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
4525508
label
Ford Press Releases - Agriculture, 1966-1973
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4525508
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Ford Press Releases - Agriculture, 1966-1973
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Press Releases Subject Files
subjects
Agriculture
Legislation
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4525508
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1973-01-31
month
1
year
1973
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1966-03-01
month
3
year
1966
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
d05740f82d3b331d
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D6, folder "Ford Press Releases - Agriculture,
1966-1973" of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the
Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The Council donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box D6 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
GOVERNMENT CORN DUMPING SPEEDS UP
USDA becomes OPA
Mr. Speaker, yesterday's commodity report of the WALL STREETJOURNAL
clearly sets forth the facts concerning the current premeditated and
deliberated effort by the U. S. Department of Agriculture to intentionally
and systematically depress corn market prices.
This newspaper summarizes the Department's action as follows:
"Surplus corn sales have been stepped up by the Government,
a development which grain traders believe is part of the Adminis-
tration's effort to curb inflation. Federal disposals ballooned
to 140.2 million bushels in February, up from only 8.4 million
bushels in December and the largest for any month in four years."
As this report shows, Chicago prices on number 2 yellow corn, a key
grade, have dropped to $1.27 per bushel, or down 6 cents from 3 weeks ago.
The clear import of this newstory is that the U. S. Department of
Agriculture is now acting like the Office of Price Administration of
World War II days. It is taking an active role in price controls on one
of our most important grains. It is deliberately depressing the corn price
by dumping the government surplus.
This shocking activity certainly should be stopped by Secretary
Freeman. Is it fair to farmers for this Administration to wink its eye at
wage and price increases in excess of 3.2 percent alleged Johnson-Humphrey
guidelines for other segments of the economy and then turn around and depress
the corn market? By piecemeal economic discrimination the Administration
is not really getting at the root of the problem of inflation. The real
villain in the increase in the cost of living is the Johnson-Humphrey
ARY GERALD 1999 H-FORD
-2-
Administration which will increase the cost of the Federal government by
$26 billion in a two-year period. Let me re-emphasise the villian is not
the American farmer but a more expensive and expanding Federal gyernment.
I ask unanimous consent to include the entire contents of the
WALL STREET JOURNAL article of March 7, 1966, at this point in the Record.
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
at
10
Rep. Ford's statement to House of Representatives, March 8, 1966
For Immediate Release
from
B
GOVERNMENT CORN DUMPING SPEEDS UP
to
I
USDA becomes OPA
Mr. Speaker, yesterday's commonity report of the WALL STREET JOURNAL
clearly sets forth the facts concerning the current premedits and deliber-
ate effort by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to intentionally and system-
atically depress corn market prices.
This newspaper summarizes the Department's action as follows:
"Surplus corn sales have been stepped up by the Government, a de-
velopment which grain traders believe is part of the Administration's
effort to curb inflation. Federal disposals ballooned to 140 2 million
bushels in February, Up from only 8.4 !llion bushels in December and the
largest for any month in four years.
As this report shows, Chicago rices on number 2 yellow corn, a key grade, have
dropped to $1.27 per bushel, or down 6 cents from 3 weeks ago.
The clear import of this newstory is that the U.S. Department of Agriculture
is now acting like the Office of Price Administration of World War II days. It
is taking an active role in price controls on one of our most important grains.
It is deliberately depressing the corn price by dumping the government surplus.
FORD
This shocking activity certainly should be stopped by Secretary Freeman.
Is it fair to farmers for this Administration to wink its eye at wage and price
LIBRARY
increases in excess of 3.2 percent alleged Johnson-Humphrey guidelines for other
- 2 -
segments of the economy and then turn around and depress the corn market?
By piecemeal economic discrimination the Administration is not really
getting at the root of the problem of inflation. The real villain in
the increase in the cost of living is the Johnson-Humphrey Administration
which will increase the cost of the Federal government by $26 billion in
a two-year period. Let me re-emphasize, the villain is not the American
farmer but a more expensive and expanding Federal government.
I ask unanimous consent to include the entire contents of the WALL
STREET JOURNAL article of March 7, 1966, at this point in the Record.
-30-
House Republican Policy Committee
Agriculture
John J. Rhodes, Chairman
140 Cannon House Office Bldg.
June 8, 1966
Phone: 225-6168
Immediate Release
Republican Policy Committee Statement on Food for Freedom Act of 1966
H.R. 14929
The Republican Policy Committee supports the extension and amendment of
Public Law 480 which was enacted under the leadership of President Eisenhower
and by a Republican Congress in 1954. This is the cornerstone of "Food for
Peace." It has meant the difference between life and death for millions of
people in a world where much of the population is engaged in a race between
food production and population growth. At the same time, our farm export
markets have grown enormously due to the foresight embodied in the original law.
We commend the Republican members of the Committee on Agriculture for
adding a number of amendments that improve this legislation. These amendments
would:
(a) provide continuing Congressional review of the operation and
administration of the program by limiting the extension to 2 years,
(b) retain the basic concert of friendly countries,"
(c) strengthen our national efforts to halt the supplying of hostile
Communist regimes In Cuba and North Vietnam,
(d) improve the effectiveness of the P.L. 480 Joint Congressional-
Executive Advisory Committee,
(e) insist, when possible, upon a 5-percent cash payment in title I
sales agreements,
(f) place stronger emphasis upon agricultural self-help by earmarking
at least 20 percent of certain foreign currencies generated by
title I sales for this purpose,
(g) require, insofar as practicable, the identification of food sold
for foreign currencies as being provided through the generosity of
the American people, and
(h) expanded technical assistance in friendly developing countries
through a farmer to farmer program.
It is unfortunate that during the entire consideration of this bill, the
Johnson-Humphrey Administration labored to discard the statutory concept of
"friendly" countries that has been in P.L. 480 for many years. Under this
concept, such countries have obtained subsidized sales from our government.
We believe that any nation that either sells or furnishes or allows ships or
aircraft under its registry to carry any equipment, supplies, or commodities
to or from North Vietnam or Cuba should not be deemed to be a friendly
country entitled to subsidized sales. Moreover, any nation now carrying on
commercial activities with Hanoi and Havana need only refrain from doing so
if it wishes to acquire U.S. farm products for its own currency or on a long-
term dollar-credit basis. Certainly, when we are asking Americans to fight
and die in the defense of freedom, nations receiving special treatment from
this country should not trade with our enemies.
FORD VIBRARY
(over)
-2-
While H.R. 14929 now represents a distinct improvement over the original
proposals submitted by the Administration, we believe that it should be further
amended and changed to make the Food for Peace program even more effective.
We oppose the Committee amendment which would permit long-term dollar-credit
sales being made for 40-year repayment periods with grace periods of up to
10 years. The impact on the balance of payments problem, the distinction between
loans for food and loans for permanent structures, and the uncertainty of any
substantial repayment of such long-term loans all demand that the present law
which limits dollar credit sales to 20 years with 2-year grace periods be
retained.
We are pleased that H.R. 14929 does not contain the Johnson-Humphrey
Administration's request that would have given the Secretary of Agriculture new
and unprecedented authority to manipulate market prices for a host of agri-
cultural commodities. The granting of such power is both unwise and unnecessary.
Unfortunately, the bill contains a completely ineffective and inoperative
provision relating to government sales of grains into the domestic market. An
amendment was offered by the Republican members of the Committee which would
prevent large-scale dumping of grains by the Secretary of Agriculture in order
to depress market prices for corn, sorghum, other feed grains and wheat.
However, it was rejected. Such an amendment will be offered on the Floor of
the House in order to prevent the Secretary of Agriculture from selling
government stocks of grain at less than 80 percent of parity plus carrying
charges. This amendment also would improve market prices for grain producers.
Without question, there is a growing world food and population crisis.
This crisis has a vital impact on American agriculture and the American people.
A program to meet the challenges and needs of the future must be enacted. With
appropriate amendments, H.R. 14929 is a right step in the right direction.
FOR THE SENATE:
FOR THE HOUSE
THE JOINT SENATE-HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES:
Everett M. Dirksen, Leader
Thomas H. Kuchel, Whip
REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
Gerald R. Ford, Leader
Leslie C. Arends, Whip
Bourke B. Hickenlooper, Chr.
of the Policy Committee
Melvin R. Laird,
Chr. of the Conference
Leverett Saltonstall, Chr.
Press Release
of the Conference
John J. Rhodes, Chr.
of the Policy Committee
Thruston B. Morton,
H. Allen Smith,
Chr. Republican
Ranking Member
Senatorial Committee
Rules Committee
Issued following a
Bob Wilson,
PRESIDING OFFICER:
Leadership Meeting
Chr. Republican
Congressional Committee
The Republican
June 16, 1966
Charles E. Goodell,
National Chairman
Chr. Committee on
Ray C. Bliss
Planning and Research
STATEMENT BY REPRESENTATIVE FORD:
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
On March 31st last, the Secretary of Agriculture, Orville L.
Freeman, announced that the prices of farm products had dropped during
the preceding weeks and expressed delight in this fact. The press
throughout the nation reported his elation in detail and farmers
throughout America reacted angrily.
The New York Times began its report on the situation in this way:
"Secretary of Agriculture Orville L. Freeman expressed
pleasure today with the fact that the prices of farm
products had dropped recently.
"It was the first time in the memory of Federal farm
officials that a Secretary of Agriculture indicated
that he was pleased with a decrease in farm prices.
Like Mr. Freeman, the officials were happy to note
that consumers would benefit from lower prices by
this summer."
Let me repeat that last sentence: "Like Mr. Freeman, the offi-
cials were happy to note that consumers would benefit from lower
prices by this summer." There is only one flaw in this statement. It
simply isn't true. Paradoxically, as farm prices have moved steadily
downward, retail food prices have risen even more rapidly and the
Department of Labor's cost of living index has continued to climb to
record highs.
Secretary Freeman, Economic Advisor Gardner Ackley, and each of
the other prominent agricrats have tried, repeatedly and with zeal,
to make the American farmer and his family the whipping boys for the
inflation that is steadily taking more and more dollars from the
pockets of every American. The housewives of America should be told
that 61% of the cost of the food in their market baskets is added
after it leaves the farm. I repeat -- the housewives of America
should be told that 61% of the cost of the food in their market baskets
is added after it leaves the farm.
Room S-124 U.S. Capitol-CApitol 4-3121 - Ex 3700
Staff Consultant - John B. Fisher
Representative Ford:
The cold hard fact of the matter is that the rising costs of
living in this country can be attributed primarily to the excessive,
reckless spending of our people's money for wasteful, too often
unnecessary programs conceived by the so-called Great Society planners
and concurred in by the great majority of Democrats in Congress.
Secretary Freeman has alleged that during his tenure of office
the American farmer has enjoyed a fifty per cent increase in his
income. Will all the farmers who have enjoyed a real income increase
of fifty per cent please stand up? Or, better yet, let the Adminis-
tration and the Congress hear from you by letter, wire, or telephone.
Farm organizations, farm state newspapers, farm leaders and countless
individual farmers from coast to coast are boiling with anger over
the policies and practices of this Administration which are driving
farm prices swiftly downward and consumer costs harshly upward with
each passing day.
Let there be no mistake. The Johnson-Humphrey Administration is
using and abusing American farmers and ranchers as the scapegoats
of inflation. To this statement I attach a listing of specific
examples and I invite your attention to it.
When the agricrats of the Johnson-Humphrey Administration impose
policies and practices which help no one and harm everyone, the
Congress and the American people are fully justified in their anger.
The boiling point is near at hand.
Therefore, our Question-of-the-Week:
Mr. President, are you going to
keep prices down on the farm?
(note attachment)
The Johnson-Humphrey Administration is using and abusing American
farmers and ranchers as the scapegoats of inflation:
(1) by domestic fiscal policies which have sharply increased
farm production costs;
(2) by market price manipulations which have decreased prices
received by farmers, with the result that the present
parity ratio stands at only 79, even including direct
subsidies, despite Democratic promises of 100;
(3) by refusing to admit that increased consumer prices --
increased food costs to the housewife and the wage-earner
--have not been caused by farmers, such consumer prices
having risen steadily as farm prices have as steadily
decreased;
(4) by recommending drastic cuts in Congressional appro-
priations for school milk, school lunches, land grant
colleges, and other vital programs;
(5) by the Secretary of Agriculture's dumping of huge
quantities of grain at unrealistic prices upon the
domestic market in order to break and depress grain
and livestock market prices;
(6) by the Department of Commerce action of March 7, 1966
imposing restriction on the export of cattle hides, calf
and kip skins, such action resulting in lower domestic
livestock products,
(7) by a large and unilaterial increase in Cheddar cheese imports,
without any attempt being made to secure reciprocal trade
concessions from other nations to expand U. S. agricul-
tural exports overseas;
(8) by a sharp curtailment of purchases of pork and of butter
and other dairy products by the Department of Defense;
and, I repeat -
(9) by the Secretary of Agriculture's expression of pleasure
with the fact that prices of farm products have dropped.
STATEMENT BY SENATOR DIRKSEN:
June 16, 1966
When farm prices go down and farm production costs rise -- when
the taxpayer's living costs rise and his dollar earnings decrease in
value -- the American people are experiencing what is known in some
circles as "the double whammy". The Johnson-Humphrey Administration's
"double whammy" on this nation is now past all endurance.
For the agricrats of this Administration to contend or even to
imply that the price of farm products is a cause of inflation is
ridiculous. The principal cause of the inflation now upon us through-
out America is, rather, the w1ld, willful and witless spending of
the Johnson-Humphrey Administration and its supporters in countless
needless areas.
Inflation is on the move throughout the nation. Should it become
rampant -- as it threatens to do -- those who will suffer most will
be those in the lowest income brackets. Make no misjudgements about
this whatever.
Thus far, this Administration's major attack upon rapidly rising
living costs has been directed wholly misdirected against farm
prices. Living costs cannot be reduced significantly by any such
action, even though the Administration's economic advisers appear to
think so. With farm prices down 13 per cent and retail food prices
up 16 per cent between America's wars of 1951 in Korea and 1966 in
Viet Nam, it should be clear even to these agricrats that the real
villain confronting them is the inflation so steadily promoted by
their reckless spending for needless programs and not by the prices
down on the farm.
Let it be recorded here and now that our vigorous protest
against these policies is neither partisan nor improperly political.
We invite the attention of the Congress, the press and the public
to the several resolutions that have been filed from both sides of
the aisle in a dedicated effort to meet this problem squarely
Senate Concurrent Resolution 93 and Senate Concurrent Resolution 88,
among others -- and we commend without reservation the fair-minded
determination of the Republican and Democratic senators sponsoring
them.
Senator Dirksen
Meanwhile, down on the farm, the public anger to which we have
referred is finding ever greater expression with each passing day --
and we in the Congress are well aware of it. It has found voice
with particular force and eloquence in an editorial that first
appeared in the Walsh County Record published at Grafton, North
Dakota, on May 19 last, in which these two paragraphs seem to me
especially pertinent:
"Mr. President: This is either the fifth or sixth
draft of this brief comment. The first, written in
instantaneous anger a couple of weeks ago was, after
overnight reflection, discarded as just too furious.
In the intervening days, there's been a mighty struggle
going on to temper our fury down to rage, and then to
wrath, and then to indignation. That seems to be as
far as the emotion can be distilled.
'When you and your appointed aides announce that
you are going to control inflation by making war on
farm prices, you've set a grass-fire, Mr. President.
For the fact is, war is never waged against an
abstraction, like prices. War is waged against
people. In this case, us."
We repeat = against people. In this case, us.
I suggest that we listen now to the men and the women who feed
the nation -- taxpayers like all the rest of us. I suggest we stop
listening to these agricrats in Washington, far removed from the
farmlands and even farther removed from reality.
Therefore, our Question-of-the-Week:
Mr. President, are you going to
keep prices down on the farm?
60P long , Camp. Comm, 7-29-66
RADIO TAPE REMARKS
Agriculture Secretary Orville Freeman has told Democratic candidates
for Congress to "slip, slide, and duck any question of higher consumer
prices if you possibly can." I an not surprised that Mr. Freeman gave
this advice to Democrate at a recent candidates conference. He knows full
well that the Johnson-Humphrey-Freeman Administration is entirely to blame
for the shockingly swift rise in the cost of living during the first half
of 1966. He knows that the cost of living rose 2 per cent last year and
is going up at a 3 to 4 per cent rate this year. Naturally Mr. Freeman is
telling Democrats to avoid questions on inflation. He knows it's the No. 1
issue in the country and it is damaging to the Democrats.
# # #
BERALD FORD FIBRARY
GO Plong Camp, Comm. 7-29-66 Re: Farm
RADIO TAPE REMARKS
Agriculture Secretary Orville Freeman has told Democratic candidates
for Congress to "wlip, slide, and duck any question of higher consumer
prices if you possibly can." I an not surprised that Mr. Freeman gave
this advice to Democrate at a recent candidates conference. He knows full
well that the Johnson-Humphrey-Freeman Administration is entirely to blame
for the shockingly swift rise in the cost of living during the first half
of 1966. He knows that the cost of living rose 2 per cent last year and
is going up at a 3 to 4 per cent rate this year. Naturally Mr. Freeman is
telling Democrats to avoid questions on inflation. He knows it's the No. 1
issue in the country and it is damaging to the Democrats.
# # #
BERRAD FORD LIBRARY
LBJ AID WARNS
CANDIDATES OF
FARMERS' IRE
Don't Talk Inflation,
Freeman Advises
BY ALDO BECKMAN
[Chicage Tribune Press Service]
Washington, July 28 Secre-
"Get 40 Per Cent"
tary of Agriculture Orville
Freeman said that farmers
Freeman has told Democratic
get only 40 per cent of the dol-
congressional candidates at a
lar that housewives spend for
closed briefing that they must
food at the supermarkets and
overcome deep resentment
suggested that candidates
against the administration in
could point out that housewives
farm areas and should stay
pay extra for the luxury of
away from discussion of infla-
ready-made foods
tion.
"A TV dinner that costs 60
"There is a reaction far
cents at the store could be:
deeper and more bitter than I
fixed at home for 20 cents,"
could ever have anticipated"
Freeman said.
among the nation's farmers
He urged the candidates to
over recent remarks by admin-
emjhasize that net farm in-
istration officials concern-
come is at its highest in his-
ing farm prices, Freeman told
tory. "Farm income and farm
the candidates. "Farmers
outlooks are better under this
know what a tremendous ml-
administration than they have
nority they are and they are
been under any other in
very sensitive."
years," he said. "But," be
Several weeks ago, President
warned, "farmers never like to
Johnson indicated that high
be told they're doing all right."
farm prices were partly to
"Bunch of Nongence"
blame for the increased cost of
Freeman said grain sur-
living and two days later,
pluses that were such a prob-
Freeman announced he was
lem several years ago have
"pleased to report" that ear-
diminished so much that "we
tain farm prices were down.
may be able to increase wheat
Directed to Conference
acreage allotments" this fall.
Both remarks triggered at
He described as a "complete
most instant criticism from
bunch of nonsense," the con-
farm belt congressmen and
troversy over his letter to Sec-
from farm leaders thruout the
retary of Defense Robert Mc-
nation.
Namara, asking the defense
A CHICAGO TRIBUNE re-
department to stop buying pork
porter listened in on Freeman's
several menths ago, when the
discussions with congressional
farmers were receiving 30
Halfu
candidates, after a girl, who
cents a pound for hogs at the
4.31
was a staff member of the
market. "It didn't affect farm
20
Democratic national commit-
income one bit," be said. "R
10
tee, directed him into the room
was the absolutely legical
for a scheduled "news briefing."
thing to do and was consistent
The reporter was wearing a
with the farmers' interest."
badge which had been issued
He Indicated he would take
by press officials, but it was
the same action M a similar alt-
similar to those worn by the
untion aross again. "It is only
candidates and was never
good sense that the defense de-
checked closely. The reporter
partment should buy beef when
later learned that the news
there is less demand for It by
briefing, which was to be held
the nation's consumers," be
in an adjacent room of a Wash-
said.
inton botel, had been can-
"They Wen't Buy R"
caled.
Freeman said he asked the
defense department to resume
Asks for Advice
their pork purchases as soon as
A candidate from Columbus,
the market price dropped sev-
O., told Freeman that a pell in
oral cents.
his district showed that the ma-
The former Minnesota gover-
jor Issue was inflation, and
he sought advice on how to
nor told the candidates that
handle questions about the to-
the percentage of each pay
creased cost of living.
1
check that now goes for food is
"I've been trying to figure
lower than in 1980. "You could
out an answer to that question
tell them (the housewives]
for six years," Freeman re-
plied. "Slip, slide, and duck
that, but we know they wouldn't
any question of higher consu-
buy R," he said.
mer prices if you possibly
The three-day closed meet-
can."
ing will end tomorrow. During
"Don't get caught in a debate
the sessions, the candidates
over higher prices between
were permitted to question
housewives and farmers," he
either cabinet members or rep-
cautioned "If you de. and
resentative (rum each cabinet-
have to choose a side, take the
min
farmers' side It's the right
are
ear
side, and, besides, housewives
aren't nearly as well organ-
ized."
NEWS
CONGRESSMAN
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
TUESDAY, AUGUST 2, 1966
STATEMENT BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICHIGAN.
In panic Democratic members of Congress from farm states are seeking
to placate farmers by calling for a Congressional investigation of bread and
dairy product prices.
Such an investigation might be informative, and I am not onposed to it.
But it also appears to be a smokescreen designed to divert farmer attention
from Administration actions which drove down farm prices earlier this year.
There seems little question that the call for an investigation of bread
and dairy product prices is a diversionary tactic by the Democrats from the
farm states. It is a move to cool off farmers angry at the Johnson-Humphrey-
Freeman Administration and Democrats in Congress. Farmers are too smart
to let themselves be fooled into forgiving and forgetting.
The Administration used the farmer as the whipping boy for inflation until
he turned on them in righteous wrath. Now Democrats in Congress are looking for
another scapegoat for the cost-of-living increases caused primarily by the
inflationary fiscal policies of the Johnson Administration.
###
FOR THE SENATE:
FOR THE HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES:
Everett M. Dirksen, Leader
THE JOINT SENATE-HOUSE
Gerald R. Ford, Leader
Thomas H. Kuchel, Whip
REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
Leslie C. Arends, Whip
Bourke B. Hickenlooper, Chr.
Melvin R. Laird,
of the Policy Committee
Chr. of the Conference
Leverett Saltonstall, Chr.
Press Release
John J. Rhodes, Chr.
of the Conference
of the Policy Committee
Thruston B. Morton,
H. Allen Smith,
Chr. Republican
Ranking Member
Senatorial Committee
Rules Committee
Bob Wilson,
Chr. Republican
PRESIDING OFFICER:
Congressional Committee
August 5, 1966
The Republican
Charles E. Goodell,
National Chairman
Chr. Committee on
Ray C. Bliss
Planning and Research
STATEMENT BY REPRESENTATIVE FORD
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Democratic Secretary of Agriculture, Orville Freeman, met in
Washington last week in a closed session with a number of Democratic
candidates for reelection to Congress, to discuss Democratic tactics
and techniques of the coming campaign.
A reporter from the Chicago Tribune was present and recorded
that Democratic political discussion in detail. Among other things,
he wrote:
"Secretary of Agriculture Orville Freeman has
told Democratic congressional candidates at a
closed briefing that they must overcome deep
resentment in farm areas and should stay away
from discussion of inflation
"A candidate from Columbus, O., told Freeman that
a poll in his district showed that the major issue
was inflation and he sought advice on how to handle
questions about the increased cost of living.
I've been trying to figure out an answer to
that question for six years, Freeman replied.
'Slip, slide, and duck any question of higher
consumer prices if you possibly can.'
"Don't get caught in a debate over higher prices
between housewives and farmers, he cautioned. 'If
you do, and have to choose a side, take the farmers'
side. It's the right side, and besides, housewives
aren't nearly as well organized.'
These are unbelievable statements by the Democratic Secretary
of Agriculture. The American people will find them unbelievable.
America's farmers and America's housewives will find them not only
unbelievable but intolerable. A strong reaction to them is both
certain and deserved.
The attitude revealed by these statements has consistently char-
acterized the Jehnson-Humphrey Administration. Its failure to tell
the whole truth about inflation, about Viet Nam, about taxation,
about the poverty program, about Government employment, about foreign
aid, about the budget, has been almost unequaled in our political
history.
Room S-124 U.S. Capitol-CApitol 4-3121 - Ex 3700
Staff Consultant - John B. Fisher
REPRESENTATIVE FORD
Page 2
As the days go by will the Johnson-Humphrey Administration and
its Democrat-controlled Congress continue to "slip, slide and duck" the
great and crucial issues that confront the nation? Will The Great
Unorganized of the Nation -- the housewives, the majority of wage-
earners, the small businessmen, the independent professional people,
parents and the young people, be increasingly ignored because they
do not fit the Freeman formula of "slip, slide and duck" unless they're
organized?
Among The Great Unorganized, too, are our school children --
the very ones whose daily school milk Secretary Freeman and this
Administration seek to cut back SO drastically!
In further reference to our farm population, the Chicago Tribune
story continues:
"There is a reaction far deeper and more bitter
than I could ever have anticipated among the nation's
farmers over recent remarks by administration officials
concerning farm prices, Freeman told the candidates.
Farmers know what a tremendous minority they are and
they are very sensitive.
Are we asked to assume from this disparaging reference that our
farmers are an unimportant, as well as a sensitve, minority? Are
we expected to conclude from this that The Great Unorganized majority
of Americans are to be disregarded by the Johnson-Humphrey Administra-
tion in the months ahead? Can we expect, that not alone on the issue
of inflation, but on every other issue of importance to our people,
this wretched philosophy, this unworthy attitude, this shocking
Freeman formula, will prevail?
Therefore, our Question-of-the-Week:
Mr. President, will the Democrats
"slip, slide and duck" EVERY issue?
STATEMENT BY SENATOR DIRKSEN
August 5, 1966
"
and besides, housewives aren't nearly as well organized."
Thus spake Democratic Secretary Freeman. Must we conclude from this
that the age of chivalry is indeed dead? Must we assume that
America's housewives are of no consequence in the eyes of the Johnson-
Humphrey Administration?
I, for one, do not believe that the age of chivalry has passed.
Indeed, I like to believe it is in full flower, despite these Demo-
cratic spokesmen. As for Secretary Freeman's indifference to the
nation's housewives, I can only conclude that he has sadly under-
estimated the power of America's women.
There is not a single issue of our time that is not of paramount
concern to the housewives or America. Foremost among these are the
issues of inflation and the war in Viet Nam. None know their impact
SO intimately; none are more willing to make whatever sacrifice may
be needed to solve them; none are so undeserving of such official
scorn as the women who make the homes and shape the future of the
nation. I hope, indeed I am certain, that this downgrading of
America's housewives will bring forth from them a resentment and a
reaction that will be fierce and formidable.
During the past several months, we Republicans in loyal opposi-
tion have, in addition to the making of positive and constructive
proposals for administrative and legislative action, addressed specific
questions to the Johnson-Humphrey Administration. Our intentions
in this have been honorable. Our objectives have been in the public
interest. These questions, making reference to the important issues
of the time, have read as follows:
(On the high cost of living):
Mr. President, what are YOU doing about the
rising costs of living?
(On poverty):
Mr. President, why is the War on Poverty being lost?
(on credibility):
Mr. President, what CAN we believe?
(On farm prices):
Mr. President, are you going to keep prices
down on the farm?
Sen. Dirksen
page 2
(On foreign aid):
Mr. President, why are we losing our money AND
our friends?
(On inflation):
Mr. President, why do you brag about inflation?
To date, in reply to these questions, there has come from the
Johnson-Humphrey Administration only a deep and pregnant silence, from
which we can only assume that the Freeman formula of "slip, slide and
duck" is of much earlier origin and application than last week. Will
the Democratic campaign theme song this year be: "We Will Slip, Slide
and Duck Our Way to Victory"?
In fairness to the Congress and the American people these
questions should be answered, these issues must be faced, these
problems must be solved. Republicans in Congress and across the
country have repeated their willingness and demonstrated their ability
to propose, and to cooperate fully with respect to, such solutions
but in this great republic of ours, the public interest requires that
the majority show an equal readiness to cooperate, an equal willingnes:
to face the facts squarely and with courage. The Freeman formula of
'slip, slide and duck" indicates quite clearly that the Administration
and its overwhelming Democratic Congressional majorities have neither
the wit nor the wish nor the will to do SO.
Therefore, our Question-of-the-Week:
Mr. President, will the Democrats
"slip, slide and duck" EVERY issue?
House Republican Policy Committee
John J. Rhodes, Chairman
Immediate Release
140 Cannon House Office Bldg.
Phone: 225-6168
August 16, 1966
Republican Policy Committee Statement on Rural Community Development Act
The House Republican Policy Committee is opposed to S.2934, the Rural Community
Development Act. This bill duplicates a number of other federal planning programs
and proliferates the bureaucracy of the Agriculture Department. It would destroy
the incentive for State and local communities to do their own planning. It calls
for additional non-essential spending at a time when excessive government spending
is one of the major contributors to a dangerous inflationary situation.
Under this bill, Secretary of Agriculture Orville Freeman would be authorized to
tell the Department of Housing and Urban Development which districts in strictly
rural areas may get planning grants from H.U.D. Such grants would then be paid
from funds that are now earmarked for urban and suburban communities.
Stripped of its fancy phrases and technical provisions, this bill is a make-work
project for the Department of Agriculture. It is a poorly-disguised attempt to get
a piece of the urban development "action" for the "underprivileged" bureaucrats of
the Agriculture Department.
Having "helped" the American farmer to the point of desperation, Secretary
Freeman and his horde of bureaucrats are now ready and eager to furnish the same
type of "help" to the city dweller. Thanks to a cultivated and highly successful
capacity for growth, the manpower for this task is presently available in the
Department of Agriculture. Although the farm population has suffered a serious
and continuing decline (down 3.2 million since 1960), the Department of Agriculture
has mushroomed into one of the largest Departments in the Federal Government.
There are, today, 232,244 regular full time and part-time employees, plus 38,920
temporary part-time employees.
The House Appropriations Committee earlier this year furnished an example of
how this Department expands and grows. The Rural Community Development Service of
the Department of Agriculture started with just 33 people and a budget of $88,000
in 1963. This budget was expanded to $118,945 in 1964, $181,872 in 1965, and
$625,000 in 1966. Shortly after R.C.D.S. was established, 3 field offices were
created. Last year 20 field offices were proposed. And the request of $3,468,000
for fiscal year 1967 contemplates 40 field offices and a total of 221 man-years
in Washington and the field. Fortunately, the House Committee on Appropriations
reduced the 1967 money request to $637,000 and this action was subsequently upheld
by the House.
Although the Secretary of Agriculture cannot designate the boundaries of each
Planning district, he would have the authority to withhold the Planning grant in
the event a district did not conform to the standards that he desired. Signifi-
cantly, when asked for his ideas regarding the size and scope of such districts,
Secretary Freeman stated: There is not a limit of any kind. Under this approach
the size, shape and description of the newly-formed district can expand or contract
as the ever-changing Washington policy may dictate. Historic city, town, and
county boundaries can be disregarded for little or no reason.
At the same time that the Johnson-Humphrey Administration has called for a
reduction in the school milk program, the school lunch program, and many other well
established and useful agricultural programs, it is ironic that it would pressure
Congress for this new and unnecessary program. We urge the rejection of this
legislation.
8 May 1968
IIIII
U. S. HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES
REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE
REP. JOHN J. RHODES, (R.-ARIZ.) CHAIRMAN
1616 LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
TELEPHONE 225-6168
10
REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE STATEMENT ON THE EXTENSION OF PUBLIC LAW 480 - H.R. 16165
The Republican Policy Committee supports the Extension of Public Law 480. This
statute which is the cornerstone of the Food for Peace Program, was enacted into law
under the leadership of President Eisenhower and by a Republican Congress in 1954.
It has meant the difference between life and death for millions of people in a world
where much of the population is engaged in a desperate race between food production
and population growth.
The provisions of H.P. 16165 would.
(1) extend titles I & II of the act for 1 year, through December 31, 1969
(2) clarify the President's authority to accept foreign currencies for certain
uses authorized by the act:
(3) establish the policy that the United States should get a fair share of
any growth in commercial agricultural markets in developing nations'
(4) permit special convertibility of foreign currency at mutually agreed to
rates for the purpose of paying U.S. and foreign public works contractors
(5) permit the payment of U.S. importers in foreign currency
(6) place increased emphasis on rodent, insect, weed and plant and animal
pest control programs in developing nations:
(7) repeal stockpile barter and
(8) reduce the size of the joint Congressional-Executive Advisory Committee
and establish a regular meeting procedure.
Public Law 480 was established to provide aid to the hungry neonle of the
world, to assist in the orderly disposition of the excess productivity of American
agriculture, and to expand meaningful trade between the United States and friendly
nations throughout the world. Today, there are no longer surpluses in many agricul-
tural commodities. As a result, this law has become in great part another aspect of
foreign aid and must be considered as such in figuring the total cost of this program.
(over)
This law still provides a good vehicle through which this Country can assist those
in need. However, we must make certain that, this aid is not given to those who
should be growing their own agricultural products or purchasing ours with dollars.
Moreover, every effort should be made to insure that the foreign exchange available
in under-developed and newly-emerging nations is used for the purchase of food and
fibre rather than the purchase of expensive arms and sophisticated weanons that es-
calate tensions and are unnecessary for internal security purposes.
In 1966 Congress adopted amendments under which friendly developing nations
receiving assistance were encouraged to engage in greater agricultural self-help.
The program was converted in great part from local currency sales to dollar credit
and commercial sales. Voluntary family planning services were emphasized. And, as
a result of Republican efforts which overcame the opposition of the Johnson-Humphrey
Administration, concessional sales to nations carrying on commerce with North Vietnam
and Cuba were prohibited.
Properly oriented and directed, Public Law 480 can be a useful instrument for
developing overseas markets. The annual billion dollar cash market in Japan had its
origin in concessional sales. The cash markets in Israel, Taiwan, Korea, Italy, Spain,
the Phillipines and other countries are expanding.
Much more can be accomplished. The half-billion dollar loss in agricultural
sales that we suffered last year must he restored. As quickly as possible, commercial
markets must be developed to replace the gift or concessional sales.
The present fiscal crisis makes it absolutely imperative that this program as
well as all other programs produce the greatest benefit at the least possible cost.
In sharp contrast to our position of just a few years ago, we are now the nation with
the serious budget deficit and the balance of payments problem. The tragic drift
toward fiscal disaster is evidenced by our March trade deficit.
This Country cannot engage indefinitely in massive and tremendously expensive
foreign aid programs. The helping hand must be replaced by self-help. Food-deficient
countries must be encouraged to develon their own resources so that they can carry a
larger share of the responsibility for feeding their people.
22 May 1968
11111
U. S. HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES
REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE
REP. JOHN J. RHODES, (R.-ARIZ.) CHAIRMAN
1616 LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
TELEPHONE 225-6168
10
HOUSE REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE STATEMENT ON H.P. 17126, AMENDMENTS TO THE
"OOD AND AGRICULTURE ACT OF 1967
It is little wonder that President Johnson devoted only one sentence to
agriculture in his 1968 Economic Peport. Fight years of Democratic mismanagement and
neglect have placed the American Farmer in grave financial trouble. Since 1961, net
farm debt has increased $23.7 billion while production costs have increased 31 percent.
The parity ratio, which averaged 85 during the eight years of the Fisenhower Admin-
istration. averaged only 74 for 1967 as a whole and was down to 73 on April 15, 1962.
The realized net farm income in 1967 was down nearly S2 billion - a 10% cut in Day
for farmers. The inflationary fiscal policies of the last eight years have trapped
the American farmer in a vicious price-cost squeeze.
Despite the misdirected and self-defeating aspects of the present Federal
Farm Program, the energy and ingenuity of the American Farmer have produced a food
supply that has outpaced the tremendous growth of our ponulation and fed millions of
hungry people around the world.
Farmers must have the opportunity to run their own farms with minimum govern-
ment interference. National farm policy must be geared to the challenges of the 70's
and not to the tired theories of the 30's. We believe a realistic farm program can
be developed whereby the farmer's freedom to manage his own farm is restored and he
is able to earn a fair share of the national net income.
H.R. 17126 would extend the Food and Agriculture Act of 1965 for one addi-
tional year. It would provide the farmer with the lead time that is needed to make
essential plans for planting and marketing of the crops upon which his livelihood
depends. At the same time, it would provide the necessary interval in which the
next Congress and the new administration could formulate an effective farm program -
(over)
a program that would improve the economic status of American agriculture, reverse
the trend toward costly Government programs and insure an adequate food supply at
reasonable prices.
For these reasons, the House Republican Policy Committee supports the one-
year extension of the Food and Agriculture Act.
NEWS
CONGRESSMAN
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
For Release in P.M.'s of Tuesday, August 30, 1966--
House Republican Leader Gerald R. Ford (Mich.) today urged President
Johnson to insist on enforcement of a GOP amendment to the Agriculture Appropria-
tions Bill aimed at cutting off third-country aid to North Vietnam.
Ford termed the amendment, sponsored by Rep. Paul Findley, R-I11.,
"extremely important." The Findley amendment prohibits Public Law 480 food sales
for foreign currency or longterm dollar credit to any country furnishing or
transporting any commodities, materials or supplies to North Vietnam.
In remarks prepared for delivery on the House floor, Ford asked that the
President in signing the Agriculture Appropriations Bill make "crystal clear" the
intent of Congress in adopting the Findley Amendment.
The congressional intent, Ford said, was to bar Public Law 480 foreign
currency or longterm credit sales to any country aiding North Vietnam, including
those instances where a recipient country might sell the commodities to another
nation which in turn would sell or give the commodities to North Vietnam.
This aid to North Vietnam "by subterfuge" must be avoided, Ford declared.
Ford asserted:
"While recognizing the difficulty in distinguishing bona fide transactions
from the pro forma type of operation that some nations might utilize to avoid
the implications of the Findley amendment, I most seriously urge the President to
make its prospective application crystal clear when he signs this bill and then,
later, to enforce it fully. The Congress has spoken on this particular aspect of
the Vietnam struggle. The President should act accordingly."
####
RE: FINDLEY AMENDMENT
NEWS
CONGRESSMAN
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
For Release in P.M.'s of Tuesday, August 30, 1966--
House Republican Leader Gerald R. Ford (Mich.) today urged President
Johnson to insist on enforcement of a GOP amendment to the Agriculture Appropria-
tions Bill aimed at cutting off third-country aid to North Vietnam.
Ford termed the amendment, sponsored by Rep. Paul Findley, R-I11.,
"extremely important. The Findley amendment prohibits Public Law 480 food sales
for foreign currency or longterm dollar credit to any country furnishing or
transporting any commodities, materials or supplies to North Vietnam.
In remarks prepared for delivery on the House floor Ford asked that the
President in signing the Agriculture Appropriations Bill make "crystal clear" the
intent of Congress in adopting the Findley Amendment.
The congressional intent, Ford said, was to bar Public Law 480 foreign
currency or longterm credit sales to any country aiding North Vietnam, including
those instances where a recipient country might sell the commodities to another
nation which in turn would sell or give the commodities to North Vietnam.
This aid to North Vietnam "by subterfuge" must be avoided, Ford declared.
Ford asserted:
"While recognizing the difficulty in distinguishing bona fide transactions
from the pro forma type of operation that some nations might utilize to avoid
the implications of the Findley amendment, I most seriously urge the President to
make its prospective application crystal clear when he signs this bill and then,
later, to enforce it fully. The Congress has spoken on this particular aspect of
the Vietnam struggle. The President should act accordingly."
####
POR THE SENATE:
FOR THE HOUSE
Everett M. Dirksen
THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
OF REPRESENTATIVES:
of Illinois
Thomas H. Kuchel
OF THE CONGRESS
Gerald R. Ford
of Michigan
of California
Leslie C. Arends
Bourke B. Hickenlooper
of Illinois
of Iowa
Margaret Chase Smith
Press Release
Melvin R. Laird
of Wisconsin
of Maine
John J. Rhodes
George Murphy
of Arizona
of California
H. Allen Smith
Milton R. Young
of California
of North Dakota
Issued following a
Bob Wilson
Hugh Scott
Leadership Meeting
of California
of Pennsylvania
Charles E. Goodell
March 23, 1967
of New York
PRESIDING:
Richard H. Poff
The National Chairman
of Virginia
Ray C. Bliss
William C. Cramer
of Florida
For Release
STATEMENT BY REPRESENTATIVE FORD:
2 p.m., March 23, 1967
Among the current headlines: "FARMERS VOTE TO CUT BUYING" --
"FARMERS DISMAYED BY DECLINING PRICES" -- "AN ANGRY RUMBLE FROM THE
FARMERS" -- "FARMERS REPORTED DUMPING MILK" -- "FARMERS APPROVE
MACHINE BOYCOTT" -- "SHOOTING, HOARDING MARK DAIRY BOYCOTT". The
American farmer is angry!
The Johnson-Humphrey Administration's inflationary fiscal poli-
cies have shot farm production costs sky-high. The American farmer
now has his back to the barn wall as never before,
The Johnson-Humphrey Administration's market price manipulations
have sharply decreased prices received by farmers. The parity ratio
today stands at 74 -- the love since June of 1934 -- down from
last year's 82 and threatening to slide still further from the parity
level of 100. As you know the barity ratio is the relationship
between prices the farmer receives and the costs he has to meet.
Because of its lack of real concern for the consumer's as well
as the farmer's interest, the Johnson-Humphrey Administration has
stirred a storm of discontent and resentment on the part of our
farmers. Consumers have not benefitted accordingly.
Constructively, Republicans in the House and in the Senate have
introduced more than fifty farm bills in this new Congress, bills
designed first to check and then to remedy the damage done to both
(more)
Room S-124 U.S. Capitol-(202) 225-3700
Consultant to the Leadership-John B. Fisher
Mr. Ford
March 23, 1967
the farmer and the consumer by the Johnson-Humphrey cost-price
squeeze.
With the farm price of hogs down over 30 per cent in less than
a year, with the farm price of eggs down 24 per cent, with the farm
price of wheat down 14 per cent, with the farm price of chickens
down 11 per cent -- and with practically none of these price drops
benefitting the consumer -- the American people may well ask -- as
indeed they do -- what price the Johnson-Humphrey Administration?
STATEMENT BY SENATOR DIRKSEN
March 23, 1967
Once again, as was true a year ago, the American farmer becomes
the victim of the Johnson-Humphrey Administration's double-edged
sword: a new record-high in farm operating costs -- a near-record
low in farm prices - and, we repeat, with no real benefit received
by the American consumer.
A major factor in the impact of this double-edged sword is the un-
wanted and unwarranted flow of agricultural imports into this country.
Their depressing effect upon farm prices is severe. It threatens to
become far worse. One example: in 1965 this country imported 9no
million pounds of milk and dairy products; in 1966 this country
imported 2.7 billion pounds of milk and Aairy products; this year
the figure threatens to reach 4 billion pounds of milk and dairy
products. More than half of this deluge of milk imports is coming
from the Common Market countries of Europe.
57 bills have been introduced by Members of the House and 42
Senators have co-sponsored a bill demanding that such imports be
limited. Action by the Johnson-Humphrey Administration in this and
every other imperiled area of American agriculture is not only called
for but demanded. If agricultural imports continue unchecked at
their present rate and volume, our entire agricultural economy is
threatened. Our farm surplus is almost gone because of government
manipulations and foreign imports. A world food crisis is impending.
Cur obligations to provide food for the world's needy are increasing
annually. It is sheerest folly to impair in any slightest way the
efficiency of American agriculture and its incentive and ability to
produce food.
As the number and variety of constructive Republican proposals
for solution of our several farm programs indicate, there is today
no excuse whatever to tolerate the unwillingness or the inability
of the Johnson-Humphrey Administration to act -- and to act now --
in the people's interest. How justified our people are in asking
as indeed they do -- what price the Johnson-Humphrey Administration?
31 October 1967
U. S. HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES
REPUBLICAN POLICY
COMMITTEE
REP. JOHN J. RHODES, (R.-ARIZ.) CHAIRMAN
140 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
TELEPHONE 225-6168
10
HOUSE REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE STATEMENT ON THE FEDERAL MEAT INSPECTION ACT
H.R. 12144
The House Republican Policy Committee supports legislation to revise
and update the Act of March 4, 1907, the Horsemeat Act and the Imported Meat Act
into a single new statute. H.R. 12144 would broaden the present meat inspection
service by establishing a Federal-State cooperative meat inspection program. It
would provide the Department of Agriculture with authority to eliminate
practices that could defraud consumers and endanger the public health.
At the present time, only twenty-eight States have laws providing for
mandatory inspection of animals before and after slaughter. Twelve States provide
a system of voluntary inspection. Eight States do not have a meat inspection
statute and two States have very limited statutes regulating meat packing.
H.R. 12144 would establish a cooperative Federal-State inspection system
under which the Federal government would assist the States in meeting their re-
sponsibilities to provide high quality meat inspection. Federal cooperation and
assistance to the States would include program planning and technical and labora-
tory assistance as well as financial aid up to 50% of the total cost of the State
program.
The prohibition against counterfeiting, forgery and other unauthorized
use of official certificates, labels, and marking devices would be clarified.
The authority of the Department of Agriculture to regulate the marking, labeling,
and packaging of carcasses, meats and meat food products would be clearly defined.
This legislation also would extend to imported meat, the same standards that would
apply to meat and meat products produced and processed within the United States.
(over)
This legislation does not preempt the jurisdiction of the States over
intrastate commerce. By a vote of 29 to 5, the House Agriculture Committee re-
jected an amendment that would have virtually eliminated State inspection programs
and assigned the responsibility of State and local health protection, at an addi-
tional annual cost of $31.2 million, to the Federal government.
Under the provisions of H.R. 12144, a viable Federal-State cooperative
meat inspection program would be established. New protection will be afforded to
the consumer. By encouraging the confidence of today's homemaker in the integrity
of our meat supply, this legislation strengthens and improves a meat packing and
processing industry that has $16 billion in annual gross sales and that provides
$13 billion in yearly sales of livestock to the American farmer.
31 October 1967
IIIII
#######
U. S. HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES
REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE
REP. JOHN I. RHODES, (R.-ARIZ.) CHAIRMAN
140 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
TELEPHONE 225-6168
10
HOUSE REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE STATEMENT ON THE FEDERAL MEAT INSPECTION ACT
H.R. 12144
The House Republican Policy Committee supports legislation to revise
and update the Act of March 4, 1907, the Horsemeat Act and the Imported Meat Act
into a single new statute. H.R. 12144 would broaden the present meat inspection
service by establishing a Federal-State cooperative meat inspection program. It
would provide the Department of Agriculture with authority to eliminate
practices that could defraud consumers and endanger the public health.
At the present time, only twenty-eight States have laws providing for
mandatory inspection of animals before and after slaughter. Twelve States provide
a system of voluntary inspection. Eight States do not have a meat inspection
statute and two States have very limited statutes regulating meat packing.
H.R. 12144 would establish a cooperative Federal-State inspection system
under which the Federal government would assist the States in meeting their re-
sponsibilities to provide high quality meat inspection. Federal cooperation and
assistance to the States would include program planning and technical and labora-
tory assistance as well as financial aid up to 50% of the total cost of the State
program.
The prohibition against counterfeiting, forgery and other unauthorized
use of official certificates, labels, and marking devices would be clarified.
The authority of the Department of Agriculture to regulate the marking, labeling,
and packaging of carcasses, meats and meat food products would be clearly defined.
This legislation also would extend to imported meat, the same standards that would
apply to meat and meat products produced and processed within the United States.
(over)
Full distribution
a Office Copy
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE-
August 4, 1970
Remarks by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, Republican Leader, U.S. House of Representatives,
on the floor of the House Tuesday, August 4, 1970, regarding H.R. 18546, the
Omnibus Farm Bill.
During the twenty-one years that it has been my privilege to serve as a
member of this great body, I have seen many farm bills battled and battered on
this Floor.
I have seen proposals to literally enchain American agriculture, and I have
fought those proposals.
I have seen some real fiscal follies designed and developed through the
years and seldom have I seen the Committee on Agriculture in substantial agreement
on anything.
I have seen many instances where the Administration -- be it a Republican
or a Democratic Administration -- has been in a hammerlock with the Congress over
farm legislation -- be it a Republican or a Democratic Congress.
Yes, Mr. Chairman, the rhetoric during the past two decades on farm bills
was usually shrill, generally emotional, and yes, inevitably partisan.
This year, for a change, we have a different legislative atmosphere as we
consider H.R. 18546.
This year we have a bill which has the support of the Chairman of the
Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poage), and the ranking
minority member of that committee, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Belcher).
This year the Administration and the committee are working together to pass
a farm bill.
This year the Committee on Agriculture, with only six dissenting votes --
three Republicans and three Democrats -- has agreed on a farm bill.
Yes, Mr. Chairman, the situation is different this year because the leader-
ship of both parties agrees that it is in the national interest to have a new farm
bill to replace the expiring Food and Agriculture Act of 1965.
This year there has been more light than heat in the farm bill dialogue,
so let us continue to use reason, not rancor, and analysis, not emotion, as we
continue our deliberations over this important legislation.
(more)
-2-
Now when I said that this year's farm bill was different, I didn't mean it
was so different that there isn't any controversy about it.
This farm bill is not ready for the Consent Calendar, believe me.
There are some features in it which I personally do not think are sound,
and I'm sure other members of the House feel the same way. This is not the farm
bill that I would write, nor is it the kind of farm bill the Administration would
write if it had the power to do SO. It is a compromise bill which has the thoughts
and writings of many. But, by and large, I'm convinced that this bill represents
the best bill possible at this time
even if it isn't the best possible bill.
When I say this bill is the best bill possible, I mean that it is preferable,
both to the farmer and the taxpayer, than either a straight continuation of the 1965
Act or a reversion to the old laws in effect prior to 1965. Either of these
alternatives represents, in my opinion, a reversion to the antique notions of past
farm programs which have done so much to hamstring the farmer and deplete the public
treasury programs which I, for one, have consistently opposed.
I think we all have to recognize that while in many ways this bill is similar
to the legislation of the past, it at least contains some movement and direction
toward the free market. It suspends quotas and controls on wheat and cotton, and it
establishes a set-aside system that should help provide farmers with greater
flexibility in the management of their own farms.
At the same time, this bill promises that the financial rug will not be
pulled from under the American farmer for the next three years. It contains a
commitment for the Administration to continue to expend about the same amount of
money on the three big commodity programs as is the case now.
As just one member of this House I realize that our national prosperity is
directly interlinked with our farm prosperity. Without a sound agricultural economy
we are not going to have a sound total economy.
I therefore accept the fact that this bill is a form of subsidy to American
agriculture.
I have not observed a developed nation in this world which did not subsidize
its agriculture one way or another, and our great country is no exception. The
assistance we provide in this bill will, in the long run, be repaid many times over
to American taxpayers and consumers.
That is why I am supporting H.R. 18546.
(more)
-3-
I do not intend to try to substitute my judgment for what a good farm bill
is for that of the 27 Members of Congress who serve on the Committee on Agriculture
and who brought this bill to the Floor after 38 days of public hearings,
92 executive sessions, 27 night meetings, and a year and a half of negotiating
nearly every sentence and word of this 57-page bill.
This bill is supported by the Secretary of Agriculture, by the Administration,
by the Democratic leadership of the House and by me as the Republican leader.
I support it, and I urge all members of the House to do likewise.
# # #
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--
August 4, 1970
Remarks by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, Republican Leader, U.S. House of Representatives,
on the floor of the House Tuesday, August 4, 1970, regarding H.R. 18546, the
Omnibus Farm Bill.
During the twenty-one years that it has been my privilege to serve as a
member of this great body, I have seen many farm bills battled and battered on
this Floor.
I have seen proposals to literally enchain American agriculture, and I have
fought those proposals.
I have seen some real fiscal follies designed and developed through the
years and seldom have I seen the Committee on Agriculture in substantial agreement
on anything.
I have seen many instances where the Administration -- be it a Republican
or a Democratic Administration -- has been in a hammerlock with the Congress over
farm legislation -- be it a Republican or a Democratic Congress.
Yes, Mr. Chairman, the rhetoric during the past two decades on farm bills
was usually shrill, generally emotional, and yes, inevitably partisan.
This year, for a change, we have a different legislative atmosphere as we
consider H.R. 18546.
This year we have a bill which has the support of the Chairman of the
Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poage), and the ranking
minority member of that committee, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Belcher).
This year the Administration and the committee are working together to pass
a farm bill.
This year the Committee on Agriculture, with only six dissenting votes --
three Republicans and three Democrats -- has agreed on a farm bill.
Yes, Mr. Chairman, the situation is different this year because the leader-
ship of both parties agrees that it is in the national interest to have a new farm
bill to replace the expiring Food and Agriculture Act of 1965.
This year there has been more light than heat in the farm bill dialogue,
so let us continue to use reason, not rancor, and analysis, not emotion, as we
continue our deliberations over this important legislation.
(more)
-2-
Now when I said that this year's farm bill was different, I didn't mean it
was so different that there isn't any controversy about it.
This farm bill is not ready for the Consent Calendar, believe me.
There are some features in it which I personally do not think are sound,
and I'm sure other members of the House feel the same way. This is not the farm
bill that I would write, nor is it the kind of farm bill the Administration would
write if it had the power to do SO. It is a compromise bill which has the thoughts
and writings of many. But, by and large, I'm convinced that this bill represents
the best bill possible at this time
even if it isn't the best possible bill.
When I say this bill is the best bill possible, I mean that it is preferable,
both to the farmer and the taxpayer, than either a straight continuation of the 1965
Act or a reversion to the old laws in effect prior to 1965. Either of these
alternatives represents, in my opinion, a reversion to the antique notions of past
farm programs which have done so much to hamstring the farmer and deplete the public
treasury programs which I, for one, have consistently opposed.
I think we all have to recognize that while in many ways this bill is similar
to the legislation of the past, it at least contains some movement and direction
toward the free market. It suspends quotas and controls on wheat and cotton, and it
establishes a set-aside system that should help provide farmers with greater
flexibility in the management of their own farms.
At the same time, this bill promises that the financial rug will not be
pulled from under the American farmer for the next three years. It contains a
commitment for the Administration to continue to expend about the same amount of
money on the three big commodity programs as is the case now.
As just one member of this House I realize that our national prosperity is
directly interlinked with our farm prosperity. Without a sound agricultural economy
we are not going to have a sound total economy.
I therefore accept the fact that this bill is a form of subsidy to American
agriculture.
I have not observed a developed nation in this world which did not subsidize
its agriculture one way or another, and our great country is no exception. The
assistance we provide in this bill will, in the long run, be repaid many times over
to American taxpayers and consumers.
That is why I am supporting H.R. 18546.
(more)
-3-
I do not intend to try to substitute my judgment for what a good farm bill
is for that of the 27 Members of Congress who serve on the Committee on Agriculture
and who brought this bill to the Floor after 38 days of public hearings,
92 executive sessions, 27 night meetings, and a year and a half of negotiating
nearly every sentence and word of this 57-page bill.
This bill is supported by the Secretary of Agriculture, by the Administration,
by the Democratic leadership of the House and by me as the Republican leader.
I support it, and I urge all members of the House to do likewise.
# # #
Full Distribution
aatlice Capy
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--
May 3, 1971
Remarks by Rep. Gerald R. Ford
MR. SPEAKER:
President Nixon has moved vigorously to help American farmers expand their
sales and income, and his actions are most welcome. The farmer needs and deserves
our assistance.
I applaud the $1 million increase in fiscal 1972 funding for the Foreign
Agricultural Service, which helps our farmers expand their sales abroad.
I applaud the increased Agriculture Department purchases of pork for food
distribution and school lunch programs this fiscal year.
I applaud the increase in farm operating loans in fiscal 1972 and the
increase in insured ownership loans in the current fiscal year.
I applaud the increase in funds to fight crop and livestock disease and
the increase in funding for agricultural research and for soil and water
conservation.
I join with the President in saluting American agriculture as we approach
May 7, America's Agriculture Day. The American farmer merits the plaudits and
the gratitude of our people for the tremendous job he is doing.
###
NEWS
CONGRESSMAN
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--
May 3, 1971
Remarks by Rep. Gerald R. Ford
MR. SPEAKER:
President Nixon has moved vigorously to help American farmers expand their
sales and income, and his actions are most welcome. The farmer needs and deserves
our assistance.
I applaud the $1 million increase in fiscal 1972 funding for the Foreign
Agricultural Service, which helps our farmers expand their sales abroad.
I applaud the increased Agriculture Department purchases of pork for food
distribution and school lunch programs this fiscal year.
I applaud the increase in farm operating loans in fiscal 1972 and the
increase in insured ownership loans in the current fiscal year.
I applaud the increase in funds to fight crop and livestock disease and
the increase in funding for agricultural research and for soil and water
conservation.
I join with the President in saluting American agriculture as we approach
May 7, America's Agriculture Day. The American farmer merits the plaudits and
the gratitude of our people for the tremendous job he is doing.
# # #
Fifth District news Midia
House Galleries
office Copy
NEWS
CONGRESSMAN
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR RELEASE AT 12 NOON FRIDAY, MARCH 10, 1972.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture has agreed to earmark roughly $100,000 a
year for three years for a fruit pest management pilot project in Michigan's West
Central apple district, Rep. Gerald R. Ford announced today.
The project will be administered by the Cooperative Extension Service of
Michigan State University with the USDA and the Michigan Department of Agriculture
cooperating.
Said Ford: "This is great news for our fruit growers. The program will mean
a big reduction in the cost of pest control to fruit growers. In some cases, the
saving will amount to as much as $50 an acre. The program will also reduce the
danger of environmental pollution."
Ford said California and New York also sought the project but Michigan's
proposal won out. He said he had contacted top-level USDA officials in behalf of
the MSU proposal.
Some 5,000 acres of Michigan apples will initially come under the pest
management program.
Ford noted that the highest cost in growing apples is spraying. This means,
he said, that any innovations that get the job done more cheaply and without loss
of fruit quality will greatly help in reducing growing costs.
Ford concluded: "Michigan's fruit industry is faced with acute financial
difficulties. Fruit growers are caught in a squeeze between high costs and low
prices and profits. An improvement in production efficiency, particularly the
pest control program, can mean the difference between success and failure for many
of our growers."
###
NEWS
CONGRESSMAN
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR RELEASE AT 12 NOON FRIDAY, MARCH 10, 1972.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture has agreed to earmark roughly $100,000 a
year for three years for a fruit pest management pilot project in Michigan's West
Central apple district, Rep. Gerald R. Ford announced today.
The project will be administered by the Cooperative Extension Service of
Michigan State University with the USDA and the Michigan Department of Agriculture
cooperating.
Said Ford: "This is great news for our fruit growers. The program will mean
a big reduction in the cost of pest control to fruit growers. In some cases, the
saving will amount to as much as $50 an acre. The program will also reduce the
danger of environmental pollution."
Ford said California and New York also sought the project but Michigan's
proposal won out. He said he had contacted top-level USDA officials in behalf of
the MSU proposal.
Some 5,000 acres of Michigan apples will initially come under the pest
management program.
Ford noted that the highest cost in growing apples is spraying. This means,
he said, that any innovations that get the job done more cheaply and without loss
of fruit quality will greatly help in reducing growing costs.
Ford concluded: "Michigan's fruit industry is faced with acute financial
difficulties. Fruit growers are caught in a squeeze between high costs and low
prices and profits. An improvement in production efficiency, particularly the
pest control program, can mean the difference between success and failure for many
of our growers."
###
Fifth District Media
affice Copy
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR RELEASE AT 12 NOON THURSDAY, JAN. 25, 1973, and THEREAFTER
Rep. Gerald R. Ford today introduced a bill aimed at ending the kind of
turmoil apple growers and fruit processors went through last fall in Michigan and
a number of other states.
Ford's bill, to be known as the National Agricultural Marketing and Bargain-
ing Act of 1973, would lay down standards for the formation of farm producer
bargaining associations and provide for good faith bargaining between such
associations and farm produce handlers.
Farmers now are free to set up marketing and bargaining associations. What
the Ford bill would do is to improve the legal foundation for such associations
and improve the opportunity for farmer-controlled marketing organizations to succeed.
Michigan apple growers last fall banded together and picketed fruit
processors in quest of better prices. The growers contended processor-set prices
did not afford the growers a decent living and were nothing short of disastrous.
After a bitter struggle, growers and processors finally agreed on apple prices
that satisfied the growers.
The American Farm Bureau Federation vigorously supports the kind of
legislation introduced by Ford.
In introducing the National Agricultural Marketing and Bargaining Act of
1973, Ford declared: "There is an urgent need for legislation which will help
farmers manage their production and establish voluntary marketing and bargaining
associations. Only in that way can they obtain net incomes commensurate with their
contribution to the national economy. The role of the government in all of this
should be to create a favorable climate for good faith bargaining and negotiations
between such associations and farm produce handlers.'
The Farm Bureau asserts that farm produce handlers have been developing and
offering terms to farm product contract growers on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.
The Bureau describes this as "a one-sided process which often pits a large,
well-informed buyer against a smaller, less well-informed producer."
Said Ford: "The days of take-it-or-leave-it must come to an end for
America's farmers who are contract growers and do not sell in the open market.
They have been at the mercy of handlers for far too long."
###