Utilities (gas, electric).

Transportation...

+1.8

Medicine.

+2.4

Personal care.

+1.8 +1.7 +.2

Vegetables and fruit..

Rent...

Household furnishings..

The political impact of the issue could be potent, and it now appears to be looming up as a storm center of major magnitude.

of our resources. Thrift is the opposite of wastefulness and extravagance. People that follow thrifty ways are self-reliant, prosperous, the strength of the Nation.

I am led to discuss thrift with you today because of the really tremendous effort that is being made over TV, the radio, in newspaper and magazine advertising and also by letter and handbill urging people to spend. Through various ways people are urged to buy now, pay later with only a small downpayment. Much of this advertising is for products of doubtful value such as pills to make you feel better fast, pills to put you to sleep, pills to stop a headache, pills to cure a cold, pills to allay pain, etc., and sometimes even pills to keep you awake.

Also, an amazing array of cosmetics and tonics to improve your looks, make you look younger, take the gray out of your hair, or change it to any other color, banish bad odor,

1965]

MEAT COUNTER BLUES

If Lyndon Johnson had to run for office today and there's a school of thought that NOTE. Complaints total more than 100 percent claims he's always running-the cost of liv

because some mentioned more than 1 item.

Two facts are immediately apparent. First, it takes only a slight rise in the cost of an item to cause large numbers of women to single out that product as one in which prices have gone up. Second, while the areas in which they spend most of the family's budget-food and clothing-are the particular target of housewife complaints, transportation, medicine, rents, and personal care which have increased close to the overall average of 1.9 percent-have escaped public awareness.

But the views of the women about rises in prices have established some firm opinions which have serious implications. In order to pinpoint where the blame is being leveled, the cross section was asked this question: "What do you feel is the main cause for the rise in the cost of living: farm prices, wage increases, middlemen, middlemen, Government spending, too high profits or what?"

Causes of the rise in cost of living
[In percent]

Middlemen...
Wage increases.
Government
spending....
Too high profits.
Farm prices.
Not sure..

Nationwide,

ing might well rank as a major domestic issue.

Housewives are griping. The Consumer Price Index has hit a record 110.2 percent of the 1957-59 (Eisenhower GOP era) average. And although such general factors as auto insurance and homeownership costs help account for the rise, food prices seem to be the scapegoat since they pose an immediate, conspicuous target.

To be sure, the farmers are having a wonderful year. Gross farm income is at a record peak of $43.3 billion, net income will total an estimated $13.5 billion in 1965, highest in 12 years, and the prices for beef and pork are bringing smiles to the growers.

At the retail counter, however, it's another matter. A recent poll of housewives found that 46 percent of complaints about the general cost of living centered on meat prices, with other equally important items such as rents and transportation trailing far behind.

Yet, to blame the farmer for all the inflation is manifestly unfair. According to Government figures, farmers last year received only 37 cents on every dollar spent at retail counters for food. Middlemen accounted for the rest.

The fact is that the cost-of-living index is computed from a list of some 300 goods and services ranging from refrigerators to haircuts, along with food. To say that farmers are prospering at the expense of city dwellers is to ignore the costly contracts that have been negotiated in auto, aluminum, steel, and other industries in the past year. These 18 31 are the basic industries that pass on to the whole economy their inflationary settlements.

*2 8844

7

2

17

14

middlemen-primarily food processors, wholesalers and retailers are the No. 1 target. But the pattern differs sharply by income groups. Lower income women tend to worry most about middlemen costs and are least critical of wage increases as inflationary pressures. In contrast, upper income women place the blame primarily on union demands, and secondly on Government spending. Obviously, there is a relationship between their views and their husbands' occupations.

A real question which economists pose about an economy such as ours, which is growing at a rate of over 6 percent a year, is whether consumer price rises are inevitable. The housewives of the Nation tend to say no. They were asked:

"Do you think that rises in the cost of living are bound to happen or do you feel they can be avoided?"

CXI-1482

The housewife may not notice their impact every Friday on her shopping list, but before we impeach the Iowa and Texas meat producers, let's keep in mind that inflation, like termites, usually attacks from several directions.

THRIFT AND PROGRESS (Radio talk by R. K. Bliss, extension service of Iowa State University, Sept. 3, 1965) Thrift is almost a forgotten word in our present-day vocabulary. It was not always that way. Older people, especially those in their seventies, and eighties, had a good training in thrift, but what about the training of our young people now?

Today I would like to visit with you for a little while about the importance of thrift. To begin with, thrift does not mean miserliness and parsimony. Thrift means economical management, frugality, care and wisdom in management and intelligent use

etc., all of which are of no real value to the individual. I suggest that some evening you take paper and pencil and keep a record of the ads that appear on your TV set; better still, if you keep a record for a week. It is amazing the effort that is being made to sell things of no particular value to the individual and most of which are actually of little or no real value to anyone.

A great effort is being made to get people to spend but we hear very little about thrift. Banks, building and loan associations, insurance companies and the urge given to selling U.S. E and H savings bonds are small voices crying in the hullabaloo of voices urging people to spend.

Why does this country have the billions of dollars that are being sent overseas to less prosperous people? The answer is clear. It is because of the thrifty savings of our people. The hardy early settlers who crossed the Atlantic Ocean in crowded little ships (no one would make the trip in such ships now) in order to get away from the tyranny of dictators and kings brought with them

habits of thrift, of self-reliance, and of saving. It is the thrifty ways and teachings of our forebears and the pioneers that enabled this country to build a prosperous civilization and also to send billions of dollars in money, goods, and services to less prosperous people in other lands. It is the thrift of ordinary people who thought savings in banks, building and loan associations, U.S. bonds and other bonds, insurance, etc., that has made this possible.

It has been said that it is the natural resources of this country that have made our wealth possible. It is, however, something else in addition to natural resources. There were people living in what is now the United States hundreds-perhaps thousands-of years before the Pilgrims arrived. Other countries, South America and Africa, for example, have remarkable natural resources. The something else, it appears, is the willingness to work, to be thrifty, to save for old age and for a secure future. Also our free enterprise, universal education, freechoice-of-occupation system which has removed manmade restrictions and encouraged individual effort has been an important factor. These are the principal qualities that have made the United States outstanding in increase of wealth and well-being.

We now appear to be developing a philosophy in this country that we can spend ourselves into prosperity. Necessary adjuncts and supports for this philosophy are easy money and inflation or the decrease in the purchasing power of the dollar. Our wealthmeasuring device-the dollar-changes in value. For example, suppose in 1940 you put away $1,000 in a bank or in bonds including E and H savings bonds, or you might have lent it to a neighbor. Now 25 years later, the original $1,000 that you laid away

for your old age will purchase less than $500 of the things you need and want. More than half of the original value has been lost through inflation or the decrease in the purchasing power of the dollar or the increase in the cost of living, which now are polite ways of calling attention to inflation.

Inflation is a cruel tax on older people; it decreases the value of money laid away for old age. But instead of correcting the principal difficulty, inflation, the Government now begins collecting additional taxes and developing new programs to pay back part of what has been taken away from the savings of older people through inflation. This means more expense, more machinery, more centralized control. Inflation is, of course, also a tax on all thrifty people of any age who save in order to provide for their future well-being.

All will agree that people in need, especially old people, should be cared for; but the number who need care would be greatly reduced by having a wealth-measuring de

vice that remained stable. Let us see what stabilizing the purchasing power of the dollar would do for older people and, of course, this would apply to all thrifty people who are saving for the future.

According to estimates there are now about 18 million people in the United States who are 65 years old or older. Let us assume for the sake of the illustration that these 18 million people will each on the average spend $1,500 for food, housing, clothing, church, entertainment, travel, and other things during the year. One thousand five hundred

dollars is used because according to reports, the Government sets $3,000 a year as a minimum to keep a family out of poverty. If so, these 18 million oldsters will spend $27 billion during the 12 months. A 2-percent inflation or a 2-percent increase in the cost

of living as we appear to be headed for this year will decrease the purchasing power of $27 billion by the huge sum of $540 million. If this goes on year after year as it has in many past years, you can see what it means to the savings of old people-and, of course, the same applies to all savings. To the extent that the dollar, our wealth-measuring device, is reduced in value by inflation, all savings are reduced correspondingly and public and private debts are also repudiated to that extent. What this country needs is a wealth-measuring device that is stable.

Inflation is a tax on thrift. Inflation discourages saving. Why save money today if the money you save today will buy less tomorrow? Inflation discourages thrift.

Inflation is a severe handicap to thrifty young people who are trying to get a start in business. It often takes years to save enough money to buy a farm or start a business. Inflation lowers the value of the money saved and at the same time increases the cost of the property or business to be bought. Thus young people saving money to get started in business or to buy a farm get soaked going and coming and may have to settle by working for someone else. Inflation works to the disadvantage of the small operator.

Speculators, people who study business trends and who buy today with the expectation of a rise in dollar values, are the principal beneficiaries of inflation. Inflation makes many millionaires and also a considerable number of bankrupts. Inflation is mostly paid for by reducing the value of the savings of thrifty people.

What can be done about it; how can the dollar be stabilized? One plan that has not been really tried since World War II, during which time the purchasing power of the dollar has been cut in half, would be for Congress to balance the Federal budget. When Government spends more than it collects through taxes, it has to borrow and

This is known as creeping inflation. This erosion of the dollar promises to go on and on.

Not only are prices higher, but also there are more things to buy, more demands on paychecks.

It's true that pay is up too-for most people. But higher pay doesn't stop the grumbling over prices. Question: Is the dollar in real trouble?

Grumbling about the high cost of living is beginning to be heard from one end of the country to the other.

This grumbling is a sign that the dollar is in trouble again-its purchasing power eroded at a rising rate by the pressures of

inflation.

Housewives complain about the shrinking supply of groceries that a $20 bill will buy.

Families worry about the high and rising price of shoes for children going back to

school.

Autumn is a time to buy winter clothing, and many items of clothing cost more. Paychecks, it is true, are growing larger for most people. The rise in pay, overall, is greater than the rise in cost of living. And food costs, about which housewives complain most, still take less of the weekly paycheck relatively, than in years past. Yet the grumbling grows.

The public, it seems, wants more and more of the luxuries of life and is more and more irritated by the fact that each of the rising number of dollars in pay gradually will buy less in the way of goods and services.

Vacations, people find, cost more. Color TV is something new to own. Demand is for

more and more extras on cars.

A flood of youths is entering the Nation's colleges, and inflation of the costs of such higher education goes on year after year.

Now there is to be an increase in taxes to support social security.

In addition, real estate taxes rise year by year. Sales taxes are in an upward creep

in States and localities.

As dollars buy less, everybody wants-and often demands-more dollars.

Yet, as pay goes up, it follows that wage costs to business tend to rise. Soon business is under pressure to raise more prices in order to maintain profit margins.

The pay raise now taking place in the basic steel industry under terms of a recent contract settlement is expected to be followed by selective increases in the price of of steel and of steel products.

So the prospect is that wage costs will go on rising and prices will go on rising, and dollars gradually will buy less and less.

This is what is known as creeping inflation. More dollars are required to buy the same amount of goods and services.

20, 1965]

DOLLAR IN TROUBLE?-OUTLOOK FOR INFLATION-WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT

A 44-cent dollar now, compared with 1939 and experts are predicting further shrinkage as price inflation speeds up. How can one guard against an eroding dollar? Is there a way to protect income, savpicking up momentum again. ings? Here are things to do and avoid. Erosion of the dollar's buying power is

The dollar in recent years has been losing value at about half a cent a year. In the year just past that rate increased to nearly a full cent a year. Right now it gives signs of losing value at an even faster pace.

A creeping inflation of prices of many goods and services that enter into the cost of living is the reason. That creep now is faster. It is back to the rate of the late 1950's.

Few economists seem to expect the creep to turn to a fast walk or to a trot, but the trend is there as it has been for more than 30 years.

A wage rise in steel, likely to result in some price rise, confirms the trend.

Dollars, in other words, seem sure to go on losing value in terms of things that people buy. The only question seems to be whether the rate of loss will speed up.

TODAY'S DOLLAR: 44 CENTS

Today's dollar actually is a 44-cent dollar compared with the 100-cent dollar of 1939, when measured in terms of the cost of living. By 1970, that dollar will be worth about 40 cents even with slowly creeping inflation. If inflation speeds up, to erode values at a faster rate, the 1970 dollar readily could be worth even less.

This trend is important to the investor, to the person thinking of retirement, to many jobholders, and to those thinking of careers.

Pay on some types of jobs tends to lag behind the rising trend in prices. Pensions in many cases do not go up as living costs go up. People who save and invest in fixed-income investments such as bonds find, with time, that inflation eats away at the buying power of the principal amount of dollars saved.

With inflation in the air once again, it becomes useful to have an estimate of how fast that inflation-and the erosion of the dollar's value-will become.

To get that estimate U.S. News & World Report sought the opinions of some of the Nation's top economists.

NO SNOWBALLING

Massachusetts Institute of Technology and

Paul Samuelson, economics professor at

an adviser to President Johnson, expects some increase in the rate of erosion of the dollar's buying power, but no snowballing, cantering inflation.

Professor Samuelson notes that more and

more companies are producing close to capacity in order to meet strong demand from customers. "Under these conditions, firms can raise prices and increase their sales at the same time," he says.

From Beryl Sprinkel, vice president and chief economist of Harris Trust & Savings Bank in Chicago, comes this prediction: "We face the biggest gain in the cost of living in years. Consumer prices, on average, will climb 2 to 2.5 percent in the year ahead. Wholesale prices may go up 2 percent or more. This amounts to a significant acceleration over the rate of the past year or two." A strong boom in business stretching well into next year is contributing to upward pressures on prices, as the Chicago economist sees it. He adds:

"There is not much slack in the economy now, order books are full and the expectation is that business will get better. That

SERIOUS PRICE PRESSURES

The sudden shift to higher military spending related to Vietnam is seen exerting an upward push on prices by Dan Hodes, economist for General Telephone & Electronics Corp. "Over the next year and a half these price pressures will be more serious than at any time since 1957," comments Mr. Hodes.

But barring a major blowup in Vietnam, requiring arms spending at the rate of increase during the Korean war, none of the economists expects that the United States is heading for an inflationary binge.

NO SIGNIFICANT INFLATION

value as the general price level goes up.

But don't rush into setting up a business. Stick to a field you know something about. Be sure to have enough capital behind you to tide you over rough spots that are sure to crop up. Keep in mind that lack of adequate capital or insufficient know-how causes the great majority of new businesses to fold within 5 years after they open their doors.

Common stocks

Here is one investment spot to put your money that usually offers a good chance of keeping ahead of inflation.

Common stocks generally rise in value in times of inflation. Stock prices, on average,

"Government spending is going up, but so are revenues. Labor costs now are rising faster than output per man-hour, and this will add to business costs. But remember that competition is intense in this country. In many cases, higher costs will have to be absorbed by firms, lowering their profit margins.

"There will be continuing modest erosion of the dollar, but no significant inflation." Professor Backman, an authority on prices, was asked his views on the impact of selective increases in prices of steel. His answer: "Steel-price increases will have much less effect on the overall cost of living than a rise of a penny a loaf of bread, a penny a pack of cigerettes, or a penny a gallon of gas."

A similar view of only moderate shrinking of the dollar's purchasing power in the year ahead is voiced by Martin Gainsbrugh, chief economist of the National Industrial Conference Board.

Significantly, however, note that from all sides come predictions of a cheapening dollar, with differences only on the amount of cheapening that is likely to take place.

Against that background, what can an individual do to safeguard his income and his savings? Is there an "inflationproof" protection plan to follow in a period when the value of the dollar is going down?

HOW TO HEDGE

Experience shows that there is no surefire way to avoid the effects of price inflation that whittle down savings. But there are some points to keep in mind when planning for the future. For example

A job

Best defense against the declining value of the dollar is a steady job. Most wage earners and salaried people improve their lot. The reason: Paychecks generally rise faster than prices.

Take the typical factory worker. His hourly earnings have risen more than 40 percent in the past 10 years-just about double the rise in consumer prices over that period.

This means that the worker's real incomehis ability to buy today's goods and services at current prices has risen rather sharply, pushing living standards of the worker upward.

A home

Owning a home, in most cases, can be a valuable form of inflation protection. Value of real estate in good neighborhoods in cities and suburbs has gone up faster than the cost of living.

But note this: Rising home values are not guaranteed. Neighborhoods can run down. Industry, the lifeblood of a community, can move to a new location. The home of a transferred worker can become a glut on the market, can be the source of a loss-not of a gain-to the seller.

A business

Owning a small business can be a worthwhile investment in a period of rising prices.

while consumer prices have increased by only about 20 percent.

There is this note of caution: Not all stocks go up in value even in a strong bull market. And remember that "nobody buys the averages"-meaning that it's the performance of individual issues that count. Stock-market averages lately have been pushing into nearrecord highs. But in a recent week, for every three individual issues that hit new highs for the year on major New York stock exchanges, one stock slumped to a new low.

It's a question of picking the right stock for a long-term investment.

do not fare well in times of rising consumer Owners of corporate or Government bonds prices.

Dollars put into a bond are paid back in the same number as originally invested. Trouble is that these dollars, after years of rising prices, don't go as far when buying goods and services.

The same is true of interest paid on the bond. Take a bond paying 4 percent bought 10 years ago: Allowing for the steady rise in the cost of living in that period, the "real" return on a bond shrinks to a little above 3.6 percent, rather than 4 percent.

Cash savings

Money in a savings account is in a similar boat with money put into bonds: Dollars dwindle in buying power. Interest paid is eaten into by the mounting cost of living.

Mortgages

Putting your money in mortgages generally offers little protection. Buying power of fixed-value investments shrinks as the general price level goes up.

Works of art

Here is an inflation hedge quite popular with Europeans, but not much used by Americans. Idea is to buy paintings, sculpture, rare books, antiques, in the expectation that these will appreciate in value faster than the cost of living.

Jewelry and gems are another favorite investment among Europeans.

Trouble with these items is that you can make mistakes. Paintings can fall out of favor. Tastes change among art collectors. And money put into jewelry and gems earns no return for the owner while he is waiting to sell at a profit.

Pensions

People living on a pension or fixed income from an annuity usually find themselves losing ground as prices go up. That's why inflation is called the "worst enemy" of widows, orphans, and old people.

Social security pensions, just increased by 7 percent, about offset the rise in the cost of living since the last time pensions were raised in 1959. Difficulty for pensioners comes in the lag between the time that prices go up and the time pensions are raised.

People receiving pensions from private companies, in most cases, are worse off. Unlike social security, higher pensions granted to workers by most companies are not paid to persons already on the retired rolls.

Creditors

People who lend out money, generally speaking, are pinched by price inflation. Dollars loaned out come back in diluted form in terms of what they will buy in the marketplace. Interest charged on the loan helps to offset inflation's inroads, but lenders then find that "real" earnings on their money are less than they counted on.

Borrowers

People who use borrowed money tend to come out ahead in a period of rising prices. Inflation tends to lighten the burden of debts. These debts can be paid off in dollars of declining value.

Debt, thus, can take on new attraction in an era of inflation. Debt of people already is the highest in history, a fact that is worrying some economists. Charges to carry that debt are taking a growing part of people's incomes.

Now, as creeping inflation takes on added speed, economists feel that debt will grow in appeal. As one economist put it: "Whenever prices start moving up on a broad front, there is the danger that the thrifty will become spendthrifts-and do it more and more on the cuff."

That gives you an idea of what a shrinking dollar, in terms of purchasing power of that dollar, can mean in people's daily lives.

NO GUARANTEE

It's important to remember that there is no guarantee of perpetual inflation.

In terms of wholesale prices, for example, these prices held about unchanged for a remarkable period of about 6 years, until they started moving up a year ago.

An unexpected showing in business could change the outlook for inflation. Peace in Vietnam, if it should come, might bring cutbacks in arms spending, tip budget totals for defense downward instead of the other way.

Still, as the economists see it, chances are that prices will continue to creep upward as they have for years past.

That's been the trend for more than 30 years. Economists see no end to it so long

lutely necessary for the Department of Agriculture to establish a separate division in order to comply with the making of determinations under this act.

It is indeed surprising to find some of the people who are critical of Government spending now are alined on the side of needless duplication, inefficiency, and confusion which would result from this amendment-an amendment which would entail the spending of untold dollars to provide for this entirely new duplicative section of Government which this amendment would be required to

create.

At least as surprising is finding people alined in support of this provision who in the past have stood as the stanchest defenders for proper, senatorial procedure and for respect for the committee system. This amendment serves not only to abrogate both principles, but indeed to relegate these principles to oblivion. For instance, assuming that it was a proper matter for the Agriculture Committee to consider and a proper matter to be placed in this bill, it should be

noted that no hearings whatsoever were conducted on this measure even though its effects and ramifications are far reaching. It is true that back in January of this year the Agriculture Committee conducted 2 days of hearings concerning the lapse of the bracero program and the problems which this presented. However, at the conclusion of these hearings the chairman of the committee stated on the floor of this body that the purpose of the hearings was merely to advise the committee and the Senate of the effects of the termination of the bracero program.

Mr. President, during 8 years of my service in the House of Representatives, while on the House Committee on Agriculture, I made a rather extensive study of this particular problem dealing with the immigrant labor situation, and particularly the problem of the wetbacks and braceros who came into the country illegally, and under the old act.

After a rather long period of study, having voted for the program during the first 6 years of my service in Congress, I discovered that the program was doing irreparable damage with reference to human element involved, as well as failing to provide the proper labor, wages, and protection for the personnel involved.

The chairman concluded that the views presented were very conflicting in nature. No hearings were held; no study was made on this provision. Even so at the time it was presented to the committee, though the committee had been considering the bill for a period of almost 2 weeks, this particular section was given only cursory attention and was discussed for less than 10 minutes.

Mr. President, with due deference to the author of the provision, he stated earlier in the proceedings before the committee that he would offer his provision before final bill was marked up. We did have some notice, although a very short period of time. The author of the amendment advised the committee that he would offer the amendment before the hearings were concluded.

Mr. BASS. I yield.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I am glad that the Senator made that last statement. It is true, is it not, that 2 days before the time of the offering of the amendment, the Senator from Florida advised the committee that he intended to offer an amendment to give the Secretary of Agriculture power to fix the number and availability of the workers in the various agricultural industries, with particular reference to those industries which produce perishable crops? Mr. BASS. I do not remember whether it was 2 days, 3, or 4.

Mr. HOLLAND. It was several days. Mr. BASS. The Senator is correct. I I want it to be clearly understood that the Senator from Florida did give notice to the committee that he intended to call this provision up.

Mr. HOLLAND. Does the amendment offered by the Senator from Florida differ in any way from the notice given by the Senator from Florida at the time he

called this matter to the attention of the committee?

Mr. BASS. So far as the Senator from Tennessee knows, I have no information to the contrary.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I am happy to hear that. The Senator from Florida tried to give appropriate information, well ahead of time, that he expected to take this step. The Senator from Florida went further and also said, as I am sure the Senator will remember, that the courts have held that the Department of Labor was in this field solely in an advisory capacity and was not answerable in the courts to growers who were aggrieved. The Senator remembers my making that statement.

Mr. BASS. The Senator is correct. I wished to make it clear in my remarks that there was no indication of anything that would reflect on the way in which the amendment was brought up by the

Senator from Florida.

We did not have any extensive hearings on the ramifications and the effect of the amendment. In my opinion, we did not have sufficient time in which to make a thorough study of the amendment and to obtain the advice of the officials in the departments affected.

Mr. HOLLAND. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BASS. Mr. President, this provision would affect very crucial matters within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary and the Labor and Public Welfare Committees. At least it would therefore appear to be a traversty of the whole committee system to allow such perfunctory examination by only one of the committees involved.

To cite a very good example, it might be noted that on September 7 the Senate passed a supplemental appropriation bill containing $1,723,000 for the U.S. Department of Labor. This is to be used for expenses necessary for the performance of the functions of the Secretary of Labor as he deems necessary to insure in connection with admission of nonimmigrant aliens under the Immigration and Nationality Act for employment in agriculture. This bill also insures that max

train agricultural workers for available job opportunities, that these domestic workers be given preference and employment over alien workers, and that the employment of alien workers does not in any manner adversely affect the wages and working conditions of native workers. Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further?

Mr. BASS. I yield.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I am sure the Senator knows that the Senator from Florida worked on the committee which marked up the supplemental appropriations bill to which he referred.

Mr. BASS. The Senator is correct. Mr. HOLLAND. And the earlier annual appropriations bill which covered the same subject matter.

Mr. BASS. The Senator is correct.

Mr. HOLLAND. I wonder if the Sen-

ator knows that, in both of those markups, the Senator from Florida insisted that the Secretary of Labor be given adequate funds with which to enlarge his.

recruitment program.

Mr. BASS. And to make a study of the entire subject.

Mr. HOLLAND. No. The recruitment program is the program for which funds were requested. That is what the Secretary was given the funds for, and the Senator from Florida in no sense wants to affect his right, duty, and obligation to do that work. It should be done much better than it has been done.

The Secretary will have a slight increase in two additional amounts of money for that purpose. However, that matter does not at all affect the purview of the pending amendment which the Senator seeks now to strike.

Mr. BASS. Mr. President, I thoroughly agree that it would be effective. If this amendment were adopted, the Secretary of Labor would be taken out of consideration in this very important problem; and the recruitment problem, in my opinion, and on the advice of the Senator from Florida, would be left in the hands of the Secretary of Labor.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I am glad that the Senator has raised that question, because apparently he has gained a completely erroneous idea of the amendment.

The amendment makes it very clear that what the Secretary of Labor should not do is to determine what the labor needs are and the available labor at any time during the course of the picking or handling or harvesting of crops. By no means does the amendment attempt to amend or destroy existing legislation, or to cut off appropriations which the Senator from Florida is trying to provide to assist the Secretary of Labor to accentuate and enlarge his recruitment efforts which, up to now, have been hopelessly ineffective in obtaining labor for the various industries which produce perishable commodities, from one ocean to the other.

The Senator from Florida wants the recruitment to be stepped up, and he wants no other functions of the Secretary of Labor to be impaired. However, the Senator from Florida does not want