There is in no chapter of our freedom a line, sentence, or paragraph that even suggests security from responsibility.

We have given ourselves, in our freedom, the liberty of opportunity, not the luxury of letting down.

This year, and the years after, do not mark way stations at which, wearily, we can afford to rest and relinquish these responsibilities.

A whole world, much of it unsure of freedom, unsure that it really can work, watches us. Our own history and heritage watch us. We must say "no" to apathy, "no" to convenience and "yes" to our conscience. We must say that "yes," this free land, this free form of government will endure, that our will to make it work will prevail and that one day, in God's good time, the liberty we love and live will be proclaimed throughout the world.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

PROPOSED REVISION OF GRADES OF BEEF

Mr. PEARSON. Mr. President, Kansas is known as a wheat State; however, its livestock industry annually produces more than $536 million worth of beef animals, and ranks fourth in the Nation in the production of beef. Recognizing that the livestock industry is one of the last phases of our agricultural economy free from Government control, any new Federal legislation or regulation which may adversely affect our livestock industry by Government intervention should be carefully noted.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has proposed the revision of official U.S. standards for grades of carcass beef under sections 203 and 205 of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1622, 1624) and published in the Federal Register of September 18, 1963, pages 10208-10212. The livestock industry has been given until April 1, 1964, to submit to the Department comments outlining its position on the recommended change. This new proposal has the deceptive title of "Cutability," and is being instituted as a mandatory requirement for our Nation's packing industry, which presently adheres on a voluntary basis to Government grading.

This newest proposal by the USDA follows last year's dual grading experiment, which went beyond the commonly accepted grading classifications of U.S. Prime, Choice, or Good. This first dual grading experiment was discontinued on June 30, 1963, after livestock industry opposition became virtually unanimous across the Nation.

sale and purveyance of beef carcasses either to use the new grading technique or not to use Government grading standards in their business.

The acceptance of Federal grading, as it is now instituted, is encouraged as a matter of public policy. But the addition of as many as five additional classifications within each grade on a compulsory basis would restrict the free play of the market, increase costs to the producer, packer and consumer and, in its final result, act contrary to the public policy above stated. These results would be of immediate concern. In the long term, and perhaps of greater significance, this new regulation is the first mandatory requirement or compulsory regulation by the Government into a heretofore free livestock industry.

On the practical side, the consumer would face added confusion. Many packers assert that they would abandon Government grading, and would use, to a great extent, their own merchandising grades. grades. The public would become even more confused over the tangle of grades available from different packers and retailers, and would understand a new grading system even less than the present form.

I would hope that all Senators whose States have substantial livestock investments will explore this proposal by the USDA and will analyze it carefully. Although many Senators may not consider their States major producers of beef, I believe they should study its effect on their consumers. After After viewing the change from that standpoint, I believe all would agree this regulation is nothing more than an additional form of restrictive Government control which is totally unnecessary at this time. The added cost of establishing the change would not accomplish the announced purpose but, rather, would serve only to confuse the beef industry and the meatbuying public. At a time when the per capita consumption of meat is at an alltime high, such recommendation

would be detrimental to the best interests of our beef producers, packers, and

consumers.

Mr. President, at this time I can find no support in the livestock industry for the USDA proposal to change the present time-proven and popularly accepted system in grading. The Kansas Livestock Association opposes it, as do the American Meat Institute, the National Independent Meat Packers Association, the wholesalers and jobbers and hotel and restaurant purveyors.

October 2 and considered the proposed rulemaking of the Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Market Service, regulation 7 CFR 53-Carcass Beef.

It was the board's considered opinion that the Secretary of Agriculture's proposal to impose a cutability grade on top of the quality grade would not accomplish the purpose intended and, more important, it would confuse the consuming public. It would also add confusion in trade on carcass beef, particularly among those who do not understand the program.

It was the opinion of our association that the added cost and added requirements and details would penalize the producer on the fat cattle markets. Furthermore, we would like to state that the association is on record as opposing dual grading as followed for a period on a trial basis. The current proposal would adopt dual grading.

The proposal to return confirmation to the grade standards as a basis for establishing the old quality grade is highly commendable and favored by our association. Yours truly,

A. G. PICKETT, Secretary.

AMERICAN MEAT INSTITUTE, Chicago, Ill., October 29, 1963. DIRECTOR, LIVESTOCK DIVISION, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SIR: In response to the notice published in the Federal Register on September 19, 1963, the American Meat Institute, national trade association of the meatpacking

industry, hereby submits its views concern

ing proposed amendments to official U.S. standards for grades of carcass beef.

The institute's board of directors, representing more than 50 of the Nation's leading meatpacking firms, at a meeting on September 24, rejected the so-called dual grading system and voted to oppose the proposed changes in beef grade standards. We object

to the proposal because it is not workable, it will be harmful to the cattle and beef industry, and it is an unwarranted Government interference with the right of industry to merchandise its products most effectively.

The current proposal is substantially the same as that published in the Federal Register April 13, 1962, and it is not accurate to say, "That proposal is not being adopted and is no longer under consideration." We think a fair appraisal indicates that the two are alike except that the yield designations have been reduced from six to five, conformation has been added as a factor in quality designation, and dual grading would be made compulsory for anyone requesting Federal carcass beef grading. Nor do we agree with the statement, "This proposal would comply with the recommendations of most of those who objected to provisions of the April 1962 proposal * To our membership, many of whom did file objections to the April 1962 proposal, the current proposal is even more

Now, once again, the USDA is proposing a "cutability" grading requirement for meatpackers, but actually it is nothing more than new terminology for last year's rejected dual grading proposal. The significant change in this new "cutability" scheme is the mandatory part of the regulation which forces all meatpackers and persons associated with the

the Kansas Livestock Association, the American Meat Institute, and the National Independent Meat Packing Association, and several pieces of related correspondence.

There being no objection, the statements and correspondence were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

KANSAS LIVESTOCK ASSOCIATION, Topeka, Kans., October 9, 1963. Hon. JAMES B. PEARSON, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR PEARSON: The Kansas Livestock Association's board of directors met

Experience during the 12-month trial period of the proposed dual grading system, which terminated June 30, 1963, demonstrated that there was no desire on the part of retailers, meatpackers, or consumers for the dual grading feature of the system. Only about 3 percent of the Government graded beef was dual graded and a substantial part of this 3 percent was Government purchases. This lack of interest was due to the impractical and undesirable aspects of the cutability requirements as applied to our present beef merchandising methods. Notwithstanding this clear evidence of lack of desirability of Government dual grading in the domestic merchandising of beef, the U.S. Department of Agriculture continues to try

to promote this proposal by incorporating the undesirable cutability designations into the existing standards for beef grades, thus making it, in effect, mandatory for the portion of the industry using grading to use dual grading.

It is common knowledge that meatpackers for many years have done selecting within grades. Sometimes the selection is done by the retailer customer. However, it is evident that both packers and retailers would prefer to use their own judgment rather than to rely on that of a Government grader, who has no monetary investment at stake. In this connection, it has been observed that the only objective factor in the proposed standards is carcass weight. All the rest are essentially subjective factors which properly should be matters for negotiation rather than determined by a third party.

One of the shortcomings of the proposal under consideration is the implication that Choice No. 1 is a better product than Choice No. 2 or Choice No. 3, for example. This is not necessarily so, for in addition to the uncertainty about judging cutability precisely there may be considerable variation in quality within a grade. Nevertheless, we are convinced that use of the cutability designations inevitably will lead to inferences concerning overall desirability. The result will be overemphasis on leanness and deterioration in quality, to the detriment of the cattle and beef industry. The ultimate consumer of meat would derive no benefit from dual grading because he purchases trimmed meat cuts at the retail counter, and the popularity of beef would seem to indicate that he is pretty well satisfied with the product he has been getting.

We think the meatpacking industry (and ultimately the livestock producer) will be detrimentally affected by the proposal because it will lead to reduced opportunities for effective merchandising. Because of demands by large retailer buyers and inclusion of grade in Government specifications, meatpackers have been compelled to maintain Government grading, even though it is widely recognized that the Government grade is much less than an accurate indication of quality.

Government grading as it is now constituted tends to set the price, although there is still some leeway for the seller to merchandise the variability of carcasses within grade. With the inclusion of yield designation as a compulsory feature of grading, the appearance of precision in the grading process will be further enhanced, and the judgment of the Government grader will be an even greater factor in fixing the product price. Contrary to the actualities of the situation, beef will be regarded as a commodity, with complete substitutibility of one carcass for another bearing the same grade designations. By fostering a belief in a uniformity which does not exist, the Department of Agriculture will erode the ability of the meatpacker to merchandise the variability of the beef carcasses in his cooler by matching them with the varying requirements of his different customers. It will displace the skill of the packer whose success is based on his knowledge of beef and of his customers with the arbitrary judgment of a grader.

In summary, we believe the proposal for revised beef standards is a faulty instrument for improving the acceptability of beef or for improving the efficiency of the industry which produces, processes and markets the beef. We believe it will be harmful to the industry. We are opposed to the proposal also because we object to giving up our right to price our products independently and to merchandise them on the basis of our own individual value judgments.

We urge that the proposal for modifying beef carcass grade standards be withdrawn. Very truly yours,

HERRELL DEGRAFF, President.

EXCERPTS FROM LETTER TO DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FROM NATIONAL INDEPENDENT MEAT PACKING ASSOCIATION

Our failure to respond immediately to the invitation to submit "written data, views or arguments" concerning the proposed rulemaking entitled "Carcass Beef: Proposed U.S. Standards for Grades," which was published in the Federal Register on September 18, 1963, should not be misconstrued as indicating any lessening or weakening of the opposition of this association and its members to the concept of so-called dual grading-no matter how it is camouflaged nor by what name it is called.

To the contrary, the feeling of our members on this subject is so strong and so deep rooted that we have found it necessary to call a special emergency meeting of the National Independent Meat Packing Association beef and hides committee and the National Independent Meat Packing Association executive committee, at the cost of considerable time and expense, personally, for those involved, to compose in the most effective manner our logical reasons as to why this proposed rule should not be placed in effect.

The purpose of this letter, therefore, is to apprise you of our continuing interest in, and opposition to, any grading system which bears even a remote resemblance to dual grading, and to let you know that a formal presentation of the views of our members and our association will be forthcoming as rapidly as possible.

Respectfully,

JOHN A. KILLICK, Executive Secretary.

WILSON & CO., INC., Kansas City, Kans., October 10, 1963. Hon. JAMES B. PEARSON, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SIR: I am attaching a letter that Wilson & Co., Inc., sent to the Director of the Livestock Division, expressing our company's views to the notice placed in the Federal Register on September 13, 1963, concerning proposed U.S. standards for grading carcass beef.

I believe that this letter clearly expresses our concern over the problems involved if this cutability concept goes into effect.

During the trial period of dual grading, there was not any demand for dual graded beef from our retail customers, and we feel that this grading system would be detrimental to the best interests of livestock producers and feeders, as well as meat processors. This would represent an added expense in the selection and grading of beef. Respectfully yours,

D. A. LYON, General Manager.

THE FLEMING CO., INC., Topeka, Kans., October 8, 1963. Senator JAMES B. PEARSON, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SIR: We have attached a copy of a letLivestock Division, Washington, D.C. ter written to Mr. Dave Pettus, Director of We urge your support in objecting to the measure taken by the Department of Agriculture.

If this ruling becomes mandatory, we will have to cease promoting Government grading as most of my suppliers have informed me that they will discontinue Government

grading. This is a real serious threat to our country and to our economy.

Would appreciate your thoughts and any action taken.

Thank you.

Sincerely yours,

J. W. REECE,

Director of Meat Procurement.

EXCEL PACKING CO.,
Wichita, Kans., October 7, 1963.

DIRECTOR, LIVESTOCK DIVISION,
Agricultural Marketing Service,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR SIR: I would like to register our complaints to the modified beef grading proposed for the following reasons and request that the mandatory requirement of yield standards to the regulation be dropped. This would give the industry the opportunity to merchandise the cutability standards. If made compulsory, we fear the more desirable carcasses will be used as standard and the fatter carcasses will have to be sold at considerable discount to the trade at the expense of the packer and producer.

I herein list the objections in greater detail:

1. The proposed regulation mandatorily tying yield, or cutability grades to regular grading is highly objectionable to the beef slaughtering industry.

2. Regarding retailers' attitudes toward the proposed grading program, if adopted, carcasses bearing the lower cut-out grades would be excessively discounted by retailers.

3. The proposed program, if adopted, would put cattle slaughterers in the position of being mere order takers instead of beef merchandisers. This would limit, if not block, their ability to recover the full use value of the total beef supply in the marketplace.

4. By tying yield grading to quality grading the program transfers all value judgments to the grader. This should be objectionable to retail buyers who have their own selection programs; it should be objectionable to packers who truly try to do a real merchandising job on beef; producers also should object because it will lose for them the merchandising efforts of the packing industry through which maximum dollars are recovered for the total beef supply.

5. Consumers have nothing to gain one way or the other. In any event they are buyers of trimmed beef cuts.

6. We are greatly disturbed by the "politicking" which obviously is responsible for first removing conformation from the quality grade then reinstating it. Important as this factor is, it would appear that objectivity was not considered in the maneuvering that preceded the USDA's announced intention to reinstate yield grading.

7. The USDA, producers, packers, and college meats people who generally favor standards and grading by the USDA also should be disturbed by the research results of Burdette Breidenstein, which reveals very clearly that this proposed program does an improper job of classification. He has found from actual cutting tests of a large number of beef carcasses that only one-half of his extensive sample actually cut out in the yield grade indicated by the USDA formula.

Hotel and Restaurant Meat Purveyors is strongly opposed to the inclusion of "cutability" in grading. The meat industry made it quite clear to the Department of Agriculture that it was opposed to dual grading as unnecessary, burdensome, and of doubtful value. In apparent acceptance of the desires of the meat industry, the Secretary of Agriculture announced that the proposed dual grading would be abandoned, but instead of abandoning the concept he now proposes to include the very same concept into the present grading standards. Thus, anybody who would want to grade meat in accordance with the present regulations would at the same time be obligated to have the meat graded with respect to cutability. This is his attempt to do indirectly what the Department was unable to do directly. All of the reasons that have been advanced against dual grading are likewise applicable to the proposal to include the concept of cutability in our present grading standards. Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, will the Senator from Kansas yield?

Mr. PEARSON. I yield to the distinguished Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. SIMPSON. I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the Senator from Kansas. The Wyoming Livestock Association has also gone on record in this connection.

It seems to me that it is incumbent upon the Senate to do something to protect this industry, which never has been given a Government subsidy, and which probably has been the greatest exponent of private enterprise in the United States. Unless this industry is protected from imports as well as from the "cutability" proposed new grades, as referred to by the Senator from Kansas, we shall be in grave difficulties.

neuvering on both sides did not change the situation much. Majority Leader MANSFIELD, who is putting up a strong fight to save the administration's aid bill, foresees a long, hard struggle ahead.

Senator MORSE, who is leading the fight against the foreign-aid bill, bitterly resents the suggestion that he is playing the game of the southern Senators who plan later on to filibuster the civil-rights bill. His reputation as a fighter for civil rights is well established, and his sincerity in attacking the aid program is not open to question. The fact remains, however, that every hour of debate on the aid bill and every delaying maneuver dims the chances for enactment of other major legislation.

The basic fault, of course, is not with any Senator or any particular bill but with the Senate system. A large and complicated legislative program, such as that which President Kennedy laid before the present Congress, is manageable only through systematic scheduling of bills so that each may be considered in orderly fashion within the time is impossible so long as every committee limits available. But systematic scheduling chairman is a law unto himself, and any Senator or group of Senators may indulge in unlimited debate.

it.

Under the present rules, a group of Senators who conscientiously oppose a bill may reasonably feel that they have not done their duty unless they use dilatory tactics to kill Slowdowns, time-wasting maneuvers, and filibusters are thus the norm in the Senate whenever they serve the purpose of a committee chairman or a powerful minority group. The dismal truth is that the Senate has no centralized leadership or organization capable of overcoming these handicaps. the Congress were moving to put its house, or The outlook would be less discouraging if more specifically, its two Houses, in order. In the absence of modernizing reforms it would be naive to suppose that the legisla

Mr. PEARSON. I am glad to yield to the distinguished Senator from Oregon, Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I also wish to be associated with the remarks of the Senator from Kansas.

rights and tax bills have been disposed of. Rather, the congestion is likely to get worse with the accumulation of difficult domestic and international problems.

Let the sponsors of all progressive legislation listen well to the extended debate on foreign aid. The symbolic bell is tolling for

them.

AID DEBATE

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the RECORD an editorial entitled "For Whom the Bell Tolls," published in this morning's issue of the Washington Post.

There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

FOR WHOM THE BELL TOLLS

"Never send to know for whom the bell tolls," John Donne advised, "it tolls for thee." Sponsors of the civil rights bill, the tax bill, and many other pieces of legislation in the mountainous backlog on Capitol Hill may well recall these words as they listen to the protracted debate on the foreign-aid bill droning on and on in the Senate. The bell may be tolling specifically for foreign aid, but it is also tolling for civil rights, tax relief, and the entire Kennedy program.

Yesterday's voting involving relatively small sums and a good deal of intricate ma

has filled so many columns of the press in the past few days on the theme that those of us who are insisting upon a full debate of the foreign aid bill in the Senate are holding up proposed civil rights legislation. I shall again answer that charge in a moment. I have already answered it several times. I shall continue to answer it as long as the misrepresentation flows from the pens of American editors and correspondents. The editorial states:

Under the present rules a group of Senators who conscientiously oppose a bill may reasonably feel that they have not done their duty unless they use dilatory tactics to kill it. Slow-downs, time-wasting maneuvers and filibusters are thus the norm in the Senate whenever they serve the purpose of a committee chairman or a powerful minority group. The dismal truth is that the Senate has no centralized leadership or organization capable of overcoming these handicaps.

Delivering himself of those generalities, the editor is counting upon the reader to make the false assumption that that is what is happening in connection with the foreign aid bill in the Senate.

Let us place the facts before America. What that editor, as well as other editors, obviously do not like is that there is full debate in the Senate on the foreign aid bill. Steamroller tactics will not be permitted. What the editor ought to do is to refresh his knowledge, if he ever had any knowledge, about the history of the Senate, particularly in relation to what the Senate was established to do. lished to do. The Senate was designed to debate controversial issues and bring out their merits and demerits. The Senate was not intended by our Coning place to vote. In my years in the stitutional Fathers to be merely a meetSenate I have seen this procedure develop, so that the Senate is more and more becoming a meeting place of Senators to congregate and vote rather than a meeting place to debate and present the facts on two sides of a controversial issue. The senior Senator from Oregon has said that he has had enough of such procedure. His attitude will not be limited to the foreign aid bill, but will be applied to all major pieces of proposed legislation, because the so-called technique that the editor of the Washington Post thinks is in the public interest is a unanimous consent agreement to limit debate.

The PRESIDING INOUYE in the chair). Senator has expired.

OFFICER (Mr. The time of the

What happens? While the debate continues for that short period of time, the Senate Chamber is practically empty. In the present debate we have succeeded in having pretty good attendance, by and large, on most of the foreign aid amendments that have been offered. I think we shall find that that kind of attendance will continue.

Those to whom I have referred wish to establish a procedure by which debate on the bill would be limited to half an hour on a side or an hour or two. When the Senate operates under such a limitation, few Senators come to the Chamber because they know that the vote will be certain to take place at a particular time. Senators stay away. They congregate in the Chamber to vote at the appointed hour.

Mr. President, in my judgment that practice has contributed to a lowering of

the prestige of the Senate. It has changed the purpose of the Senate. I believe it is time to get back to its historic purpose.

The senior Senator from Oregon will continue, no matter how many editors stick their pens into his blood-I am used to it and write any critical editorials they desire. The Senator from Oregon will see to it that the foreign aid bill is debated amendment by amendment until every Senator has said all he desires to

say on the question. Then there will be a vote.

Mr. MORSE. Let us consider the crux of the criticism: It is the false charge that we are holding up civil rights legislation in the Senate.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed for 2 additional minutes.

For the benefit of the editor of the

sent that there be printed at this point in the RECORD the pending calendar of the Senate.

General orders under rule VIII

as follows:

Order Number and author of bill No.

Title

Reported by

June 27, 1963.-Mr. Eastland, Committee on the Judiciary, without amendment. (Rept. 331.)

July 2, 1963.-Mr. Yarborough, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, with amendments. (Rept. 345.) (Minority views.)

Aug. 28, 1963.-Mr. Monroney, Committee on Commerce, without amendment. (Rept. 473.)

Aug. 30, 1963.-Mr. Magnuson, Committee on Commerce, with amendments. (Rept. 475.)

Sept. 11, 1963.-Mr. Bartlett, Committee on Commerce, without amendment. (Rept. 486.) (Minority views filed.)

Sept. 19, 1963.-Mr. Hayden, Committee on Rules and Administration, with an amendment. (Rept. 504.) (Individual and supplemental views filed.)

Sept. 19, 1963.-Mr. Hayden, Committee on Rules and Administration without amendment. (Rept. 506.) (Individual views filed.)

others.

486

502

S. 927, Mr. Magnuson.....

stances.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, there are 14 bills on the calendar. No Senator will state that the overwhelming majority of them are not considered minor bills. There is no civil rights bill on that list. If the Senate voted in the next hour on the foreign aid bill, there is not a civil rights bill on the calendar of the Senate so that it could proceed to that question. The Senate could not even proceed to discuss a civil rights bill. It has not yet come to us.

Senators will take judicial notice that there is not a man or a woman in this body who will deny the statement I now make: There is no expectation of a civil rights bill from the House of Representatives-and my statement is an understatement-in less than 2 weeks. Most Representatives will tell us that none can be expected in less than 3 weeks. But, I am sure, the Senate will be through with the foreign aid authorization bill within a week.

The Senate will still have ample time to consider other questions, because even then no civil rights bill will be before the Senate.

I do not know the objective of the press. I do not know whether it seeks

to deceive the American people or to misrepresent the issue to the American represent the issue to the American people.

A day or two ago I was shocked by a news story in the New York Times that tried to perpetuate the misrepresentation that there is some collusive contion that there is some collusive conspiracy between the senior Senator from Oregon and the southerners in the SenOregon and the southerners in the Senate to hold up proposed civil rights legislation.

That is a lot of "hogwash." It has no basis in fact. We must see to it that the foreign aid bill, which is so vital to the security of our country and to the economic welfare of the people, is debated fully. On both sides of the issue bated fully. On both sides of the issue there are dedicated and sincere Senators who believe in their respective points of view. I happen to believe that the bill must be debated fully. I will engage in no dilatory tactics, nor have I engaged in them. The majority leader has my word that I will not. I will not permit a unanimous-consent agreement to vote until the debate is concluded.

Mr. President, there is nothing dilatory about that position. With his usual kindness and generosity, the majority kindness and generosity, the majority leader has said that I am not only within leader has said that I am not only within

Administration, with amendments. (Rept. 507.) (Individual views filed.)

Sept. 24, 1963.-Mr. Bartlett, Committee on Commerce, with an amendment. (Rept. 523.) (Individual views filed.)

Oct. 17, 1963.-Mr. Magnuson, Committee on Commerce, with amendments. (Rept. 568.) (Minority views filed.)

Oct. 22, 1963.-Mr. Fulbright, Committee on Foreign Relations, with an amendment. (Rept. 588.)

Oct. 29, 1963.-Mr. Morse, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, without amendment. (Rept. 592.) (Minority views filed.)

Oct. 29, 1963.-Mr. Fong, Committee on the Judiciary, without amendment. (Rept. 594.)

Nov. 1, 1963.-Mr. Long of Missouri, Committee on the Judiciary, without amendment. (Rept. 624.) Calendar called, Nov. 5, 1963.

my rights, but that he has had my complete cooperation within my rights.

Of course, the majority leader would like to have a unanimous-consent agreement. I shall state one other reason why I will not consent to one. In my judgment, a unanimous-consent agreement to limit debate on any part of foreign aid would result in a good many Senators voting on amendments without being fully informed. Senators have said to those of us who have been debating the question, "We did not have any idea that those facts were involved in the bill until you spoke."

They have come to us and said, "It is because of the representations and the arguments that you have made that we have started to change our minds about a good many parts of the foreign aid

bill."

That is why the constitutional fathers established the Senate. That is why they established this parliamentary body, which Senators have boasted is the greatest parliamentary body in the world.

I close with the statement that one of our greatest strengths is the fact that straitjackets cannot be put upon us.

Muzzles cannot be put upon us. We cannot be tied down by repressions that deny us the right to represent our contingency fully or to say what we think needs to be said before a vote is cast. That is my answer to the Washington Post. I hope that it will take a look at the calendar and find that the pending calendar of the Senate cannot be squared with the innuendos and insinuations insinuations of the editorial.

I yield the floor.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. MORSE. I have yielded the floor. The Senator can obtain the floor in his own right.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.

Mr. SIMPSON. I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the senior Senator from Oregon in respect to the statement he has made. I trust that no pen stuck in his blood or any other atrocity will deter the Senator from continuing his battle on behalf of the American people. I assure the Senator from Oregon that full debate on the subject is as important as debate on any other bill that could come before the Senate.

I propose to support the Senator from Oregon in most of his amendments and in his fight on this particular bill. I am sure he has already had evidence of majority support in the amendments he will undertake.

Mr. MORSE. I thank the Senator.

MR. REUTHER SEES NEED FOR ECONOMIC CONVERSION PLANNING Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President, in a report to the Industrial Union Department of the AFL-CIO to be released today, Mr. Walter P. Reuther has pointed up the need to plan for possible shifts in our Defense Establishment. In his report to the delegates of the Fifth Constitutional Convention of the IUD-AFL CIO scheduled in Washington, D.C., for November 7 and 8, Mr. Reuther says:

If and when arms reduction takes place, the probability is that it will proceed over a period of years. This offers opportunity for planned and orderly conversion to nonmilitary utilization of facilities, resources, and manpower if we begin to plan well in advance. The changing nature of weaponry, of itself, dictates the need to find civilian alternatives to arms.

I believe Senators will find it profitable to read that portion of Mr. Reuther's report which relates to the conversion of our defense industries as conditions permit. I ask unanimous consent to have this section of the report printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the report was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

NEW PROBLEMS AND NEW OPPORTUNITY

Great shifts have marked our world since our industrial unions last assembled in convention in this city.

When we last met here, reverberations of Soviet megaton nuclear testing still echoed across a fevered world. The fear of war, the destructive power of the bomb, and everrising levels of radioactive fallout haunted

the dreams of every man.

The cold war reached near boiling temperatures in the Cuban crisis-possibly the most fearful yet to confront mankind. Thanks to the firm position of the administration and intelligent diplomacy, peace with honor was preserved.

Mankind has since withdrawn from the brink. For the first time since the end of

World War II, it has become possible to think seriously of arms control and disarmament. This is not to say that peace and mutual good will blanket our earth, or that America can afford to relax her vigilance. But the internal problems of the Soviet, the widening gaps in the Soviet-Sino alliance, and strains within the Soviet bloc are realities plomacy and reduction of the armaments that offer new possibilities for fruitful di

burden.

The nuclear test ban does not limit the arms race or end the manufacture of armaments. Nonetheless the treaty can turn out to be a small but significant step toward arms control. Both the AFL-CIO and the IUD testified on behalf of ratification, stressing labor's interest in a more peaceful world.

While America cannot drop her guard, neither can she ignore the challenge of a peace race with the Soviet Union. Industrial labor would gladly welcome such a race. It

is our firm belief that the free world can show by example that it can meet and surmount the problems of abundance inherent in a world imburdened by massive armaments.

Arms reduction offers to U.S. labor hope and opportunity for higher living standards, leisure. Needed are alternatives to arms. elimination of domestic poverty, and greater

While work has been undertaken in this area, there has been no comprehensive national planning.

A disarmed world lies far in the future, but arms reduction with inspection now has become a possibility. It would be foolhardy to wait until the problems are upon us before preparing for conversion from arms

A national peace planning board with authority to develop national and regional plans and programs is required. Labor, industry, the universities, and Government should be adequately represented. The board should be empowered to utilize Federal agencies and their resources in the development of programs.

Mr. President, last Thursday I introduced a measure, with the cosponsorship of other Senators, to provide for a National Economic Conversion Commission. The legislation which I have proposed could help provide the machinery that is needed to implement Mr. Reuther's proposal.

ica has proved her ability to plan decisively for defense without serious impairment of her basic institutions. Industrial labor has full faith that she can plan equally well for a disarmed world.

If and when arms reduction takes place, the probability is that it will proceed over a period of years. This offers opportunity for planned and orderly conversion to nonmilitary utilization of facilities, resources, and manpower if we begin to plan well in ad

vance.

The changing nature of weaponry, of itself, dictates the need to find civilian alternatives to arms. America's tremendous stockpile of weapons on hand would indicate a coming slowdown in military procurement. Greater sophistication in weaponry would also indicate smaller employment in the Defense

Establishment even with present levels of expenditure.

Defense industry has created jobs, but it is a weak reed for any nation to lean upon for sustained prosperity. Defense facilities and procurement cannot be permitted to become a means for creating industrial activity at the expense of a growing civilian economy. While there can be no unilateral disarmament, this Nation is certainly strong and confident enough to welcome the opportunities that arms reduction can create.

Defense industry has introduced serious distortion and neglect into the Nation's economy. Side by side with the massive Defense Establishment, there have grown areas of massive public neglect. As pointed out by Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, "The award of new defense contracts in a particular area can make the difference between prosperity and depression."

LITTLE PRIVATE CONCERN

Recent surveys show little private concern with or preparation for conversion from defense to civilian production. The Morgan Guaranty Trust Co. of New York reported in its August letter that little attention is being given by business to the "possibility that spending for defense may one of these years begin to decline significantly." Responses of defense contractors to a Senate subcommittee questionnaire showed that only one in six had even made any kind of survey on the impact of defense cutbacks.

A lengthy New York Times survey in midAugust noted that defense contractors are doing "very little" to cope with the impact of arms control or disarmament. The paper's conclusion was based upon a survey of the 25 largest prime defense contractors, accounting for 50.8 percent of all defense work.

Economists generally agree that the U.S. economy can adjust to disarmament in the long run. But people must live in the short run. The Times reported that "when it comes to the short run, confident assertions about the resiliency of the U.S. economy often give way to cries of sheer panic."

Industrial labor too has been lax in this area. It must devote more thought and planning to the problems that will lie ahead if arms reduction can be negotiated. Obviously, we stand to benefit with the entire Nation if the results of arms reduction are higher living standards. But we will lose most if the net result is still greater unemployment.

The problem of conversion is national in scope and requires national planning with the participation of all sectors of the economy. Needed first are fiscal and monetary policies to facilitate conversion and growth. It is imperative to obtain the broadest possible agreement in these areas now and to plan to make such policies operative at the right time.

Government policy regarding broad expansion of public works and services must be formulated well in advance of actual arms reduction to permit public works to be phased in as defense work is phased out. There is a need to plan broad programs of worker relocation and retraining before massive joblessness strikes.

Government programs alone are insufficient. Regional plans that would include alternative uses of defense facilities must be developed. Such plans need not and could not be made mandatory upon any private industry but could serve as guidelines. Inducements to convert in accordance with the best available judgment can be developed for contractors.

A national peace planning board with authority to develop national and regional plans and programs is required. Labor, industry, the universities, and government should be adequately represented. The board should be empowered to utilize Fed