Ask the Scholar
Page 1 of 1
I can add historical knowledge about this page.
Page image
OCR
The original documents are located in Box D24, folder "National Farmers Union
Convention, Minneapolis, MN, March 13, 1968" of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press
Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The Council donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box D24 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
NATIONAL FARMERS UNION CONVENTION
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA -- MARCH 18, 1968
"THE FAMILY FARM IN THE SPACE AGE"
LET ME SAY AT THE OUTSET THAT I AM
INDEED VERY PLEASED TO HAVE BEEN INVITED TO
PARTICIPATE AT THIS IMPORTANT CONVENTION.
THROUGH MY YEARS OF CONGRESSIONAL
SERVICE, I HAVE ALWAYS HELD YOUR FINE ORGANI -
ZATION IN GREAT RESPECT, AND THOUGH WE MAY
HAVE DIFFERED FROM TIME TO TIME, I HAVE ALWAYS
FELT THE FARMERS UNION HAS SINCERELY AND
EFFECTIVELY WORKED FOR THE BETTERMENT OF
FAMILY FARMING IN OUR GREAT NATION.
SOME SKEPTICS HAVE ASKED IN RECENT
YEARS, "JUST WHAT GOOD IS THE FAMILY FARM
AMYHOW ISN'T IT AS OLD FASHIONED AND AS OUT
OF DATE IN THIS MODERN AGE OF SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY AS THE HORSE AND BUGGY?"
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
WELL, YOU KNOW AND I KNOW THAT THE FAMILY
-2-
EARM IS THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC BACKBONE OF
AN AGRICULTURAL ESTABLISHMENT THAT IS THE ENVY
OF THE WORLD. I NEED NOT CITE TO YOU ALL THE
FIGURES ON THE CONTRIBUTION THAT MODERN FAMILY
FARMS ARE MAKING TO THE HIGH STANDARD OF
LIVING THAT AMERICA ENJOYS. BUT A FEW
REMINDERS MIGHT BE IN ORDER.
THE AMERICAN CONSUMER TODAY IS HARVEST-
ING THE REWARD OF OUR EVER-INCREASINGLY
EFFICIENT AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION AND MARKET-
ING SYSTEM. A RECENT REPORT ISSUED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SHOWED THAT IF IT
WERE NOT FOR THE SHARP GAINS IN FARM EFFICIENCY
DURING THE PAST TWO DECADES EVERY AMERICAN WOULD
BE PAYING MORE FOR HIS FOOD AND ENJOYING IT LESS
WHILE THE OUTPUT PER MAN-HOUR IN
MANUFACTURING HAS INCREASED 2.7% PER YEAR
SINCE 1948. THE OUTPUT IN AGRICULTURE HAS
INCREASED BY 5% PER YEAR.
IN 1948, THE NUMBER OF MAN HOURS USED
-3-
FOR ALL FARM WORK TOTALED 16.5 BILLION. IN
1966, THIS FIGURE HAD DROPPED TO 7 BILLION MAN
HOURS.
FARM PRODUCTION INCREASED NEARLY 40
PER CENT DURING THE SAME PERIOD.
OR, STATED ANOTHER WAY, IN 1948 ONE
FARM WORKER SUPPLIED ABOUT 14 OTHERS WITH FOOD
AND FIBRE. TODAY HE SUPPLIES 42 OTHERS.
DURING THE SAME TIME, THE NUMBER OF S
CONSUMERS HAS INCREASED BY 40 PER CENT, WHILE
THE NUMBER OF WORKERS EMPLOYED IN THE FOOD
INDUSTRY INCREASED BY ABOUT 12 PER CENT.
LET US STOP RIGHT HERE AND ASK "WHO
PROVIDED THIS MIRACULOUS ECONOMIC GROWTH?"
THE ANSWER, OF COURSE, IS FAMILY-SIZED
AGRICULTURAL UNITS.
YET, AS YOU KNOW, THE FAMILY FARMER
IN THIS COUNTRY HAS NOT SHARED IN THE ECONOMIC
REWARDS THAT SHOULD BE HIS FOR THESE TREMENDOUS
CONTRIBUTIONS. FRANKLY, I KNOW OF NO GREAT
LIBRARY
-4-
ECONOMIC GROUP OF CITIZENS IN OUR SOCIETY
WHICH TODAY EARNS LESS MONEY THAN IT DID 20
YEARS AGO
NO GROUP, THAT is, EXCEPT
FARMERS. IN 1947, REALIZED NET FARM INCOME
WAS $17.0 BILLION. IN 1967 IT WAS $14.5
BILLION.
IN THIS PAST YEAR OF 1967, WE HAVE
SEEN REALIZED NET FARM INCOME FALL $1.9 BILLION
BELOW THE PREVIOUS YEAR. CAN YOU IMAGINE ANY
OTHER GROUP IN OUR SOCIETY TAKING A $1.9
BILLION PAY CUT.
IN MY HOME STATE OF MICHIGAN, THE DROP
WAS %. HERE IN MINNESOTA, IT WAS 11%. NET
INCOME PER FARM ALSO DROPPED IN SPITE OF A
DECLINE OF APPROXIMATELY 100,000 IN THE NUMBER
OF FARMS.
AT THE SAME TIME, THE PARITY
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
RATIO.
.
THAT MEASURING ROD OF RELATIVE
PROSPERITY IN AGRICULTURE
DROPPED TO 74.
THIS IS THE LOWEST ANNUAL LEVEL FOR THE PARITY
-5-
RATIO SINCE 1933.
IN 1967, OUR AGRICULTURAL EXPORTS WHICH
ARE SO IMPORTANT TO THE BALANCE OF TRADE
SITUATION WERE DOWN 7% BELOW THE PREVIOUS YEAR.
THE DAIRY IMPORT-EXPORT PICTURE BECAME
PARTICULARLY DISTURBING LAST YEAR. IN 1967
THERE WERE 2.9 BILLION POUNDS OF MILK
EQUIVALENT IMPORTED, WHILE ONLY 364 MILLION
POUNDS WERE EXPORTED. THIS IS MOST DISTURBING
IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT JUST FOUR YEARS AGO
(IN 1964) OUR DAIRY IMPORTS WERE ONLY 830
MILLION POUNDS OF MILK EQUIVALENT AND OUR
EXPORTS WERE A HOPPING 6.9 BILLION POUNDS.
THESE FIGURES SHOW QUITE DRAMATICALLY
AND QUITE PAINFULLY HOW THE AMERICAN DAIRY
FARMER HAS BEEN CAUGHT IN A VICIOUS SCISSOR
OF RISING IMPORT COMPETITION AND DECLINING
EXPORT OPPORTUNITY.
THERE ARE, OF COURSE, OTHER ALARMING
AND WORRISOME STATISTICS THAT SHOW OUR FARMERS
-6-
ARE IN FINANCIAL TROUBLE. BUT I KNOW I NEED
NOT REPEAT THE OBVIOUS, SO LET ME SAY ONLY THAT
I FOR ONE CERTAINLY REALIZE THE DIFFICULTY.
OF COURSE, RECOGNIZING THE EXISTENCE
OF A PROBLEM AND DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT ARE
TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
AS ONE OF MY LADY COLLEAGUES IN THE
HOUSE ONCE SAID AT A RULES COMMITTEE HEARING
AFTER MEMBERS OF THAT COMMITTEE HAD BESTOWED A
SERIES OF FLOWERY ACCOLADES UPON HER, "AH,
GENTLEMEN, FIRST THE MOVOCAINE. THEN THE
NEEDLE."
I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE THAT THE
AVERAGE FAMILY FARM OPERATOR IN THIS COUNTRY
IS NOT IN THE SOUNDEST FINANCIAL SITUATION.
WHAT THEN CAN WE DO?
LET'S LOOK AT THE POLITICAL REALITIES
IN WASHINGTON. A PARTY OTHER THAN THE ONE TO
WHICH I BELONG NOW CONTROLS BOTH HOUSES OF
THE CONGRESS, AS WELL AS THAT LARGE WHITE
BERALD FORD LIBRARY
-7-
BUILDING ON PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE WHERE ALL THE
IMPORTANT DECISIONS OF DAY-TO-DAY GOVERNMENT
ARE MADE. THAT BEING TRUE, WE MUST FIRST ANAL-
YZE THE PROPOSALS MADE BY THE PRESIDENT IN HIS
RECENT FARM MESSAGE.
AS YOU RECALL, HE ASKED FOR THE
PERMANENT EXTENSION OF THE AGRICULTURAL ACT
OF 1965. HE ALSO CALLED FOR A THREE-YEAR
LAW
EXTENSION OF PUBLIC'480, THE FOOD FOR PEACE
PROGRAM. HE SOUGHT A "FOOD BANK" IN WHICH
GRAIN FARMERS WOULD BE THE SOLE DEPOSITORS.
HE ASKED FOR HEARINGS TO BE HELD ON FARM
BARGAINING. HE CALLED FOR THE ENACTMENT OF
NEW PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ACT LEGISLATION
AND FINALLY, HE MADE SOME GENERALIZED COMMENTS
ABOUT RURAL RENEWAL.
LET ME OFFER A FEW COMMENTS ABOUT EACH
OF THESE RECOMMENDATIONS.
IN URGING THE EXTENSION OF THE 1965 ACT
THIS YEAR, THE PRESIDENT SAID, AND I QUOTE:
-8-
"TO TERMINATE THE 1965 ACT WOULD BRING
CATASTROPHE AND RUIN TO MANY FARMERS.
"CASH PRICES TO THE FARMER WOULD FALL--
AND THERE WOULD BE NO GOVERNMENT PAYMENTS TO
CUSHION THE IMPACT. FARM INCOME COULD DROP
BY AS MUCH AS ONE-THIRD--BACK TO 1959 LEVELS.
"--WHEAT PRICES WOULD DROP TO ABOUT
$1.10 A BUSHEL-COMPARED WITH THE 1967 BLEND
PRICE OF $1.89, INCLUDING THE WHEAT CERTIFICATE.
"--CORN PRICES WOULD DROP TO ABOUT
75.CENTS A BUSHEL, COMPARED WITH A BLEND PRICE
OF $1.30 IN 1967.
"--COTTON WOULD SELL FOR 18 CENTS A
POUND, COMPARED WITH 42 CENTS IN 1967 WITH
PRICE SUPPORT PAYMENTS.
"--WITH LOWER GRAIN PRICES, LIVESTOCK
SUPPLIES WOULD SOON OVER-BURDEN THE MARKET
SO THAT LIVESTOCK PRICES WOULD DECLINE BY AT
LEAST 10%."
LET ME SAY HERE AND NOW THAT I DON'T
-9-
THINK THERE HAS EVER BEEN A MORE BLATANT
ATTEMPT TO MISLEAD THE CONGRESS OR THE PUBLIC
THAN THE WORDS I JUST READ TO YOU FROM THE
PRESIDENT'S FARM MESSAGE.
IN EACH INSTANCE, AS IT APPLIES TO
COTTON, FEED GRAINS AND WHEAT, THERE ARE
PERMANENT STATUTORY AUTHORITIES ON THE LAW
BOOKS WHICH WOULD APPLY IF THE 1965 ACT SHOULD
EXPIRE AT THE END OF THE 1969 PROGRAMS FOR
THESE CROPS.
FOR WHEAT, FOR EXAMPLE, THE BASIC FARM
LAWS OF 1938 AND 1949 PROVIDE FOR A MANDATORY
WHEAT CERTIFICATE PROGRAM FOR THE 1970 CROPS.
PRICE SUPPORTS ON DOMESTIC AND EXPORT COULD GO
TO 90% OF PARITY. FARMERS WOULD, OF COURSE,
HAVE TO APPROVE THIS MANDATORY PLAN IN A
REFERENDUM.
FOR FEED GRAINS THESE SAME LAWS GIVE THE
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE DISCRETION TO SET
FORD
LIBRI
SUPPORT PRICES FROM 50 TO 90 PER CENT OF PARITY.
-10-
ON COTTON, A MANDATORY PROGRAM WITH
PRICE SUPPORTS AT 65 TO 90 PER CENT OF PARITY
WOULD ALSO GO INTO EFFECT IF THE 1965 ACT
SHOULD EXPIRE.
BOTH THE HOUSE AND SENATE AGRICULTURE
COMMITTEES ARE GOING TO HOLD HEARINGS ON THE
1965 ACT. WHETHER THEY BRING AN EXTENSION TO
THE FLOOR OR NOT, I THINK FARMERS, THE GENERAL
PUBLIC AND THE CONGRESS SHOULD ALL REALIZE
THAT A PREDICTION OF "CATASTROPHE AND RUIN"
IN THE EVENT OF NO EXTENSION THIS YEAR IS
SOMEWHERE BETWEEN PURE PUFFING AND INCREDI-
BILITY.
PUBLIC LAW 480 WILL, OF COURSE, BE
ESTENDED ONCE AGAIN. THIS PROGRAM HAS
ENJOYED BI-PARTISAN SUPPORT SINCE ITS INCEPTION
IN 1954, DURING FORMER PRESIDENT EISENHOWER'S
ADMINISTRATION. IN EXTENDING THE ACT, HOWEVER,
ALL OF US ARE GOING TO TRY TO RELATE IT TO OUR
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS PROBLEMS, TO MAKE IT
-11-
OPERATE AS A MORE POSITIVE INFLUENCE ON
DOMESTIC FARM PRICES, AND TO EMPHASIZE EVEN
MORE THE NEED FOR "SELF-HELP" BY UNDER-
DEVELOPED NATIONS TEETERING ON THE BRINK OF A
FOOD-POPULATION DISASTER.
GRAIN RESERVE LEGISLATION WILL NO
DOUBT ALSO BE CONSIDERED BY THE APPROPRIATE
COMMITTEES. I WOULD CERTAINLY HOPE THAT
NEITHER THE HOUSE COMMITTEE NOR THE SENATE
WOULD BRING FORTH A BILL LIKE LAST YEAR'S
PROPOSAL OF THE ADMINISTRATION. ANY LEGIS-
LATION WHICH GIVES THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE
THE POWER TO DUMP GRAIN ON THE MARKET WILL,
IN MY OPINION, ONLY COMPOUND THE DIFFICULTY
FACING FARMERS.
PERSONALLY, I FEEL THAT ALL GOVERNMENT
GRAIN STOCKS SHOULD INSTEAD BE FULLY INSULATED
FROM THE MARKET AT LEVELS WHICH WILL RAISE
MARKET PRICES, NOT DEPRESS THEM.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
FARM BARGAINING, I EXPECT, WILL BE
-12-
MOSTLY THE SUBJECT OF HEARINGS AND DISCUSSION
THIS YEAR, ALTHOUGH THE "AGRICULTURAL FAIR
PRACTICES ACT" -- S. 109 -- SHOULD BE CLEARED
BY THE HOUSE THIS WEEK.
THE PRESIDENT'S PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS
BILL HAS NOT BEEN INTRODUCED IN THE HOUSE SINCE
ITS REFERRAL TO CAPITOL HI LAST FALL, AND THE
PRESIDENT'S RURAL RENEWAL PROPOSALS APPEAR TO
BE PRETTY MUCH A RE-STATEMENT OF PREVIOUS
LEGISLATION CONSIDERED BY THE CONGRESS.
AT THE PRESENT TIME, THEN, THE ONLY
PART OF THE PRESIDENT S RACKAGE THAT APPEARS
HEADED TOWARD CERTAIN ENACTMENT THIS YEAR IS
THE EXTENSION OF PUBLIC LAW 480.
THE HEARINGS ON THE 1965 ACT AND
ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TO CONGRESS CAN, IN MY
OPINION, BE EXTREMELY USEFUL IF THEY ARE
DIVORCED FROM PARTISAN POLITICS. I AM,
UNFORTUNATELY, NOT OPTIMISTIC THAT THE
GERALD FORD LIBRABA
ADMINISTRATION WILL TAKE AN OBJECTIVE
-13-
POSITION ON THESE MATTERS, PARTICULARLY IN
VIEW OF THE INCREDIBLE PROPHESY OF "CATASTROPHE
AND RUIN" MADE IN THE FARM MESSAGE. THE
AMERICAN FARMER NEEDS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR
HIGHER INCOME, NOT JUST MORE OF THE SAME.
ANY HEARINGS ON OUR MAJOR COMMODITIES
SHOULD INCLUDE TESTIMONY FROM FARMERS UNION
AS WELL AS THE OTHER GENERAL FARM AND COMMODITY
ORGANIZATIONS. ACADEMIC, ECONOMIC AND LEGAL
EXPERTS SHOULD ALSO BE CALLED.
THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND FINDINGS OF THE
NATIONAL FOOD AND FIBRE COMMISSION SHOULD
RECEIVE CAREFUL PUBLIC AND CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW.
THIS REPORT SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO WITHER
AND DIE FROM INDIFFERENCE AFTER SO MUCH TIME
AND TALENT HAVE BEEN SPENT PREPARING IT.
THESE HEARINGS SHOULD, I FEEL,
REALISTICALLY EXPLORE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
THE PRESENT COMMODITY PROGRAMS. WHERE
WEAKNESSES ARE FOUND, BETTER MEANS OF PROVID+NG
-14-
INCOME PROTECTION TO FAMILY FARM AGRICULTURE
MUST BE DEVISED.
AT THE SAME TIME, WE SHOULD ALLOCATE
SUFFICIENT RESOURCES TO PROMOTE ADEQUATE
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND EDUCATION, FUND THE
REA AND RTA PROGRAMS AND AMPLE AGRICULTURAL
CREDIT, AND CONTINUE OUR SOIL, WATER AND
FORESTRY CONSERVATION AND SERVICE PROGRAMS.
A $10 BILLION ANNUAL EXPORT MARKET
SHOULD BE WITHIN OUR GRASPS IN THE NEAR FUTURE.
RURAL DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE EMPHASIZED
WITH FAMILY FARMS RATHER THAN CORPORATE
CONGLOMERATES AS THE KEYSTONE.
YES, AMERICAN AGRICULTURE IS VITALLY
IMPORTANT, BOTH TO THE NATION AND TO THE
PROMOTION OF PEACE IN THE WORLD.
THE MODERN FARM FAMILY, IN MY OPINION,
IS MAKING A TREMENDOUS CONTRIBUTION TOWARD THE
WELL-BEING OF ALL OUR CITIZENS.
AND YET THERE ARE THOSE WHO SAY THAT
-15-
FARMERS ARE NO LONGER IMPORTANT IN OUR
POLITICAL PROCESS. I NOTICED IN THE FARMERS
UNION NEWSLETTER OF SEPTEMBER 22 OF LAST YEAR
THAT MY COLLEAGUE, THE CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE
AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE, WAS QUOTED AS FOLLOWS:
"POAGE TOLD AN IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY
AUDIENCE THAT THE FARM BLOC IN CONGRESS NO
LONGER EXISTS, THAT NEITHER POLITICAL PARTY IS
DEEPLY CONCERNED WITH AGRICULTURE, AND THAT
BOTH PARTIES FEEL THEY MUST DO WHATEVER IS
NECESSARY TO WIN BIG CITY VOTES."
LET ME TELL YOU AS ONE VOICE OF THE
LOYAL OPPOSITION THAT MY FRIEND FROM TEXAS
WAS PROBABLY HALF RIGHT WHEN HE SAID THAT !
OR, PUT ANOTHER WAY, I CAN AGREE WITH
HIM 50% ON THAT ISSUE
AS FAR AS HIS
PARTY IS CONCERNED, BUT I CERTAINLY DO NOT
ACCEPT THAT DESCRIPTION FOR MY PARTY.
FORD LIBRARY
I WON'T BELABOR YOU HERE WITH A
POLITICAL PITCH -- YOU WILL BE EXPOSED TO PLENTY
-16-
OF THAT FROM VARIOUS QUARTERS DURING THE
BALANCE OF THIS YEAR. I WILL ONLY POINT OUT
THAT OUR HOUSE REPUBLICAN TASK FORCE ON
AGRICULTURE, HEADED BY MY DISTINGUISHED
COLLEAGUE FROM MINNESOTA, ODIN LANGEN,
RECENTLY SET FORTH THE IMPORTANCE OF THE FARM
VOTE IN OUR NATIONAL ELECTIVE PROCESS.
AS A FARMER ONCE TOLD ME, "WE MAY BE
OUT-NUMBERED, BUT WE SHOULDN'T BE OUTSMARTED."
THAT IS THE THOUGHT I WOULD LIKE TO
LEAVE WITH YOU TODAY AS WE CONSIDER THE FAMILY
FARM IN THE SPACE AGE. LET'S ALL RECOGNIZE
THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS KEY ELEMENT IN OUR
SOCIETY. ITS IMPORTANCE IN TERMS OF ECONOMIC
GAIN TO OUR SOCIETY IN GENERAL, ITS CONTRIBUTION
TO SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, AND ITS CONTINUING
IMPORTANCE IN THE POLITICAL PROCESS ALL TRANS-
CEND MERE NUMBERS.
THE KEY ROLE OF FAMILY AGRICULTURE IN
SPACE AGE AMERICA DEMANDS AND ASSURES THE
-17-
CONTINUED CONCENTRATION OF NATIONAL POLICY
UPON ITS PROBLEMS. THIS HAS BEEN TRUE
THROUGHOUT OUR HISTORY. IT IS JUST AS TRUE
TODAY. THANK YOU.
-END-
FORD & LIBRARY 07V230
REMARKS OF CONGRESSMAN GERALD FORD (R-Mich)
Republican Leader
United States House of Representatives
AT NATIONAL FARMERS UNION CONVENTION
Minneapolis, Minnesota - March 18, 1968
THE FARM FAMILY IN THE SPACE AGE
Let me say at the outset that I am indeed very pleased to have been
invited to participate at this important convention.
Through my years of Congressional service, I have always held your fine
organization in great respect, and though we may have differed from time to
time, I have always felt the Farmers Union has sincerely and effectively worked
for the betterment of family farming in our great nation.
Some skeptics have asked in recent years, "Just what good is the family
farm anyhow? Isn't it as old fashioned and as out of date in this modern age
of science and technology as the horse and buggy?"
Well, you know and I know that the family farm is the social and
economic backbone of an agricultural establishment that is the envy of the
world. I need not cite to you all the figures on the contribution that modern
family farms are making to the high standard of living that America enjoys.
But a few reminders might be in order.
The American consumer today is harvesting the reward of our ever-
increasingly efficient agricultural production and marketing system. A recent
report issued by the Department of Agriculture showed that if it were not for
the sharp gains in farm efficiency during the past two decades every American
would be paying more for his food and enjoying it less.
While the output per man-hour in manufacturing has increased 2.7 per cent
per year since 1948, the output in agriculture has increased by 5 per cent per
year.
In 1948 the number of man hours used for all farm work totaled 16.5
billion. In 1966, this figure had dropped to 7 billion man hours.
Farm production increased nearly 40 per cent during the same period.
Or, stated another way, in 1948 one farm worker supplied about 14 others
with food and fibre. Today he supplies 42 others.
During the same time, the number of consumers has increased by 40 per cent,
while the number of workers employed in the food industry increased by about
12 per cent.
Let us stop right here and ask "Who provided this miraculous economic
growth?" The answer, of course, is family-sized agricultural units.
Yet, as you know, the family farmer in this country has not shared in the
economic rewards that should be his for these tremendous contributions. Frankly,
I know of no great economic group of citizens in our society which today earns
less money than it did 20 years ago ... no group, that is, except farmers.
FORD
In 1947, realized net farm income was $17.0 billion. In 1967 it was $14.5 billion.
LIBRARI
In this past year of 1967, we have seen realized net farm income fall
$1.9 billion below the previous year. Can you imagine any other group in our
society taking a $1.9 billion pay cut?
In my home state of Michigan, the drop was 9 per cent. Here in Minnesota,
it was 11 per cent. Net income per farm also dropped in spite of a decline of
approximately 100,000 in the number of farms.
At the same time, the parity ration
that measuring rod of relative
prosperity in agriculture
dropped to 74.
In 1967, agricultural exports which are so important to the balance
of trade situation were down 7 per cent below the previous year.
The dairy import-export picture became particularly disturbing last year.
in 1967 there were 2.9 billion pounds of milk equivalent imported, while only
304 million pounds were exported. This is most disturbing in view of the fact
that just four years ago (in 1964) our dairy imports were only 830 million
pounds of milk equivalent and our exports were a whopping 6.9 billion pounds.
These figures show quite dramatically and quite painfully how the American
dairy farmer has been caught in a vicious scissor of rising import competition
and declining export opportunity.
There are, of course, other alarming and worrisome statistics that show
our farmers are in financial trouble. But I know I need not repeat the obvious,
so let me say only that I for one certainly realize the difficulty.
Of course, recognizing the existence of a problem and doing something
about it are two different things.
As one of my lady colleagues in the House once said at a Rules Committee
hearing after the members of that committee had bestowed a series of flowery
accolades upon her: "Ah, Gentlemen, first the novocaine, then the needle."
I think that we can all agree that the average family farm operator in
this country is not in the soundest financial condition. What then can we do?
Let's look at the political realities in Washington. A party other than the
one to which I belong now controls both houses of the Congress, as well as that
large white building on Pennsylvania Avenue where all the important decisions of
day-to-day government are made. That being true, we must first analyze the
proposals made by the President in his recent farm message.
As you recall, he asked for the permanent extension of the Agricultural Act
of 1965. He also called for a three-year extension of Public Law 480, the Food'
for Peace Program. He sought a "Food Bank" in which grain farmers would be the
sole depositors. He asked for hearings to be held on farm bargaining. He called
for the enactment of new Packers and Stockyards Act legislation and finally, he
made some generalized comments about rural renewal.
Let me offer a few comments about each of these recommendations.
In urging the extension of the 1965 Act this year, the President said, and
= quote:
- 3 -
"To terminate the 1965 Act would bring catastrophe and ruin to many
farmers.
"Cash prices to the farmer would fall -- and there would be no government
payments to cushion the impact. Farm income could drop by as much as one-third --
back to 1959 levels.
"-Wheat prices drop to about 1.10 a bushel -- compared with the 1967 blend
price of $1.89, including the wheat certificate.
"--Corn prices would drop to about 75 cents a bushel, compared with a blend
price of 41.30 in 1967.
"--Cotton would sell for 18 cents a pound, compared with 42 cents in 1967
with price support payments.
"-With lower grain prices, livestock supplies would soon over-burden the
market so that livestock prices would decline by at least 10 per cent."
Let me say here and now that I don't think there has ever been a more
blatant attempt to mislead the Congress or the public than the words I just read
to you from the President's farm message.
In each instance, as it applies to cotton, feed grains and wheat, there are
permanent statutory authorities on the law books which would apply if the 1965 Act
should expire at the end of the 1969 programs for these crops.
For wheat, for example, the basic farm laws of 1938 and 1949 provide for a
mandatory wheat certificate program for the 1970 crops. Price supports on
domestic and export wheat could go to 90 per cent of parity. Farmers would, of
course, have to approve this mandatory plan in a referendum.
For feed grains these same laws give the Secretary of Agriculture discretion
to set support prices from 50 to 90 per cent of parity.
On cotton, a mandatory program with price supports at 65 to 90 percent of
parity would also go into effect if the 1965 Act should expire.
Both the House and Senate Agriculture Committees are going to hold hearings
on the 1965 Act. Whether they bring an extension to the floor or not, I think
farmers, the general public and the Congress should all realize that a prediction
of "catastrophe and ruin" in the event of no extension this year is somewhere
between pure puffing and incredibility.
Public law 480 will, of course, be extended once again. This program has
enjoyed bi-partisan support since its inception in 1954 during former President
Eisenhower's Administration. In extending the Act, however, all of us are going
to try to relate it to our balance of payments problems, to make it operate as a
more positive influence on domestic farm prices, and to emphasize even more the
need for "self-help" by under-developed nations teetering on the brink of a food-
population disaster.
Grain reserve legislation will no doubt also be considered by the appropriate
committees. I would certainly hope that neither the House Committee nor the Senate
LIBRARY
would bring forth a bill like last year's proposal of the Administration.
Any legislation which gives the Secretary of Agriculture the power to dump grain
on the market will, in my opinion, only compound the difficulty facing farmers.
Personally, I feel that all government grain stocks should instead be fully
insulated from the market at levels which will raise market prices, not depress
them.
Farm bargaining, I expect, will be mostly the subject of hearings and
discussion this year, although the "Agricultural Fair Practices Act" - S.109 --
should be cleared by the House this week.
The President's Packers and Stockyards bill has not been introduced in the
House since its referral to Capitol Hill last Fall, and the President's rural
renewal proposals appear to be pretty much of a re-statement of previous legislation
considered by the Congress.
At the present time, then, the only part of the President's package that
appears headed toward certain enactment this year is the extension of Public
Law 480.
The hearings on the 1965 Act and alternatives available to Congress can,
in my opinion, be extremely useful if they are divorced from partisan politics.
I am, unfortunately, not optimistic that the Administration will take an objective
position on these matters, particularly in view of the incredible prophecy of
"catastrophe and ruin" made in the farm message. The American farmer needs the
opportunity for higher income, not just more of the same.
Any hearings on our major commodities should include testimony from Farmers
Union as well as the other general farm and commodity organizations. Academic,
economic and legal experts should also be called.
The recommendations and findings of the National Food and Fiber Commission
should receive careful public and Congressional review. This report should not be
permitted to wither and die from indifference after so much time and talent have
been spent preparing it.
These hearings should, I feel, realistically explore the effectiveness of the
present commodity programs. Where weaknesses are found, better means of providing
income protection to family farm agriculture must be devised.
At the same time, we should allocate sufficient resources to promote adequate
agricultural research and education, fund the REA and RTA programs and ample
agricultural credit, and continue our soil, water and forestry conservation and
service programs.
A $10 billion annual export market should be within our grasps in the near
future.
Rural development should be emphasized with family farms rather than corporate
conglomerates as the keystone.
Yes, American agriculture is vitally important, both to the nation and to the
promotion of peace in the world.
-5-
The modern farm family, in my opinion, is making a tremendous contribution
toward the well-being of all our citizens.
And yet there are those who say that farmers are no longer important in
our political process. I noticed in the Farmers Union Newsletter of September 22
of last year that my colleague, the Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee,
was quoted as follows:
"Poage told an Iowa State University audience that the farm bloc in Congress
no longer exists, that neither political party is deeply concerned with
agriculture, and that both parties feel they must do whatever is necessary to win
big city votes."
Let me tell you as once voice of the loyal opposition that my friend from
Texas was probably half right when he said that
or, put another way, I can
agree with him 50 per cent on that issue
....
as far as his party is concerned,
but I certainly do not accept that description for my party.
I won't belabor you here with a political pitch -- you will be exposed to
plenty of that from various quarters during the balance of this year. I will only
point out that our House Republican Task Force on Agriculture, headed by my
distinguished colleague from Minnesota, Odin Langen, recently set forth the
importance of the farm vote in our national elective process.
As a farmer once told me
"We may be outnumbered, but we shouldn't be
outsmarted."
That is the thought I would like to leave with you today as we consider the
family farm in the space age. Let's all recognize the importance of this key
element in our society. Its importance in terms of economic gain to our society in
general, its contribution to social responsibility, and its continuing importance
in the political process all transcend mere numbers.
The key role of family agriculture in space age America demands and assures
the continued concentration of national policy upon its problems. This has been
true throughout our history -- it is just as true today.
Thank you.
AT CONDITIONS only
PRINT -
[The 1984 VISITAR
1008 CRIT
MYZE CVTS
prosper
-
THAN MAY
NOT DISTRIBUTED
NOTE:
72 ID ACG MAT
BUT onr
COMPLY
10 120 son
-
AME and 11-
10" BENALD WEWOW R.
FORD
W DE OUT
LIVERSE
(80)
- 00
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR RELEASE AT 6:30 p.m. CST (7:30 p.m. EST)--
Monday, March 18, 1968
An Address by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich., at the National Farmers Union
Convention, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
"THE FAMILY FARM IN THE SPACE AGE"
Let me say at the outset that I am indeed very pleased to have been invited
to participate at this important convention.
Through my years of Congressional service, I have always held your fine
organization in great respect, and though we may have differed from time to time,
I have always felt the Farmers Union has sincerely and effectively worked for
the betterment of family farming in our great nation.
Some skeptics have asked in recent years, "Just what good is the family
farm anyhow? Isn't it as old fashioned and as out of date in this modern age
of science and technology as the horse and buggy?"
Well, you know and I know that the family farm is the social and economic
backbone of an agricultural establishment that is the envy of the world. I need
not cite to you all the figures on the contribution that modern family farms are
making to the high standard of living that America enjoys. But a few reminders
might be in order.
The American consumer today is harvesting the reward of our ever-increasingly
efficient agricultural production and marketing system. A recent report issued
by the Department of Agriculture showed that if it were not for the sharp gains
in farm efficiency during the past two decades every American would be paying
more for his food and enjoying it less.
While the output per man-hour in manufacturing has increased 2.7% per year
since 1948, the output in agriculture has increased by 5% per year.
In 1948, the number of man hours used for all farm work totaled 16.5 billion.
In 1966, this figure had dropped to 7 billion man hours.
Farm production increased nearly 40 per cent during the same period.
Or, stated another way, in 1948 one farm worker supplied about 14 others
with food and fibre. Today he supplies 42 others.
During the same time, the number of consumers has increased by 40 per cent,
while the number of workers employed in the food industry increased by about
12 per cent.
(more)
-2-
Let us stop right here and ask "Who provided this miraculous economic
growth?" The answer, of course, is family-sized agricultural units.
Yet, as you know, the family farmer in this country has not shared in the
economic rewards that should be his for these tremendous contributions. Frankly,
I know of no great economic group of citizens in our society which today earns
less money than it did 20 years ago 1 no group, that is, except farmers.
In 1947, realized net farm income was $17.0 billion. In 1967 it was $14.5 billion.
In this past year of 1967, we have seen realized net farm income fall $1.9
billion below the previous year. Can you imagine any other group in our society
taking a $1.9 billion pay cut?
In my home state of Michigan, the drop was 9%. Here in Minnesota, it was
11%. Net income per farm also dropped in spite of a decline of approximately
100,000 in the number of farms.
At the same time, the parity ratio,
that measuring rod of relative
prosperity in agriculture
dropped to 74. This is the lowest annual level
for the parity ratio since 1933.
In 1967, our agricultural exports which are so important to the balance of
trade situation were down 7% below the previous year.
The dairy import-export picture became particularly disturbing last year.
In 1967 there were 2.9 billion pounds of milk equivalent imported, while only
364 million pounds were exported. This is most disturbing in view of the fact
that just four years ago (in 1964) our dairy imports were only 830 million pounds
of milk equivalent and our exports were a whopping 6.9 billion pounds.
These figures show quite dramatically and quite painfully how the American
dairy farmer has been caught in a vicious scissor of rising import competition
and declining export opportunity.
There are, of course, other alarming and worrisome statistics that show our
farmers are in financial trouble. But I know I need not repeat the obvious, so
let me say only that I for one certainly realize the difficulty.
Of course, recognizing the existence of a problem and doing something about
it are two different things.
As one of my lady colleagues in the House once said at a Rules Committee
hearing after members of that committee had bestowed a series of flowery accolades
upon her: "Ah, gentlemen, first the novocaine, then the needle."
I think we can all agree that the average family farm operator in this
country is not in the scundest financial situation. What then can we do?
(more)
-3-
Let's look at the political realities in Washington. A party other than the
one to which I belong now controls both Houses of the Congress, as well as that
large white building on Pennsylvania Avenue where all the important decisions of
day-to-day government are made. That being true, we must first analyze the
proposals made by the President in his recent farm message.
As you recall, he asked for the permanent extension of the Agricultural Act
of 1965. He also called for a three-year extension of Public Law 480, the Food
for Peace Program. He sought a "food bank" in which grain farmers would be the
sole depositors. He asked for hearings to be held or farm bargaining. He called
for the enactment of new Packers and Stockyards Act legislation and finally, he
made some generalized comments about rural renewal.
Let me offer a few comments about each of these recommendations.
In urging the extension of the 1965 Act this year, the President said, and
I quote:
"To terminate the 1965 Act would bring catastrophe and ruin to many farmers.
"Cash prices to the farmer would fall--and there would be no government
payments to cushion the impact. Farm income could drop by as much as one-third--
back to 1959 levels.
"--Wheat prices would drop to about $1.10 a bushel compared with the 1967
blend price of $1.89, including the wheat certificate.
"--Corn prices would drop to about 75 cents a bushel, compared with a blend
price of $1.30 in 1967.
"--Cotton would sell for 18 cents a pound, compared with 42 cents in 1967
with price support payments.
"--With lower grain prices, livestock supplies would soon over-burden the
market so that livestock prices would decline by at least 10%."
Let me say here and now that I don't think there has ever been a more blatant
attempt to mislead the Congress or the public than the words I just read to you
from the President's farm message.
In each instance, as it applies to cotton, feed grains and wheat, there
are permanent statutory authorities on the law books which would apply if the 1965
Act should expire at the end of the 1969 programs for these crops,
For wheat, for example, the basic farm laws of 1938 and 1949 provide for a
mandatory wheat certificate program for the 1970 crops. Price supports on
domestic and export wheat could go to 90% of parity. Farmers would, of course,
have to approve this mandatory plan in a referendum.
(more)
-4-
For feed grains these same laws give the Secretary of Agriculture discretion
to set support prices from 50 to 90 per cent of parity.
On cotton, a mandatory program with price supports at 65 to 90 per cent of
parity would also go into effect if the 1965 Act should expire.
Both the House and Senate Agriculture Committees are going to hold hearings
on the 1965 Act. Whether they bring an extension to the floor or not, I think
farmers, the general public and the Congress should all realize that a prediction
of "catastrophe and ruin" in the event of no extension this year is somewhere
between pure puffing and incredibility.
Public Law 480 will, of course, be extended once again. This program has
enjoyed bi-partisan support since its inception in 1954, during former President
Eisenhower's administration. In extending the Act, however, all of us are going
to try to relate it to our balance of payments problems, to make it operate as
a more positive influence on domestic farm prices, and to emphasize even more
the need for "self-help" by under-developed nations teetering on the brink of a
food-population disaster.
Grain Reserve legislation will no doubt also be considered by the appropriate
committees. I would certainly hope that neither the House Committee nor the
Senate would bring forth a bill like last year's proposal of the Administration.
Any legislation which gives the Secretary of Agriculture the power to dump grain
on the market will, in my opinion, only compound the difficulty facing farmers.
Personally, I feel that all government grain stocks should instead by fully
insulated from the market at levels which will raise market prices, not depress
them!
Farm Bargaining, I expect, will be mostly the subject of hearings and
discussion this year, although the "Agricultural Fair Practices Act" -- S. 109 --
should be cleared by the House this week.
The President's Packers and Stockyards bill has not been introduced in the
House since its referral to Capitol Hill last fall, and the President's rural
renewal proposals appear to be pretty much a re-statement of previous legislation
considered by the Congress.
At the present time, then, the only part of the President's package that
appears headed toward certain enactment this year is the extension of Public
Law 480.
The hearings on the 1965 Act and alternatives available to Congress can,
in my opinion, be extremely useful if they are divorced from partisan politics.
I am, unfortunately, not optimistic that the Administration will take an objective
(more)
-5-
position on these matters, particularly in view of the incredible prophesy of
"catastrophe and ruin" made in the farm message. The American farmer needs the
opportunity for higher income, not just more of the same.
Any hearings on our major commodities should include testimony from Farmers
Union as well as the other general farm and commodity organizations. Academic,
economic and legal experts should also be called.
The recommendations and findings of the National Food and Fibre Commission
should receive careful public and Congressional review. This report should not
be permitted to wither and die from indifference after so much time and talent
have been spent preparing it.
These hearings should, I feel, realistically explore the effectiveness of
the present commodity programs. Where weaknesses are found, better means of
providing income protection to family farm agriculture must be devised.
At the same time, we should allocate sufficient resources to promote
adequate agricultural research and education, fund the REA and RTA programs and
ample agricultural credit, and continue our soil, water and forestry conservation
and service programs.
A $10 billion annual export market should be within our grasps in the near
future.
Rural development should be emphasized with family farms rather than cor-
porate conglomerates as the keystone.
Yes, American agriculture is vitally important, both to the nation and to
the promotion of peace in the world.
The modern farm family, in my opinion, is making a tremendous contribution
toward the well-being of all our citizens.
And yet there are those who say that farmers are no longer important in
our political process. I noticed in the Farmers Union Newsletter of September 22
of last year that my colleague, the Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee,
was quoted as follows:
"Poage told an Iowa State University audience that the farm bloc in Congress
no longer exists, that neither political party is deeply concerned with
agriculture, and that both parties feel they must do whatever is necessary to
win big city votes."
Let me tell you as one voice of the loyal opposition that my friend from
Texas was probably half right when he said that!
Or, put another way,
I can agree with him 50% on tha issue
as far as his party is concerned,
but I certainly do not accept that description for my party.
(more)
-6-
I won't belabor you here with a political pitch -- you will be exposed to
plenty of that from various quarters during the balance of this year. I will
only point out that our House Republican Task Force on Agriculture, headed by my
distinguished colleague from Minnesota, Odin Langen, recently set forth the
importance of the farm vote in our national elective process.
As a farmer once told me, "We may be out-numbered, but we shouldn't be
outsmarted."
That is the thought I would like to leave with you today as we consider
the family farm in the space age. Let's all recognize the importance of this key
element in our society. Its importance in terms of economic gain to our society
in general, its contribution to social responsibility, and its continuing
importance in the political process all transcend mere numbers.
The key role of family agriculture in space age America demands and assures
the continued concentration of national policy upon its problems. This has been
true throughout our history. It is just as true today. Thank you.
###
Distribution : 20 capies to Mc. Ford
M Office Copy
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR RELEASE AT 6:30 p.m. CST (7:30 p.m. EST)--
Monday, March 18, 1968
An Address by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich., at the National Farmers Union
Convention, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
"THE FAMILY FARM IN THE SPACE AGE"
Let me say at the outset that I am indeed very pleased to have been invited
to participate at this important convention.
Through my years of Congressional service, I have always held your fine
organization in great respect, and though we may have differed from time to time,
I have always felt the Farmers Union has sincerely and effectively worked for
the betterment of family farming in our great nation.
Some skeptics have asked in recent years, "Just what good is the family
farm anyhow? Isn't it as old fashioned and as out of date in this modern age
of science and technology as the horse and buggy?"
Well, you know and I know that the family farm is the social and economic
backbone of an agricultural establishment that is the envy of the world. I need
not cite to you all the figures on the contribution that modern family farms are
making to the high standard of living that America enjoys. But a few reminders
might be in order.
The American consumer today is harvesting the reward of our ever-increasingly
efficient agricultural production and marketing system. A recent report issued
by the Department of Agriculture showed that if it were not for the sharp gains
in farm efficiency during the past two decades every American would be paying
more for his food and enjoying it less.
While the output per man-hour in manufacturing has increased 2.7% per year
since 1948, the output in agriculture has increased by 5% per year.
In 1948, the number of man hours used for all farm work totaled 16.5 billion.
In 1966, this figure had dropped to 7 billion man hours.
Farm production increased nearly 40 per cent during the same period.
Or, stated another way, in 1948 one farm worker supplied about 14 others
with food and fibre. Today he supplies 42 others.
During the same time, the number of consumers has increased by 40 per cent,
while the number of workers employed in the food industry increased by about
12 per cent.
(more)
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
-2-
Let us stop right here and ask "Who provided this miraculous economic
growth?" The answer, of course, is family-sized agricultural units.
Yet, as you know, the family farmer in this country has not shared in the
economic rewards that should be his for these tremendous contributions. Frankly,
I know of no great economic group of citizens in our society which today earns
less money than it did 20 years ago à 1 . no group, that is, except farmers.
In 1947, realized net farm income was $17.0 billion. In 1967 it was $14.5 billion.
In this past year of 1967, we have seen realized net farm income fall $1.9
billion below the previous year. Can you imagine any other group in our society
taking a $1.9 billion pay cut?
In my home state of Michigan, the drop was 9%. Here in Minnesota, it was
11%. Net income per farm also dropped in spite of a decline of approximately
100,000 in the number of farms.
At the same time, the parity ratio,
...
that measuring rod of relative
prosperity in agriculture
dropped to 74. This is the lowest annual level
for the parity ratio since 1933.
In 1967, our agricultural exports which are so important to the balance of
trade situation were down 7% below the previous year.
The dairy import-export picture became particularly disturbing last year.
In 1967 there were 2.9 billion pounds of milk equivalent imported, while only
364 million pounds were exported. This is most disturbing in view of the fact
that just four years ago (in 1964) our dairy imports were only 830 million pounds
of milk equivalent and our exports were a whopping 6.9 billion pounds.
These figures show quite dramatically and quite painfully how the American
dairy farmer has been caught in a vicious scissor of rising import competition
and declining export opportunity.
There are, of course, other alarming and worrisome statistics that show our
farmers are in financial trouble. But I know I need not repeat the obvious, so
let me say only that I for one certainly realize the difficulty.
Of course, recognizing the existence of a problem and doing something about
it are two different things.
As one of my lady colleagues in the House once said at a Rules Committee
hearing after members of that committee had bestowed a series of flowery accolades
upon her: "Ah, gentlemen, first the novocaine, then the needle."
I think we can all agree that the average family farm operator in this
country is not in the soundest financial situation. What then can we do?
(more)
-3-
Let's look at the political realities in Washington. A party other than the
one to which I belong now controls both Houses of the Congress, as well as that
large white building on Pennsylvania Avenue where all the important decisions of
day-to-day government are made. That being true, we must first analyze the
proposals made by the President in his recent farm message.
As you recall, he asked for the permanent extension of the Agricultural Act
of 1965. He also called for a three-year extension of Public Law 480, the Food
for Peace Program. He sought a "food bank" in which grain farmers would be the
sole depositors. He asked for hearings to be held on farm bargaining. He called
for the enactment of new Packers and Stockyards Act legislation and finally, he
made some generalized comments about rural renewal.
Let me offer a few comments about each of these recommendations.
In urging the extension of the 1965 Act this year, the President said, and
I quote:
"To terminate the 1965 Act would bring catastrophe and ruin to many farmers.
"Cash prices to the farmer would fall--and there would be no government
payments to cushion the impact. Farm income could drop by as much as one-third--
back to 1959 levels.
"--Wheat prices would drop to about $1.10 a bushel--compared with the 1967
blend price of $1.89, including the wheat certificate.
"--Corn prices would drop to about 75 cents a bushel, compared with a blend
price of $1.30 in 1967.
"--Cotton would sell for 18 cents a pound, compared with 42 cents in 1967
with price support payments.
"--With lower grain prices, livestock supplies would soon over-burden the
market so that livestock prices would decline by at least 10%."
Let me say here and now that I don't think there has ever been a more blatant
attempt to mislead the Congress or the public than the words I just read to you
from the President's farm message.
In each instance, as it applies to cotton, feed grains and wheat, there
are permanent statutory authorities on the law books which would apply if the 1965
Act should expire at the end of the 1969 programs for these crops.
For wheat, for example, the basic farm laws of 1938 and 1949 provide for a
mandatory wheat certificate program for the 1970 crops. Price supports on
domestic and export wheat could go to 90% of parity. Farmers would, of course,
have to approve this mandatory plan in a referendum.
(more)
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
-4-
For feed grains these same laws give the Secretary of Agriculture discretion
to set support prices from 50 to 90 per cent of parity.
On cotton, a mandatory program with price supports at 65 to 90 per cent of
parity would also go into effect if the 1965 Act should expire.
Both the House and Senate Agriculture Committees are going to hold hearings
on the 1965 Act. Whether they bring an extension to the floor or not, I think
farmers, the general public and the Congress should all realize that a prediction
of "catastrophe and ruin" in the event of no extension this year is somewhere
between pure puffing and incredibility.
Public Law 480 will, of course, be extended once again. This program has
enjoyed bi-partisan support since its inception in 1954, during former President
Eisenhower's administration. In extending the Act, however, all of us are going
to try to relate it to our balance of payments problems, to make it operate as
a more positive influence on domestic farm prices, and to emphasize even more
the need for "self-help" by under-developed nations teetering on the brink of a
food-population disaster.
Grain Reserve legislation will no doubt also be considered by the appropriate
committees. I would certainly hope that neither the House Committee nor the
Senate would bring forth a bill like last year's proposal of the Administration.
Any legislation which gives the Secretary of Agriculture the power to dump grain
on the market will, in my opinion, only compound the difficulty facing farmers.
Personally, I feel that all government grain stocks should instead by fully
insulated from the market at levels which will raise market prices, not depress
them!
Farm Bargaining, I expect, will be mostly the subject of hearings and
discussion this year, although the "Agricultural Fair Practices Act" -- S. 109 --
should be cleared by the House this week.
The President's Packers and Stockyards bill has not been introduced in the
House since its referral to Capitol Hill last fall, and the President's rural
renewal proposals appear to be pretty much a re-statement of previous legislation
considered by the Congress.
At the present time, then, the only part of the President's package that
appears headed toward certain enactment this year is the extension of Public
Law 480.
The hearings on the 1965 Act and alternatives available to Congress can,
in my opinion, be extremely useful if they are divorced from partisan politics.
I am, unfortunately, not optimistic that the Administration will take an objective
(more)
-5-
position on these matters, particularly in view of the incredible prophesy of
"catastrophe and ruin" made in the farm message. The American farmer needs the
opportunity for higher income, not just more of the same.
Any hearings on our major commodities should include testimony from Farmers
Union as well as the other general farm and commodity organizations. Academic,
economic and legal experts should also be called.
The recommendations and findings of the National Food and Fibre Commission
should receive careful public and Congressional review. This report should not
be permitted to wither and die from indifference after so much time and talent
have been spent preparing it.
These hearings should, I feel, realistically explore the effectiveness of
the present commodity programs. Where weaknesses are found, better means of
providing income protection to family farm agriculture must be devised.
At the same time, we should allocate sufficient resources to promote
adequate agricultural research and education, fund the REA and RTA programs and
ample agricultural credit, and continue our soil, water and forestry conservation
and service programs.
A $10 billion annual export market should be within our grasps in the near
future.
Rural development should be emphasized with family farms rather than cor-
porate conglomerates as the keystone.
Yes, American agriculture is vitally important, both to the nation and to
the promotion of peace in the world.
The modern farm family, in my opinion, is making a tremendous contribution
toward the well-being of all our citizens.
And yet there are those who say that farmers are no longer important in
our political process. I noticed in the Farmers Union Newsletter of September 22
of last year that my colleague, the Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee,
was quoted as follows:
"Poage told an Iowa State University audience that the farm bloc in Congress
no longer exists, that neither political party is deeply concerned with
agriculture, and that both parties feel they must do whatever is necessary to
win big city votes."
Let me tell you as one voice of the loyal opposition that my friend from
Texas was probably half right when he said that!
Or, put another way,
I can agree with him 50% on tha issue
as far as his party is concerned,
but I certainly do not accept that description for my party.
(more)
-6-
I won't belabor you here with a political pitch -- you will be exposed to
plenty of that from various quarters during the balance of this year. I will
only point out that our House Republican Task Force on Agriculture, headed by my
distinguished colleague from Minnesota, Odin Langen, recently set forth the
importance of the farm vote in our national elective process.
As a farmer once told me, "We may be out-numbered, but we shouldn't be
outsmarted."
That is the thought I would like to leave with you today as we consider
the family farm in the space age. Let's all recognize the importance of this key
element in our society. Its importance in terms of economic gain to our society
in general, its contribution to social responsibility, and its continuing
importance in the political process all transcend mere numbers.
The key role of family agriculture in space age America demands and assures
the continued concentration of national policy upon its problems. This has been
true throughout our history. It is just as true today. Thank you.
###
R.FORD STERANT
March 18, 1968
I'm told President Johnson made one of his surprise public
appearances outside a military base to address you this
morning.
According to the news reports we got in Washington, the
President appealed to you to join in "a program of national
austerity." That should be easy -- American farmers have been
on an austerity program ever since the Johnson Administration
took over,
I also saw some pickets as I came in carrying signs saying
"Impeach LBJ."
I'm not here to advocate that -- we have an orderly American
method of changing Presidents every four years -- and this is one
of those years!
And, of course, I'm not here to boost the political fortunes
of any other Democrat. I believe in the two-party system, and
despite the preponderance of Democratic news this past weekend,
the name of the other national party is still the Republican Party.
Seriously, I think it took courage for the President to come
into McCarthy country escorted only by his Vice President.
As I left Washington, I heard a bunch of teenagers chanting:
"Bobby Shaft=O's on TV
"Lyndon's Coonskin on his knee
"He'll come back to be V.P.
GERALD R. FORD LIBRARY
"Pretty Bobby Shaft-O."
-2-
I'm not going to get into the middle of a family fight
among Democrats. A guy can get hurt doing that.
I've spent all this morning and afternnon at the regular
Spring meeting of the National Republican Coordinating Committee.
And I can tell you one thing about this meeting behind closed doors.
We were -- every one of us -- deeply and primarily concerned;,
not with partisan political advantage in this crucial election
year, but with how we can best help this nation survive its
difficulties between now and November.
And when President Johnson told you he didn't want the
Communist enemy in Hanoi to win something in Washington that
he hasn't been able to win on the battlefield in Vietnam, I
say to you the Communist enemy will never get any such notion
from our Republican leadership.
If the President really means what he says about everybody
tightening their belts in America -- everybody, NOT just the
farmers -- he will have strong Republican support in the Congress.
IBRAR,
FOR RELEASE UPON DELIVERY
March 10, 1968
Office of the White House Press Secretary
(Minnespolis, Minnesota)
THE WHITE HOUSE
TEXT OF THE REMARKS OF THE PRESIDENT
AT THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION CONVENTION
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA
I'm happy to be here.
I don't believe anyone can claim that I am a new recruit to the
farmer's course.
You and I wear many of the same campaign ribbons. Some of them
represent victories--and some defeats. Mine go back to the
thirties. Yours go back 66 years--during which the Farmers Union
has led the way in rural America. You have produced great
leaders--like Jim Patton and Tony Dechant, and your fine state
presidents. Much of the legislation that has helped the American
farmer to a better day bears the Farmers Union brand.
I know what the farmer wants - and I want you to have it.
-- You want a fair price for your product--and you will
have it.
-- You want assurance that rising costs will not wipe
out a lifetime investment--and you will have it.
-- You want parity- a fair deal, an even chance to share
in the rich and good life of this good nation--and
you will have it.
-- You want the justice, the decency and the opportunity
that every American has the right to claim as his
native right.
-- And you will have them.
So long as I am your President you will always have my understand-
ing, my admiration and my wholehearted support in fighting for
these goals.
We know that it will be a fight. We know there are many who oppose
our goals.
MORE
-2-
There are those who have forgotten that without farms, there would
be no factories, no cities.
There are those who no longer believe in the partnership between
farmer and government--who tell us its time to "get the government
out of agriculture."
There are those who fail to realize that many of the problems of
urban America are a reflection of failures in rural America.
You know, as I do, that the farmer's problems are the problems of
all America. And you know that the solution to those problems
will require the sympathy and the understanding and the help of
each of us.
So I did my spring planting a little early this year. Three weeks
ago, I sent Congress a message on the farmer and rural America.
That message will sound mighty familiar to the Farmers Union--
because you have designed much of it--and supported all of it.
I have asked Congress to extend the Supply Management Programs of
the Food and Agriculture Act of 1965 - this year - with permanent
authority because the farmer shouldn't be asked to grow more than
the market can take at a fair price.
I have asked Congress to continue the direct payment programs of
the 1965 Act--they are the difference between profit and loss for
many farmers each year.
I have asked Congress to extend the Food for Freedom Act for an
additional three years--because it is right for this nation to
help hungry peoples from our abundance - and because it is good
business for our farmers to build new markets in other lands.
I have asked Congress to authorize a national food bank--a
security reserve of wheat, feedgrains and soybeans--which would
give the farmer higher prices, protect the consumer from food
scarcity, and provide the government with an emergency food
"cushion" in reaching supply-management decisions.
I have asked Congress to help find the ways to give the farmer
more bargaining power in the marketplace. As you have so many
times before, the Farmers Union is leading the way in this fight.
Finally, I have asked Congress for programs to bring parity of
opportunity to rural America - more farm credit - rural jobs -
decent housing - adequate diets - the chance to lead a full and
productive life.
MORE
-3-
During the months to come, you will hear these programs cussed
and discussed. It won't be easier to pass them. It will be even
harder this session because this is - as I remember - an election
year.
Some voices today express doubt that the American farm and the
American farmer can survive. They say we must sacrifice that
priceless heritage--that American dream on the altar of progress.
I say they are just as wrong as they can be.
If the farmers of America speak up courageously and forcefully in
their own behalf--if we and you together have the patience and
determination to preserve and improve our agricultural programs--
if we trust our hopes and not our fears, American agriculture can
prosper as never before.
And rural America can continue to stand for that which is best in
all America.
There is another area in which all Americans - farmers and city
dwellers must demonstrate - that same courage, patience and
determination.
For many years we have been engaged in a struggle in Southeast
Asia to stop the onrushing tide of Communist aggression. This
tide threatens to engulf that part of the world. It threatens
our own security and that of our allies.
The blood of our young men has been shed in this cause. They
know why we are there. They have seen the evidence of the enemy's
determination to conquer those who seek to be masters in their
own house.
Our fighting men know, from the evidence in their eyes, that we
face a ruthless enemy. They know from the carnage of the enemy's
treacherous assaults that he has no feelings about the deliberate
murder of innocent women and children in the villages and cities
of South Vietnam.
They are not misled by propaganda or by the effort to gloss over
the actions of an enemy who has broken every truce, and who makes
no secret of his intention to conquer by force the people of South
Vietnam.
At the same time, during these past four years we have made
remarkable strides here at home. We have opened the doors of
freedom and full citizenship and opportunity to 30 million people,
MORE
-4-
and we have sustained the highest level of prosperity for the
longest period of time ever known.
But the time has come when your President must ask you to join in
a total national effort to win the war, to win the peace, and to
complete the job at home.
I ask you to join in a program of national austerity to insure
that our economy will prosper and our fiscal position will be
sound.
The Congress has been asked to enact a bill which will impose
upon the average citizen an additional one cent for each dollar
of taxes. I ask you to bear this burden in the interest of a
stronger nation.
I am consulting with the Congress on proposals for savings in the
national budget. If it is the will of the Congress, we shall make
such reductions. They will postpone many needed actions.
All travel outside the Western Hemisphere by government officials
and private citizens which is not absolutely essential should be
postponed. I have already called for savings and cuts in
expenditures and investments abroad by our business enterprises.
We are going to intensify this program.
Most of all I ask your help and your patriotic support for our men
who are bearing the burden of battle in Vietnam. We seek not the
victory of conquest, but the triumph of justice. We will win.
I am deeply aware of the yearning in our country for peace. We
are a peace loving nation. There is none among you who desires
peace more than your President. We hope to achieve a just peace
at the negotiating table. But if the enemy continues to insist--
as it does now-that the outcome must be determined on the battle-
field, then we will win the peace on the battlefield.
To reach that peace will require your sacrifice, your understand-
ing, your help, and your cooperation.
# # #
Remarks
Vice President Hubert Humphrey
National Farmers Union
Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 10, 1968
"The farm was here before the factory
...
Merica was built on 2 foundation of farms and ranches
supplying the food and fiber for a bountiful and restless nation.
"It was the farmer's qualities--his hard work and perse-
verance, his independence and initiative--which gave strength to
E nation's character.
"Agriculture, our first industry, remains our greatest.
It is the vital center of our economy--fueling our industry and
commerce, feeding our people and the hungry of the world
"But the /merican farmer, who helped to build America's
prosperity, still does not fully--or fairly--share in it."
Those are not the words of Tony Dechant--though they might
well be.
Those are words from President Johnson's new message to
the Congress on agriculture.
And the unfair, unjust peradox of inadequate incomes for
the very industry and the very people who provide the keystone
of American prosperity is what that message is designed to correct.
Inadequate farm income means more than an unfair break for
the farmer.
It means the entire rural economy held back.
It means transferring poverty from 2 rural setting to an
urban slum--a cruel gamble and = disservice to all.
It means infringement of 2 fundamental American freedom--
freedom to choose where to live and where to work--for millions
of young Americans who can see no future on the farms and home-
steads they love.
Now you and I have been getting together off and on over
the last few years to read the health chart on /merican agricul-
ture.
The chart didn't look too good back in the 'Fifties--
higher and higher outlays by the taxpayer for farm programs, and
less and less income for the farmer.
The chart has turned up in the 'Sixties
...
net farm
income up 55 percent today
...
exports at an all-time high of
6.8 billion dollars in 1967
inventories below a billion
dollars for the first time since 1953.
But you know and I know that the patient is still a long
way from perfect health.
And all of us who have struggled with the complexities of
farm legislation over the years know that there aren't any miracle
remedies on the shelf.
There is, however, in this year's farm message, the most
comprehensive, reasoned, clear and bold farm program ever set
down by any American president.
It is your program. Your leaders had a great deal to do
with what it says, and you've been for everything that's in it.
The Johnson-Humphrey Administration says to the American
farmer: We don't presume to take care of you. But we do mean
to work closely with you as partners to see that you can fully
and fairly take care of yourselves in the marketplace
...
at
home and abroad
now and for years and decades to come.
Let's take a closer look at that message.
Point one calls for a permanent extension of the Food and
Agriculture Act of 1965.
As long as the farms of America produce more than we can
consume, we are going to need machinery to balance supply and
demand--to avoid the income-depressing, farm-killing cycle of
glut and scarcity.
This year the Food and Agriculture Act of 1965 faced its
severest test. Increased wheat and feed grain allotments for
1967 crops were followed by a series of unforeseen events: World-
wide bumper crops, smaller total demand--and lower prices for the
farmer.
But I submit to you that the 1965 Act passed the test this
year. Its direct payments provided the margin between profit and
loss for a great many farmers-- an additional 48 cents for each
bushel of wheat--15 cents for each pound of cotton-20 cents for
each bushel of corn.
-2-
You know what the alternative would have been without the
Act--lower cash prices and no government payments to cushion the
impact. Indeed the specialists tell us that farm income could
have dropped as much as a third--back to 1959 levels
wheat
at a dollar and ten cents a bushel
corn at 75 cents.
The President explicitly recognizes that the present act
can be improved, and we mean to work closely with you to improve
it.
But let's extend it permanently now, so that the farmer,
like any other businessman, can do his planning in advance and
never be the innocent victim of a program lapse.
Point two: A three-year extension of the Food for Freedom
Act.
Last year you and your fellow American farmers kept
literally millions of people in developing countries around the
world from starvation. You improved the diets of millions more.
In a world that knows too much of hate and selfishness,
our food aid programs have stood out year after year as a
humanitarian beacon of hope. That in itself is ample justifica-
tion for the Food for Freedom program.
But there is more than the humanitarian justification.
Food aid has meant economic development which in turn has created
new markets for American agricultural products. Japan, Turkey,
Greece, Italy, Spain and many countries which have received
assistance under U. S. food aid programs are now among our best
dollar customers for farm exports.
Food aid is more than good-neighborliness. It is good
business.
And, in a hungry world, strong, productive, independent
American family farms amount to no less than a massive defense
system in the cause of peace. No other nation can equal it.
Food power--and the food aid programs which you and I have
fought so hard for over the years--are America's exclusive tool
for building a safer, freer world.
This nation should pay its producers a fair price for that
food power--and use it to the full.
Point three of the President's message is creation of a
national food bank for wheat, feed grains, and soybeans.
-3-
The food bank would serve multiple purposes--protecting
the consumer against food scarcity
protecting the farmer
against falling prices
and further cushioning the ups and
downs that are part of any commodity program.
This program has three critical ingredients:
--4 reserve owned by farmers under strengthened reseal
provisions in the price support program. The Johnson-Humphrey
Administration has always believed that farmers should be able
to retain their equity as long as possible, and that the inventory
in the hands of the Commodity Credit Corporation should be reduced
to a safe minimum. That is why we recently extended the reseal
privilege to warehouses:
--Authority for the Secretary of Agriculture to buy
additional reserves at market prices--without waiting until
prices drop to support levels;
--Insulation of the food bank from the commercial market.
We introduced legislation for a food bank of this kind in
the Congress last year. Now let's pass it.
Now point four is perhaps the most important, and all the
other programs are calculated to support it: Increased bargain-
ing power for the farmer in the American marketplace.
As Tony Dechant reminded the National Farm Institute
last month: "The farmer is the only businessman left in America
who is still forced to sell his products at wholesale prices set
by somebody else
and to buy his production supplies at
retail prices, also set by someone else.
Real and effective bargaining power for the American farmer
is long overdue--especially in livestock, poultry, fruits and
vegetables which are not covered by price support and payment
programs.
I am happy to say that a great young senator, Walter
Mondale, has introduced a bill in the Senate along the lines of
the National /gricultural Act that Tony Dechant and Bill Thatcher
have been urging for so long.
We still don't know all the "how's" of effective farm
bargaining. But we know it is possible
it is necessary
and the Johnson-Humphrey Administration is for it.
The Farmers Union has a long-standing record of building
farm cooperatives. Cooperatives have already increased the
-4-
farmer's voice in the marketplace, and will be a crucial element
in future bargaining strength.
But let me also re-emphasize that partnership between the
farmers and government is essential to bargaining power.
When you have the machinery to maintain a reasonable supply-
demand balance--and only then--farm bargaining power increases.
When you allow farmers to reseal their grain, farm
bargaining power increases.
When you improve nutrition for children under School Milk,
School Lunch, Food Stamp and domestic donation programs, farm
bargaining power increases.
When you reduce unemployment, help people lift themselves
out of poverty, and enable more Americans to afford a decent diet,
and this Administration has done those things, farm bargaining
power increases.
When you negotiate an international commodity agreement,
as Tony Dechant and others helped us do last summer in the Kennedy
Round trade negotiations in Geneva, farm bargaining power increases.
And it is bargaining power that can put the American farmer
firmly on his own two feet in the American marketplace.
Finally, there are proposals to improve the general
quality of life in rural America for all who live there and all
who wish they could.
"Operation Outreach," begun last year, will continue to
bring 90 federal programs designed to improve everything from
health to housing
from education to economic development
right into the countryside.
Parity for the American farmer will mean little without
parity for his community
parity in everything that belongs
to a modern American standard of living for every rural citizen:
Meaningful job opportunities
decent housing
adequate
diets
the chance to lead a full and productive life.
My fellow Minnesotans know very well that I am reluctant to
talk politics--especially when there is an election only a few
months away.
But you are practical people--and passing farm programs is
a very practical business.
-5-
Farm bargaining power is going to be tested on election
day in November.
On election day you are going to negotiate a four-year
contract--and it won't be subject to renegotiation.
On election day you are going into the marketplace of
political decision to decide what happens to American agriculture--
and to all those programs the Formers Union has fought for long
and hard.
Today we have a president whose record is clear and
unequivocal.
We have a President who has fought as a senator and in
the White House for American agriculture
for fair prices
with a decent profit for the farmer
for protection from the
speculator and the unpredictable forces of the market
for
the health and welfare of rural America.
He believes in parity for American agriculture
in
full and equal opportunity for every farm family and agricultural
producer.
I doubt if you've forgotten the effects of the Republican
neglect a few years ago.
Farm income dropped a full 20 percent in eight years--
down two and a quarter billion dollars. By 1960 the Commodity
Credit Corporation held eight billion dollars worth of stock.
I know what that meant here in Minnesota and throughout
the country--and I don't think this nation or its food producers
can afford to go through it again.
Yes, American agriculture has a good friend in President
Lyndon Johnson.
But it takes more than a strong, determined, friend-of-the-
farmer in the White House to ennct sound farm legislation.
Much of what I have discussed today has to get through the
Congress before it can do America's farm economy any good.
And there is nothing automatic about Congress adopting
farm programs any more--particularly when senators and representa-
tives from rural districts vote against them. We can no longer
depend on = strong bipartisen farm bloc like the one we had until
the 1950s.
-6-
Keep this in mind when you look over your congressional
candidates in the months ahead.
Find out where they and their supporters stand on farm
prices
and farm programs
and farm bargaining.
Take a look, also, at the list of sponsors of the Curtis
bill - - a proposal to eliminate all farm programs.
It also includes the names of some of the Republicans who
voted 110 to 14 to kill the 1965 Farm Act. Democrats, farm and
city alike, provided the margin to get that bill through.
As Sam Rayburn used to say, "Any donkey can kick a barn
down, but it takes a good carpenter to build one."
So I urge you to ask some pointed questions before you
step into the polls. There is a lot of unfinished business ahead
of us in American agriculture and it is going to take builders,
not barn wreckers, to finish it.
# # #
-7-
Page data
- Page
- 1
- Source index
- 0
- Type
- document
- Media ID
- dcbdc6afdb0299ac
- Size
- unknown
Document data
- ID
- 4526102
- Core
- doc
- Type
- document
DTO data
{
"id": "4526102",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4526102",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "National Farmers Union Convention, Minneapolis, MN, March 13, 1968",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4526102",
"collections": [
"Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers",
"Speeches"
],
"subjects": [
"Agriculture"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642080/4526102.pdf",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642080/4526102.pdf",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642080/4526102.pdf",
"imageCount": 1,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Context sent to Scholar
Document identity
{
"localId": "4526102",
"label": "National Farmers Union Convention, Minneapolis, MN, March 13, 1968",
"core": "doc",
"dtoType": "document",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4526102"
}
Document source metadata
{
"id": "4526102",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4526102",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "National Farmers Union Convention, Minneapolis, MN, March 13, 1968",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4526102",
"collections": [
"Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers",
"Speeches"
],
"subjects": [
"Agriculture"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642080/4526102.pdf",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642080/4526102.pdf",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642080/4526102.pdf",
"imageCount": 1,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Document source extras
{
"url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4526102",
"naId": 4526102,
"coverageEndDate": {
"logicalDate": "1968-03-31",
"month": 3,
"year": 1968
},
"coverageStartDate": {
"logicalDate": "1968-03-01",
"month": 3,
"year": 1968
},
"levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
"recordType": "description",
"ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}
Page context
{
"seq": 1,
"pageIndex": 0,
"type": "document",
"url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642080/4526102.pdf",
"mediaId": "dcbdc6afdb0299ac",
"ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box D24, folder \"National Farmers Union\nConvention, Minneapolis, MN, March 13, 1968\" of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press\nSecretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nCopyright Notice\nThe copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of\nphotocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The Council donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to\nremain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid\ncopyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nDigitized from Box D24 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\nNATIONAL FARMERS UNION CONVENTION\nMINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA -- MARCH 18, 1968\n\"THE FAMILY FARM IN THE SPACE AGE\"\nLET ME SAY AT THE OUTSET THAT I AM\nINDEED VERY PLEASED TO HAVE BEEN INVITED TO\nPARTICIPATE AT THIS IMPORTANT CONVENTION.\nTHROUGH MY YEARS OF CONGRESSIONAL\nSERVICE, I HAVE ALWAYS HELD YOUR FINE ORGANI -\nZATION IN GREAT RESPECT, AND THOUGH WE MAY\nHAVE DIFFERED FROM TIME TO TIME, I HAVE ALWAYS\nFELT THE FARMERS UNION HAS SINCERELY AND\nEFFECTIVELY WORKED FOR THE BETTERMENT OF\nFAMILY FARMING IN OUR GREAT NATION.\nSOME SKEPTICS HAVE ASKED IN RECENT\nYEARS, \"JUST WHAT GOOD IS THE FAMILY FARM\nAMYHOW ISN'T IT AS OLD FASHIONED AND AS OUT\nOF DATE IN THIS MODERN AGE OF SCIENCE AND\nTECHNOLOGY AS THE HORSE AND BUGGY?\"\nGERALD FORD LIBRARY\nWELL, YOU KNOW AND I KNOW THAT THE FAMILY\n-2-\nEARM IS THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC BACKBONE OF\nAN AGRICULTURAL ESTABLISHMENT THAT IS THE ENVY\nOF THE WORLD. I NEED NOT CITE TO YOU ALL THE\nFIGURES ON THE CONTRIBUTION THAT MODERN FAMILY\nFARMS ARE MAKING TO THE HIGH STANDARD OF\nLIVING THAT AMERICA ENJOYS. BUT A FEW\nREMINDERS MIGHT BE IN ORDER.\nTHE AMERICAN CONSUMER TODAY IS HARVEST-\nING THE REWARD OF OUR EVER-INCREASINGLY\nEFFICIENT AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION AND MARKET-\nING SYSTEM. A RECENT REPORT ISSUED BY THE\nDEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SHOWED THAT IF IT\nWERE NOT FOR THE SHARP GAINS IN FARM EFFICIENCY\nDURING THE PAST TWO DECADES EVERY AMERICAN WOULD\nBE PAYING MORE FOR HIS FOOD AND ENJOYING IT LESS\nWHILE THE OUTPUT PER MAN-HOUR IN\nMANUFACTURING HAS INCREASED 2.7% PER YEAR\nSINCE 1948. THE OUTPUT IN AGRICULTURE HAS\nINCREASED BY 5% PER YEAR.\nIN 1948, THE NUMBER OF MAN HOURS USED\n-3-\nFOR ALL FARM WORK TOTALED 16.5 BILLION. IN\n1966, THIS FIGURE HAD DROPPED TO 7 BILLION MAN\nHOURS.\nFARM PRODUCTION INCREASED NEARLY 40\nPER CENT DURING THE SAME PERIOD.\nOR, STATED ANOTHER WAY, IN 1948 ONE\nFARM WORKER SUPPLIED ABOUT 14 OTHERS WITH FOOD\nAND FIBRE. TODAY HE SUPPLIES 42 OTHERS.\nDURING THE SAME TIME, THE NUMBER OF S\nCONSUMERS HAS INCREASED BY 40 PER CENT, WHILE\nTHE NUMBER OF WORKERS EMPLOYED IN THE FOOD\nINDUSTRY INCREASED BY ABOUT 12 PER CENT.\nLET US STOP RIGHT HERE AND ASK \"WHO\nPROVIDED THIS MIRACULOUS ECONOMIC GROWTH?\"\nTHE ANSWER, OF COURSE, IS FAMILY-SIZED\nAGRICULTURAL UNITS.\nYET, AS YOU KNOW, THE FAMILY FARMER\nIN THIS COUNTRY HAS NOT SHARED IN THE ECONOMIC\nREWARDS THAT SHOULD BE HIS FOR THESE TREMENDOUS\nCONTRIBUTIONS. FRANKLY, I KNOW OF NO GREAT\nLIBRARY\n-4-\nECONOMIC GROUP OF CITIZENS IN OUR SOCIETY\nWHICH TODAY EARNS LESS MONEY THAN IT DID 20\nYEARS AGO\nNO GROUP, THAT is, EXCEPT\nFARMERS. IN 1947, REALIZED NET FARM INCOME\nWAS $17.0 BILLION. IN 1967 IT WAS $14.5\nBILLION.\nIN THIS PAST YEAR OF 1967, WE HAVE\nSEEN REALIZED NET FARM INCOME FALL $1.9 BILLION\nBELOW THE PREVIOUS YEAR. CAN YOU IMAGINE ANY\nOTHER GROUP IN OUR SOCIETY TAKING A $1.9\nBILLION PAY CUT.\nIN MY HOME STATE OF MICHIGAN, THE DROP\nWAS %. HERE IN MINNESOTA, IT WAS 11%. NET\nINCOME PER FARM ALSO DROPPED IN SPITE OF A\nDECLINE OF APPROXIMATELY 100,000 IN THE NUMBER\nOF FARMS.\nAT THE SAME TIME, THE PARITY\nGERALD FORD LIBRARY\nRATIO.\n.\nTHAT MEASURING ROD OF RELATIVE\nPROSPERITY IN AGRICULTURE\nDROPPED TO 74.\nTHIS IS THE LOWEST ANNUAL LEVEL FOR THE PARITY\n-5-\nRATIO SINCE 1933.\nIN 1967, OUR AGRICULTURAL EXPORTS WHICH\nARE SO IMPORTANT TO THE BALANCE OF TRADE\nSITUATION WERE DOWN 7% BELOW THE PREVIOUS YEAR.\nTHE DAIRY IMPORT-EXPORT PICTURE BECAME\nPARTICULARLY DISTURBING LAST YEAR. IN 1967\nTHERE WERE 2.9 BILLION POUNDS OF MILK\nEQUIVALENT IMPORTED, WHILE ONLY 364 MILLION\nPOUNDS WERE EXPORTED. THIS IS MOST DISTURBING\nIN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT JUST FOUR YEARS AGO\n(IN 1964) OUR DAIRY IMPORTS WERE ONLY 830\nMILLION POUNDS OF MILK EQUIVALENT AND OUR\nEXPORTS WERE A HOPPING 6.9 BILLION POUNDS.\nTHESE FIGURES SHOW QUITE DRAMATICALLY\nAND QUITE PAINFULLY HOW THE AMERICAN DAIRY\nFARMER HAS BEEN CAUGHT IN A VICIOUS SCISSOR\nOF RISING IMPORT COMPETITION AND DECLINING\nEXPORT OPPORTUNITY.\nTHERE ARE, OF COURSE, OTHER ALARMING\nAND WORRISOME STATISTICS THAT SHOW OUR FARMERS\n-6-\nARE IN FINANCIAL TROUBLE. BUT I KNOW I NEED\nNOT REPEAT THE OBVIOUS, SO LET ME SAY ONLY THAT\nI FOR ONE CERTAINLY REALIZE THE DIFFICULTY.\nOF COURSE, RECOGNIZING THE EXISTENCE\nOF A PROBLEM AND DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT ARE\nTWO DIFFERENT THINGS.\nAS ONE OF MY LADY COLLEAGUES IN THE\nHOUSE ONCE SAID AT A RULES COMMITTEE HEARING\nAFTER MEMBERS OF THAT COMMITTEE HAD BESTOWED A\nSERIES OF FLOWERY ACCOLADES UPON HER, \"AH,\nGENTLEMEN, FIRST THE MOVOCAINE. THEN THE\nNEEDLE.\"\nI THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE THAT THE\nAVERAGE FAMILY FARM OPERATOR IN THIS COUNTRY\nIS NOT IN THE SOUNDEST FINANCIAL SITUATION.\nWHAT THEN CAN WE DO?\nLET'S LOOK AT THE POLITICAL REALITIES\nIN WASHINGTON. A PARTY OTHER THAN THE ONE TO\nWHICH I BELONG NOW CONTROLS BOTH HOUSES OF\nTHE CONGRESS, AS WELL AS THAT LARGE WHITE\nBERALD FORD LIBRARY\n-7-\nBUILDING ON PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE WHERE ALL THE\nIMPORTANT DECISIONS OF DAY-TO-DAY GOVERNMENT\nARE MADE. THAT BEING TRUE, WE MUST FIRST ANAL-\nYZE THE PROPOSALS MADE BY THE PRESIDENT IN HIS\nRECENT FARM MESSAGE.\nAS YOU RECALL, HE ASKED FOR THE\nPERMANENT EXTENSION OF THE AGRICULTURAL ACT\nOF 1965. HE ALSO CALLED FOR A THREE-YEAR\nLAW\nEXTENSION OF PUBLIC'480, THE FOOD FOR PEACE\nPROGRAM. HE SOUGHT A \"FOOD BANK\" IN WHICH\nGRAIN FARMERS WOULD BE THE SOLE DEPOSITORS.\nHE ASKED FOR HEARINGS TO BE HELD ON FARM\nBARGAINING. HE CALLED FOR THE ENACTMENT OF\nNEW PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ACT LEGISLATION\nAND FINALLY, HE MADE SOME GENERALIZED COMMENTS\nABOUT RURAL RENEWAL.\nLET ME OFFER A FEW COMMENTS ABOUT EACH\nOF THESE RECOMMENDATIONS.\nIN URGING THE EXTENSION OF THE 1965 ACT\nTHIS YEAR, THE PRESIDENT SAID, AND I QUOTE:\n-8-\n\"TO TERMINATE THE 1965 ACT WOULD BRING\nCATASTROPHE AND RUIN TO MANY FARMERS.\n\"CASH PRICES TO THE FARMER WOULD FALL--\nAND THERE WOULD BE NO GOVERNMENT PAYMENTS TO\nCUSHION THE IMPACT. FARM INCOME COULD DROP\nBY AS MUCH AS ONE-THIRD--BACK TO 1959 LEVELS.\n\"--WHEAT PRICES WOULD DROP TO ABOUT\n$1.10 A BUSHEL-COMPARED WITH THE 1967 BLEND\nPRICE OF $1.89, INCLUDING THE WHEAT CERTIFICATE.\n\"--CORN PRICES WOULD DROP TO ABOUT\n75.CENTS A BUSHEL, COMPARED WITH A BLEND PRICE\nOF $1.30 IN 1967.\n\"--COTTON WOULD SELL FOR 18 CENTS A\nPOUND, COMPARED WITH 42 CENTS IN 1967 WITH\nPRICE SUPPORT PAYMENTS.\n\"--WITH LOWER GRAIN PRICES, LIVESTOCK\nSUPPLIES WOULD SOON OVER-BURDEN THE MARKET\nSO THAT LIVESTOCK PRICES WOULD DECLINE BY AT\nLEAST 10%.\"\nLET ME SAY HERE AND NOW THAT I DON'T\n-9-\nTHINK THERE HAS EVER BEEN A MORE BLATANT\nATTEMPT TO MISLEAD THE CONGRESS OR THE PUBLIC\nTHAN THE WORDS I JUST READ TO YOU FROM THE\nPRESIDENT'S FARM MESSAGE.\nIN EACH INSTANCE, AS IT APPLIES TO\nCOTTON, FEED GRAINS AND WHEAT, THERE ARE\nPERMANENT STATUTORY AUTHORITIES ON THE LAW\nBOOKS WHICH WOULD APPLY IF THE 1965 ACT SHOULD\nEXPIRE AT THE END OF THE 1969 PROGRAMS FOR\nTHESE CROPS.\nFOR WHEAT, FOR EXAMPLE, THE BASIC FARM\nLAWS OF 1938 AND 1949 PROVIDE FOR A MANDATORY\nWHEAT CERTIFICATE PROGRAM FOR THE 1970 CROPS.\nPRICE SUPPORTS ON DOMESTIC AND EXPORT COULD GO\nTO 90% OF PARITY. FARMERS WOULD, OF COURSE,\nHAVE TO APPROVE THIS MANDATORY PLAN IN A\nREFERENDUM.\nFOR FEED GRAINS THESE SAME LAWS GIVE THE\nSECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE DISCRETION TO SET\nFORD\nLIBRI\nSUPPORT PRICES FROM 50 TO 90 PER CENT OF PARITY.\n-10-\nON COTTON, A MANDATORY PROGRAM WITH\nPRICE SUPPORTS AT 65 TO 90 PER CENT OF PARITY\nWOULD ALSO GO INTO EFFECT IF THE 1965 ACT\nSHOULD EXPIRE.\nBOTH THE HOUSE AND SENATE AGRICULTURE\nCOMMITTEES ARE GOING TO HOLD HEARINGS ON THE\n1965 ACT. WHETHER THEY BRING AN EXTENSION TO\nTHE FLOOR OR NOT, I THINK FARMERS, THE GENERAL\nPUBLIC AND THE CONGRESS SHOULD ALL REALIZE\nTHAT A PREDICTION OF \"CATASTROPHE AND RUIN\"\nIN THE EVENT OF NO EXTENSION THIS YEAR IS\nSOMEWHERE BETWEEN PURE PUFFING AND INCREDI-\nBILITY.\nPUBLIC LAW 480 WILL, OF COURSE, BE\nESTENDED ONCE AGAIN. THIS PROGRAM HAS\nENJOYED BI-PARTISAN SUPPORT SINCE ITS INCEPTION\nIN 1954, DURING FORMER PRESIDENT EISENHOWER'S\nADMINISTRATION. IN EXTENDING THE ACT, HOWEVER,\nALL OF US ARE GOING TO TRY TO RELATE IT TO OUR\nBALANCE OF PAYMENTS PROBLEMS, TO MAKE IT\n-11-\nOPERATE AS A MORE POSITIVE INFLUENCE ON\nDOMESTIC FARM PRICES, AND TO EMPHASIZE EVEN\nMORE THE NEED FOR \"SELF-HELP\" BY UNDER-\nDEVELOPED NATIONS TEETERING ON THE BRINK OF A\nFOOD-POPULATION DISASTER.\nGRAIN RESERVE LEGISLATION WILL NO\nDOUBT ALSO BE CONSIDERED BY THE APPROPRIATE\nCOMMITTEES. I WOULD CERTAINLY HOPE THAT\nNEITHER THE HOUSE COMMITTEE NOR THE SENATE\nWOULD BRING FORTH A BILL LIKE LAST YEAR'S\nPROPOSAL OF THE ADMINISTRATION. ANY LEGIS-\nLATION WHICH GIVES THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE\nTHE POWER TO DUMP GRAIN ON THE MARKET WILL,\nIN MY OPINION, ONLY COMPOUND THE DIFFICULTY\nFACING FARMERS.\nPERSONALLY, I FEEL THAT ALL GOVERNMENT\nGRAIN STOCKS SHOULD INSTEAD BE FULLY INSULATED\nFROM THE MARKET AT LEVELS WHICH WILL RAISE\nMARKET PRICES, NOT DEPRESS THEM.\nGERALD FORD LIBRARY\nFARM BARGAINING, I EXPECT, WILL BE\n-12-\nMOSTLY THE SUBJECT OF HEARINGS AND DISCUSSION\nTHIS YEAR, ALTHOUGH THE \"AGRICULTURAL FAIR\nPRACTICES ACT\" -- S. 109 -- SHOULD BE CLEARED\nBY THE HOUSE THIS WEEK.\nTHE PRESIDENT'S PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS\nBILL HAS NOT BEEN INTRODUCED IN THE HOUSE SINCE\nITS REFERRAL TO CAPITOL HI LAST FALL, AND THE\nPRESIDENT'S RURAL RENEWAL PROPOSALS APPEAR TO\nBE PRETTY MUCH A RE-STATEMENT OF PREVIOUS\nLEGISLATION CONSIDERED BY THE CONGRESS.\nAT THE PRESENT TIME, THEN, THE ONLY\nPART OF THE PRESIDENT S RACKAGE THAT APPEARS\nHEADED TOWARD CERTAIN ENACTMENT THIS YEAR IS\nTHE EXTENSION OF PUBLIC LAW 480.\nTHE HEARINGS ON THE 1965 ACT AND\nALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TO CONGRESS CAN, IN MY\nOPINION, BE EXTREMELY USEFUL IF THEY ARE\nDIVORCED FROM PARTISAN POLITICS. I AM,\nUNFORTUNATELY, NOT OPTIMISTIC THAT THE\nGERALD FORD LIBRABA\nADMINISTRATION WILL TAKE AN OBJECTIVE\n-13-\nPOSITION ON THESE MATTERS, PARTICULARLY IN\nVIEW OF THE INCREDIBLE PROPHESY OF \"CATASTROPHE\nAND RUIN\" MADE IN THE FARM MESSAGE. THE\nAMERICAN FARMER NEEDS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR\nHIGHER INCOME, NOT JUST MORE OF THE SAME.\nANY HEARINGS ON OUR MAJOR COMMODITIES\nSHOULD INCLUDE TESTIMONY FROM FARMERS UNION\nAS WELL AS THE OTHER GENERAL FARM AND COMMODITY\nORGANIZATIONS. ACADEMIC, ECONOMIC AND LEGAL\nEXPERTS SHOULD ALSO BE CALLED.\nTHE RECOMMENDATIONS AND FINDINGS OF THE\nNATIONAL FOOD AND FIBRE COMMISSION SHOULD\nRECEIVE CAREFUL PUBLIC AND CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW.\nTHIS REPORT SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO WITHER\nAND DIE FROM INDIFFERENCE AFTER SO MUCH TIME\nAND TALENT HAVE BEEN SPENT PREPARING IT.\nTHESE HEARINGS SHOULD, I FEEL,\nREALISTICALLY EXPLORE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF\nTHE PRESENT COMMODITY PROGRAMS. WHERE\nWEAKNESSES ARE FOUND, BETTER MEANS OF PROVID+NG\n-14-\nINCOME PROTECTION TO FAMILY FARM AGRICULTURE\nMUST BE DEVISED.\nAT THE SAME TIME, WE SHOULD ALLOCATE\nSUFFICIENT RESOURCES TO PROMOTE ADEQUATE\nAGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND EDUCATION, FUND THE\nREA AND RTA PROGRAMS AND AMPLE AGRICULTURAL\nCREDIT, AND CONTINUE OUR SOIL, WATER AND\nFORESTRY CONSERVATION AND SERVICE PROGRAMS.\nA $10 BILLION ANNUAL EXPORT MARKET\nSHOULD BE WITHIN OUR GRASPS IN THE NEAR FUTURE.\nRURAL DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE EMPHASIZED\nWITH FAMILY FARMS RATHER THAN CORPORATE\nCONGLOMERATES AS THE KEYSTONE.\nYES, AMERICAN AGRICULTURE IS VITALLY\nIMPORTANT, BOTH TO THE NATION AND TO THE\nPROMOTION OF PEACE IN THE WORLD.\nTHE MODERN FARM FAMILY, IN MY OPINION,\nIS MAKING A TREMENDOUS CONTRIBUTION TOWARD THE\nWELL-BEING OF ALL OUR CITIZENS.\nAND YET THERE ARE THOSE WHO SAY THAT\n-15-\nFARMERS ARE NO LONGER IMPORTANT IN OUR\nPOLITICAL PROCESS. I NOTICED IN THE FARMERS\nUNION NEWSLETTER OF SEPTEMBER 22 OF LAST YEAR\nTHAT MY COLLEAGUE, THE CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE\nAGRICULTURE COMMITTEE, WAS QUOTED AS FOLLOWS:\n\"POAGE TOLD AN IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY\nAUDIENCE THAT THE FARM BLOC IN CONGRESS NO\nLONGER EXISTS, THAT NEITHER POLITICAL PARTY IS\nDEEPLY CONCERNED WITH AGRICULTURE, AND THAT\nBOTH PARTIES FEEL THEY MUST DO WHATEVER IS\nNECESSARY TO WIN BIG CITY VOTES.\"\nLET ME TELL YOU AS ONE VOICE OF THE\nLOYAL OPPOSITION THAT MY FRIEND FROM TEXAS\nWAS PROBABLY HALF RIGHT WHEN HE SAID THAT !\nOR, PUT ANOTHER WAY, I CAN AGREE WITH\nHIM 50% ON THAT ISSUE\nAS FAR AS HIS\nPARTY IS CONCERNED, BUT I CERTAINLY DO NOT\nACCEPT THAT DESCRIPTION FOR MY PARTY.\nFORD LIBRARY\nI WON'T BELABOR YOU HERE WITH A\nPOLITICAL PITCH -- YOU WILL BE EXPOSED TO PLENTY\n-16-\nOF THAT FROM VARIOUS QUARTERS DURING THE\nBALANCE OF THIS YEAR. I WILL ONLY POINT OUT\nTHAT OUR HOUSE REPUBLICAN TASK FORCE ON\nAGRICULTURE, HEADED BY MY DISTINGUISHED\nCOLLEAGUE FROM MINNESOTA, ODIN LANGEN,\nRECENTLY SET FORTH THE IMPORTANCE OF THE FARM\nVOTE IN OUR NATIONAL ELECTIVE PROCESS.\nAS A FARMER ONCE TOLD ME, \"WE MAY BE\nOUT-NUMBERED, BUT WE SHOULDN'T BE OUTSMARTED.\"\nTHAT IS THE THOUGHT I WOULD LIKE TO\nLEAVE WITH YOU TODAY AS WE CONSIDER THE FAMILY\nFARM IN THE SPACE AGE. LET'S ALL RECOGNIZE\nTHE IMPORTANCE OF THIS KEY ELEMENT IN OUR\nSOCIETY. ITS IMPORTANCE IN TERMS OF ECONOMIC\nGAIN TO OUR SOCIETY IN GENERAL, ITS CONTRIBUTION\nTO SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, AND ITS CONTINUING\nIMPORTANCE IN THE POLITICAL PROCESS ALL TRANS-\nCEND MERE NUMBERS.\nTHE KEY ROLE OF FAMILY AGRICULTURE IN\nSPACE AGE AMERICA DEMANDS AND ASSURES THE\n-17-\nCONTINUED CONCENTRATION OF NATIONAL POLICY\nUPON ITS PROBLEMS. THIS HAS BEEN TRUE\nTHROUGHOUT OUR HISTORY. IT IS JUST AS TRUE\nTODAY. THANK YOU.\n-END-\nFORD & LIBRARY 07V230\nREMARKS OF CONGRESSMAN GERALD FORD (R-Mich)\nRepublican Leader\nUnited States House of Representatives\nAT NATIONAL FARMERS UNION CONVENTION\nMinneapolis, Minnesota - March 18, 1968\nTHE FARM FAMILY IN THE SPACE AGE\nLet me say at the outset that I am indeed very pleased to have been\ninvited to participate at this important convention.\nThrough my years of Congressional service, I have always held your fine\norganization in great respect, and though we may have differed from time to\ntime, I have always felt the Farmers Union has sincerely and effectively worked\nfor the betterment of family farming in our great nation.\nSome skeptics have asked in recent years, \"Just what good is the family\nfarm anyhow? Isn't it as old fashioned and as out of date in this modern age\nof science and technology as the horse and buggy?\"\nWell, you know and I know that the family farm is the social and\neconomic backbone of an agricultural establishment that is the envy of the\nworld. I need not cite to you all the figures on the contribution that modern\nfamily farms are making to the high standard of living that America enjoys.\nBut a few reminders might be in order.\nThe American consumer today is harvesting the reward of our ever-\nincreasingly efficient agricultural production and marketing system. A recent\nreport issued by the Department of Agriculture showed that if it were not for\nthe sharp gains in farm efficiency during the past two decades every American\nwould be paying more for his food and enjoying it less.\nWhile the output per man-hour in manufacturing has increased 2.7 per cent\nper year since 1948, the output in agriculture has increased by 5 per cent per\nyear.\nIn 1948 the number of man hours used for all farm work totaled 16.5\nbillion. In 1966, this figure had dropped to 7 billion man hours.\nFarm production increased nearly 40 per cent during the same period.\nOr, stated another way, in 1948 one farm worker supplied about 14 others\nwith food and fibre. Today he supplies 42 others.\nDuring the same time, the number of consumers has increased by 40 per cent,\nwhile the number of workers employed in the food industry increased by about\n12 per cent.\nLet us stop right here and ask \"Who provided this miraculous economic\ngrowth?\" The answer, of course, is family-sized agricultural units.\nYet, as you know, the family farmer in this country has not shared in the\neconomic rewards that should be his for these tremendous contributions. Frankly,\nI know of no great economic group of citizens in our society which today earns\nless money than it did 20 years ago ... no group, that is, except farmers.\nFORD\nIn 1947, realized net farm income was $17.0 billion. In 1967 it was $14.5 billion.\nLIBRARI\nIn this past year of 1967, we have seen realized net farm income fall\n$1.9 billion below the previous year. Can you imagine any other group in our\nsociety taking a $1.9 billion pay cut?\nIn my home state of Michigan, the drop was 9 per cent. Here in Minnesota,\nit was 11 per cent. Net income per farm also dropped in spite of a decline of\napproximately 100,000 in the number of farms.\nAt the same time, the parity ration\nthat measuring rod of relative\nprosperity in agriculture\ndropped to 74.\nIn 1967, agricultural exports which are so important to the balance\nof trade situation were down 7 per cent below the previous year.\nThe dairy import-export picture became particularly disturbing last year.\nin 1967 there were 2.9 billion pounds of milk equivalent imported, while only\n304 million pounds were exported. This is most disturbing in view of the fact\nthat just four years ago (in 1964) our dairy imports were only 830 million\npounds of milk equivalent and our exports were a whopping 6.9 billion pounds.\nThese figures show quite dramatically and quite painfully how the American\ndairy farmer has been caught in a vicious scissor of rising import competition\nand declining export opportunity.\nThere are, of course, other alarming and worrisome statistics that show\nour farmers are in financial trouble. But I know I need not repeat the obvious,\nso let me say only that I for one certainly realize the difficulty.\nOf course, recognizing the existence of a problem and doing something\nabout it are two different things.\nAs one of my lady colleagues in the House once said at a Rules Committee\nhearing after the members of that committee had bestowed a series of flowery\naccolades upon her: \"Ah, Gentlemen, first the novocaine, then the needle.\"\nI think that we can all agree that the average family farm operator in\nthis country is not in the soundest financial condition. What then can we do?\nLet's look at the political realities in Washington. A party other than the\none to which I belong now controls both houses of the Congress, as well as that\nlarge white building on Pennsylvania Avenue where all the important decisions of\nday-to-day government are made. That being true, we must first analyze the\nproposals made by the President in his recent farm message.\nAs you recall, he asked for the permanent extension of the Agricultural Act\nof 1965. He also called for a three-year extension of Public Law 480, the Food'\nfor Peace Program. He sought a \"Food Bank\" in which grain farmers would be the\nsole depositors. He asked for hearings to be held on farm bargaining. He called\nfor the enactment of new Packers and Stockyards Act legislation and finally, he\nmade some generalized comments about rural renewal.\nLet me offer a few comments about each of these recommendations.\nIn urging the extension of the 1965 Act this year, the President said, and\n= quote:\n- 3 -\n\"To terminate the 1965 Act would bring catastrophe and ruin to many\nfarmers.\n\"Cash prices to the farmer would fall -- and there would be no government\npayments to cushion the impact. Farm income could drop by as much as one-third --\nback to 1959 levels.\n\"-Wheat prices drop to about 1.10 a bushel -- compared with the 1967 blend\nprice of $1.89, including the wheat certificate.\n\"--Corn prices would drop to about 75 cents a bushel, compared with a blend\nprice of 41.30 in 1967.\n\"--Cotton would sell for 18 cents a pound, compared with 42 cents in 1967\nwith price support payments.\n\"-With lower grain prices, livestock supplies would soon over-burden the\nmarket so that livestock prices would decline by at least 10 per cent.\"\nLet me say here and now that I don't think there has ever been a more\nblatant attempt to mislead the Congress or the public than the words I just read\nto you from the President's farm message.\nIn each instance, as it applies to cotton, feed grains and wheat, there are\npermanent statutory authorities on the law books which would apply if the 1965 Act\nshould expire at the end of the 1969 programs for these crops.\nFor wheat, for example, the basic farm laws of 1938 and 1949 provide for a\nmandatory wheat certificate program for the 1970 crops. Price supports on\ndomestic and export wheat could go to 90 per cent of parity. Farmers would, of\ncourse, have to approve this mandatory plan in a referendum.\nFor feed grains these same laws give the Secretary of Agriculture discretion\nto set support prices from 50 to 90 per cent of parity.\nOn cotton, a mandatory program with price supports at 65 to 90 percent of\nparity would also go into effect if the 1965 Act should expire.\nBoth the House and Senate Agriculture Committees are going to hold hearings\non the 1965 Act. Whether they bring an extension to the floor or not, I think\nfarmers, the general public and the Congress should all realize that a prediction\nof \"catastrophe and ruin\" in the event of no extension this year is somewhere\nbetween pure puffing and incredibility.\nPublic law 480 will, of course, be extended once again. This program has\nenjoyed bi-partisan support since its inception in 1954 during former President\nEisenhower's Administration. In extending the Act, however, all of us are going\nto try to relate it to our balance of payments problems, to make it operate as a\nmore positive influence on domestic farm prices, and to emphasize even more the\nneed for \"self-help\" by under-developed nations teetering on the brink of a food-\npopulation disaster.\nGrain reserve legislation will no doubt also be considered by the appropriate\ncommittees. I would certainly hope that neither the House Committee nor the Senate\nLIBRARY\nwould bring forth a bill like last year's proposal of the Administration.\nAny legislation which gives the Secretary of Agriculture the power to dump grain\non the market will, in my opinion, only compound the difficulty facing farmers.\nPersonally, I feel that all government grain stocks should instead be fully\ninsulated from the market at levels which will raise market prices, not depress\nthem.\nFarm bargaining, I expect, will be mostly the subject of hearings and\ndiscussion this year, although the \"Agricultural Fair Practices Act\" - S.109 --\nshould be cleared by the House this week.\nThe President's Packers and Stockyards bill has not been introduced in the\nHouse since its referral to Capitol Hill last Fall, and the President's rural\nrenewal proposals appear to be pretty much of a re-statement of previous legislation\nconsidered by the Congress.\nAt the present time, then, the only part of the President's package that\nappears headed toward certain enactment this year is the extension of Public\nLaw 480.\nThe hearings on the 1965 Act and alternatives available to Congress can,\nin my opinion, be extremely useful if they are divorced from partisan politics.\nI am, unfortunately, not optimistic that the Administration will take an objective\nposition on these matters, particularly in view of the incredible prophecy of\n\"catastrophe and ruin\" made in the farm message. The American farmer needs the\nopportunity for higher income, not just more of the same.\nAny hearings on our major commodities should include testimony from Farmers\nUnion as well as the other general farm and commodity organizations. Academic,\neconomic and legal experts should also be called.\nThe recommendations and findings of the National Food and Fiber Commission\nshould receive careful public and Congressional review. This report should not be\npermitted to wither and die from indifference after so much time and talent have\nbeen spent preparing it.\nThese hearings should, I feel, realistically explore the effectiveness of the\npresent commodity programs. Where weaknesses are found, better means of providing\nincome protection to family farm agriculture must be devised.\nAt the same time, we should allocate sufficient resources to promote adequate\nagricultural research and education, fund the REA and RTA programs and ample\nagricultural credit, and continue our soil, water and forestry conservation and\nservice programs.\nA $10 billion annual export market should be within our grasps in the near\nfuture.\nRural development should be emphasized with family farms rather than corporate\nconglomerates as the keystone.\nYes, American agriculture is vitally important, both to the nation and to the\npromotion of peace in the world.\n-5-\nThe modern farm family, in my opinion, is making a tremendous contribution\ntoward the well-being of all our citizens.\nAnd yet there are those who say that farmers are no longer important in\nour political process. I noticed in the Farmers Union Newsletter of September 22\nof last year that my colleague, the Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee,\nwas quoted as follows:\n\"Poage told an Iowa State University audience that the farm bloc in Congress\nno longer exists, that neither political party is deeply concerned with\nagriculture, and that both parties feel they must do whatever is necessary to win\nbig city votes.\"\nLet me tell you as once voice of the loyal opposition that my friend from\nTexas was probably half right when he said that\nor, put another way, I can\nagree with him 50 per cent on that issue\n....\nas far as his party is concerned,\nbut I certainly do not accept that description for my party.\nI won't belabor you here with a political pitch -- you will be exposed to\nplenty of that from various quarters during the balance of this year. I will only\npoint out that our House Republican Task Force on Agriculture, headed by my\ndistinguished colleague from Minnesota, Odin Langen, recently set forth the\nimportance of the farm vote in our national elective process.\nAs a farmer once told me\n\"We may be outnumbered, but we shouldn't be\noutsmarted.\"\nThat is the thought I would like to leave with you today as we consider the\nfamily farm in the space age. Let's all recognize the importance of this key\nelement in our society. Its importance in terms of economic gain to our society in\ngeneral, its contribution to social responsibility, and its continuing importance\nin the political process all transcend mere numbers.\nThe key role of family agriculture in space age America demands and assures\nthe continued concentration of national policy upon its problems. This has been\ntrue throughout our history -- it is just as true today.\nThank you.\nAT CONDITIONS only\nPRINT -\n[The 1984 VISITAR\n1008 CRIT\nMYZE CVTS\nprosper\n-\nTHAN MAY\nNOT DISTRIBUTED\nNOTE:\n72 ID ACG MAT\nBUT onr\nCOMPLY\n10 120 son\n-\nAME and 11-\n10\" BENALD WEWOW R.\nFORD\nW DE OUT\nLIVERSE\n(80)\n- 00\nCONGRESSMAN\nNEWS\nGERALD R. FORD\nHOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER\nRELEASE\n--FOR RELEASE AT 6:30 p.m. CST (7:30 p.m. EST)--\nMonday, March 18, 1968\nAn Address by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich., at the National Farmers Union\nConvention, Minneapolis, Minnesota.\n\"THE FAMILY FARM IN THE SPACE AGE\"\nLet me say at the outset that I am indeed very pleased to have been invited\nto participate at this important convention.\nThrough my years of Congressional service, I have always held your fine\norganization in great respect, and though we may have differed from time to time,\nI have always felt the Farmers Union has sincerely and effectively worked for\nthe betterment of family farming in our great nation.\nSome skeptics have asked in recent years, \"Just what good is the family\nfarm anyhow? Isn't it as old fashioned and as out of date in this modern age\nof science and technology as the horse and buggy?\"\nWell, you know and I know that the family farm is the social and economic\nbackbone of an agricultural establishment that is the envy of the world. I need\nnot cite to you all the figures on the contribution that modern family farms are\nmaking to the high standard of living that America enjoys. But a few reminders\nmight be in order.\nThe American consumer today is harvesting the reward of our ever-increasingly\nefficient agricultural production and marketing system. A recent report issued\nby the Department of Agriculture showed that if it were not for the sharp gains\nin farm efficiency during the past two decades every American would be paying\nmore for his food and enjoying it less.\nWhile the output per man-hour in manufacturing has increased 2.7% per year\nsince 1948, the output in agriculture has increased by 5% per year.\nIn 1948, the number of man hours used for all farm work totaled 16.5 billion.\nIn 1966, this figure had dropped to 7 billion man hours.\nFarm production increased nearly 40 per cent during the same period.\nOr, stated another way, in 1948 one farm worker supplied about 14 others\nwith food and fibre. Today he supplies 42 others.\nDuring the same time, the number of consumers has increased by 40 per cent,\nwhile the number of workers employed in the food industry increased by about\n12 per cent.\n(more)\n-2-\nLet us stop right here and ask \"Who provided this miraculous economic\ngrowth?\" The answer, of course, is family-sized agricultural units.\nYet, as you know, the family farmer in this country has not shared in the\neconomic rewards that should be his for these tremendous contributions. Frankly,\nI know of no great economic group of citizens in our society which today earns\nless money than it did 20 years ago 1 no group, that is, except farmers.\nIn 1947, realized net farm income was $17.0 billion. In 1967 it was $14.5 billion.\nIn this past year of 1967, we have seen realized net farm income fall $1.9\nbillion below the previous year. Can you imagine any other group in our society\ntaking a $1.9 billion pay cut?\nIn my home state of Michigan, the drop was 9%. Here in Minnesota, it was\n11%. Net income per farm also dropped in spite of a decline of approximately\n100,000 in the number of farms.\nAt the same time, the parity ratio,\nthat measuring rod of relative\nprosperity in agriculture\ndropped to 74. This is the lowest annual level\nfor the parity ratio since 1933.\nIn 1967, our agricultural exports which are so important to the balance of\ntrade situation were down 7% below the previous year.\nThe dairy import-export picture became particularly disturbing last year.\nIn 1967 there were 2.9 billion pounds of milk equivalent imported, while only\n364 million pounds were exported. This is most disturbing in view of the fact\nthat just four years ago (in 1964) our dairy imports were only 830 million pounds\nof milk equivalent and our exports were a whopping 6.9 billion pounds.\nThese figures show quite dramatically and quite painfully how the American\ndairy farmer has been caught in a vicious scissor of rising import competition\nand declining export opportunity.\nThere are, of course, other alarming and worrisome statistics that show our\nfarmers are in financial trouble. But I know I need not repeat the obvious, so\nlet me say only that I for one certainly realize the difficulty.\nOf course, recognizing the existence of a problem and doing something about\nit are two different things.\nAs one of my lady colleagues in the House once said at a Rules Committee\nhearing after members of that committee had bestowed a series of flowery accolades\nupon her: \"Ah, gentlemen, first the novocaine, then the needle.\"\nI think we can all agree that the average family farm operator in this\ncountry is not in the scundest financial situation. What then can we do?\n(more)\n-3-\nLet's look at the political realities in Washington. A party other than the\none to which I belong now controls both Houses of the Congress, as well as that\nlarge white building on Pennsylvania Avenue where all the important decisions of\nday-to-day government are made. That being true, we must first analyze the\nproposals made by the President in his recent farm message.\nAs you recall, he asked for the permanent extension of the Agricultural Act\nof 1965. He also called for a three-year extension of Public Law 480, the Food\nfor Peace Program. He sought a \"food bank\" in which grain farmers would be the\nsole depositors. He asked for hearings to be held or farm bargaining. He called\nfor the enactment of new Packers and Stockyards Act legislation and finally, he\nmade some generalized comments about rural renewal.\nLet me offer a few comments about each of these recommendations.\nIn urging the extension of the 1965 Act this year, the President said, and\nI quote:\n\"To terminate the 1965 Act would bring catastrophe and ruin to many farmers.\n\"Cash prices to the farmer would fall--and there would be no government\npayments to cushion the impact. Farm income could drop by as much as one-third--\nback to 1959 levels.\n\"--Wheat prices would drop to about $1.10 a bushel compared with the 1967\nblend price of $1.89, including the wheat certificate.\n\"--Corn prices would drop to about 75 cents a bushel, compared with a blend\nprice of $1.30 in 1967.\n\"--Cotton would sell for 18 cents a pound, compared with 42 cents in 1967\nwith price support payments.\n\"--With lower grain prices, livestock supplies would soon over-burden the\nmarket so that livestock prices would decline by at least 10%.\"\nLet me say here and now that I don't think there has ever been a more blatant\nattempt to mislead the Congress or the public than the words I just read to you\nfrom the President's farm message.\nIn each instance, as it applies to cotton, feed grains and wheat, there\nare permanent statutory authorities on the law books which would apply if the 1965\nAct should expire at the end of the 1969 programs for these crops,\nFor wheat, for example, the basic farm laws of 1938 and 1949 provide for a\nmandatory wheat certificate program for the 1970 crops. Price supports on\ndomestic and export wheat could go to 90% of parity. Farmers would, of course,\nhave to approve this mandatory plan in a referendum.\n(more)\n-4-\nFor feed grains these same laws give the Secretary of Agriculture discretion\nto set support prices from 50 to 90 per cent of parity.\nOn cotton, a mandatory program with price supports at 65 to 90 per cent of\nparity would also go into effect if the 1965 Act should expire.\nBoth the House and Senate Agriculture Committees are going to hold hearings\non the 1965 Act. Whether they bring an extension to the floor or not, I think\nfarmers, the general public and the Congress should all realize that a prediction\nof \"catastrophe and ruin\" in the event of no extension this year is somewhere\nbetween pure puffing and incredibility.\nPublic Law 480 will, of course, be extended once again. This program has\nenjoyed bi-partisan support since its inception in 1954, during former President\nEisenhower's administration. In extending the Act, however, all of us are going\nto try to relate it to our balance of payments problems, to make it operate as\na more positive influence on domestic farm prices, and to emphasize even more\nthe need for \"self-help\" by under-developed nations teetering on the brink of a\nfood-population disaster.\nGrain Reserve legislation will no doubt also be considered by the appropriate\ncommittees. I would certainly hope that neither the House Committee nor the\nSenate would bring forth a bill like last year's proposal of the Administration.\nAny legislation which gives the Secretary of Agriculture the power to dump grain\non the market will, in my opinion, only compound the difficulty facing farmers.\nPersonally, I feel that all government grain stocks should instead by fully\ninsulated from the market at levels which will raise market prices, not depress\nthem!\nFarm Bargaining, I expect, will be mostly the subject of hearings and\ndiscussion this year, although the \"Agricultural Fair Practices Act\" -- S. 109 --\nshould be cleared by the House this week.\nThe President's Packers and Stockyards bill has not been introduced in the\nHouse since its referral to Capitol Hill last fall, and the President's rural\nrenewal proposals appear to be pretty much a re-statement of previous legislation\nconsidered by the Congress.\nAt the present time, then, the only part of the President's package that\nappears headed toward certain enactment this year is the extension of Public\nLaw 480.\nThe hearings on the 1965 Act and alternatives available to Congress can,\nin my opinion, be extremely useful if they are divorced from partisan politics.\nI am, unfortunately, not optimistic that the Administration will take an objective\n(more)\n-5-\nposition on these matters, particularly in view of the incredible prophesy of\n\"catastrophe and ruin\" made in the farm message. The American farmer needs the\nopportunity for higher income, not just more of the same.\nAny hearings on our major commodities should include testimony from Farmers\nUnion as well as the other general farm and commodity organizations. Academic,\neconomic and legal experts should also be called.\nThe recommendations and findings of the National Food and Fibre Commission\nshould receive careful public and Congressional review. This report should not\nbe permitted to wither and die from indifference after so much time and talent\nhave been spent preparing it.\nThese hearings should, I feel, realistically explore the effectiveness of\nthe present commodity programs. Where weaknesses are found, better means of\nproviding income protection to family farm agriculture must be devised.\nAt the same time, we should allocate sufficient resources to promote\nadequate agricultural research and education, fund the REA and RTA programs and\nample agricultural credit, and continue our soil, water and forestry conservation\nand service programs.\nA $10 billion annual export market should be within our grasps in the near\nfuture.\nRural development should be emphasized with family farms rather than cor-\nporate conglomerates as the keystone.\nYes, American agriculture is vitally important, both to the nation and to\nthe promotion of peace in the world.\nThe modern farm family, in my opinion, is making a tremendous contribution\ntoward the well-being of all our citizens.\nAnd yet there are those who say that farmers are no longer important in\nour political process. I noticed in the Farmers Union Newsletter of September 22\nof last year that my colleague, the Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee,\nwas quoted as follows:\n\"Poage told an Iowa State University audience that the farm bloc in Congress\nno longer exists, that neither political party is deeply concerned with\nagriculture, and that both parties feel they must do whatever is necessary to\nwin big city votes.\"\nLet me tell you as one voice of the loyal opposition that my friend from\nTexas was probably half right when he said that!\nOr, put another way,\nI can agree with him 50% on tha issue\nas far as his party is concerned,\nbut I certainly do not accept that description for my party.\n(more)\n-6-\nI won't belabor you here with a political pitch -- you will be exposed to\nplenty of that from various quarters during the balance of this year. I will\nonly point out that our House Republican Task Force on Agriculture, headed by my\ndistinguished colleague from Minnesota, Odin Langen, recently set forth the\nimportance of the farm vote in our national elective process.\nAs a farmer once told me, \"We may be out-numbered, but we shouldn't be\noutsmarted.\"\nThat is the thought I would like to leave with you today as we consider\nthe family farm in the space age. Let's all recognize the importance of this key\nelement in our society. Its importance in terms of economic gain to our society\nin general, its contribution to social responsibility, and its continuing\nimportance in the political process all transcend mere numbers.\nThe key role of family agriculture in space age America demands and assures\nthe continued concentration of national policy upon its problems. This has been\ntrue throughout our history. It is just as true today. Thank you.\n###\nDistribution : 20 capies to Mc. Ford\nM Office Copy\nCONGRESSMAN\nNEWS\nGERALD R. FORD\nHOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER\nRELEASE\n--FOR RELEASE AT 6:30 p.m. CST (7:30 p.m. EST)--\nMonday, March 18, 1968\nAn Address by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich., at the National Farmers Union\nConvention, Minneapolis, Minnesota.\n\"THE FAMILY FARM IN THE SPACE AGE\"\nLet me say at the outset that I am indeed very pleased to have been invited\nto participate at this important convention.\nThrough my years of Congressional service, I have always held your fine\norganization in great respect, and though we may have differed from time to time,\nI have always felt the Farmers Union has sincerely and effectively worked for\nthe betterment of family farming in our great nation.\nSome skeptics have asked in recent years, \"Just what good is the family\nfarm anyhow? Isn't it as old fashioned and as out of date in this modern age\nof science and technology as the horse and buggy?\"\nWell, you know and I know that the family farm is the social and economic\nbackbone of an agricultural establishment that is the envy of the world. I need\nnot cite to you all the figures on the contribution that modern family farms are\nmaking to the high standard of living that America enjoys. But a few reminders\nmight be in order.\nThe American consumer today is harvesting the reward of our ever-increasingly\nefficient agricultural production and marketing system. A recent report issued\nby the Department of Agriculture showed that if it were not for the sharp gains\nin farm efficiency during the past two decades every American would be paying\nmore for his food and enjoying it less.\nWhile the output per man-hour in manufacturing has increased 2.7% per year\nsince 1948, the output in agriculture has increased by 5% per year.\nIn 1948, the number of man hours used for all farm work totaled 16.5 billion.\nIn 1966, this figure had dropped to 7 billion man hours.\nFarm production increased nearly 40 per cent during the same period.\nOr, stated another way, in 1948 one farm worker supplied about 14 others\nwith food and fibre. Today he supplies 42 others.\nDuring the same time, the number of consumers has increased by 40 per cent,\nwhile the number of workers employed in the food industry increased by about\n12 per cent.\n(more)\nGERALD FORD LIBRARY\n-2-\nLet us stop right here and ask \"Who provided this miraculous economic\ngrowth?\" The answer, of course, is family-sized agricultural units.\nYet, as you know, the family farmer in this country has not shared in the\neconomic rewards that should be his for these tremendous contributions. Frankly,\nI know of no great economic group of citizens in our society which today earns\nless money than it did 20 years ago à 1 . no group, that is, except farmers.\nIn 1947, realized net farm income was $17.0 billion. In 1967 it was $14.5 billion.\nIn this past year of 1967, we have seen realized net farm income fall $1.9\nbillion below the previous year. Can you imagine any other group in our society\ntaking a $1.9 billion pay cut?\nIn my home state of Michigan, the drop was 9%. Here in Minnesota, it was\n11%. Net income per farm also dropped in spite of a decline of approximately\n100,000 in the number of farms.\nAt the same time, the parity ratio,\n...\nthat measuring rod of relative\nprosperity in agriculture\ndropped to 74. This is the lowest annual level\nfor the parity ratio since 1933.\nIn 1967, our agricultural exports which are so important to the balance of\ntrade situation were down 7% below the previous year.\nThe dairy import-export picture became particularly disturbing last year.\nIn 1967 there were 2.9 billion pounds of milk equivalent imported, while only\n364 million pounds were exported. This is most disturbing in view of the fact\nthat just four years ago (in 1964) our dairy imports were only 830 million pounds\nof milk equivalent and our exports were a whopping 6.9 billion pounds.\nThese figures show quite dramatically and quite painfully how the American\ndairy farmer has been caught in a vicious scissor of rising import competition\nand declining export opportunity.\nThere are, of course, other alarming and worrisome statistics that show our\nfarmers are in financial trouble. But I know I need not repeat the obvious, so\nlet me say only that I for one certainly realize the difficulty.\nOf course, recognizing the existence of a problem and doing something about\nit are two different things.\nAs one of my lady colleagues in the House once said at a Rules Committee\nhearing after members of that committee had bestowed a series of flowery accolades\nupon her: \"Ah, gentlemen, first the novocaine, then the needle.\"\nI think we can all agree that the average family farm operator in this\ncountry is not in the soundest financial situation. What then can we do?\n(more)\n-3-\nLet's look at the political realities in Washington. A party other than the\none to which I belong now controls both Houses of the Congress, as well as that\nlarge white building on Pennsylvania Avenue where all the important decisions of\nday-to-day government are made. That being true, we must first analyze the\nproposals made by the President in his recent farm message.\nAs you recall, he asked for the permanent extension of the Agricultural Act\nof 1965. He also called for a three-year extension of Public Law 480, the Food\nfor Peace Program. He sought a \"food bank\" in which grain farmers would be the\nsole depositors. He asked for hearings to be held on farm bargaining. He called\nfor the enactment of new Packers and Stockyards Act legislation and finally, he\nmade some generalized comments about rural renewal.\nLet me offer a few comments about each of these recommendations.\nIn urging the extension of the 1965 Act this year, the President said, and\nI quote:\n\"To terminate the 1965 Act would bring catastrophe and ruin to many farmers.\n\"Cash prices to the farmer would fall--and there would be no government\npayments to cushion the impact. Farm income could drop by as much as one-third--\nback to 1959 levels.\n\"--Wheat prices would drop to about $1.10 a bushel--compared with the 1967\nblend price of $1.89, including the wheat certificate.\n\"--Corn prices would drop to about 75 cents a bushel, compared with a blend\nprice of $1.30 in 1967.\n\"--Cotton would sell for 18 cents a pound, compared with 42 cents in 1967\nwith price support payments.\n\"--With lower grain prices, livestock supplies would soon over-burden the\nmarket so that livestock prices would decline by at least 10%.\"\nLet me say here and now that I don't think there has ever been a more blatant\nattempt to mislead the Congress or the public than the words I just read to you\nfrom the President's farm message.\nIn each instance, as it applies to cotton, feed grains and wheat, there\nare permanent statutory authorities on the law books which would apply if the 1965\nAct should expire at the end of the 1969 programs for these crops.\nFor wheat, for example, the basic farm laws of 1938 and 1949 provide for a\nmandatory wheat certificate program for the 1970 crops. Price supports on\ndomestic and export wheat could go to 90% of parity. Farmers would, of course,\nhave to approve this mandatory plan in a referendum.\n(more)\nFORD is LIBRARY GERALD\n-4-\nFor feed grains these same laws give the Secretary of Agriculture discretion\nto set support prices from 50 to 90 per cent of parity.\nOn cotton, a mandatory program with price supports at 65 to 90 per cent of\nparity would also go into effect if the 1965 Act should expire.\nBoth the House and Senate Agriculture Committees are going to hold hearings\non the 1965 Act. Whether they bring an extension to the floor or not, I think\nfarmers, the general public and the Congress should all realize that a prediction\nof \"catastrophe and ruin\" in the event of no extension this year is somewhere\nbetween pure puffing and incredibility.\nPublic Law 480 will, of course, be extended once again. This program has\nenjoyed bi-partisan support since its inception in 1954, during former President\nEisenhower's administration. In extending the Act, however, all of us are going\nto try to relate it to our balance of payments problems, to make it operate as\na more positive influence on domestic farm prices, and to emphasize even more\nthe need for \"self-help\" by under-developed nations teetering on the brink of a\nfood-population disaster.\nGrain Reserve legislation will no doubt also be considered by the appropriate\ncommittees. I would certainly hope that neither the House Committee nor the\nSenate would bring forth a bill like last year's proposal of the Administration.\nAny legislation which gives the Secretary of Agriculture the power to dump grain\non the market will, in my opinion, only compound the difficulty facing farmers.\nPersonally, I feel that all government grain stocks should instead by fully\ninsulated from the market at levels which will raise market prices, not depress\nthem!\nFarm Bargaining, I expect, will be mostly the subject of hearings and\ndiscussion this year, although the \"Agricultural Fair Practices Act\" -- S. 109 --\nshould be cleared by the House this week.\nThe President's Packers and Stockyards bill has not been introduced in the\nHouse since its referral to Capitol Hill last fall, and the President's rural\nrenewal proposals appear to be pretty much a re-statement of previous legislation\nconsidered by the Congress.\nAt the present time, then, the only part of the President's package that\nappears headed toward certain enactment this year is the extension of Public\nLaw 480.\nThe hearings on the 1965 Act and alternatives available to Congress can,\nin my opinion, be extremely useful if they are divorced from partisan politics.\nI am, unfortunately, not optimistic that the Administration will take an objective\n(more)\n-5-\nposition on these matters, particularly in view of the incredible prophesy of\n\"catastrophe and ruin\" made in the farm message. The American farmer needs the\nopportunity for higher income, not just more of the same.\nAny hearings on our major commodities should include testimony from Farmers\nUnion as well as the other general farm and commodity organizations. Academic,\neconomic and legal experts should also be called.\nThe recommendations and findings of the National Food and Fibre Commission\nshould receive careful public and Congressional review. This report should not\nbe permitted to wither and die from indifference after so much time and talent\nhave been spent preparing it.\nThese hearings should, I feel, realistically explore the effectiveness of\nthe present commodity programs. Where weaknesses are found, better means of\nproviding income protection to family farm agriculture must be devised.\nAt the same time, we should allocate sufficient resources to promote\nadequate agricultural research and education, fund the REA and RTA programs and\nample agricultural credit, and continue our soil, water and forestry conservation\nand service programs.\nA $10 billion annual export market should be within our grasps in the near\nfuture.\nRural development should be emphasized with family farms rather than cor-\nporate conglomerates as the keystone.\nYes, American agriculture is vitally important, both to the nation and to\nthe promotion of peace in the world.\nThe modern farm family, in my opinion, is making a tremendous contribution\ntoward the well-being of all our citizens.\nAnd yet there are those who say that farmers are no longer important in\nour political process. I noticed in the Farmers Union Newsletter of September 22\nof last year that my colleague, the Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee,\nwas quoted as follows:\n\"Poage told an Iowa State University audience that the farm bloc in Congress\nno longer exists, that neither political party is deeply concerned with\nagriculture, and that both parties feel they must do whatever is necessary to\nwin big city votes.\"\nLet me tell you as one voice of the loyal opposition that my friend from\nTexas was probably half right when he said that!\nOr, put another way,\nI can agree with him 50% on tha issue\nas far as his party is concerned,\nbut I certainly do not accept that description for my party.\n(more)\n-6-\nI won't belabor you here with a political pitch -- you will be exposed to\nplenty of that from various quarters during the balance of this year. I will\nonly point out that our House Republican Task Force on Agriculture, headed by my\ndistinguished colleague from Minnesota, Odin Langen, recently set forth the\nimportance of the farm vote in our national elective process.\nAs a farmer once told me, \"We may be out-numbered, but we shouldn't be\noutsmarted.\"\nThat is the thought I would like to leave with you today as we consider\nthe family farm in the space age. Let's all recognize the importance of this key\nelement in our society. Its importance in terms of economic gain to our society\nin general, its contribution to social responsibility, and its continuing\nimportance in the political process all transcend mere numbers.\nThe key role of family agriculture in space age America demands and assures\nthe continued concentration of national policy upon its problems. This has been\ntrue throughout our history. It is just as true today. Thank you.\n###\nR.FORD STERANT\nMarch 18, 1968\nI'm told President Johnson made one of his surprise public\nappearances outside a military base to address you this\nmorning.\nAccording to the news reports we got in Washington, the\nPresident appealed to you to join in \"a program of national\nausterity.\" That should be easy -- American farmers have been\non an austerity program ever since the Johnson Administration\ntook over,\nI also saw some pickets as I came in carrying signs saying\n\"Impeach LBJ.\"\nI'm not here to advocate that -- we have an orderly American\nmethod of changing Presidents every four years -- and this is one\nof those years!\nAnd, of course, I'm not here to boost the political fortunes\nof any other Democrat. I believe in the two-party system, and\ndespite the preponderance of Democratic news this past weekend,\nthe name of the other national party is still the Republican Party.\nSeriously, I think it took courage for the President to come\ninto McCarthy country escorted only by his Vice President.\nAs I left Washington, I heard a bunch of teenagers chanting:\n\"Bobby Shaft=O's on TV\n\"Lyndon's Coonskin on his knee\n\"He'll come back to be V.P.\nGERALD R. FORD LIBRARY\n\"Pretty Bobby Shaft-O.\"\n-2-\nI'm not going to get into the middle of a family fight\namong Democrats. A guy can get hurt doing that.\nI've spent all this morning and afternnon at the regular\nSpring meeting of the National Republican Coordinating Committee.\nAnd I can tell you one thing about this meeting behind closed doors.\nWe were -- every one of us -- deeply and primarily concerned;,\nnot with partisan political advantage in this crucial election\nyear, but with how we can best help this nation survive its\ndifficulties between now and November.\nAnd when President Johnson told you he didn't want the\nCommunist enemy in Hanoi to win something in Washington that\nhe hasn't been able to win on the battlefield in Vietnam, I\nsay to you the Communist enemy will never get any such notion\nfrom our Republican leadership.\nIf the President really means what he says about everybody\ntightening their belts in America -- everybody, NOT just the\nfarmers -- he will have strong Republican support in the Congress.\nIBRAR,\nFOR RELEASE UPON DELIVERY\nMarch 10, 1968\nOffice of the White House Press Secretary\n(Minnespolis, Minnesota)\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nTEXT OF THE REMARKS OF THE PRESIDENT\nAT THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION CONVENTION\nMINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA\nI'm happy to be here.\nI don't believe anyone can claim that I am a new recruit to the\nfarmer's course.\nYou and I wear many of the same campaign ribbons. Some of them\nrepresent victories--and some defeats. Mine go back to the\nthirties. Yours go back 66 years--during which the Farmers Union\nhas led the way in rural America. You have produced great\nleaders--like Jim Patton and Tony Dechant, and your fine state\npresidents. Much of the legislation that has helped the American\nfarmer to a better day bears the Farmers Union brand.\nI know what the farmer wants - and I want you to have it.\n-- You want a fair price for your product--and you will\nhave it.\n-- You want assurance that rising costs will not wipe\nout a lifetime investment--and you will have it.\n-- You want parity- a fair deal, an even chance to share\nin the rich and good life of this good nation--and\nyou will have it.\n-- You want the justice, the decency and the opportunity\nthat every American has the right to claim as his\nnative right.\n-- And you will have them.\nSo long as I am your President you will always have my understand-\ning, my admiration and my wholehearted support in fighting for\nthese goals.\nWe know that it will be a fight. We know there are many who oppose\nour goals.\nMORE\n-2-\nThere are those who have forgotten that without farms, there would\nbe no factories, no cities.\nThere are those who no longer believe in the partnership between\nfarmer and government--who tell us its time to \"get the government\nout of agriculture.\"\nThere are those who fail to realize that many of the problems of\nurban America are a reflection of failures in rural America.\nYou know, as I do, that the farmer's problems are the problems of\nall America. And you know that the solution to those problems\nwill require the sympathy and the understanding and the help of\neach of us.\nSo I did my spring planting a little early this year. Three weeks\nago, I sent Congress a message on the farmer and rural America.\nThat message will sound mighty familiar to the Farmers Union--\nbecause you have designed much of it--and supported all of it.\nI have asked Congress to extend the Supply Management Programs of\nthe Food and Agriculture Act of 1965 - this year - with permanent\nauthority because the farmer shouldn't be asked to grow more than\nthe market can take at a fair price.\nI have asked Congress to continue the direct payment programs of\nthe 1965 Act--they are the difference between profit and loss for\nmany farmers each year.\nI have asked Congress to extend the Food for Freedom Act for an\nadditional three years--because it is right for this nation to\nhelp hungry peoples from our abundance - and because it is good\nbusiness for our farmers to build new markets in other lands.\nI have asked Congress to authorize a national food bank--a\nsecurity reserve of wheat, feedgrains and soybeans--which would\ngive the farmer higher prices, protect the consumer from food\nscarcity, and provide the government with an emergency food\n\"cushion\" in reaching supply-management decisions.\nI have asked Congress to help find the ways to give the farmer\nmore bargaining power in the marketplace. As you have so many\ntimes before, the Farmers Union is leading the way in this fight.\nFinally, I have asked Congress for programs to bring parity of\nopportunity to rural America - more farm credit - rural jobs -\ndecent housing - adequate diets - the chance to lead a full and\nproductive life.\nMORE\n-3-\nDuring the months to come, you will hear these programs cussed\nand discussed. It won't be easier to pass them. It will be even\nharder this session because this is - as I remember - an election\nyear.\nSome voices today express doubt that the American farm and the\nAmerican farmer can survive. They say we must sacrifice that\npriceless heritage--that American dream on the altar of progress.\nI say they are just as wrong as they can be.\nIf the farmers of America speak up courageously and forcefully in\ntheir own behalf--if we and you together have the patience and\ndetermination to preserve and improve our agricultural programs--\nif we trust our hopes and not our fears, American agriculture can\nprosper as never before.\nAnd rural America can continue to stand for that which is best in\nall America.\nThere is another area in which all Americans - farmers and city\ndwellers must demonstrate - that same courage, patience and\ndetermination.\nFor many years we have been engaged in a struggle in Southeast\nAsia to stop the onrushing tide of Communist aggression. This\ntide threatens to engulf that part of the world. It threatens\nour own security and that of our allies.\nThe blood of our young men has been shed in this cause. They\nknow why we are there. They have seen the evidence of the enemy's\ndetermination to conquer those who seek to be masters in their\nown house.\nOur fighting men know, from the evidence in their eyes, that we\nface a ruthless enemy. They know from the carnage of the enemy's\ntreacherous assaults that he has no feelings about the deliberate\nmurder of innocent women and children in the villages and cities\nof South Vietnam.\nThey are not misled by propaganda or by the effort to gloss over\nthe actions of an enemy who has broken every truce, and who makes\nno secret of his intention to conquer by force the people of South\nVietnam.\nAt the same time, during these past four years we have made\nremarkable strides here at home. We have opened the doors of\nfreedom and full citizenship and opportunity to 30 million people,\nMORE\n-4-\nand we have sustained the highest level of prosperity for the\nlongest period of time ever known.\nBut the time has come when your President must ask you to join in\na total national effort to win the war, to win the peace, and to\ncomplete the job at home.\nI ask you to join in a program of national austerity to insure\nthat our economy will prosper and our fiscal position will be\nsound.\nThe Congress has been asked to enact a bill which will impose\nupon the average citizen an additional one cent for each dollar\nof taxes. I ask you to bear this burden in the interest of a\nstronger nation.\nI am consulting with the Congress on proposals for savings in the\nnational budget. If it is the will of the Congress, we shall make\nsuch reductions. They will postpone many needed actions.\nAll travel outside the Western Hemisphere by government officials\nand private citizens which is not absolutely essential should be\npostponed. I have already called for savings and cuts in\nexpenditures and investments abroad by our business enterprises.\nWe are going to intensify this program.\nMost of all I ask your help and your patriotic support for our men\nwho are bearing the burden of battle in Vietnam. We seek not the\nvictory of conquest, but the triumph of justice. We will win.\nI am deeply aware of the yearning in our country for peace. We\nare a peace loving nation. There is none among you who desires\npeace more than your President. We hope to achieve a just peace\nat the negotiating table. But if the enemy continues to insist--\nas it does now-that the outcome must be determined on the battle-\nfield, then we will win the peace on the battlefield.\nTo reach that peace will require your sacrifice, your understand-\ning, your help, and your cooperation.\n# # #\nRemarks\nVice President Hubert Humphrey\nNational Farmers Union\nMinneapolis, Minnesota\nMarch 10, 1968\n\"The farm was here before the factory\n...\nMerica was built on 2 foundation of farms and ranches\nsupplying the food and fiber for a bountiful and restless nation.\n\"It was the farmer's qualities--his hard work and perse-\nverance, his independence and initiative--which gave strength to\nE nation's character.\n\"Agriculture, our first industry, remains our greatest.\nIt is the vital center of our economy--fueling our industry and\ncommerce, feeding our people and the hungry of the world\n\"But the /merican farmer, who helped to build America's\nprosperity, still does not fully--or fairly--share in it.\"\nThose are not the words of Tony Dechant--though they might\nwell be.\nThose are words from President Johnson's new message to\nthe Congress on agriculture.\nAnd the unfair, unjust peradox of inadequate incomes for\nthe very industry and the very people who provide the keystone\nof American prosperity is what that message is designed to correct.\nInadequate farm income means more than an unfair break for\nthe farmer.\nIt means the entire rural economy held back.\nIt means transferring poverty from 2 rural setting to an\nurban slum--a cruel gamble and = disservice to all.\nIt means infringement of 2 fundamental American freedom--\nfreedom to choose where to live and where to work--for millions\nof young Americans who can see no future on the farms and home-\nsteads they love.\nNow you and I have been getting together off and on over\nthe last few years to read the health chart on /merican agricul-\nture.\nThe chart didn't look too good back in the 'Fifties--\nhigher and higher outlays by the taxpayer for farm programs, and\nless and less income for the farmer.\nThe chart has turned up in the 'Sixties\n...\nnet farm\nincome up 55 percent today\n...\nexports at an all-time high of\n6.8 billion dollars in 1967\ninventories below a billion\ndollars for the first time since 1953.\nBut you know and I know that the patient is still a long\nway from perfect health.\nAnd all of us who have struggled with the complexities of\nfarm legislation over the years know that there aren't any miracle\nremedies on the shelf.\nThere is, however, in this year's farm message, the most\ncomprehensive, reasoned, clear and bold farm program ever set\ndown by any American president.\nIt is your program. Your leaders had a great deal to do\nwith what it says, and you've been for everything that's in it.\nThe Johnson-Humphrey Administration says to the American\nfarmer: We don't presume to take care of you. But we do mean\nto work closely with you as partners to see that you can fully\nand fairly take care of yourselves in the marketplace\n...\nat\nhome and abroad\nnow and for years and decades to come.\nLet's take a closer look at that message.\nPoint one calls for a permanent extension of the Food and\nAgriculture Act of 1965.\nAs long as the farms of America produce more than we can\nconsume, we are going to need machinery to balance supply and\ndemand--to avoid the income-depressing, farm-killing cycle of\nglut and scarcity.\nThis year the Food and Agriculture Act of 1965 faced its\nseverest test. Increased wheat and feed grain allotments for\n1967 crops were followed by a series of unforeseen events: World-\nwide bumper crops, smaller total demand--and lower prices for the\nfarmer.\nBut I submit to you that the 1965 Act passed the test this\nyear. Its direct payments provided the margin between profit and\nloss for a great many farmers-- an additional 48 cents for each\nbushel of wheat--15 cents for each pound of cotton-20 cents for\neach bushel of corn.\n-2-\nYou know what the alternative would have been without the\nAct--lower cash prices and no government payments to cushion the\nimpact. Indeed the specialists tell us that farm income could\nhave dropped as much as a third--back to 1959 levels\nwheat\nat a dollar and ten cents a bushel\ncorn at 75 cents.\nThe President explicitly recognizes that the present act\ncan be improved, and we mean to work closely with you to improve\nit.\nBut let's extend it permanently now, so that the farmer,\nlike any other businessman, can do his planning in advance and\nnever be the innocent victim of a program lapse.\nPoint two: A three-year extension of the Food for Freedom\nAct.\nLast year you and your fellow American farmers kept\nliterally millions of people in developing countries around the\nworld from starvation. You improved the diets of millions more.\nIn a world that knows too much of hate and selfishness,\nour food aid programs have stood out year after year as a\nhumanitarian beacon of hope. That in itself is ample justifica-\ntion for the Food for Freedom program.\nBut there is more than the humanitarian justification.\nFood aid has meant economic development which in turn has created\nnew markets for American agricultural products. Japan, Turkey,\nGreece, Italy, Spain and many countries which have received\nassistance under U. S. food aid programs are now among our best\ndollar customers for farm exports.\nFood aid is more than good-neighborliness. It is good\nbusiness.\nAnd, in a hungry world, strong, productive, independent\nAmerican family farms amount to no less than a massive defense\nsystem in the cause of peace. No other nation can equal it.\nFood power--and the food aid programs which you and I have\nfought so hard for over the years--are America's exclusive tool\nfor building a safer, freer world.\nThis nation should pay its producers a fair price for that\nfood power--and use it to the full.\nPoint three of the President's message is creation of a\nnational food bank for wheat, feed grains, and soybeans.\n-3-\nThe food bank would serve multiple purposes--protecting\nthe consumer against food scarcity\nprotecting the farmer\nagainst falling prices\nand further cushioning the ups and\ndowns that are part of any commodity program.\nThis program has three critical ingredients:\n--4 reserve owned by farmers under strengthened reseal\nprovisions in the price support program. The Johnson-Humphrey\nAdministration has always believed that farmers should be able\nto retain their equity as long as possible, and that the inventory\nin the hands of the Commodity Credit Corporation should be reduced\nto a safe minimum. That is why we recently extended the reseal\nprivilege to warehouses:\n--Authority for the Secretary of Agriculture to buy\nadditional reserves at market prices--without waiting until\nprices drop to support levels;\n--Insulation of the food bank from the commercial market.\nWe introduced legislation for a food bank of this kind in\nthe Congress last year. Now let's pass it.\nNow point four is perhaps the most important, and all the\nother programs are calculated to support it: Increased bargain-\ning power for the farmer in the American marketplace.\nAs Tony Dechant reminded the National Farm Institute\nlast month: \"The farmer is the only businessman left in America\nwho is still forced to sell his products at wholesale prices set\nby somebody else\nand to buy his production supplies at\nretail prices, also set by someone else.\nReal and effective bargaining power for the American farmer\nis long overdue--especially in livestock, poultry, fruits and\nvegetables which are not covered by price support and payment\nprograms.\nI am happy to say that a great young senator, Walter\nMondale, has introduced a bill in the Senate along the lines of\nthe National /gricultural Act that Tony Dechant and Bill Thatcher\nhave been urging for so long.\nWe still don't know all the \"how's\" of effective farm\nbargaining. But we know it is possible\nit is necessary\nand the Johnson-Humphrey Administration is for it.\nThe Farmers Union has a long-standing record of building\nfarm cooperatives. Cooperatives have already increased the\n-4-\nfarmer's voice in the marketplace, and will be a crucial element\nin future bargaining strength.\nBut let me also re-emphasize that partnership between the\nfarmers and government is essential to bargaining power.\nWhen you have the machinery to maintain a reasonable supply-\ndemand balance--and only then--farm bargaining power increases.\nWhen you allow farmers to reseal their grain, farm\nbargaining power increases.\nWhen you improve nutrition for children under School Milk,\nSchool Lunch, Food Stamp and domestic donation programs, farm\nbargaining power increases.\nWhen you reduce unemployment, help people lift themselves\nout of poverty, and enable more Americans to afford a decent diet,\nand this Administration has done those things, farm bargaining\npower increases.\nWhen you negotiate an international commodity agreement,\nas Tony Dechant and others helped us do last summer in the Kennedy\nRound trade negotiations in Geneva, farm bargaining power increases.\nAnd it is bargaining power that can put the American farmer\nfirmly on his own two feet in the American marketplace.\nFinally, there are proposals to improve the general\nquality of life in rural America for all who live there and all\nwho wish they could.\n\"Operation Outreach,\" begun last year, will continue to\nbring 90 federal programs designed to improve everything from\nhealth to housing\nfrom education to economic development\nright into the countryside.\nParity for the American farmer will mean little without\nparity for his community\nparity in everything that belongs\nto a modern American standard of living for every rural citizen:\nMeaningful job opportunities\ndecent housing\nadequate\ndiets\nthe chance to lead a full and productive life.\nMy fellow Minnesotans know very well that I am reluctant to\ntalk politics--especially when there is an election only a few\nmonths away.\nBut you are practical people--and passing farm programs is\na very practical business.\n-5-\nFarm bargaining power is going to be tested on election\nday in November.\nOn election day you are going to negotiate a four-year\ncontract--and it won't be subject to renegotiation.\nOn election day you are going into the marketplace of\npolitical decision to decide what happens to American agriculture--\nand to all those programs the Formers Union has fought for long\nand hard.\nToday we have a president whose record is clear and\nunequivocal.\nWe have a President who has fought as a senator and in\nthe White House for American agriculture\nfor fair prices\nwith a decent profit for the farmer\nfor protection from the\nspeculator and the unpredictable forces of the market\nfor\nthe health and welfare of rural America.\nHe believes in parity for American agriculture\nin\nfull and equal opportunity for every farm family and agricultural\nproducer.\nI doubt if you've forgotten the effects of the Republican\nneglect a few years ago.\nFarm income dropped a full 20 percent in eight years--\ndown two and a quarter billion dollars. By 1960 the Commodity\nCredit Corporation held eight billion dollars worth of stock.\nI know what that meant here in Minnesota and throughout\nthe country--and I don't think this nation or its food producers\ncan afford to go through it again.\nYes, American agriculture has a good friend in President\nLyndon Johnson.\nBut it takes more than a strong, determined, friend-of-the-\nfarmer in the White House to ennct sound farm legislation.\nMuch of what I have discussed today has to get through the\nCongress before it can do America's farm economy any good.\nAnd there is nothing automatic about Congress adopting\nfarm programs any more--particularly when senators and representa-\ntives from rural districts vote against them. We can no longer\ndepend on = strong bipartisen farm bloc like the one we had until\nthe 1950s.\n-6-\nKeep this in mind when you look over your congressional\ncandidates in the months ahead.\nFind out where they and their supporters stand on farm\nprices\nand farm programs\nand farm bargaining.\nTake a look, also, at the list of sponsors of the Curtis\nbill - - a proposal to eliminate all farm programs.\nIt also includes the names of some of the Republicans who\nvoted 110 to 14 to kill the 1965 Farm Act. Democrats, farm and\ncity alike, provided the margin to get that bill through.\nAs Sam Rayburn used to say, \"Any donkey can kick a barn\ndown, but it takes a good carpenter to build one.\"\nSo I urge you to ask some pointed questions before you\nstep into the polls. There is a lot of unfinished business ahead\nof us in American agriculture and it is going to take builders,\nnot barn wreckers, to finish it.\n# # #\n-7-"
}