G. To Keep the Peace

(a) States shall reaffirm their obligations under the U.N. Charter to refrain from the threat or use of any type of armed force-including nuclear, conventional, or CBR-contrary to the principles of the U.N. Charter.

(b) States shall agree to refrain from indirect aggression and subversion against any country.

(c) States shall use all appropriate processes for the peaceful settlement of disputes and shall seek within the United Nations further arrangements for the peaceful settlement of international disputes and for the codification and progressive development of international law.

(d) States shall develop arrangements in stage I for the establishment in stage II of a U.N. peace force.

(e) A U.N. peace observation group shall be staffed with a standing cadre of observers who could be dispatched to investigate any situation which might constitute a threat to or breach of the peace.

Stage II

A. International Disarmament Organization The powers and responsibilities of the IDO shall be progressively enlarged in order to give it the capabilities to verify the measures undertaken in stage II.

B. To Further Reduce Armed Forces and Armaments

(a) Levels of forces for the United States, U.S.S.R., and other militarily significant

states shall be further reduced by substantial amounts to agreed levels in equitable and balanced steps.

(b) Levels of armaments of prescribed types shall be further reduced by equitable and balanced steps. The reduction shall be accomplished by transfers of armaments to depots supervised by the IDO. When, at specified periods during the stage II reduction process, the parties have agreed that the armaments and armed forces are at prescribed levels, the armaments in depots shall be destroyed or converted to peaceful uses. (c) There shall be further agreed restrictions on the production of armaments.

(d) Agreed military bases and facilities wherever they are located shall be dismantled or converted to peaceful uses.

(e) Depending upon the findings of the experts commission on CBR weapons, the production of CBR weapons shall be halted, existing stocks progressively reduced, and the resulting excess quantities destroyed or converted to peaceful uses.

C. To Further Reduce the Nuclear Threat Stocks of nuclear weapons shall be progressively reduced to the minimum levels which can be agreed upon as a result of the findings of the nuclear experts commission; the resulting excess of fissionable material shall be transferred to peaceful purposes.

D. To Further Reduce Strategic Nuclear Weapons Delivery Vehicles

Further reductions in the stocks of strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles and agreed types of weapons designed to counter such vehicles shall be carried out in accordance with the procedure outlined in stage I.

E. To Keep the Peace

During stage II, states shall develop further the peace-keeping processes of the United Nations, to the end that the United Nations can effectively in stage III deter or suppress any threat or use of force in violation of the purposes and principles of the United Nations:

(a) States shall agree upon strengthening the structure, authority, and operation of the United Nations so as to assure that the

United Nations will be able effectively to protect states against threats to or breaches of the peace.

(b) The U.N. Peace Force shall be established and progressively strengthened.

(c) States shall also agree upon further improvements and developments in rules of international conduct and in processes for peaceful settlement of disputes and differences.

Stage III

By the time stage II has been completed, the confidence produced through a verified disarmament program, the acceptance of rules of peaceful international behavior, and the development of strengthened international peacekeeping processes within the framework of the U.N. should have reached a point where the states of the world can move forward to stage III. In stage III progressive controlled disarmament and continuously developing principles and procedures of international law would proceed to a point where no state would have the

military power to challenge the progressively strengthened U.N. peace force and all international disputes would be settled according to the agreed principles of international conduct.

The progressive steps to be taken during the final phase of the disarmament program would be directed toward the attainment of a world in which:

for whom I have deep affection. I join with all my colleagues who have made reference to their great their great characters, strong personalities, and generosity. I am well aware of it. I said it last night in this body. I could not say it too often.

That has nothing to do with the subject I discussed last night, which I should like to discuss at this time for 5 minutes. I ask unanimous consent to do so.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. DODD. I have put aside personal feelings and, speaking as a Senator with some responsibility to the people of my State and this country for what goes on here-and I hear from the people in my own State about it-I have stated my opinion, and I believe I have spoken the

truth.

I believe that any objective appraisal of the Senate record will bear out my criticism.

I know that different people look at the operations of the Congress with dif

force.

(b) The U.N. peace force, equipped with agreed types and quantities of armaments, would be fully functioning.

(c) The manufacture of armaments would be prohibited except for those of agreed types and quantities to be used by the U.N. peace force and those required to maintain internal order. All other armaments would be destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes.

(d) The peace-keeping capabilities of the United Nations would be sufficiently strong and the obligations of all states under such arrangements sufficiently far-reaching as to assure peace and the just settlement of differences in a disarmed world.

REPUBLICAN OPPOSITION

Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, on another matter, I understand that the Republicans have been referred to by the distinguished Senator from Connecticut [Mr. DoDD] as being weak, complacent, cozy, and ineffective in their opposition.

I believe I need only refer to the very close votes which have been taken in this body on many of the New Frontier measures with which we have disagreed, to show that our opposition is indeed vigorous and most effective.

I salute my minority leader, the distinguished Senator from Illinois [Mr. DIRKSEN], at this time.

SENATE LEADERSHIP

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I should like to call to the attention of the distinguished minority leader the fact that I am present.

Unfortunately, I was at a meeting and was unable to be present at 12 o'clock. I say this merely to show that I have been reasonably faithful in my attendance, commensurate with other duties.

I am not one who enjoys the role of critic, particularly when the object is the majority leader, or the minority leader, both of whom I respect and admire, and

not want us to do anything, and, in their view, a successful Congress is one which adjourns without passing any major legislation.

But on this side of the aisle, we Democrats must be judged in relation to the goals we have set for ourselves and the degree to which we have reached those goals.

We have a 2 to 1 majority in the Senate. We have an administration of our own party. We can hardly expect the American people to give us more favorable circumstances for carrying out our program. But what has happened?

Look, first of all, at the routine business of the Senate which is transacted every year, the appropriation bills. Thirteen appropriation bills were supposed to have been passed by July 1, but here we are on November 7, and only five appropriations have been enacted into law. Virtually the whole Government is operating on borrowed time.

Of our four major objectives of this session, a tax cut, a civil rights bill, a general aid to education bill, and a medicare bill, in my judgment, none has a real chance of enactment this year.

A few months ago, when Senators proclaimed that they were willing to remain in session until Christmas in order to pass a civil rights bill, or a tax cut bill, I thought it was exaggerated rhetoric. Then it appeared to be an extraordinary measure to achieve vital objectives. Now it appears that we shall indeed be in session until Christmas, not for the purpose of passing a tax bill or a civil rights bill, or any other major innovation, but merely to mop up our regular housekeeping chores that should have been completed by July 1.

I do not believe a similar situation can be found in the entire history of the Senate. The whole Senate seems to be pervaded by a spirit of lethargy. Even comparatively minor legislation of a completely noncontroversial nature is unable to get through the committee process and onto the floor of the Senate, mainly due, in my judgment, to inertia.

Speaking from my own experience, I have been trying for 2 years to obtain action on a bill which would put some limited controls on the dangerous drug pills that are flooding this country by the millions and turning tens of thousands of our young people into drug addicts. This bill is noncontroversial. It is supported by every group that has anything to do with the problem. I do not know of I do not know of anyone who opposes it. Yet I cannot Yet I cannot even obtain a Senate hearing on the bill after 2 years of effort. I have spoken to the majority leader about it. I have written letters. I have talked myself dumb about the matter.

Or look at our responsibilities to the people in the District of Columbia.

We are now in our fifth month since the expiration of last year's budget for the District of Columbia, and there is no appropriation to enable this great city to carry on its functions. No city electorate in the country would stand for this kind of mismanagement from its government. Any city government Any city government which operated in this manner would be thrown out, and rightfully so. But the unfortunate people of the District of Columbia have the Congress of the United States as its governing body. And so they must endure a government which, far from handling the problems of the District of Columbia with vision and imagination, cannot even find time to consider the minimum housekeeping chores without which the city cannot long function.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent for 3 additional minutes. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. DODD. So Senators may make whatever defenses they wish of our performance and when they are through praising it, when they are through making emotional defenses of the leadership, I ask them to look again at the record, at

the box score.

They will see a record not only of unfulfilled promises, but a record of failure even in meeting the routine statutory obligations placed upon the Congress.

If there were some sign of unusual exertion here then we might be able to say that forces beyond our control were at the root of this. But there are no such signs of exertion. We are just dribbling along, putting in our time on a limited basis and following the path of least resistance. We seem to be waiting complacently for some miracle to break the logjam.

I believe that things have disintegrated to the point where every Senator is becoming a partner in this fiasco.

This is soon to become a great political issue in this country, and every Senator will be asked by his constituents to state whether he is a willing or unwilling partner in the shambles we are creating.

I have, therefore, spoken out to try to kindle some sense of urgency in carrying on the public's business. I think we should come into session early in the

morning, stay late at night, work weekends, holidays, day in and day out, until we get the people's business done, and I want the RECORD to show this.

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

Mr. DODD. I yield.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I spoke exactly as the Senator has done some weeks ago, calling this a standstill Congress, and real umbrage was taken. Every sentence which the Senator has uttered deals with the fact that we have not done our job and that the power of governance has not been exercised.

With respect to the statement relating to the majority leader or the minority leader, that they are dragging their feet, perhaps an answer could be made. SecSecondly, an answer might also be made to the mere suggestion of coming in early and remaining late. If those arguments are laid aside, because perhaps good answers could be made to them, we still face the basic question that we are not getting our work done, and that the only way to do it is to let the people know and have them get after us. The Commerce Committee sits on a report for 3 weeks or more. So far as we know, it will continue to sit on it.

It is said that the calendar is clear. Yes; the calendar is clear. No action is taken, so the calendar is clear. So it is said that the Senate cannot convene early and remain in session until late because the calendar is clear.

I hope the Senator will concentrate on the point that the power of governance is not being exercised. It is being paralyzed because we are not exercising it, or its exercise is being prevented. The people should have their say-the only way that anything can be done about it. Therefore, rather than criticize the majority leader or the minority leader for not convening early and staying late, I hope the Senator will concentrate on the argument that the power of governance has fallen on its face and that it is up to us to do something about it.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have 2 additional minutes to respond to the Senator from New York.

from people in my own State asking why we do not get to work and get our work done. That is all I have tried to do. I hope we can get something done.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I would be the last Senator ever to use the Senate Chamber for a glorified wailing wall. I would be the last Senator ever to express publicly his own ineptitude to discharge his responsibilities. If I am against something, I try to defeat it, and I will raise unshirted hell in order to get it done. When I am for something, I will go the second mile to get it done.

I believe we demonstrated that when we sat, not in the Senator's cloakroom, but in our cloakroom, in the Republican cloakroom, to finally compose our differences and approve, by unanimous vote, the Mansfield-Dirksen amendment, which had taken us so long, toward the ultimate completion of the bill that is now before us.

It is astonishing that a Senator, who ought to know the rules of the Senate if he does not know them, who ought to know the working hours of the Senate if he does not know them, should come here at night and emotionalize about staying in session until midnight, and castigate the majority leader because the Senate adjourned at 4 o'clock, 5 o'clock, or 6 o'clock. I have not seen a 4 o'clock adjournment, except when there were extraordinary circumstances which justified it. I believe the Senate has been very diligent.

It may be that the distinguished Senator from the Nutmeg State does not have anything to do in his office. I do not know whether he has or has not. I am 3 days behind with my mail now. That is only a fraction of the mail I see. I spoke to the press this morning. I reminded them of the briefcase that goes home every night. Every morning, on the ride to the Capitol, I read mail and keep up with my chores; every weekend I sit at my desk; and that happens even on Sunday, when one ought to be enjoying God's sunshine.

Perhaps the Senator from Connecticut does not do that. I believe we owe to every Senator ample time to discharge

Mr. DODD. Let us look at this situation realistically. The Senator says we are all to blame. I do not think the Senator has been less anxious than I to get on with the business of the Senate and sit longer hours. I know that my view is shared by many Senators. They have told me so. We all know it very well. The situation is discussed in the cloakrooms. Senators sing a different song there than they do here. How else can we complain, except to the leadership? I cannot merely abjure our own failure. As a matter of necessity, I have now addressed myself to the leaders.

I repeat, it is not a personal thing. Senators know it is not. I have no personal feelings against the Senator from Montana or the Senator from Illinois. I like them both. They are both fine men. But they have not gotten us to work, and they should do it. I receive messages

fice the departmental work, the claims, the protests, the mail, the detail, the people. I do not know how many people come to the offices of other Senators. My office is always full. I have to put them off and put them off, to make deferred arrangements to see my constituents, people who are taxpayers, who are entitled to see me.

When I read the Senator's comments in the RECORD this morning, I thought it was a bundle of incoherence that should never have appeared in the RECORD. I will let my comment stand at that point. If there is ever to be an answer, I will answer the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, and he will know well that he will have been answered when I am through.

Mr. DODD. I would be happy to have the Senator make his answer.

Mr. DIRKSEN. I will answer in my own good time.

Mr. DODD. I hope the Senator will have the courtesy to let me know.

Mr. DIRKSEN. It will not be at midnight, when the Senate session is over. Mr. DODD. The Senator may choose his own hour.

Mr. DIRKSEN. It will not be when the Senate session is over. We had excused all Senators last evening, and told them to go home, with the announcement that there would be no more votes. Mr. DODD. I did not hear that. Mr. DIRKSEN. The Senator is not around enough. I can prove it with the Senator's committee record and with his record of attendance on the floor. If the Senator wishes to stay here until midnight, we can keep him here.

Mr. DODD. That is all right. If the Senate has business to do, I will be here. A number of Senators were on the floor last evening. It was about 6:30, and the Senator from California [Mr. KUCHEL] had made reference to his amendment. I expected the Senate to vote on it.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Then the Senator did not know what was going on.

Mr. DODD. I think I did, as much as any other Senator does; and I think I know as much as the Senator from Illinois does about what is going on.

Mr. DIRKSEN. It could be.

Mr. DODD. Of course, I am not privy to some of the secrets. I do not share them with him. However, he does not frighten me, if that is his purpose with his menacing words addressed to me, and the implications. I shall be glad to hear his answer at any time he likes. I said what I think is so. I do not intend to be frightened out of it by anyone. I assure the Senator from Illinois that I particularly mean him. So I say to the Senator from Illinois, "Come on with your answer. I will be here too."

Mr. DIRKSEN. The answer will come, but I will not come to the floor with a 20-page effusion, first having delivered it to the press, to make it appear what a great crusader the Senator from Connecticut purports to be, emotionalizing on a 24-hour Senate day.

Mr. DODD. I do not know whether I understood that comment. I want to be sure that I did. I did not come here with any prepared speech. As a matter of fact, I was not prepared to speak. My remarks were entirely impromptu, if that is the word. I had no intention of speaking at all. The speech had not been delivered to the press, either.

Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, all Senators, regardless of party, have consistently enjoyed the courtesy and consideration of our distinguished majority leader and our distinguished minority leader. They have always been thoughtful of the interests of all Senators. Any criticism of what has been accomplished in this Congress-and there can be criticism-and with respect to lack of action, as mentioned by the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, I entirely agree with. This has not been a Congress of which we can be proud so far as output is concerned. However, there are many who share that responsibility. In my judgment it cannot be laid entirely at the door of the leader of either party, specifically, of course, of the majority

party. I agree with the distinguished Senator from California [Mr. KUCHEL], that we shall continue to have this problem in this Congress and in the next, and in the next, until we come to grips with the archaic rules of the Senate.

That is at the base of our lack of accomplishment. Not only do a minority of Senators have the power to strangle action by the majority, but, above and beyond that, oftentimes bills are not pressed or brought before the Senate because of the fear or threat of a filibuster.

We had an opportunity in January to reform the filibuster rule, but we muffed it. Many of us said then that unless we came to grips with this problem we would never pass civil rights legislation in this session, and that we would be stymied in many other areas.

We must meet the problem of legislative reform sooner or later. I am sorry that the distinguished Senator from Connecticut has departed from the Chamber, because I wish to say a few words about what he had to say with respect to the weak and vacillating and ineffective minority. When John F. Kennedy was elected President of the United States, my comment was that so long as President Kennedy favored and advocated, as he often had, measures which I felt were in the interest of my country, he would have my full support; that when he departed from that policy, according to my lights, he would have my opposition. That has been my consistent position, and I believe it has been the position of most other members of the minority. There is a great deal of difference between obstruction and constructive opposition. The President and the administration, in my judgment, have advocated many measures that are good for our country.

The

the majority. If they did, they would be subject to criticism; and that would be much more justifiable criticism than that directed toward us by the Senator from Connecticut last evening.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, will the Senator from New York yield?

Mr. KEATING. I yield.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. I agree with the Senator from New York, particularly in this instance. I wish to pay the Republicans a compliment, particularly those Republicans who are members of the Committee on Foreign Relations. They have shown a high degree of statesmanship in the way they have cooperated in the handling of the bill, which should not be a partisan matter. It is a measure dealing with our foreign relations. I have been extremely pleased and gratified by what the Republicans have done. It would have been very ill advised if they had tried to be partisan and had opposed the bill vigorously, and were fiery in their opposition.

I agree that in this instance, the criticism that has been made of the Republicans is highly unjustified. I had expected in due time to say a word about how responsible and cooperative they have been on this measure, which I know is a highly unpopular one.

Mr. KEATING. I thank the distinguished Senator from Arkansas. Of course, this measure is the very last one into which partisanship of an obstructionist character should enter. Naturally, we have our differences of opinion; that is proper. But they are not and should not be partisan differences of opinion.

SENATOR KEATING PLEDGES FIGHT
FOR ADDITIONAL WORK AT
BROOKLYN NAVY YARD
Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, I

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator is recognized for 3 additional minutes.

Mr. KEATING. Very often I have voted in favor of such measures, and I shall continue to do so, just as I shall vote against proposals which I do not believe are in the national interest.

I believe it is a mark of constructive opposition not to be constantly obstructive. It is a dilution of the effectiveness of opposition if one merely stands and says "No" to every proposal that is made. Each proposal must be weighed on its merits and the criticism of the distinguished Senator from Connecticut [Mr. DODD] is unjustified if he is attacking Senators on this side of the aisle for supporting administration programs which some of us might favor.

We are elected by our constituents to serve here and use our judgment, not to be rubber stamps either for an administration or, indeed, for a minority leadership. We are elected by our constituents to use our own judgment. I stituents to use our own judgment. I believe that is what the Members of the minority have done. They should not be criticized because they are not saying "No" to everything that is proposed by

ter of great concern of the people of New York, and which should be of great concern also to the people of all the other States who are working to create and maintain a strong U.S. Navy.

We

Yesterday at a meeting in the Navy Department, which was attended by representatives of the Metal Trades Council, Representative CAREY, of Brooklyn, and I received disturbing news. learned that as a result of decisions made in the highest levels of Government, there will be no new aircraft carrier construction at the Brooklyn Navy Yard in the near future and there will be very little if any new construction of any kind. That is very bad news.

It is bad for the New York Naval Shipyard, which has well deserved its traditional title of the "Can-Do Yard." It is bad for the whole New York area, for which the Brooklyn yard has been an important mainstay. And, in my judgment, it is also bad for the Navy to deny outright to public yards the opportunity to participate in or even compete for the kind of work that they depend on.

Over the last few years the New York Naval Shipyard has pulled in its belt. It has increased its efficiency and cut down costs to a commendable extent. It is

Yet, despite the continuing contention that the Navy is using private yards to save money, the fact is that the Brooklyn yard is very close to being competitive. There is no doubt that New York has a better record than some other public yards which have been assigned more work for fiscal year 1964. In my judgment, it is in the interests of the Navy and of the taxpayers to encourage improvement, instead of, as is the case right now, penalizing the Brooklyn yard for its good work.

As a result of the bipartisan meeting with Admiral Brockett, Chief of the Bureau of Ships, those present agreed that additional information was needed, which we have asked for. I am determined to do everything in my power, and I am convinced that the New York State congressional delegation will do everything in its power, to preserve competition in the shipbuilding picture and that means competition for public yards as well as private ones. That means encouragement and work for the yards that do a good job.

Not only in repair and conversion work, at which the Brooklyn Yard is unexcelled, but also in new construction work, the Brooklyn Navy Yard is able and determined to do as fine and efficient a job as anyone anywhere else in the country, and the representatives of the State of New York, in bipartisan cooperation, are determined to see that they have that opportunity. This is not the end of the fight for fair treatment in New York. As far as we are concerned, it is just the start. In fact, as the great U.S. naval hero John Paul Jones said when his ship the Bonhomme Richard was sinking under him:

I have just begun to fight.

Mr. JAVITS. The Navy has apparently made a decision to assign the construction of a new aircraft carrier to a private shipyard. This is a sad blow to 11,000 skilled Brooklyn Navy Yard workers, many of whom may lose their jobs.

This reported decision raised the gravest concern for the Brooklyn Navy Yard, which is seemingly not being treated by the Navy as the indispensable arm of the Nation's security, which it is. The cost comparisons, which the Navy has given as a reason for the decision, represent a narrow view, for there is no comparability for security.

As a result of this discouraging experience, we have a right to demand that the Navy spell out a far more concrete, long-term policy for the Brooklyn Navy Yard which will guarantee a reasonable continuity of its workers.

raid on New Providence in the British Bahamas in March, 1776-U.S. Marines have fought selflessly and determinedly to defend and preserve freedom for America.

This history of the Marine Corps in America is a long and colorful one. As the Nation's amphibious force-in-readiness, the Marines have distinguished themselves in both land and sea operations all over the globe. In America, Marine Corps operations have not been strictly confined to wartime maneuvers. Marines have responded on numerous occasions when their country has called upon them. Throughout the world, the marines have always stood ready to restore order and to preserve the dignity of the American flag. Order sometimes was peacefully restored as it was in Egypt in 1882; sometimes extensive fighting was involved as in Korea in 1871 before America's flag could wave over the embassy in peace.

Mr. President, in this world of mingled tension and relief, Americans are indebted to the Marine Corps for their constant alert. Their force-in-readiness role was clearly and dramatically demonstrated when President Eisenhower committed 6,000 marines to the Lebanon operation. The "Leathernecks" responded to their call with their usual timeliness and skill. Their presence in and around the city of Beirut not only preserved law and order in that tense city but protected American lives and property which otherwise might have been lost or damaged. A more recent example of Marine preparedness was graphically illustrated in October of 1962 when the United States was engaged in one of the hottest scenes of the cold war-the Cuban crisis.

America is proud of the Marine Corps. Their selfless loyalty to duty, their determined efforts to defend freedom have written a permanent chapter in U.S. history. Always ready to quell a spark before it becomes a forest fire, the U.S. Marine Corps can boast of a long tradition of heroic deeds.

Mr. President, I congratulate the U.S. marines on the celebration of their 188th anniversary. May their fine traditions of the past be reflected in the years to come, as America moves on to meet the challenges of the future.

Mr. President, the commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. David M. Shoup, has issued a birthday message on this significant occasion. I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, the text of his statement be printed in the RECORD.

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

HEADQUARTERS, U.S. MARINE CORPS,
OFFICE OF THE COMMANDANT,
Washington, D.C.
COMMANDANT'S BIRTHDAY MESSAGE, NOVEMBER
10, 1963

Today, November 10, 1963, the 188th an

niversary of the founding of our corps, finds as always to perform our traditional role as marines around the world poised and ready the Nation's amphibious force-in-readiness.

Our traditions as professional fighting men are founded on a heritage of service, selfless loyalty, and past achievements. While we

are justifiably proud of past accomplishments, we realize that the gallant men of yesterday cannot assure our freedom of tomorrow. Therefore, we can be equally proud of our corps as it stands today, prepared to strike hard and fast when the need arises.

I am confident that marines will meet the challenges of the future with the same high sense of valor, loyalty, and steadfast determination which has characterized our corps since its earliest beginnings nearly 200 years ago. A Marine Corps strong in heart, strong in spirit, and strong in arms is the best assurance of preserving the heritage passed on to us by generations of marines since 1775.

To all marines throughout the world, and to all marine families, on the 188th anniversary of our beloved corps, I extend my heartiest congratulations and my very best wishes.

THE HIGH COST OF U.S. SHIPPING-FATE OF
SUBSIDIZED SHIPPERS HELD LIKELY TO BE
OMEN FOR OTHER PINCHED INDUSTRIES
(By Charles Bartlett)

Having drawn attention to the noncompetitive nature of this country's shipping, the negotiations on the wheat sale may serve the national purpose of stimulating a serious effort to revive a merchant marine that is falling prey to the vulnerability of high costs.

The shipping industry is being maintained in a condition of modest health through Federal subsidies and protection and the fate of the shippers will be an important omen for other American industries that are being increasingly obliged to coexist with high costs and foreign competition.

The Norwegian Journal of Shipping, angry at the move to restrict the wheat shipments to American vessels, bluntly asserted last week that the United States is violating its business traditions by maintaining a slow and expensive "horse-and-buggy" merchant marine that has been drugged with economic narcotics.

The impact of labor and construction costs upon the American fleet may be measured by the extremely limited construction of new ships, by the markedly higher cargo rates, and finally by the fact that American ships, which transported almost one-third of the Nation's foreign commerce in the 1930's, are now carrying less than 10 percent of it.

It is necessary, in examining the plight of the industry, to note the difference between liners, which operate passenger and freight service on regularly scheduled routes, and tramp ships, which are not common carriers and are free to travel anywhere on any terms. The construction and operation of the American flag liners, owned by 16 companies, are heavily subsidized by the Government. The unsubsidized tramp fleet comprised of 130 ships in 79 companies, is protected by the Jones Act, which restricts coastal shipping to American vessels, and by the requirement that 50 percent of all Government cargoes be shipped in U.S. bottoms.

The tramp fleet is being badly squeezed by two factors. Their operators are obliged to

pay the wage scales negotiated by the subsidized companies, which are able to pass the increased costs on to the Government. They must build their ships in American yards, where the prices are considerably higher than abroad.

Some tramp operators maintain that subsidies are the only answer to the squeeze, but others are bold enough to believe that if they can be allowed to purchase highly automated vessels at foreign prices they can meet the competition. The domestic shipyards would not, they say, lose business through these foreign purchases because they have not been asked to build a new dry cargo ship for years.

The labor unions have a practical enthusiasm for the objective of expanding the maritime fleet, and their leaders appear sympathetic to the necessity of reducing labor costs through automation. They have had small success at persuading the foreign maritime unions, particularly the British, Dutch, and German, to press for higher pay, and they realize they must join the operators in seeking competitive costs through speed and mechanization.

But they are unwilling, at least publicly, to endorse a breach of the traditional prohibitions against foreign-built vessels. They prefer, instead, to induce the Government to offer tramp vessels the same subsidy arrangements that have proven so comfortable to both the companies and the unions in maintaining the liners.

The new Under Secretary of Commerce, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr., has spurred the administration's desire to revive the merchant marine and he is preparing a proposal to bring forward next winter. The alternatives of proposing a subsidy, which will increase the budget, or the foreign purchases, which will agitate the balance of payments, are difficult at this time.

But the war-built vessels are moving toward obsolescence and automated ships, which have proven their worth on the subsidized routes, are being launched by competing maritime nations. A new shipping boom is discerned to be at hand and the time is clearly ripe for basic decisions on the American tramp fleet.

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I respectfully ask that the distinguished Senator from California [Mr. KUCHEL] be present while I make an observation or two relating to some remarks he made earlier today concerning the pending measure.

If I correctly understood the Senator from California, he favored a unanimousconsent agreement for a limitation of debate on the bill, and he was of the view that most Senators were pretty much of a mind as to the position they would take on the amendments and the issues that are involved. It is also true that there is a point of view that is being expressed in conversations in the Senate and also in articles in the press that in some way, somehow, the conclusion is inevitable that there has been unnecessary delay in the consideration of the bill.

I say to the Senator from California that Senators have told me that they were not aware of a good many things that are in the bill, the implications of them, and the information relative thereto. They have said that the debate has been exceedingly helpful to them and has caused them to change their position on issues connected with the bill.

Be that as it may, that is the purpose of debate in the Senate. At least, debate

affords Senators an opportunity to change their minds if it brings out information and facts that are contrary to the points of view that Senators formerly held.

I do not believe we can justify unanimous-consent agreements that would so limit the time as I think a unanimousconsent agreement in this case would have done, thus preventing a full discussion of the merits of this highly complicated bill. In addition to commentplicated bill. In addition to commenting on the implication that there has been an unwarranted delay in the handling of the bill, I do not believe anyone can say, with any justification, that any dilatory tactics have been or will be used in connection with the progress of the bill. The majority leader knows that I have said to him time and time again that we intend to proceed to consider the bill amendment by amendment without a unanimous-consent agreement, but that we have no intention to engage in "prolonged debate," which is interpreted by many persons to mean a filibuster.

Now I wish to come to grips with the basic issue. I have said before, and repeat today, that I believe the Senate has permitted the practice of unanimousconsent agreements to grow up, particularly in the past 10 years. My experience during the first 9 years of my service in the Senate was that unanimous-consent agreements to limit debate were rare and were for extraordinary situations; they were not common. Now the point has been reached where unanimous-consent agreements are common procedure in the Senate for the handling of proposed legislation. In my opinion, the practice ought to stop. I intend to use my rights under the existing rules to stop it, not only in connection with this piece of major proposed legislation, but with other measures as they come along. I serve that notice today.

Unanimous-consent agreements in the Senate should be used for extraordinary circumstances, not as a general practice. They are coming to serve in the Senate They are coming to serve in the Senate the same purpose as the Rules Committee serves in the other body of prescribing the limitations on debate on a given subject. If there is no purpose in having unlimited debate in the Senate, we may change the rule. If we do not want unlimited debate to be the policy, let us change the rule. But if that rule is changed, the Senate will change one of the most historic strengths it has namely, that this is a great parliamentary body. If there is muzzling, straitjacketing, or steamrollering, a Senator will not be able to exercise his rights as the representative of a sovereign State in this body. Our forefathers were very wise when they established these basic guarantees, which stem from Jefferson's Manual. I am not referring here to cloture, which is also part of the rules, but to unlimited debate short of cloture. I am referring to the limiting of debate I am referring to the limiting of debate by the unanimous-consent procedure.

Until the Senate rule is changed-but I do not expect to live long enough to see the Senate change its rule of unlimited debate that will be my position. I do not mean to say that I will not support not mean to say that I will not support the existing rule on cloture. There is

procedural protection in the Senate which can be used if a Senator thinks good-faith tactics are not being used or that good-faith debate is not occurring. The cloture rule can be applied whenever an abuse of practice exists in the Senate. However, I do not believe the Senate or the American people will ever vote to take away from this parliamentary body the precious weapon which the people have, through their Senators-namely, that this floor is always free for a representative of the people of any State to stand up and discuss, to the extent he believes necessary, the merits of any issue.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the morning-hour limitation, the time available to the Senator from Oregon has expired.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed for 2 minutes more, and then I shall be through.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I wish to go on record once again in support of the Senate's unlimited debate rule as one of the most precious safeguards the American people have in their entire system of representative government.

I will cooperate in connection with cloture whenever I find that debate is being abused. But I do not want to sit here in silence and thus make possible any implication that I have been guilty of using dilatory tactics in connection with the foreign aid bill.

I close by saying that many other Senators have said to me—that if at the beginning of this debate there had been a unanimous-consent agreement, the bill would not have been cut to the point to which it has already been cut. Nor shall I give unanimous consent to any requested agreement to limit debate in connection with the bill at any time. I also want the leadership to know that I will not give my consent for limitation of debate in regard to any major issue which will come before the Senate between now and the time of adjournment.

THE ALASKA MARINE HIGHWAY

Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, the State of Alaska is shortly to conclude the first year of operation of a great pioneering venture in transportation.

When Alaska was a territory, and prior thereto, when it was a district, it suffered great discrimination as a stepchild in the national family. One of those discriminations was the total exclusion, from the time of enactment in 1916 until 1956, of Alaska from the benefits of Federal aid highway legislation.

As a consequence of that exclusion, and despite the efforts made, for more than 40 years by Alaska's voteless Delegates in the House of Representatives, to have Alaska included, when it entered the Union it was in the unique situation of having not merely a few but the majority of its cities unconnected by highways, a situation which in the other States would be unthinkable.