"favorable" rates.
President Ford, in a state-
OF GRAIN EXPORTS
ment, praised the conclusion of
the grain agreement, asserting:
1.2
"The long-term agreement
signed in Moscow today pro-
Russians to Buy 6 Million to
motes American economic sta-
bility. It represents a positive
8 Million Tons Each Year,
step in our relations with the
Beginning Next Oct. 1
Soviet Union."
The grain agreement accom-
plishes an objective of the
MORATORIUM IS LIFTED
United States, which sought to
minimize the impact on con-
sumer prices of erratic Russian
buying on the world grain mar-
Letter of Intent Signed on Oil
kets while realizing the foreign-
Purchase From Moscow
exchange benefits of further
exports to the Soviet Union.
With Price Unresolved
Massive sales of grain to the
Soviet Union in 1972, at a time
of limited world supplies, have
By WILLIAM ROBBINS
been called a cause of much
Special to The New York Times
of this country's subsequent
WASHINGTON, Oct. 20-The
food inflation.
White House announced today
a five-year agreement with the
A similar impact was widely
feared when the Soviet Union
Soviet Union, effective next
this summer suffered one of its
Oct. 1, under which the Rus-
sians would buy six to eight
chronic droughts and a result-
million tons of American grain
ing shortfall in crop production
and then began making large
a year.
At the same time, President
purchases from United States
Ford lifted a two-month mora-
companies.
torium on further grain sales
Partly because of such fears,
to the Russians this year. Rep-
American longshoremen im-
resentatives of United States
posed a boycott on grain ship-
companies are in Moscow even
ments to the Soviet Union, an
now seeking to close additional
action that was ended only
deals, according to trade
with an annoucement by Presi-
sources.
dent Ford that a long-term
The White House also dis-
agreement like that signed to-
closed a letter of intent, signed
day would be sought.
today in Moscow, to conclude
In his statement, President
an agreement to buy up to
Ford noted that the Soviet
200,000 barrels a day of Rus-
commitment to buy a minimum
sian oil and petroleum products.
of six million tons of grain
It was clear that a price for
would represent $1-billion a
the Russian oil was continuing
year in export earnings.
to hold up agreement. The
United States had sought a dis-
count to put pressure on the
Arab producing countries and
the Russians have reportedly
continued to refuse such con-
cessions.
8-Million Ton Commitment
Under the terms of the agree-
ment, the United States is com-
mitted to supply the Russians
ture imposed its moratorium on
up to eight million tons a year
further sales late in July. Fol-
unless the total United States
lowing the longshoremen's boy-
grain crop should fall below
cott, President Ford in early
225 million tons. American pro-
September dispatched Charles
duction has not fallen that low
W. Robinson, Under Secretary
in the last 15 years, not even
of State for Economic Affairs,
during the drought of 1974.
to Moscow, to seek the agree-
If the Russians should want
ment that was concluded today.
more than eight million tons in
Meanwhile, in addition to
any year, they would be obli-
gated to consult with the
about four million tons pur-
United States representatives
chased from other countries in
before closing further deals
July, Russian traders have
with American companies.
been buying all the grain ob-
In a briefing at the White
tainable outside the United
States.
House, Secretary of Agriculture
Earl L. Butz said the agreement
It is believed that Russians
would have a stabilizing effect
have obtained as much as eight
on the American economy. He
mililon tons from all sources
said it would allow farmers to
since the moratorium was im-
plan for full production and to
posed
make investments more confi-
According to Government
dently in machinery and labor.
He asserted that the result
sources, the basic grain agree-
would be the lowest possible
ment was reached early and
production cost per unit of out-
easily in the negotiations, but
put and a resulting beneficial
a conclusion was delayed by
impact on consumer prices.
United States efforts to link it
Price Effect Called 'Negligible'
with an oil deal.
The letter of intent commits
In lifting the moratorium on
further sales this year, the
the two countries to begin ne-
United States has obtained a
gotiations on the deal "promt-
commitment from the Russians
ly" to work out the details.
that they will consult before
President Ford said the negoti-
buying more than seven million
ations would begin this month.
additional tons, the Agriculture
Secretary said.
Mr. Butz said that amount
was well within the United
States capacity after allowing
for both domestic needs and
commitments to regular export
customers. He said the possible
effect on United States consum
or prices would be "negligible.)
The Soviet Union quickly
bought, in a seriedof deals with
American-based companies, a
total of 9.8 million tons of
grain last July alter the effect
of a drought became apparent.
Along with earlier deals, that
brought Russian purchases of
grain in the United States to
a total of 10.3 million tons.
The Department of Agricul-
Chicago Tribune
October 21, 1975
U.S., Russia set
grain-oil
WASHINGTON [AP]-The United
States and the Soviet Union have
Two disastrous harvests apparently
reached terms for long-range sale of
have convinced Soviet leaders that their
American grain to the Russians and a
nation will have trouble feeding itself
Soviet commitment to supply some oil to
for some time to come, according to
this country, it was learned Monday.
Tribune Moscow correspondent James
The grain deal, completed by Under-
0. Jackson. It was after this realiza-
secretary of State Charles Robinson in
tion that the Soviet leadership agreed
his third round of talks in Moscow, is
to a long-term contract to buy U.S.
designed to stabilize Russian purchases
grain.
Page 15
from the United States over the next
several years.
In Bismarck, N.D., Rep. Mark Andrews
haps liquefied gas. Andrews did not say
[R., N.D.] said the grain agreement was
how much.
for five years "cash on the barrel head"
In Washington, it was learned the deal
and would call for 6 million to 8 million
was for about 5 million tons of wheat
metric tons to be purchased from the
and other grains annually.
U.S. this year and future yearly pur-
Periodic purchases by Moscow, some-
chases of 8 million to 10 million tons.
times of enormous volumes, have unset-
Andrews said the agreement involves
tled prices in the U.S.
mostly wheat and corn.
This year a poor Russian harvest has
led to purchases of 9 million metric tons
ALTHO THE GRAIN deal is for cash,
of grain from American exporters. Ac-
Andrews said, when final details are
cording to some economists, this proba-
worked out the Soviets probably will
have to send the U.S. petroleum or per-
Continued on page 15, col.
4
U.S. and Russia agree on grain-oil deal
Continued from page one
carryover. The sales leave the U.S. with
pletion of stockpiles caused food prices
expected carryover of 9.1 million metric
to jump almost 30 per cent in two years
bly will result in a jump of U.S. con-
tons of wheat and 12.3 million metric
sumer prices over the next few months:
tons of corn.
THE SOVIETS WERE hoping for a;
In contrast, in 1972, the United States
crop of 215 million metric tons this year
However, past grain sales to the Sovi-
et Union posed no threat to American
sold the Soviets 99 per cent of the wheat
compared to a consumption need of
about 200 million metric tons. However
supplies. As of Sept. 10, U.S. firms had
carryover and 34 per cent of the corn
latest American estimates are a harvest
sold the Russians 4.5 million metric tons
carryover. American wheat stockpiles
of some 170 million metric tons. A met-
of wheat and 4.7 million metric tons of
were depleted at a time when drought
and famine in the developing countries
ric ton is equivalent to 2,205 pounds.
corn. That represents 7 per cent of the
1975 wheat supply-production and
increased demand for grain.
It was learned an announcement of
stockpiles-and 3 per cent of the 1975
Much of any increase in prices be-
the deal will specify a stated Soviet in
cause of the more recent sales would be
tention to sell some oil to the United
corn supply.
attributable to fear prompted by recol-
States. However, knowledgeable U.S. of
IT ALSO REPRESENTS 33 per cent
lection of what happened in 1972. Com-
ficials said there would be no undercut-
of the wheat carryover, the amount left
bined with the effects of rising energy
ting of cartel prices set by the 13-nation
after domestic use and regular exports,
costs and government price controls
Organization of Petroleum Exporting
and 28 per cent of the anticipated corn
that disrupted production cycles, the de-
Countries [OPEC].
Washington Post
October 22, 1975
Accord
On Grain
Assessed
By Dan Morgan
National
Farmers
Bell said new estimates of
Organization President Oren
the Soviet crop situation in the
Washington Post Staff
Lee Staley yesterday blasted
food-growing Ukraine and
the grain pact, calling it
Kazakhstant regions indicate
A senior
Agriculture
"government dictatorship
the total Russian grain crop
Department official said
witha vengeance."
will be "no more than 160
yesterday that the new Soviet-
William J. Kuhfuss
million tons" - the poorest
American grain agreement
president of the Americar
harvest in years and 50 million
could permit Moscow to buy
Farm Bureau Federation
tons less than planned.
as much as 10 million tons of
grain a year here without
said the agreement
"It could be a very difficult
clearing it with the govern-
establishes "an apparent
winter," he said.
trend toward government
ment.
Regarding the month-long
domination of international
negotiations that ended
The assessment, by
trade in agricultural com-
Monday in Moscow, Bell said
Assistant Secretary of
modities."
the Soviets had agreed in-
Agriculture Richard E. Bell,
The AFL-CIO, which
formally to space out pur-
came as-a number of farm
pressed Mr. Ford to seek the
chases through the year to
organization leaders criticized
long-term agreement, said
avoid disrupting markets
the agreement signed Monday
through a spokesman that the
here.
between the two countries as
deal could increase prices to
government interference in
American consumers but that
But he added, "I didn't think
the marketing of American
the increase would be less
it was made as clear as it
crops. However, some labor
than if unregulated Soviet
should have been." Bell said
and consumer groups praised
purchases were permitted.
the Soviet negotiators had
the agreement.
Bell said the pact
refused to agree to provisions
Bell said the Soviets would
established a "permanent
that would reduce their buying
be able to buy up to 8 million
market" in the Soviet Union
flexibility. As a result, the
tons of. corn and wheat in
for American farm products
American side did not come
normal years without ap-
worth $1 billion a year.
up with a "hard" agreement
proval from Washington.
for staggered Soviet pur-
He said that even after total
chases.
The agreement commits the
Soviet purchases of grain
abroad to date, totaling 23.9
Bell indicated that the
Russians to buy 6 million tons
annually starting October 1,
million metric tons, Moscow
toughest negotiating point was
may still need to buy 6 million
an "escape clause" which the
1976, with provisions for
buying 2 million tons more
to 7 million tons more through
Americans wanted and got. It
next September.
allows Washington to keep
when United States supplies
Moscow from buying its
exceed 225 million tons. Bell
minimum 6 million tons if U.
said the possibility was
S. supplies should be less than
"remote" that available
225 million tons.
American grain would fall
below that volume.
In addtition, Bell said, the
Russians could buy several
million tons more of grain
sorghum, barley and soybeans
without approval from
Washington, since those
commodities are not covered
by the agreement.
Washington Post
December 6, 1975
Snag Develops on Shipping Rates
Soviet Grain Deal Put in Doubt
By Marilyn Berger
new six-year maritime
Soviet Union when the new
livestock, "degrade" bread by
Washington Post Staff Writer
agreement. The current three-
five-year grain agreement
putting less protein in it, and,
The Kremlin has backed
year maritime accord ends
was signed.
in the word of one analyst,
down on an agreement to pay
this month.
"If they break that
"suffer-they have a great
premium rates for shipping of
Talks on a new pact were
agreement, Gleason said, "I
capacity for that."
some American grain,
deadlocked as the - senior
will do everything in my
throwing into doubt future
U.S. negotiator, Robert Black-
power to fight it and see they
It was also noted that ships
deliveries to the Soviet Union,
well, assistant secretary of
do not get any more U.S.
have been waiting for a month
which is suffering from a
commerce for maritime af-
grain.'
to unload grain at the ports of
disastrously poor harvest.
fairs, left Moscow yesterday.
Analysts of Soviet affairs
Leningrad and Riga, so the
American officials were
Soviet negotiators are ex-
suggested that Moscow was
Soviets can afford to wait.
perplexed by a Soviet demand
pected in Washington before
taking a hard line, despite The
Soviet officials are also well
that the grain be carried at
the end of the year.
reports released this week
aware that American farmers
market rates-less than $10 a
Reuter reported that
about low yields in this year's
are eager to sell their grain. It
metric 1on-instead of the
Thomas Gleason, President of
harvest, because the Soviets
could come down to a choice
agreed $16. Under the grain
the
International
do not like to negotiate from a
for the Ford administration
agreement concluded in
Longshoreman's Association,
position in which they appear
between the farmers and the
September, American flag
threatened to block U.S. grain
to have a grossly inferior
maritime unions. Soviet of
shipments if Moscow reneged
hand
ships were to carry a third of
ficials, it was suggested,
all the shipments at the
on the freight rates agreed to
The analysts said Moscow
might think they can rely on
premium rate.
last September. The union
does have alternatives to huge
Agriculture Secretary Earl
The grain deal was con-
lifted a boycott against
American grain purchases.
Butz to "deliver" for his
tingent on the conclusion of a
loading grain bound for the
They tould laughter their
constituency, the farmers.
Washington Post
December 19, 1975
1.2
Soviets
12/19/25
Accept
Grain Fee
Failure to reach agreement
By Peter Osnos
before the previous expiration
shington Post Foreign Service
date at the end of this month
MOSCOW, Dec. 18-The
would have raised the
Soviet Union and the United
possibility that U.S. maritime
States reached agreement
unions might again have
today on a maritime pact that
sought to block grain
includes continued Soviet
deliveries to the Soviets as
payment of a premium rate
they did for two months last
for the shipping of some
summer. That action led to
American grain to
discussions of higher rates.
Russia-removing a possible
Under an accord reached
obstacle to substantial grain
Sept. 17, U.S. flag ships are to
purchases by Moscow in the
carry a third of all the grain
United States.
shipped here at the premium
Earlier this month. the
rate. But Moscow, suffering
Soviet-American talks were
from the worst harvest in a
suspended when Moscow
decade nevertheless
insisted that the grain be
reopened the subject of rates
carried at market rates-$10 a
in negotiating the overall
ton-rather than $16 a ton as
maritime accord.
agreed in separate
American officials said the
negotiations in September.
Soviets had probably delayed
Apparently, the Soviets
finalizing the maritime
changed their minds.
agreement as a negotiating
Assistant Secretary of
tactic. On the other hand,
Commerce Robert Blackwell
there is no doubt that the
arrived here unexpectedly
Soviets are uncomfortable
yesterday to resume the
about being in a weak
bargaining and agreement
bargaining position with the
was reached quickly.
United States on all aspects of
The grain provision is part
the grain issue and are looking
of an overall maritime
for ways to assert their
agreement between the two
position.
superpowers that is now to be
extended until Dec. 31. 1981.
Although details. of the full
pact were not disclosed here, a
joint statement said it is
designed to extend the basic
arrangements reached since
1972 concerning the carriage
of cargos" between the United
States and the Soviet Union.
The statement said the
"new agreement will
facilitate expanding trade
between the two countries
AN INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER
The Russian Wheat Agreement
1.2
THE NEW AMERICAN grain agreement with the
taking part in the Geneva talks, and a reserve treaty that
Soviet Union is a short step in the right direction. It does
does not include the Russians is worthless. It needs to be
not promise any great benefit in itself, but it can lead
understood that while the Russians are not the world's
toward broader and more substantial efforts to stabilize
biggest grain importer every year, they are continuously
the world's grain trade. In contrast, the continued
the world's most unpredictable.
American attempt to get an oil deal with the Russians is
Another defect in the new grain agreement-and this
a step in exactly the wrong direction. Linking these two
one is the most serious of all-is its implications for our
subjects, as the Ford administra insists upon doing,
other customers. Japan, for example, is a reliable
is both absurd and dangerous. Absurd, because the
customer that committed itself last summer to buy
wheat agreement is a serious matter and the oil
American grain steadily at a rate of 14.5 million tons a
negotiations are not. Dangerous, because the oil sale
year. What happens if there is a poor crop in this coun-
would discriminate against the Russians' other
try? Legally, it appears that the Russians now have a
customers for oil, in Western Europe.
prior claim over the Japanese. True, in a really
With the grain agreement, the administration
disastrous harvest, an escape clause in the new
acknowledges at last that the American market safely
agreement would permit the United States to refuse the 6
cannot be left wide open to sudden and unpredictable
million ton minimum sale to the Soviets. But supplies
pounces by the Russians. It commits the Soviet Union to
could get very tight long before they fell low enough to
buy at least 6 million tons of American corn and wheat
trigger the escape clause. To give any one buyer-and
every year. But they cannot buy more than 8 million tons
particularly this one-precedence over the others
vithout prior consultation with the U.S. government.
represents neither good foreign policy nor elementary
hat does not foreclose the possibility of larger sales. It
fairness.
seems quite possible that the United States will let the
Bilateral deals are a bad way to organize trade in
Russians buy as much as 17 million tons this year, in
grain, in oil; or in any other commodity. The right kind of
view of the very large harvest here. But the agreement
agreement is multilateral, extending the same terms and
puts a check on the degree to which Russian demand can
obligations to all nations that want to buy or sell.
swing, either up or down. It puts new pressure on the
Bilateral trade treaties inevitably confer a privilege on
Soviet government to begin building its own reserves in
one country that they deny to others. The Ford ad-
the good harvest years to help see them through the bad
ministration, to its credit, appears to understand and
ones. Holding reserves is very much in the Soviets' own
accept this truth.
interests in any case. They have perceived that point, a
Its position is that it faced an emergency, and that the
bit belatedly, and are now moving to expand their
soaring Russian grain purchases had to be controlled
storage capacity.
quickly. They were rocking the whole American
Unfortunately, there are also important shortcomings
agricultural economy and aggravating inflation. There
in this grain agreement. While it pushes the Soviets to
was no time, the administration concluded, to work out a
hold grain reserves, it does not require them to do it. The
worldwide grain agreement. That judgment was correct.
long international dispute over reserves is a disgraceful
But this week's bargain with the Russians needs to be
example of global buck-passing. For many years, up to
seen as just that: a temporary expedient that sets a poor
P
1972, the world's grain reserves were held involuntarily
precedent. It makes a world treaty on reserves more
by the two big producers of North America. Those
urgent than ever.
pe
reserves were simply the surplus grain they could not
The worst aspects of the grain agreement are
sell. Partly because of the massive Soviet imports three
gratuitously reinforced by the administration's
years ago, but in general because of the worldwide rise in
misguided attempt to strike a similar bilateral bargain
Sui
demand, those North American reserves have been run
for oil. While the wheat deal has its questionable side, the
down to a point at which they no longer stabilize prices.
oil deal has no other side. Since the amount would be
The answer is to build up reserves again. But holding
small, the whole negotiation is a transparent gesture to
the
reserves is expensive. No country wants to bear the cost.
impress American voters with the shrewdness of the
Na
Governments have been bickering inconclusively for the
administration as horse traders. It wants the Russians to
con
past couple of years over sharing ärrangements:
sell oil to us more cheaply than they sell to the Germans
to
The issue is currently being taken up at the Inter-
or the Italians. It's a strange way to persuade the
national Wheat Council in London, although the
Europeans to open their own markets wider to American
pla
prospects for progress do not seem terribly promising.
goods. The Ford administration keeps saying that, in
by
The European Common Market is apparently miffed by
principle, it still supports open world markets and non-
the American decision not to take the question instead to
discriminatory trade. It's time for the administration to
the trade' talks in Geneva. But the Russians are not
decide whether to support them in practice as well.
Su
Washington Post
January 30, 1976
United F%
national
JUMP THREAT-Unemployed roofer
month-old baby on fire escape outside their
p
Howard Ray Posey, after quarrel in which his
San Diego hotel room. Posey was talked out of
wife threatened to leave him, holds their 6-
his jump threat by Fire Capt. Howard Crosby.
Russians Buy More U.S. Corn
Associated Press
Officials said the Soviets
corn to be provided annually
originally intended to pur-
beginning next Oct. 1.
The Agriculture Depart-
chase the grain from
At that time the embargo
ment said yesterday that the
Argentina but switched to U.S.
was lifted and about 3 million
Soviet Union has bought an
suppliers. The changeover,
more tons of U.S. grain was
additional 301,198 metric tons
however, boosted U.S. grain
sold. That amounted to a
of U.S. corn, the first purchase
sales to Russia in 1975-76 to
cumulative total of more than
since last November.
about 13.4 million tons. A
13 million tons by early
S
metric ton is 2,205 pounds,
November. The corn sale
A department spokesman
equal to about 39.4 bushels of
n
said the seller was Cargill,
announced yesterday was the
A
corn.
first since then.
Inc., of Minneapolis. There
in
was no estimate of the value of
The Soviets bought about 10
The current sales, dating
T
from last summer, represent
the grain.
million tons of U.S. grain last
grain that Russia has bought
k
The disclosure was included
summer before the Ford
to help make up its 1975
un
0
in a weekly report of export
administration imposed an
harvest deficit, a crop that fell
R
commitments by the depar-
embargo on further tran-
far short of Moscow's initial
tment. Officials said,
sactions. On Oct. 20 the White
goals, and is not part of the
CO
however, that the corn sale
House announced a new five-
five-year deal which calls for
go
does not represent additional
year sales agreement with the
deliveries to begin next fall
grain bought by the Soviet
Soviets. calling for 6 million to
after 1976 U.S. harvests are
Union this season.
8 million tons of wheat and
ready.
New York Times
April 29, 1976
Soulet is Purchasing
$400 Million Worth
Of American Grains
By WILLIAM ROBBINS
summer as a result of the So-
Special to The New York Times
WASHINGTON, April 28-
viet Union's disappointing grain
The Soviet Union, in a long-
crops, Because of severe
awaited re-entry into the
droughts, the Russians har-
United States market, has
vested 140 million tons of
bought 3.1 million tons or 122
grain, compared with an early
million bushels, of corn and
target of 215 million tons.
300,000 tons, or 11 million
The Soviet crops are ex-
bushels of wheat, the Depart-
pected to fare better this year,
ment of Agriculture announced
but are still considered unlike-
today.
ly to produce enough to put
The sales were made in three
adequate reserves in the coun-
separate deals by the largest
try's depleted bins.
American grain trading houses,
Under October Accord
Cargill, the Continental Grain
Of the total grain sold, 1.4
Company and Cook Industries.
million tons will come under
No dollar value was an-
the United States-Soviet agree-
nounced for the agreements,
ment ,announced last October,
but on the basis of current
under which the Russians are
prices for contracts in com-
obligated to buy at least six
modity markets, the deals
million tons of grain a year for
would be worth a total of more
than $400 million.
five years, beginning next
Today's sales follow the
Oct. 1.
Soviet purchase of two million
The 1.4 million tons of so-
called new crop grain, still to
tons of wheat just yesterday
be harvested, includes 1.1 mil-
from Canada and one million
lion tons, or 43.3 million
from Australia, and a high
bushels, of corn and 300,000
United States Agriculture De-
tons, or 11 million bushels, of
partment official said today
wheat.
that still more sales were con-
sidered likely.
"Discussions are still going
on, and I expect further sales,"
said Richard E. Bell, Assistant
Secretary of Agriculture.
The Agriculture Department
has long expected and hoped
for such deals because of large
expected carryovers of both
wheat and corn and recent
price declines, which have
disturbed farmers.
Today's sales continue heavy
purchasing that started last
All the sales were metric
bushels, and 11.4 million tons
ery from the new crop, after
that new sales to the Soviet
tons of 2,205 pounds each.
of feed grains.
Oct. 1.
Union were likely to bring the
The remanider of the pur-
The first of today's sales was
Then late today, Continental
total volume from the old crop
chases, or two million tons of
announced shortly after com-
confirmed that it had concluded
to about 17 million tons.
corn, were made for delivery
modity markets closed. It was a
the largest of the three deals,
Before today's sales were an-
before the Oct. 1 effective date
sale of 400,000 tons of old crop
1.7 million tons of corn and the
nounced, the Agriculture De-
of the five-year agreement.
corn for delivery through July,
300,000 tons of wheat. The
partment had said it expected
made by Cook Industries.
wheat and 600,000 tons of the
The top sales of United
the grain carryover to total
That was followed shortly by
corn are for delivery from new
about 550 million bushels, or 15
States grain to the Soviet Union
the announcement of Cargill's
crop grain after Oct. 1. The
million metric tons, of wheat
from the last crop thus stand
deal. That company sold a mil-
other 1.1 million tons of corn,
and 462 million bushels, or 11.8
at 15.8 million metric tons, in-
lion tons of corn, 500,000 tons
from old crops, would be deliv-
million metric tons, of corn
cluding 4.4 milion metric tons
of it for delivery before Sept.
ered before October.
when the new crops are har-
of wheat, or 161.7 million
30 and 500,000 tons for deliv-
Mr. Bell had predicted earlier
vested this summer and fall.
U.S.
grain export tangle grows
Christian Science
Monitor
By Godfrey Sperling Jr.
Staff correspondents of
3/20/
A spokesman for Agriculture Secretary
August 20, 1975
and Harry B. Ellis
Earl Butz said it would be helpful if the Soviet
Union would build up its capacity to store
The Christian Science Monitor
grain, SO that it could enter the U.S. market
Washington
more evenly each year. The Soviet climate
President Ford is reported to be looking
forces periodic crop failures, the spokesman
hard at some form of long-range grain trading
said; Secretary Butz is urging the Soviets to
arrangements with the Soviet Union, as
compensate by storing more grain, instead of
controversy over the sales intensifies among
making sudden large purchases which cause
longshoremen and farmers.
prices to fluctuate.
Longtime Ford associate Melvin Laird told
Reuben Johnson of the National Farmers
newsmen Aug. 19 that Mr. Ford was making a
Union agreed that at times the Soviets had
judgment on how best to deal with Moscow
been "somewhat disruptive" in the world
on a long-term basis since, Mr. Laird said, it
grain trade because they were "in and
made no planning sense to deal with Soviet
outers."
needs on an emergency basis - "whenever
At the same time, East Coast and Gulf
they come to the U.S."
longshoremen have their eyes on more jobs
Current emergency-style trading, Mr. Laird
for their union as well as rising prices for the
said, meant that U.S. officials "are letting the
consumer as they refuse to load any grain
Soviet Union trade the socks off exporters
shipments for the Soviet Union until they are
from the U.S."
assured that domestic prices will not shoot up
Later, Mr. Laird told this newspaper that
as they did in 1972.
Mr. Ford had the option of going for some kind
President Ford said in Minneapolis Aug. 19
of long-term arrangement, such as the three-
that he was "disturbed" by the action of the
year agreement for grain sales with the
longshoremen.
Japanese.
Please turn to Page 19
U.S. grain export tangle continues to grow
Continued from Page 1
merchant traffic is slack and U.S. maritime
And U.S. farmers are up in arms at the
unions and shipping firms want a new agree-
longshoremen's actions, demanding the right
ment, with more than one-third of grain
to export the huge crop they have grown.
cargoes to be carried in American bottoms.
Currently, sales to Moscow are suspended by
Beyond this, the unions are pressing for a
Mr. Butz while the U.S. assesses the exact size
higher freight rate than now prevails. So is the
of the crop; the latest estimate was down 3
U.S. Maritime Administration, since - under
percent from the previous one, though still a
current U.S. law - low rates must be
record.
supported by subsidies from the U.S. Trea-
The International Longshoremen's Associ-
sury to American shipping firms.
ation (ILA) - in concert with other U.S.
Meanwhile, "the only thing," says Joseph
maritime unions - want to use the grain sales
Halow, executive vice-president of Great
to provide more and higher-paying jobs for
Plains Wheat, Inc., "that persuaded American
American seamen and ships.
farmers to produce a crop this size was the
At issue are the number of U.S. vessels, as
prospect of selling it."
opposed to foreign, that will carry this year's
At least two-thirds of this year's wheat crop,
corn, wheat, and other grains - 9.8 million
said Mr. Halow in a telephone. interview,
tons so far has been ordered by the Soviets,
estimated at 2.1 billion bushels, "must be
with more to come - and the freight rates
exported."
involved.
Otherwise, he added, farmers will be left
In October, 1972, the U.S. and Soviet Union
with huge carryover stocks, prices will plum-
signed a maritime agreement, stipulating that
met, and next year will see a "substantial
one-third of the grain bought by Moscow
reduction" in the amount of land sown.
would be shipped in American vessels, one-
President Ford says that, without maximum
third in Soviet ships, and the final third in
U.S. farm exports, "we would have a huge
ships of other nations.
balance of payments deficit, our dollar would
Partly because of the Vietnam War, ship-
be weakened in foreign markets, and we
ing was tight and American owners volun-
would pay higher prices for the many items
ily gave up their full quota. Now, however,
we import every day."
A2
Thursday, August 1975 THE WASHINGTON POST
1.2
Ford Predicts Grain Sale Solution If All Sides 'Cool It
By Carroll Kilpatrick
yesterday on a shippers' re-
phoned Meany and asked him
Wheat Association met here
he said, adding that it is nec-
see more U.S. ships used in
A federally designated arbi-
and Toin Curtis
quest for an injunction
10 work with Labor Secretary
Monday and Tuesday and con-
essary to await the Sept. 1t
carrying the grain abroad.
trator was standing by today
Washington Post Staff Writers
against future walkouts.
John T. Dunlop to resolve the
tinued their meeting today In
President Ford said yester-
crop report to determine how
After their meeting with the
in Houston, but he said his
Bryan Williams Jr., an at-
export problem.
order to incel the President.
day that the maritime union
torney for the shippers, said
much grain can be safely ex-
President, leaders of the farm.
role appeared to he mont since
boycott of grain sales to the
An AFL-CIO spokesman
Dunlop is trying to lay the
four more ships are expected
Soviets can be resolved if all
said Meany would have no
groundwork for n negotiated
ported.
er organizations said they
"we don't have a walkout any-
soon at Texas ports and Lake
more."
sides "cool II."
comment on the call.
settlement, sald press secre-
The Soviet Union has had a
would take no action on wheat
Charles, La, to carry recent-
The nation he said, needs
The President promised rep-
tary Ron Nessen.
"serious crop failure hut the
exports until after the Sept. 11
On the docks, longshoremen
"the overseas sales of Ameri-
ly purchased American grain
resentatives of the nation's
The Président described the
extent of it is not known pre-
crop reports.
seemed surprised but happy to
to the Soviet Union.
can agriculture and we Are go.
wheat growers he would work
controversy over sales of
cisely," the President said.
But they threatened a boy-
be back to work.
ing to find a way to make cer-
AFL-CIO President George
with labor and other groups
wheat and other grains rs "an
"They will be in the market
cott by farmers on the pur-
"['ll go along with union of.
tain" they continue.
Meany has said longshoremen
opposing the sales to find a
extremely Important problem"
for additional" grain pur-
chase of goods produced by
fielals. whatever they say."
In Houston, meanwhile,
al Gulf Coast, Atlantic and
solution, cautioning the wheat
involving farmers, consumers
chases dn this country, he said.
union labor If the maritime
said one veteran longshore.
longshbremen complied with a
Great Lakes ports have been
interests that the best an-
and labor. He repeated his
It Is important to g
union boycott is not settled
man.
temporary federal court order
ordered not to load grain
proach is to "lower our voices
piedge, Inade in a speech at
against the "the klud of total
by that date. Ken Kendrick,
"Its just another day at
and returned to their Johs
bound for the Soviel Union.
and negotiate a settlement"
the Iowa state fair In Des
disruption In the market" the
president of the Great Plains
work," said another. Raymond
loading 25,000 tons of Russia-
He has said AFL-CIO mari-
"If we cool it fnr the time
Moines Monday, to support a
nation experienced in 1972,
Wheat Association, said "it
Vaughn. who has been on the
bound wheat aboard the Yugo-
time unions want assurances
being I'm confident we can
policy of full production for
when both China and the So-
will be a whole new ball game"
docks for 15 years. He said he
slav tanker Bosanka. A second
from the Ford administration
find some answers," Mr. Ford
agriculture.
viet Union were heavy grain
after Sept. 11.
had "no strong feelings" about
grain ship bound [nt the So-
that the grain sates will not
told the directors of three
Full production "gives us
purchasers, Mr. Ford said.
In Galveston, Judge Nocl
loading grain destined for the
viel Union was loaded without
cause increases in U.S. food
wheat organizations at a Vail
great flexibility" In feeding
The President said that the
told attorneys that he will re-
Soviet Union. Both men are
incident at another dock.
prices and that the govern-
hotel.
the hungry 83 well as In the
government is negotiating
sume his hearings on the re-
members of Houston's Inter-
In Galveston, U.S. District
ment will take steps to pro-
Directors of the National
exercise of foreign pollcy. he
with the Soviet Union to get
quest for A temporary re-
national Longsboremen's As-
Court Judge James Noel, who
vide more work for American
Association of Wheat Growers,
said.
"a better freight rate" for
straining order on Friday af-
sociation (ILA) local 1273. the
issued the restraining order
scamen.
the Western Wheat Associa-
"We want to sell more
American ships hauling the
ter they have agreed on un-
white local (Texas ILA unions
late Tuesday, heard arguments
In Vail. Colo., Mr. Ford tele-
fion and the Great Plains
abroad and we will sell more,"
grain. He said he wanted to
contested facts in the case.
reloain segregated by race).