Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "7343359",
    "label": "Remarks of the President and Question and Answer Session at the Goodrich High School Farm Forum  (Fond du Lac, Wisconsin) [Ford Speech or Statement]",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7343359"
}

{
    "id": "7343359",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7343359",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Remarks of the President and Question and Answer Session at the Goodrich High School Farm Forum  (Fond du Lac, Wisconsin) [Ford Speech or Statement]",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7343359",
    "collections": [
        "White House Press Releases (Ford Administration)",
        "Press Releases"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/59/3433/7343359/content/library/document/0248/whpr19760403-006.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/59/3433/7343359/content/library/document/0248/whpr19760403-006.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/59/3433/7343359/content/library/document/0248/whpr19760403-006.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7343359",
    "naId": 7343359,
    "levelOfDescription": "item",
    "productionDates": [
        {
            "day": 3,
            "logicalDate": "1976-04-03",
            "month": 4,
            "year": 1976
        }
    ],
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/59/3433/7343359/content/library/document/0248/whpr19760403-006.pdf",
    "mediaId": "71ccbf9fddba1c0f",
    "ocrText": "Digitized from Box 24 of the White House Press Releases at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\nFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE\nAPRIL 3, 1976\nOFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY\n(Fond du Lac, Wisconsin)\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nREMARKS OF THE PRESIDENT\nAND\nQUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION\nAT THE\nGOODRICH HIGH SCHOOL FARM FORUM\n9:43 A.M. CST\nTHE PRESIDENT: Thank you very, very much, Bill,\nGovernor Knowles, Mel Laird, ladies and gentlemen:\nIt is really a great privilege and a pleasure\nto have been in the greatest dairy State in the whole\nUnion for the last day and a half, and the warm welcome\nand the wonderful reception I deeply appreciate and to see\nthis great crowd here this morning touches me very greatly.\nBut just as Wisconsin and my own home State of\nMichigan share the upper Great Lakes, Michigan also shares\nyour great attachment to America's bountiful dairy and\npasture lands. We cannot compete in the production but we\nhave the same warmth and affection toward the dairy\nproduction and all the things that make your State so\ngreat.\nI also congratulate Wisconsin on all of its\ngreat achievements and its accomplishments, its production\nand warm and fine people.\nI think all of us recognize that America's\nfuture depends upon America's farmers. Our national\nheritage was created by farmers. All Americans --\nactually, the entire world -- today depend more than\never upon all of you.\nAbraham Lincoln signed the Homestead Act which\nembodied our fundamental belief in the importance of the\nAmerican family farm. Lincoln was so right.\nThomas Jefferson, George Washington had shared\nthe same great vision. They were convinced -- so am I --\nthat a man with a stake in his own land is a free man. His\nfamily is a free family and together the family farm is\nthe basis of our free society.\nThere is a saying in Michigan that the only way\na young person can get started in farming is to marry one\nor inherit one. (Laughter) And it is getting much harder\nto do either. (Laughter) Particularly the latter. (Laughter)\nMORE\nPage 2\nNot only in Michigan but in Wisconsin, throughout\nour country, we have got to do something about this problem.\nThat is because the individual who inherits a farm is often\ntoo severely pressed to pay the estate taxes on it. Our\noutdated inheritance laws, which have not responded to\ninflation, are a very real threat to the family farm, and\nthat is why this Administration is working so hard for\nnew laws to solve this serious problem.\nWe must maintain the continuity and the strength\nof our family farm. Too much labor and too much love go\ninto the development of a paying farm to dismantle it\nwith every new generation. That is particularly true on\nthe dairy farm where the hours are endless -- and you know\nthem better than I, those COWS must be milked twice every\nday.\nWomen are also involved, as men are, in the\noperation of a farm and every child and every family\ncontributes his or her share. So it is only fair that\nthe family farm, already a vital institution, continues to\nflourish as a profitable and free enterprise.\nYou and all farmers must have a fair return for\nyour long and tireless and hard work. That is your goal\nand it will be mine, as I continue to work for strong\nmarkets for our farmers' production.\nWe must never forget that American farmers must\nprofit if America is to be a profitable going country.\nThere must be enough income for each of you to buy new\nstock, to replace equipment, to build new barns, to conserve\nand to enrich your soil, to adopt new techniques and to\nbuy essential supplies. That is what keeps the entire\nAmerican economy moving.\nA decision was required on the unfair competition\non certain foreign dairy imports just a few days ago. The\nquestion involved foreign nonfat dry milk mixtures designed\nto evade our dairy import quotas. Importers tried to buy\npast our limitations by mixing dried milk with other\ningredients. As President, I will not tolerate such\npractices.\nAccordingly, last week I signed a proclamation\nto put a zero quota on such imports. The last three years\nhave been the highest three years of net farm income in\nAmerica's history. That is the way it should be. That is\nthe way it is going to be. It took hard, hard work on\nyour part and it took the right kind of farm policies.\nIn recent days the world's population passed the\n4 billion mark. Looking ahead, we will be hard put to\nfeed the entire world. There is certainly no time to pull\nback our efforts to help increase your productivity and\nyour efficiency.\nMORE\nPage 3\nFor 25-plus years I had the privilege and the\nhonor of representing farmers, including dairy farmers,\nwhen I served in the Congress. As President, I refuse to\ngo back to the old, harmful farm practices we had during\nmost of those years. They meant disaster for too many\nfarmers. They created great surpluses. They damaged\nthe free market economy. I will not go back to those\nprograms that require the Department of Agriculture to\ninterfere in the daily operation of every farm in America\nand I will use every power in my command to inject some\ncommon sense into the operation of the Federal agencies\nwhich seek occupational safety and health and environmental\nprotection. We have to do a better job in that regard.\nWe all believe in safety, health and the\nenvironment, but the farmer is also entitled to safety\nfrom those who would create an environment in which his\nfarm cannot function.\nUnder this Administration we have worked toward\na minimum of Federal regulation. We are making some headway\nbut we have got a long way to go and, with your help, in\nthe next four years we will make the kind of progress that\nis needed and necessary to make a better America.\nHad it not been for your productivity, it would\nnot have been possible to increase agricultural exports\nto $22 billion in 1975. Wisconsin depends mostly on\nimported petroleum. Without the increase in farm exports,\nwe would have been hard put to pay the increased price for\nforeign oil.\nImported petroleum costs America -- this is the\none-year cost -- last year $27 billion, and the figure,\nunfortunately, will be even higher in 1976.\nI appreciate very deeply what the American farmer\nis doing for America. Whether you are a dairy farmer,\nraise hogs or grow soybeans, you bolster our economy.\nFarm families also enhance our ethical, religious and moral\nvalues, our patriotism and our national character.\nTo be strong externally, we must reassert\ntraditional values that strengthen us here at home and\nwe must reject big Government concepts in favor of a true\npartnership in which private land-owning men and women\ncan achieve prosperity without undue Federal interference.\nFarming is far too important to be left to the\npoliticians in or out of Washington.\nMORE\nPage 4\nTo the dairy farmers of America I say you\nmust have every opportunity to make a fair profit out of your\nmilk. You must have adequate incentives for full food\nproduction. We must keep the dead hands of Federal\nregulation offyour farms so that you can use the live\nhands of the farmers and produce and produce and\nproduce.\nAs one travels around the world, you see some\nnations with other economic and political philosophies.\nThey have virtually the same tractors and the same bailers\nthat you use but those nations do not have the greatest\npiece of farm machinery ever built -- the free enterprise\nsystem of the United States of America.\nWe have turned things around in rural America\nbut we must keep moving in the right direction. We have\nmuch more to do. I am ready, willing and able to work with\nyou to get that job done. I am fighting to cut Government\nspending, to curb inflation, to assure a growing economy\nfor the future, but this struggle can only succeed if you,\nour farmers, will succeed. I am on your side. Let's work\ntogether.\nThank you very much.\nNow, let's get to the part that I enjoy the\nmost. Those good hard questions that always seem to --\nQUESTION: I am a producer of raw materials.\nI am a little strange to the mike yet.\nIt is a known fact that pseudo-money to stimulate\nour economy will also cause inflation. Why can't it be\nknown by our lawmakers that our raw materials are our real\nwealth and the more we pay for them the more we have to\nemploy the unemployed, stimulate our economy, and pay our\ndebts, or to put it short, why does our Government\ninsist on monetizing debts rather than wealth which ties\nin with the takeover of our freedom.\nTHE PRESIDENT: Well, as I understand the question,\nyour are in effect saying why do we have Federal deficits\nand why do we have the Federal debt that we have. Is that\ncorrect, sir?\nMORE\nPage 5\nQUESTION: Well, partly, but if the farmers were\npaid for their product, that money would multiply and help\nthe whole Government. In the years that the farmers were\npaid we had no deficit in Government, and if the farmers were\npaid for their product, then we could employ unemployed\nand everybody would have more money.\nTHE PRESIDENT: I totally agree with you, sir, that\nin order to have a healthy, prosperous economy in the\nUnited States we must have a healthy agricultural segment\nof our economy.\nQUESTION: That is right.\nTHE PRESIDENT: Now as I indicated in my prepared\nremarks, the last three years we have had the highest three\nyears of net farm income in the United States. That does not\nmean that every segment of agriculture has profitted as well\nas others. This year the cotton farmers are doing very well.\nThe previous year or two they did not do well. A year or so\nago some other segments of our agriculture were doing well.\nThey have had a fall-off. The cattle producers are now\nhaving a difficult time. What we have to do is try to get\nsome basic stability so that all agriculture does well, and\nif it does, then the farm machinery producers will do well,\nthe banks will do well, the American people will be well\nfed. But we have gone through a traumatic period in the\nlast 20 months, for example. Our economy was seriously upset\nby the oil embargo. We had a three times increase in\npetroleum costs because we were so dependent on foreign\nimported oil.\nWe have got to get this imbalance rectified so we\nhave an economy which is a stable, upward trend. I think\nwe are making headway. Inflation has been cut in half.\nUnemployment is going down. Employment is going up, and\nthis will have a stabilizing effect, and we are headed for\na balanced budget in the Federal Government if we can get\nthe Congress to cut the rate of growth in Federal\nexpenditures, and I think we are going to do it.\nQUESTION: The Federal Reserve Board regulates\nour monetary system, and it is a good tool to be used when\nthe economy is overheated, but when this happens, it causes\nundue hardship for that individual that has just started\nor expanded his business and his funds are committed and the\nonly way he can get out from underneath this is liquidation.\nWhat do you feel can be done to alleviate that problem?\nMORE\nPage 6\nTHE PRESIDENT: You are exactly right that\nthe Federal Reserve Board controls the supply of money\nand basically the interest rates throughout the country.\nIn the past we have had too much fluctuation, they have\neither contracted too severely or they have inflated it\ntoo greatly and the net results is, to some extent at least,\nthey have contributed to the peaks and valleys in our\neconomy. Under the present leadership in the Federal\nReserve Board they have agreed to have a range of increase\nin the supply of money of four and a half to, I think,\nseven percent and that is a reasonable range, depending\nupon the fiscal policy of the Federal Govermment and\nother factors.\nAt the present time, as I understand it, they are,\nmore or less, in the middle of that range over the two or\nthree or four month period, and, consequently, it does appear\nthat interest rates are falling. I know the Federal Government\nis paying less today than it did a few months ago for the\nmoney it borrows and long-range interest rates are beginning\nto ease a bit.\nI don't think we have to take any dramatic action\nright now. It is my understanding that savings and loans\nand mutual loaning institutions have had a great inflow\nof money from the American people putting it in there for\ntheir savings and that, in turn, is going to make not only\nmore money available to those that have to borrow, but money\navailable at a lesser interest rate.\nSo I think we are moving in the right direction,\nand I can assure you that the Federal Reserve Board is\ncognizant of the precise problem you are talking about\nand we will try to make certain that they don't pinch\noff anything to create the problems that we have had in\nthe past on some occasions.\nQUESTION: Thank you.\nQUESTION: I'm from Campbellsport where you had\nbreakfast this morning.\nTHE PRESIDENT: A real good breakfast. More than\nI could eat.\nMORE\nPage 7\nQUESTION: Mr. President, how are you justifying\nMr. Meany's delaying action of the grain shipment to Russia?\nTHE PRESIDENT: Well, the decision on Mr. Meany's\npart to embargo grain shipments, I think, was unjustified,\nbut the problem was, how do we solve it?\nNow, if there had been court action and some\npeople had undertaken court action to stop it, that would\nhave been a long process. It would have taken under our\ncourt system a local court decision, it could have been\nappealed, it could have been appealed for a period of six\nor eight months, and the whole shipment of grain would have\nbeen held at the ports and that would not have helped\nanything because grain would have backed up all the way to\nthe farms here in Iowa and Nebraska and Wisconsin, and\nelsewhere.\nSo the better way to do it was to undertake\nwhat we did -- was to negotiate a long-term grain shipment\narrangement with the Soviet Union so we have a guaranteed\nminimum of 6 million tons per year and for five years. In\nthat way we got the labor unions to back off and we could\ncontinue to ship the grain that was already contracted for\nand we didn't have the back-up that would have created\na catastrophy in transportation and a storage problem for\nthe farmers on their own farms.\nSo in order to avoid that we did what we did.\nIt was not capitulation to Mr. Meany, it was a practical\nsolution to a practical problem and we ended up with a\nfirm arrangement for the shipment or the purchase of at least\n6 million tons of American grain, an assured market and\nthe family and farmer is going to be the beneficiary.\nQUESTION: Mr. President, I am president of the\nLake Winnebego Area Health Systems Agency. I am very\nconcerned as a farmer about rural health care or the lack\nof it. Even in the best of rural areas health care is\nwanting and this situation does not appear to be changing\nsince statistically the doctors in the rural areas are older\ndoctors and it is questionable for replacement.\nWhat do you have as a program to help rural\nhealth care and the rural health care needs?\nTHE PRESIDENT: In the first place, in the last\nfive years there has been a tremendous increase in medical\nschool education facilities. Mel Laird had a lot to do with\nthat program when he was in the Congress. We are expanding\nour medical schools. We have many, many more doctors being\ntrained all over the country. We have a number of new\nmedical schools. So the supply of doctors will increase.\nMORE\nPage 8\nThe problem is how to get them out into the\nrural communities. I am told that there is a growing\ntrend as they discuss with medical students what they\nwant to do, whether they want to be a specialist or a\ngeneral practitioner, et cetera, that more and more of\nthem for a wide variety of good reasons are indicating that\nthey want to move to our small towns and into rural\nAmerica. That is one trend that I think will help solve\nthe problem you are discussing, particularly with more\ndoctors. There are so many of them in most of our major\nmetropolitan areas that it is not a good ratio and we need\nthe ratio changed.\nBut the other problem of how to get our Federal\nfunds for health care properly distributed- I recommended\na change from the 26 categorical grant programs that we\nnow have in the Federal Government for health care in one\nblock grant program. And what does that mean? It means\nthat the State of Wisconsin, for example, that has many\nrural health problems, will get a total sum, as much as\nthey have gotten in the past from the 20-some categorical\ngrant programs.\nThat money will go to the State agency and\nthe State agency can then decide how they want to distribute\nthat money, and how it is done in Wisconsin will probably\nbe different than how it is done in Pennsylvania or in\nSouth Carolina or in Florida. So your local people at the\nState and local level can decide how that Federal money\nwill be spent, and I suspect that people in Wisconsin will\nhave a little influence on how your State people make\nthose decisions so a greater proportion of those funds can\ngo to rural Wisconsin, but that is a local decision with\nthe same or more Federal money made available.\nQUESTION: Thank you very much, Mr. President.\nQUESTION: Mr. President, my wife and myself and\nfamily operate just a medium-sized dairy farm, I would say.\nYou touched on the transferring of estate before and the\namount of exemption involved and so on, and this is a concern\nthat I am very interested in. I feel that it is extremely\noutdated.\nThe modern family dairy farm has an investment of\nanywhere from $250,000 to $300,000 -- many of them are much\nlarger, some are smaller, but I would say a good share of\nthem come in that category. I feel that the exemption\nshould be raised so that this property could be transferred\nto a spouse who is remaining, at least, I would say, to the\narea of $240,000 to give them a little opportunity to\ntransfer this without being taxed out of existence.\nI would like to hear your views a little more\nextended.\nMORE\nPage 9\nTHE PRESIDENT: Well, the present law which was\npassed in 1942 provides for a $60,000 exemption and no real\nprovision for any relief in the payment of the estate tax\nmonies that are owed. I have recommended that that $60,000\nexemption be increased to $150,000 and, in order to help\nthose who have an estate of more than $150,000 the remainder\nthat is taxed, the payments for that can be spread over\na five-year period with no payments and the payments that\nare left would be spread over a 20-year period at four\npercent interest on annual increments paid.\nSo it does provide for better than a double\nincrease in the exemption, from $60,000 to $150,000, plus\nthe capability to spread the payments for any additional\ntax over a 25-year period. Instead of having to borrow the\nmoney from a bank and pay whatever the bank charges, you\nwill have a five-year moratorium and then 20 payments,\npaying the Federal Government four percent interest. I\nthink that is a good way in which to help finance the\ntransfer of the farm from one generation to another.\nNow, this is presently before the House Committee\non Ways and Means, which is the taxation committee of the\nCongress, and I hope that that legislation or something\ncomparable to it will be enacted by the Congress this\nyear. It is long overdue.\nQUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.\nQUESTION: Mr. President, I am a dairy farmer\nfrom Sheboygan County and the town of Greenbush. I must\nsay I would like in my heart to support you because I\nbelieve you are an honest and a good man, but your farm\npolicy from my point of view leaves much to be desired and\nI refer specifically to the cheap food policy of Mr. Butz.\nI would like to ask you if you would consider\nremoving Mr. Butz from office because of this policy and\nif you would also consider some kind of a method of\nestablishing some kind of a board or something, an advisory\nboard maybe, where we farmers from the grassroots level\ncould possibly help you in establishing farm policy and\ngive you advice on what we really need?\nTHE PRESIDENT: I respectfully disagree with you.\nI think Earl Butz is the finest, or certainly one of the\nfinest Secretaries of Agriculture this country has ever\nhad, and I will tell you why.\nMORE\nPage 10\nBefore Mr. Butz became Secretary of Agriculture,\nwe had farm policies which resulted in unbelievable\nsurpluses being owed or owned by the Federal Government.\nThey had piled up to the extent that Uncle Sam, your\nGovernment and my Government, was paying almost $400\nmillion a year just in storage policies. There were\nstorage fees. That is not a good farm policy. That kind\nof a farm policy with the heavy surpluses overhanging\nthe market kept farm prices down.\nFarm prices generally have gone up under Secretary\nButz' policies and programs, and we don't have any\nsurpluses and we are selling more agricultural commodities\nall over the world than we ever have in the history of\nthe United States.\nThe worst kind of farm policy would be one to\ngo back to this surplus that we had for 15 or 20 years\nbecause those surpluses depress your farm prices and\nMr. Butz has sought to get rid of them, we have gotten\nrid of them, and farm prices are better now than they\nwere when he took over.\nAll I can say is we are going to do everything\nwe can to keep surpluses from getting accumulated and\ndepressing farm prices. We are not going back to those old\nfarm policies which in many, many cases contributed\nsignificantly to the flow of family farm owners from\nthe farm to the city. We want to reverse that policy and\nget more people owning family farms in this country.\nNow, on the second question that you asked, I\nhave established what we call the Farm Policy Board. It\nis a Cabinet policy -- a policy committee, the chairman\nof it is Secretary Butz. It has three or four other\nCabinet members plus other top advisers. That agricultural\npolicy committee will recommend to me policies as to farm\ndecisions of one kind or another.\nI think that incorporates the best thinking\nof the people in the Executive Branch of the Government,\nbut I am sure that Secretary Butz himself, in the\nDepartment of Agriculture, consults freely with the Farm\nBureau, the various dairy organizations, the Farmers\nUnion, the Grange and all of the others to get their\nconsidered judgment as he recommends farm policy to the\nboard and they to me.\nWe want the input of agricultural people at\nthe grassroots level, and I am sure that the department\nis getting them and by the meetings that I have held in\nIllinois, the one in Wisconsin last week and the one\nhere this week, I am getting a pretty good input, too,\nand I like it.\nMORE\nPage 11\nQUESTION: Well, Mr. Ford, I will agree with what\nyou said about the opposite of the policy that we have, but\nI think somewhere in between there must be a policy where we\ncan make more stability in agriculture. The dairy portion\nof agriculture has been hurt extremely along with the livestock\nportion. We cannot tolerate, peaks and lows when we must live\nin these lows for -- not the last time was an 18 month period,\nand particularly the young farmer with a huge amount of\nborrowed money has found it nearly impossible.\nThis is what I mean, that we have to have something\ndifferent than that.\nI thank you for the privilege of talking to\nyou.\nTHE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much.\nQUESTION: Mr. President, I am a dairy farmer\nfrom Fairwater, Visconsin. It might just interest you\nto know that I am also President of the Ripon Republican\nClub, birthplace of the Republican Party.\nI want to, first of all, commend you on all\nyour vetoes that you have made in Washington and even the\ndairy support veto, but it bothers me. I am wondering, what\ndo you plan on doing about labor? They keep on striking and\nthey get higher and higher wages and the cost is passed on\nto those of us who buy the supplies and the tractors.\nProbably three-quarters of us can hardly afford anymore\nto buy a new tractor, they start at $10,000 and they run\nup.\nTHE PRESIDENT: Well, first let me thank you for\nmentioning the vetoes. I vetoed 46 bills in 19 months.\nThirty-nine of those vetoes have been upheld by the Congress\nand as a result of those vetoes and 39 of them being sustained\nby a third of the Members of either the House or the Senate,\nwe have saved the taxpayers $13 billion.\nWe are engaged right now in a very difficult\nnegotiation between the truckers and the Teamsters. It is\na tough negotiation and I got word this morning that there\nhad been a settlement of approximately 60 percent of the\ntrucking industry and there are several other segments of it\nthat have not yet settled, but they are optimistic that that\nwill take place.\nThis is the kind of a negotiation that I think\nhas to take place between labor and management and only as\na last resort should the Government get in and use the\nlegislation that is available. It is far better, from our\nnational point of view and the philosophy that I think most\nof us have, that the parties themselves should settle their\ndifferences.\nMORE\nPage 12\nWe are trying to hold down to the extent that\nwe can. Indirectly we don't want to go back to wage and\nprice controls. I don't think agriculture wants a wage and\nprice control policy, it was disastrous and the gentleman\nthat I talked to a minute ago probably was thinking of the\n90-day freeze that we had on cattle prices in 1971, as I recall.\nIt was disastrous and caused some of the problems that later\ntook place.\nWe have got to make sure that labor and management\nunderstands that they have to act in the national interest\nas well as in their own interest and here is what the\nSecretary of Labor, Bill Usery, is trying to do -- to convince\nboth parties as they negotiate, they just can't get a bigger\npiece of the pie, they have to understand that all of us will\nsuffer, including themselves, if they are too selfish in\ntheir negotiations. We are trying to keep down some of these\ncosts, the labor costs, in a responsible way, but for us to\nput wage controls on, I think, would not be the answer.\nI think it would be the wrong approach just like it was\nthe wrong approach on food prices two or three years ago.\nQUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.\nQUESTION: I am a Winnebago County dairy farmer,\nI guess I am considered a young farmer. I would like to add\nthat I am pretty happy with dairy farming the way it is,\nI think the efficient farmers who are doing a good job are\nmaking a pretty good living right now.\nMy question is I am at kind of a loss as to who to\nsupport for President. I think you are very sincere in being\nhere, but I wonder how much emphasis we have only being five\npeople out of a hundred who voted for you. It just seems to\nme that people who are going to get elected President are\ngoing to have the support of the non-farm people because\nwe don't have that much voice.\nAnother question is it seems to me that George\nMeany has more influence on our foreign grain policies than\nyou do, and I would like your response to that.\nTHE PRESIDENT: I would categorically disagree that\nGeorge Meany has more influence on our grain policies than\nI do. I made the decision for us to move to long-term\nagreements with the Soviet Union. I think that is in the\nbest interests of agriculture because if you look at the sale\nof grain to the Soviet Union, going back to 1971, in one year\nyou will have virtually no sales. The next year, in 1972,\nwe had around 13 million tons of grain sold to the Soviet\nUnion. The next year we had virtually no such sales. It\nhas been a yo-yo, a peak and valley proposition, and that has\nbeen very disturbing to our grain crop sales throughout the\nworld.\nMORE\nPage 13\nNow we have a guaranteed 6 million ton per year for\nfive years and we can sell them higher if we want to, and if\nthe farmers want to sell more than that and the Soviet Union\nwants to buy it, they can make the deal.\nSo I respecfully disagree that Mr. Meany has anything\nto do with foreign agricultural sales policy, he has none.\nLet me just indicate another area where Mr. Meany\nand I have many, many differences. I vetoed the common\nsitus picketing bill much against his wishes.\nNow I got off the track here a little bit (Laughter),\nbut I just wanted to make sure that I was running the Government\nand nobody else. (Laughter)\nQUESTION: Thank you very much. I realize you have\na tough job and I wish you good luck.\nTHE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much.\nQUESTION: Mr. President, I am a dairy farmer here\nin Fond du Lac County and also Chairman of the Agriculture\nCommittee of Fond du Lac County.\nI have one question in regard to imports. We\nin Wisconsin are now in the process of the referendum vote\nby the dairy farmers as to a two cent check-off as far as our\nmilk advertising program is concerned. There are a lot\nof us here in this room that are very much interested in\nthis. We believe in advertising. We believe we have to do\nthis to create a market for our product.\nNow if we can establish this, if we can get this\njob done, what kind of a guarantee can we have from the\nFederal Government that once we have a market created that\nthe Government does not open up their doors to imports to\nthe point where they take up and make up the difference\nbetween our profit and loss?\nTHE PRESIDENT: Well, let me assure you that this\nAdministration will not tolerate foreign Government subsidized\ndairy products, period. We will use the best wisdom we have\nto make sure that there is a fair treatment as far as your\nproducts competing with any foreign products, subsidized or\nnon-subsidized.\nI think we do have to be honest with one another\nand say that if we expect to sell $22 billion worth of farm\ncommodities overseas, there are some foreign imports that have\nto be sold in the United States, it has to be some balance.\nWe can't sell to them unless we buy from them, but there\ncertainly will be no subsidization of foreign farm exports\nto the United States -- that is absolutely clear.\nMORE\nPage 14\nIn the other areas like I mentioned on the non-fat\ndried milk mixture proposal, when they did that we cut them\noff, period, and we will act just as decisively on other matters\nof that kind.\nQUESTION: Thank you.\nQUESTION: Mr. President, this will be the last\nquestion.\nTHE PRESIDENT: We will take one more over here\nafter this. Okay.\nQUESTION: Mr. President, Manitowoc County Ford\nHeadquarters head coordinator.\nMy major concern is what is happening in the\nPostal Department. We have just had this three cent raise\nand unless I heard very incorrectly last night on the media\nsomewhere within the near future we could go up to 36 or\n38 cents for one ounce of first class postage which could\nput small businessmen who depend on the charge system or\nperhaps mailing as a major part of their business out of\nbusiness. Do we in Federal Government have any plans beyond\njust simply trying to cut back small Post Offices or will we\nperhaps make our American people have to cut back a little\nbit of their services or do something about this so that some\nof us small businessmen can stay in business?\nTHE PRESIDENT: The Postal Service problem is one\nof the most perplexing ones we have. We had a system up\nuntil about four years ago that was rampant with politics.\nDemocrats abused it, Republicans abused it, and it was in a\nmess, to be honest with you. The Federal subsidy was growing\nevery year. We went to a Postal Service and supposedly,\nand I hope it is true, wiped out all politics in the Postal\nService. They have been trying to put it on a pay as you\ngo basis. It was recognized that during this transition\nperiod there would have to be a subsidy. At the present time\nthe Federal Government is contributing about a billion dollars\na year to subsidize the Postal Service plus whatever other\nrevenues they get.\nI must say in many respects I am disappointed the\nway it has turned out except I think it is better than what\nit was. Now there are some areas where I think the Postal\nService will have to make some adjustments in service;\notherwise, it will require more subsidy from the Federal\nGovernment.\nMORE\nPage 15\nThe head of the Postal Service says he needs\nanother billion dollars from the Federal Treasury. Well,\nthat is $2 billion in subsidy in 12 months. I think there\nhas to be a better solution than that. We have got a special\nstudy going on now in the Office of Management and Budget and\nthey are working with the Postal Service to try and see if\nthere can't be responsible economies, some better\npersonnel management policies, but I think everybody probably\nwill have to tighten their belt -- the management, the\nemployees, and the recipients -- unless we are going to call\non a bigger and bigger subsidy or less and less service.\nQUESTION: Is there any possibility of having private\nindustry handle part of this or is that unconstitutional?\nTHE PRESIDENT: Well, it is disallowed by law, but\nlet me tell you what probably would happen. There are some\ncompanies that want to, in major metropolitan areas, move\nin with their postal system which is now precluded by law.\nFrankly, that is where the Post Office service or\nPostal Service makes money. So if you take a private\ndelivery system and let it just go into the markets\nwhere the Postal Service makes money, the Postal Service will\nbe in worse shape.\nSo I don't think that is an answer either because\nthey will take the cream of the area of revenue and then the\nPostal Service will have more problems, not fewer.\nQUESTION: Thank you very much, Mr. President.\nTHE PRESIDENT: Yes?\nQUESTION: I am a dairy farmer down at a little\ntown called Waukesha, a little south of here.\nAbout two months ago you vetoed a price support\nbill at 85 percent of parity that disappointed me a whole\nlot, but I applaud you for raising it as much as you did,\nordering Secretary Butz to give us the new rate on April 1.\nI understand that there is a new bill in the hopper at the\nlevel that is more to your liking at 80 percent of parity for\nthe next two years. Will you sign this bill when it hits\nyour desk?\nTHE PRESIDENT: Well, as I understand, Earl Butz\nhas agreed, and I fully approve, to increase, as of April 1,\nthe price supports to 80 percent of parity and we have agreed\nto review the situation every quarter. I think it is better\nto have that kind of flexibility as long as you all understand\nthat we will continue to do what we have done -- and we have\nnot broken an agreement yet, we don't intend to break one.\nMORE\nPage 16\nI think flexibility is better than a rigid figure\nset at a certain level. I can assure you when we make an\nagreement with the dairy industry we will keep it, and the\nrecord shows we have in every instance.\nSo without making a final judgment on a piece of\nlegislation, I am just trying to explain to you how I\ngenerally feel. I usually have a policy of saying I will\nor won't veto something until I read the fine print and that is\nnot a bad idea.\nSo generally I think we have got a good arrangement,\nthat every quarter we are going to review it and we are not\ngoing to break any agreement, and that generally is a better\napproach than some firm, fixed figure. as I see it.\nQUESTION: I disagree with you on that, but that is --\nI think that I like t e two-year time on this thing because\nit runs quite a bit after the election, Mr. President.\nTHE PRESIDENT: We will take a good look at it,\nbut I -- (Laughter)\nLet me say this to the gentleman that just spoke\nto me. I wish we could get politics out of the farm problem --\nthat would be best for the farmer and best for the country.\nI have enjoyed the opportunity to be here. I\ndeeply appreciate your views as you have expressed them\nin questions. If we have had some disagreements, and in a\ncouple of instances we have, the great thing about these kinds\nof meetings, as I see them, is that you can disagree without\nbeing disagreeable, and that is the strength of this\ncountry.\nThank you very, very much.\nEND\n(AT 10:32 A.M. CST)"
}