This is Congressman Bob Dole in Washington with my weekly radio report. Again, I'd like to thank the station for carrying my program as a public service broadcast.

Secondly, I might point out that this week is a most important week for everyone in Kansas because this week the House is considering the Administration farm proposal. I might state very clearly that I appeared before the Rules Committee and opposed this Farm Bill. As a member of the Committee on Agriculture in the House, I think I can speak with some authority when I state that this bill is not in the best interest of any Kansas farmer.

Let me point out what, in my opinion, is wrong with this bill, and what I think could be done to make it less distasteful to some of the Western Kansas farmers. First of all, as I have said publicly on at least two or three occasions, in my humble opinion as a freshman Congressman, this bill is politically oriented. Now you should understand that under this bill, if you're raising feed grains and raising wheat, you are required to take a 20% cut in both your wheat and feed grain acreage, and of course, the bill also provides for strict cross-compliance. In other words, you must be in compliance with both programs, or you're not going to be able to participate or to receive price supports. Now, the 20% cut, of course, is bad enough, but when we consider some of the amendments which were adopted, I think it's clearly disastrous for the Western Kansas — or any Kansas — farmer. Take for example, these so-called ‘deficit feed grain area amendment.’ This is nothing but an amendment to induce Southern Democrats to vote for this bill. It merely states that Secretary of Agriculture Mr. [Orville] Freeman can determine that certain areas which produce feed grains do not produce enough — in other words, do not produce as much quantity as they need. Therefore, they are deficit areas, and these so-called ‘deficit areas,’ — they would not take an acreage reduction. So you can very easily determine who will take the acreage cuts under the feed grain bill — the people in Kansas and the people in the Midwest.

Now with reference to the wheat program — this is just one feature that is wrong with the feed grain program, I might add in addition, this a mandatory program and not a voluntary program. Now getting over to the wheat program — this is another mandatory program — the wheat producers will be required to reduce their acreage 20%. And then there’s a little sleeper in this bill: they're going to change the base period from ten years to five years. And this is what this does to the Kansas farmers: it costs you an additional 138,000 acres of wheat land. In other words, the Kansas farmers under this bill will take a 21.3% cut in wheat acreage, and this seems strange to me when states such as North Carolina and Alabama — and even lowa — are increasing wheat acreage under this provision.

Now frankly, in addition to both programs being mandatory, and in addition to the strict cross- compliance, you should also know that there's no guarantee under this bill, in fact, there is probably no way that the farmer can increase or maintain his income. Because he’s going to get between the $1.95 and $2.05 for 85% of his wheat, and around $1.40 for 15% of your wheat. Now, certainly under this type of program, you cannot increase your income. In addition to those of you who live in Western Kansas, if the House version is passed, you can no longer plant penalty wheat, because if you do, you must pay an increased penalty on this wheat which would be around $1.56 a bushel, and you can receive only feed price for it, which would be around a $1.40 a bushel. So those of you who have in the past exceeded your acreage and stored the wheat under bond at your expense to be sold in a subsequent short crop year are denied this privilege, and I think it's very important, I think it's unjustified, and certainly I shall try to eliminate this provision.

Let me say in conclusion, and I think rather than to get into a strictly regimented and a completely controlled farm program, that we should give the farmer an extension of the programs we now have. At least we have a voluntary feed grain program now, and we have a quasi-voluntary wheat program. The first 10% cut, you know, under the ‘62 program is mandatory, but the balance is a voluntary program, and until the administration comes up with some program that moves toward more freedom, I think we better keep what we have, even though they are not the best. If there was ever an invitation, in my opinion, to more and more scandals like the Billie Sol Estes scandal, the program we're considering this week in the House is certainly one. In other words, the administration farm bill which completely ties up the farmer with complete regimentation and control is certainly an invitation to scandal, and this is another reason I think it's not in the best interest to the Kansas farmer.

I trust that you will contact me this week, because this is the week we consider the Farm Bill. Thank you very much, and again, this is Bob Dole in Washington, D.C.