« PreviousContinue »
United States, or in any department or of of article VI leads to no such result and is paralysis. We need only to look at the examficer thereof."
hopelessly inadequate as a reason for at ple of France to see that an all-supreme legThat case thus established the principle tempting a constitutional amendment. islature may lose the liberties of a country that when the United States makes a treaty Sponsors of this proposal refer to it as through inability to exercise its power. Unon a subject within the treaty power the the most important constitutional issue since der our Constitution, the Executive, subject Congress can enact legislation to implement the Civil War. Certainly it would disunite
to checks and balances, has power to act the treaty which it might not have power the United States in the foreign field in the when the Nation's existence is at stake. The to enact in the absence of a treaty, and may devastating manner of secession.
congressional power to investigate, to confirm thus enter a field normally reserved to the This proposal and the differing but dras appointments and to appropriate money is a States.
tic limitations on our sovereign power pro large weight in the scale. To encumber the That principle has been accepted without posed by Senator BRICKER would not have re President further than at present is not in serious opposition for over 30 years. Sena ceived the hearing they have had were it the interest of the security of the United tor BRICKER has in the past stated he favored not for the assertions made that treaties States. it. Senate Joint Resolution 43 would kill the might override the Bill of Rights. We re
CONCLUSION principle which stems directly from the ex ported last year that we were not convinced For the reasons outlined, your committee press words of the Constitution and also that any treaty conflicting with any provi is of the opinion that the proposals outlined from early cases (Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dall. 199 sion of the Constitution is of any force. We in Senate Joint Resolution 1 and Senate (1796) was the first of them).
are pleased to report that the Attorney Gen Joint Resolution 43 are unnecessary, unwise, Senate Joint Resolution 43, in part would ‘eral of the United States, Mr. Herbert divisive, and dangerous. Your committee amend the Constitution by adding thereto: Brownell, confirms our position.
has adopted the following resolution: “A provision of a treaty which conflicts Proponents of an amendment are fond of “Whereas various proposals to amend the with any provision of this Constitution shall pointing to a speech made by Mr. John Constitution of the United States (known in not be of any force or effect. A treaty shall Foster Dulles in 1952 indicating that treaties the 83d Cong., 1st sess. as S. J. Res. 1 and become effective as internal law in the might cut across the Bill of Rights but in the S. J. Res. 43) have been the subject of hearUnited States only through legislation which same speech he advocated further study of ings by a subcommittee of the United States would be valid in the absence of treaty." the whole problem. This has led him, as Senate Committee on the Judiciary;
The first sentence in this last proposal is Secretary of State in 1953, to agree with the "Whereas at such hearings the administrabased on the assumption that under the
Attorney General that treaties rank only on tion of President Eisenhower opposed such Constitution as it now stands a treaty may equality with congressional enactments. proposals as unnecessary, as not responsive be valid although it violates the Constitu.
to any constitutional need, and as dangerous
SENATOR BRICKER WOULD MAKE PEACE tion. There is no substantial basis for that
to the country;
UNCONSTITUTIONAL assumption. The second sentence of the
"Whereas such proposals have been reproposal would abolish the rule established If we are to protect our homes and cities
ported on adversely by the Committee on in Missouri v. Holland. The result would be from atomic destruction, we must have su
Amendments to the Federal Constitution for that even if a treaty deals within an appro
pervision and control of atomic bomb pro the reasons outlined in its report: priate subject of international agreement duction. Only an international body can do "Resolved, That such proposals to amend the Congress would have no power to implethis job, as our country proposed in the
the Constitution of the United States are ment it or make it effective in the United Baruch plan. But such supervision would
opposed. States, unless the subject matter were one necessarily involve an international body in
“Committee on Amendments to the on which Congress could legislate in absence vestigating and supervising matters essen
Federal Constitution: William D. of a treaty. Such a treaty as that with Can tially domestic and also rights of citizens in
Mitchell, chairman; Lewis R. Gulick, ada relating to migratory birds would have the production facilities of atomic bombs.
Henry S. Manley, Harrison Tweed, no effect in States which did not pass legisAs President Eisenhower said, supervision is
John W. Davis, John J. Mackrell, Ken. lation in accord with the treaty. Treaties essential to reduction of armament. But
neth C. Royall. giving aliens the right to do business or
Senate Joint Resolution 1 makes the process "MAY 28, 1953. own or inherit land, with reciprocal rights unconstitutional.
“Note by the chairman: Since the prepafor our citizens abroad, could be put into
For no apparent reason, Senator BRICKER
ration of this report, the Judiciary Commiteffect in any State only by State legislation. would also cut off Americans from the right
tee of the United States Senate, by a divided Even the treaty ending the Revolutionary to have their rights adjudicated by an inter
vote, has reported out of committee to the War would be made unconstitutional. The national claims commission or the Inter
Senate the following resolution embodying effectiveness here of treaties on many other national Court of Justice (if the United
a constitutional amendment which is not subjects plainly appropriate subjects of in States should sponsor their cases).
materially different from Senate Joint Resoternational agreements would depend en In many other ways too long to enumerate
lution 43: tirely on approval by State legislation. The here, section 2 of Senate Joint Resolution 1
"Joint resolution (as amended and approved President and Senate would be left with would cut us off from our friends and allies power to make treaties on proper subjects and isolate us in this dangerous world.
by the Senate Judiciary Committee on
June 4, 1953) proposing an amendment to of international agreement, but the Congress
NEEDLESS REDTAPE ON TREATY RATIFICATION the Constitution of the United States, rewould be shorn of power to enact legisla
Both Senate Joint Resolution 1 and Senate lating to the legal effect of certain treaties tion to discharge our international obligaJoint Resolution 43 would require a treaty
and executive agreements tions. Nothing in our past experience justifies such drastic measures.
to have five separate approvals before be “Resolved by the Senate and the House of
coming effective as internal law. These ap- Representatives of the United States of The theory that under paragraph 2 of
provals are: article VI a treaty may be supreme over the
America in Congress assembled (two-thirds 1. Presidential signature on treaty.
of each House concurring therein), That the Constitution or that a treaty which violates
2. Ratification by two-thirds of Senators following article is proposed as an amend. any provision of the Constitution can be of voting.
ment to the Constitution of the United any effect is without any basis in reason or
3. Passage of supporting law by majority States, which shall be valid to all intents and in any adjudicated case. Treaties and stat
of House. utes are on the same level and the Constitu
purposes as part of the Constitution when
4. Passage of supporting law by majority ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths tion is supreme over both. It will be noted of Senate.
of the several States: that in paragraph 2 of article VI it is stated
5. Presidential signature on law. that this Constitution and the laws of the
“ 'ARTICLE United States which shall be made in pur- mandatory procedure. It is a far cry even
No other country in the world has such a
* 'SECTION 1. A provision of a treaty which suance thereof; and all treaties made or which
conflicts with this Constitution shall not be from the simple proposal that treaties be shall be made, under authority of the United
of any force or effect. ratified by a majority of each House which States, shall be the supreme law of the land.
“ 'SEC. 2. A treaty shall become effective as passed the House a few years ago. It is also The fact that in mentioning treaties it is not
internal law in the United States only said treaties måde in pursuance of the Con
wholly unnecessary since, when desired, the stitution has been seized upon to support the procedure can be required under the Consti
through legislation which would be valid in
the absence of treaty. tution now. But it does not have to be each argument that laws must be consistent with
“ 'SEC. 3. Congress shall have power to regutime, as these proposals would necessitate. the Constitution, but treaties may be ef
late all executive and other agreements with fective even though they violate the Con
THE POWER OF THE PRESIDENT IS ESSENTIAL TO any foreign power or international organizastitution. It seems absurd to contend that
THE PROTECTION OF THE UNITED STATES tion. All such agreements shall be subject a law enacted by the House, plus, the Senate, This country learned, in the days of the to the limitations imposed on treaties by plus the President, must conform to Consti Continental Congress, that the legislature this article. tution, but that a treaty made only by the cannot fight wars. So the President is the “ 'SEC. 4. The Congress shall have power to Senate and the President is valid even if it constitutional Commander in Chief. But enforce this article by appropriate legislation. conflicts with the Constitution. To accept under Senator BRICKER's section 4 even the “ 'SEC. 5. This article shall be inoperative that contention would lead to the absurd most routine agreements of an American gen unless it shall have been ratified as an concusion that a treaty may set aside a pro eral under battle conditions, if made with amendment to the Constitution by the legisvision of the Constitution, although a stat an ally, would require congressional author latures of three-fourths of the several States ute later in point of time may abrogate a ity. Congress cannot foresee everything within 7 years from the date of its subtreaty. This slight variation in paragraph 2 Only the enemy would be free from this mission.'
APPENDIX A-PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE for a period of 5 years the authority of it would be confined exclusively, or alUNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
the Secretary of Agriculture to make most exclusively, to fox, mink, and per-. Operative sections of Senate Joint loans to fur farmers on a limited basis. haps muskrat. I do not believe it would Resolution 1
I stress the words "a limited basis.” I include beaver, but there might even be 1. A provision of a treaty which denies or
shall describe the limitations in a some beaver. abridges any right enumerated in this conmoment.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, will stitution shall not be of any force or effect.
Less than 5 years ago the Congress es the Senator yield? 2. No treaty shall authorize or permit any foreign power or any international organi
tablished a loan program for the fur Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I should zation to supervise, control, or adjudicate farmer. The purpose of this bill is to like to satisfy the Senator from North rights of citizens of the United States within extend that loan privilege for 5 years Dakota first. If the Senator from Monthe United States enumerated in this con additional, so that loans which have been tana can throw any light on the quesstitution or any other matter essentially made may be liquidated without any loss tion, I am glad to yield to him. within the domestic jurisdiction of the
to either the persons obtaining the loans Mr. MURRAY. Fur farming has beUnited States.
or to the Federal Government. This come a well-recognized industry in the 3. A treaty shall become effective as internal law in the United States, only through
extension would limit loans to those who United States. Of course, it is conthe enactment of the appropriate legislation have already obtained loans. It would fined to animals which provide fur of by the Congress.
not permit additional loans to people a character which is suitable for use in 4. All Executive or other agreements be who are not already borrowing money the fur industry. tween the President and any international from the fund.
Mr. LANGER. It certainly would inorganization, foreign power, or official thereof
Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, will the clude rabbits, would it not? shall be made only in the manner and to the Senator yield?
Mr. MURRAY. No; it would not inextent to be prescribed by law. Such agreements shall be subject to the limitations
Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I yield. clude rabbits. It might include chinimposed on treaties or the making of treaties Mr. LANGER. What is included in chilla rabbits. by this article.
fur farming? What is the definition of Mr. LANGER. Ladies wear jackets 5. The Congress shall have power to en fur-bearing animals?
made of rabbit skins. force this article by appropriate legislation. Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. The bill Mr. MURRAY. But that is not a fur Operative sections of Senate Joint deals with fur farmers. It does not deal which would fall within this category, Resolution 43
with fur-bearing animals. We talk about because rabbits are so plentiful that it 1. A provision of a treaty which conflicts
fur farmers-farmers who produce fur- is not necessary to make any provision with any provision of this constitution shall
bearing animals for commercial pur- for loans to those who provide rabbit not be of any force or effect. 2. A treaty shall become effective as inter
poses. Such animals include mink, sil- skins. nal law in the United States only through
ver fox, and other animals used for the Mr. LANGER. Rabbits may be plenlegislation which would be valid in the ab production of fur.
tiful in Montana, but they are not plentisence of treaty.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. ful in my State. 3. Executive agreements shall be subject PAYNE in the chair).
PAYNE in the chair). The Senator will Mr. MURRAY. At any rate, the furto regulation by the Congress and to the suspend until the Senate is in order. It farming industry is one which has been limitations imposed on treaties by this
is extremely difficult for the official re built up over the years, and requires a article. 4. The Congress shall have power to en
porters to report the debate unless there considerable investment. . It seems to me
can be order. force this article by appropriate legislation.
that in periods when the industry is in Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I will say distress it should be entitled to the
to my friend from North Dakota that in privilege of securing loans. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY TO 1949, for example, it was estimated by Mr. LANGER. All I want is a definiMAKE LOANS TO FUR FARMERS
the Department of Agriculture that there tion of the term "fur farmer.” I should
were 7,000 fur farmers in the United like to know on what animals the loans Mr. HENDRICKSON. Mr. President,
States. At the present time there are are to be based. Would a rabbit farm I move that the Senate proceed to the
about 5,000. Like some other categories be included? consideration of Calendar 485, S. 1152.
of operators, they are beginning to pass Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Loans The PRESIDING OFFICER. The out of the picture.
are made to fur farmers. That is the clerk will state the bill by title.
Mr. LANGER. I understand that the way the bill reads.
way the bill reads. That is the way the The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. A bill (S.
Russians are selling more furs in this original bill read. This bill does not 1152) to extend for a period of 5 years country than they should. I am very deal with fur-bearing animals. It deals the authority of the Secretary of Agri
sympathetic toward the bill and intend with fur farmers. They produce comculture to make loans to fur farmers. to vote for it.
mercial furs. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I am
Mr. WILLIAMS, Mr. President, will question is on agreeing to the motion of glad to hear the Senator say that.
the Senator yield? the Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LANGER. However, I am inter Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I yield. The motion was agreed to; and the ested in knowing what fur-bearing ani
Mr. WILLIAMS. To help clarify the Senate proceeded to consider the bill mals are raised by fur farmers.
mals are raised by fur farmers. What question asked by the Senator from (S. 1152), which had been reported from animals form the basis for these loans? North Dakota, I think it is safe to say the Committee on Agriculture and For Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. There is that if rabbits or any other types of fur-. estry with an amendment, in line 10, no distinction. Whatever fur-bearing bearing animal are raised, a farmer after the numerals "1958”, to insert "for animals the farmer produces, he is eligi- may obtain a loan. Then the money the purpose only of making necessary ble for a loan.
can be used for the improvement of his supplementary advances to fur farmers Mr. LANGER. A cat has fur. Would home, for his living expenses, or for now indebted for loans made under the the distinguished Senator say that a loan many other purposes. foregoing authority", so as to make the could be made to a farmer who raised Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado.' I do not bill read: cats?
agree with what the Senator from DelBe it enacted, etc., That the authority of
Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I am sure aware gives as his definition of a fur the Secretary of Agriculture under section 1 that I would not say that. The Secre- farmer. I do not believe the Department (a) (1) of the act of April 6, 1949 (63 Stat. tary of Agriculture would probably turn of Agriculture and those who are in 43; 12 U. S. C. 1148a-1) to make loans to
down the application for such a loan. charge of this loan program would handle bona fide fur farmers in accordance with the last proviso in the paragraph headed "Re
The loans about which we are talking the funds recklessly. The reason I say gional Agricultural Credit Corporation" in
were made in the 5-year period prior to that is that in the experience we have title II of the Government Corporations Apthe present time.
had with this program 87 percent of propriation Act, 1949 (62 Stat. 1192), is Mr. LANGER. Could not the Senator the loans made have been returned to hereby extended for the 5-year period ending give us a list of the loans which have the Federal Treasury. I am very posion June 30, 1958, for the purpose only of been made and tell us on what kind of tive that the program has not been making necessary supplementary advances animals they were based?
handled recklessly or extravagantly, or to fur farmers now indebted for loans made under the foregoing authority.
Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I cannot against the public interest.
give a list of the kind of animals, but Mr. WILLIAMS. Without getting into Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Mr. Pres I am sure that if I could furnish the a discussion of whether or not the proident, the purpose of this bill is to extend Senator such a list, he would find that gram has been handled extravagantly
or recklessly, I say that loans have been Included in the purposes for which Mr. MILLIKIN. I am very glad it has made without restrictions. There is the loans could be made, as the Senator been developed that no new loans are nothing to prevent a man from using from Colorado pointed out, were feeding involved. I believe at the beginning of such a loan for the repair of his build the animals, construction of buildings, his remarks the Senator emphasized the ings, for his living expenses, or for some and living expenses of the applicants, for fact that this is not a program of makother type of farm expenses. All he has example. So it covers a multitude of ing new loans to new people. to do to qualify is to have fur-bearing purposes. The figure of 87 percent as re Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. That is animals on the farm, to call himself a payment is like some other figures we correct. fur farmer.
have heard mentioned, probably purely Mr. MILLIKIN. The purpose is to Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. The Bu an imaginary figure, which cannot be give an opportunity to make an orderly reau of the Budget says this measure supported. The figures quoted in the liquidation of loans which have already is all right. The proposed extension of letter contradict the 87 percent figure. been made. the act is limited. It would not take Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I do not
Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. That is in a new group of fur farmers. It would know how imaginary the figure is. It correct. That is stating the situation include only fur farmers who have al was submitted by the Acting Secretary exactly as it is. ready borrowed. The bill would make of the Department of Agriculture, Mr. J.
Mr. MILLIKIN. Mr. President, will it possible to make further loans to them. Earl Coke, under date of June 16, 1953. the Senator yield further? That is done in order that the loans I do not think an official report to the
Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I yield which are already outstanding may be chairman of the Committee on Agricul- to my colleague. liquidated without loss to the fur farmer ture and Forestry would contain imagi
Mr. MILLIKIN. We can well afford and without loss to the Government. nary figures. I believe the report would at least to liquidate in an orderly fashion Mr. MILLIKIN. Mr. President, will be based on facts.
the loans which have been made. It the Senator yield?
Mr. MILLIKIN. Mr. President
should be remembered that such loans Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I yield. Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I yield to cannot be obtained from a bank, or they Mr. MILLIKIN. I was just about to my colleague.
would have been granted by a bank in suggest that the money which has been Mr. MILLIKIN. In the letter to the first place. That is why the Govloaned, of course, has not been loaned which the Senator has referred it is
ernment got into the business. We candirectly to the fur-bearing animal. It stated:
not say to the fur farmers who have the has been loaned for the purpose of erect
Of the total of $4,362,333 advanced under outstanding loans, "We will cut you off. ing sheds or shelters and for the purthis program through December 31, 1952, You can
You can get your money from the bank." pose of providing various other facili
$2,798,274 had been repaid as of that date. They cannot do it. ties on the fur farm. It may be used
I am inclined to believe that it would Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Every for feed and other things. Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Yes.
be possible to "imagine” those figures word the Senator has said is the truth. The loans may be used for all the pur
down to the penny, but I doubt whether That is the way the matter has been that was done.
handled. So far as I am concerned, toposes which the Senator has mentioned. A loan could also be used to permit the
Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I thank day for the first time I heard a hint or the Senator.
insinuation that the loans were not used farmer to carry furs which he was unable to sell, in order that he might avoid
Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, will the in the right way, or that they may have selling them on a panicky market. He Senator yield?
been used for construction of buildings,
Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I yield. and so forth. I have confidence that would thus be enabled to market them
Mr. LANGER. What is the total they were used for the very purpose for in an orderly fashion, to his best adamount of the loans?
which Congress made them available. I vantage and to the best advantage of the country.
Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. My col- doubt that there has been any reckMr. MILLIKIN. Mr. President, will league has already read the figure as lessness in the program at all, because
we usually find out about such things. the Senator further yield?
being $4,362,333. Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I yield. Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, I think For example, if a neighbor sees a fur Mr. MILLIKIN. The distinguished it is a very good bill and it should be farmer building himself a large mansion
on a hill, the neighbor would probably passed. Senator will undoubtedly remember that in 1946 countries abroad which had been
Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I thank
call our attention to it. piling up furs during the war suddenly the Senator from North Dakota.
Our attention has not been called to dumped them into this country. In 1 glad to have him say so. I feel that any such thing going on. This is the
first time I have heard any hint that year we received more than $100 million way about it, too. We should help our
any of the loans were used improperly. worth of furs from Russia. The impact people by providing loans for them when of all those importations put many of they are overtaken by a disaster. I will
Mr. MILLIKIN. Mr. President, will say to the Senator from North Dakota our fur farmers out of business, bank
the Senator yield further? rupting them on a widespread scale. that the funds out of which the loans
Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I yield. Pelts went from $35 for a silver fox, as
are made are the same funds out of Mr. MILLIKIN. Is it not correct to I recall, down to $10. That situation was which the Department of Agriculture say that the Department of Agriculture brought to the attention of the Congress,
makes disaster loans. I do not exag- urged returning veterans in World War and it was decided to afford some relief gerate when I say to the Senator from II to get into the fur-farming business? to fur farmers. Is not that correct?
North Dakota that the fur farmers were Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. That is Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. That is
facing disaster; indeed, I may say they correct. The Department of Agriculture correct. All that happened during a
were facing a twofold disaster. They did that. A great many of them lost very prosperous time in this country, were facing the disaster of heavy im their shirts. not during a time of depression. It was
portation of Russian and Norwegian and Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, will at a time when the Nation was very
Labrador furs, on the one hand, and, on the Senator yield? prosperous. That disaster happened to the other hand, they were faced with Mr. MILLIKIN. Then we proceeded the fur farmers for the reasons stated by
very high excise taxes placed upon fur to make it possible for the foreign immy colleague. It was for those very
garments. The Congress of the United portations to come in and put the reasons that the Congress responded to States placed those excise taxes on furs. veterans out of business. Is that corthis necessity and provided a loan We are in partnership with the fur farm- rect? program.
ers and we ought to try to help them. Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. That is Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, will
The Government gets in taxes 20 percent correct. Before the original loan prothe Senator yield?
of the price for which every fur garment gram was worked out by Congress hunMr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I yield. is sold. So we are really partners of this dreds of veterans, returning from World Mr. WILLIAMS. I point out to the group of farmers.
War II, had gone into the fur-farming Senator from Colorado that I was
Mr. LANGER. I thank the distin business. It looked like a very profitmerely stating the position of the De guished Senator.
able business, and many veterans went partment of Agriculture as set forth in Mr. MILLIKIN. Mr. President, will into it. Some of them were crippled its own letter, signed by Mr. Lassiter, the the Senator yield?
and injured and in bad health. They administrator of this program,
Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I yield. went into the fur-farming business, and
they lost everything they had before the who had as many as 1,000 animals would Senator's own State of Colorado that he program was worked out.
be very unusual. I think most of them might well examine. For instance, acMr. LANGER. Mr. President, will the have less than 1,000.
cording to the report of the Department Senator yield?
Mr. WILLIAMS. What would that of Agriculture, exactly 29 persons in Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I yield amount to in dollars?
Colorado are affected by this bill. Those to the Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. If a fur 29 persons have had advanced to them Mr. LANGER. Can the distinguished farmer had 1,000 mink, of which the fair a total of 114 loans, and they have reSenator tell us what the amount of the market value of a good mink, I suppose, ceived from the Government a total of average loan is?
is perhaps $35, that would amount to a $735,386.75. Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I cannot total of $35,000; and that would be a Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. How tell the amount of the average loan. good-sized fur farm.
much have they paid back? Mr. LANGER. I should like to find Mr. WILLIAMS. That would be a big Mr. WILLIAMS. I do not have that out whether the loans were made to fur farm, would it?
figure, but the balance they owe or the huge corporations, for example.
Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. It would balance due is $554,471.11, plus $26,Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. No. be one of the larger ones.
647.49 interest. The loans were made to the little fel Mr. WILLIAMS. The Senator from I may say that 21 of these 29 accounts lows, to the very small people. In 1950, Colorado thinks most of the fur farmers, with the Government are delinquent, 143 loans were made. În 1951, 85 loans on the average, operate on a smaller scale and 4 of the 29 persons received more were made. In 1952, 47 loans were than that, does he?
than 6623 percent of the loans that have made. In 1953, 37 loans were made. Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I think been made in Colorado. Are they the So a total of 312 loans was made. I they probably have 300 animals, on the little fellows the Senator is so concerned cannot tell what the average size of the average, at perhaps $50 or less per ani- about? loan may have been. I do not have the mal.
Mr. MILLIKIN. Mr. President, will data with me. I shall be glad to get it Mr. WILLIAMS. Let me say that at my colleague yield to me? from the Department of Agriculture and the time this measure was before our Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I yield. place it in the RECORD.
committee, I, too, was of the same im Mr. MILLIKIN. Does not that emMr. MILLIKIN. Mr. President, will pression as that which has been stated phasize the importance of giving the the Senator yield?
by the Senator from Colorado, and there Government a chance to get out from Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I yield. fore the bill was reported without objec- under these loans, and to provide for
Mr. MILLIKIN. Is it not correct to tion from the Committee on Agriculture having them liquidated in an orderly say also that the farmers must try to do and Forestry.
fashion? the best they can, and that the Depart However, later I was told that perhaps Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Of ment will take a mortgage on the prop- we had been misinformed. I requested course.
course. That is the purpose and that is erty, and take as security everything it that the bill be held up until the com- the effect of the bill, namely, to give the can get its hands on?
mittee obtained more information, be- Department of Agriculture an opportuMr. JOHNSON of Colorado. That is cause there are some things about the bill nity to work out these loans. correct. The Department of Agricul- which I do not understand, and which I Once more I wish to emphasize that ture does not simply make a loan on a think many other Senators do not un this loan provision will not be made promissory note. It takes a mortgage derstand. In this bill we are not dealing available to new borrowers. It merely and gets the best paper it can get. with small farmers; we are dealing with will help those who already have reI yield now to the Senator from big business.
ceived loans to work out their loan situIllinois.
For example, let us refer to the loans ation. Thus this proposal does not call Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, did I outstanding in Wisconsin, under this pro- for an expanded or extended program. correctly understand the Senator from gram. The original grant of loans out Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, will Colorado to say that while the animals standing in Wisconsin were $390,965. the Senator from Colorado yield further were losing their skins, the veterans were There are 11 borrowers in Wisconsin, and to me? losing their shirts?
they have had 21 loans. Those 11 bor Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I yield. Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. That rowers, representing 21 loans, have bor Mr. WILLIAMS. Does not that emmay be one way of putting it. But the rowed from the Government $390,965. phasize a somewhat unfair feature of veterans did not lose their shirts, where I was amazed to find that i man bor- the bill? For instance, according to the as I am sure the animals lost their hides rowed 80 percent of all that money; he Department
Department of Agriculture's figures, or fur or skin.
borrowed exactly $325,000. Is that a lit- there are approximately 5,000 fur Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, will tle farmer?
farmers today. Among those 5,000 fur the Senator from Colorado yield fur Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Of farmers, only 304 loans are outstanding, ther?
course, in Wisconsin, fur farming is and there are 131 borrowers. Any fur The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BEN more of a business than it is in Colorado. farmer who has been thrifty and has NETT in the chair). Does the Senator My experience is confined to Colorado paid off his loan will not be eligible, from Colorado yield to the Senator from and to the Colorado fur farms. I have whereas those 131 who remain under obDelaware?
visited a number of them, and they are ligation to the Government will be perMr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I yield. very small. I cannot speak for Wiscon- mitted to continue borrowing as usual
Mr. WILLIAMS. When the Senator sin, because the fur farms in Wiscon- for living expenses or anything else they said, a few minutes ago, that the pur sin are larger than those in Colorado. might need. pose of the bill is to help the little fur But I am sure that even including some Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I know farmers, what did the Senator mean in larger loans made to fur farmers in Wis the Senator from Delaware does not inreferring to the "little fur farmers"? We consin, the situation cannot be very bad dulge in double talk, but it seems to me do not have such farmers in the East. when there are more than 300 borrow- that either we wish to get rid of this Do those operations involve a million ers and when, so far, the total loans program or we do not wish to get rid of dollars or half a million dollars or how amount to only $4 million, approxi- it. The effect of the bill is to get rid much? mately.
of the program, not to keep carrying it Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. It is in Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, will on for ever and ever and a day. the thousands of dollars.
the Senator from Colorado yield fur On the contrary, we wish to end the Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, thousands run ther to me?
program, and to do so without destrucinto millions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. PUR- tion of some of the poor fellows in this Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. It does TELL in the chair). Does the Senator industry who have been caught. not run into the millions, I will say. I from Colorado yield to the Senator from If the Senator from Delaware wishes think the fur-farming business is some Delaware?
to have an extended program, and wishthing like the chicken business, except Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I yield. es to have the program expanded, and not on quite so grandiose a scale. The Mr. WILLIAMS, I may say that al
I may say that al- wishes to have an increased amount Senator from Delaware is familiar with though the situation in Wisconsin is an available for loans, and wishes to inthe chicken industry, and he knows it is extreme one-I grant that nevertheless crease the eligibility of fur farmers to not a large one. I am sure a fur farmer I think there are some things in the receive loans, that is all right, although
that is not the purpose of this bill. This loans outstanding. The loans in the Mr. MILLIKIN. The Senator in. bill is restrictive and limited. One of the State of Colorado represent 40 percent dulges in easy assumptions. He refers reasons why it is restrictive and limited of the outstanding loans, according to to pouring the money down a rathole. is so that the bill can be passed by both the statement. There are 29 men in I did not know that we had authorized Houses of Congress.
the State of Colorado who had this anybody to pour money down a rathole. That is the situation. If the Sen, money, and who borrowed under 114 The purpose is to try to save an investator from Delaware wishes to have a loans. They owe today $554,471.11, plus ment. How would the Senator meet the larger program, if he is complaining interest, as I pointed out before.
situation? Would he have all of it that the program is too restrictive, that Mr. MILLIKIN. Mr. President, will chopped off? Would he say, “Sell this can easily be changed, although I am the Senator yield?
stuff; pay what you can"? Is that the not in favor of doing so.
Mr. WILLIAMS. If the Senator will Senator's suggestion of the procedure to Mr. WILLIAMS. Perhaps the Senator let me conclude, I shall then be glad to be followed in handling this matter? from Colorado would be in favor of tak- yield. Twenty-one of the twenty-nine Or shall enough leeway be allowed to the ing such action for the benefit of his Colorado accounts are delinquent. The lending agency to enable it to try to get constituents, but you may be certain I argument has been made that they are the money back and to try to rehabiliam not in favor of expanding the pro- small concerns. Four of them have tate the borrower at the same time? gram. On the contrary, I wonder when borrowed $345,000, or two-thirds of all What is the Senator's method? we are going to restrict it.
the accounts, and all of these four are Mr. WILLIAMS. The Senator's A moment ago the junior Senator from delinquent. These are the little boys method is to stop loaning money to any Colorado pointed out to the Senator the Senator is so concerned about. Two man who has a record of having borfrom North Dakota how this bill will help of them have borrowed 40 percent of all rowed on nine different occasions withmany little farmers throughout the
the money, and their total is $225,000. out paying once. I may say to the Sencountry. I may say that if the bill is Both accounts are delinquent. Some
Some ator from Colorado that if the pending passed, not one farmer in North Damore poor little fellows.
bill is not passed these loans are not kota will be able to obtain a loan, under
Mr. MILLIKIN. Mr. President, will called, the Government has full authorthe provisions of the bill, because it so the Senator yield?
ity to extend the time for 1 year, or for happens that not one North
5 years. There is no provision in the farmer owes any money under this proowes another $122,000. He had had a
law that says the loans must be paid. gram. Thrift is penalized.
series of nine loans. Each time, a part certainly I will go along, to give them a In the case of Illinois, only one perof the money has been used to make a
chance but I do not want them to conson in Illinois would be eligible for a
payment to the Government, and a part tinue pouring money-I will not say loan, but there is no limit on the amount
of it, for new financing. But his ac down a rathole, but down a foxhole, or of money he could borrow. count is gradually becoming bigger,
a minkhole if you like, if that phrase is Mr. LANGER. Let me say that the
month by month. The purpose of the better." reason why North Dakota farmers are pending bill is to continue the making
Mr. MILLIKIN. Mr. President, renot covered is that they have paid back
of such loans. This particular individ- gardless of the individual's occupation, their loans, including interest on them. ual started in 1949, and we have been
or the type of hole it is, I suggest the They have completely paid off their
loaning him money constantly. Every point is that an opportunity should be loans.
3, 4, or 5 months, he has been back in given to try to rehabilitate him, and to Mr. WILLIAMS. I commend them for
the Federal till, and he still owes the do it in a sound way, in order that the it. Certainly they should not be first loan he ever made.
debt may be liquidated. Sometimes it penalized.
Mr. MILLIKIN. Mr. President, will
involves more money, sometimes it Mr. MILLIKIN. I should like to ask the Senator yield?
means clamping down. It is a matter of how the North Dakota farmers would be
Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield to the Sena- judgment. penalized.
But, most respectfully, I tor from Colorado.
suggest that the distinguished Senator Mr. WILLIAMS. In this connection
Mr. MILLIKIN. Will the Senator suplet us make a comparison with the RFC.
who is standing on the floor is not qualiWe are talking about abolishing the ply the gentleman's financial statement, fied to judge exactly how those loans
I suggest that we RFC, just as we are talking about abol so we may determine whether further should be handled. ishing this fur-farmer-loan program. loans should be made to him in the should allow enough time to the proper
authorities to enable them to do the job. Suppose, however, instead of planning future?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I agree with the to abolish the RFC., someone came for
Mr. WILLIAMS. If the Government statement of the Senator from Colorado ward with a measure proposing that the does not have his financial statement that I am not qualified to answer all RFC could not make loans to new bor- before this, it is too late now.
these questions. It is for that reason rowers, but could continue to make new Mr. MILLIKIN. Then how can the
that I thought it important that I subloans to all old borrowers—in other Senator judge the case? How can he
mit this material to the appropriate comwords, to those who already had a foot in determine whether the individual's
mittee of Congress in order that a proper the door. Certainly Congress would not financial circumstances warranted or study may be made of it. But the policy consider for a moment passing such a did not warrant the making of addi
committee insisted upon this being bill. The Senator knows that we would tional loans, following the making of the brought up on the floor of the Senate never support any such bill as that; yet original loan?
ás urgent legislation. In extending the that is exactly the kind of bill we are Mr. WILLIAMS. I am not judging fur loan agency we could almost interbeing asked to support today.
the case. I am merely pointing out the pret the initials RFC to signify the Mr. MILLIKIN. Mr. President, will facts. As the Senator from Colorado “Royal Fur Corporation,” if we wanted the Senator yield? knows, it is good business to make a loan
to. We simply do not want to get the Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield. to a man who is financially able; and if
Government in a position of owning too Mr. MILLIKIN. I am unable to deter- these men are financially able, then, let many mink coats during the present mine whether the Senator's complaint them make a payment to the Federal administration. is that too many people received loans, Government. If the facts seem to judge
Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, will or that not enough people received loans. the case, then let them speak loudly. the Senator yield? What is the Senator's point? Extending a loan to a man who, during
Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield to the SenaMr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I may the period I have mentioned, has bor- tor from Illinois. say that is my difficulty.
rowed money from the Government on Mr. DOUGLAS. Is it not true, finanMr. WILLIAMS. If the senior Sena nine different occasions, without repay cially as well as practically, that a fox tor from Colorado will permit, I should ing it, does not make sense. If for 5 hole is deeper and broader than a rat like to continue and I have a feeling you years a man cannot make a go of his hole? are beginning to realize where I stand. operation, someone should call a halt. Mr. WILLIAMS. Apparently it is,
Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I will Shall we continue pouring the money from the amount of money that has been yield, because I am very curious, and my down a rathole?
going down the hole. curiosity is getting the better of me.
Mr. MILLIKIN. Mr. President, will I may say that the second Colorado Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, there the Senator yield?
borrower to whom I refer owes the Govwere 131 borrowers, with a total of 304 Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield.
ernment, not on a single loan, but on