This is Congressman Bob Dole with my weekly radio report from Washington. I would first thank the station again, as I have in the past, for carrying my program as a public service broadcast.

I think perhaps the bill of the most significance to all of Western Kansas — in fact all of Kansas — would be the outcome of the Omnibus Farm Bill. At this very moment, the House has passed a bill and the Senate has passed a bill; of course, there are some differences between the House and the Senate versions, and as a result we now have House conferees and Senate conferees — a total of twelve or thirteen members of the House and Senate — who are in conferences trying to iron out and to compromise the differences. And after the conferees have agreed, then it will come back to the House and to the Senate and we will vote for or against the conference report.

Frankly, in my discussion with some of the conferees, I understand that they've progressed very well with reference to the feed grain section, with reference to rice, with reference to wool, and they're making a lot of headway insofar as the wheat section and the cropland adjustment sections are concerned. Frankly, I see very little difficulty, and I would predict there would be very little change in the wheat program as passed by the House — and also very little change in the cropland adjustment section. I do think that the because of Senate action it’s possible that the final bill — the wheat bill — will provide maybe five or six cents more per bushel for the American wheat producer than was provided in the House bill. But all in all, I would say that by the end of this week we should be voting on the conference report on the Farm Bill.

Now, I have discussed before certain sections of this bill, and I have said before on my weekly program that I believe and I would predict that the section which may attract the most attention — and which may be the most popular with Kansas farmers — will be the cropland adjustment section. And I have been watching this very closely, and insofar as the action by the House and Senate conferees are concerned — what it is, in effect — it is an amendment of the old Soil Bank Act. And I would point out — I'm going to be the first to admit that the Soil Bank Act had some very serious shortcomings — that there were abuses under the Soil Bank Act — but like many other federal programs, it takes some experience. And I believe that an effort has been made now to eliminate the abuses and to provide a program which will retire cropland — not just any land, but cropland — from production. It does provide contracts up to ten years, and depending on whether or not the House or the Senate version is adopted, the program will start either in 1965 according to the House bill, or in 1966 if the Senate bill prevails. There will be some limit, I would guess, on the amount of money that could be expended in any one fiscal year. The House bill had no limit when we passed it; the Senate bill had a limit of $225 million, and I would guess it probably would be wise to place some limitation on the amount that could be expended in any one year.

It does provide — the bill provides for lump-sum payments or payments in installments. It does provide — the House bill and the Senate Bill both — we are talking about retirement of cropland, and to me, I think it will be a program very well-received once it is completely understood by the farmer. And I believe he will find in many cases he can work it along with the so-called ‘Wheat Certificate Plan,’ and it may help to improve the operation of this program among those who have their doubts about it. So all in all, I would guess that the cropland retirement program will be, again, a very popular one, and one that will attract much interest in Kansas.

I thought I might mention we're still speculating about adjournment. The best bet now seems to be the weekend of October 16th or October 23rd. Much will depend upon the action taken in the Senate on Section 14b or the so-called ‘Right to Work Section.’ As far as I'm concerned — and as far as a great many members of the House are concerned - if it's necessary, we're willing to stay all of October, all of November, and all of December if we can prevent repeal of Section 14b. Because despite all the arguments on the other side, it is still my basic belief that good unions do not need repeal of Section 14b, and bad unions do not deserve to have Section 14b repealed. The very basic issue involved is whether or not a man or a woman must pay dues in order to have employment, and I think it’s a basic state’s right — it's a basic constitutional right — and it's a very basic principle involved.

And I certainly wish Senator [Everett] Dirksen — a Republican — and Senator [Samuel] Ervin of North Carolina — a Democrat — the best of luck in their efforts to slow down the repeal of Section 14b, and, in fact, halt the repeal of 14b...[Recording ends.]