a food "giveaway" program. Only about onefourth of it is.

"The people most in need of food cannot afford to buy it," says Richard W. Reuter, special assistant to the President and Director of the food-for-peace program. "Our contributions are programed into school lunch, preschool child feeding, food-for-wages projects of economic and community development, CCC-type youth training camps, feed grain projects to stimulate chicken and pig cooperative projects, and family feeding.

"Our great voluntary agencies-Catholic Relief Services, Church World Service, Lutheran World Relief, CROP and CARE have made particularly important contributions toward proper food use programing. More than 800 trained Americans-paid by these agencies from voluntary American contributions-work to see this food is properly

used."

But we realize a material return on three

fourths of the food we send overseas. In at least 18 countries our food surpluses are sold for dollars. Some food is bartered for strategic goods that we need. The balance, almost a billion dollars a year, is sold for local currency.

Some of this local currency is used by Government agencies, the U.S. Embassy for example, to pay bills in that country. Some is loaned to American businesses to expand trade. About half the local currency we receive in payment for American agricultural surpluses has been loaned back to the purchasing countries for mutually agreed on development projects such as irrigation systems, roads, powerplants and other efforts that will help national development.

And now we are beginning to scrape the bottom of the surplus barrel.

There is no reason for America to panic. Our bins hold more than enough to meet this Nation's own requirements. But for overseas donation programs, the stock of rice, beans and butter is virtually gone. Nonfat dried milk, used to supplement the diets of 70 million children around the world, is in short supply; in the last decade we shipped out 5.5 billion pounds of this commodity.

Wheat, of paramount interest to the Rocky Mountain empire, deserves a closer look. In 10 years the food-for-peace program has used up well over 3 billion bushels. This spring, before the new harvest, our stocks were down to less than 1 billion bushels. If we set aside 600 million bushels-1 year's domestic requirements-as a strategic reserve, our surplus amounted to roughly a 6-month supply for American consumers. Today only one-third of our grain storage capacity is being used and, as Reuter points out, storage space rather than grain is our new surplus. In Colorado, wheat stocks in storage on July 1 were the lowest in 13 years and 53 percent under the figure for July 1, 1964.

(Overall, Commodity Credit Corporation inventories are still valued at more than $7 billion, but 40 percent of these stores are nonedible products such as tobacco and cotton.)

AN UNTHINKABLE ALTERNATIVE

But even with food surpluses gone, the idea of leaving the less developed nations to fend for themselves while we retreat behind our walls of plenty is an unthinkable alternative for most Americans. The Nation's course was set a quarter century ago when, in Presidential Adviser McGeorge Bundy's words, the United States accepted a "commitment of concern" for the needs and aspirations of other nations. Hunger is foremost of these concerns, and there are two ways to attack it: Grow more food; reduce the demand.

Neither is easy.

Unfortunately for the immediate need, population control is a long-range solution. The hungry ones are already born and the

experts point out that aggressive family planning programs must be underway for a decade or more before there will be a noticeable change in food demands. Nonetheless, population control plays a key part in the overall assault on hunger, especially in the overpopulated, underdeveloped nations.

The need is now, and in pursuit of our commitment, a number of things are being done to increase both the supply of food and its dietary quality.

In addition to food itself, the United States is exporting quality seed, fertilizer, pesticides, farm machinery, and most important, the know-how to enable peasant farmers to increase their production.

"It is not enough simply to feed people," says Martin Abel of the Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service. "We must help the less developed nations to produce more to keep them from having to depend on us forever. The problem is not hopeless, even in India, which must import 7 million tons of grain a year. India could produce enough food for itself by developing irrigation systems, using more fertilizer, better seeds and better farming methods. This will take time, but it can be done."

Abel reports that under ideal field conditions, Indian farmers instructed by Americans have harvested as much as 100 bushels of corn per acre. (The U.S. average is about 65 bushels.) In another experiment in India this year, 175 acres of land planted with rice seed developed by Nationalist Chinese of Taiwan yielded nearly three times the Indian average 7,000 pounds per acre compared to 2,500.

With present types of fertilizer, farmers can get back in increased yields from 2 to 10 times as much as they spend, and more effective fertilizers for specific types of soil and crops are being developed.

Meanwhile, the problem of malnutrition is being attacked by a program of enriching available foods.

For example, vitamins are being added to nonfat dried milk used in school lunch programs. Because milk is in short supply, a nutritious beverage based on soy flour, developed by the Soybean Council of America, soon will be distributed in many parts of the world. In Rio de Janeiro, a flour mill is packaging without cost an enriched

breakfast cereal called Eubra. It combines food for peace milk powder, Bulgur wheat, and butter oil. Packed in plastic bags on which cooking instructions are printed, this cereal is distributed to the poor. Another somewhat similar enriched food, Incaparina, is supplementing the diets of the povertystricken in other parts of Latin America. Research is continuing into development of inexpensive protein sources, such as fish meal from species not now being used as food.

Before Congress now is a bill cosponsored by 13 Senators authorizing the Commodity Credit Corporation to spend up to $50 million annually for high protein foods, and protein and vitamin fortification of other foods sent abroad for school lunch and child feeding programs. The bill is described as insurance against against suddenly terminating child feeding programs because of exhaustion of surplus stocks.

To gear this Nation for the food-supplying tasks ahead, Senator GEORGE S. MCGOVERN, Democrat, of South Dakota, introduced last June 17 a bill designated as S. 2157. Its purpose is "to provide for U.S. participation and leadership in an international effort to end malnutrition and human want It would do this by utilizing "the excess production and capacity of American agriculture and food industries" and by assisting "underdeveloped nations in increasing their own production of food."

MCGOVERN's bill calls for appropriation of $500 million in fiscal 1966. Each year until 1970, the appropriation would be increased

MCGOVERN's bill has been referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations and it is not known at this time when hearings will be held. Senator MCGOVERN, incidentally, was named by President Kennedy as first director of the White House food for peace office. He resigned to run for the Senate, and was succeeded by Reuter.

Washington observers are less than sanguine about the chances of the McGovern bill passing in its original form. However, many of the benefits and principles encompassed in S. 2157 are considered likely to be part of the legislation that ultimately is passed.

THE MEANING FOR U.S. FARMS

The implications of such a program on the American economy are tremendous, keeping in mind the fact that most of our surplus food is gone. In effect, such a program would be a green light to American farmers to grow all they can, with their produce to be used overseas because it is needed rather than because it is surplus.

Just what would a change in U.S. agricultural policy from limitation to full production mean?

Senator MCGOVERN in introducing his bill told his colleagues: "A recent study by the food gap in the free world at about $2.5 bilAgriculture Department *** projects a

lion worth of foodstuffs at the end of the decade. What would it mean in the United States to try to close this gap? Roughly, agricultural economists estimate that American farmers would have to produce one-third more wheat, increase milk output by 50 percent, raise 25 percent more soybeans, and step up production of vegetable oils by a third.

"American farmers could fill this order by putting land and resources now idle into productive use again. Only about 75 percent of our agricultural capacity is being used today. This compares with steel production at about 85 percent of capacity, and overall industrial output of 87 percent of capacity, as measured by the Federal Reserve Board."

Martin Abel at the Department of Agriculture bears out Senator McGOVERN's basic contention-that we can increase farm output vastly without taxing our resources or going back to tilling marginal land. Each year we have been producing more food on less land, he points out. In feed grains, for example, the acreage harvested has fallen steadily from 130 million acres in 1959 to 100 million acres in 1964. During the same period production rose from 1.15 tons per acre to 1.37 tons, so that total production in 1964 was not substantially lower than 5 years earlier.

The record for wheat production is even more impressive, as the following Department of Agriculture table shows:

"American farmers," says Abel, "could increase their wheat production by 400 million bushels a year, and feed grains by 100 million tons a year, with very little trouble. It's just a matter of using our agricultural plant more efficiently. Our resources are such that the problem is less of production than of transportation, storage, and distribution.

"And remember, give-away food isn't all give-away. It costs us money not to produce food because of various farm aid programs. The soil bank is one example. We have the alternative of investing dollars in food aid for hungry nations, or using the same dollars to keep production capacity idle."

For America's farmers, the McGovern bill or some similar project would be, in effect, a billion dollar annual contract to produce the material for worldwide war on hunger. And just as a new contract for rockets at the Martin plant in Denver spurs the local economy, new activity in food-growing areas

would stimulate business generally. Says

Senator McGOVERN:

"The money such a program would put into the hands of farmers would be plowed back almost immediately into business and consumer spending. Farmers would need as

much as a million additional tons of fertilizer and more machinery, equipment, gasoline, oil, and other supplies. Employment on farms and in factories would increase."

There would be new jobs handling the grain, and in processing it for food. Then a second round of spending would follow as a result of increased income-expanding the domestic demand for cars and trucks, dresses and household appliances, houses and vacation trips, and even for food itself.

BUILDING NEW MARKETS

These are the incidental but important side benefits of a project whose primary purpose is to alleviate suffering.

If the idea of a global war on hunger has the distasteful aroma of a worldwide welfare state financed by the United States, Food for Peace officials answer that the ultimate aim is to make each nation as nearly selfsufficient as possible, as soon as possible.

Can it be done? Has it been done? Yes, indeed, replies Richard Reuter: "Japan shows what can be done. This country was given substantial amounts of American food to help it regain its feet after the war. Now it is our No. 1 customer for farm goods. During 1964 we sold Japan $700 million worth of agricultural commodities. The Japanese now buy 11 per cent of our total soybean crop, and by 1970 it is estimated Japan will buy half of our present total production of soy.

(Japan is the leading overseas buyer of Colorado wheat.)

"Italy, Greece and Spain are further examples of countries that moved from recipients of our food under Public Law 480 to cash customers.

"A study by the Department of Agriculture indicates that when per capita income in the less developed countries increases 10 percent, dollar sales of U.S. farm products go up 21 percent. In other words, as income goes up, imports of U.S. farm products increase twice as fast.

"Last year we exported $6.3 billion worth of agricultural commodities, of which more than $4.5 billion were straight commercial dollar sales. This is a record, and more than double what our agricultural exports were a decade ago when we started Public Law 480.

"As economies strengthen, markets expand. As living standards rise, dietary preferences change from cereals to high protein foods such as meats. And this opens up new markets for American feed grains to supply developing livestock industries."

Reuter's offices, not far from the White House itself, are equipped with numerous charts and displays illustrating how food grown on American farms is being used globally to help create a better world. But

the most impressive is a small sign, probably quoting someone impatient with bureaucratic delay, that says simply: "Dammit, these are hungry kids we're talking about."

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, as the Senator from Minnesota has stated, the Denver Post on Sunday, August 29, carried an unusually fine article in its Empire magazine section entitled "The Coming War on Hunger."

In an editorial on the same day, it recommended the article, by the Post's associate editor, Bill Hosokawa, to its readers as putting into startling perspective three facts, one old and two new.

The old fact was that 2 billion of the world's 3 billion people have inadequate food, and that 10,000 daily die of hunger and malnutrition.

The two new facts are, first, that U.S. surpluses are nearly gone and, second, that reversing the trend of farm legislation from strict control of crops to expansion of production to meet world food needs is under serious consideration.

The article deals at some length with the proposal in which I have joined with our distinguished colleague, the junior Senator from South Dakota [Mr. McGOVERN] to end the world food gap. It deals with the fact that increased agricultural production in this Nation would mean a strengthened domestic economy.

I commend the article to the attention of all my colleagues in Congress. I ask unanimous consent to put the Post's editorial in the RECORD.

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

[From the Denver Post, Aug. 29, 1965]
A WHOLE NEW FARM "PROBLEM"

An article in this Sunday's Empire magazine, "The Coming War on Hunger," puts in startling perspective three facts-one old and two new-about America's farm production and the world's hungry people.

The article by Bill Hosokawa, Denver Post

associate editor, will-and should-make us all take a new and thoughtful look at the whole issue.

The old fact-and problem-is that nearly 2 of the 3 billion human beings on earth go to bed hungry every night of every year they live. And every day, 10,000 of them die of that hunger-either of outright starvation or of the side effects of malnutrition.

The first new fact Hosokawa's survey reveals is that the vast American farm surpluses, which since World War II have been used to keep millions of people all over the globe from starving, are nearly gone that "we are beginning to scrape the bottom of the surplus barrel."

This will come as news to those, on and off the farm, who have been worrying for 20 years about how to cut our farm production to somewhere near the needs of the domestic market. But from this fact of dwindling surpluses springs the second new fact Hosokawa discusses:

People in Congress and in the executive branch of Government are beginning to talk about reversing the whole recent trend of agricultural resources management to encourage more food production for the hungry billions overseas.

Food and population experts have been saying that a situation like this would be coming, but no one to our knowledge had forecast its arrival in this decade.

Although, as Hosokawa points out, the United States has shipped abroad since 1954 more than 120 million tons of American farm

products, valued at $13 billion, we have tended to regard that more as a matter of disposing of surpluses, rather than producing for others' needs-real though these needs

were and are.

If American farmers are now to be called upon to produce consciously for the world's hungry billions, this will mean the start of an entirely new ball game in American agriculture. There likely will have to be adjustments in farm legislation, in the distribution system, and in methods of payment from foreign consumers.

In short, there is much food for thought in "The Coming War on Hunger." And the time for thought is evidently upon us, whether we be producers, distributors, or simply taxpayers. We seriously commend this article to the attention of all our readers.

THE UNITED STATES BREAKS THE U.N.DEADLOCK

Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, all Americans, I am sure, share my pleasure about the vigorous and decisive manner in which Arthur Goldberg has assumed his new job as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Ambassador Goldberg's own incisiveness is bolstered by the fact that he has the full support of President Johnson in his efforts to enhance the opportunities for world peace. After Ambassador Goldberg's recent speech on the article 19 controversy, several thoughtful editorials on this subject came to my attention. One editorial appeared in the Lewiston, Idaho, Morning Tribune, written by Bill Hall; a second in the Pocatello, Idaho, State Journal by Lee Ester; another in the Christian Science Monitor, and a final editorial from the Salt Lake Tribune. I ask unanimous consent to have these well-written editorials printed in the RECORD.

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

[From the Lewiston (Idaho) Morning Tribune, Aug. 17, 1965]

THE U.S. BREAKS THE U.N. DEADLOCK The United States demonstrated once again yesterday that it considers the United Nations a vital instrument for international peace that must be preserved, even at the cost of giving the Soviet Union and France an unpalatable procedural advantage.

U.S. Ambassador Arthur J. Goldberg informed a U.N. committee the United States will no longer insist that the Soviet Union, France and 11 other nations pay 2 years in back assessments or lose their votes in the General Assembly. It means the end of a year-long stalemate that has rendered the organization largely ineffective.

The heart of the dispute has been article 19 of the U.N. Charter, which specifies members 2 years behind in assessments will lose ther vote. The article still exists, but the Goldberg statement means the United States will stop insisting on its enforcement.

It is decidedly an erosion of that one article and, perhaps, a weakening of the charter as a whole. And there is some loss of face for the United States in backing down. Apparently, however, it was that or a serious threat to the existence of the one organization that has produced some stability in a potentially explosive international community.

The United States could have maintained its rigid posture, but that would have produced no more than a continuation of the deadlock which has rendered the organization almost inoperable and of limited use.

The overriding fact, right or wrong, was that a majority of the member nations were unwilling to join the United States in insisting on enforcement of article 19. Perhaps they should have insisted, but they did not, and the U.S. position accomplished nothing once the point of registering a prolonged protest had been made.

In the unlikely event a majority could have been convinced to insist on enforcement, the result probably would have been the loss of France and Russia as members. Some undoubtedly would say good riddance. But it is doubtful there is anything good about eliminating two major powers from an organization that serves best when it provides the major powers with a forum for settling their differences.

The United Nations may be a somewhat weaker organization today because one of its rules is being ignored. That could be a precedent for other nations to violate the rules that do not meet their approval. But the U.N. has been preserved for the time being, when it appeared it might be doomed. The future will tell whether the United States retreat has purchased only a little more time for the organization or has carried it past an obstacle to a long and successful operation. But even a little more time is preferable to paralysis and an early end.

General Assembly to resume normal operation without a confrontation on voting rights. The decision undoubtedly was motivated by two important considerations. One was that the majority of the U.N.'s 114 members would not have supported the United States in its stand. The other was that a hard line on our part might have led to the disintegration of the U.N. Neither the United States nor the cause of peace in the world would benefit from (1), a loss when the issue came to a vote, (2), the breakup of the United Nations. The United States therefore bowed to the realities of world polltics and it wisely avoided a situation that might have resulted in the dissolution of an agency that is more desperately needed now than ever before. As Christian Science Monitor observed concerning the U.S. decision: "It put the cause of the United Nations as a whole before insistence upon the letter of the law, however right this latter may be."

American citizens, of course, do not care to see their country outdone in a showdown with the Soviet Union or with any other nation. They should consider, however, that we are not engaged in a game in which points are chalked up for the winning side. We, and other nations too, are involved in a search for ways to assure survival. This crucial task will not be accomplished if always we insist upon our own way.

The U.S. decision not to press the issue was sane and it was wise. It deserves the sup

Aug. 22, 1965]

A SANE DECISION

The U.S. decision not to try to force Russia, France and 11 other nations to pay their share of United Nations peacekeeping assessments invites condemnation and misinterpretation. Another sellout to the Russians, it is called. We've backed down again, it is said.

Such charges are easily made, but they take into account neither the complexities of the issues involved nor the consequences of a no compromise position. The issues were not at all simple, and a hard line on our part might well have been disastrous to the United Nations and to the cause of world peace.

The central issue was whether the Soviet Union, France and 11 other smaller nations should be forced to pay up or lose their votes in the U.N. General Assembly. The United States had pressed the matter under Article 19 of the U.N. Charter, which says that members 2 years behind in paying assessments will lose their assembly vote.

The Soviet Union and France refused to pay because they objected to being billed for peacekeeping operations which were voted by the General Assembly rather than the Security Council, where both nations have veto power. Strictly interpreted, the U.N. Charter supports their case: the Security Council and not the General Assembly was meant to be the U.N.'s executive body.

It was the General Assembly, however, acting under resolutions pushed through by the United States, that undertook to keep the peace in the Congo. (How, it will be asked, did the U.N. authorize the "police action" in Korea in 1950? That happened at a moment when the Russians staged a walkout.)

Standing firm for a strict interpretation of the U.N. charter, the Soviet Union and France refused to yield to our demand because they refused to recognize the General Assembly's power to assess members for peace-keeping operations. In doing so, they pressed their cause with as much vigor as we would expect the U.S. delegation to display if the General Assembly embarked on an operation the United States opposed.

When the matter came to a showdown this week, U.S. Delegate Arthur Goldberg announced that his country would permit the

people.

[From the Christian Science Monitor, Aug. 19, 1965]

A WISE DECISION

The U.S. decision to drop its efforts to force the Soviet Union, France, and 11 other nations to pay up what they owe on United Nations peace-keeping operations was wise and constructive. It put the cause of the United Nations as a whole before insistence upon the letter of the law, however right this latter might be. We believe that the majority of world body members will recognize the wisdom and the restraint which Washington

has shown.

It has been apparent for some time that, regardless of its views on who was right and who was wrong, the majority was not prepared to back the American effort. To have done so, this majority apparently felt, would have been to immobilize the forth

coming General Assembly session and might even have resulted in the world body's break-up.

Since Washington rightly agreed that an operating United Nations is indispensable in this troubled world, America decided to cease defending a position which, however much might be said in its favor, was no longer practical.

This leaves the world body facing two problems:

The first is immediate. It is how to make up the $108,000,000 deficit due in large part to the refusal of these 13 lands to pay their debts. It is hoped that voluntary donations will do the trick. Britain and the Scandinavian countries have offered $18 million. Nigeria has announced that it will contribute. There is a strong hope that, under the cloak of voluntary action, Russia will contribute substantially. America itself may also do so, even though it pays nearly one-third of the United Nations' regular budget.

The second is long range. Will the decision not to try to force all countries to pay their share of peace-keeping operations discourage such operations in the future? This would be a severe setback to those who had hoped to see the world body become a strong, on-the-spot force for peace and order. Means should be found not to let this happen.

In judging the actions of those nations which refused to support the American posi

tion, it should be remembered that the majority of the new members from Asia and Africa are terrified of a knock-down, dragout struggle within the United Nations between America and Russia. Thus one of their main purposes invariably is to seek to prevent a head-on clash between these two giants. They refused to support an American action which they felt might drive Russia from the world body. They would similarly have refused to support a like Soviet maneuver against the United States.

This conciliatory attitude may have its drawbacks, but it also can be advantageous to the United Nations in times of serious crisis.

[From the Salt Lake Tribune, Aug. 18, 1965]

U.S. RETREAT MAY SAVE UNITED NATIONS

The U.S. retreat from its former position of "rigid adherence to the law" in the financing of United Nations peacekeeping was necessary to forestall disintegration of the world organization.

There is no definite assurance now that

Ambassador Goldberg's conciliatory but firm maiden speech before "the committee of 33" to ending the deadlock. If the organization will save the U.N. It was, however, essential is not strengthened from this point on, the onus will rest more firmly on Soviet Russia, France, and the other delinquents.

After the Goldberg address the Russian

delegate made noises like the Soviets might now be willing to make some "voluntary contribution" to the solvency of the U.N., but any speculation in this regard would be risky.

U.S. POSITION WAS LEGAL

Based on the letter of the law, upheld by the International Court of Justice, the United States was right in demanding that eral other nations, pay their share of the Soviet Russia, its satellites, France, and sevcost of keeping the peace in the Middle East rights in the General Assembly. Mr. Goldand the Congo or be deprived of their voting berg declared that the U.S. position was "constitutionally, legally, procedurally, and administratively correct." He acknowledged, Assembly is not prepared to apply article 19 however, that the majority of the General

and that the consensus was that the Assembly should proceed normally. (For more than a year all votes on substantive matters have been avoided.) And, in the spirit of Stevenson, Mr. Goldberg declared: "It is his predecessor, the late Ambassador Adlai time for the General Assembly to get on with its heavy agenda, which is indeed the unfinished business of mankind."

"We must find new strength," he said, "and new capacities for building, brick by brick, the community of men."

The lofty words did not hide the fact that this country had made a major retreat. Goldberg placed "responsibility where it properly belongs" (on the delinquents) and he made it clear that the United States would not allow a double standard to exist in paying United Nations costs in the future. He even reserved the right for the United States to refuse to pay if it had strong reasons for doing so.

POWERS CANNOT BE COERCED

Actually, however, Washington has painfully concluded it was wrong in the first place to stretch article 19 of the charter to pressure other powers into paying the extraordinary expenses of which they disapproved. At this stage of the evolution of the U.N. the world powers cannot be coerced. The organization must operate by consent-and this means by compromise. This admits a weakness, but the weakness has been apparent a long time.

The Soviet Union, France and 11 other nations in arrears on the peacekeeping assessments have in effect held that such ac

tivity is a function of the Security Council (where all five permanent members have a veto), not the General Assembly. The rationale extended, however, to financing peacekeeping approved by the Council, in effect holding that such payments must be voluntary. Meantime, Britain, Canada and the Scandinavian countries have shown the way of donating almost $18 million. If sufficient other payments are forthcoming voluntarily, the $108 million deficit will be wiped out. In any respect, operations in Cyprus and other troubled spots have been financed with voluntary payments.

The biggest challenge to the United Nations-Vietnam-is still ahead. The Johnson administration has wisely given priority to the future of the U.N. over a row about past

liabilities.

CERTAIN INCREASES IN ANNUITIES PAYABLE FROM THE CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY FUND

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the unfinished business, H.R. 9811, be laid aside temporarily, and that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 635, H.R. 8469.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be stated by title.

The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. A bill (H.R. 8469) to provide certain increases in annuities payable from the civil service retirement and disability fund, and for other purposes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill?

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill (H.R. 8469) to provide certain increases in annuities payable from the civil service retirement and disability fund, and for other purposes, which had been reported from the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service with amendments on page 5, after line 9, to strike out:

SEC. 2. Section 10 of the Civil Service Retirement Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. 2260), is amended by striking out "55" wherever it appears therein and inserting in lieu thereof "60". This amendment shall not apply with respect to employees or Members retired or otherwise separated prior to the date of enactment of this Act.

And, at the beginning of line 16, to change the section number from "3" to "2".

Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware obtained the floor.

Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr. President, I yield to the senior Senator from Oregon.

GOTIATIONS

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I wish

to make certain comments in connec

tion with the roles played in the settlement of the steel dispute last week by the President of the United States, the Secretary of Commerce, Mr. Connor, and the Secretary of Labor, Mr. Wirtz. In my more than 35 years of experience in being involved in negotiations

of major labor disputes in this country, I have never seen such a magnificent

and masterful job of industrial statesmanship as that performed by the President of the United States in the settle

ment of the steel case.

Some of us in the Senate may say what the President would not be in a position to say. I believe this case will be a subject of study for many years to come, in labor relations courses, in writings on mediation, conciliation, and arbitration and by students and authorities of industrial relations. I hope to be of some help to students who may study the case, by my comments today.

Although the Secretary of Commerce,

Mr. Connor, and the Secretary of Labor, Mr. Wirtz, performed negotiating services-as I have told them in a letter that

I sent to each of them-that likewise

have not been excelled, nevertheless, when all is said and done, the country

would be in the throes of a shutdown of the major industry in the United States at this very hour, were it not for the industrial statesmanship of the President of the United States. I have never seen its equal. I state, in anticipation, to any critics who might seek to give the impression that the President used persuapression that the President used persuasion not related to the facts of the case, that they could not be more wrong.

The President of the United States discussed the details of this controversy, before he intervened, at a breakfast held in the White House the morning of Auin the White House the morning of August 30, at which the substantive issues were outlined for him in detail-issues which had resulted in a complete deadlock between the steel companies and the steel workers' union.

On August 28, the President had sent to Pittsburgh the Under Secretary of Commerce, the former Governor of FlorCommerce, the former Governor of Florida, Mr. Leroy Collins, and the senior Senator from Oregon to participate in a fact-finding mission. Some Senators may not be aware that Governor Collins and the senior Senator from Oregon were not authorized to make any suggestions to the representatives of the union and of the steel companies for a settlement of the dispute.

We spent hours with the parties to find out what their differences were, and to determine for the President whether they had actually reached a good-faith

deadlock in their negotiations.

The President instructed us to find out if there was any hope of further free collective bargaining between the disputants or if it appeared that Governputants or if it appeared that Government intervention were necessary in order to avoid the irreparable damage to the Nation which would result from a shutdown of the steel industry.

When we reported to the President on the morning of August 30, Governor

ment on every detail of all the minutiae of the findings we brought back from Pittsburgh. We reported to the President that in our opinion, if the parties a steel industry shut down at midnight on Tuesday, August 31, 1965.

were left to themselves there would be

We tried to be of service to the Presidetail the White House procedure we dent in outlining at great length and in thought should be followed. Essen

tially, it called for continued negotiations, under the direction of the White

House. We made recommendations,

within flexible brackets, for terms of settlement of the dispute, should the where it would have to suggest a settleGovernment finally be in a position ment. But that was the sum and substance of the contribution that Governor Collins and I made; and that is a minor contribution, compared with the great work of the President and the neLabor and the Secretary of Commerce gotiating efforts of the Secretary of which followed that breakfast meeting on August 30.

the standpoint of a valuable experience, I shall always be a richer man, from because I had the opportunity of serving with Leroy Collins, of Florida, on this mission. In my judgment, he is a great American. One cannot pay a higher

compliment to a man and to a friend than to say he is a great American. Leroy Collins is a dedicated American, and I learned much from him during our work together in Pittsburgh.

Also I wish to pay tribute to Mr. William Simkin, Director of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, for his mediation work with the parties during the many days of negotiation conferences with them. Governor Collins and I found that the negotiators for both the union and the steel industry had great respect for and confidence in Bill Simkin. The factual material that he had gathered over the weeks and the mediation service which he and his able staff had rendered to the parties helped to provide the seeds for the sowing of commonsense suggestions in the minds of the industry and union negotiators by the President and by Secretary Wirtz and Secretary Connor.

One other official deserves special mention by me and that is Mr. Joseph Califano of the President's staff. While Governor Collins and I were in Pittsburgh, Mr. Califano stayed on the Washington, D.C., end of the long-distance telephone much of the time day and night, advising with us on our findings as we developed them as a result of our conferences with the parties to the disputes. He in turn relayed them to the President and relayed back to us further

instructions and advice which we sought

from the President. Mr. Califano was of great help to all of us and particularly to the President throughout the handling of the steel case by the White House. Now I want to say a few words about the negotiations here in Washington, under the leadership and statesmanship of the President of the United States.

The President agreed with the recommendation that Governor Collins and I made to the group that had breakfast with him on August 30, that it was important for the parties to the dispute to hear from the President himself as to how serious the consequences of a steel industry shutdown would be to the security and economy of the Nation.

As I said in this Chamber last Thursday, I do not advise Presidential interventions in labor disputes as a general rule. I believe they should be very rare. The President of the United States should not have imposed upon him such a burden. He is entitled to have labor and industry settle their differences without White House intervention through their voluntary exercise of a precious freedom, namely, free collective bargaining.

When the Federal Government does intervene, it should in most instances be kept at the Department of Labor and Department of Commerce level. There are instances, however, in which the President himself would fail the American people if he did not personally intervene, if he thought the public interest warranted intervention. This steel industry dispute was one of such cases. In my many years of service in this field, there have been only a half dozen cases in which one could say with assurance that a White House intervention was justified. But this was one such case, because there would have resulted both a strike and a lockout. Do not forget that when the parties to a labor dispute come to a point where they really break off negotiations between themselves, the employer has to assume equal responsibility with the union for the cessation of operations of that industry.

I stated before I left Pittsburgh, I stated at the White House breakfast the other morning, and I was heard to state on two occasions on the floor of the Senate last week, that in my judgment there was equality of responsibility resting upon the steel companies and the steel union with respect to this dispute. The facts involved in the case simply did not justify either the union or the Steel Companies throwing our country into the economic losses that would result from a breakdown in collective bargaining between them.

There is no question about the President's laying the facts before the parties when he asked them to come to Washington to meet with him at the White House in the presence of his Secretary of Labor and Secretary of Commerce. Such a conference between the President and the parties to the dispute was a procedural recommendation that Governor Collins and I had made to him at the breakfast meeting on August 30.

The President laid it on the line, so to speak, and he demonstrated to the parties his complete knowledge in detail of what was involved in the dispute. He showed complete knowledge of the union problems and the steel companies' problems. The President knows the problems that confront the industry with regard to foreign importation, the question of the stockpiling of the inventories that have taken place, and the facts

about the healthy profits within the industry. He knows the facts about historic inequities that have grown up within the job classifications within the labor force. This involves inequities between incentive and nonincentive pay rates. He assigned to Secretary Wirtz and Secretary Connor the great task of taking the parties to the Executive Building across the street from the White House and starting under Presidential instructions the series of negotiation sessions which are now well known to the American people, because of the adequate news coverage that these conferences received.

I stress the fact that the President kept in touch with these negotiations until their final successful culmination.

I have already read some articles in the newspapers which would indicate that there are those who feel that the final settlement somehow has violated some economic guidelines that are supposed to be followed in the settlement of labor disputes in order to avoid the possibility of inflation.

Those guidelines are relative, in that it has always been recognized that socalled historic inequities within an industry must be adjusted in connection dustry must be adjusted in connection with any guidelines and that in doing with any guidelines and that in doing equity and justice it is necessary to adjust those inequities, over and above any guidelines.

There is nothing new about economic guidelines in settling the economic issues guidelines in settling the economic issues involved in a major labor dispute. Durinvolved in a major labor dispute. During the war we had them in connection ing the war we had them in connection with the operation of the War Labor Board. We followed them subject only to fair adjustments necessary to eliminate inequities and injustices.

Therefore, when we had a case in which the facts showed that existing inequities had developed within an indusequities had developed within an industry, those inequities were adjusted over and above the guidelines.

That is exactly what has happened since the so-called 3.2 guideline was since the so-called 3.2 guideline was recommended for handling economic issues in labor disputes starting with the Kennedy administration. The result is that no one can point to any settlement in a major labor dispute within the past few years in which the dispute has been settled within the 3.2 guideline as far as so-called inequities are concerned. However, the 3.2 guideline is of great importance in directing the settlement of a dispute, because that means that the major wage settlement should conform to the guideline. That is what has happened in case after case. It happened in the steel settlement of last week. It happened in the 1962 East Coast Longshore case and the 1964 East Coast Longshore case in which I was involved.

Inequities were adjusted, but the basic wage settlements did not violate the guidelines. One of the things that must always be given great weight in the always be given great weight in the settlement of a major dispute is the relationship of that dispute to settlements in comparable industries.

We cannot select a given industry-for example, the steel industry-and settle a labor dispute independently of the terms of settlement of disputes in comparable industries.

That was a problem that confronted the President and confronted the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Commerce in this steel case. That was a problem that Governor Collins and I placed major stress on in our report to the President and to the Secretaries.

Let it be said at this time that in the automobile industry, in which a major settlement was reached some months ago, it was necessary to reach a settlement somewhat above the guideline so far as the so-called fringe benefits and wage inequities were concerned. But in the automobile dispute as well as other major disputes the settlement was not above the guidelines so far as the basic wage changes were concerned. Those cases stayed within the guideline. That is also true of the steel case.

Let us not forget that in the automobile industry, the union had the benefit of a so-called cost-of-living escalation clause.

That does not exist in the steel industry contract. This was a major problem that confronted Secretary Wirtz and Secretary Connor, as well as the President of the United State in the steel case.

Therefore, although the basic wage increase in the automobile industry was finally negotiated at a figure higher than the basic wage increase settlement in the steel case, it should be noted that the union in the steel case does not receive any benefit from a cost-of-living escalation clause. However, Walter Reuther, since the settlement in the automobile case, has received an additional 8 cents an hour over and above the settlement in that case because of the cost-of-living escalation clause.

In the negotiations within the steel industry 2 years ago, the cost-of-livingescalation clause was dropped. It is true that the union received some benefits in exchange from the standpoint of the companies' assuming the cost of the premiums on the insurance cost of the contract. However, there is no doubt that the steelworkers also, because of the increase in the cost of living since that settlement, have suffered considerable loss.

Let it be said that the settlement in the steel case is less than the settlement in the automobile case. Let it be said also that another comparable major industry that confronted the negotiators was the aluminum industry. That industry holds a collective bargaining agreement with the same union that holds the agreement in the steel industry. The aluminum settlement was better, from the standpoint of an increase in basic wages, than was reached in the settlement of the steel case. There is still another comparable industry that I would mention that created problems for the negotiators and that is the industry that involves the manufacturing of metal cans. This industry holds a collective bargaining agreement with the same union as in the case of the steel industry. The basic wage settlement was a better settlement, so far as increases are concerned, than that in the steel industry.

In fairness to the steel companies, I wish to say that for some time the average hourly wage in the steel industry has