ASSISTANCE TO RADIO FREE EUROPE AND RADIO LIBERTY

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280001-3
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 26
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 16, 2005
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: December 1, 1971
• Content Type: OPEN

6,' ` A
Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R00050028000'6 . ~
December 1, 1971 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE S 19995
technological change or the relocation of, the power to make recommendations with (6) The President shall designate one of
industries. respect to the agreements made or about to the members appointed from private life to
(c) (1) It shall be the duty and function be made in specific industries. serve as Chairman of the Commission. Any
of the Commission, in order to achieve the (2) The Commission may accept gifts or vacancy in the membership of the Commis-
objectives set forth in subsection (b) of this bequests, either for carrying out specific pro- sion shall be filled in the same manner as in
section, to encourage and assist in the or- grams which it deems desirable or for its the case of the original appointment.
ganization and the work of labor-manage- general activities. SEC. 2. (a) It shall be the duty of the Com-
ment-public committees and similar groups (e) (1) The Executive Director of the mission to review and evaluate international
on a plant, community, regional, and indus- Commission shall be the principal executive radio broadcasting and related activities of
try basis. Such assistance shall include aid- officer of the Commission in carrying out the Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty.
(A) in the development of apprenticeship, objectives, functions, duties and powers of (b) The Commission shall submit its re-
training, retraining, and other programs for the Commission described In subsections port to the President for transmission to the
employee and management education for (b) through (a) of this section. Congress not later than November 30, 1972,
development of greater upgraded and more (2) The Executive Director of the Com- setting forth the results of its findings and
diversified skills; mission, with the approval of the Chairman conclusions, together with such recommenda-
(B) in the formulation of programs de- of the Commission, is authorized to employ, tions as it may deem appropriate, including,
signed to reduce waste and abstenteeism and and fix the compensation of, such specialists - but not limited to, recommendations with re-
to improve employee safety and health; and other experts as may be necessary for spect to future management, operations, and
(C) in the revision of building codes and carrying out its functions under this Act, support of such activities; establishment of a
laws, in order to keep them continuously with regard to the provision of title 5, corporate or other entity to administer sup-
responsive to current economic conditions; United States Code, governing appointments port for, or to conduct, such activities; and
(D) in planning for provision of adequate in the competitive service, and with regard protection of the right and equities of past
transportation for employees; to chapter 51 and subchapter III of chap- and present employees of Radio Free Europe
(E) in the exploration of means to ex- ter 53 of such title, relating to classifica- and Radio Liberty.
pand exports of the products of United States tion and General Schedule pay rates, and (c) The Commission shall cease to exist on
Industry; is authorized, subject to such provision, to July 1, 1973.
(F) in the development, initiation, and ex- employ such other officers and employees SEC. 3. (a) In addition to his function as
pansion of employee incentive compensation, as may be necessary for carrying out its head of the Commission, the Chairman of
profit-sharing and stockownership systems functions under this Act and fix their com- the Commission shall provide grants to sup-
and other production incentive programs; pensation in accordance with the provisions port the broadcasting activities of Radio Free
(G) in the dissemination of technical of such chapter 51 and subchapter II of chap Europe and Radio Liberty and submit to the
information and other material to publicize ter 53. President for transmission to the Congress
,its work and objectives; (f) The authority for funding referred to not later than November 30, 1972, and July 1,
(H) to encourage studies of techniques in title II of the Defense Production Act of 1973, reports, with financial appendices as ap-
and programs siimlar to those in paragraphs 1950 (Public Law 91-379) shall apply to propriate, of each grant made and a state-
(A) to (H) of this subsection, as they are this section. ment describing the utilization of each such
applied in foreign countries; and grant.
(I) in the dissemination of information Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, I
and analyses concerning the economic oppor- move that the vote by which the bill was (b) There are authorized to be appropri-
tunities and outlook in various regions and passed be reconsidered, ated to the Chairman for carrying out the
for the
purposes of, this
communities, and if information on Indus- Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I move fiscal year 1 1 and d section,
$38,520,000 f for or 00 the fiscal
trial techniques designed for the increase of 9
productivity. to lay that motion on the table. year r 1 19773. Except for or funds appropriated
(2) The Commission shall transmit to the The motion to lay on the table was pursuant to this section, no funds appro-
President and to the Congress not later than agreed to. priated after the date of the first appropria-
March 1 of each year an annual report of its Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, I tion pursuant to this Act may be made avail-
previous year's activities under this Act, ask unanimous consent that the Secre- able to or for the use of Radio Free Europe
(3) The Commission shall perform such tary of the Senate may be authorized or Radio Liberty.
other functions, consistent with the fore- and directed to make any necessary alert- SEc. 4. (a) Members of the Commission
going, as it determines to be appropriate and cal and technical changes in the en- who are Members of Congress or officers or
necessary to achieve the objectives set forth grossment of the bill (S. 2891). employees of the executive branch shall serve
in subsection (b) of this section. PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. without compensation for their services as
(d) (1) In exercising its duties and func- The members of the Commission. Members of the
tions under this Act CRANSTON). Without objection, it iS SO Commission who are not Members of Con-
(A) the Commission may consult with ordered. gress or officers or employees of the executive
such representatives of industry, labor, agri- branch shall receive per diem at the daily
culture, consumers, State and local govern- rate prescribed for level V of the Executive
menu, and other groups, organizations, and ASSISTANCE TO RADIO FREE Schedule by section 5316 of title 5 of the
individuals as it deems advisable to insure - -EUROPE AND RADIO LIBERTY United States Code when engaged in the ac-
the participation of such interested parties; Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I tual performance of duties vested in the
(B) the Commission shall, to the extent ask the Chair to lay before the Senate a Commission. All members of the Commission,
possible, use the services, facilities, and in- from the lay House before of Re enatea- while away from their homes or regular places
formation (including statistical informa- message of business in the performance of services for
tion) of other Government agencies as the tives on S. 18. . the Commission, shall be allowed travel ex-
President may direct as well as of private The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. penses, including per diem in lieu of sub-
agencies and professional experts in order CRANSTON) laid before the Senate the sistence, in the same manner as persons em-
that duplication of effort and expense may amendment of the House of Representa- ployed intermittently in the Government
be avoided; tives to the bill (S. 18) to amend the service are allowed expenses under section
(C) the Commission shall coordinate such United States Information and Educa- 5703 (b) of title 5 of the United States Code.
services and facilities referred to in subsec- tional Exchange Act of 1948 to provide (b) The Chairman of the Commission is
tion (B) above in order to supply technical authorized to appoint and fix the compensa-
tion administrative assistance to labor-man- assistance to Rad1Q Free Europe and tion of such personnel as may be necessary.
agement-public committees and similar Radio Liberty which was to strike out all Such personnel may be appointed without re-
groups referred to in subsection (c) (1); after the enacting clause, and insert: gard to provisions of title 5, United States
(D) the Commission shall establish the That there is established a commission to Code, covering appointments in the competi-
regional offices and such local offices as it be known as the Commission on Interna- tive service, and may be paid without regard
deems necessary; tional Radio Broadcasting (hereinafter re- to the provisions of chapter 51 and subchap-
(E) the Commission shall hold regional ferred to as the "Commission") composed ter III of chapter 53 of such title relating to
and industrywide conferences to formulate of nine members as follows: classification and General Schedule pay rates.
ideas and programs for the fulfillment of the (1) Two Members of the House of Repre- Any Federal employee subject to civil service
objectives set forth in subsection (C); sentatives appointed by the Speaker of the laws and regulations who may be appointed
(F) the Commission may formulate model House of Representatives. by the Chairman shall retain civil service
programs to ameliorate the effects of unem- (2) Two Members of the Senate appointed status without interruption or loss of status
ployment caused by technological progress; by the President of the Senate. or privilege. In no event shall any individual
(G) the Commission may furnish assist-
ance appointed to parties In collective bargaining en- (3) Two members appointed by the Presi- app
tering Into collective bargaining agreements; dent from among officers and employees of compensation an amount in excess of the
and the executive branch of the Government. maximum rate for 08-18 on the General
(H) the Commission may review collec- (4) Three members appointed by the Presi- Schedule under section 5332 of title 5, United
tive bargaining agreements already in ef- dent from private life, including experts in States Code.
f ct or those being negotiated to ascertain mass communication in the broadcasting (c) In addition, the Chairman of the Com-
their effects on product i di~jbf el@Wse 2005/08/22: CIA-RDP72-0033~'9`f~U'b ' btSo'f-cAbtatn the services
 S19996
Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280001-3
CONGRESSIONAL RECO i. - SL:vA 1 L December 1, 19 1
of experts and consultants in accordance
with section 3109 of title 5, United States
Code, but at rates not to exceed the maxi-
mum rates for GS-18 on the General Sched-
ule under section 5332 of title 5, United
States Code.
(d) Upon request of the Chairman of the
Commission, the head of any Federal agency
is authorized to detail, on a reimbursable
basis, any of the personnel of such agency
to the Commission to assist it in carrying out
its duties under this section.
(e) The Administrator of General Services
shall provide to the Commission on a reim-
bursable basis such administrative support
services as the Commission may request.
SEC. 5. There are authorized to be appro-
priated to the Commission such sums as may
be necessary for its administrative expenses.
And amend the title so as to read: "An
Act to authorize the creation of a com-
mission to evaluate international radio
broadcasting and related activities of
Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty,
to authorize appropriations to the Chair-
man of the Commission, and for other
purposes."
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I
move that the Senate disagree to the
amendment of the House and agree to
the request for a conference on the dis-
agreeing votes of the two Houses there-
on, and that the Chair be authorized to
appoint the conferees on the part of the
Senate.
The motion was agreed to; and the
Presiding Officer (Mr. CRANSTON) ap-
pointed Mr. FULBRIGHT, Mr. CHURcn, Mr.
SYMINGTON, Mr. A1xEN, and Mr. CASE
conferees on the part of the Senate.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mr. MANSFIELD. I move that the Sen-
ate go into executive session to consider
the nomination of Earl Lauer Butz, of
Indiana, to be Secretary of Agriculture.
The motion was agreed to, and the
Senate proceeded to the consideration of
Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes, that is correct. They deserve it.
It has been consummated and there will Going back to the beginning of our
be votes on that, too, I am sure. We hope national existence, we find that over 80
also to get the other pieces of legislation percent of our population was then en-
as they become available. gaged in agriculture and made their liv-
My understanding is that the House ing from the land.
tomorrow will take up the District of Today we find not over 10 percent of
Columbia appropriation bill and the sup- our population actually engaged in pro-
plemental appropriation bill. We would ducing food and fiber crops, but twice
hope to get started on those Friday morn- that number find gainful employment
ing and then, shortly thereafter, we will in making farm supplies and equipment,
be on the Supreme Court nominations. transporting farm commodities, and
Mr. GRIFFIN. By "shortly thereafter" handling and processing the products
does the Senator mean on Friday that we of the American farmer.
will be taking up the Supreme Court Agriculture still furnishes more gain-
nominations? ful employment than any other indus-
Mr. MANSFIELD. That is the present try.
intention, if the Senator will allow me The land itself has not changed but
a little lee-way. But, just as soon as possi- the use of it has changed tremendously.
ble. If we clear the decks we, will get to Much of it, particularly east of the
the Supreme Court nominations. Mississippi, has reverted to woodland,
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. TUN- while nearly all that is now cultivated is
NEY). Time is now under control. producing far more per acre than our
Who yields time? ancestors ever dreamed would be pos-
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, I yield my- sible.
self 20 minutes, and then I want to yield Except for certain specialized crops,
to the Senator from New York some time' a small farm which we used to call the
and that, so far as I know, would be all family farm cannot today produce
,the speaking that will be done on this enough to support a family decently.
side tonight. We no longer have the five- to ten-
Mr. President, I do not expect to say cow dairy or the one- or two-mule cotton
much about Earl Butz today except to farm, at least not in any great numbers.
point out as stated in the report which As in other walks of life, farm mer-
is now on the Senators' desks that "it gers have become the order of the day
was clear and was so indicated a number and are also necessary if one is to take
of times that the character, integrity, advantage of modern methods and mod-
and ability of Dr. Butz was not in ques- ern equipment with which to produce
tion." efficiently and profitably.
The testimony against him was based Further than this, thousands of farm-
largely upon what Earl Butz must have ers, large and small. have incorporated
been thinking 20 years ago and what he their holdings for the protection of
might be thinking after becoming Secre-, their families and to qualify for social
tary of Agriculture. security benefits later in life.
His critics seem to have a much higher This. accounts for much of the in-
degree of mental telepathy than I have, crease in the number of corporation
since I do not know what he thinks from farms. Many farms wholly owned by
day to day and year to year. families today run into the thousands
'In fact. it would be much easier for me of acres and millions of dollars of pro-
executive business. to read what is in the minds of those
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. oppose him.
CRANSTON). The nomination on the. Ex- who so What I ardently like oppo to discuss m. briefly is
ee na) o a, as requested at the the agriculture of the United States and
Senator from from Montana, will be stated. more specifically the Department of Ag-
riculture and its prospects for the future.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE And the question which keeps re-
The assistant legislative clerk read the curring in my mind is this: Does the
nomination of Earl Lauer Butz, of Indi- Department of Agriculture have a future
an, tobe Secretary of Agriculture. or will it be broken up, with the pieces
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, for being discarded or assigned to other
the information of the Senate, there will agencies?
be no more votes tonight. An agreement The Secretary of Agriculture has been
has been reached that the vote on the the target for people with varying mo-
nomination of Mr. Butz will occur at the tives for the last 35 years and with the
hour of 1 p.m. tomorrow, there will be single exception of 2 years when our
plenty of time for discussion. colleague, the Senator from New Mexico
I anticipate that there will be a certain (Mr. CLINTON ANDERSON) held that po-
amount of discussion tonight and the rest sition, every Secretary has been a target
tomorrow. for abuse and harassment.
Following disposal of this nomination, During the time when Senator ANDER-
the so-called drug control bill will be SON was Secretary of Agriculture, the
brought up. There is -a time limitation on grain reserves of this country were so
that also and, undoubtedly, there will be low that the principal protests came
rollcall votes on that, as well as on the from those who felt that our food supply
nomination of Mr. Butz. might be in jeopardy if we did not cur-
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, if the tail our postwar exports to other coun-
Senator from Montana will yield, there tries.
is one addition beyond that, the agree- I earnestly hope that St. Peter has one
ment concerning the conference report of his choisest spots reserved for de-
on the OEO, is that not correct? parted U.S. Secretaries of Agriculture.
duction.
In my own State of Vermont, we have
only one-third as many dairymen as we
had a few years ago, but we are pro-
ducing more milk than ever on fewer
acres, with herds running into the hun-
dreds and thousands, but they are still
family owned and operated.
This means that as mergers have tak-
en place and small farms are aban-
doned, the so-called farm population has
been decreasing for well over 20 years,
though at a slowly declining rate.
However, it is obvious that the end
is not yet.
Neither Secretaries Anderson, Bran-
nan, Benson, Freeman, nor Hardin could.
have stopped this decline even if it had
been advisable.
And I expect it will continue as eco-
nomic pressures and other inducements
increase their influence.
No Secretary of Agriculture can pre-
vent this evolutionary change.
However, as "farm population" has de-
creased, "rural population" has actually
increased in Vermont and in many other
States.
A small farm which two decades ago
produced a meager living for one family
may now be occupied by two or three or
Approved For Release 2005)08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280001-3
December 1, 1b'ii c u1'skjls.iiSS.IONAL RECUi.[D-SiiiNAtis
more families due to the rapid increase
in residential and recreational develop-
ment.
Improved highways and other facilities
formerly available only to urban dwellers
have made this possible.
In some other areas, particularly the
northern plain States, the merging of
farms has indeed created a genuine prob-
lem resulting in a decrease in population,
since the alternatives which exist in the
East are not generally available to those
areas.
This is one problem-but not the only
one-which has given Presidents, Secre-
taries of Agriculture, and the Congress
much concern.
Farmers, on the whole, however, are
living infinitely better than they did a
generation or even 10 years ago and are
more able to afford better living stand-
ards.
We cannot pick them out in the au-
dience anymore-and more of their chil-
dren get higher education.
This progress, however, has come
about the hard way and in the historic
recessions which have afflicted us from
time to time, the farmer has usually been
the major victim.
And after each recession the people
on the land have emerged fewer in num-
bers but somewhat higher on the scale of
living.
The depression of the thirties is still
keenly remembered by many Members of
this Senate today.
During that period, hogs sold as low as
$3 a hundred, wheat for 50 cents a
bushel, milk for $1 a hundred, and po-
tatoes 10 cents a bushel when any mar-
ket could be found at all.
I know whereof I speak, because I was
one of the lucky ones who got $5 a
hundred for hogs, although I did have
to give away my potatoes for livestock
feed.
But during this period, Government
came into the picture in a big way and
Government has remained the star actor
in this drama of rural life ever since.
Until the 1930's, processors and deal-
ers almost always set the prices which
farmers received for their products.
And, believe me, those prices were
never very munificent.
With the competitive processing and
marketing practices of those days they
could not be.
One took what he was offered or else.
But in the 1930's when times got really
hard and the depression afflicted other
business and professional people as well,
things began to happen.
Of course, Government had to save
the banks first, but farmers and con-
sumers received attention to a degree
which had never been their lot before.
During the 1930's, marketing orders
came into general use-first for milk and'
then expanded to cover other commodi-
ties.
At this point, I might mention that
while Earl Butz was Assistant Secretary
of Agriculture during a short time in
the fifties, the number of milk market-
ing orders are as increased from 48 to
74, the sharpest increase in history,
But in the thirties, the REA was estab-
lished and the private utility companies
did not have the foresight to take it over
when they could have, so REA co-ops
spread across the land carrying light and
power to farms which might otherwise
have been given up.
Support prices, farm loans, and guar-
antees helped put prices upward some-
what.
In 1935, the social security system was
set up, and Vermont was the first State
to cooperate with all phases of this new
program.
And along about 1939 or 1940 the food
stamp program got its first tryout.
But farm prices increased slowly until
World War II brought them to a level
which for a time made most phases of
agriculture profitable.
That was the last war which, tempo-
rarily, improved agricultural income.
The Korean war had an adverse effect
and the 10-year war in Southeastern Asia
from 1961-71 has been costly to agricul-
ture as well as to our political and eco-
nomic policies.
While in 1970 farmers were taking in
$10.9 billion more than they were in 1965,
costs of production went up $10 billion
during that time, leaving only $900 mil-
lion as the net increase over the last 3
or 4 years. However, there are fewer
farmers to divide that up. So it is not
quite as bad as one might think.
Compared to the increase in family
living costs-this $900 million which was
gained from 1965 to 1970-was inade-
quate, although increased Federal
amounts for education and other pur-
poses have helped out materially.
As I stated in the beginning of this
talk, I have made little reference to Earl
Butz, although I support him fully and
feel that as an administrator he will
compare very favorably with any other
Secretary of Agriculture I have known.
However, Earl Butz is not the issue in
this controversy.
He is the symbol-a political symbol-
as many believe.
Congress writes the laws relating to
agriculture and international trade and
laws relating to welfare and crime and a
lot of other things.
Congress does not administer these
laws and Congress does not administer
farm programs. -
The administration of the law is vested
in the executive branch of Government
of which the President is the head.
He appoints administrators for the
various, departments and agencies of
Government,
The duty of these administrators in-
cluding the Secretary of Agriculture is
to administer the programs which the
Congress has established..
But like the heads of other agencies,
they work under the direction of the
President and it is the President upon
whom the responsibility for proper ad-
ministration of these programs rests.
The Secretary of Agriculture cannot
and should not be expected to administer
,the programs for agriculture in a man-
ner not approved by the President.
And, therefore, If there is dissatisfac-
tion with the handling of the farm pro-
grams, it Is the President and not the
Secretary of Agriculture who should be
held responsible.
S19997
And if Congress hamstrings him in
making his principal appointments, even
the President cannot be held responsible
for results which affect the country ad-
versely.
Indeed, if we analyze even superficially
the condemnation of Earl Butz, it is evi-
dent that the attacks on him' are aimed
directly at the President partly in an
effort to make his administration un-
popular.
Earl Butz was indeed an official of the
Department of Agriculture during most
of the administration of the late Pres-
ident Dwight D. Eisenhower.
So far as I know, he was an ortho-
dox Assistant to the Secretary, with his
most important contribution to American
agriculture being the development, the
enactment, and the putting into opera-
tion of Public Law 480 which some now
prefer to call the Food-for-Peace Act.
This has developed into one of the
most important programs affecting
American agriculture during the last
generation.
It has resulted in the expansion of
American exports abroad.
In fact, we are told that this program
has been so successful that the produc-
tion of one out of every 4 acres is now
exported to other countries.
Our export of farm commodities will
probably reach a total of about $8 billion
this year, most of which will represent
commercial sales.
Without the cooperation of the so-
called agribusinesses these so-called ex-
ports would have been impossible.
At this point let me say that the big-
gest agribusinesses in this country with
which Earl Butz has been concerned are
the farm cooperatives. Over 70 percent of
all dairy products of this country are
handled and processed through farm co-
operatives. This is agribusiness in itself,
and in a lesser amount other commodi-
ties, such as citrus fruits, a large per-
centage of which are handled and proc-
essed by cooperatives. The small family
farmer certainly could not exist and
make his farm pay if he had not had the
cooperative agribusiness to handle his
products for him.
The cost of Public law 480 has
dropped from -about $2 billion a year to
half that amount while exports of farm
crops for dollars have increased 300 per-
cent.
Public Law 480 has also undoubtedly
kept some countries in the world from
abandoning democracy and going over
the hill into the other camp.
If he has done nothing else but aid
in the preparation, enactment and de-
velopment of our agricultural export
program, including Public Lam 480, Earl
Butz has earned a well-deserved place in
our agricultural history.
It may be said that Earl Butz is too
old-fashioned-a relic of the past--and
not mod.
He still believes in the agricultural
college-the experiment station-the ex-
tension service and nonsensical ideas,
according to some people, like 4-H clubs
and future farmers-things to which he
has up to now given his whole life.
It so happens that one of the most dis-
tinguished Members of this body Senator
Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280001-3
S 19998 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD December 1 , l j
BIRCH BAYI the junior Senator from In-
diana, is a product of these courses,
which he pursued at Purdue University
under Earl Butz. But Earl Butz still be-
lieves in these things, and, up to now,
he has given them his whole life.
And, to the chagrin of his critics, he
will continue to support these institu-
tions as Secretary of Agriculture, and I
think that should be indicated for the
RECORD.
As I said in the beginning of these
remarks, I am concerned about the fu-
ture of the Department of Agriculture.
I consider that no department of the
executive branch of our Government has
contributed to the growth, prosperity,
and influence of the United States in
world affairs as much as the Department
of Agriculture.
I will not take time to go further into
detail on Earl Butz' accomplishments,
but surely a great agricultural State like
Indiana has not been stupid in employ-
ing him these many years to educate and
train its youth for rural living and the
operation of its farms.
Now I am genuinely concerned that
the continual wrangling in the Congress,
the constant striving for position among
farm organizations, the growing power
of groups desirous of taking over func-
tions of the Agriculture Department and
the incessant stream of abuse heaped up-
on the Secretary-even a secretarial ap-
pointment-will, in the not distant fu-
ture, bring on the fragmentation of this
Department to which America and the
world owe so much.
I did not agree with President Nixon's
proposal to abolish the Department and
assign its work to other agencies of gov-
ernment and I was delighted when in
announcing the appointment of Dr. Butz
as Secretary he stated that he had
changed his mind in this matter.
But, there are those who would assign
the food programs-school lunch, food
stamp, and others-to the welfare pro-
gram.
There are those who would assign our
export business to the Commerce Depart-
ment and others, many others who have
been working around here this week, who
would delegate controls over land use to
the Interior Department and our environ-
mental agencies.
I am very much interested to see that
some of those people have been working
their utmost to bring about the defeat
of Earl Butz to the secretaryship,
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time
of the Senator has expired.
Mr. AIKEN. I yield myself another 5
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Vermont is recognized.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, Earl Butz
is dedicated to the continuation of the
U.S. Department of Agriculture "and its
worthwhile, functions even if some of
his critics are not.
He is dedicated to the continuation of
our agricultural colleges, extension serv-
ices, experiment stations and 4-H clubs.
Does that disqualify him for being
Secretary of Agriculture?
In my opinion, that alone would be
sufficient reason to vote for his confirma-
tion.
And, finally, the question is asked,
what will he do to improve farm income
when he becomes Secretary?
Well, let me say right now, he cannot
do anything without the approval of the
President.
No one could foresee the tremendous
corn crop of this year or the heavy yield
of wheat in other competing countries
or the fact that Northern United States
and Southern Canada did not have a
frost until early November-an unheard
of situation.
Nor could we foresee that the strike of
dockworkers would lower, the price of
export crops materially for the fall period
when shipping was needed most.
There has also been resentment over
the fact that the administration has,
over the protest of the Agriculture De-
partment, seen fit to impound certain
funds which might have helped the
situation even though those funds are
only a small part of the total amount im-
pounded,
I realize that the reason for this has
been the rapid increase of costs-the
same reason that prompted President
Lyndon Johnson to suspend money for
highway construction for a period of time
during his term of office.
If our conferees can bring back to us
a decent and fair tax bill, if we can enact
phase II legislation which is fair to the
people of this country and is effective in
controlling skyrocketing costs, then it
will be possible to release a considerable
amount of the funds which have been
withheld over a more recent period of
time.
I am assured that with the passage of
adequate legislation and the installation
of a Secretary of Agriculture every effort
will be made without delay to improve
the conditions so important not only to
the welfare of our farm people but.to the
welfare of all people in this country.
Congress must do its part and do it
fairly.
Trying to handicap the President in his
efforts to create better conditions in this
country, and the whole world for that
matter, is not justified.
President Nixon has made many mis-
takes and I have protested them.
He has also done many things right
and I applaud them.
Like other people, he has many traits
but two of them stand out to his credit.
He is not a fraid cat.
He keeps his promises.
I am confident that with the approval
of Earl Butz as Secretary of Agriculture
conditions on the farm and in our rural
areas will improve.
I have read the minority report pre-
pared by my friend, the junior Senator
from Minnesota, and I cannot agree with
his conclusions.
I trust he does not panic the com-
munity centers of this Nation by call-
ing attention to the huge supply of food
with which this country is favored.
As I have stated, the President is the
head of the executive branch of Govern-
ment.
The President has been in charge of
this department of Government since it
was founded in 1862 under Abraham Lin-
coln, and since that time no President of
the United States has been denied the
right to select his own Secretary of Ag-
riculture. To deny him the right now to
choose his principal aides-or Cabinet
officers-would establish a precedent that
would not only make it more difficult for
President Nixon, but for any future Pres-
ident, as well,
I ask unanimous consent to have in-
cluded in the RECORD at this point a biog-
raphy of Earl Butz, his accomplish-
ments while Assistant Secretary of Ag-
riculture for 3 or 4 years in the 1950's,
and a letter which came to me at my re-
quest under date of November 24, 1971,
strongly in favor of invoking the Taft-
Hartley Act in the dock strike, but that
has been done since I received this letter.
There being no objection, the material
was ordered to be printed in the REcoRD,
as follows:
EARL L. BUZZ
PERSONAL
Address: Purdue University, Lafayette, In-
diana.
Age: 62.
Marital Status: Married-2 children.
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
B.S.A., Purdue University (Lafayette),
1932 and Ph.D., Purdue University, 1937.
PROFESSIONAL AND GOVERNMENT EXPERIENCE
1937 to Present--Purdue University,
Lafayette, Indiana.
Dean: Department of Continuing Educa-
ation, School of Agriculture.
Professor: Agricultural Economics Depart-
ment.
1954-1957-Assistant Secretary: Depart-
ment of Agriculture, Washington, D.C,
1935-1936-+Research Economist: Federal
Land Bank, Louisville, Kentucky.
1933-1934-Farmer, Noble County, Indiana.
BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Research Economist, Brookings Institution,
Washington, DiC.
Research Staff, National Bureau of Eco-
nomic Research.
Director, Standard Life Insurance Co. of
Indiana.
Director, J. I. Case Co., Racine, Wisconsin.
Director, Ralston Purina Co., St. Louis,
Missouri.
Director, International Minerals & Chemi-
cal Corp., Chicago, Illinois.
Director, Farm Foundation, Chicago, Illi-
nois.
Director, Foundation for American Agri-
culture, Washington, D.C.
Chairman, U.S. delegation FAO, Rome.
(1955 & 1957)
Member, American Farm Economics Assn.
(Vice President 1948)
Member, American Society of Farm Man-
agers and Rural Appraisers, Indiana Academy
of Social Sciences, (Vice Presluent 1948)
Member, International Conference of Agri-
cultural Economists.
OTHER
Author (book) The Production Credit Sys-
tem for Farmers (1944).
Accomplishments of Dr. E. L. Butz while
he served as Assistant Secretary for Market-
ing and Foreign Agriculture In the U.S. De-
partment of Agriculture from August 2, 1954
to July 31, 1957.
Foreign agriculture
1. Helped work out the first PL-480 pro-
gram with Turkey on November 15, 1954,
and thus laid the background for shipments
Of surplus farm products which, from that
day to this, have totaled about $20 billion.
2, Expanded the Agricultural Attache serv-
ice overseas from 50 to 66 and brought the
attache reporting system back within the
USDA.
Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/08/22: CIA-RDP72-QO337R000500280001-3
Decent ci' 1, 19 i 1 U1% S$iO1\It'ii~, i~hkk I --- XI)bl;iA i 1 A: S 1:~"J:9J
3. Worked as liaison man for the USDA mate future costly transportation stoppages. a lifelong Republican and a Member of
with the Food and Agriculture organization The Administration has proposed legislation . the Senate for many years, to oppose the
of the UN and was instrumental in getting under the Public Interest Protection Act confirmation of a Cabinet member nomi-
a U.S. citizen, Dr. Vince Cardon, elected as which is designed to accomplish this very noted by a Republican President of the
Director-General of the FAO. purpose. This legislation is currently before United States. I do so only because of the
Marketing the Congress. I will support it vigorously.
There must be a better way. We must find strong conviction I have regarding this
1. Supervised the largest expansion in the it. nominee, Dr. Earl Butz. My opposition to
number of Federal Milk Marketing Orders RURAL DEVELOPMENT his confirmation I believe is in the best
in USDA history. There were 49 orders when
Butz took office, 74 when he left. Farmers are a part of the Nation's rural interests of both the farmer and the.
2. Assisted in the development and community. They and the others who live in Republican Party,
strengthening of dairy cooperatives through rural America deserve good housing, health Unquestionably, Dr. Butz is an honor-
modifications in milk order programs. care, schools, churches, and all other com- able decent person. His thinking, his
3. Helped rationalize the price relationships munity services. Rural prosperity is essential views, and policies with respect to agri-
of various dairy products to one another if we are going to have thriving rural com- Culture, however, are so different from
through adjustments in milk market orders munities. We must have an expansion of
rural economic activity as well as an improve- my own and, I believe so different from
and price support programs. the people I have the honor to represent,
General ment in farm net income.
I am strongly in favor of an active rural that I feel I have no alternative but to
1. Developed good relationships inside and development program designed to strengthen vote against his confirmation.
outside the USDA With the Various persons rural communities. Ever since I first knew Dr. Butz, and
affected by government programs. Improved job opportunities in rural areas that was when he was Assistant Secre-
2. As a member of the Board of Directors cannot only reverse the migration to overly tary of Agriculture under Ezra Taft
of the Commodity Credit Corporation, congested-cities, but will allow smaller farm- Benson, his views on farm programs, and
worked consistently to move government era to earn off-farm income. This can permit
stocks of commodities into use, at home and, farm families to strengthen their farm oper- particularly price support programs,
abroad. ation and continue to live on the farm. were for low price supports or none at
3. Traveled and spoke widely and effec-, FARM INCOME all. In the hundreds of speeches he has
tively in support of Administration programs I will lead a crusade for higher realized net made since that time, I can find no indi-
in and outside of agriculture. farm income for farmers. I state this un- cation that his thinking has changed.
WASHINGTON, D.C., equivocably. We need several tools, includ- Fortunately, dairy commodities, to-
November 24, 1971. ing, but certainly not liimted to: bacco, rice, and peanuts have high fixed
Hon. GEORGE D. AIKEN, The tearing down of export barriers, espe-. mandatory supports. No matter what the
United States Senate, cially in the Common Market and Japan. thinking of the Secretary of Agriculture
Washington, D.C. A vigorous, realistic use of the Public Law may be, there is little he can do to change
Data SENATOR AIKEN: In response to your 480 program. This is a great humanitarian these programs. This is also true of the
request I am pleased to clarify and expand program which has served the interests of present cotton program. The present
upon my views on several importans issues. the hungry of the world, and, at the same time benefited this Nation's farmers farm legislation with respect to other
.
FOOD PROGRAMS Steps to improve the price of grains. As I field crops, and particularly grain, is very
I fully support President Nixon's pledge to have already stated, the price of corn is too flexible and leaves great discretion with
eliminate poverty related hunger and malnu- low. As soon as possible after confirmation the Secretary of Agriculture. If he
trition in this Nation. I will recommend action. wanted to, any Secretary of Agriculture
Since the President's historic "Hunger I intend to implement the greatest agricul- could make these price support programs
Message" on May 6, 1969, the accomplish- tural market development program in all his- even far more ineffective than they are
ments comprise the largest and most success- tory. The basis for good farm prices is ex- now. Thus the Secretary of Agriculture
ful nutritional undertaking in all history. panding demand at home and abroad.
I will give high priority, as Secretary of Ag- The beginnings of a grain trade with the has vast authority to affect the income
riculture, to continued USDA efforts to reach Communist bloc has been announced. I will level and economic well being of millions
the President's goal. I will energetically work do everything possible to develop this great of farm families. No doubt this is why
toward improvements in the programs to feed market potential. the opposition to Dr. Butz' confirmation
needy families and to improve the nutri- GENERAL is so strong and widespread in my area.
tional health of this Nation's children. I consider it a great honor to be nominated He has the power to make or break the
FARM BARGAINING ? to the Cabinet as Secretary of Agriculture. average farmer, No doubt this is why the
Farm bargaining is an important market- At the same time I fully recognize the great opposition to Dr. Butz is so strong in
ing tool for farmers and ranchers. There challenges one faces in that position. It is a North Dakota.
clearly is need for legislation to strengthen difficult job. I have no illusions about that. I have noted that farmers involved in
the ability of qualified agricultural coopera- But I can also see great opportunities. Op-
tive associations to bargain in good faith portunities to serve this Nation's farmers almost every other kind of production,
with handlers for contract terms to improve who have, through their fabulous productiv- too, are very deeply concerned about the
net farm income. ity, contributed so much to our standard of confirmation of Dr. Earl Butz. No doubt
The Administration has, in testimony be- living. Opportunities to serve this Nation's a part of this is due to his sizable inter-
fore the House and the Senate, supported the people in all walks of life, consumers, con- ests and influence in such huge concerns
principles of H.R. 7597, the National Agricul- servationists, the young, the old, the needy, as Ralston-Purina which are not only
tural Marketing and Bargaining Act of 1971 and the affluent. The programs of the United
and companion legislation in the Senate. I States Department of Agriculture serve every processors of feed and food, but are also
completely endorse the Administration's po- citizen of this Nation in a number of signifi- deeply involved in farm production it-
sition in this regard. cant ways. self. No small or average-type farmer
DOCK STRIKES I am most grateful, Senator Aiken, for your can hope to compete against any huge
America's farmers are suffering tragic, wise counsel and invaluable assistance. corporation in the farmingbusiness, par-
needless losses as the result of the current Sincerely, EARL L. BLITZ, titularly when some of their other oper-
work stoppages at East Coast and Gulf ports Secretary-Designate. ations are profitable and they can take-a
and the recent strike, not yet finally settled, writeoff on any farm loss they may have.
on the West Coast. Mr. HARRIS. Mr. President, I yield 6 Mr. President, all three of the general
Last year the production from one out of minutes to the Senator from North farm organizations in North Dakota-
every four acres was exported. This year the YOUNG).
fall harvest is nearly over. Farm products are Dakota (Mr. the Farmers Union, the Farm Bureau,
now backed up on farms, elevators, ware- Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, I thank and the NFO-the State Association of
houses, on trucks, rail cars, and barges. Im- the distinguished Senator from Okla- Rural Electric Cooperatives, and many
mediate losses are huge, and permanent loss homa for yielding. I want to express ap- other organizations have advised me of
of export markets threatens chances for fu- preciation to the Democrat side of the their opposition to the confirmation of
ture farm prosperity. aisle for granting me 6 or 7 minutes to Dr. Butz. Of the 208 telegrams and 54
As Secretary of Agriculture, every resource Speak in opposition to the confirmation letters I have received thus far from
at my command will be brought to bear upon of Dr. Earl Butz as Secretary of Agricul- North Dakota alone, only two telegrams
an effort to open up the ports, The disas-
trous conditions currently affecting farm- expressed support for his confirmation,
ers call for immediate Taft-Hartley Act re- time from the Republican side, and this As their representative in the U.S. Sen-
lief. even though I have sat on this side of the ate, I could hardly ignore this almost
Further, I would do everything in my aisle for 27 years. unanimous request to vote against this
power to obtain legislatloil?ieeei OVedei-or Re raS'ees~& }t/btBP21 ISA- 0~3 ROU 00280001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337 R000500280001-3
(;()N(. RESSi_31~1A~, r. :;U t" _ ;~?;1 1xxS Uecei,&Lei' t, lyil
S 20000
Mr. President, I lived on a farm 47 concepts, and if he is sincere in what he cabinet-just one-who represents the
years of my life or until I came to the has been saying for many Years, his ap- producers of the industry that employs
U.S. Senate. I never had any other in- pointment can only perpetuate and ac- more Americans than any other; and
terests or investments, nor do I now. celerate the price-depressing policies this apprehension is probably the chief
Many people have thought of me as now characteristic of the farm programs reason for the overwhelming opposition
strictly a wheat farmer. Actually my currently backed by this administration. to the nomination of Dr. Butz by the S
te. farming operations were quite diversified. This in turn can only further erode farmers of my ttaI represent a State in
While wheat was usually the major crop, the confidence of agriculture, in any Mr. Pres,
for a long period of time I had a sizable Federal farm programs; and this at a which we have two great cities, although
dairy herd and I was also in the business time when voluntary participation is will agriculture is our largest industry. We
of raising hogs and sheep. You could being constantly stressed by the Depart- w will who Senators representing will come in here and neat
hardly find a more diversified farming ' ment of Agriculture.
operation in any State than mine was.. It is no secret that the career of Dr. for theasures to crush rural the farm a i income.
While I am no longer a farm operator, Butz has been one which has consistently of remainder of all three of my sons are actual North displayed an orientation in favor of the But, if it is any consolation to them, they
Dakota farmers and they, too, have no industrial processors, not the agricul- will be the ones who will, in turn, be de-A
more money for
mand
his
parently
who other interest except in their farming tionlof effic ency spone wh ch will drive the y al egdemanding move offe the land in-
operations. Wi
h
With this kind of a background, Mr. another million farmers out of business to the ghettos, for which they are com-
President, I could not help but have a by 1980; and this without regard to the ing in here and asking for millions and
deep and continuing interest in agricul- individual efficiency of many family-size millions of dollars more in public wel-
ture. May I repeat again what I have said farms. I say this because under his poli- f are support.
Butz nine
on the Senate floor before-I am a farm- ties the producer of agriculture products From co From Misiossouri, in I favor have of received
and
er first, and a Republican second. will be even more at the mercy of the m communications in Dr. Mr. HARRIS. Mr. President, I yield great industrial processors. 343 3 again but c one his iappofavor of
intm t. their views,
myself 1 minute. The record also shows that, in his let From quote letter received from the a I compliment the distinguished Sena- search for what he terms a "free mar- From Missouri, I have eceived nine
tor from North Dakota for the excellent ket," Dr. Butz would favor a further de-
and very apt statement which he has crease in any Government involvement gentleman armwho er is generally considered V.
made. As he knows, my father, who is a in the farm economy. the No., farmer of Missouri, the iMr. Fred V.
small farmer in southwestern Oklahoma, Even without his direction, this cur- Heinkel, Arrmesidrnon:
and I for many years followed the wheat rent agricultural year well illustrates
l
harvest up to the State of North Dakota, what happens to the individual producer Butz f regard to the confic 1tu eo it Earour
and I know of the farming interests in if the Department of Agriculture works uhat cr. Butz should not r confirmed
his State, which are very. similar to my one side of the fence, but not the other. belief Dr. Secretary not confirmed
the IISenar. a for
own. He certainly expressed my own Acting on what he said was "in the bf y the that
opinion on this nomination, and also national interest," last year the former I have not had a single MFA member or o
that of the farmers of my State. Secretary of Agriculture, who has now farmer tell me that he favors Dr. Butz as
Mr. President, I also want to announce become a vice chairman of the corpora- Secretary. I am not sure that all of these
that the distinguished chairman of the tion which Dr. Butz has represented, for people know Dr. Butz's "track record" as we
Senate Committee on Agriculture and many years, called for heavily increased do, but the one thing they know and shall
Forestry would be here to make a state- planting of feed grains so as to avert the never forget: He was part and parcel of the
anent at this time against the nomination anticipated shortage resulting from corn disastrous Benson programs in the '50's.
except that he is in the conference on the. blight. When this expected development Missouri farmers also know that since
tax and campaign financing bill. He does did not materialize, however, the conse- 1950 the Nation's farm population has
oppose the nomination of Mr. Butz and quent increased supply of corn and other dropped from 25.1 milllon-16.5 percent
will make his principal statement in the grains glutted the market to the point of the population-to 9.7 million in
morning. where prices were driven down to the 1970-4.8 percent of our population.
Now I am glad to yield 15 minutes to lowest levels in many years; and are still Where have these people gone? Any-
TON). the Senator from Missouri (Mr. SYMING- down. one who is interested in the problems of
Because of the failure to date of this
re they hey h have
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, I administration to increase the loan sup- the gone. In t can m tell alt you they have ere
to
thank the able Senator from Oklahoma. port level for corn and other feed gun n cities he ma effort to earn a living,
g ving,
May I first say to the Senate that I hope grains-and this is what many of us hereby contth effort to the sharp li
t
every Senator, prior to voting on this pointed out, Mr. President, would happen creases in the unemploymen character-
matter, will read the remarks of the die- if we gave up our rights and gave them istic of recent years; and this, of course,
tinguished senior Senator from North to the Secretary of Agriculture last has contributed to the dramatic rise ,
Dakota, who for many years, I have felt, year-individual farmers are now being the number eof people who have been
was not only an outstanding represelita- penalized for responding to this "maxi- theced on welfare who to been
tive of the American farmer, but repre- - mum production" call issued by their fivc, to go in sur-
sents all that is best from the standpoint Government. does not view the
of experience and character in the U.S. In other words, their cooperation with Dr.
human tragedy gedy however, this development a
Senate. the Department of Agriculture has cost any anew tedd;o rather one which has
Anyone interested in the future of them heavily in income; and nobody can been owg on during of this Chas
those millions of Americans who con- deny that. been and one o which he excepts, of and pre-
land, their bitter struggle to live on our Should not the Secretary of Agricul- y, an , h ex.
land, so as not to be shunted into the ture be one whose record, not whose sumably advocates, survive.
"The
cities to probably increase that already statements around the time of his request In New a Loospeech k in May 2 2, 1957 entitled,
Butz said:
high unemployment that is currently for confirmation, demonstrates that his characteristic of those later areas, should primary interest is in the welfare of the Machines will continue to displace men on
view with grave reservation this nomi- farmer, not in the further progress of our farms. We will produce more with fewer
firmms and with fewer workers than at
nation of Dr. Earl L. Butz to be the next the giant verticle corporations whose firent.
Secretary of Agriculture. profits increase in proportion to the
I do not question the fact Dr. Butz lower prices they are able to obtain The man who represents or is sup-
really believes his oft-announced con- from the agricultural producers? posed to represent our farmers in the
cepts of how the business of farming The facts presented above are well Cabinet of any administration should be
should operate. Based upon. the record, known to every segment of agriculture a man who recognizes the important so-
as well as the testimony of this nominee, including most farmers. cial values inherent in the family-size
however, it is all too clear that if he ob- The latter ask why should there not farm-human beings should be on his
tarns the authority to carry out these be just one member of President Nixon's mind, not machines.
Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280001-3 ,
L/ecemuci' 1, 19ii CojN(JiChSSAXNAL R1LUi -, iAAl S 2iOO1
Another Missouri farm leader, Oren
Lee Staley, of Rea, Mo., president of the
National Partners Organization, sum-
marized the concern of our farmers as
follows:
The Senate, in voting on confirmation, will
be making a choice on the kind of agricul-
ture and rural America our country wants to
encourage. This crucial decision, in our judg-
ment, is the most important single farm vote
in this Congress. Farmers everywhere are
deeply upset over the selection of Earl Butz
and hope the Senate will not cast a vote
against them. We, therefore urge you to vote
against the confirmation of Dr. Butz.
Finally, Mr. President, again it is the
record that really counts. So let us look
at that record.
Statements made by Dr. Butz, from
the time of his service under Ezra Taft
Benson as Assistant Secretary of Agri-
culture in 1957 up until a few months
ago, reflect his considered attitude
toward the enforcement of programs for
which he would be responsible; programs
such as the food stamp program, a pro-
gram which gives food to little children
and to aged and ill people all over the
United States, and the Packers and
Stockyards Act.
As late as April 26, before an agricul-
ture and marketing seminar in Minne-
apolis, Dr. Butz described as "fadism"
the recent concern expressed by Mem-
bers of the Senate toward the problems
of hunger and malnutrition in the United
States.
In the same speech which was referred
to in an editorial in the Washington Post
this morning, he described the food
stamp program-now get this-as "just
short of ridiculous in some parts of the,
country."
What a statement for the Secretary of
Agriculture to make. I remember years
ago when the Secretary of Labor ap-
pointed by the late, great President
Eisenhower was a plumber, and every-
one said, "Imagine a plumber in the
Cabinet of the President of the United
States."
But I heard the president of the A.F. of
L. take those comments apart, when he
named the Secretary of Defense and
asked, "Who does he represent?" He
named the Secretary of the Treasury,
and asked, "Who does he represent?"
And he went right through the Cabinet.
Then the head of the A.F. of L. said:
Can't we have one person in the Cabinet
who represents the tens of millions of Ameri-
cans in labor organizations? And if there is
one in the Cabinet, should he not normally
be the Secretary of Labor?
Well, Mr. President, are we not in ex-
actly the same situation today? Is there
to be no one in the Cabinet of the Presi-
dent of the United States who represents
the producers of the farm products
which represent the food that is needed
by everybody in this land?
I know there are those who do not
think so, and I know there are those who
are planning to eliminate any represent-
ation.
I have in my hand the Kiplinger Agri-
cultural Letter, the last one out, dated
November 26, 1971,. and it reads:
Her'e's something farmers should get firmly
set in their minds,
Dept of Agriculture is on the way out ...
probably this decade.
One way or another USDA is going to eased
out of existence.
Then NO govt agency will speak exclu-
sively to or for farmers.
Oh, Nixon says USDA will be kept ... as
a major gov't department with full cabinet
status. Made the announcement at White
House briefing for newsmen when he nomi-
nated Earl Butz to be next Sec. of Agricul-
ture.
This makes great election year talk . . .
designed to placate farmers. And un-
doubtedly true for the time being. USDA
will be kept for a while.
Then the letter says:
So . . . a change in strategy regarding
USDA. Keep it now . but set stage for
future abolition by city congressmen.
Mr. President, so that I will not be
accused in any sense of taking anything
out of context, I ask unanimous consent
that this part of the Kiplinger Agricul-
tural Letter of November 26, 1971, be
printed at this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the material
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
THE KIPLINGER AGRICULTURAL LETTER,
Washington, D.C., Nov. 26, 1971.
DEAR SIR: Here's something farmers should
get firmly set in their minds. Dep't of Agri-
culture is on the way out . probably this
decade. One way or another USDA is going to
be eased out of existence. Then NO gov't
agency will speak exclusively to or for
DEAR SIR: Here's something farmers should
get firmly set in their jnlnds.
Dep't of Agriculture is on the way out ...
probably this decade.
One way or another USDA is going to be
eased out of existence. '
Then NO govt agency will speak ex-
clusively to or for farmers.
Olt, Nixon says USDA will be kept ... as
a major govt department with full cabinet
status. Made the announcement at White
House briefing for newsmen when he nom-
inated Earl Butz to be next Sec. of Agricul-
ture.
This makes great election year talk .
designed to placate farmers. And undoubtedly
true for the time being USDA will be kept
for awhile.
But study Nixon's remarks ... analyze ...
dig for the true meaning:
He will rejigger USDA to represent ONLY
farmers. Sounds great on the surface. It's
just what many farmers have wanted for a
long time.
Agriculture will be stripped of NONfarm
programs and functions. A proposed Dep't
of Community Development will acquire
rural housing, water & sewer programs . . .
probably Rural Electrification Administra-
tion. Forest Service and SCS will go to pro-
posed Dept of Natural Resources. These
moves will be made via the legislative
route ... perhaps next year. Later on, meat &
poultry inspection will be combined with
Food & Drug. Food stamps and school lunch
will move to HEW or whatever succeeds It.
Only bare bones will be left: ASCS to ad-
minister farm programs, a farm statistics
group, plus some research . economic,
crop, livestock.
Can a stripped-down USDA survive as a
major govt department over the long pull
if its only function is to serve commercial
farmers?
Odds are definitely against it. Will be very
hard to justify cabinet status for a dep't
that serves only 500,000 to 600,000 farmers.
Congress will take a dim view as it becomes
even more urban-oriented.
Question: Isn't farming part of commerce?
The "manufacturing" and marketing of
food and fiber. Agriculture is now "another
industry," not a "way of life," it's argued, or
something needing special treatment.
So why not represent it that way in gov't?
Have a farm agency within the Commerce
Dep't or whatever dep't is to represent busi-
ness. Some observers predict this is the route
Agriculture will be following. Say Nixon is
still for it, but realizes farm votes will be
hard to get If he continues to say it. So ... a
change in strategy regarding USDA. Keep it
now ... but set stage for future abolition by
city congressmen.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 15
minutes allotted the Senator have ex-
pired.
Mr. SYMINGTON. I ask for 5 addi-
tional minutes.
Mr. HARRIS. I yield the Senator 5 ad-
ditional minutes.
Mr. SYMINGTON. In May 1957, as As-
sistant Secretary of Agriculture, in con-
nection with hearings on a bill designed
to prevent monopolistic practices in the
meat processing industry, Dr. Butz ap-
peared before the Senate Subcommittee
on Antitrust and Monopoly.
An article based on those hearings ap-
peared last week in the St. Louis Post-
Dispatch. This article asserted that Dr.
Butz "squelched" an investigation of al-
leged price fixing of a major grocery
chain in 1956.
The article then goes on to state, in
part :
Butz acknowledged halting an inquiry into
Safeway Stores, Inc. in testimony before a
Senate Subcommittee in 1957. A subordinate
testifying before the same subcommittee said
that there was evidence of federal law viola-
tions by Safeway in its meat-buying opera-
tions in California.
Sources interviewed today recalled the
Safeway inquiry and said that Butz stopped
the investigation after it had uncovered spe-
cific information about methods allegedly
used by Safeway to control beef prices.
Such tactics would have been in violation
of the federal Packers and Stockyards Act of
1921.
The source asked not to be identified but
said that he would testify about the matter
before a Senate committee if asked. He said
that documents locked up in the Depart-
ment of Agriculture would confirm his
contention. '
I do not know whether these asser-
tions are true or are not true. They have
been placed on the public record, how-
ever, and, therefore, should be looked.
into carefully prior to final considera-
tion of this nomination.
The farmers of America already have
enough problems in their struggle to
make ends meet; and it would seem that
this is hardly the time to have as their
representative in the Cabinet of the
President of the United States one whose
statements, whose record, and some
sources of income demonstrate with
clarity that his primarS interest has
been with those who profit most when
farm prices are at their lowest.
It is for the foregoing reasons that I
will vote against confirmation of the
nomination of Dr. Butz, and I ask my
colleagues to do the same.
I ask unanimous consent that the
articles from the November 26. 1971, St.
Louis Post-Dispatch and the December
Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280001-3
S 20002 CUNGRESSIONAL Ki CORil -;l; tire. December 1, 19 1
1, 1971, Washington Post be inserted in Butz had testified earlier that the investi- count is that he is simply insensitive-he
the REcoRD at this point. gation was stopped "because we had no con- seems to regard the current concern about
There being no objection, the articles elusive evidence, as far as I know, and as of pollution and the environment as a passing
this date we have no conclusive evidence fad.
were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, that this practice does in fact depress With that kind of record behind him, Mr.
as follows: prices." Butz was certain to run into trouble on
[From the St. Louis (Mo.) Post-Dispatch, He said that the matter was "much broad- Capitol Hill. The farm problem is one to
Nov. 26, 1971] - er than Safeway" and dealt with questions which many senators are peculiarly sensitive,
BuTz HALTED PRICE STUDY of whether retail chains could own feedlots partly because some of their_ constituents
and meat packing plants. are farmers and partly because they know
(By Lawrence E. Taylor) For that reason, the investigation was the nation doesn't really have a program or
l
WASHINGTON, Nov. 26.-Earl L. Butz, nomi-
nated as Secretary of Agriculture, squelched
an Investigation into alleged price-fixing by
a major grocery chain in'1956 when he was an
assistant Secretary of Agriculture, records
showed today.
Butz acknowledged halting an inquiry into
Safeway Stores, Inc., in testimony before a
Senate subcommittee in 1957. A subordinate
testifying before the same subcommittee said
that there was evidence of federal law viola-
tion's by Safeway in its meat-buying opera-
tions in California.
Butz, who left the department in 1958 to
join the faculty at Purdue University, has
been criticized for his close ties to big busi-
nesses with agricultural interest.
At the time of his nomination to the top
agriculture job by President Richard M.
Nixon, Butz was on the boards of several
agriculture business firms, including Ralston
Purina Co. of St. Louis. He said he had re-
signed from those ,positions.
Sources interviewed today recalled the
Safeway inquiry and said that Butz stopped
the investigation after it had uncovered spe-
cific information about methods allegedly
used by Safeway to control beef prices.
The source's told the Post-Dispatch evi-
dence'indicated that each week Safeway buy-
ers allegedly set a top price that the company
would pay for beef.
This price allegedly was passed along to
buyers for other California 'retailers and
commercial outlets and allegedly resulted in
a ceiling on beef throughout the state, the
sources said.
Such tactics would have been in violation
of the federal Packers and Stockyards Act of
1921.
One source, close to the investigation, re-
called that the inquiry was begun after Cali-
fornia cattlemen and beef producers had
complained to the Department of Agricul-
ture.
The source said that the inquiry, con-
ducted by the department's packers and
stockyards division, had been under way for
two or three months when Butz, in a hand-
written directive, ordered it halted.
"The next step (in the investigation)
would have been to question them (Safeway
executives) and get documents, and to ques-
tion some of those alleged to be In the con-
spiracy," the source said.
The source asked not to be identified but
said that he would testify about the matter
before 'a Senate committee if asked. He said
that documents locked up in the Department
of Agriculture would confirm his contention.
In addition to price-fixing, the investiga-
tion had sought to determine whether Safe-
way's ownership of livestock feed lots had
enabled it to unfairly influence meat prices,
the source said.
Butz, testifying before the Senate judiciary
subcommittee on antitrust and monopoly in The complaint against Mr. Butz, as we un- must be motivated importantly by the
May 1957, discussed only the feedlot aspects derstand it, is threefold. He is a symbol, as fact that the President wants him as the
of the investigation. well as an advocate, of what has become
His initial answers to questions by sub- known as agribusiness-the takeover of the Secretary of Agriculture.
committee members about the Safeway mat- food production system from beginning to Second, I do not have to agree with all
ter were vague. His memory improved, how- end by large corporations. The second count of Dr. Butz' philosophy and attitude
ever, when Lee D. Sinclair, director of the in the complaint Is that he is out of step toward the programs administered by the
section making the investigation, appeared with even this administration's efforts to aid Department of Agriculture.
before the subcommittee. the poor; last spring he called the food stamp I do not suppose one could agree fully
Sinclair testified that at the time Butz program "so generous, so extensive-that it's
halted the inquiry, "we felt ... there was just short of ridiculous In some parts of this with h any nyisfied honest that man. . But ut I reasonably would have
have
sufficient evidence to warrant a full-scale In- , country" and said the President 'a welfare to be vestigation; that the facts indicated a viola- program is "so far out that even the Demo- the policy requirements which I feel are
tion (of the law)." orate in Congress won't buy it." The third demanded for American agriculture-
Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280001-3
y
ended and the matter was turned over to an a policy to deal with it. Congress simp
agricultural economist for study, Butz said. hasn't decided yet what to do about farm-
Sources interviewed today, said, however, ing-+whether to try to save some of the old
that the normal pattern in such cases would small farms, or to let the whole food produc-
have been for the department to order an tion cycle slide into a big business operation,
economic study while the price-fixing in- or to find a middle road. On that point, the
quiry was continued. Senate might be better advised to debate
If sufficient evidence of law violations had what the policy ought to be instead of who
been uncovered, the matter would have been the Secretary of Agriculture should be. Mr.
referred to an Agriculture Department hear- Butz, whether the new secretary or dean
ing examiner, the source said. If the exam- of an agriculture school, isn't going to estab-
iner lead found Safeway guilty, a cease-and- lish the nation's policy himself.
desist order could have been issued. As a general rule, Presidents ought to be
Publicity resulting from the hearing would able to get Senate confirmation of those men
have been embarrassing to the company, and women they want in their cabinets as
which at the time was one of the largest re- long as the nominees have honorable records
tail grocery chains in California. and possess some qualifications for the job.
Safeway, in a letter filed with the anti- Cabinet members, after all, are the Presi-
trust and monopoly subcommittee in 1957, dent's hand-picked advisers and adminis-
denied any wrongdoing. The company did trators. Even so, we can understand why
not discuss its meat-buying practices, how- some senators, Republicans as well as Demo-
ever, and the matter was not raised at the crats, don't want Mr. Butz to become the
hearing. President's key adviser on farm policy. What
The sources said, however, that word of we don't understand is why the President
the departmental investigation and the re- wants him-particularly when his choice so
sulting economic study apparently leaked embarrasses some of his best friends In the
back to Safeway and the alleged price-fixing Senate. And that leads us to wonder whether
was stopped. the President knew as much about Mr. Butz
The investigation was begun and halted when he made the nomination as he knows
when Ezra Taft Benson was Secretary of now. If he did, it seems to us that he un-
Agriculture. Sources said that there was no necessarily picked a fight which will hurt
indication that Benson had been involved him politically even if he wins it. If he didn't
directly in the decision to terminate the everybody-except the Democrats who want
inquiry. to run against Mr. Butz next Novemiber-
Butz has been challenged because of his might be better off if the nomination were
close identification to Benson's policies. Op- withdrawn.
ponents of his confirmation to the Agricul-
ture post have said that 38 Senators prob-
ably would vote against him when the nomi-
nation reached the Senate floor. Butz was
approved by the Senate Agriculture Commit-
tee 8 to 6.
[From the Washington Post, Dec. 1, 1971]
FARMERS AND POLITICS
The most fascinating aspect of the fight
in the Senate over the nomination of Earl
Butz to be Secretary of Agriculture is why
the Nixon administration got into it in the
first place. Mr. Butz is hardly what you would
call popular in the farm states, except among
the really big farmers and farm corporations,
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, I yield 5
minutes to the senior Senator from New
York.
New York is one of the greatest agri
cultural producing States in the Union,
and the greatest consuming population
of any area in the United States is in the
New York City 'area.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, it is my
intention to support the confirmation of
the nomination of Dr. Earl Butz to be
Secretary of Agriculture. I wish to make
certain points clear in that regard.
First, the nomination we are consid-
ering is a Presidential nomination for a
ere live in those states. His nomination has Cabinet position. As I stated in my floor
made almost all of the Republican senators statement of October 20, 1971, discussing
from those states squirm and some of them, the Supreme Court nominations-where
normally staunch supporters of the Presi- I set my criteria for such confirmations-
dent, have already said they will vote against Yam prepared to vote to confirm, subject
confirmation. On the other side of the aisle,
however, the Democrats are having a field to substantiality and integrity, nomina-
day. Mr. Butz is so easy for them to shoot tions of Cabinet or similar officials made
at that some of them are toying with the by the President precisely because these
idea of voting to confirm his nomination so appointees should be, insofar as possible,
they will have him around for a target next those the President chooses and who will
 Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280001-3
December 1, 1971 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE
again bearing in mind that the President
wants him and that, therefore, if I can, I
should give the President the man he
wants. This is a job in which the Presi-
dent has more of a right to have his
chosen assistant.
My deep interest is in the hunger and
nutrition programs-in the school lunch
program, in the food stamp program, in
the school breakfast program and other
nutrition programs. I was the ranking
member of the Senate Committee on
Hunger and Nutrition.
I have had a discussion with Dr. Butz
and had it expressly in the light of a
speech he gave last April in which he
seemed to criticize the programs to which
I have just referred, and in which he spe-
cifically referred to a trip taken by Sen-
ator MCGOVERN to Florida to investigate
hunger problems-a trip, incidentally, of
which I was a part, as a member of the
Senate Hunger and Nutrition Committee.
After discussing this matter with Dr.
Butz, I felt that the talk he gave was
mainly directed toward the point that we
Americans have a tendency, when we are
for something to drive it and drive it and
drive it until it might become an excessive
preoccupation with us, and that we mani-
fest that in our action. I might not agree,
but I can understand that it did not nec-
essarily represent a basic policy defi-
ciency so far as his administration of the
Department would be concerned.
I now have a letter from Dr. Butz
bearing out my conclusion that, under all
the circumstances presented, I should
support him, and I should like to read
the letter into the RECORD. It is addressed
to me, and it reads:
WASHINGTON, D.C.,
December 1, 1971.
Hon. JACOB K. JAVITS,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
MY DEAR SENATOR JAVITS: May I assure you
in this letter as I did in our conversation
yesterday of my deep and abiding interest in
a program that assures that no American will
go to bed hungry or the victim of
malnutrition.
During the three years of this Administra-
tion, the food stamp program and the school
lunch program have increased substantially.
These programs have my full and enthusias-
tic support.
I have often stated that U.S. agriculture is
so productive and that this country is so
affluent that we simply cannot and must not
tolerate pockets of malnutrition and hunger.
Moreover, I am convinced that the various
food distribution programs administered by
the U.S. Department of Agriculture can be a
positive factor in alleviating the difficult
problems of the inner city that plague the
population of our larger metropolitan areas.
You may be assured that I will exert every
possible effort to see that the abundant pro-
duction of our American farms finds its way
onto the tables and into the school lunches of
our more than 200 million citizens.
I look forward to working with you in the
implementation of this program.
Sincerely,
EARL L. BUTZ,
Secretary-Designate.
the special conditions which obtain in
my State. Not that these conditions are
unique, but they are conditions which
particularly obtain in my State, which
is, in fact, one of the leading agricultural
and dairy States in the country.
The distinguished Senator from Ver-
mont (Mr. Ars EN), who has been a great
leader of agricultural interests and such
a close neighbor to New York State, has
expressed the fact that my State, though
a very great industrial State, is also a
very great farming State, especially
dairying.
Mr. President, I will read into the
RECORD part of a resolution adopted by
the American Freedom from Hunger
Foundation in November relating to its
views on the work of Dr. Butz and his
selection by President Nixon to be Secre-
tary of Agriculture.
The Foundation resolution said:
Resolved, by the Board of Trustees of the
American Freedom From Hunger Foundation,
assembled in Its annual meeting November
15, 1971, that we extend congratulations and
good wishes to the Honorable Earl Butz upon
his selection by President Nixon to be Secre-
tary of Agriculture; and
Express our sincere appreciation for his
effective support of the work and objectives
of our Foundation during his years of serv-
ice as a member of our board; and
Look forward to continuing cooperation
with Secretary-Designate Butz in his new
role, knowing his dedication to combatting
hunger, poverty and malnutrition at home
and abroad.
For the reasons I have stated I shall
support the confirmation of Dr. Butz. I
feel on balance the President should have
the Secretary of Agriculture he wants for
his Cabinet.
I thank my colleague very much for
yielding me this time.
Mr. AIKEN. This would be a good place
to put in the RECORD the fact that in fiscal
1969 the appropriation for the food
stamp program was $280 million. For
fiscal year 1972, 3 years later, it was $2.2
billion, an increase of 750 percent ap-
proximately-I have not figured it out
exactly.
One thing that ails the food stamp pro-
gram in certain places is that it has been
expanded faster than we could get ad-
ministrative help to administer it prop-
erly. A 750-percent increase in 3 years
does not seem to be too bad for the pres-
ent Department of Agriculture.
Mr.. HARRIS. Mr. President, I yield 5
minutes to the Senator from Minnesota
(Mr. MONDALE).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
HUGHES). The Senator from Minnesota
is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, I rise
to join with many of my colleagues in
opposition to the pending nomination.
The Senator from New York recounted
just now how a man in private life op-
posed and ridiculed the food stamp pro-
gram, opposed and ridiculed the commit-
tee's nutrition experts going to Florida to
Mr. President, the efforts of the agri- find out the absolutely tragic life of the
cultural organizations in the State of migrant farmworkers in terms of hun-
New York-and I have communicated ger and malnutrition, ridiculed the ef-
with many of them as to the general fort of Senator KENNEDY and others in
policies expressed by Dr. Butz-seem to going to Alaska to look at the absolutely
S 20003
how now, "at 3 minutes to midnight," as
his attempted confirmation nears, we re-
ceive a letter from him indicating that he
is really for all of these humanitarian
programs after all.
My father was a Methodist minister,
and he used to tell me to be wary of
deathbed conversions, because they not
always meant the way they seemed to
appear and occasionally, when a man
survives, he forgets the commitments he
made at the time of the deathbed
conversion.
To suggest that the man whose entire
life has been a shining example of being
a special pleader for the corporate proc-
essing and trade interests in American
agriculture, who has spent most of his
adult life in a series of activities and pro-
nouncements which have been antagonis-
tic to the family farmer in this country,
who says that he now has changed all
of those attitudes, has changed all of
those associations and all of those be-
liefs and is suddenly a, friend of the
American family farmer, I think is ask-
ing more of the U.S. Senate than can be
expected.
We in the Midwest, in agricultural
America, do not think that the family
farmer needs any defense. If we talk
about efficiency, about productivity,
about delivering quality food and nutri-
tion to the American consumer at a rea-
sonable price, the American farmer
stands almost alone in the American
economy in terms of magnificence of
production and efficiency, and for his
dedication to hard work.
What is needed is a series of programs
to reward him for those efforts. There
is very little hope that he will have such
programs and such philosophies in the
hands of the present nominee should he
become Secretary of Agriculture.
Time and time again he has shown
that he opposes the very program, the
very efforts that are important for a
sound family farm agricultural system.
That is why he meets with severe opposi-
tion from the farm organizations which
represent family farmers when he is op-
posed by farm workers, by rural business-
men, by environmentalists, by nutrition-
ists, by people who want a humane and
a just America. He simply does not rep-
resent a broad-enough segment of agri-
culture adequately to serve as Secretary
of Agriculture.
An editorial appeared yesterday in the
Worthington Globe, one of the finest
newspapers in Minnesota. It suggested
that Mr. Butz should be made Secretary
of Commerce, because that has been his
life; that his associations have been
found almost exclusively with the large
processing and marketing corporations
of this country, and that therefore his
views and his antagonism to rural family
farming life make him a very unwise
choice indeed to be Secretary of Agri-
culture.
I think that this editorial speaks re-
sponsively for the people in rural America
who are trying desperately to preserve
an enviable way of life and a precious
heritage.
Farmers and rural Americans need a
be in accordance with the future of agri- appalling human conditions of the Es- Secretary of Agriculture who has a broad
culture and the futureAf_daiii i WRaIN e5ii i2s(cf U_ 1 150 dT ,7ar-iA0~ 10 66* At~bMred3g of agriculture
 Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280001-3
S 20004 CONGRESSIONAL REC0AD-S. i.A'i December 1, 19'il
not someone who admits defeat by say- of America's farmers. He suggested to the directly influenced by the well-being of
ing, "Nothing can reverse the trend." Senate Agriculture Committee that the pres- our independent family farmers. Pover-
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- ent 90-cent corn might be made $1-a-bushel ty in rural America adds to poverty in
corn. That would. still not be a fair return, urban America. Off-farm migration in-
sent that this editorial be printed in the And for the longterm outlook, Butz has al- creases overcrowding of cities. Large cor-
RECORD. ready written off farming operations of the
There being no objection, the editorial kind we know today..* "Nothing can reverse porate landowners, which displace fam-
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, the trend." ily farmers who have been stewards of
as follows: it will be a sorry development indeed if the soil for generations, will likely have
EARL BLITZ SHOULD NOT BE CONFIRMED Earl Butz should become the secretary of less regard for the environment and for
Agriculture. good soil and water conservation meth-
On Monday Iowa's Sen. Jack Miller cast
his vote in the Senate Agriculture commit- Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, the ods. Seldom has a conglomerate shown
tee against the nomination of Earl Butz for controversy over President Nixon's nom- much concern over the well-being of its
Secretary of Agriculture. Miller said he would ination of Dr. Earl Butz has focused farm laborers or the rural community.
not vote for a nominee who less than two emphasis on our Nation's increasing need' A century ago, it became our primary
weeks ao 600 ,000 commercial farmers left in America- for bold new programs to revitalize rural national policy to move people westward
and that there was nothing any administra- America. I have declared my opposition into the open lands of the frontier. As a
tion could do to reverse that trend. "When to the nomination because I do not be- result, our democracy and free enter-
it comes to agriculture I feel that my first lieve that Dr. Butz is the man for the prise system were enhanced by the de-
duty as a senator from Iowa is to stand up job. As you know, the nomination has velopment of many small towns, inde-
for the farmers of Iowa," Miller declared. met severe opposition from farmers, pendent businesses and family farms.
With that, it could be said the battle is farmworkers, rural businessmen, and en- But, unfortunately, we began neglecting
fought although the issue is not yet de- vironmentalists. Dr. Butz clearly does those important entities a few decades
cided for farmers through the local region. not represent a broad enough segment ago. It is time to redirect our priorities
Every senator from the upper Middle West- the thousands of
Miller and Hughes of Iowa, Mondale and of agriculture to adequately serve as Sec- toward small communities evitalizing the Am erica
Humphrey of Minnesota, McGovern of South retary of Agriculture. which have aline been the rural o Ica roots our
Dakota, Young and Burdick of North Dakota, I do not question the professional com- veatness.
Nelson and Proxmire of Wisconsin-is in op- petence or the integrity of Dr. Butz. But Nation's position to the Butz nomination. Partisan I believe his ideas and philosophies re- The new vitality of rural America must
politics have been somewhat laid aside. garding the fate of rural America are start with good farm income. So far, this
the The only Republican majofor political Democratic parties figure in either archaic and disastrous. He has said that administration has shown little interest
is Rudy we lost a million farmers under Secretary in that respect. The set-aside program of
region to support the nomination n of the
Boschwitz, Minnesota Republican national Benson and another million under Sec- land retirement is totally inadequate as a
committeeman, who Sunday said Butz is "an retary Freeman. His own philosophies system of supply management. Experi-
excellent and courageous choice" and who indicate that he would have this trend enced farmers predicted that during
said he is encouraged to advocate Butz after continue. But trends toward fewer and signup last winter. This year's vast over-
discussions with "a large number of farmers larger farms and the movement of mil- production and severely depressed wheat
and farm leaders throughout the state."
There a snobbery in American lions of people into the crowded cities are and feed grains prices have proven the
c politics
capable of not inevitable. These trends have been program's inadequacy.
dictates that no farmer is capable os
directing the Department of Agriculture. nurtured and prodded by programs and Several bills have been introduced in
Farmer-congressman (Minnesota's Ancher policies that encourage invasion of agri- efforts to improve the depressed farm
Nelsen or Albert Quie as two examples) are culture by corporate conglomerates. price situation. These include S. 2729,
ever overlooked and the department has been In agriculture, as in other sectors, our which authorizes establishment of a
headed by a succession of lawyers, econo- Nation has tremendous potential for im- strategic reserve of storable commodi-
mitts, educators and professional politicians. movement. We can stop the off-farm ties. The reserve would be insulated from the late
Not,
19th entury however, howeverer, has it cabinets" beou of sub- the migration and even move people back the market so it could not hang over
.
Bested d that a corporation director could be into the rural areas if we vigorously work market to depress farm prices. Commod-
the most effective spokesman for America's toward those ends. This must be done ities would, however, be available for
farmers. soon if we are to have anything left out emergency use in case of drought, pesti-
It is this, precisely, which rankles. there in rural America to save. lence, or other crisis situations.
Earl Butz is a man of distinction, ability The vast facilities of the Department Another bill, Senate Joint Resolution
the board the b.d of Agriculture and the land-grant col- 172, the Farmers Income Improvement
obot owns sns stock stock . and This has served indisputable.
of f directors of some of the best-known tor- levee and universities could be extremely Act of 1971, would provide emergency
porations of America, among them the Rat- instrumental in improving the situation measures to improve farm income. It
ston-Purina corporation, the J. I. Case cor- in rural America, thus improving the en- would: first, establish a base acreage
poration, Stokley Van-Camps and Interna- tire Nation. Government could help even program for the 1972 feed grain crop;
tional Minerals and Chemicals. Ultimately, more with policies that would reward second, establish an additional voluntary
however, the credentials suggest he could our farmers for their enterprise and pro- acreage diversion program for the 1972
more of Commerce appropriately be than Secretary nominated for Agricul- ductivity. By instituting bold new pro- wheat crop, and third, raise loan levels
tary
ture. His interests and experience do o not t grams we could encourage new vigor in for both the 1971 crops of wheat and feed
suggest him as the nation's first and best rural America. grains by 25 percent. Together, these
spokesman for the men who plow the fields A vital and stable rural America is proposals would not involve added costs
and plant the corn in southwest Minnesota important to the entire society and stet- for the Government. Prompt enactment
and northwest Iowa. does his only, Every year our farmers use the could increase the farm value of the 1971
Nor Mr. Butz is philosophy.
(aas was his onetime natural resources and their own labor and 1972 grain crops substantially.
Mr. persuaded d (
chief, Ezra Taft Benson) that "there is noth- and management skills to create new Besides these and other programs
ing any administration can do to reverse the wealth. Their produce abundantly satis- needed to solve the immediate problems
trend" from America's tradition of family fies the food and fiber needs of our so- of our independent family farmers, there
farms to the phenomenon of but a relative ciety. Portions exported provide a sub- are needs for longrun programs. Farm-
handful of sprawling, corporate farm opera- stantial boost to our balance of pay- ere need informed assistance and
bons. This judgment may even be correct;
many insist that It is. ments. Every dollar of income returned strength in marketing, their products.
There is still substantial reason to hope to farmers for their production turns They need legal and technical backing
that much that has been good in American over in the economy several times to to develop bargaining power and work-
agriculture can be preserved, however. The generate more income in other sectors. able supply control methods. The De-
men and women who are on the farms are For these reasons, better farm income is partment of Agriculture and the colleges
not ready to capitulate. They are doing battle a basic need for improvement of rural could also be helpful in this area by re-
to preserve an enviable way of life and a America and the entire economy. searching these topics and helping to de-
precious heritage. They deserve a spokesman
and leader with this same will to fight who In addition to the economic impor- velop workable programs.
will give representation to their cause. tance of a vital rural America, there are In this session of Congress I introduced
Mr. Butz does not even propose to make several social and environmental issues two bills that have to do with farm bar-
rti significant effoAtpproveQ Or ~~ease` Z1 '.I ffi~~'':t l i? b$ `1~ 0 13 lR000500280001~3onal Agricultural Bar-
 Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-}RDP72-00337R000500280001-3
iJecei~~ oe-r 1, 1 I 1 \il?vUisliC551~i1~L1L A~L~Vl\ J -_.__ ~Llt \ 11
gaining Act of 1971 (S. 726) and the Na-
tional Agricultural Marketing Act (S.
727). When I first introduced this type
of legislation in the 90th Congress, it was
a pioneering effort. There had been a
little research done but this was a first
attempt to see if, through the hearing
process, something workable could be de-
veloped to give farmers legal authoriza-
tion for collectively bargaining with
processors. I am happy that more prog-
ress has been made in this session.
Farmers have often been told that
they are free in the marketplace and
should stay that way. But too often that
freedom turns out to be only a freedom
to go broke. The bargaining bills were
intended to correct that situation by
giving farmers marketing muscle while
allowing them to maintain their man-
agerial freedom which has proven itself
so efficient.
If rural development is ever to be more
than rhetoric, we need to institute sev-
eral bold new programs which serve a
broad segment of agriculture and a
broad range of rural needs. Too often
in recent years, government and the
land grant colleges have served only
agribusiness and agribigness, while the
broader needs of rural America have
been forgotten.
We need a Secretary of Agriculture
who will address himself to the needs of
our farmers, farm workers and con-
sumers. The record of Dr. Butz epito-
mizes the agribusiness viewpoint and
that viewpoint only. Nothing he has said
or done indicates any change in his
philosophy.
In each election there are fewer offi-
cials elected who have a broad knowl-
edge of agriculture and a feel for the
needs of our farmers. Seldom does a
presidential aide have a working knowl-
edge of agriculture. During the recent
period of national economic problems,
the administration made little mention
of farming, a sector which is basic to
our economy. Facing this situation, I
think that we should at least have a
Secretary of Agriculture who is respon-
sive to the needs of our farmers. Dr.
Butz is clearly not that man and I can-
not vote to confirm his nomination to
that office.
Mr. President, I continue to receive a
phenomenal amount of communications
from farmers, rural businessmen and
farm organizations in Minnesota oppos-
ing the" nomination of Dr. Butz. I have
selected some of these and I ask unani-
mous consent to have these messages
printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the commu-
nications were ordered to be printed in
the RECORD, as follows:
NOVEMBER 25, 1971.
Senator WALTER F. MONDALE,
Old Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
In a unanimous vote, delegates to the 30th
Annual Minnesota Farmers Union Conven-
tion approved on Tuesday, November 23, a
resolution to strongly and actively oppose
the nomination of Dr. Earl Butz as Secretary
of Agriculture.
The Resolution read:
"The Minnesota State Farmers Union pro-
tests in the strongest possible terms the nom-
ination of Earl Butz as Secretary of Agricul-
Approved
"Dr. Butz, who is now dean of education
and chief fund raiser for Purdue University,
is also a board member of three huge agri-
business corporations, as well as an Indiana
insurance director, plus owning stock in sev-
eral manufacturing and chemical companies,
could not represent the farmers' interests
in better agriculture.
"Earl Butz, the man President Richard
Nixon wants as Secretary of Agriculture, is
against the family farmer. This was proven
when he was Assistant Secretary of Agri-
culture under the Eisenhower-Ezra Taft
Benson administration.
"Agriculture is now in a depression equal
to the 1930's and needs a strong, open minded
Secretary of Agriculture who will fight for
and represent the farmer."
NATIONAL FARMERS ORGANIZATION,
Corning, Iowa, November 19, 1971.
Hon. WALTER F. MONDALE,
Old Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C..
DEAR SENATOR MONDALE: After observing
two days of questioning of Dr. Earl Butz at
the Agricultural Committee Hearings, we
remain firmly convinced that his confir-
mation as Secretary of Agriculture would be
-a disaster for farmers. His answers have not
satisfied our concerns over his long and close
ties to agri-business, his attitudes toward
elimination of farmers and the drive by in-
tegrators and others to gain control of the
food industry, and the conflict of interest
arising from his substantial payments as a
director of three of the nation's largest agri-
business companies.
He did not satisfactorily answer mcst of
the questions put to him by Senators and
other members of Congress of both political
parties. These included attempts to deter-
mine what he might recommend to raise farm
primes, how he would get REA and other
department funds released by the White
House, how he would tighten poultry in-
spections, and what he would do to halt the
drive by integrators and others to take over
farm production.
We feel Senate approval of Dr. Butz would
be a vote to abandon an historic commitment
to opportunity for people on the land. It
would, in effect, ratify a policy to drive peo-
ple out of agriculture, undermine farm and
small business enterprises, and destroy rural
towns and cities.
The Senate, invoting on confirmation, will
be making a choice on the kind of agricul-
ture and rural America our country wants
to encourage. This crucial decision, in our
judgment, is the most important single farm
vote in this Congress. Farmers everywhere
are deeply upset over the selection of Earl
Butz and hope the Senate will not cast a
vote against them. We, therefore, urge you to
vote against the confirmation of Dr. Butz.
Respectfully yours,
OREN LEE STALEY, President.
AMERICANS FOR
- DEMOCRATIC ACTION,
Washington, D.C., November 22, 1971.
DEAR SENATOR: ADA strongly urges the
Senate to refuse to confirm Earl L. Butz as
Secretary of Agriculture. We believe that the
continuing trend toward large-scale corpor-
ate agriculture at the expense of the small'
family farmer is not in the nation's long-
term economic interest, and we deplore the
nomination of a man for Secretary of Agri-
culture who has been a devoted spokesman
for the agribusiness lobby.
marginal farmers often being left out alto-
gether.
It is time to reverse these policies with new
approaches that will link federal subsidy
payments with need in rural areas. It is
time to dry up the vast sea of rural poverty
that exists in every state in the Union. It is
time we realized that rural and urban pov-
erty both have flourished out of the mis-
placed priorities which have given us, among
other things, the Vietnam War.
Certainly new priorities will not be ad-
vanced with Earl Butz as Secretary of Agri-
culture.
The needed reversal of these pernicious
trends requires a Agriculture Secretary who
displays a deep sympathy for the plight of
the migrant worker, for the remaining share-
croppers, for Indians who have been dealt
the worst farm land in America, and for
low-income family farmers everywhere, all
of whom live in conditions which are the
shame of the nation.
Mr. Butz' statements in the past do not
indicate that kind of sympathy. Far from
it, his rigidly market-centered outlook
would be woefully inadequate to formulate
social policies designed to reverse the flow
of population from rural America.
Sincerely yours,
LEON SHULL, National Director.
SLEEPY EYE, MINN.,
November 17, 1971.
DEAR SENATOR MONDALE: I urge you most
strongly to do all in your power to defeat the
nomination of Earl Butz for Secretary of
Agriculture. He certainly is not the man who
would place the welfare of the farmer as his
primary task. His background and previous
affiliations indicate that.
Very sincerely yours,
Mrs. MARTIN KLINKNER.
SACRED HEART, MINN.,
November 17, 1971.
Senator WALTER F. MONDALE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR: I am opposed to President
Nixon's appointment of Earl L. Butz as Secre-
tary of Agriculture.
I urge you to work against confirmation of
that post.
We need a sec. of agriculture who under-
stands the problems of rural America. One
who understands small family type farming
operations. This type of agriculture is the
backbone of our great nation.
I strongly feel if agriculture, given its fair
share of this nation's wealth, with its roots
set firmly in the family farm, will feed into
the many branches of our economy. As a
result a healthy and prosperous nation will
emerge.
We don't need a s5'. of ag. who is influenced
by conglomerates and large corporate struc-
tural farms.
Sincerely,
SLEEPY EYE, MINN.,
November 17, 1971.
DEAR SENATOR MONDALE: In regard to Earl
Butz, as a new Secretary of Agriculture, this
should be blocked. The statements he has
made about the number of farms that he
thinks would be plenty, would force all the
family type farm operators off.
He is a corporation man, and a slap in
the face for the family type farm.
Yours truly,
Butz' history of cynical disregard of the NOVEMBER
welfare of the small farmer-as evidenced Hon. WALTER F. MONDALE,
by his key role in the farm program of Sec- The Capitol
retary Ezra Taft Benson in the 1950s-is Washington, D.C.
enough in Itself to disqualify him. During DEAR SENATOR MONDALE: Let me give you
that period-and, for that matter, since a statement from the St. Paul Pioneer Press,
then-the systems of farm subsidies have op- Nov. 21, 1971, Focus Section, page i and page
erated to assist large farmers far out of pro- 4, "Vicious Circle: Pesticides, Pollution, Peo-
For Releasen2'd0Vd8f2'01eS
 S zoo06
Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280001-3
CGiNGRE$SiONAi. December 1, 19,
At a farm marketing seminar in Minneap-
olis where he was the keynote speaker, Dr.
(Earl L.1 Butz said that America's overreac-
tion to ecology is fadism. "Environmental-
ists," he said, "are the greatest single threat
to agriculture."
From all the reports which I have read
about Mr. Nixon's proposed candidate for the
job of Secretary of Agriculture, I have con-
cluded that he is the tool of agri-business,
and an instrument in the agriculture school-
chemical industry-farm lobby complex.
At a time when America is awakening to
the need for increased attention to our
ecology, it is unfortunate that we might have
at the critical post of Secretary of Agriculture
one who is so biased against environmental
rehabilitation.
I urge you to cast your vote against Mr.
Butz,
Sincerely yours,
FREDERICK A. FLEMING.
COMMITTEE FOR A PROGRAM
OF GUARANTEED EMPLOYMENT,
New York, N.Y., November 20, 1971,
Hon. Senator WALTER MONDALE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MONDALE: President Nixon
has nominated Earl Butz as Secretary of Ag-
riculture. We urge you to vote to deny his
appointment to that position.
Earl Butz reportedly stated that the Food
Stamp program is "so generous and expen-
sive that it is just short of ridiculous in some
parts of the country." Total spending for
food stamps is about $2 billion, or less than
half the spending by - the Department of
Agriculture on subsidies for rich farmers for
not growing food-a program that Mr. Butz
presumably does not consider outrageously
generous and expensive.
As a result of Mr. Butz's position on Food
Stamps and Welfare (He considers President,
Nixon's proposed Welfare reform "so way
out that even Democrats won't accept it"),
we consider him totally unfit for any public
office. We therefore urge you to vote to deny
confirmation of this appointment.
Sincerely,
LEONARD SUSSMAN,. Chairman.
MADISON, MINN., November 20, 1971.
Hon. Senator WALTER MONDALE,
Senate Chambers,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. MONDALE: A vote for Mr. Butz as;
Secretary of Agriculture means no vote for
you in 1972.
Sincerely,
.CARMEN M. FERNHOLZ, Educator.
P.S. Also please forget any new collective
bargaining legislation for agriculture. Agri-
culture already has all of the tools it needs
with the Capper-Volstad Act. Instead put
your tremendous intelligence and energy
into educating farmers and rural business-
men on the necessity of working together-
through collective bargaining.
MADELIA, MINN.,
November 22, 1971.
Senator WALTER MONDALE,'
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. MONDALE: Will you please do all
you can to stop the appointment of Earl Butz
as Secretary of Agriculture?
Yours truly,
MARK KELSEY.
MARY L. KELSEY.
Senator WALTER MONDALE,
U.S. Senate Office,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MONDALE: I wish you to know
that a legion of family farmers appreciate
your interest and hard work on behalf of
those of us who live on the land as family
farmers. We remember, too, that "the soil is
God's greatest material gift to man"-we
work at being good stewards of this gift.
We urge you to vote against Mr. Earl Butz
as our Secretary of Agriculture. His past ef-
forts have been against the family farmer
,and the village and town merchants as well.
With much gratitude to you Senator Mon-
dale, I am
Sincerely,
MINNESOTA, MINN.,
November 19, 1971.
DEAR SENATOR MONDALE: We are farmers in
Lyon County, Minnesota and do not want
Earl Butz as Sec. of Agriculture or any other
office in Washington, D.C.
Sincerely,
Mr. & Mrs. GARFIELD BROUGHTON.
NOVEMBER 17, 1971.
Senator WALTER MONDALE,
Old Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR FRITZ: Re approval of Earl Butz as
Secretary of Agriculture-if ever we had an
opportunity to strike a blow against "Corpo-
rate Socialism"-this is it.
"The long habit of not thinking a thing
wrong gives it the superficial appearance of
being right" Tom Paine.
Earl Butz as Secretary of Agriculture is as
wrong as a three dollar bill.
Let's make enough waves to hear it all the
way to Minnesota and not just in the news
letter.
Best regards always,
I M. B. "PETE" NAGEL.
SLEEPY EYE, MINN.,
November 17, 1971.
SENATOR MONDALE: I am writing concerning
the pending appointment of Earl Butz to
the position of Sec. of Agriculture. Because
of his relationship to agri-business and ver-
tical integration industries I believe he can-
not represent the family farmers' viewpoint.
I oppose his nomination. I trust you will con-
sider my letter in your vote.
Respectfully,
PATRICK A. HOFFMANN.
COMFREY, MINN.
DEAR SENATOR MONDALE: I am writing in
regard to the pending appointment of Earl
Butz to the position of Secretary of Agricul-
ture. For a man whose background and phil-
osophy is so closely tied to agri-business and
vertical integration to be appointed to such
an important position seems to us to be an
insult to the family farmer.
We urge and hope you will use your in-
fluence to block this appointment.
Sincerely,
ART MATHIOWTTZ.
MINNESOTA LAKE, MINN.,
November 17, 1971.
DEAR SENATOR MONDALE: I definitely dis-
approve of President Nixon's appointment of
Earl Butz as Secretary of Agriculture. He has
never been for the farmer. and certainly
won't be now.
He is allied with "Big Brains" especially
Ralston Purina the chicken farmers.
Please convey this message of disapproval
to the President.
Thank you,
MORGAN, MINN.,
November 17, 1971.
DEAR SENATOR MONDALE: In regard to the
appointment of Earl Butz, I oppose his ap-
pointment as Secretary of Agriculture as he is
interested in Big Business and against small
Family Type Farms.
Yours truly,
RAYMOND MARTNOWEZ.
JORDAN, MINN.,
November 17, 1971.
DEAR SENATOR: We are not in favor of Earl
Butz for Secretary. of Agriculture. We need a
man who will help the family farm not big
business and corporations.
Sincerely,
Mr. and Mrs. ERWIN RIEGRAF.
EASTON, MINN.,
November 18, 1971.
DEAR SENATOR: I think Mr. Earl Butz would
be a very poor man in the position of Secre-
tary of Agriculture. The past history of Mr.
Butz speaks for itself and he is definitely not
concerned about the family farms.
Sincerely,
GEORGE G. SCHIMEK.
NEW ULM, MINN.,
November 17, 1971.
DEAR SENATOR MONDALE: I am writing in
regard to the appointment of Earl Butz to
position of Secretary of Agriculture. I urge
you to block this appointment. He is too
closely related to big business to be of help
to the farmers.
Sincerely,
ST. JAMES, MINN.,
November 17?1971.
DEAR SENATOR MONDALE: Just a few words
regarding the appointment of E. Butz as
Secretary of Agriculture.
For a man whose background is so closely
tied to agribusiness to be appointed to such
an Important position seems to me to be an
insult to the farmer.
I urge and hope you will use your influence
to stop this appointment.
Yours truly,
SPRINGFIELD, MINN.,
November 17, 1971.
DEAR SENATOR MONDALE: Am writing this
in regard to the pending appointment of Earl
Butz to Secretary of Agriculture.
As you well know, this man has been with
the ones opposed to family farmers.
Please do what you can to prevent his
getting this important job.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
MAHNOMEN, MINN.
Senator MONDALE: We strongly urge the
rejection of Earl Butz as Sec. of Agriculture.
If you truly want to help the farmers and
rural America support agriculture products
at 100% of parity.
Mr. and Mrs. DELMAR SCHOENBORN.
DEAR MR. MONDALE: I am concerned about
the appointment of Mr. Butz for Sec. of
Agric. I do not believe he is a good man to
talk for the average farmer. He is for big
business and the large corporations. Please
use your leadership to stop him in becoming
our next Sec. of Agric. We need a man who
will increase price supports on feed grains &
wheat now.
Sincerely your,
VERN PAULSON.
P.S. Corn was 94 cents a bu. at our local
elevator today. How long can we continue
with these prices.
Sen. WALTER MONDALE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MONDALE, If you have the
Family Farmer's future at heart-don't put
Mr. Buts in as Seely of Agriculture.
Mrs. H. J. STRAAD,
Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280001-3
ilt CG'i)tllt i 1, i i l 1,l At.. i1.~ JJ1lJl',[`iL av:+~eli1 -:)~ iYtZ xx
GARDEN CITY, MINN.,
Butz as Secretary of Agriculture would not
November 17,
1971.
be in our best interest. I urge you to use
Senator WALTER MONDALE,
your influence in whatever way possible to
Washington, D.C.
prevent his appointment as Secretary.
DEAR MR. MONDALE: This is a followup of
Sincerely,
the telegram we sent you this morning.
We do not want Earl Butz for Sec. of Agri-
culture, We want a man with true farming
interests In his heart.
We want a man who is interested in family
farming, not one interested in corporate or
industrial farming.
If the economy of this country is going
to Improve it will have to start on small
farms. If farmers don't have money to put
Into business things won't improve.
Please give us a Farmer man.
Sincerely,
Mr. & Mrs. HAROLD BELGARD.
MILROY, MINN.,
Nov. 17, 1971.
Hon. Senator MONDALE,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SIR: I hope you will strongly Convey
the farmer's mistrust of the new Sec. of
Agriculture Earl Butts, elect, to President
Nixon.
It seems the producers ought to have a
little to say about who is to represent them
in this Dept. When they produce the food
for the country plus Consume 42% of the
gross ngtiorial product.
Thank you.
Mrs. NORMAN DE BLIECK.
ST. PETER, MINN.
We urge you to vote No on the confirma-
tion of Dr. Earl Butz. We just can't stomach
his being the See. of Agriculture.
Mr. & Mrs. ALTON JACOBSON.
KETTLE RIVER, MINN.,
November 12, 1971.
Hon. WALTER MONDALE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MONDALE, Minnesota 8th
District NFO wishes to thank you for visit-
ing us at our State convention this Fall. We
appreciate your concern for family farmers
and the rural area in general.
We strongly support the position you, Sen.
Humphrey and others have taken in op-
posing the confirmation of Earl Butz as Sec-
retary of Agriculture.
We have long held that the large Agri-
business sector Mr. Butz represents is driv-
ing the small farmers off the land. Each
farmer thus removed equates into 6 NEW
jobs needed (small business men and em-
ployees). Minnesota, especially the 8th dis-
trict, cannot afford additional unemploy-
ment or additional debt expenditure to
create new jobs in lieu of family farmers.
We further believe Mr. Butz has too great
a conflict of interest to represent the farm-
ers of America, and that his past record
clearly shows him to be anti farmer.
A Sept. issue of Wall Street Journal re-
ported the three largest Feed-Poultry busi-
nesses-Ralston Purina one of them-lost
$225,000,00 this year on poultry. Mr. Butz
was a director of Ralston Purina board. Is
there any reason to believe that as America's
Agricultural Director he would do better?
Can the Nation afford to chance this type of
"efficiency"?
We are writing this letter to Sen. Hum-
phrey also.
Yours truly,
GARFIELD, MINN.,
November 17,1971.
WALTER MONDALE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MONDALE: As a farmer and
member of the National Farmers Organiza-
tion, I feel that the appointment of Earl
LESLIE ANDERSON.
NOVEMBER 17, 1971.
SENATOR WALTER MONDALE: I'm writing in
regard to the seating of Earl Butz as our agri-
culture secretary.
I do not approve of this man because he is
for corporate farming and big business. We
are small farmers and pay more taxes than
big corporate farmers do. We are more effi-
cient in our farming than they are.
We need a secretary that is a defender of
the small farmer, not the corporate giants.
JOSEPH DEUTSCH.
NOVEMBER 17, 1971.
SENATOR WALTER MONDALE: I'm writing in
regard to the seating of Earl Butz as our agri-
culture secretary.
I do not approve of this man because he is
for corporate farming and big business. We
are small farmers and pay more taxes than
big corporate farmers do. We are more effi-
cient in our farming than they are.
We need a secretary that is a defender of
the small farmer, not the corporate giants.
Mrs. JOSEPH DEUTSCH.
EYOTA, MINN.,
November 17, 1971.
DEAR SENATOR MONDALE: I do hear by
recommend a no vote for Mr. Butz as U.S.
Sec. of Agriculture, because I feel he would
be no asset for us individual producers of
agriculture products.
Yours truly,
KASSON, MINN.,
November 17, 1971.
HONORABLE REPRESENTATIVE WALTER MON
DALE: I am very disappointed to have Earl
Butz serve as our Secretary of Agriculture.
. What we need is a man who will battle for
the farmers, and try new ideas, the old ones
are out of date. Let's get agriculture rolling
once again. It has been in the red far too
long.
Your truly,
Mrs. ARTHUR TRYGSTAD.
EAGLE LAKE, MINN.,
November 17, 1971.
Hon. WALTER MONDALE,
Senator from Minnesota, U.S. Senate Office
Building, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR: As our farm representa-
tive in the Senate of the United States we
are very deeply concerned by the possibility
of the appointment of such a man as Mr.
Butz as our Secretary of Agriculture.
If the appointment should become final, I
do believe that the family farm has become a
thing of the very past. This man is noted for
being for corporation farming and everything
against the family farm.
Therefore, we urgently request your in-
divided attention to seeing that this man not
be instated into this office, We very much
need a man who can aid our plight not in-
crease it._
Sincerely,
MORA, MINN.,
November 16, 1971.
DEAR SENATOR MONDALE, because I am the
wife of a small farmer and an NFO member
I am asking you to protest the appointment
of Earl Butz as Secretary of Agriculture.
Please demand a hearing so President Nixon
is made aware of Mr. Butz involvement in
agribusiness.
Thank you for doing all you can to help
the small farmers.
Sincerely,
Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, I have
spent a good deal of my Senate career
working on human problems and trying
to do something about them. I am abso-
lutely convinced that the most serious
mistake our Nation is making today is
to turn its back on a sound rural agricul-
tural economy which makes it possible
for rural farm families to get a decent
life and livelihood on the farm. I think
it is not only cruel, I think it is economic
insanity and, if I may say so, there is a
certain amount of ignorance and arro-
gance often found in nonrural America
toward the problems we have in rural
America.
Time and time again those of us rep-
resenting farm States have walked the
plank to help meet the problems of Amer-
icans in the American cities in minimum
wages or housing or transportation,
and discrimination. Time and time again
understand why it was necessary to stand
up and work for the problems besetting
other Americans. It is a tribute to those
American farmers that almost always
they understood it, and almost always
they have stood behind us. Now our
workers happen to be family farmers.
They are not big corporate farmers. Most
of them live at or below poverty levels.
They work long and hard hours. They
are a prideful people; they are a mag-
nificently productive -people. Now they
are in trouble, and these farm programs
are their minimum wages. This is how
they survive. The average farmer with a
family of four in Minnesota could go to
New York and increase his earnings by
40 percent on welfare. We are not here
pleading for some kind of unusual re-
quest. We are asking for justice for our
family farmers.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Will the Senator
from Minnesota yield?
Mr. MONDALE. I yield.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Just to be sure that
the Senate understands the implications
of the last statement made by the able
senior Senator from Minnesota, the Sen-
ator from Texas tells us that farmers in
Minnesota can go to Philadelphia, New
York, St. Louis, or to the other cities,
and get on welfare and by doing so in-
crease their income 40 percent.
Mr. MONDALE. The figure I cite,
which has been very carefully checked
out, is that the average Minnesota family
farmer with a family of four and work-
ing a full week, could improve his income
by 40 percent by leaving the farm and
going to New York City and going on
welfare.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, as
the late great Senator from Oklahoma,
Robert Kerr, used to say, "I thought I
had heard and seen everything, and I
have been to the Dallas Fair twice."
Mr. MONDALE. This country must
realize, and I plead with the Senators, to
realize, that the only way to have an
essential, sound, American agriculture or
a sound agricultural society,is to have a
Secretary of Agriculture who believes in
the family farmers.
I think it is a sound and economic prin-
ciple. I think it makes sense. If we are
to have a healthy American agricultural
society, the family farmer is entitled to
Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/08/22 CIA-RDP72-00337R0005002800011--3
Small Business Corporation of this coun- Is this a standard that many of the
try accept a small business director who Senators who oppose him can themselves
announced that there are too many small meet?
businesses in the country and we should Is "guilt by association" by being part
get rid of some of them? For that matter, of the Eisenhower Cabinet to be a politi-
would the Secretary of Commerce em- cal stigma against any man who was in
ploy as his assistants those who do not Government service in that era?
believe in business? No, the criticism is basically political.
What we need is a man who believes It is highly partisan.
that our constituency has to be served by Much of the opposition to Earl Butz,
the Department of Agriculture. We need it is clear, has been programed di-
a man who is fully committed and be- rectly from the offices of the Democratic
lieves in this effort and offers hope and National Committee. Certainly, many
opportunity to rural America. - Senators have deep and profound beliefs
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. held in sincerity. But look at some of
BYRD of West Virginia). Who yields the opposition. In the recent hearings,
time? the first two witnesses were the president
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, I yield 5 of the National Farmers Organization,
minutes to the senior Senator from Oren Lee Staley, and the president of
Kansas. the National Farmers Union, Tony De-
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- chant. Tony Dechant and Oren Staley
ator from Kansas is recognized for 5 are both listed as of Tuesday, November
minutes. 30, as members of the policy council of
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, some 18 the Democrat National Committee. Tony
months ago the distinguished junior Dechant is open-about being an active
Senator from Washington made a speech registered Democrat, and while Oren
in which he said: Lee Staley tries to maintain his political
Last year, when the Senate was debating neutrality, in Andrew County, Mo., his
a controversial Cabinet nomination, I argued home community, he is known as an
that the President was entitled to wide lati- active Democrat. If anything is clear, it
tude in the selection of his Cabinet. I took is clear that these two skillful Demo-
the position that the President, not the crat politicians, with an eye toward Elec-
qualifications sets the standard of competence and
qualifications for his Cabinet. These are the tion Day, 1972, are opposing Earl Butz
President's men and, barring some extraordi- for obvious political purposes.
nary deficiencies, he is entitled to exercise Unfortunately, they are being por-
the Executive responsibility with men of his trayed or have been portrayed by the
own choosing. If the voters are unhappy with media as "nonpartisans" simply looking
his selection, their voice will be heard at the out for the interests of farmers. These
next election. (CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, March two gentlemen are Democrat partisans,
25, 1970, pp. 4455 445s.) and they should be identified as such.
The Senator who said those words is A man's professional life and reputa-
now a candidate for President and has tion are now on the block in the U.S.
announced he will vote against the con- Senate.
firmation of Dr. Earl Butz of Indiana as Let us hope the Senate will act in f air-
the new Secretary of Agriculture. ness and in decency-not shame itself
What made him change? by embracing a base reason for rejecting
I do not know why the Senator from an able and honest man.
Washington changes his conviction on Mr. President, there has been some
this issue, but I suspect the sweet smell comment with reference to the reduction
of presidential politics may have played in the number of farms in the Benson
apart in that switch. era. The Senator from Minnesota is a
In the case at hand, the President has friend of the former Secretary of Agri-
clearly qualified qtuathe name a man who is culture, Orville Freeman. He probably
ified hold by this both
important training and knows that in 1961 we had a farm popu-
No to job. lation of 14.8 million. It dropped by April
No one has alleged, much less proved, 1, 1969, to 10.3 million, a drop of about
that s has not competent. p claimed or showed that he 30 percent greater than in the Benson
No one
is dishonest. era.
No one challenges his administrative I was here during the Freeman years.
ability or his knowledge of agricultural And I have read the book describing the
policy. farmers' worst 7 years, 1961 through
No none of these basic qualifications 1967. It says that 1967 was the worst of
a while. It tells about the political sellout
of the American farmers by a former
Secretary of Agriculture, Orville Free-
man.
It says that in all of those years the
farmers had the lowest share of the gross
national product, the lowest share of the
consumer dollar, the lowest share of the
food dollar, the lowest return on gross
farm sales, the lowest return on total
capital investment, the lowest return on
capital investment performed, and the
lowest level of parity of income.
Mr. President, I say that there is no
question of Dr. Butz' honesty, integrity,
or ability. I would suggest that this is a
choice of the President. Unless we find
Dr. Butz dishonest or lacking in integ-
rity, we have some obligation to confirm
the appointment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time
of the Senator has expired.
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. President, I yield
myself such time as necessary.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Iowa is recognized.
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. President, although
I think we find ourselves in a strange
position on the floor of the U.S. Senate
this evening, I do think that if there is
any difference in the common goals and
the common hopes for American agri-
culture and for the country for finding
a solution to a problem that has been
with us for many years, and with respect
to which both parties and the Presidents
of both parties have tried and not suc-
ceeded, to find any permanent solution
to the agriculture problem.
Mr. President, I think we recognize the
fact there is not an identifiable solution
to the farm problems in America today.
,What we are calling a problem is one of
the greatest God-given abundances man-
kind has ever known-the abundance of
productivity so great we have not been,
able to devise, even with the best scien-
tific knowledge we have available, a
means of increasing this productivity
and improving the conditions of living in
rural America, in which there has been
a tremendous improvement in the last 40
years, where we have brought America
out of the mud and where we have seen
so many programs to put more acreage
into production.
I am not sure I am factual on this,
but I believe my State has a higher
percentage of land under production
than any other State in the Union. I
refer to agricultural production. My State
has constantly been faced with the prob-
are in question-only his politics and the 7 years. The title is, "The Political lem of agricultural abundance since the
associations. - Sellout of the American Farmer." It was 1930's. It is something we have not been
It was not too.many years ago that _ written by Frank M. LeRoux, who was able to find a permanent solution to.
many of those who now howl for Earl general sales manager of the U.S. De- But we have found that there are certain
Butz's scalp were deriding the concept partment of Agriculture, Foreign Agri-' programs and ways and means that allow
of "guilt by association."
Today they seek to tie Earl Butz to
Ezra Benson and roast them both to-
gether-and this I submit at worst is
"innocence by association." -
Earl Butz was a member of President
Eisenhower's administration. He served
in the Department of Agriculture as an'
Assistant Secretary. He has been asso-
ciated with a great university, and he
has been in the service of respectable
American business firms.
What is so evil about all that?
through September 1966. I remember in
1961 when the President sent a program-
to Congress on milk production and
wheat production. Those were great
promises and great programs for the
American farmer. I would hope that
those who oppose Dr. Butz would read
this book, "The Political Sellout of the
American Farmer." It describes the
farmers' worst 7 years, and describes
1967, as being the worst of the 7. The
book sells for $2. it was a best seller for
For approximately 15 years not many
voices were raised at the farm migration,
and farm migration has been going for
40 years now. This is not a recent devel-
opment, but in recent years farm migra-
tion has gotten to the point where we are
beginning to see the beginning of the end
of the farmer in America as we have
recognized him in the past. There are
two sides to this question. Is it good or
bad, and what is happening in America?
I want to make one statement in the
Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-R,yDP72-00337R000500280001-3
i_JE'( ('71bi) ' 1 l d i 1 ALk, ,l1li -?-- k)k-NL1 iw,
beginning just to clarify some of the
things that have been mentioned to me.
Different members of the press have in-
quired of the junior Senator from Iowa
if the Democrats simply want a political
issue and if that is the reason we are
opposing the nomination of Earl Butz.
First, I should say that as Democrats
we are not opposing the nomination of
Earl Butz. I certainly am not. I served
three terms as chief executive of my
State. I have the most healthy respect
for the right of the Chief Executive to
appoint members of his Cabinet, barring
some glaring deficiency that would make
them ineligible, either because their in-
tegrity was questioning-which I am not
questioning at all in the case of Mr.
Butz-or because they identify with a
philosophy that may be so drastic in
one direction it could bring about the
beginning of the end of an American
we have known and loved. Even that is
debatable. I do not want an issue; I want
a solution for the farmers of Iowa and
America. The Secretary of Agriculture
is going to be named by the President
of the United States, who is President
Nixon, regardless of whether it is Mr.
Butz or someone else, should we defeat
this nomination.
I am saddened that I rise in opposition
to this nomination. I would much prefer
to find myself willing and able to sup-
port it.
I think the chairman of the National
Republican Committee would concede
that I am not a candidate for anything,
and that we share a common concern for
our agriculture States.
Mr. DOLE. The Vice Presidency is open
to the Senator's party.
Mr. HUGHES. To reassure the Repub-
lican National Chairman, I am not seek-
ing that either.
I do want to point out that as I am
sure the Senator from Kansas knows the
question of the National Farmers or-
ganization, which has headquarters in
my State of Iowa, was raised in the com-
mittee hearings by the Senator from
Kansas himself. On page 104 of the
hearings, a copy of which is on the desk
of each Senator here tonight, are the
questions of the Senator from Kansas to
Mr. Staley, president of the National
Farmers Organization and his responses,
which speak for themselves. The hear-
ings reflect that he has not accepted a
position on the policy committee of the
National Democratic Party; that he
would serve on that committee if he could
serve on the Republican policy com-
mittees, as well, and what I believe are
his sincere attempts to stay neutral in
the political role of national politics.
As in the case of all people who accept
their responsibility in America locally, I
suppose he is registered and that he has
a preference politically. In that, I am sure
all members who are active in any politi-
cal organization respect the activities of
members of the opposite party for their
very activities which preserve our Amer-
ican freedom.
My only statement at this time is to
point out that I, for one, am not looking
for an issue in the nomination of Mr.
ButT I am hopeful that when the vote
parity ratio has dropped even lower.
It has been as low as 68 percent. Cur-
rently farmers are receiving 69 percent
parity, 69 percent of a fair price. Not
since the depths of the great depression
has farm parity been so low.
Unfortunately, the American farmer
no longer has the political clout that he
has enjoyed in years past. When I came
to the Senate in 1957 the so-called farm
bloc was the most powerful in Congress.
Today it is one of the weakest. That fact
was dramatically illustrated during the
debate on the Agricultural Act of 1970.
Congress was forced to accept the kind
of farm bill that the administration
wanted or get no farm.bill at all. The
administration was able to exert this
kind of power because it was impossible
to get a farm bill through the House of
Representatives without-the administra-
tion's support.
The farmers' voice in the Congress has
grown steadily weaker because the
farmers' numbers have decreased dra-
matically in the past few decades. In 1960
there were over 15 million people liv-
ing on the Nation's farms. The 1970 cen-
sus shows a decrease of one-third; the
farm population has dropped to less than
10 million people. For the first time, the
1970 census showed that less than 5 per-
cent of the Nation's people were actu-
ally living on farms.
These facts point up the urgent need
for a strong Secretary of Agriculture, but
more importantly, a Secretary of Agri-
culture who will fight for the Nation's
family farmer.
American agriculture survived Ezra
Taft Benson's 8 years as the Secretary
of Agriculture because American agri-
culture had sufficient strength in Con-
gress. .Now that this strength is
diminished, I doubt that our family
farmers could survive additional years
under a Secretary of Agriculture who
reflects the Benson philosophy.
Of course, I realize that the mere fact
that Dr. Butz served as-Assistant Secre-
tary under Secretary of Agriculture Ben-
son does not mean that he was the ma-
jor architect of the bankrupt Benson
farm policies. What concerns me more
is the fact that Dr. Butz was one of the
most vocal spokesmen for the Benson
policies both during his service as As-
sistant Secretary and in the decade which
followed.
Dr. Butz has been a popular speaker
among some business groups and he has
made a number of statements on farm
policy since he left the position of As-
sistant Secretary. These statements re-
flect little sympathy for the plight of
America's family farmer. Rather, they
indicate Dr. Butz' feeling that the con-
stant stream of rural outmigration is
not a bad thing at all.
I am pleased that the Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry has maintained
its bipartisan tradition in its consider-
ation of the nomination of Dr. Butz. The
vote in the committee was tharacteristic
of this bipartisan tradition, for one-
third of the Republicans on the com-
mittee opposed Dr. Butz while two-
thirds of them supported him. One-half
of the Democrats on the committee op-
Is counted that Mr. Butz will not be con- ceived and the prices paid by farmers, posed the nomination and one-half of
firmed. I would rath he ad bee vera e Tl e r them su orted it. I believe that the 8- to
ipp 'over or he~eas 0~~ ~ - b ~lz- 337R006 00280001-3
recommended. In light of the fact he is.
before us today and we have the require-
ments of consent, and that no one ques-
tions in this body, , today, I find myself
in a reluctant role as the former chief
executive of my State, in opposition, for
reasons I intend to go into in detail later
on.
But I think the record should be made
clear that we wish and hope that a solu-
tion can be forthcoming and quickly and
that there can be relief in programs
brought to the American people by the
Secretary of Agriculture in this admin-
istration, and not in 1973, because by
1973 thousands and thousands of peo-
ple all over the country are going to be
leaving the farms. They are in great diffi-
culty today and tonight.
The banks in the small rural communi-
ties of my State are wondering about the
renewal of loans; the merchants are
wondering when cash registers are not
ringing. The situation is not confined to
farmers. They are bidding on farm ma-
chinery, automobiles, and buildings;
everything is affected.
As anyone here from an agriculture
State knows, one of the real things that
happens when we have great overpro-
duction, as in our region in corn now, is
the overbuying of feeder cattle to con-
sume the corn. Thousands will be brought
in at high prices to gather the corn that
is left, which is sold at 90 cents in the
hope that it will bring $1.19 or $1.20 in
beef prices next fall. The cycling effect
could be worse next fall in the beef and
pork industry than it is today.
So I am not interested in a political
issue. I am interested in a solution for
the farmers of America, and they need
help because they are in deep difficulty
and trouble.
For the time being I am going to yield
the floor because the distinguished chair-
man of the Committee on Agriculture
wishes to make a statement, I will com-
plete my statement at some later time
.during the course of debate on this
nomination.
Mr. President, I am happy to yield to
the distinguished Senator from Georgia
for whatever time he desires.
Mr. TALMADGE. Mr. President, I rise
to oppose, the nomination of Dr. Earl
L. Butz as Secretary of Agriculture.
I do not oppose Dr. Butz because of
any question about either his integrity
or his ability.
I oppose Dr. Butz because I do not
believe that he can possibly provide the
Nation's farmers with the kind of sup-
port that they must have in the posi-
tion of Secretary of Agriculture.
Since I have been a Member of the
Senate I have always felt.that the Presi-
dent of the United States should have
the widest possible discretion in filling
vacancies in his Cabinet. We should give
the President maximum latitude in pick-
ing men to carry out his policies.
Normally, I would go along with the
President's choice for Secretary of
Agriculture.
However, these are not normal times
for the American farmer. During 1970
the farm parity ratio, which measures
 Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-0033780005002800013
6-vote in favor of reporting the nomina-
tion reflects deep concern about Dr. Butz'
philosophy among committee members.
The Senate Committee on Agriculture
and forestry, conducted comprehensive
hearings on the Butz nomination. Dr.
Butz was grilled extensively by myself
and other members of the Committee on
Agriculture. In addition, we heard from
10 public witnesses and placed addi-
tional statements in the record. All wit-
nesses who requested to testify and were
present were heard by the committee.
I must say that Dr. Butz responded
well during cross-examination by the
committee. I was basically pleased with
the response that he gave to questions I
asked about the cotton, tobacco and pea-
nut programs. In addition, I was encour-
aged by his statement in support of rural
development.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that there be printed in the RECORD
at this point in my remarks a copy of
some of my colloquy with Dr. Butz.
There being no objection, the colloquy
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
The CHAIRMAN.' Thank you.
With the permission of the committee,
then, we will proceed to question Dr. Butz,
As previously announced, we will ask ques-
tions for 10 minutes and at that time I
will ask to yield the floor to the next Senator
and we will make the rounds; and we can
start all over again if anyone wants to begin
from that.
Dr. Butz, as you know, there has been con-
siderable speculation and some antagonism
in the farm circles about your appointment,
primarily because you were Assistant Secre-
tary of Agriculture during the administra-
tion of Secretary Benson. He is not very
popular in some farm quarters, as you may
know.
I would like to ask you a few questions to
ascertain your farm philosophy. Quite a
number of telegrams came in this morning
which are of concern here, and I will ask
that they be made a part of the record in
due course. Here are some more primarily
based on what you think about farm com-
modity laws and price supports and acreage
controls and things of that nature.
I take it from your testimony, in chief,
that you believe farm income is much too
low in most instances?
Mr. BUTZ. Indeed I do, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you support price sup-
ports for the basic farm commodities?
Senator CURTIS. Mr. Chairman, can we have
them quiet outside?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes, by all means. Instruct
the officer to maintain order, and if order is
not maintained ask him to please clear the
hallway.
You favor farm price supports for basic
farm commodities?
Mr. BUTZ. Yes, in some way. I favor the
Agricultural Act of 1970 which, I think, re-
flects the composite attitude of the Con-
gress. I think this is a good approach because
it permits farm prices to be at the export level
so that we can really export a maximum
amount of farm products and yet get the in-
come to-our farmers.
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, you want
the support price at a reasonably low level-
that is, the loan price-where the commod-
ity can flow freely into the channels of com-
merce and whatever support over and above
the loans can be made up in payments; is
that your philosophy?
The CHAIRMAN. Do you favor production
controls to try to keep supply reasonably in
line with demand?
Mr. BUTZ. I think the program for set aside
acres is a form of production control. The
Department has announced for the 1972 pro-
gram the goal of 38 million acres diverted
under the feed grain programs; I subscribe to
this. I like the idea of letting farmers have
maximum freedom of choice within the acres
they plant on what they plant.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you think 69 or 70 per-
cent of parity is much too low for support
prices for farm commodities?
Mr. BUTZ. I think that that level is much
too low for farm income. Let's distinguish,
now, between prices and income.
I want adequate income and I want good
prices, but let's don't interfere with move-
ment of commodities into export. We export
roughly 1 acre' out of 4 in this country and
I want to keep those exports high.
The CHAIRMAN: Someone informed me that
when you were Assistant Secretary or at some
prior date that you were opposed to one-price
cotton. Is that your attitude today or was it
ever your attitude?
Mr. BUTZ. To one-price cotton?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes, that you favored the
two-price cotton system in this country.
Mr. BUTZ. No; I don't think that is correct.
The CHAIRMAN. You favor one-price cotton,
the same price domestically as the export
price?
Mr. BUTZ. Oh, I misunderstood you. No,
indeed. The export price has to be below the
domestic price plus Division payment.
The CHAIRMAN. But you wouldn't favor the
American textile industry having to pay 15,
20 cents a pound more for American produced
cotton than some mill in Shanghai, would
you?
Mr. BUTZ. Mr. Chairman, that is a problem.
that has to be worked out and I just feel I
am not close enough to comment. I don't
want to drive the textile industry out of the
United States; I realize competition from
Japan and Formosa is tough, where they buy
American cotton at cheap prices and then
put the textiles back here at subsidized
prices; and that is the kind of competition
that I am convinced we must not allow our
textile industry to face.
The CHAIRMAN. Let's pursue that further.
Let's assume you had two-priced cotton.
A bale of cotton in Georgia would cost the
mill about $40 more a bale than the mill in
Shanghai or Japan. You wouldn't favor a
return to that policy? We got away from that
when our farm legislation provided for one-
price cotton several years ago, you know, and
I think it'is very popular with the producers
and it is popular with the industry. Insofar
as I know, it is popular with everyone in our
country. No one has made any effort to
change it. You wouldn't want to change that
policy?
Mr. BUTZ. I have to state in all candor I
live in a state where we don't grow cotton
and I am not too familiar with the cotton
problem; but let me say the answer to your
question is "No."
The CHAIRMAN. Now, I was informed at
one time you said the tobacco program was
bad. I don't know whether you ever made
that statement or not, but do you support
our tobacco program as it is operating at the
present time?
Mr. BUTZ. To the extent I am familiar with
it, I do; and, again, I am out of the peanut
territory but I will simply have to say to the
extent I am familiar with it, I do.
The CHAIRMAN. As you know, poultry and
eggs have been selling below the cost of
production for the better part of 2 years; and
I am informed that the egg producers In
America now have a minus net worth. In
other words, if they liquidated they couldn't
pay off the debts. Many of our broiler pro-
ducers are rapidly going broke. Do you have
any idea as to what ought to be done in that
regard to try to bring Income in those com-
modities up?
Mr. Burz. Mr. Chairman, you are right;
poultry and eggs are a-disaster area and they
have been for a couple of years. They have
been that way too long. I understand the egg
producers are getting together now with a
recommendation that will shortly come to the
Congress to permit them to have, a slaughter
program of hens to bring the hen population
under some degree of control. The egg sit-
uation has been aggravated some by the
development of a vaccine for Marek's disease
that came on the market a year ago; the net
result is when you vaccinate chicks for
Marek's disease, you have less mortality; the
hens can live longer and healthier and the
rate of lay has gone up.
Ultimately, we will adjust to that in the
size of our poultry flocks, but it has had the
effect momentarily of prolonging this glut
on the market. When you combine that with
the occasional story that appears in the na-
tional magazines about cholesterol in eggs
and that type of thing it has an adverse Im-
pact.
To the extent that I am familiar with what
the united egg producers are attempting to
do now, I think it is a step in the right di-
rection and I will support it. We simply
must reduce the size of our laying flock.
The 'CHAIRMAN. Let me see if I understand
your reply.
_ You would favor some program to regulate
supply in line with demand that was agree-
able to the egg producers of the country?
Mr. BUTZ. Yes, sir; I would. As I under-
stand it, they want to administer this them-
selves.
The CHAIRMAN, That is my understanding.
They have talked with me about it; they are
in the process of drafting some legisla-
tion-
Mr. BUTZ. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN (continuing). Trying to get
substantial agreement, as I understand it,
among the industry now.
Mr. BUTZ. Yes, sir; I think it is a wonderfu:
thing when the industry undertakes to cor-
rect its situation itself with authorization
by the Congress but run the program them-
selves; I will support that fully.
The CHAIRMAN. All right. Now, suppose-
and they have not reached that point yet-
but suppose the broiler Industry came up
with a similar plan that was voluntary and
agreeable on their part, would you support
that?
Mr. BUrz. I certainly would. The broiler
industry is different, however, because of
the short-term nature of it. You are only
about three to three and a half months from
setting the egg to processing the broiler.
With your laying flock you are locked in for
a year.
The CHAIRMAN. Right.
Now, another thing, there has been some
criticism-you made reference to it yourself
in your testimony, to the fact that you
served on the boards of several large cor-
porations that deal in the agribusiness area.
There has been some speculation that your
devotion to duties and sympathies may be
more in line with agribusiness and large
farmers than small farmers.
Would you respond to that again?
WWII'. BUTZ. Yes; I would be glad to, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. BUTZ. That essentially is the philos-
ophy back of the Agricultural Act of 1970,
and I would buy that. I hope we can continue
to expand our export markets.
Mr. BUTZ. Yes, sir; I do. Mrs. Butz comes
from North Carolina which is an important
tobacco State, I get there frequently, and for
a Hoosier I have some concept of the tobacco
industry. As a matter of fact, two of her
brothers are tobacco farmers.
The CHAIRMAN. You do raise some tobacco
in southern Indiana?
Mr. BUTZ, We have five counties that raise
some burley; you are right, but the answer to
your question is yes, I do.
The CHAIRMAN. You favor the continuation
of our present peanut program?
Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280001-3
As I said, the agribusiness complex is a
part of the total agricultural movement in
this country.
The CHAIRMAN. Will you yield at that
point? I have been notified that my 10 min-
utes have expired.
[Laughter.]
The 'CHAIRMAN. Since you are in the midst
of your response, I ask unanimous consent
that you may answer the question.
] Laugh ter. ]
Mr. BUTZ. Do you have consent?
The CHAIRMAN. No one objected; I do have
consent.
Mr. BuTZ. As I said a moment ago, I re-
gard agri-business as a very essential part of
the food and fiber chain in America. The
bushel of wheat in Kansas really has value
until it is translated into a loaf of bread
or a breakfast roll in Philadelphia. The hog
on an Indiana farm has value when it be-
comes a porkchop or a loin roast in St. Louis.
Therefore, to say that you are for one or
against the other. I think, is unfair to any-
body working in agriculture; you are for all
of It. This is part of the total process of get-
ting our food and fiber from the farm to the
ultimate consumer and, by the same token,
agriculture now uses many purchased pro-
duction inputs'that we used to produce on
the farm.
When I was a youngster we used to pro-
duce our own power in the form of a colt
every year or two. We produced our own hay
and oats. We didn't have commercial fer-
tilizers; we didn't use insecticides; we didn't
use herbicides; we didn't use antibiotics; we
didn't use mechanical power. We shucked the
corn by hand. Those things have been trans-
ferred off the farm now but they are no less
a part of agriculture now than they were
when we did them on the farm and, there-
fore, I think those of us in agriculture have
got to be concerned with the total chain of
the food and fiber complex in this country
which includes the purchase of production
inputs; we want them produced efficiently.
We want them scientifically; we want them
economically. This includes processing, dis-
tribution and merchandizing. These things
must be done effectively or farm income suf-
fers.
So my position, Mr. Chairman, is that the
goal for us in the Department of Agriculture
and the goal for us in the colleges, too, as
we work with farmers, is to do everything
possible to enhance the income and the liv-
ing satisfaction of our people on farms. We
cannot do that effectively if we ignore the
people who supply them with their produc-
tion inputs or who purchase their produce
and process and merchandise it.
In some cases those are cooperatives that
do that; in some cases they are private cor-
porations. We must work with whomever is
working in. this field,.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. Secretary, you
made reference this morning to rural de-
velopment. It is something that our com-
mittee is very much interested in. We just
this year established a new Subcommittee
on Rural Development. We have been very
active in that field this year. The original
title IX of the farm bill of last year that
Senator Dole and I cosponsored, and we
wrote into the bill a commitment on the
part of the Congress to achieve a sound ur-
ban-rural balance. There was a further por-
tion of the bill that required reports from
the execu ive branch of Government on the
quality of life and so on in rural areas; and
third, a directive for the Government to lo-
cate new Federal installations in less popu-
lous rural areas. I personally think that
most of the major domestic problems in
this country are directly attributable - to
the fact-that we have over 70 percent of
our people living on less than 2 percent of
our land.
Rural America has exported its best tal-
ent, its college educated, high school edu-
cated, because the jobs were not available
there and it has also exported the people
with the fewest skills and the lowest educa-
tion and it is the latter group that con-
tributed to the problem of welfare and crime
and housing and pollution that is common-
ly referred to as the urban crisis.
Since that time the President himself has
been talking about rural development and
has submitted a bill along that line. It is
before the committee now, also with a sub-
committee bill that has been reported after
extensive hearings.
I wish you would state your views to the
committee as to what you favor in the area
of rural development, what you recommend
that we do to try to create job opportunities
in rural America, and what we can do to
stem the massive migration from rural
America to urban America and hopefully
reverse it.
Mr. BUTZ. Mr. Chairman, I am strongly in
favor of a very vigorous rural development
program. I think this involves the whole in-
frastructure of rural America.
As well as the agricultural programs, it
involves highways; it involves sanitation fa-
cilities; it involves water supply; it involves
drainage; it involves recreation; it involves
education; and it involves economic oppor-
tunity. I think you are absolutely right in
urging as strongly as you can urge the 1n-
stallation of Federal facilities in parts of
rural America; keep the job opportunities
out there. And I couldn't agree with you
more that the part of what we call urban
blight is the result of the migration of peo-
ple without skills and with low-educational
levels and low aptitudes to these heavily con-
centrated population areas.
I feel this not only must be stopped-I
would like to see it reversed.
The CHAIRMAN. The President's Commis-
sion that he appointed on this particular
problem recommended a massive infusion of
capital, private, and public, to achieve in-
dustrial development to create jobs in rural
America. Would you favor that approach?
Mr. BUTZ, I certainly would by whatever
means you can use; it may be tax incentives;
it may be short-time subsidies of one kind
or another. I think any legitimate approach
that did reverse this trend of population
migration must be pursued vigorously.
The CHAIRMAN. Are you familiar with what
has been going on in England and the Scan-
dinavian countries and Israel in that regard?
Mr. BUTZ. Just in general.
The CHAIRMAN. They have made much bet-
ter strides than we have. We have talked
about it for sometime, for a good many years,
as a matter of fact, but we have done little
about it.
I may say the Senate by a rather decisive
vote voted additional tax credits to achieve
that result just yeserday.
Mr. BUTZ. This was wise.
The CHAIRMAN. And I think there is tre-
mendous interest in the Senate in that field
and hopefully, the House; and I hope we can
achieve a positive breakthrough in that re-
gard in this Congress.
Mr. TALMADGE. Mr. President, I
view Dr. Butz' statements on the cotton,
tobacco and peanut programs as commit-
ments to carry out these programs as
they have been carried out in the past.
If Dr. Butz is confirmed by the Senate, I
intend to hold him to these commit-
ments. I intend to hold him to his state-
ment in support of rural . development.
Dr. Butz' statements at the committee
hearing were largely satisfactory. How-
ever, I have always been skeptical of
"deathbed" conversions. I question
whether any man can repudiate over-
night a philosophy that he has held for
a lifetime.
In 1952, before Ezra Taft Benson took
office as Secretary of Agriculture, real-
ized net farm income totaled $14.1 bil-
lion. In 1960, the last year of Mr. Ben-
son's secretaryship, farm income totaled
$11.7 billion.
During that same period the farm
parity ratio moved downward from 95
to 81 percent.
In addition, farm surpluses skyrock-
eted during the Benson era. Commodity
Credit Corporation inventories of farm
commodities increased from $2.2 billion
to $5.6 billion.
Mr. President, many American farm-
ers are already on the verge of bank-
ruptcy. As a Senator from Georgia and
as chairman of the Committee on Agri-
culture and Forestry, I cannot risk a re-
peat of Benson-type farm policies.
Therefore, I am compelled to vote, as I
voted in the committee, against the nom-
ination of Dr. Earl L. Butz as Secretary
of Agriculture.
I thank the distinguished Senator
from Iowa for yielding to me, and I
yield the floor.
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. President, I want
to thank the distinguished chairman of
the Committee on Agriculture and
Forestry for his statement and his fair-
ness in making it. The decision he has
reached I believe is one that we share.
I want to at this time indicate that in
the nomination of Dr. Butz for Secretary
of Agriculture we have the unusual in-
stance that the nominee is not only an
unfortunate choice for the position but is
a choice that may well be prejudicial to
the interests of a large segment of the
American people and to the future of
rural America.
It should be made clear at the outset,
as I have stated previously, that I do not
question the ability and the integrity of
Mr. Butz. That is not an issue with me
personally. In fact, I think he has been
very successful in the programs and
policies that he has outlined and believed,
in for American agriculture. And that is
one of the major problems that I have.
The future of the independent Ameri-
can farmer is plainly at issue in this
nomination.
We are rapidly reaching a continental
divide in the development of American
agriculture. Mr. Butz' philosophical
commitment, as reflected in his entire
career as a university dean, agribusi-
nessman and Government official, has
been devoted to a direction that I be-
lieve is inimical to the future of rural
America and the country as a whole.
Here are the basics points:
The farm economy of the United
States, as it relates to the independent
commercial farm operation, is in critical
condition.
There are not many people who ques-
tion that.
As a result, tens of thousands of farm
families each year are being driven from
the land to our already congested cities.
It should be made plain that we are not
talking about marginal, inefficient farms,
but well-managed, small, and middle-
sized units that have produced efficiently
through the years. The economic de-
terminism which holds that this is in-
evitable and perhaps good for the farm
economy is a viewpoint to which people
are entitled.
Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280001-3
 S :,.t;.2
Approved
But many of us are deeply convinced
that it does not have to be that way and
that if the accelerating consolidation of
our productive farmland into large cor-
porate farms and agribusiness combines
continues, both are society and our econ-.
omy will suffer irreparable damage in the
long run.
I was again asked today, Mr. Presi-
dent, if there is anything in my State
any longer that may properly be called
a family farm. I have not recently
checked the statistics, but when I was
first elected to the Senate and dame into
this body, the average acreage of an Iowa
farm was 269 acres. That is by no means
a large, corporate structure. It is much
larger than would have been considered
the ordinary small family farm opera-
tion 25 or 35 years ago. But at the same
time, it is still a relatively small farm
operation.
Opposed to the acreage, however, the
age of the average farmer was 59 years.
Young people could no longer afford to
start farming for the returns on the in-
vestment, even with that acreage.
The average capitalization, as reported
in a scale which I lately put in the rec-
ord of the hearings, on an Iowa farm
is $93,000.
The questions that are raised here I
think are serious questions. We seem to
be accepting the philosophy in Amer-
ica that there is no alternative to driv-
ing people off the farms of America, un-
less they want to go into huge. farm
operations.
We have spent hundreds of millions
of dollars in research on productivity,
in moving toward the direction of large-
ness. This may be right or it may be
wrong, but how much have we spent in
the effort to make a productive unit out
of a rather small productive area in our
country? The small farm is worth pres-
ervation, Mr. President; and dedication
in that direction is needed.
Now, if ever, there is a desperate need
for a dynamic leader in the Department
of Agriculture with the interests of the
independent farmer at heart. It is high
time that the vast resources of that De-
partment should be employed to provide
services to the independent farmer in
his hour of need, rather than contribut-
ing, to the extent it has, to the indus-
trialization of rural America.
The nomination of Mr. Earl Butz for
Secretary of Agriculture has met with
strenuous opposition from farmers, en-
vironmentalists, and many others con-
cerned with the future of rural America.
Many segments of American agriculture
are caught in the most serious farm de-
pression in decades. The scene of farm-
ers stacking up their unsellable corn in
the streets is painfully reminiscent of
that earlier farm depression.
Seventy thousand farms a year-most
of which are efficient and sizable oper-
ations-are being driven out of business.
For the most part, these are not farmers
who want to leave; these are farmers who
are being forced to leave agriculture at
a time of serious unemployment and al-
ready overcrowded cities.
The exodus from farm to city is not
inevitable. It can be stopped if we vigor-
ously address ourselves to the task. But
Mr. Butz has clearly
believes the trend is
nothing Government
or slow it.
indicated that he
unavoidable, with
can do to stop it
Because of Mr. Butz devotion to agri-
business, his philosophical ties to agri-
business, his scorn for the food stamp
program that he would be charged with
administering as Secretary, and his ap-
parent lack of concern for the serious
threats to our environment, he is not
the man for the job that needs to be
done.
I might point out, Mr. President, that
sadly enough, as concerns his position
as Secretary of Agriculture, I cannot
recall in my lifetime a popular Secretary
of Agriculture, in either political party.
The job is a job that most men in Amer-
ica would not want and would not take.
If they were asked to, they would be
reluctant to accept it, because they know
the seriousness of the problems we face
in agriculture in America. They know
the criticism leveled at the Secretary
himself, which, is ongoing and continu-
ing, regardless of the party in power.
At this particular time, Mr. President,
we have reached a point of no return.
Mr. President, there are several items
I would like to submit as part of the
RECORD.
First, the Atlanta Constitution last
week ran an excellent editorial applaud-
ing the committee vote on Mr. Butz of
the Senator from Georgia (Mr. TAL-
MADGE) chairman of the Agriculture
Committee. I think that the vote of the
committee chairman, along with the op-
position of the ranking minority mem-
ber of the Agriculture Committee, is very
significant in these deliberations. It
shows the broadbased and nonpartisan
opposition to this nomination.
Second, Mr. Butz has already disclosed
his relationship to three agribusiness
corporations: Ralston-Purina, Stokeley-
Van Camp, and International Minerals
and Chemical Corp. The senior Sen-
ator from Oklahoma has submitted
into the RECORD of November 19, 1971,
a report on these three companies that
outlines their activities and interests.
These directorships have not been the
only formal ties that Mr. Butz has had
to agri-business. He also has served on
the board of directors of the Food Foun-
dation, the Foundation for American
Agriculture, and the Nutrition Founda-
tion. Each of these foundations are pri-
marily supported by and serve the in-
terests of agribusiness through research
and education programs. I am submitting
soiree information about each of these
foundations.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that these items be printed in the
RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the items
were ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
[From The Atlanta Constitution, Nov. 24,
1971]
TALMADGE VERSUS BUTT
Georgia Sen. Herman Talmadge surprised
a lot of people this week by voting against
confirmation of President Nixon's choice for
secretary of agriculture, Earl L. Butz.
The Talmadge vote was extremely signifi-
cant. As chairman now of the Senate Agricul-
ture Committee, Talmadge swings a good
deal of influence in anything affecting federal
policies on farmers or anything related to
agriculture. He chose not to fight the Butz
appointment actively, and the Senate com-
mittee narrowly (8-6) recommended ap-
proval.
But the Talmadge vote may have great
significance when the full Senate considers
the appointment. His vote, as chairman and
ranking Democrat on the committee, will
have considerable weight. Moreover, Sen. Jack
Miller of Iowa, the Republican ranking mem-
ber on that same committee, also voted
against the Butz appointment.
Talmadge has, as a rule, declined to oppose
any President's choices for cabinet level posts
on the basis that any President basically has
the right to name the members of his official
family. So, it was a move In this case not
taken lightly. Butz has not, on the basis of
his record, been a good spokesman for agri-
culture, commented Talmadge after the com-
mittee vote.
Butz is an able man, as Talmadge and oth-
ers acknowledge. 'But, as Talmadge put it,
"Our small farmers are being plowed up fast
enough anyway without accelerating that
process." Butz's ties are primarily to major
agri-business companies, rather than to
farmers. He resigned director posts with three
large agri-business corporations after being
nominated for secretary of agriculture. And,
his previous agriculture department experi-
ence was as one carrying out the policies of
former Agriculture Secretary Ezra Taft Ben-
son, a man who wanted to eliminate all the
price supports which most farmers find
critically important. "That was an unhappy
day for American farmers," said Talmadge
drily, referring to the Benson era.
We believe that Sen. Talmadge voted in
the best interests of Georgia and American
farmers when he voted against the appoint-
ment of Earl L. Butz as secretary of agricul-
ture. We would hope that the U.S. Senate will,
in the end, vote down the nomination,
INFORMATION ON FOUNDATIONS
According to Who's Who, Mr. Butz has also
served as a member of the Board of Directors
of the Farm Foundation, located in Chicago,
Illinois. Working with the land-grant col-
leges and the USDA, the Farm Foundation
recommends and conducts extensive research
into agricultural and rural problems. In ad-
dition to earnings from its endowment fund,
the Farm Foundation in 1971 received con-
tributions from the following agribusiness
companies: Agway Foundation; Atchison, To-
peka & Santa Fe Railway; John Deere Foun-
dation; Firestone; First National Bank of
Chicago; B. F. Goodrich Fund; Goodyear;
International Harvester; International Min-
eral & Chemical Corp.; Northern Trust Co.;
Sears-Roebuck Foundation; Standard Oil
(Indiana) Foundation; Swift Co. Founda-
tion; and WGN Continental Broadcasting Co.
Its Board of Directors includes representa-
tives of most of those companies, as well as
representatives of various land-grant col-
leges.
Mr. Butz has also served as a director of
the Foundation for American Agriculture.
The foundation, located in Washington and
incorporated in 1945, describes its "primary
purpose" as being "to inform the individual
and public with reference . . . to American
agribusiness; conduct appropriate scientific
research; cooperate with institutions of
learning ... by making available ... reports
and publications on agribusiness subjects;
publish articles ... by persons prominent in
agribusiness ... and avail itself of all recog-
nized media for the dissemination of its edu-
cational programs. A further primary pur-
pose of the Foundation has been and is to in-
crease understanding throughout rural and
urban America of the role agribusiness plays
in our total economy. To accomplish these
objectives, it has worked diligently during
-Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280001-3
 ( Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280001-3
i11 ti(;Ifiu! 1, 1: ill., - u ...'. ttw,. ., l.~VcJ
the past twenty-four years.' (From 1969
Foundation publication. Ellipses theirs.)
Its Board of Directors includes representa-
tives from: Sunkist; Central National Bank;
Armour; Quaker Oats; Ralston-Purina; Ag-
way: E. I. Dupont; Safeway Stores; B. F.
Goodrich; Bank of America; Sears, Roebuck;
Chas. Pfizer; Commercial Solvents Corp.; and
International Minerals & Chemicals Corp.
Mr. Butz has also served on the Board of
Directors of the Nutrition Foundation. The
purposes of the Nutrition Foundation are set
forth in its 1969-1970 Annual Report:
The food supply in the United States is
among the finest of any country in the world.
The amount produced is adequate for every-
one to achieve good nutrition, and the food
is of the highest quality. At every step, pro-
ducers, processors, distributors and govern-
ment agencies take great care to maintain
this quality for the consumer. Not with-
standing the high quality of the food supply,
poor eating patterns and a lack of under-
standing of the basic principle of nutrition
are prevalent among all socio-economic
levels of the population.
The Foundation's program and activities
over the years have been focused on main-
taining this high quality of food by adding
to the knowledge of nutrition through re-
search and through education of the public.
Included on the Board of Directors are rep-
resentative of Sunkist, General Foods, Green
Giant, Armour, Del Monte, Kraftco, Quaker
-Oats, E. J. Heinz, General Mills, Pillsbury,
Swift and Kellogg, as well as representatives
of leading universities and foundations.
The enumeration of these associations and
foundations is not in any way to challenge
their validity or importance. There is noth-
ing inherently wrong with agri-business or
with the entities they establish to promote
their best interests. Mr. Butz's record of serv-
ice to this segment of the agricultural eco-
nomy is extensive and-I am sure-distin-
guished. But where is his record of accom-
plishment and contribution to the other seg-
ments of American agriculture: the small in-
dependent farmers and their families? the
farm workers? I have not been able to find
it. My staff has not been able to find It.
Nothing Mr. Butz said at his confirmation
hearings helps to illuminate it. The only con-
clusion that I can make is that Mr. Butz has
spent his long and unquestionably distin-
guished career dedicated to the interests of
big farming and big farm business. This is
not the kind of balanced, people-oriented
background that I believe a Secretary of
Agriculture must have in 1971.
Mr. HUGHES. Some of these opera-
tions I have mentioned unquestionably
benefit small farmers and farmworkers
tc some extent. We are all benefitted, for
example, when nutritional standards in-
crea,e. But much of the research spon-
sored by agribusiness through these
foundations has to do with increasing
t'ie farmer's productive capacity. That
avenue has been a largely unrewarding
one for our Nation's small and medium-
sized independent farmers. For as our
Nation's agricultural capacity has dra-
matically increased over the past 2 dec-
ades, small and medium-sized independ-
ent farm operators have just as dramat-
ically been force to leave farming. In the
process, farm production has become
concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.
Little of the work that Mr. Butz has
done through these agribusiness asso-
ciations and foundations has attempted
to solve the most real and pressing prob-
lem of small and independent farmers-
survival itself.
Certainly the small farmer is inter-
ested in a new fertilizer that will increase
his yield; but he is more interested in
knowing.why his past jumps in produc-
tivity have not been translated for him
into higher farm income, why every ef-
fort he has made to improve the quality
and the productive capacity that he has,
has achieved nothing more, in net bal-
ance, out of the efforts he has made.
Third, I -am submitting for the RECORD
the statements of opposition to Mr. Butz
from: the National Farmers Organiza-
tion, the National Farmers Union, En-
vironmental Action, and the Sierra
Club. Senator HARRIS is submitting state-
ments of opposition from other national
organizations.
I ask unanimous consent that the
statements be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the state-
ments were ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
TESTIMONY OF OREN LEE STALEY, PRESIDENT,
NATIONAL FARMERS ORGANIZATION, SENATE
AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE, NOVEMBER 18,
1971
I appreciate this opportunity to appear in
opposition to the nomination of Earl L. Butz
as Secretary of Agriculture.
We are shocked and angered at the selec-
tion of a man so closely tied to the corporate
giants moving into agriculture. It is a disas-
trous appointment from the producer's
standpoint.
Business men wouldn't accept appoint-
ment of a national labor leader as Secretary
of Commerce; laboring men and women
wouldn't accept appointment of the presi-
dent of General Motors as Secretary of
Labor; and farmers shouldn't be called on to
accept appointment of Earl Butz as Secre-
tary of Agriculture.
We oppose Dr. Butz because he is a leading
spokesman for those who accept The propo-
sition that it Is not necessarily bad to con-`
tinue eliminating hundreds of thousands of
farmers each year and permitting integrators
and others to gain more control of the food
industry.
We oppose Dr. Butz because he accepts
bigness in agriculture and the movement of
people -off the land as inevitable.
We oppose Dr. Butz because he has identi-
fled completely with agribusiness and
preached its gospel while serving in the De-
partment of Agriculture in the 1950s, as an
administrator at Purdue University, as a
widely traveled speaker, and as a board mem-
ber for three agribusiness giants.
We are opposed to giving a man with these
views and associations a national platform
and the tremendous power and influence
that go with being Secretary of Agriculture.
There is no point in mincing words on
what this confirmation vote means. It means
making a choice on the kind of 'agriculture
and the kind of rural America we want to
encourage in the years ahead.
In meeting its constitutional responsibil-
ity, the U.S. Senate will choose between a
historic commitment to opportunity for peo-
ple on the land and a goal of mechanical
efficiency that drives people out of rural
areas, eliminates farm and small business
enterprises, and destroys rural communi-
ties.
In a 1959 speech quoted in Farmer's Di-
gest, Dr. Butz said "the fact that an In-
dividual producer may surrender some of
his managerial freedom and may transfer
part of his risk-taking to someone else is
really a very small price to pay for the ad-
vantages that flow out of an integrated sys-
tem." By this statement and by his testi-
mony before this committee yesterday, Dr,
Butz makes clear his concern for the whole
chain of food production, handling and
marketing. Surely he is an honest man.
Gentleman, we do not believe the big com-
panies like Tenneco, Dow Chemical. Bank
of America, Ralston-Purina, Boeing, and
Stokely-Van Camp need the sympathetic as-
sistance of a Secretary of Agriculture in or-
der to survive. Certainly our farm families
do need understanding and support.
Some of these big companies, like Ten-
neco for example, readily concede that these
intrusions into farming are part of a bold
move to dominate the food industry from
field to checkout counter by controlling all
phases of production, processing and mar-
keting.
Dr. Butz, by serving on the board of two
companies directly involved in these activi-
ties, is clearly tied to these attempts to de-
stroy the family farm system and usher in a
concentrated, corporate agriculture.
The confirmation situation Is further com-
plicated by a conflict of interest in which
Dr. Butz took in $26,800 a year as a board
member of three agribusiness companies
while serving as a dean at Purdue. This
committee should determine what services
Dr. Butz performed for these companies to
make him worth that much money.
It also should find out how well he could
serve the farmers of his state as dean of
agriculture at the same time he was draw-
ing $12,000 a year as a director- of an ag-
gressive integrator like Ralston Purina.
Dr. Butz has disclosed the amount of
stock he owns in three agribusiness firms
he served as director-International Miner-
als and Chemicals, Stokely-Van Camp and
Ralston-Purina-and disclosed that this
represented about one-third of the value of
his investment portfolio. What about the
other two-thirds? Is It made up of agri-
business companies or others that would
be affected by decisions of the Secretary of
Agriculture?
This appointment would put him in charge
of programs and regulatory agencies that
deal with at least three of his own com-
panies, possibly more, a conflict of interest
situation that could not be humanly avoided
by merely placing his stocks in a blind trust.
On Tuesday the General Accounting Office
issued a report stating that poultry inspec-
tion had not eliminated unacceptable con-
ditions in most of 68 plants reviewed. It
found that unacceptable conditions con-
tinued in 17 plants criticized in a previous
GAO review. The plants are not named, but
will Dr. Butz, the ex-director of the biggest
single factor in the nation's broiler industry,
vigorously straighten out this situation and
end the shortcomings in that industry?
The record will show that in poultry in-
spection hearings in the 1950s he advocated
gradualism. Certainly after 15 years unac-
ceptable conditions should not be tolerated,
but will they be?
The committee should determine whether
or not the companies In which Dr. Butz has
been a director have contributed to im-
proved conditions in the areas in which they
operate, or whether they have provided lead-
ership in bringing better conditions. I would
like to submit to the committee a copy of a
recent Nader report, containing a chapter en-
titled "Poultry Peonage,'? with which you
might start such research.
? Dr. Butz can resign his positions with the
agribusiness companies he has served but it
is unlikely he will be able to resign his long-
time agribusiness biases.
Gentlemen, when you put your stock in
trust you still own it. You still have your In-
terest in the companies. How can you ex-
pect Dr. Butz to protect free and open bar-
gaining between producers and the com-
panies with which he has been associated?
Taking Ralston-Purina's far-flung business
Interests as an example, possibilities of con-
flict immediately arise in the supervision of
the Commodity and Exchange Authority, the
food inspection services, the Packers and
Approved For Release 2005/08/22: CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280001-3
Stockyards Administration, and the Agricul-
tural Research Service.
There are a number of other important
questions that we feel the committee should
explore fully with Dr. Butz during these hear-
ings.
Does Dr. Butz favor expansion of cattle
feeding by packing companies, for example,
or does he favor legislation that would, in
effect, limit feeding to those engaged in agri-
cultural production on a fulltime basis?
Does he favor continuation of tobacco al-
lotments now held by family farmers or
would he discontinue this program and turn
production over to the big tobacco
companies?
Does he favor continued agricultural re-
search centering on high volume, huge con-
centrations of animals and capital and so-
called efficiency or does he favor research that
considers social efficiency, people and social
costs?
Does he favor integration of the hog in-
dustry with eventual destruction of the
market and a takeover by big agribusiness
firms or does he favor doing what is necessary
to keep this industry in the hands of inde-
pendent producers?
Does he favor international commodity
agreements with guaranteed price floors or
does he favor an export policy that results in
sales abroad at any price?
Does he favor an increase of up to 25 %
in feed grains price supports or does he favor
continuation of the present disastrously low
levels being paid to producers?
These are some questions Dr. Butz should
be asked before these confirmation hearings
come to a close.
There has been a real reaction among farm-
ers to this appointment because few men
who have served in the Department of Agri-
culture have made more inflammatory state-
ments than Dr. Butz. His widely-published
statement advising farmers to "adapt or die,
resist and perish" is typical.
He is widely known among family farmers
for his callous lack of concern about their
welfare and the reaction you are seeing and
feeling today truly comes from the grass
roots.
We urged the President to withdraw the
appointment the afternoon it was announced.
We now respectfully urge you to reject formal
confirmation of Dr. Butz, and all that he
represents in terms of agriculture and rural
America, and to advise the President to name
someone who is committed to strengthening
rural areas and preserving Individual enter-
prise in agriculture.
DECHANT OPPOSES SENATE APPROVAL OF EARL
BUTZ AS SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE
WASHINGTON, D.C.-The Farmers Union
opposed the appointment of Dr. Earl L. Butz
as Secretary of Agriculture here today at a
hearing of the Senate Agriculture Committee.
The National President of the Farmers
Union Tony Dechant told the Committee that
Butz' appointment raises serious questions
about the future of family farm agriculture
in America. He said the National Board of
Directors of the Farmers Union voted unani-
mously to oppose the nomination.
Dechant said, "Dr. Butz' economic views
are archaic. He has been in the active service
of a number of corporations which seek to
dominate the rural economy.
"His appointment as Secretary of Agricul-
ture would suggest:
"1. Farmers can expect a continuation of
low farm prices which have been adminis-
tered by the Nixon Administration.
"2. Farmers can expect little relief from
the Nixon Administration's disastrous set-
aside land retirement plan which has proven
unworkable as a system of supply manage-
ment.
"3. Farmers can expect a continuation of
President Nixon's policies which favor corpo-
rations at the expense of producers.
"4. Farmers can expect the farm program
to be a pawn in President Nixon's bid for re-
election, with possible attempts to sugar-
coat the bitter pill of the set-aside program,
and with final phaseout of workable farm
programs scheduled to follow the November
1972 election.
"The steep decline of farm parity began
during the era of Secretary of Agriculture
Ezra Taft Benson, for whom Dr. Butz served
as Assistant Secretary. The departure of mil-
lions of families from rural America swelled
into the greatest mass migration in history.
No Administration has been able to reverse
the trend which was set in those years. Dr.
Butz favored a phase-out of positive supply
management long before the term 'set-aside'
was coined by the Nixon Administration. He
was an exponent of the massive soil bank
land retirement plan during the benson
years.
"Dr. Butz' service to Purdue University
while he was on the payroll of several large
corporations represented a conflict of inter-
ests. Since he is philosophically and politi-
cally dedicated to the advocacy of their cause,
we believe a similar conflict of interests
would continue in the President's Cabinet,
even though he resigns from his positions of
corporate responsibility."
Dechant stated that
"Dr. Butz has a bad record, but we recog-
nize that a man can change. Our concern is
heightened because of the gravity of the
present situation for farmers. We cannot af-
ford to provide time for the new Secretary
to develop some new approach. The Nixon
Administration took nearly two years to
shape and refine the present set-aside fiasco.
It was not really new-it was the old massive
land retirement scheme advocated .by Dr.
Butz a decade ago. Mr. Chairman, we do not
have two years, or two months for more polit-
ical gimmickry at the expense of the Ameri-
can farmer.
"We know what must be done. We must
have effective supply management. We must
have improved prices. We must have a mas-
sive infusion of low interest rate credit to
rescue agriculture from the disaster created
by our present farm program.
"I believe it is time that the Congress looks
seriously at the proposal to create strategic
reserves of our basic farm commodities. We
must greatly increase our capacity, for farm
storage. We must raise commodity loans in
order to protect farm income when prices are
at their lowest. We must scrap the ill fated
set-aside plan. Legislative proposals to ac-
complish all of these goals are before you.
"Farmers like other businesses must be af-
forded opportunity to make longer range
plans. The optional diversion in the 1972 feed
grains program, for example, does not fit
farmers need to make such plans. It's time
that this administration recognize the need
for effective, permanent supply management
programs. Piecemeal and stop-gap measures
to cope with emergency situations which
could have been avoided are not good enough.
Farmers deserve better.
"A little over a year ago I called for the
resignation of Secretary of Agriculture
Hardin. I did so to dramatize the extent of
the alarm with which farmers regarded the
unworkable set-aside land retirement scheme
and the undue pressures of the Administra-
tion on the Congress and Senate to adopt it.
The former Chairman of this Committee,
Senator Ellender said that never in 34 years
had he felt such pressures from the Ex-
ecutive Branch. As you know, he refused-as
did Senator Herman Talmadge the present
Chairman of this Committee-to sign the
House-Senate Conference Report which was
adopted under Administration pressure."
Dechant said that he is opposing Dr. Butz'
appointment in order to dramatize again
our deep concern over the future of American
agriculture if present trends continue. He
said that "if decisive changes are not made
in our farm program before spring plant-
ing time he would be back again, calling a
press conference and asking for the res-
ignation of another Secretary of Agricul-
ture."
ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION,
Washington, D.C., November 25, 1971.
DEAR SENATOR: Like the nation's farmers,
the nation's environmentalists have a major
interest in the selection of the best pos-
sible man for Secretary of Agriculture. The
Department of Agriculture makes important
decisions concerning nationwide pesticide
use; it has the potential to save or destroy
many of the country's streams and marsh-
lands; it can encourage or discourage the
growth of giant agricultural conglomerates.
And, of course, the Department includes the
U.S. Forest Service with its vast responsibil-
ities for the careful utilization of the nation's
forests.
Because of these responsibilities, Environ-
mental Action feels that any prospective Sec-
retary of Agriculture must be willing and able
to seriously assess environmental factors.
whenever they come up in the decision mak-
ing process.
Although our organization did not testify
at the Senate hearings on the appointment
of Dr. Earl Butz, information which came
out of those hearings has convinced us that
Dr. Butz will not adequately consider en-
vironmental questions should he become
Secretary of Agriculture. We are thus strong-
ly opposing his confirmation.
Dr. Butz has been quoted as saying: "We've
got to decide shortly whether we're going to
have a little thermal pollution in our waters
or have brownouts in our cities at 3:00 in the
afternoon when you turn the air conditioner
on. You take one or the other."
Such statements assume the inevitability
of environmental destruction and shown an
unflinching, unenlightened attitude that can
only harm the vast majority of Americans.
Environmental Action urges you to vote
against the confirmation of Earl Butz as
Secretary of Agriculture.
Sincerely,
PETER HARNIK
(For the staff) .
NEW QUESTIONS ABOUT DR. BUTZ AS NOMINEE
FOR SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE
The Sierra Club raised new issues con-
cerning the appointment of Earl C. Butz as
Secretary of Agriculture. In a letter to Sen.
Herman Talmadge (D-Ga.), the Sierra Club
requested that he re-open hearings on the
confirmation of Butz so that his attitude and
intentions regarding issues of concern to
conservationists could be examined.
The hearings held last week barely touched
upon important issues relating to how tie
nominee proposes to deal with: pollution
from agricultural use of pesticides and fer-
tilizers and from increased siltation; the con-
troversial altering pf our. waterways through
stream channelization; and the critical issue
of the management of our National Forest
System.
Citing statements made by Butz, the club
pointed out that he has been openly antago-
nistic towards environmental concerns and
towards the entire environmental movement.
Dr. Butz refers to what he calls "the real
threat to American agriculture ... the threat
that comes from the environmentalists, or
from the do-gooders or from consumerism
or from whatever you want to call it."
The following are some more quotes from a
speech made by Dr. Butz before a National
Agricultural Advertising and Marelcting As-
sociation Farm-marketing seminar in Min-
neapolis on April 26, 1971:
"We need to extol the benefits that come
from these chemicals and pesticides and
antibiotics that we use."
.. then I see these environmentalists on
the other side trying to hold us back and
Approved For Release 2005/08/22 CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280001-3
 Ueceii 1, ,proved FoLF ~le~asq;O0 /018/L2? CIAFPP7?:00~37R000500280001-3
trying to impede-not trying, but the net
effect is to impede-the progress we're mak-
ing In scientific agriculture."
"This fadism that we follow as a nation
and currently it's ecology and pollution and
it hits us in agriculture right in the solar
plexus. But, we are now completely depend-
ent on a scientific agriculture, upon the use
of these things which are dangerous."
"We've got to decide shortly whether
we're going to have a little thermal pollution
in our waters or have brown-outs in our
cities at 3:00 in the afternoon when you
turn the air conditioner on. You take one or
the other."
"These people think that God made nice
red, plump, juicy, healthy apples. They think
that nature makes apples that way. As a
matter of fact, God put the worm in the
apple-man took him out. God put the para-
site in the pig-man took him out. God put
the termite in the timber-man took him
out"
Such statements cause deep concern with
conservationists about the nomination of
Dr. Butz for Secretary of Agriculture.
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. President, as I see
it, there are three basic issues against
Mr. Butz.
First. His firm and long-time belief
that the loss of another 1 million farmers
in the next decade is inevitable and not
bad. It is not inevitable. The USDA has
tremendous resources at its disposal to
reverse that trend: Its great procur-
ment power; the half billion dollars of
research money it adimnisters each year
which today goes largely to finance re-
search of immediate benefit to agribusi-
ness; the subsidization policies that have
encouraged bigness; and the taxation
policies that have encouraged corpora-
tization. Where are these 1 million fam-
ilies-and the hundreds of thousands of
rural business families that they will
take with them-where will they go?
Onto our already overcrowded welfare
rolls? Into our swelling unemployment
figures? Perhaps. Into the already over-
crowded cities? Perhaps. We can re-
verse the trend. In my opinion, we must
reverse the trend.
Second. His ties to agribusiness which
erect what I believe is a philosophical
conflict of interest. His record of service
to this one narrow segment of agricul-
'?ure is clear; his record of service to
I. dependent farmers, whose interests
an not always consistent with those of
agribusiness, is not so clear.
Third. His apparent scorn for the food
programs he would be charged with ad-
ministering as Secretary and his opposi-
tion to the legitimate objectives of the
e? ivironmental and consumer move
linents. Just 7 months ago, he called the
food stamp program-if I read the rec-
ord correctly-"just short of ridiculous."
If he is singing a different tune this
week, it is a very recent conversion.
Mr. President, I consider this vote one
of the most serious ones we will take
during this session. American agricul-
ture and rural America are at a cross-
roads; I am afraid Mr. Butz will take
us down the wrong path.
I will vote no on the confirmation of
Mr. Butz.
As I stated in the beginning, it is my
hope that the next Secretary of Agri-
culture wil seek to reverse the trends that
have been so apparent, particularly in
the last decade, that have been continu-
ing at alarming pace, in which there is
Congress, I might add, or by the admin-
istration-in trying to reverse these
trends. It is an unfortunate choice at a
time when we needed someone who was
the leader, who could point in the direc-
tion of hope for the farmers of this great
Nation.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. HARRIS. I yield myself 5 min-
utes.
Mr. President, I compliment the dis-
tinguished Senator from Iowa for his
excellent statement in opposition to the
confirmation of the nomination of Dr.
Butz, and I certainly associate myself
with all he said.
I want to make two or three points
tonight, and I expect to speak again on
this nomination before the final vote.
First, the people who met in Phila-
delphia and wrote the Constitution of
the United States labored a good deal
and argued a good deal over responsi-
bility for the appointment of members
of the Cabinet. They came to the con-
clusion that, while the President of the
United States ought to be able to choose
some of his employees, irrespective of the
will of the Senate or of Congress, he
should not be able to appoint certain of
those who would serve with him except
by and with the advice and consent of
the Senate. The founders of the Con-
stitution decided that those who would
serve in the Cabinet of a President would
not be appointed solely by the Presi-
dent, but that they ought to be nomi-
nated only by the President and con-
firmed by the Senate and that, there-
fore, the appointment of these officials
should be joint.
I believe that that was a wise de-
cision. I believe that since the writers of
our Constitution so decided, Members of
the Senate have a special responsibility
to exercise their independent judgment
upon these kinds of nominations.
One such nomination is the one now
before the Senate, the nomination of
Dr. Earl L. Butz to be Secretary of Agri-
culture. I believe that since the Presi-
dent cannot appoint that kind of official
by himself, and since that appointment
power is shared with the Senate, Sen-
ators have not only an opportunity but
also a responsibility to exercise their in-
dependent judgment about this appoint-
ment and similar appointments; and I
do exercise my independent judgment
about that.
I do not think my judgment is tram-
ineled by or restricted or limited by any
more restrictions or limits or trammels
than those which affect the President's
nomination powers. I think I have just
as much latitude in deciding whether to
advise and consent to the nomination as
the President had in making the nomi-
nation. I believe that is the clear and
constitutional mandate.
Mr. President, I am very impressed by
the most important Member of the Sen-
ate in regard to this nomination and
what he has had to say-that is, the
chairman of the Committee on Agricul-
ture and Forestry, the distinguished
Senator from Georgia. He listened to all
the debate and discussion. I do not think
it can be said that he is an unduly par-
tisan Member of this body. All of us are
partisan to some degree, but I do not be-
lieve it can be said that the distinguished
Senator from Georgia (Mr. TALMADGE)
is an unduly partisan Member of this
body. He is the chairman of the Senate
Agriculture Committee, and he opposes
this nomination for the reasons he has
very clearly set forth. I find them very
persuasive.
I also am much impressed by the fact
that the ranking Republican member of
the Committee on Agriculture and For-
estry, the Senator from Iowa (Mr. MIL-
LER), also has voted against this nomina-
tion in the committee. I do not believe
he did that for any partisan reason, be-
cause he is of the same party as the
President of the United States and of the
same party as the nominee. Like Senator
TALMADGE, he probably is the Member
of the Senate we ought to pay most at-
tention to in regard to this nomination.
He opposed the nomination in committee,
and I find that terribly persuasive.
Mr. President, I have an uncle who
lives in Kansas. He is an auctioneer. He
is a man whose livelihood depends a
great deal upon farm prosperity. I have
a great deal of identification with that
State. It is a State just north of mine,
the State of Oklahoma. I have spent con-
siderable time in that State, in towns like
Oakley and Garden City and others, in
the wheat harvest which I followed for a
good many years when I was a young
man. I was impressed by what I read in
the newspapers that the distinguished
Senator from Kansas (Mr. PEARSON) had
to say about this nomination and the
way he viewed it in light of his respon-
sibility to the farmers of Kansas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time
of the Senator has expired.
Mr. HARRIS. I yield myself 5 addi-
tional minutes.
I do not think that what Senator
Pearson said was said in a partisan vein,
because the Senator from Kansas is of
the same party as the President of the
United States, and he is of the same
party as Dr. Butz. The Senator from
Kansas said he thought that the Presi-
dent of the United States ought to with-
draw this nomination. I believe he is
right. I may say, as a Senator from a
State neighboring his, representing
farmers of the same interests as his, that
I believe he was quite right in asking
that this nomination be withdrawn. If
it is not withdrawn, Mr. President, I
am persuaded that it ought not be con-
firmed by the Senate.
May I say, also, that I am very much
impressed by what the distinguished
Senator from North , Dakota (Mr.
YOUNG) has said. He led off the opposi-
tion here today in speaking against the
nomination of Dr. Butz. I have spent a
great deal of time in the State of North
Dakota, in the wheat harvest, in towns
like Ray, N. Dak., and Bowman, N. Dak.,
with the distinguished Senator from
North Dakota (Mr. YOUNG), as I have
with the distinguished Presiding Officer,
the Senator from North Dakota (Mr.
BURDICK). The interests of those farmers
are very much like my own.
Therefore, I find it very persuasive
that the distinguished Senator from
North Dakota (Mr. YOUNG) a member of
Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280001,-3
the Agriculture Committee, which had an
opportunity to examine this nominee and
his views, spoke 'out in opposition here
today to this nomination. I do not think
that Senator YOUNG spoke in any parti-
san way. He is of the same party as Presi-
dent Nixon. He is of the same party as
the nominee. Yet he states that the nomi-
nation is not in the best interest of the
farmers he represents in North Dakota.
I believe that it is not in the best interest
of the farmers of Oklahoma, either. I do
not think it is in the best interests of all
Americans, whether they are farmers or
whether they live in the cities.
I served as a member of the National
Advisory Commission on 'Civil Disorders,
which looked into the tragic urban riots
which we saw in so many cities in the
summer of 1967. One of the things we
said in the report of that Commission
was that we never were going to be able
to solve the problem of the cities unless
we could stem the tide of out-migration
from the rural areas in States like Kan-
sas, Oklahoma, North Dakota, and Iowa,
into thebig cities.
I believe that it is a terrible thing to
say it is inevitable that there will be more
and more small farmers forced off the
farms, as Dr. Butz has said. I do not think
this is a partisan matter. I think we have
had the wrong agricultural policy for a
long time, but we are now at a pivotal
time in the history of the country, and in
the history of American agriculture,
where we are moving into more and more
bigness, more and more corporatization
of farming.
We can do something to try to stem
that flow of small farmers from their
home States into the big cities where
their problems are often, if not always,
much greater.
I support the efforts of the distin-
guished Senator from Indiana (Mr.
BAYH) to hold down subsidies to a lim-
it of $20,000 each. We are not talking
so much about efficiency here, because
if it is efficiency we are after, why do
we have to pay so much in subsidies to
the large and rich farmers, to the big
corporate farmers? They are efficient
because we spend so much money with
them. I think we would be well advised
to stop doing that.
I support the efforts of the distin-
guished Senator from Minnesota (Mr.
MONDALE) to provide for collective bar-
gaining on behalf of American farm-
ers. I believe they have got to have more
economic power in the marketplace. I
believe that that is a basic concept, if
we are to protect the independent farm-
er as against the corporate farmer, the.
rich farmer, the hobby farmer, who are
gobbling up most of the farms' in the
country.
I have introduced legislation in the
Senate which would seek to enforce the
law in regard to irrigation water. The
law now is that if a farmer takes ad-
vantage of irrigation water, built with
the taxpayers' money, it should notbe in
excess of 160 acres. I believe that that
law should be enforced.
That is what will happen if the legis-
lation which I have introduced is
adopted.
I am very much pleased by the Federal
court decree lately to come out of a Fed-
eral court in San Diego, Calif., which
seeks to uphold legislation in that State
in regard to residency and irrigation
water, holding, as I understand the case
did, that a corporation was not entitled to
take advantage of the residency laws and
get publicly built water, or water from
publicly built irrigation systems. I be-
lieve that that is a very important case.
I want further to make secure that hold-
ing by the court with the legislation I
have introduced.
I support the legislation introduced by
the distinguished Senator from New
Jersey (Mr. WILLIAMS) which would take
away from the corporations the special
benefits which they have if they go into
farming in regard to organized labor and
big agribusiness corporations, like Ten-
eco, or Standard Oil of New Jersey, who
are now going into farming. If they do
go into farming, they do not have the
same unemployment compensation or
workmen's compensation or organization
laws that apply to them in the rest of
their business. That works out to be an
incentive for big corporations to go into
farming, because their workers cannot
organize in that enterprise and that
gives them a special incentive to come
in and take over farms in opposition to
independent farmers.
I believe that the distinguished Senator
from New Jersey (Mr. WILLIAMS) is on
the right track, - that the big farmers
should have to obey the labor laws that
apply to them in other enterprises. I be-
lieve that if we will pass that legislation,
we will take away the special subsidy and
incentive that goes to the big corpora-
tion farmers and makes them more com-
petitive with the independent individual
farmer.
Lastly, I support the legislation intro-
duced by the distinguished Senator from
Wisconsin (Mr. NELSON), called the
Family Farm Act, which would prevent
the kind of tax loss farming, and the
vertically integrated conglomerate farm-
ing, which has given a special incentive
for corporations to come in and take over
farming from the independent and small
farmers.
The facts are, Mr. President, that we
do not have to be big, we do not have to
be a big corporation or in agribusiness in
order to be efficient. That is some kind
of elite, often liberal notion in the East.
That is not so, Mr. President. We have
been told that by people like Mr. Butz
and others, The reason why we see so
,much bigness in agriculture and so much
corporatization in agriculture is because
the Federal Government subsidizes them
to get into it, through irrigation water,
land-grant"colleges, and other laws. We
should stop that.
The Federal farm support laws are on
the side.of the big and not the small
farmer. My dad has been telling me about
that for a long time. He is quite right.
So I stand with the distinguished Sena-
tor from Iowa (Mr. MILLER), the ranking
minority member of the Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry, the Senator
from North Dakota (Mr. Yotrxa) another
member of the Committee on Agriculture
and Forestry, the Senator from Kansas
(Mr. PEARSON) who is from an agricul-
tural State like mine, not because they
are Republicans, but because I think this
is not a partisan matter.
I stand with the chairman of the Com-
mittee on Agriculture and Forestry not
because he is a Democrat but because I
think he is well informed on this issue.
I hope, Mr. President, that we will de-
feat this nomination. I believe that the
way to dramatize the issues involved
here, that bigness is not best, that we
should stop the rich people, the hobby
farmer, like lawyers, doctors, and big cor-
porations, like Tenneco, like Ralston-
Farina, Standard Oil, and others, from
taking over agriculture and driving more
people off the farms into the cities.
The way to dramatize the issue is to
defeat this nomination.
Some have said, "Well, maybe the
Democrats would like to have Mr. Butz
confirmed as Secretary of Agriculture
and then they will have an issue during
the next year." But I believe with Mr.
Staley and others in the National Farm
Organization, and other farmers who
have talked to me about this matter, that
there are many farmers who cannot
stand another year. There are many
farmers that do not have a year, and if
we get more and more men like Mr. Butz
in control of agriculture, they will not
have another year.
So, Mr. President, I hope that we will
not confirm this nomination.
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, I am
pleased to announce my support of Sec-
retary-designate Earl L. Butz to be Secre-
tary of Agriculture.
On the basis of the study I have made
of Mr. Butz' record and my desire to
permit the President to have members of
his own Cabinet in whom he has confi-
dence, I intend to vote favorably for the
confirmation of Mr. Butz.
I had some concern about the nomina-
tion of Mr. Butz and put three basic ques-
tions to him in a letter which Mr. Butz
has answered both in person and con-
firmed by letter to my satisfaction.
My own farm advisory committee in
Illinois has also strongly supported the
nomination of Mr. Butz.
I ask unanimous consent that a cop%
of the Percy-Butz correspondence as w al
as a copy of a letter from the chairman
of the Percy farm advisory committee
and a letter from another member of
the committee addressing itself to the
question of Mr. Butz' association with
agribusiness be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the items'
were ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
Dr. EARL BUTTZ,
Secretary-designate, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
DEAR De. Bvrz: Since your nomination for
the position of Secretary of Agriculture, I
have received many communications from
Illinois farmers. A number of them have
expressed support for you and there have
been expressions of disapproval as well, as I
am sure you are aware.
My responsibility to Illinois farmers is to
have a man confirmed as Secretary of Agri-
culture who will have as his objective, among
others, the raising of farm income, preserving
Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280001-3 F jA ',.~ \,j - J_1 `9 Ll. x A, AJ
and improving the quality of life in rural
America, and protectfng the concept of the
family farm which is the backbone of Illinois
agriculture.
It would help me if I had a statement from
you that I could make available to Illinois
farmers on your approach to these (three,
basic questions, satisfactory answers to which
are essential to my support of your nomina-
tion.
I am pleased to note that a substantial
majority of my own Illinois Farm Advisory
Committee support your nomination, but as
I have already mentioned, there have been
a number of communications In opposition.
to you and your answers to the above ques-
tions would be very helpful to me in con-
sidering your nomination.
I wish also to express appreciation to you
for your affective support of our strong rec-
ommendation to the President that the Taft-
Hartley Act be invoked against the dock
strike that was so adversely affecting Illinois
farmers.
Sincerely,
CHARLES H. PERCY,
U.S. Senator.
DECEMBER 1, 1971.
Hon. CHARLES H. PERCY,
U.S. Senator.
DEAR SENATOR PERCY: I appreciate the op-
portunity of providing you information which
may be helpful in resolving questions regard-
ing my position on basic issues such as Im-
proving farm income, bettering the quality of
life in rural America, and preserving family
farms.
Having been reared on a family farm, I am
earnestly Interested in preserving these farms.
Their preservation is absolutely essential to
our economy and I shall do all within my
power as Secretary to keep as many family
farms in operation as possible. In my testi-
mony before the Committee on Agriculture
and Forestry, I quoted, from a report of
USDA's Economic Research Service which
stated there may be a decline of approxi-
mately 1,000,000 in the number of farms by
1980. In quoting these figures, I was in no
way approving of these projections nor ad-
vocating that this occur. On the contrary, it
is my very firm belief that the Secretary of
Agriculture, whoever he may be, should rec-
ognize such trends and bring all the resources
of his Department to bear in the form of cor-
rective action.
You will recall that during my testimony
I stated my belief that corn and feed grain
prices, which are so important to the farmers
of Illinois, are too low. Because so many facets
of agriculture are tied to feed grain prices, it
is imperative that the Secretary take imme-
diate steps to improve these prices. Some of
these alternatives were discussed before the
Committee. When confirmed, I shall take all
steps authorized by law to bring these prices
up and if other steps are required which are
not authorized by existing statutes, I shall
ask for that authority from Congress. As an
economist, I know the Importance of the con-
tinuing to expand exports of farm produce
and livestock products so that the family
farmer as well as others will benefit economi-
cally from expanded overseas markets. I plan
to actively apply myself toward reaching the
goal of $10 billion in agricultural exports.
America's farmers are entitled to a fair re-
turn for their labor and their investment and
I want to be their spokesman in this cause.
Rural development is one of the great
challenges facing this Administration and I
conscientiously believe the programs of the.
Department of Agriculture can contribute
more significantly toward improving the
quality of rural life. By providing rural com-
munities with the basic facilities needed to
sustain their people, such as housing, water,
and sewer systems, telephones and electric
power, we can also attract industries. This
will provide jobs and take the pressure off
our crowded cities where so many rural resi-
dents have been forced to move for lack of
opportunity in the country-side because
mechanization of agriculture has reduced
available jobs.
I am dedicated to working in every way
that I can and by every conceivable means
of administrative, legislative, and personal
persuasion to achieve these goals. Your as-
sistance will be most appreciated as we work
toward these ideas which are so vital to our
Nation.
Sincerely,
ROBINSON, ILL.,
November 22, 1971.
Hon. CHARLES H. PERCY,
U.S. Senate,
New Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR PERCY: Confirming my tele-
gram, please be advised that in my opinion
Dean Earl Butz is an excellent choice for.
Secretary of Agriculture. I have polled a
number of my farmer friends and they agree.
I am sure his appointment would not enjoy
the universal approval of all farmers in, the
country, but I am just as sure that fax and
away the majority of all farmers in this area
would welcome his appointment.
I am aware that some of his critics claim
that Dean Butz is oriented too much in the
direction of "Agri -Business." For this to be a
valid criticism it would be necessary to pre-
sume that Agri-business is the enemy of the
farmer. Nothing could be further from the
truth. Although there may be exceptions,
generally speaking Agri-business is probably
the best friend the farmer' has. Only when
they join hands and work together can either
Agri-business or the farmer realize their full
potential for contributing to the economy
and the general public good.
Although some of his critics claim they
would like to see a "Practicing Farmer,"
whatever that is, as Secretary of Agriculture,
I submit that to find one whose other quali-
flcations would remotely match those of
Dean Butz would be a difficult task indeed.
Therefore, I urge your favorable consider-
ation of his appointment.
Respectfully yours,
IVAN R. MILLER.
NOVEMBER 22, 1971.
DEAR SENATOR:
In reply to your telegram received yester-
day regarding the appointment of Dr. Butz,
I feel he is well qualified for the post and the
only possible reason for not confirming the
appointment would be his image as a cor-
poration director. This seems to concern Sen.
Harris but I don't think it will hurt anything
in Illinios.
I'm sorry to see Clifford Hardin leaving the
post. He has started a farm program that has
brought more flexibility for the farmer than
any of the programs of the past. The corn sit-
uation was not his fault. We all passed up a
fine bean market to try to make a killing in
corn and this is what happened. After the
big crop was in the ground we still had a
short time in which we could have locked in
$1.50 but let that slide also.
There is no one whom the President could
suggest that would be above Democrat'?criti-
cism.
Looking forward to our next meeting on
Dec. 13.
Sincerely,
HARLAN RIGNEY,
Chairman, Percy Farm Advisory Committee.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I rise in
support of Dr. Earl L.-Butz and intend
to vote for the confirmation of his ap-
pointment as Secretary of Agriculture.
During the past week hearings were held
and from them arose a controversy con-
cerning the qualifications of Dr. Butz as
Secretary of Agriculture. For the first
time in several years the national press
indicated an interest in agriculture and
people from all walks of life had a glim-
mer of the importance of our Nation's
farmers and ranchers and their relation-
ship to this Nation's economy. Now the
time has come to vote for confirmation
of Dr. Butz, and I must say the decision
I made has been one of concern to me.
I have visited personally with Dr. Butz
and have analyzed both what I have
heard and read. I have had telephone
calls from the State and numerous let-
ters and telegrams. I ponder the endorse-
ment of some groups and likewise the
opposition of others.
Dr. Butz' closing statement to the Sen-
ate Agriculture Committee is one I feel
indicates his attitude and philosophy:
Now, one closing comment, I have spent
my life being a vigorous, articulate, advocate
for agriculture; for a progressive agricul-
ture. I have tried to make farmers proud
of their profession, for I think agriculture
is a proud profession. Food is the first law
of life and that those who produce it are top
on the priority list In a country like this.
The, family farm must be preserved but I
do not want to lock it in concrete. I want
it to be able to grow, too, and to adjust. If
the family farm I grew up on had not ad-
justed, we would be shucking corn by hand
and we would be knocking potato bugs off
potatoes with a wooden paddle. The family
farm has to adjust; It has to produce more in
the days ahead to survive. So I am strongly
in favor of the family farm, with flexibility
to adjust and to provide an adequate living
for the farm family.
We hear about corporate farms in America.
Less than one percent of our farms are cor-
porate farms, and they are mostly family
corporation farms. I strongly support a
prosperous and developing rural America. I
think the thrust of this committee to sup-
port a rural development program is a proper
thrust. We must develop employment op-
portunities in rural America so we do not
continue to jam our population up in the
New Yorks and Philadelphias and Chicagos
and Baltimores....
A strange coalition has evolved to op-
pose the confirmation of Dr. Butz. I
wonder where the Ralph Nader Public
Interest Research Group, National Wel-
fare Rights Organization, Friends of the
Earth, National Sharecropper Fund,
Southern Christian Leadership Confer-
ence, Americans for Democratic Action,
Washington Research Group Action
Council, the AFL-CIO, and United Auto
Workers were when the Congress was
struggling to formulate a new farm pro-
gram? Where were they when the farm
State Senators were fighting to main-
tain the present limitation of payments
ceiling; where have they been year after
year when this Nation's farmers were so
in need of support to establish and main-
tain a livable income? I wonder if their
interest at this late date is not one of
self-concern? Perhaps Dr. Earl Butz
is the man who can bring farming and
ranching back to a way of life that can
be enjoyed by our farm families. Perhaps
Dr. Butz will find a solution to sagging
farm prices and assist in establishing a
better rural life.
I think Dr. Butz realizes that the time
has come for agriculture to have an ef-
fective voice here in Washington. I think
Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280001'-3
 Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280001-3
December 1, 1971
he will be an outstanding spokesman for
agriculture, placing the blame for low
prices squarely where it lies . . . per-
haps on a dock strike which prevents
shipment of exports, perhaps on a strike
against producers at a time when crops
must be harvested or rot in the fields.
Dr. Butz has assured me that he will
continue to represent the farmer in the
administration; that he will continue to
be a vigorous, articulate advocate for ag-
riculture; that he will be a salesman for
American agriculture. I agree with Dr.
Butz when he says that urban America
needs to realize that the farmer is a
professional in his endeavor just as the
doctor or lawyer. This needs to be done by
"selling" the concept of modern-day
agriculture.
We have reached a time in our agricul-
tural history when we must face the
facts. As long as politicians in Congress
continue to place politics over the eco-
nomics of trying to solve the farmer's
problems, we will face a declining rural
America. The farm policies of the United
States evolve from the Congress; the Sec-
retary implements the programs. I be-
lieve Dr. Earl L. Butz can and will imple-
ment the policies of this Congress in the
best interest of our Nation's farmers and
ranchers. He should be afforded the op-
portunity to accomplish what he advo-
cates should be done to further enhance
living in rural America and stabilize our
Nation's agricultural economy. As al-
ways, my primary obligation is to the
farmers and ranchers of Texas and the
Nation, and I trust that Dr. Butz will
represent agriculture to its fullest ex-
tent.
Mr. METCALF. Mr. President, I have
just learned that an official of the De-
partment of Agriculture, at the time Earl
L. Butz was an Assistant Secretary, to-
day charged that Mr. Butz, after delib-
erately stopping a price-fixing investiga-
tion of Safeway Stores, Inc., omited
mention of it though questioned by a
committee of the Congress.
Mr. President, the St. Louis Post-Dis-
patch today carries a story by Lawrence
Taylor that quotes Lee Sinclair, who was
chief counsel for the Packers and Stock-
yards Administration when Assistant
Secretary Butz quashed an investigation
Mr. Sinclair recommended of Safeway
price-fixing activities.
The charges made by Mr. Sinclair as
quoted in Mr. Taylor's article are very
serious. If they are true, Mr. Butz should
not be confirmed as Secretary Of Agri-
culture.
I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Tay-
lor's article be printed in full at the con-
clusion of my remarks, but I wish now
to call to Senators' attention some por-
tions of the circumstances to which I
have previously alluded that have now
been amplified by Mr. Sinclair.
Last Wednesday's CONGRESSIONAL REC-
ORD carried the entire record of Mr.
Butz' testimony in the hearings on the
meatpacking industry held by the Sub-
committee on Antitrust and'Monopoly in
May 1957..
Under questioning, Mr. Butz initially
denied that there had been a preliminary
investigation of Safeway's feedlot oper-
ations, then he agreed there had been
an investigation. Mr. Sinclair later tes-
tified that a preliminary investigation
had been completed, that there appeared
to have been violations of the Packers
and Stockyards Act, and that he recom-
mended further inquiry by his branch
under that act.
According to Mr. Sinclair, however,
the real issue is that Mr. Butz success-
fully concealed from the subcommittee
the fact that he had suppressed a price-
fixing inquiry under the law and trans-
formed it instead into a broad economic
study including the feedlot matter. Mr.
Butz described his broad economic study
in some detail, but failed to refer to the
central issue.
Mr. Sinclair explained today that he
was unaware of Butz' omission at the.
time of his own testimony and as he was
.not questoned, did not himself mention
it. But he said today:
The effect of transferring this matter to
agricultural research for an economic study
was to completely stop the investigation of
alleged violations of the (Federal) Packers
and Stockyards Act by Safeway. It was well
recognized by us in the department that this
was the effect and also the purpose of this
economic study. That was our belief and,
of course, it turned out that way.
Mr. President, I hope that all Senators
will read Mr. Taylor's story carefully.
I hope that they will agree with me that
Mr. Butz' admission on the public rec-
ord that he failed to administer the
Packers and Stockyards Act, his promise
that he "would do the same thing again"
and the allegations, if true, which were
made today, of his failure to be candid
with a congressional committee, clearly
disqualify him for public office.
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
[From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch,
Dec. 1, 19711
EARL L. BLITZ
Earl L. Butz while an Assistant Secretary
of Agriculture In 1957 omitted key details
from his testimony before a Senate subcom-
mittee about the nature of a departmental
Investigation of Safeway Stores, Inc., a form-
er official of the department said today.
The former official, Lee D. Sinclair, charged
also that Butz, nominated by President
Richard M. Nixon as Secretary of Agricul-
ture, deliberately halted the Safeway Investi-
gation In 1956, even though a preliminary
inquiry showed that price-fixing had occur-
red in the Company's meat buying opera-
tions on the West Coast.
The Senate began debate of Butz' nomi-
nation today with a vote expected before the
end of the week.
At the time of the Safeway investigation,
Sinclair was head of the Department of Agri-
culture's Packers and Stockyards Branch
which conducted the inquiry until it was
stopped.
Sinclair, who had discussed the investiga-
tion earlier with the Post-Dispatch but had
asked not to be identified, agreed to speak
for the record in making his accusations of
Butz today.
He said that Butz, questioned by the Sen-
ate Judiciary Antitrust and Monopoly Sub-
committee at a hearing in May 1957, did not
disclose that the Department's investigation
into Safeway's operations had uncovered
evidence of price-fixing, Instead, Butz con.
flned his discussion to the allegations raised
by the subcommittee members that Safeway
had used Its livestock feedlot operations to
depress West Coast beef prices, a subject that
Sinclair said was a minor part of the overall
investigation.
Butz told the subcommittee that Safeway
had sold most of Its feedlots and apparent-
ly had violated no federal-laws.
He said that the feedlots were part of the
case involving Safeway. He was not asked
about the rest of the case and did not vol-
unteer additional information.
Although the subcommittee apparently
was unaware of the alleged price-fixing, it
questioned Butz sharply about why the Safe-
way investigation was dropped.
Butz replied that the matter involved is-
sues that went beyond Safeway's operations
and that it has been turned over to an
economist for study.
He said that if the study turned up evi-
dence of federal law violations, it could
have been referred back for further inves-
tigation.
Sinclair said today, however, that the study
"did not deal directly with Safeway. It dealt
with the flow of meat products on the West
Coast." He said that no action ever was taken
against Safeway for its alleged price-fixing.
"The effect of transferring this matter to
agricultural research for an economic study
was to completely stop the Investigation of
alleged violations of the (Federal) Packers
and Stockyards Act by Safeway," Sinclair
said.
"It was well recognized by us in the de-
partment that this was the effect and also
the purpose of this economic study," he
said. "That was our belief and, of course, it
turned out that way."
In the hearing, Butz testified that six gen-
eral areas were Included In the economic
study. They included such items as "analysis
of the whole meat distribution in the San
Francisco Bay area," and "Los Angeles chain
store beef procurement and wholesale pric-
ing study."
Sinclair, who also testified during the hear-
ing, said that his remarks contradicted some
made earlier by Butz.
At one point during the hearings, Butz
was asked whether a preliminary investiga-
tion had been made into Safeway's feedlot
operations.
"Not to my knowledge," he replied. Then,
apparently corrected by someone else at the
witness table, he added, "Was there? Yes,
there were some."
Sinclair testified a moment later that a
preliminary investigation had been com-
pleted and that his recommendation for a
full-scale inquiry had been overruled by
Butz and two other lower departmental offi-
cials.
Butz then said, "Mr. Chairman, may I point
out at this point that this was discussed in
my office-and we decided there to broaden
the scope of this investigation."
"And I would accept full responsibility
for that and would do the same thing again."
Like Butz, Sinclair did not mention in his
testimony the price-fixing investigation he
had directed.
Sinclair said today that he had not at-
tended the earlier hearings and was unaware
of what had been sgld about the inquiry.
"The subcommittee did not ask me any
questions about the nature of the case," he
said. "I did not know how much they had
gone into it in the earlier session. I did not
know that Butz had not mentioned the price-
fixing."
Sinclair said that after he testified, his
once friendly relationship with Butz grew
cold. "Butz never contacted me in any way
after that," he said "Shortly thereafter, I
was promoted to a job that carried very little
responsibility."
Sinclair left the Agriculture Department
in 1960 and went Into private law practice
in Washington, Among his clients today is
the National Farmers Organization, which
has opposed Butz's nomination as secretary.
Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280001-3
Sinclair said, however, that he was not serv
ing as a spokesman for the group.
He recalled that as the Safeway investiga-
tion was being killed, another official with
the department said to him, "Lee, you're not
going to get a chance to complete that in-
vestigation."
Butz was the Agriculture Department's
number three man from 1954 until 1957
when he resigned to accept a position at
Purdue University.
Since his nomination to the top depart-
mental post, he has been criticized as a
friend of big business whose agricultural
interests harmed the small family farmer.
Butz has denied these claims and said that
he was a realist who foresaw the trend toward
larger and more efficient farms.
During Butz's time as Assistant Secretary
to Ezra Taft Benson complaints were raised
that Safeway and other big firms had close
ties with the department. At least three Safe-
way executives served as administrative as-
sistants to Benson. One of these, Lorenzo
Hoopes, worked for Benson only one year
before rejoining Safeway in 1954.
There was no indictment, 'however, that
a Safeway man was on Benson's staff at the
time of the price-fixing investigation.
BUTZ NOMINATION COULD MEAN DISASTER FOR
FARM ECONOMY
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, to-
morrow a vote will be taken in the Sen-
ate that could have a profound impact
on our farm economy and hence the
national economy in the months and
years ahead. The question at issue is
whether or not we should confirm Dr.
Earl Butz as Secretary of Agriculture.
It has become increasingly fashion-
able as the number of farmers dwindles
to downgrade the importance of agricul-
ture to the economic health of the Na-
tion. After all, fewer farmers means few-
er farm voters, and fewer farm voters
means that we can ignore the needs of
these voters with less peril to our chances
for reelection.
However, we are only fooling ourselves
if we think that we can allow our farm
economy to seriously deteriorate with-
out affecting national strength. Al-
though a small percentage of our pop-
ulation is cultivating the land, a very
substantial number of people are em-
ployed in supplying the needs of farm-
ers, from fertilizers to farm machinery.
Additional millions of people are in-
volved in processing and distributing the
produce of our farms-from the factory
worker to the truck driver to the retail
store manager or owner.
As a Nation, we are able to devote a
very substantial amount of our gross
national product to capital goods pro-
duction and the amenities of life be-
cause the average family only spends 16
percent of its income on food.
Most rural communities are entirely
dependent on the economic health of
the farmer-especially the small family
farmer. While agribusiness may find fi-
nancing available at giant banking in-
stitutions in our major cities, the small
rural banker rises or falls on the busi-
ness he does, or does not do, with neigh-
boring farmers. Smalltown hardware
stores, dry goods stores, newspapers, and
other business enterprises are in the
same boat.
There may be some who feel that rural
areas in the last analysis should be the
preserve of giant farms, with corporate
backing, which use the latest machinery,
pesticides and antibiotics and minimize
the role of the average rural American
and his family. I categorically disagree
with this view. I think it is damaging
to our free enterprise system, to our
proven ability to produce food cheaply,
and to good conservation practices.
Now let us take a look at how Dean
Butz feels about the farm economy, par-
ticularly with regard to the family farm-
er-the backbone of American individu-
alism.
First, Dean Butz seems to subscribe
to the doctrine of the survival of the
fittest. He has been quoted in an inter-
view with the Washington Post as say-
ing:
Adapt or die. That's a harsh law but it
always has worked. If we hadn't used that
law we'd still be riding in buggies and plow-
ing with horses.
However, very strangely, it seems, he
has never spoken out against the tax
inequities that place a premium on cor-
porate farming and make it very difficult
for the small family farmer to compete.
He has never called for a reworking of
capital gains provisions that encourage
large corporate entities to buy up vast
quantities of land, farm it for 10 years
or so-ruining the land in the process-
and then sell the exhausted land, which
is good for very little at that point.
Apparently the fittest, by the Butz
definition, are those with the money and
the lawyers to find loopholes in our tax
laws, those who exploit rather than re-
plenish the land, and then move on.
Another subject Dean Butz has avoid-
ed discussing is the use of -water made
available through Federal reclamation
projects by giant landholders in violation
of the 160 acre limitation. This limita-
tion, written into law at the turn of the
century, requires large landholdings to
be broken up before the landowners can
receive the benefit of water paid for with
Federal tax dollars. The law has never
been enforced.
"Adapt or die"-or.be big enough to
be able to make your own special priv-
ileges.
In the same interview with the Post,
Dean Butz predicted that the 2.9 million
farms of today will be reduced to 1.9
million farms by 1980. This disciple of
Ezra Taft Benson apparently is perfect-
ly resigned to overseeing the death of
one million farms in 10 years. Can any-
one doubt that these farms will be small
family farms?
What will be the consequence of this
continued reduction in family farms?
More migration to the cities. A further
depletion of the rural economy. Greater
welfare costs as men and women who
have farmed all their lives are forced
onto the relief rolls. A sharp reduction in
good conservation practices as the hus-
bandman is replaced by the impersonal
corporate giant.
This is the way the tide is running
now. It is a trend that should seriously
concern us. Can we sit idly by and let
events take their course? Or should we
try to revitalize our rural economy and
preserve the small, -economical family
farm unit? Dean Butz clearly would
let the tide run out until all but a hand-
ful of farmers are stranded off the farm.
Dean Butz' pronouncements on the
environmental movement are part and
parcel of his disregard for the needs and
the advantages of the small family farm-
ing unit. Big farming has brought with
it the increasing use of pesticides, such
as DDT, growth hormones, such as DES,
and practices that can seriously deplete
the soil. These so-called economies of
scale can have a serious long-term im-
pact on the environment despite seem-
ing short-term advantages. Thus it is not
surprising to see Dr. Butz-whose adapt-
or-die statement apparently means grow
huge or die-go after the environmental-
ists hammer and tong.
Here are some quotations taken from
an April 26, 1971 speech:
I am going to talk this morning about
something that I think is a real threat to
American agriculture and it involves our
future and something you can help us with.
And that's the threat that comes from
the environmentalists, or from the do-gooders
or from consumerism or from whatever you
want to call it.
Then I see these environmentalists on
the other side trying to hold us back and
trying to impede-not trying, but the net
effect is to impede-the progress we're mak-
ing in scientific agriculture.
This fadism that we follow as a Nation
and currently it's ecology and pollution and
it hits us in agriculture right in the solar
plexus. But we are now completely dependent
on a scientific agriculture, upon the use of
those things that are dangerous.
Mr. President, I would be the last Mem-
ber of the Senate to stand on this floor
and say that the environmentalists are
always right and that scientific farmers
are always wrong. But I also think it is
extremely foolish to say that scientific
farmers are always right and environ-
mentalists are always wrong. As a mat-
ter of fact there are times when the two
approaches are complementary-such
as in the use of biological pest control
methods as a substitute for deadly en-
vironmental poisons.
Any man who looks on the environ-
mental movement as a mortal enemy to
the farm economy is very ill suited to
harmonize the interests of both groups-
interests that must be accommodated if
we are to have an abundant yet safe food
supply at the least possible environment-
al cost. Any man that says, as Dr. Butz
has said, that if we move to organic farm-
ing we are going to have a decide which
50 million-Americans are going to starve,
is temperamentally unsuited to the job
of integrating new environmental tech-
niques into our farm economy.
How about DDT? What does Dr. Butz
say about this? Those of us whose States
border on Lake Michigan are particu-
larly concerned because Cohoe salmon
that have been introduced into the lake
are being adversely affected by DDT run-
off. The reproductive cycle is destroyed
in many instances. Here is what Dr. Butz
thinks about that problem:
We hear a lot about the run-off of DDT in
Lake Michigan over here. We don't hear much
about the benefits of DDT. You don't hear
much about malaria having been wiped from
Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280001-3
 Approved For Release 2Q05/08 ,; CIA-fZQJP, 7-00337E Q00500280001t,3
the face of the earth. You don't hear much
about human health having been improved.
You hear about DDT having been found in
the fish taken out of Lake Michigan over
here running off the Wisconsin hillsides and
the like of that to which I argue that, some-
thing like this: That Lake Michigan has DDT
in it. The Cohoe salmon thrives in Lake
Michigan. Lake Superior has no DDT. There
are no Cohoe salmon in Lake Superior. Moral :
Let's put DDT in Lake Superior so Cohoe
salmon can grow there (Laughter). Absurd.
Of course it's absurd. But no more so than
the argument on the other side.
Mr. President, this may-seem funny to
some, but it saddens me. This is a very
serious problem. It affects the tourist
industry substantially in Wisconsin and
Michigan, because many tourists are
there for the fishing. Dean Butz is poking.
fun at scientific conclusions reached by
men eminent in their field, including
Federal and State officials.
What sort of attitude will Dean Butz,
if his nomination shall be confirmed, take
toward the expenditure of funds on bio-
logical pest control as a substitute for
pesticides? Congress has appropriated
these funds and it is up to the Depart-
ment of Agriculture to spend them wisely.
Can we seriously expect a man who has
said that "we need to extol the benefits
that come from these-pesticides-that
we use," and has spent no little time
making the case for pesticides, to work
for their replacement by biological pest
control techniques? I hardly think so.
Dean Butz has an "either or" philos-
ophy. We have either got to live with
chemical poisons or starve to death; we
have either got to live with thermal pol-
lution or have brown-outs; we have
either got to beat the environmentalists
or see agriculture slip backward. There
are no compromises, no solutions, in his
vocabulary-only confrontations. And
confrontation is exactly what we do not
need at this critical turning point in the
history of man's impact on his environ-
ment=we need cooperation and a will-
ingness to get on with the job of investi-
gating alternatives to current practices
that are environmentally dangerous.
Some Senators have discussed Dean
Butz' conflict-of-interest problems. I
want to make it clear that I am not op-
posing this nomination on a conflict-of-
interest basis. It is true that Dean Butz
has been in close association with agri-
business giants in the very recent past-
companies such as Ralston-Purina, In-
ternational Minerals and Chemical Corp.,
and Stokeley-Van Camp-companies
that favor extensive use of pesticides and
antibiotics-companies that favor verti-
cal integration in farming. But I have no
doubts regarding Dean Butz' sincere ef-
fort to make decisions as Secretary of
Agriculture without regard to the impact
those decisions will have on companies
he has served as a director-companies
that have had him on their payroll.
However I believe that the same philo-
sophical leanings that resulted in Dean
Butz' decision to ally himself with these
companies in the first place, the attitudes
he has expressed in a number' of state-
ments I have alluded to today, the atti-
tudes that made him an important part
of the Ezra Taft Benson team in the
fifties, make him utterly unsuited to solve
the problems confronting the small
family farmer as well as the environ-
mental difficulties facing
today.
Mr. President, the parity ratio for
farmers has not been above 70 this year.
Last year it averaged 72; and the year
before-74. This means that the farmer
is getting less for his produce and spend-
ing more for the tools he needs to raise it.
If Dean Butz is confirmed by the Senate
today I see a bleak future for the farmer
in general, but particularly the small
family farmer. I see a future of even
lower parity ratios, even greater out-
migration from rural areas, increasing
hazards to our environment. For all of
these reasons I intend to vote against
Dean Butz and I sincerely urge a major-
ity of Senators to join with me. The win-
ner will be the American farmer.
At this point I shall read into the REC-
ORD a letter from the Governor of Wis-
consin, the Honorable Patrick Lucey,
which eloquently. argues against the con-
firmation of Dean Butz:
DEAR BILL: I have written to all members
of the Senate expressing my opposition to the
appointment of Earl Butz as Secretary of
Agriculture. I know that you have already ex-
pressed vigorous opposition to his appoint-
ment and I hope you are successful in your
bid to defeat confirmation. My letter today
was written on behalf of the farmers of Wis-
consin whose livelihood and life style have
been disregarded by the nomination of Earl
Butz as Secretary of Agriculture.
Those appointed to high public office ought
to be concerned with representing all in-
dividuals affected by the policies of that
office. However, in the case of Mr. Butz, you
are considering a man so clearly on the side of
huge corporate farming that individual small
farmers throughout our nation are bound to
suffer.
Earl Butz is a proponent of the policies
followed by Ezra Taft Benson, U.S. Secretary
of Agriculture during the 1950's. As you know,
these policies were an economic disaster,
causing severe. over-production of crops, huge
surpluses, low prices and financial ruin for
small farmers. It took practically the entire
decade of the 1960's to get rid of the sur-
pluses brought about by the Benson policies
of the previous decade.
Earl Butz was Assistant Secretary of Agri-
culture from 1954 to 1957 under Ezra Taft
Benson. From recent remarks, it is clear that
he is interested in resurrecting an era of
government mistake and mismanagement in
the area of agriculture. He has called on small
farmers to "adapt or die." He is philosophi-
cally opposed to price supports and acreage
diversion. There is no indication that he has
changed his view, espoused in 1955, that "too
many people are trying to stay in agriculture
that would do better someplace else."
In fact, that view seems to have hardened.
His position on the Board of Directors of
Ralston Purina, Stokeley-Van Camp and'In-
ternational Mineral and Chemical Company
as well as his ties with the J. I. Case Company
indicates that he is more interested in the
profit of huge corporations than the well-
being of individual farmers.
His economic ties have made him com-
pletely insensitive to the problems and needs
of the small farmer. On one recent occasion
he said, "I make no apologies to anyone for
the participation I have taken in agribusi-
ness companies." On another occasion he
said, "Nostalgically we still look at agricul-
ture as a way of life but agriculture is now
big business." Both his recent remarks and
his economic ties reflect his belief that the
future shape of rural America should be
domination of our agriculture and control of
our land by the largest corporations.
As Governor of Wisconsin, I am extremely
concerned about the effect the agricultural
policies of Earl Butz would have on the farm-
ers of our state. It is obvious that he plans to
reign over the demise of the small family
farm both in our state and throughout the
nation. It is equally obvious that under his
regime huge corporate farming will grow to
such proportions as to threaten the very
existence of rural America as we know it to-
day. Therefore, I urge you to reject the nomi-
nation of Earl Butz as Secretary of Agricul-
ture and approve in his place a man more
suited to represent all sectors of agriculture
in'our society.
Sincerely,
Governor.
QUORUM CALL
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, I suggest the absence of a quorum,
and I trust that it will be the final quo-
rum call of the day.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BUR-
DICK). The clerk will call the roll.
The second assistant legislative clerk
proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered. -
UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT
ON DIVISION OF TIME TOMOR-
ROW ON BUTZ NOMINATION
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, I ask unanimous consent that at
9 a.m. tomorrow, the Senate go into exec-
utive session, that time on the nomina-
tion of Mr. Butz then begin running, that
it be equally divided at that time so that
both sides-regardless of the imbalance
with respect to the utilization of time
that has occurred this afternoon-will
have equal time on tomorrow; and that
that time run from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m.
tomorrow.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, I ask unanimous consent that the
Senate now return to the consideration
of legislative business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
TRANSACTION OF ROUTINE
MORNING BUSINESS
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, I ask unanimous consent that there
be a period at this time for the transac-
tion of routine morning business with the
statements therein limited to 3 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM EXECU-
TIVE DEPARTMENTS, ETC.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid be-
fore the Senate the following letters,
which were referred as indicated:
REPORT FROM THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDU-
CATION, AND WELFARE
A letter from the Secretary of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare transmitting, pursuant,
to law, a report concerning grants approved
by his office financed wholly with Federal
funds and subject to the reporting require-
ments of Section 1120(b) of the Social Se-
Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280001-3