Weekly Radio Report: Test Ban Treaty & the Wheat Referendum

Item

Other Media

c031_029.mp3

c031_029_tr.txt

Transcription (Scripto)

Read Full Text Only (TXT)

Extent (Dublin Core)

5 Minutes, 30 Seconds

File Name (Dublin Core)

c031_029

Title (Dublin Core)

Weekly Radio Report: Test Ban Treaty & the Wheat Referendum

Description (Dublin Core)

Bob Dole analyzes voter thinking after the failure of the wheat referendum program, and urges listeners to contact him with their perspectives, since he anticipates an upcoming wheat subcommittee meeting, of which he is a member. Dole talks about next steps, and advocates for some type of program, preferably a voluntary one with less governmental interference.

Date (Dublin Core)

1963-01-05

Date Created (Dublin Core)

1963-01-06

Congress (Dublin Core)

88th (1963-1965)

Topics (Dublin Core)

See all items with this valueAgricultural laws and legislation

See all items with this valueWheat farmers

Policy Area (Curation)

Agriculture and Food

Creator (Dublin Core)

Dole, Robert J., 1923-2021

Record Type (Dublin Core)

radio programs

Rights (Dublin Core)

http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/

Language (Dublin Core)

eng

Collection Finding Aid (Dublin Core)

https://dolearchivecollections.ku.edu/index.php?p=collections/findingaid&id=84&q=

Physical Collection (Dublin Core)

Collection 031, Box 1

Institution (Dublin Core)

Robert J. Dole Institute of Politics, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS

Archival Collection (Dublin Core)

Dole Audio Reels Collection, 1960-1979

Full Text (Extract Text)

This is Congressman Bob Dole with my weekly radio report from Washington. First of all, I wish to thank the station for carrying my broadcast as a public service.

As I said last week, and I continue to say it this week: the primary topic of conversation among the rural members of Congress — I might say of both parties — has been what happened in the wheat referendum. How do you analyze the tremendous vote against the program, what are [the] plans, and what are the possibilities of new legislation being enacted, and, if so, when do you think this will happen? And, of course, it’s been most interesting; we are beginning to receive mail from farmers, some who voted yes, some who voted no, and, of course, these letters from farm people are most helpful to us in trying to analyze, first of all, why they voted as they did, and secondly, what they feel should be done now that the referendum on the 1964 two-price certificate plan failed. And, again, I would urge those of you who lived on the farm or have interest in wheat legislation that you do contact me and very frankly give me your views, and, if you can, if you wish to, I would appreciate knowing just how you voted.

I say this because on last Friday, I asked in our Committee hearing, I asked the Chairman, Mr. [Harold Dunbar] Cooley when we would start hearings on new wheat legislation. He informed me at that time that the wheat subcommittee chairman, Congressman Graham Purcell of Texas, would be back in Washington about June 1st, and he felt that there would be hearings shortly thereafter. So we're hopeful, at least, that sometime in the first week of June, we'll sit down in our wheat subcommittee, of which I'm a member, and discuss many things.

And, of course, there's been many theories advanced on what the farmers now want because of the ‘no’ vote. There are those who feel, and probably justifiably so, that the ‘no’ vote means simply the farmer wants nothing; he's very satisfied with the existing law which should be a fifty percent of parity or about a dollar twenty-five or thirty, if he stayed within his allotments; and he’s not asking for any additional program from the government. There are others who feel that the farmer voted “no” in a protest; first of all, to the propaganda he received from the Secretary of Agriculture and through the USDA [United States Department of Agriculture], and secondly, because, and I think very properly so, the program was oversold by the Department of Agriculture. And the farmer became suspicious. He wasn't certain just what it did contain, but he couldn't understand why there was so much interest being generated through the United States Department of Agriculture because, historically, in past referendums, the Secretary's position has been to furnish information, and not to wade into the battle with both feet and start slugging as he did in this case. So there's that school of thought: that this really wasn't a vote by the farmers saying, ‘I want nothing, I want no new program, but I'm voting because I have no confidence in the Secretary or that I'm disgusted or frustrated about some point in the program, so it's on this basis that we feel.’ Then, of course, we have those who voted ‘yes’ who certainly didn’t want a program. And now some of the people who voted ‘yes’ now feel that since they didn't want the program that he voted for perhaps there shouldn't be any new program, we should vote again in a referendum next year on a two-price plan. Well, frankly I don't feel that the farmers will be any more receptive next year in a referendum then they were this year.

So what do we do now in Congress to act responsibly, which we have an obligation to do to everyone whether you voted ‘yes,’ whether you voted ‘no,’ whether you're a Republican or Democrat? As I said before, there's been no evidence in my mail that the farmers who voted ‘yes,’ and the farmers who voted ‘no,’ or vice versa, have ever considered this to be a partisan matter; I'm talking about the referendum. The farmers voted, I feel, in accordance with the conclusions they drew from the information they had, and so we go into any hearing on legislation [with] terrible areas of disagreement.

Frankly, I feel we have a responsibility to enact some program, but I do feel that the general vote of the farmer in the overwhelming vote in Kansas against the program indicates this: first of all, the farmer wants a voluntary program, and it seems rather inconsistent to me that the administration ram through Congress a feed grain bill just three days before the wheat referendum and boasted about it being a voluntary program. They did this and then turn right around and ask the farmer to go out and vote in wheat areas for a mandatory program, and I think this one inconsistency was responsible for a large number of ‘no’ votes — at least our mail reflects this. In other words, they told the wheat farmer, ‘you go out and vote for yourself a mandatory program.’ They told members of Congress to vote for a voluntary program for feed grain producers. I think we should be consistent, so I feel as we go into these hearings, we should go into it on the basis it should be a voluntary program, and it should be one with less governmental interference even if it means a reduction in income in some areas.

Thanks again; I would appreciate your comments. This is Congressman Bob Dole, Washington 25 DC.

This is Congressman Bob Dole with my weekly radio report from Washington. First of all, I wish to thank the station for carrying my broadcast as a public service.

As I said last week, and I continue to say it this week: the primary topic of conversation among the rural members of Congress — I might say of both parties — has been what happened in the wheat referendum. How do you analyze the tremendous vote against the program, what are [the] plans, and what are the possibilities of new legislation being enacted, and, if so, when do you think this will happen? And, of course, it’s been most interesting; we are beginning to receive mail from farmers, some who voted yes, some who voted no, and, of course, these letters from farm people are most helpful to us in trying to analyze, first of all, why they voted as they did, and secondly, what they feel should be done now that the referendum on the 1964 two-price certificate plan failed. And, again, I would urge those of you who lived on the farm or have interest in wheat legislation that you do contact me and very frankly give me your views, and, if you can, if you wish to, I would appreciate knowing just how you voted.

I say this because on last Friday, I asked in our Committee hearing, I asked the Chairman, Mr. [Harold Dunbar] Cooley when we would start hearings on new wheat legislation. He informed me at that time that the wheat subcommittee chairman, Congressman Graham Purcell of Texas, would be back in Washington about June 1st, and he felt that there would be hearings shortly thereafter. So we're hopeful, at least, that sometime in the first week of June, we'll sit down in our wheat subcommittee, of which I'm a member, and discuss many things.

And, of course, there's been many theories advanced on what the farmers now want because of the ‘no’ vote. There are those who feel, and probably justifiably so, that the ‘no’ vote means simply the farmer wants nothing; he's very satisfied with the existing law which should be a fifty percent of parity or about a dollar twenty-five or thirty, if he stayed within his allotments; and he’s not asking for any additional program from the government. There are others who feel that the farmer voted “no” in a protest; first of all, to the propaganda he received from the Secretary of Agriculture and through the USDA [United States Department of Agriculture], and secondly, because, and I think very properly so, the program was oversold by the Department of Agriculture. And the farmer became suspicious. He wasn't certain just what it did contain, but he couldn't understand why there was so much interest being generated through the United States Department of Agriculture because, historically, in past referendums, the Secretary's position has been to furnish information, and not to wade into the battle with both feet and start slugging as he did in this case. So there's that school of thought: that this really wasn't a vote by the farmers saying, ‘I want nothing, I want no new program, but I'm voting because I have no confidence in the Secretary or that I'm disgusted or frustrated about some point in the program, so it's on this basis that we feel.’ Then, of course, we have those who voted ‘yes’ who certainly didn’t want a program. And now some of the people who voted ‘yes’ now feel that since they didn't want the program that he voted for perhaps there shouldn't be any new program, we should vote again in a referendum next year on a two-price plan. Well, frankly I don't feel that the farmers will be any more receptive next year in a referendum then they were this year.

So what do we do now in Congress to act responsibly, which we have an obligation to do to everyone whether you voted ‘yes,’ whether you voted ‘no,’ whether you're a Republican or Democrat? As I said before, there's been no evidence in my mail that the farmers who voted ‘yes,’ and the farmers who voted ‘no,’ or vice versa, have ever considered this to be a partisan matter; I'm talking about the referendum. The farmers voted, I feel, in accordance with the conclusions they drew from the information they had, and so we go into any hearing on legislation [with] terrible areas of disagreement.

Frankly, I feel we have a responsibility to enact some program, but I do feel that the general vote of the farmer in the overwhelming vote in Kansas against the program indicates this: first of all, the farmer wants a voluntary program, and it seems rather inconsistent to me that the administration ram through Congress a feed grain bill just three days before the wheat referendum and boasted about it being a voluntary program. They did this and then turn right around and ask the farmer to go out and vote in wheat areas for a mandatory program, and I think this one inconsistency was responsible for a large number of ‘no’ votes — at least our mail reflects this. In other words, they told the wheat farmer, ‘you go out and vote for yourself a mandatory program.’ They told members of Congress to vote for a voluntary program for feed grain producers. I think we should be consistent, so I feel as we go into these hearings, we should go into it on the basis it should be a voluntary program, and it should be one with less governmental interference even if it means a reduction in income in some areas.

Thanks again; I would appreciate your comments. This is Congressman Bob Dole, Washington 25 DC.

This is Congressman Bob Dole with my weekly radio report from Washington. First of all, I wish to thank the station for carrying my broadcast as a public service.

As I said last week, and I continue to say it this week: the primary topic of conversation among the rural members of Congress — I might say of both parties — has been what happened in the wheat referendum. How do you analyze the tremendous vote against the program, what are [the] plans, and what are the possibilities of new legislation being enacted, and, if so, when do you think this will happen? And, of course, it’s been most interesting; we are beginning to receive mail from farmers, some who voted yes, some who voted no, and, of course, these letters from farm people are most helpful to us in trying to analyze, first of all, why they voted as they did, and secondly, what they feel should be done now that the referendum on the 1964 two-price certificate plan failed. And, again, I would urge those of you who lived on the farm or have interest in wheat legislation that you do contact me and very frankly give me your views, and, if you can, if you wish to, I would appreciate knowing just how you voted.

I say this because on last Friday, I asked in our Committee hearing, I asked the Chairman, Mr. [Harold Dunbar] Cooley when we would start hearings on new wheat legislation. He informed me at that time that the wheat subcommittee chairman, Congressman Graham Purcell of Texas, would be back in Washington about June 1st, and he felt that there would be hearings shortly thereafter. So we're hopeful, at least, that sometime in the first week of June, we'll sit down in our wheat subcommittee, of which I'm a member, and discuss many things.

And, of course, there's been many theories advanced on what the farmers now want because of the ‘no’ vote. There are those who feel, and probably justifiably so, that the ‘no’ vote means simply the farmer wants nothing; he's very satisfied with the existing law which should be a fifty percent of parity or about a dollar twenty-five or thirty, if he stayed within his allotments; and he’s not asking for any additional program from the government. There are others who feel that the farmer voted “no” in a protest; first of all, to the propaganda he received from the Secretary of Agriculture and through the USDA [United States Department of Agriculture], and secondly, because, and I think very properly so, the program was oversold by the Department of Agriculture. And the farmer became suspicious. He wasn't certain just what it did contain, but he couldn't understand why there was so much interest being generated through the United States Department of Agriculture because, historically, in past referendums, the Secretary's position has been to furnish information, and not to wade into the battle with both feet and start slugging as he did in this case. So there's that school of thought: that this really wasn't a vote by the farmers saying, ‘I want nothing, I want no new program, but I'm voting because I have no confidence in the Secretary or that I'm disgusted or frustrated about some point in the program, so it's on this basis that we feel.’ Then, of course, we have those who voted ‘yes’ who certainly didn’t want a program. And now some of the people who voted ‘yes’ now feel that since they didn't want the program that he voted for perhaps there shouldn't be any new program, we should vote again in a referendum next year on a two-price plan. Well, frankly I don't feel that the farmers will be any more receptive next year in a referendum then they were this year.

So what do we do now in Congress to act responsibly, which we have an obligation to do to everyone whether you voted ‘yes,’ whether you voted ‘no,’ whether you're a Republican or Democrat? As I said before, there's been no evidence in my mail that the farmers who voted ‘yes,’ and the farmers who voted ‘no,’ or vice versa, have ever considered this to be a partisan matter; I'm talking about the referendum. The farmers voted, I feel, in accordance with the conclusions they drew from the information they had, and so we go into any hearing on legislation [with] terrible areas of disagreement.

Frankly, I feel we have a responsibility to enact some program, but I do feel that the general vote of the farmer in the overwhelming vote in Kansas against the program indicates this: first of all, the farmer wants a voluntary program, and it seems rather inconsistent to me that the administration ram through Congress a feed grain bill just three days before the wheat referendum and boasted about it being a voluntary program. They did this and then turn right around and ask the farmer to go out and vote in wheat areas for a mandatory program, and I think this one inconsistency was responsible for a large number of ‘no’ votes — at least our mail reflects this. In other words, they told the wheat farmer, ‘you go out and vote for yourself a mandatory program.’ They told members of Congress to vote for a voluntary program for feed grain producers. I think we should be consistent, so I feel as we go into these hearings, we should go into it on the basis it should be a voluntary program, and it should be one with less governmental interference even if it means a reduction in income in some areas.

Thanks again; I would appreciate your comments. This is Congressman Bob Dole, Washington 25 DC.