Remarks to Farm Media Representatives Attending a Briefing on Domestic Policy in Des Moines, Iowa.

Members of the Cabinet, and all of the distinguished members of the press and radio and d TV who are here at this meeting:

I hope we haven't delayed you too long, but I told Herb¹ before the meeting began that having traveled through this part of the country and visited virtually every city, I guess every city that is represented here, I did want to have the chance to at least say hello, to each of you before the meeting began.

¹ Herbert G. Klein, Director of Communications for the Executive Branch.

My own participation will have to be brief due to the fact that tonight we are giving a dinner for the astronauts; the last astronaut team and all the astronauts, as a matter of fact, will be guests of honor tonight--those that are available. And so to get back to Washington, to get dressed, to get the dinner ready and so forth, of course, requires a very short timetable.

But we have here a group of my colleagues in the Administration who will be able to talk very candidly and, I think, very helpfully and constructively to you on some of our initiatives in the whole field of rural development and the programs for rural America.

I think I can best introduce my own remarks here by putting what will follow in perspective, first, by beginning with American agriculture.

Usually when an individual comes to talk about rural America, he is expected to talk only about the farmer. Now, of course, the farmer is the most important part of rural America. The farmer, and American agriculture, is the foundation upon which the balance of rural America is built.

When we speak of rural America, however, in the conversations and briefings that you have here today, we are speaking of that part of America in which the cities or towns are 50,000 or less, and where the county in which the city or town is located has a population density of 100 or less [per square mile], including, of course, the city.

This is done not from the standpoint of any arbitrary number, but for the purpose of attempting to get--as I will indicate in my own remarks and as will be further followed up by the other speakers-attempt to focus on a problem that has not adequately been focused upon in previous years.

Second, when we look at rural America in terms now of the most important aspect of rural America, to wit, the farmer, and all that he contributes, we realize, as I tried to say to the Iowa Legislature today, that American agriculture is, when we consider this huge productive economy of the richest nation in the world, it is in truth our greatest asset. We hear so often about the problems of American agriculture. We hear so often about the fact that the farm programs cost too much and this and that and the other thing. But let's look at a few figures, figures that are worth repeating even to you group of experts.

First, we have a productivity commission that has just been set up, set up for the purpose of getting better productivity throughout the whole of American life, in industry, in government, and in all of its aspects.²

² The National Commission on Productivity, established by the President in July 1970, issued a policy statement on September 7, 1971. A White House announcement of the policy statement is printed in the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents (vol. 7, P. 1249). On the same day, the White House also released the transcript of a news briefing on the policy statement by George P. Shultz, Director of the Office of Management and Budget and Chairman of the Commission.

Sitting on that productivity commission, for example, are Secretary Romney and Secretary Stans and Secretary Hardin. All of us have had the chance to look at the problems of industry and its various aspects. Some of our industries, for example, like the steel industry, finds itself no longer as competitive as it used to be because the most modern steel plants in the world today, for example, are in Germany and in Japan.

And other industries, like in the field of radios, the thing that you are very interested in, we find there that foreign imports are a very great problem. It is significant to note that today there is not a table model radio that you can buy in any store in America that is made in the United States of America. Reason: The industry', insofar as that particular type of production is concerned, is no longer competitive.

Now, that doesn't mean that America is ready to become a second-class country economically, from the standpoint of business or in any other way. It simply means that in the world in which we live, as the other great industrial nations--the great industrial nations of Europe, and Japan in Asia--as they have recovered from the ravages of World War II, as they have developed their own economies, that they have become highly competitive in a number of ways.

There is one area, however, where the United States is far ahead, where we have an advantage over every other nation of the world, and it is in the area of agriculture.

It was interesting to note--and I think, George [Secretary Romney], that you and Maury [Secretary Stans] and Cliff Hardin were all as impressed as I was with the fact that a group of businessmen who were on the productivity commission and the productivity council made the point that American agriculture, in terms of growths and increases in productivity, had the best record of any segment of the American economy.

Now, what does that mean? First, it means that American agriculture is highly competitive in the world. Proof: Last year, one-fifth of everything produced and grown in America was exported. This year, one-fourth of everything grown in America was exported.

Another indication of proof is that at a time when we are having problems with our balance of payments, with keeping our export balances up as compared with the imports that come in, we exported last year $7.2 billion worth of agricultural commodities.

We were able to export them because agriculture is highly competitive and highly efficient in the United States of America.

And, of course, the best proof in terms of the housewife in America is this: We hear a lot about the costs of food, and, of course, the farmer is concerned as he might well be concerned about the decline in farm income.

Parenthetically, we are glad to note that at least while farm income isn't as high as farmers naturally would want it to be, and while it cannot be said that farmers share adequately in America's increasing growth in productivity, at least farm income, according to Cliff Hardin, at least the situation is better now than it was 2 or 3 months ago.

And we trust that that trend will continue.

But let's look at it in terms of the American housewife. We all know that we are the best fed people in the world. We also know that as far as the American housewife is concerned, she spends a smaller percentage of her budget on food than any other housewife in any major country of the world, or for that matter, in any other country' in the world, I think I could safely say.

Therefore, these facts which need to be brought home to the American people, not just a group of sophisticated farm experts, as you are all experts, but need to be brought home to people in the cities as well as on the farms, as to what we owe to the strong, vibrant, highly productive farm economy, indicate what our stake is to keep it productive. One, it is important to our balance of payments. Two, it is important to maintaining the high standard of living that we enjoy in this country, to make it possible not only for us to have the best fed people in the world but also to be able to export much abroad and to use, where we find it feasible, to use our farm products very effectively in terms of our foreign policy.

And so leaving that note, and now moving to the broader subject, here we see the farmer, highly productive, an enormous asset to this country; we see him with problems, with his income not as high as it should be in terms of his contribution. And here we see also the problem of where the farmer lives--the cities, the towns of rural America.

Now let me be quite candid. And I say this knowing that I am being covered not only by farm editors and people writing columns or speaking on radio or television primarily to farm audiences but with a pool in this room who will carry these remarks to cities as well, because I say the same thing to the cities that we say on the farms, and naturally that is as it should be.

But I think that the important thing that we have to bear in mind here is that there has been some criticism of the Administration's new initiatives in terms of revenue sharing, and our other new programs, on the ground that it shortchanges the cities in favor of rural America.

I want to meet that criticism head on. It does not shortchange the cities. As George Romney, who is the head of the Department of [Housing and] Urban Development, will tell you, our new programs for revenue sharing provide as much for any city or county as presently is being provided, and more for most, and that over all this country it is approximately over a 20 percent increase.

However, what is novel and what is new in our approach this year is that for really the first time we are putting emphasis on an area which has really been too much at the short end of the stick: the forgotten area of the American economy, rural America.

Let's look at rural America for a moment. Again, we look at the facts and the figures and what do we find? Over half of the substandard housing in America is in rural America. Approximately half of the unemployment and underemployment is in rural America and approximately half of those below the poverty level live in rural America.

And when one tries to set the city against the county, or the city against; the country, this is of course a self-defeating operation, because what really ends up is simply this: that the problems of rural America today, the problems of lack of opportunity, the problems of poverty, the problems of underemployment or unemployment, the problems of substandard housing, the problems of rural America today will become the problems of urban America tomorrow unless we change the climate in rural America.

And so that brings me to the reason why in the new revenue sharing proposals, at my insistence, we put additional funds in the area of rural problems. Those funds will be described to you by Mr. Harper³ and by others who will be briefing you.

³ Edwin L. Harper, Special Assistant to the President.

I pointed out in my address to the legislature that the total that will go specifically for rural development is $1,100 million. However, rural America will share in funds which are in other packages, funds for education in special revenue sharing, funds for housing, and other areas.

But insofar as rural development specifically is concerned, there is an amount of $1,100 million. What is important to note about this is that this is a 25 percent increase over the funds that all of existing categorical programs specifically directed toward rural America would produce.

Now, why this emphasis? The why I have already, I think, indicated. It is essential that this part of America, which has not received the fair treatment and the equal treatment that it should receive, get that treatment. Because what happens is that two-thirds of the counties of this country, rural counties, are emptying out of people and emptying out of promise. And where do they go? They move into the great cities and they create there enormous problems.

Approximately 40 percent of the people of this country, as we look toward the end of the century, and perhaps over 50 percent, will be living in three great complexes in the Boston to Washington complex, in the Chicago to Pittsburgh complex, and in the Pacific Coast complex running from San Diego to San Francisco.

What needs to be done is for us to recognize that if this is the kind of America we want, then let's face up to what the problems will be.

There are varying estimates on how much the population of the United States will increase between now and the end of the century. Some say 100 million; some say 60 million.

Well, let's take 70 million. Where are those 70 million people going to go? Well, I can assure you if they go to Los Angeles, if they go to Chicago, if they go to Cleveland, if they go to New York, it is going to create enormous problems on an already overburdened structure of urban life.

It is essential--and I use those cities only as examples, others could be named--it is essential that there be developed in urban America not only a sound farm economy, and we here must recognize that the basis of a sound farm economy, as Cliff Hardin so often emphasized, is a family farm adequately financed and adequate in size to be a viable enterprise.

But not only do we need a sound farm economy, but we need to develop in rural America the opportunities, the opportunities for employment, the opportunities for different kinds of activities, some related to farming, some not related to farming, which will reverse this trend or at least stop this trend of people moving from rural America into the already overcrowded industrial urban complexes of this Nation.

Now, that is a big order. How can it be done?

We don't have any simple answer to that. No one can sit here and tell you what an individual is going to do, what is going to motivate him, whether he is going to want to move to the city, a big city, or whether he is going to stay in a small town or move to a slightly larger town or whatever the case might be.

But at the present time, we want to remove those disincentives for living in rural America.

I remember an interesting conversation I had at the airport in Fargo, North Dakota, when we had a similar meeting of this type just a few months ago. I talked to, as I was going down the line at the airport, with a couple who said they were from California. They had lived there for approximately 10 years, and they said, "We moved back to North Dakota." And I said, "Why did you leave in the first place?" They said, "There was nothing to do here." I said, "Why did you move back?" He says, "Because the company we were with, they had a branch plant here. We wanted to live here. We liked to live here. We would prefer to live here if there was something to do."

Now, some would prefer to live perhaps in California; some in some other city, or however the case might be. But what we must at least provide is the opportunity in rural America for a person to make a decent living, to have adequate education, to have adequate health facilities, to have the infrastructure which will allow the attraction of business opportunities and so forth; what we need to do is to have that kind of program or we are going to continue to have this growing problem of urban America becoming less and less governable, and rural America emptying, as I have already indicated, without having any of the hope that it should have and without all of what it could thereby contribute to the country.

I would just close on one personal note. I speak with some feeling on this subject because I believe that out here in what is called the heartland of the country there is something more than simply the richest agricultural land in the world or at least the most productive. I think there are certain values, values that we also see in our great cities, but values that are particularly evident here, that are worth preserving.

I somewhat come from the heartland, my mother from Indiana, my father from Ohio. And I remember after their family was raised that both my mother and father decided to go back to a farm. And they went to Pennsylvania and lived there during many of their last years while I was serving in the House and Senate and later as Vice President.

I do not mean to suggest by that that everybody should return to the farm when he gets older. I do not mean to suggest by that that life in the city is necessarily corrupt and less admirable than life in the country.

But I do know this: That there is a quality of life, a quality out through this great heartland of the Nation, that is worth preserving, if we are to have a balanced, strong, healthy country.

I do not want to see America lose that quality of life. I think we can do something about it. I think we have got to start, first of all, with the farmer. Without a healthy, strong agricultural economy, we cannot have any rural program that will stand up.

But, then, we have to supplement that with some new initiatives, as I have indicated, initiatives that you will now hear, initiatives that are truly new, new in the sense that for the first time we focus on the problem of rural America, we put more money on those problems, and we focus in a way that this area of the country gets at least equal attention, and, because in the past it has been somewhat behind, somewhat more attention than even urban America.

This is good for urban America. We trust it will be good for rural America. But you will have to be the judges.

I will now have my panel of experts try to convince you that what I have said has some element of truth in it.

Thank you.