NER Washington forum; Secretary of Agriculture Orville Freeman

For seven years now I've been working for an adequate meat inspection law that would reach into the states three years ago. The president sent up a very strong bill to that effect. It did not move through the Congress. We have continued our efforts and this year at last you're being crowned. It would appear with success. You just heard was that of the Honorable Orval L. Freeman secretary of agriculture. And our guest this week on the again our Washington forum a weekly program concerned with the significant issues before us as a nation. This week. A discussion with Secretary of Agriculture Orville Freeman newsman Roger Gittens and Jim Clark to a question am I any our public affairs director Bill Greenwood for a quick first question. Here is Jim Clark. As of late a great deal of harsh criticism has been leveled from the Senate the House Agriculture Committees toward your department. Specifically Ralph

Nader has said that the action on the meat question suggests submission to the meat industry pressure. What do you have to say to this criticism. Well I'm happy to welcome Ralph Nader to the ranks of those of us who have been seeking meat inspection for a long long time. As a matter of fact for seven years now I've been working for an adequate meat inspection law that would reach into the states three years ago and the president sent up a very strong bill to that effect. You did not move through the Congress. We have continued our efforts and this year at last you're being crowned. It would appear with success as I say we're happy to have Ralph Nader aboard. I only wish that he would be a little bit more careful with his charges and epithets because he's simply not very well-informed in this instance.

Or to put a little more bluntly he simply doesn't know what he's talking about. In what ways doesn't he know what he's talking about. Well the the charge that the Department of Agriculture has been as he put it. Conniving out with the big meat industry is just totally and completely and absolutely untrue. Mr. Freeman. Ready for NASA's favor. A different bill than you favored. What was the difference between these two bills which has since been worked out in compromise why did you favor a stronger bill and she the weaker bill. Well I think Bill which was stronger in which is weaker is I have some difference of opinion. There are a basic question. Was whether we were going to do this by the federal government alone in the federal government take over all the meat inspection all over the country or whether we're going to cooperate with the states and hold the states to

standards of effective performance and to help the states pay the bill. It's been my feeling that it would be more effective and we would get better results by cooperating with the states. The Mondale bill and the Incidentally that was the same bill that I had introduced three years ago would have provided for federal. Action across the board. So it's really. Question of of opinion and judgment about I think basically we're going to get better results at lower cost a by a cooperative effort with the states instead of the federal government trying to take the whole thing over. Are you happy with the compromise bill which was working. Yes I think the bill that is now pending is a good bill and it will accomplish the purpose and everyone in the country once it becomes law I can feel secure in the meat that he buys whether it's in trial or interstate alone would be before we see this bill take effect throughout the country. Well

the it will take some time before people can be hired trained and procedures will be under effect. It's a little hard to say I think within that within a year. At the most two years the program ought to be fully effective. In the meantime the bill does have a provision for a spot inspection and for the requirement of improvement where we have information that a particular plant is failing to meet reasonable standards. So by using that authority I think we can. Stamp out the worst violations and do it promptly because if we want to have the conditions of this meat inspection bill is just going to go that wrong. Well first of all to prevent this slaughter and a movement of meat from diseased animals into human use. To be sure that that this is avoided and then to make certain that the slaughter takes place under sanitary conditions so that the end product meets a standard

of cleanliness and generally has not been polluted or various ways adulterated. Why the way why we waited so long to institute a bill of his time. Simply because there was NOT support for. As I say we have been trying for 70 years to get such a bill through the Congress. There was no support in the Congress for it. It couldn't even get out of committee and it was only this year when a bill finally got out of the House committee and incidentally that was long before Mr. Nader ever heard of meat or meat inspection apparently. It was only following that that his voice was raised in a rather ruckus way about today. There just wasn't any public support or any public interest and the result was those people who did not want to. The federal government involved in local meat inspection

were able to prevail it quite easily. You don't pass legislation this guy and without a strong public support that support wasn't there. As the bill moved through Congress this time that support was developed and in as much as you see fit to interject Mr. Nader in this discussion number of times in all fairness I want to repeat that I think he and others and consumer groups made a very real contribution in helping to build public support. I regret that they felt it necessary to play a little fast and loose with their facts in the process of doing it prematurely due to mystic problems. Far from a fair phrase are we going to keep them down on the farm in the midst of this world urban migration. Well we don't necessarily have a particular target of keeping people on the farm. That'll take care of itself if prices are adequate and farm income is fair and comparable. Why.

There will always be people who will want to live in the countryside and on the farm. So the real question I think today you direct attention to is whether how do you keep people in town and country in rural America rather than piling them up in the big cities. And the answer to that is you may grow America you make a town and country equally desirable you make them competitive. So there will be opportunities for jobs for jails for education for recreation for cultural opportunities in the countryside that currently many people go to the big cities to find. Mostly people go to the cities I think or at least a lot of them not because they want to but because they have to they have to go there to get a job. They have to go there in order to get some kind of provisions. Let's say for relief if they can't get a job in their own community. So if we can provide those jobs in the countryside and I think there's no reason why we can't if we go about it systematically and are willing to to strongly

push such a program why will it be on the way to meeting this tremendous problem which we've seen in the explosions of last summer which is a product of piling too many people on too little space. All during the past three weeks you're McCarthy yourself and vice president home free. They've all expressed this concern and worry. What exactly does your department hope to contribute forces. Well we are contributing every day in a host of programs in the Department of Agriculture to build up the countryside. For example this year we will finance through FHA about 15:00 water and sewer programs in small communities throughout the United States she didn't have them before. Obviously any community be attractive and grow much at least have a central water and sewer system. We will finance about to produce half a billion dollars worth of housing in towns of five

thousand or less. That's a lot of housing and it will contribute sharply to the development of the rural country. We will also finance about 400 community recreation development a swimming pool. Picnic grounds camping playgrounds golf courses things that people want and things that help build a community these are just a few examples of conservation projects water development projects efforts to bring new industry these communities working with local communities to develop plans for them and to broaden the area that they serve. We're actively involved in every county United States in working with local people there to develop and strengthen those areas looking beyond these places we still see that brick wall be more good for our bases in the form of the low fire places. What can be done about these low home loans.

Well basically to improve and sharpen the machinery for balancing supply and demand so that market conditions will result in a better price for the farmer. Our programs are beginning to work quite well. This year we suffered a sharp setback which has been the result of record harvest all over the world and the predictions for crop yields have been far exceeded by the results. As a result we've had a very strong downward pressure on prices. But actually the balance of supply and demand is it not too far out of kilter. Unfortunately the Congress just a few weeks ago killed a proposal that would have immediately strengthened farm prices in the subcommittee in agriculture in the House of Representatives where six Republicans voted

against the farmer and played partisan politics with the Purcell bill that when it made it possible to buy an established reserves which would have immediately increased farm income and been a real shot in the arm. We're moving into an election year but I hope that this kind of narrow partisanship at the expense of the farmer by the Republican Party in the Committee on Agriculture in the house or representative could have been avoided for at least a little while. But they saw fit to play politics with the Purcell bill and the farmers are suffering as a result of it. For the 66 rational elections you spoke very highly of the freshman class. THE SPIN ROOM is in the form Kerry's And you said you hoped they would be real with it many of them were defeated 300 to 450 off the. Back home here to feed the next year overseas. What I've just described is action on the Purcellville was the product of some of the new Republicans who were recently added to that committee who just voted and I farm votes for political

reasons. If I had the congressman on who were defeated in 1966 had continued and had not lost their seats why should you preserve bill would have passed the House of Representatives I'm sure there's been much talk about serious political trouble in the farm belt as far as the Democratic Party is concerned do you think that the President Johnson that the party is in serious political trouble with residents who can run things. Well yes there is always a very strong struggle in the farm areas of the Midwest particularly these areas tend to be and traditionally have been Republican. They swing from time to time. They also have kenned to be isolationist and are clearly affected by the war in Vietnam. That doesn't mean we're going to lose them because when farmers get down to comparing which political party has helped them and which political party has passed farm legislation

and under which political party made progress why there's only one answer in all our history. Farm prices have gone down under the Republicans and it's gone up under the Democrats and legislation as I say has come from the Democrats in the last seven years. I'm just roughly summarizing figures now but the Republicans have voted no. Roughly 15:00 time on farm legislation. Wow the the the they voted yes. Less than 100 In other words of all the things that have been done for the farmer and to try his strength his prices have been done over the violent objection of the great majority of Republicans and you will recall that there has not been any Republicans that have ever advocated Republican presidents now legislation which would be helpful to the American farmer now he knows this and the farmer is not very happy and

rightfully Sol the drop of 10 percent in farm income this year. He's a great disappointment to all of us. The fact it's caused by a normal weather an enormous crops around the world still doesn't cancel out the fact that farmers are suffering in the very real progress we made the first six years of this administration have turned down now. But when they look over the years when they compare what's happened since 1960 and compare what happened during the period of the 50s where there's only one choice for a farmer that's devoid Democratic and the overwhelming majority I'm confident it will. Secretary this past summer the Food Stamp Program him under fire in the Senate. What has been done since and who threw the bill and what do you see as the future of the bill. Well the food stamp program has been considerably is strengthened as a result of the discussion's review that took place last summer.

For example the amount that did the recipient was put in in order to get stamps has been lowered to a very minimal level required by law. We have expanded the food stamp program very rapidly. The number of people who have been coming into it has increased significantly in part because of a program of education and person to person contact. A number of states. Have now or. Come into the program who prior to the public attention that resulted from the floor of last spring were refusing to move. All in all a very real progress has been made I forgot the numbers precisely but there are a couple hundred thousand more people drawing benefits under food stamps getting more satisfactory guide than was the case six months ago. We see significant expenses for the program going head very vigorously and day. The question now basically is going to be getting more money for it

because who we're getting up to the limits of our authorization. And that again will have to be determined by Congress and Congress will act on me if there's adequate public support understanding that the secretary has this spree of congressional any change here where the phrase affected the department's activities. Well and today just not very much. Although we have. As a part of the struggle that's going on about tax and spend it was a Congress I have been holding back a number of areas expenditures particularly for construction of buildings and also some water for applying personnel that otherwise would have gone forward. But the appropriation that resulted from the Congress was a fairly close to the recommendations that we had made exactly what will happen and where we will

be for the balance of this fiscal year and in the budget for the next fiscal year. All remains to be seen. That will be determined by the results. Of the. Shall we call it the appropriation then tax struggle that currently takes place in the Congress. Mr. Secretary the during the past two years you traveled throughout the world and the problems of all nations which is why the food situation of the world the force of famine in the 80s you can say well no one can be absolutely definitive in connection with the world food situation. The world could well run out of food. There could be mass famine. There need not be mass famine during the six years of this decade. Why. We've fallen behind. There's been a considerable increase in agricultural productivity but it's been cancelled out by increased population and so

they per capita food availabilities are about the same as they were in 1960. In the meantime most of these countries have improved their standard of living. The result is fewer people are getting more food and more people are getting less food which is in a very satisfactory condition. However in the last few years some major breakthroughs in agriculture have taken place new seeds that will yield three to four times what traditional seeds would yield have been developed. We didn't Mexico rice in the Philippines. I do cultural practices combining of fertilizer using pesticides new arrogation new methods of getting water particularly subsurface water. All of these really give promise if they can be applied of very real increases in production. I am. I would say cautiously optimistic. I in my. Estimate that do we can win the war on hunger but it's by no means certain

that we will. This is the one of the great struggles of our time and the future of the world and its peace and stability. I will turn on whether this battle is won or lost since the 1940s the world is look to the United States as the big producer wire of the world. Will we be able to continue to supply other countries. Yes we will be able to supply. Other countries with considerable amounts of food. However we make it available under a self-help standard that requires from the other countries that they make a very real efforts to improve their own agriculture. And if they are unwilling to work at direct the culture to invest in their agriculture why we are very very limited in the amounts of food we make available. We don't want people to starve to death. And. We seek for humanitarian reasons to carry forward relief programs were necessary but with

limited amounts and limited targets. On the other hand countries that are working at their agriculture why we are seeking to help them in every way we can including making available generous amounts of food. In the long run it would be a great disservice to the less developed country to make food too easily available. If this is done. The result is to discourage them in their own efforts to depress their prices to the press world prices to make food available loosely to in effect dump it around the world because we're able to produce it. I used a past to international suicide and it be the worst thing we could possibly do. So what do we need to do is to use food effectively but use it with good judgment and balance keeping our eye on the target which is to help people to feed themselves not to make them dependent on us. This leaves is nasty the next question is What

does the market want. Will the American form play in the future as far as the world food situation in light of his own current economic problems what is his will he be. Well the concessional food. Will provide a considerable market for American producers in the future. The key is to operate our own programs so that the demand that that will determine farm prices is related to the amount that produce can be accurately estimated. So they we then will produce approximately what's needed and not too much and Farmer president will be at a satisfactory level one of the elements that make up that demand will be a public law for a food for freedom are concession or sales and or relief programs around the world. But. This is no solution to the farmers problem either because as

I say the amount we can produce is much greater than the effective demand. And we're going to be living with that with overproduction for 10 show in agriculture in this country for as far in the future as I can see. And this is going to be a constant struggle that's why we need farm programs. 966 you expressed concern that our allies particularly Western European nations were not doing enough to help in the serious world food shortage are they hoping any more now. Yes there's been real improvement on this as a part of the Kennedy around negotiations the gap negotiations which concluded this year an agreement was reached among the more developed countries to set up a pool of four and a half million tons of grain to be used in the less developed countries. This involves as the countries of Western Europe the ECV Japan. And the United States Canada Australia

and some others. So we are now beginning to get a much stronger multilateral effort with other nations beside the United States involved in the issue of this war to have 0 million tons how much will the United States the United States contributions two million of the four and a half million. Moving back to the election in 1968 where will farm issues enter into the picture. In general the priorities given the election issue. Well no one can can answer that but I do think that the farm issue may be one of the sharpest issues drawn in the campaign to come. Because in all likelihood the Republican candidates at least all of them that have spoken or in this field have indicated that they do not believe in the in farm programs at the least they

wish to phase them out as rapidly as possible. The worse they would like to get rid of them actually is a philosophy of the Republican Party is would basically get rid of farm programs. The. Democratic Party and the President Johnson on the other hand have felt that farm programs are critically important to the welfare of the farm. This issue may very well be drawn quite sharply. I hope it is and I think it should be because there's no doubt in my mind but what a Republican administration would very quickly abolish farm program. So the farmers of this country are going to be faced with a choice where they want programs or not. They want programs will vote Democratic. If they don't want a program to vote Republican and I'm going to make it my business to see to it that the farmers of this country are aware that that is the real issue. And I hope that the Republican Party will not be permitted to fuzz this up so that farmers don't have clearly in my head they likelihood is there will be

an effort to say me too but more are I and that this will be highly mislead when the truth of the matter is that the Republicans are against farm programs. And it's only fair that farmers know this and if they do why then they can make their own choice by the dock to be a clear really drawn issue because fundamentally there are very sharp differences on the issue. It's really going to in fact have two jobs one two seats with the farmers. I'm kept happy and the other to see that the consumer is kept happy. Well I say if that's my targets why I'm afraid I haven't succeeded very well because I don't keep either of them happy. The aunties or goals to my goals are to serve the president and to serve the nation in the process of serving the president and the nation. Why I try and improve the farmer's position and we seek to bring to the consumers of this country which we do a better food at a

lower real price and a greater level of nutrition than any people anywhere in the history of mankind. So we've made progress in strengthening farm income. We've made progress under this administration in bringing people food at a lower real cost each year. The percentage that we spend for food of our take home pay has gone down every year in addition administration. So I don't know whether this is please people but I think on both fronts we've made very real progress. Thank you Mr. Secretary. You've been listening to a discussion with the honorable Orval L. Freeman secretary about agriculture and our guest this week on the n e our Washington forum a program devoted to an in-depth discussion of significant issues affecting the nation as a whole. I'm Bill Greenwood. Public affairs director of national educational radio. This program is heard abroad by servicemen

over stations of the Armed Forces Radio Network questioning the secretary of agriculture this week or guest reporters Jim Clark from the Washington news bureau of United Press International and Roger get ins of the ABC radio network. This program was produced for the national educational radio network by w a m u f l a noncommercial community broadcasting service of the American University in Washington D.C. This is in the E.R. the national educational radio network.