4 or 5 different loans, a balance outstanding of $103,000. He has been back to the Government 10 times, each time asking for a loan, each time asking for a little more money. The loan has gradually been getting bigger and bigger. He is delinquent, as are the others. If, after 5 years of continuous financing of his operations, he cannot call a halt to his losses I think it is about time for us to tell that man the facts of life.

I think the Senator from Colorado will agree with me that a man who is financially able to borrow that much money should be able to approach other agencies, such as the RFC, instead of going to this, shall we say, proposed "Republican Fur Corporation."

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

Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield to the Senator from Colorado.

Mr. MILLIKIN. Then the Senator from Delaware is suggesting that the problem be passed to some other governmental agency.

Mr. WILLIAMS. The Senator from Delaware is suggesting that, based upon our experience, it is about time to stop these loans. We passed this as an emergency piece of legislation 5 years ago to help such men out following the war. It is about time that we called a halt to this emergency legislation, which was started 5 years ago.

Mr. MILLIKIN. The purpose of the pending bill is to put a time limit on it, to state that there should be no new loans to new borrowers, and to make it clear that they will proceed to liquidate the old loans. That is the regular and normal procedure, if it is a matter of trying to bail out.

Mr. WILLIAMS. In other words, if we extend the program, those who have been back to the Government 9 or 10 times within the past 5 years can, under the pending bill, come back 9 or 10 times more during the next 5 years. It does not seem to be consistent, if the fur industry has reached that point; as apparently it has, where there is no need of extending the loans to other fur farmers of the country. Then why finance these 104 fur farmers who have a miserable record of payments? Have we got to keep them financed in order to keep them from going out of business? That, to me, does not make sense.

Mr. MILLIKIN. The Senator from Delaware again mixes his arguments. The Senator wants to get us of the business, but at the same time he condemns us for limiting the bill to those debtors who are already in the business, which would exclude others. Now, which is it? Let the Senator take his choice.

Mr. WILLIAMS. The Senator from Colorado understands too well what I am saying. I am certainly trying to keep anyone else from getting into the public trough and at the same time, I want to stop some of those who are already in.

Mr. MILLIKIN. Will the Senator name those whom he wants to stop? Will he submit the financial statements of those whom he thinks ought to be cleaned out? Will he propose a reorganization of the Agricultural Department? What are the measures the

Senator would take in order to achieve the reforms which he thinks he would be able to achieve if he were managing the fund?

have a miserable record. I repeat, it is the same situation as it would be if the RFC should say, "We are not going to loan money to anyone to establish a new business, no matter how justified, unless the prospective borrower's record of repayment is bad, and the worse the rec

Mr. WILLIAMS. Only the same measures the Senator would take if he were handling his own money. He would not send good money after bad.ord is, the more we will loan." The Senator would not stand here and defend this sort of thing, I venture to say that because I know he is sound, even though he does have a kind thought for his delinquent farmers, for which I do not blame him. But I point out that there are only 29 of them, and 21 are now delinquent, If they are in good financial shape, why do they not make up their payments which are overdue?

Mr. MILLIKIN. It is the very distress of these people which the Senator is emphasizing. It is their distress which makes it necessary to keep them going and get them rehabilitated, if that is at all possible. The Senator's answer is, "Put the ax on them; make them liquidate; make them pay 5 cents on the dollar and get out of the business."

Mr. WILLIAMS. The Senator from Colorado knows that that statement is no more true than is the statement he is trying to make that these men are all economically sound.

Mr. MILLIKIN. I did not say that. Let us nail that while we are at it.

Mr. WILLIAMS. There is nothing in the law today, without this bill, which would in any way cause the Government to foreclose on the notes. The chairman of the committee was present a moment ago, and I know he will bear out my statement. The Department, under existing authority, can extend the notes if they see fit to do so. I am not proposing that the Department foreclose on the notes, but when a man started borrowing from the Government 5 years ago and has a record of coming back every 5 or 6 months for more money, and according to the statement of the Department part of the money being for living expenses, I think it is about time to call a halt.

Mr. DOUGLAS. We all respect the Senator from Delaware for the way in which he rises above party considerations in the discussion of issues, but does not the Senator think it is inconsistent of the majority party to insist on rushing us into the fur business, while at the same time trying to get out of the rubber business?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I think it is inconsistent, and I appeal to the majority leader to let this bill go over until such time as the committee which has the responsibility for this proposed legislation can study the figures submitted to us. That is not an unreasonable request in light of the fact that it was represented to the committee at the time the bill came before us that it deal with small loans to little farmers, whereas we found that in the State of Wisconsin 1 man had received 80 percent of the money loaned in that State, and we found in the State of Colorado that 4 men had received over two-thirds of the money loaned.

In the State of Michigan 1 man got 43 percent of all the Michigan loans, and he, too, is delinquent on payments he Owes the Government.

It is time we found out about some of these things. I am complaining about the man who owes the Government a large sum and has a record of borrowing more every 3 or 4 months for living expenses. I am opposed to it, I do not care whether it happens in Colorado, Utah, or Delaware.

Mr. MILLIKIN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Delaware yield? Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield.

Mr. MILLIKIN. I suggest to the distinguished Senator that the further he advances his argument, the more he argues for this bill. All his argument points out that there must be liquidation, Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, will and it follows that there must be time in the Senator from Delaware yield? Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield. Mr. DOUGLAS. Would not the contention of the able Senator from Colorado make these big fur farmers dependent upon such loans individually and collectively?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Unquestionably. It would mean that the Government is going into the fur business. We will hope that the past administration taught us to leave the fur business alone.

Mr. MILLIKIN. Some of them are definitely getting out of the business. The Government loaned a total of $4,362,333 advanced under the program, and it has collected $2,798,274, which indicates very substantial progress toward getting the Government out of the fur business.

Mr. WILLIAMS. It is a substantial step toward getting the Government out, but I do not see any reason for the Government's putting $2 million back into the hands of any of those who have a bad record of repayment. Some of them

which to perform it.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I am perfectly willing to give the Senator all the time that is needed for liquidation. That authority is in the law now. In view of the fact that additional information has been brought out, namely, that it is not little farmers who are involved, does not the Senator think that the Committee on Agriculture should have a right to study the matter before the Senate is called upon to vote on it?

The chairman of the committee has not as yet had an opportunity to see the information about which I am speaking, nor has any other member of the committee. Why?

Mr. MILLIKIN. I say no, for the simple reason that everything the Senator has produced emphasizes the importance of this bill.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I am sure the Senator from Colorado would not change his mind. However, if this were a bill coming from the Senator's own committee, as to which the committee had an

understanding and later found it was completely in error, the chairman would want an opportunity to restudy it.

Mr. MILLIKIN. Let me suggest to the distinguished Senator that whenever we liquidate a loaning agency, or a bank, there has to be a policy to carry along certain loans which are not as good as they might be. That is the purpose of this bill. Study it until the Senator has a hump on his back, until his beard reaches his ankles, and he will reach the same conclusion. What is the use of studying the obvious?

Mr. WILLIAMS. The bill in no way deals with the subject as to how we are going to liquidate the outstanding loans. I am discussing the right of the Department to make new loans to men who have such a miserable record of repayment. There is adequate legislation for that and if not I will join the Senator in getting it.

Mr. MILLIKIN. The Senator does not draw this distinction, that, regardless of what the Secretary of Agriculture might have the emergent power to do without additional legislation, the fact that there is not any legislation affirmatively to support what he may think it wise to do is a source of alarm and distress to the people who owe the Government this money, and who are trying to make a living and make a success of their enterprise.

Mr. WILLIAMS. The loaning authority expired June 30. This is the latter part of July, and there has not been a single loan called in Colorado or any other State. If there were no affirmative legislation on the statute books every loan would have been called. The Senator does not have a single authority to state otherwise.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, will the Senator from Delaware yield further?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Is not this an example of undue haste on the part of the majority policy committee in carrying out a throw-away, give-away, sell-away, loan-away program?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I think every member of the committee should have a right to study the record of these loans before we vote for authority to make other loans. That is all I ask.

The Senator from South Carolina, who is on the floor, is a member of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. I venture to say he had never heard about or seen one of these reports until I mentioned the matter. At my request they were sent to my office either last night or this morning. I checked with the Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. He has not had an opportunity to review the report. I think the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry should have a chance to review the matter before the Senate is asked to pass upon it. The mere fact that, after I had requested that the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry have adequate time for study, the Policy Committee was so hasty as to get the bill before the Senate only further arouses my suspicion.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield.

number of silver foxes. They cannot be seen at all in the summertime; they are so wild. If anyone goes near them at all, he can be destroyed.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I am perfectly willing to have allowed all the time necessary to liquidate the loans, but I do not want any more money to be loaned to this same group. There is no argument about the liquidation authority.

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield.

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. The Senator from Delaware talks about a rush act.

The bill was introduced on March 2, 1953. It went to the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry and was reported by the committee on June 30, 1953. The committee reported it with an amendment.

Mr. WILLIAMS. That is correct-but we obtained additional information later. Why not examine it before we vote?

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. The committee made a favorable report. The report was accompanied by a letter from Acting Secretary of Agriculture J. Earl Coke. Mr. Coke closed his letter to the senior Senator from Vermont [Mr. AIKEN], chairman of the committee, by saying:

The Bureau of the Budget advises it has no objection to the submission of this report.

There is nothing secret about this matter.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, will the Senator from Colorado yield?

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I yield. Mr. WILLIAMS. What has been said is true. The bill was reported by the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry on June 30, with my approval, because at that time I never dreamed we were carrying along these large loans. I thought only a handful of people had them. I did not dream that some fellows would be coming back to the Federal till 10 or 12 times, while they were still delinquent. I think that is important. The Senator from Colorado himself, in answer to the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. LANGER] said these were for small loans.

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. They are for small loans.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Not so small as some would have us believe. I have no objection to what might be small loans, but I do not want to have any more good money going after bad. Some of these fellows have a glaring example of mismanagement. For some reason or other, they cannot seem to make ends meet. Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

feels there should be sufficient time allowed to enable the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry to investigate the security back of these $100,000 loans.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I think time should be allowed. I am not trying to delay action on the bill beyond this session of Congress. I requested the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry to obtain information after it had been reported to me that perhaps a handful of individuals in the United States would get all the money. That information was sent to my office. As soon as I received it, I felt that other members of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry probably should have an opportunity to have the same information and to form their own opinions. If after they have considered the matter, they still feel it is a good bill, it still can be reported. If the bill should be returned to committee, I, as one member, would be willing to have it reported next week, either with or without recommendations. I am only trying to secure for the committee an opportunity to consider the proposed legislation, At the very least, that should have been done before. I think action on the floor of the Senate should be withheld until the committee has had an opportunity to present a report on the matter to the Senate. I do not believe that is unreasonable.

Mr. LANGER. If a man gets a loan on wheat, the wheat is put in a bin and is locked up; it is sealed. To deliver it is a criminal offense. I am wondering about the security on mink and western foxes, which are running around.

Mr. WILLIAMS. The Government should not make loans without collateral, especially if there has been delinquency. It is said that the purpose of the legislation is not to allow any new farmers to get into the fur business or to expand existing facilities. At the same time it is said the purpose was to take care of farmers who could not go to banks or otherwise borrow money.

Apparently the record of one individual in 1949 was such that he could not borrow money anywhere else. His record was such that he was in dire circumstances, and in addition he was not expected to use the proceeds of the loan for expansion purposes.

If that was the man's financial condition 5 years ago, in March 1949, if he met all these requirements of the loan in 1949, how could he possibly be justified in obtaining 10 other loans, on an average of one every 3 or 4 months, up to a total of more than $100,000? Either he was financially adequate to get the loan in 1949 without this assistance, or else, if he was that nearly broke in 1949, the Government has poured a lot of money down a rat hole, a mink hole, or whatever one wishes to call it. The money is gone. It could be that it was a skunk hole.

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

Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield.

Mr. MILLIKIN. I suggest that the operations of fur loans of this kind, and other types of loans, do not have the nice simplicity which is in the mind of the Senator from Delaware. I suggest that perhaps some of the loans are renewal loans; that perhaps they do not involve an increase; that if there is an increase, there is probably an increase in the security.

One cannot generalize on a loan when he has not seen the property, when he does not know what the particular circumstances are; whether they are renewed or new loans.

The Senator from Delaware does not come forth with any of that information. All he comes forth with is a statement about increasing the loans.

Mr. WILLIAMS. With the statement of the junior Senator from Colorado, I am in full agreement. I do not have the information which I should have. That is the reason why I asked for more time as late as yesterday afternoon. I felt that if we had the information, we could expedite the bill.

Last night the acting majority leader advised me that the bill would be considered on the floor today. I told him then that I thought it was unwise to bring up the bill now and try to discuss it. I think it is unfair to the persons involved. They may be all right. If we knew all the factors anyone should know in order intelligently to make up his mind, that would be different. I would like to have the information in order to make up my own mind. If the Senator from Colorado would give me time to get the figures and statistical data

Mr. MILLIKIN. I suggest again that everything the Senator has produced thus far shows there are bad loans. When the authority of law runs out, as it has, to make these loans, I suggest an additional period is needed for liquidation. That is what we are asking for.

If the Senator's desk were stacked high with financial statements, if he had photographs of the properties, if he had expert appraisers to appraise the properties, he would still come to the end. point that an additional period of time is needed for payment. Additional time is necessary to do the things that must be done in order to bring the matter to a close.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I will say to the Senator from Colorado-and I repeat it that I am perfectly willing to give them all the time the Department thinks they need to liquidate these loans,

Mr. MILLIKIN. They think they need 5 years. They have said so.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I am willing to give them 5 years. I will give them 10 years to liquidate the loans, if necessary. I should be rather pleasantly surprised if many of them were repaid in 10 years. Nevertheless, I am willing to give them 5 years or 10 years to liquidate those loans. However, I am not willing to continue to put $5,000 or $10,000 a month down the same foxhole. If that is what

is called liquidating a loan, it is a little different from the liquidation of loans in Delaware.

Mr. MILLIKIN. The Senator is assuming that every addition to a loan

is pouring money down a rathole, that it is a loss. I suggest that the Senator does not demonstrate that to be a fact.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I agree with the Senator from Colorado but, on the other hand, the Senator from Colorado cannot contradict the assumption.

Mr. MILLIKIN. Then why does the Senator make an argument with no basis for it?

Mr. WILLIAMS. After knowing that we had these figures, which completely explode the argument advanced, namely, that the extension of the authority was

for the benefit of the little fellows, why is the Senator from Colorado in such a rush? Why does action have to be taken today, before the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, which is the responsible committee, has had an opportunity to see the figures? What is the Senator afraid of?

Mr. MILLIKIN. The Senator has asked me a question, and I will answer it. I am afraid of the distress of these fur farmers. I am afraid of the uncertainty. I am afraid that someone will adopt the policy of the Senator from Delaware by coming in with a broad-ax and chopping their heads off, compelling them to get out of business which will result in the Government being paid 5 cents on the dollar, and leaving the fur farmers in a very bad situation.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President

Mr. MILLIKIN. The Senator asked me what I was afraid of. I am trying to tell him. I have talked with fur farmers. Every Senator from a western State has talked with them. We know something about the situation. I am grateful to the Senator for the stuff he has brought here, because it shows, even in a more intensified degree than I had suspected, the need for a liquidation period, to give us a chance to make the Government whole, and to give the fur farmer a chance.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I repeat there is no question about the liquidation period, whether it be 5 years or 10 years. However, I am not willing to continue pouring money down the same foxhole.

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

Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield.

Mr. MCCARRAN. I am much impressed with the report of the acting Secretary of Agriculture, as embraced other things, he says: within the report on the bill. Among

You will recall that during and in the period immediately following World War II the economic plight of domestic fur farmers became extremely serious by reason of competition resulting from the increased importation of foreign furs and the sharp rise in the costs of feed and other production expenses. Many fur farmers were being forced out of business and others were facing liqui

dation of their enterprises. In recognition of this unfavorable economic situation, the Congress determined that the extension of credit to this group of farmers was in the public interest.

He then goes on and says, among other

things—and this is what impresses me: These repayments represent 87 percent of the maturity of all such loans.

That is a very fine average. Eightyseven percent is a high average.

I continue to quote from the report:

This information indicates that there is no longer a general need for the lending authority which would be provided by the proposed legislation. We do believe, however, that it may be necessary in some instances, as a means of protecting the Government's investment, that additional credit be extended to fur farmers who are now indebted for fur loans. It is on this basis that we are recommending the limited lending authority.

It seems to me that if we took all win

ter and all summer to consider this bill, we could not get much further than the

information set forth by the Acting

Secretary.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Along with that letter, which was before the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, all the testimony we had was on the basis that the purpose of the bill was to help some little fellows. No one mentioned the fact, as I pointed out here, that in the State of Colorado four men are getting twothirds of the money. No one mentioned

the fact that in the State of Wisconsin more than 80 percent of it was to bail out 1 man, who received a loan of $325,000. That was not mentioned in the

reports; nor did the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry ever hear of it, so far as I know.

Mr. MCCARRAN. If that one man is not bailed out, the Government will lose.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Perhaps it will. I am willing to extend those loans, and I might even agree that we would have to lend more money. However, I do not think it is unreasonable to ask for a few days delay, until the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, the appropriate committee of the Senate, can at least examine these loans. What is the rush? Why must action be taken today? I ask the majority leader if he would be willing to allow this bill to go over until next week, to give the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry an opportunity to look into the subject.

Mr. MCCARRAN. This bill came from the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, did it not? That is the committee to which the Senator has referred. This report came from the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes; it came from the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. I am a member of that committee. Let me say to the Senator from Nevada that, based upon information we had, I supported that report. However, as one member of the committee, I learned that the information which we later received was not the information before the committee at the time it acted, as I understood it.

I believe that the full Committee on Agriculture and Forestry should have an opportunity at least to evaluate this inwe wish to bail out the $200,000 or $300,formation, to determine whether or not 000 borrowers. One of them owes us approximately a quarter of a million dollars. He has been to the Government 11 times for loans, and is still delinquent on his early loan. I think it is time to pay some attention to the situation. He is not delinquent on all 11 loans, but he is delinquent on many of them. There may be a reason which I do not at present understand. However, it does not

seem to me to be an unreasonable request to ask that action on the bill be postponed for a short time, in order that the information which has just come to our attention may be examined. As one member of the committee who approved the report in the beginning, I ask that action on the bill be postponed. I do not understand the reason for the rush. Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield.

Mr. KNOWLAND. I wish to make a statement from the point of view of the acting majority leader. The bill has been on the calendar since June 30. It was placed on the calendar with the recommendation of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry

Mr. WILLIAMS. Including the Senator from Delaware who at the time did not have this information.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Including the Senator from Delaware as well as a number of other distinguished and able Members of this body.

I think any majority leader has the right to assume that a bill which comes from a responsible committee of the Senate and the committees of the Senate are responsible-has been gone into and has been given consideration.

The bill was passed over on several calendar calls. So far as the acting majority leader knows, though he may be mistaken, the objections which were made, were made by the Senator from Delaware.

We are nearing the end of the session. It is hoped that Congress may be able to adjourn 2 weeks from tomorrow. The distinguished Senator from Colorado and other Senators have called my attention to the bill. I think I had spoken to the Senator from Delaware. At least the Senator from Colorado had spoken to the Senator from Delaware.

As a matter of fact, I was prepared to have the bill considered last week. The Senator from Colorado himself asked me not to do so, because he had told the Senator from Delaware that he would give him additional time to obtain certain information. CREDENTES

The bill came up again on the calendar call yesterday. It was again passed over. The bill was scheduled for action by the policy committee a week or 10 days ago. It was held up for an additional period of time.

I have a responsibility to try to expedite the legislative business and to prepare for adjournment. I have already announced that next week we shall have some highly important legislation to consider. We shall have to consider some very controversial legislation. If this bill is not acted upon today or tomorrow, there is grave doubt whether it could find a place on the legislative program again prior to adjournment.

If there are any mistakes in the bill, if there is anything which needs to be brought out, it should be brought out in debate, as the Senator from Delaware is doing. However, I do not believe that any single Senator should object finally, when the bill has been on the calendar for such a length of time. At least the bill should be voted either up or down.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I will say to the Senator from California that he is correct. The bill has been on the calendar since June 30. It was reported from the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry without any objection from any member, if I am not mistaken. The Senator from Delaware, who is now objecting, as one member of the committee, originally approved the report, based upon the information which we then had before us. After the bill was placed on the calendar, it was called to my attention that perhaps the committee had not had all the information available. Certain questions were raised. I discussed the subject with the Senator from Colorado off the record, and told him that I was requesting certain information from the Department of Agriculture, and that as soon as that information was received I would review it and express an opinion. I told him I would state at that time whether or not I would object to the bill.

The information was received in my office the night before last, I believe. When I returned to the office it was there. I did not take the information home with me that night, because I did not know it was available. The chairman of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry is on the floor. I do not be lieve he has even seen the information. The chairman may disagree with the conclusions I express, but I did say to the majority leader that the very least we could do, after the information had been requested, immediately after the questions were raised-and I will say that the Department of Agriculture did a very good job in expediting the information-the very least we could do was to give the members of the committee a chance to review the proposed legislation. It so happens yesterday afternoon I was told the bill was going to be I was told the bill was going to be brought up today and that it was emergency legislation.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Just a moment, Mr. President. The Senate floor leader never stated it was emergency legislation. Obviously it is not emergency legislation. I do say to the distinguished Senator from Delaware that I know of no other way of handling such a matter. So far as the acting majority leadter. So far as the acting majority leader knows, not a single objection was raised to bringing the bill up for debate today. It is now on the floor and under consideration by the Senate. The distinguished Senator from Delaware himself said that it came out of the committee of which he is a member with at least his acquiescence, if not his support.

Mr. WILLIAMS. With my support. Mr. KNOWLAND. It has been out of committee for a month. The bill was brought up for debate on the floor of the Senate. If we do not follow the procedure we are following today we might as well say we will not pass any legislation in the Senate except by unanimous consent. We do have a unanimous consent calendar, and it is used for the purpose of expediting legislation to which there is no objection at all.

I do not think it is good legislative practice to say in effect that in a body composed of 96 Senators, if there is a

single objection to a bill, that no action is going to be taken on it, and that requests for postponment can be made time and time again, when obviously granting an additional postponment will mean the legislation will not be disposed of at this session.

I merely wish to say to the Senator from Delaware that he is entirely within his rights. He has held up consideration of the bill for a month, and he has been entirely within his rights. I believe he is performing a useful service to the Senate in calling the subject to the attention of the Senate. It should be brought to the attention of the Senate. Having it brought to our attention we must now assume responsibility as to whether we want to pass the bill or do not want to pass the bill. I do not want to let the legislative process be stymied every time there is the least bit of controversy about a bill and say, "Put it off. Mañana, Mañana. Mañana." In such a situation the Senate could not function at all.

Mr. WILLIAMS. To keep the record straight, the bill has not been on the Senate Calendar for a month. It has been on the calendar for exactly 17 days. It remained on the calendar for 5 or 6 of those days during which time I would have let the bill go through and would have voted for it. However, then it was called to my attention that there might be some questions raised with respect to it. It is only 12 days ago that I made my request of the Department of Agriculture. The information arrived yesterday. I carried it home last night after being advised that the bill was coming up today. I may be the only Member who has had a chance to see the information. I do not know. The chairman of the committee is on the floor.

I say to the Senator from Colorado that I appreciate the position he is in and I want to cooperate.

I said I would be willing to limit the debate on the bill to 30 minutes to a side. I am not trying to kill the legislation. I do not agree that anyone should try to kill legislation by stopping other Senators from voting on it. I am not trying to delay action. I repeat I am willing to agree to a limitation on debate.

All

I am asking for is an opportunity to present the question to the members of my own committee, who I believe may have labored under some misapprehension as I did. The chairman of the Committee on Agriculture is on the floor, and he can correct me if I am in error, but it is my understanding the information was not made available to every member of the Committee on Agriculture. However, I am willing to conclude consideration of the bill tonight and I am willing to go along with the majority leader.

I am not willing to pass it tonight, though, with only a handful of Senators on the floor, practically all of whom are from the area affected. That is obvious. However, if we proceed, there will be a quorum call, and I want to briefly explain the bill. I will agree further to vote 1 hour or even 30 minutes from the time a quorum call has been had. I will agree to a unanimous-consent agreement to vote on the bill tonight or tomorrow, if

the Senator from California wishes. I do believe, though, that the Members of the Senate should know we are not bailing out a lot of little farmers.

However, the Senator from Nevada knows that the mere recommendation of the Department does not necessarily mean that we must just take the legis

Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I wonder if the Senator from Delaware could clear up what I think is an important question. Is the passage of the bill necessary in order to continue existing loans to so-called fur farmers who are having difficulty in paying off the loans, or does it permit the lending of additional sums of money to the fur farmers?

Mr. WILLIAMS. The bill is not necessary to provide for an extension of the loans now outstanding. There is adequate provision in the law today for that purpose. The Secretary of Agriculture has authority to extend the loans. It would be absurd to close up an agency and say that we will collect this money overnight. It would be absolutely unfair from the standpoint of the farmers involved. No one proposes such action. Mr. MCCARRAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. WILLIAMS. In a moment. They have every right to such protection. The purpose of the bill is to extend the lending capacity of the agency to the same fur farmers who are already indebted to the Government.

agree with the Secretary of Agriculture more times than the Senator from Nevada. For instance, the Secretary of Agriculture has recommended lower support prices on agricultural commodities. I agree with him. Yet practically all of the Senators who now are using the using the Secretary of Agriculture's stand in support of their position, because he is on their side now, are fighting him on the other proposal. So let us make up our own minds on the facts as they exist.

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

Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield.

Mr. WILEY. The Senator from Delaware mentioned my State and stated that the total loans amounted to $300,000, of which $90,000 was unpaid? Is that correct?

Mr. WILLIAMS. In the State of Wisconsin there are outstanding 24 loans, involving 11 borrowers. There has been an advance made of $390,965. There is an unpaid balance on the principal of $95,989.32. I may say to the Senator from Wisconsin, notwithstanding the fact that his State was used as an example where 1 man got 80 percent,

Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield.

Mr. DOUGLAS. So as to enable the Government to lend additional sums of money to those who are now in debt and are not able to repay the loans?

Mr. WILLIAMS. That is correct. Mr. WILEY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. WILLIAMS. In a moment I shall be glad to yield.

Those additional sums of money which are being loaned can cover not only the needs of the fur farmer as to his own fur operation, but they can cover such purposes as the repair of buildings, the purchase of essential equipment needed in the business, and living expenses of the applicant.

Those are not my words, Mr. President. Those are the words of the Department of Agriculture. If a man has a record of 5 years continuously getting deeper and deeper into debt all the time, it is time to call a halt. At least we should know what the living expenses amount to. We have had cases in which some of the farmers who are in debt to the United States Government had rather liberal living expenses. It is a rather broad term. Perhaps the money is not being misused, but it is one question that I believe the appropriate committee of the Senate should decide.

much better than in many of the other States. But again this individual was not a little farmer.

Mr. WILEY. Of course, in Wisconsin there are the largest fur farms in the world. The Fromm brothers are engaged in the business to the extent of hundreds of thousands of fox pelts, and have provided a great deal of employment, as well as a great deal of income to the Government. Every penny that has been loaned to them is safe.

Anyone who knows the fox business knows that the pelts are not obtained until the following winter. It takes a great deal of money to operate an enterprise which probably will sell $1 million worth of furs.

The Government has a great deal of responsibility in this matter, because for a while the Government permitted furs to be imported from Russia, and those imported furs virtually ruined the producers of furs in the United States. Those imports did a great deal of damage.

I think it was with that situation in mind that this bill was prepared, in order to have the Government shoulder its responsibility.

I have listened to the argument which has been made, because I wished to see what basis for opposition there really was, other than one of suspicion-which I think has been set aside by the statement of the Senator from Nevada [Mr. MCCARRAN], in reading the statement of the Secretary of Agriculture relative to the loans which have been made.

I agree fully with the distinguished Senator from Colorado [Mr. MILLIKIN] that if we assume that some of the loans which have been made are weak-although certainly that is not true of the loans which have been made to fur farmers in my State-then this is no

time to make them weaker, because the pelts do not mature until the winter.

Therefore, Mr. President, I think we should dispose of this bill promptly, and should proceed to consider other measures, some of which of very great importance are awaiting our consideration.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I respect the position of the Senator from Wisconsin. It is not important whether Senators agree with me or disagree with me, but I believe the Senate should know what it is doing when it acts on this bill.

I also wish to make clear that I am not necessarily criticizing the loans on the basis of size, because I realize that a large loan may be much more sound than a small one. I merely present the figures, so as to explode the theory that in this instance we are dealing merely with small farmers.

I do not object to having the Senate act on the bill this evening. I think the bill can be disposed of very promptly, but I wish to have a number of Senators present when the bill is disposed of. Therefore, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING clerk will call the roll.

OFFICER. The

Mr. MCCARRAN. Mr. PresidentThe PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Delaware withhold his suggestion of the absence of a quorum? Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. MCCARRAN. I yield.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I also wish to suggest the absence of a quorum; but if the distinguished Senator from Nevada desires to request that certain matters be printed in the RECORD, I shall be glad to have him make such a request at this time.

Mr. MCCARRAN. Mr. President, I desire to address the Senate on the pending measure.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Then, Mr. President, I also suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been suggested, and the clerk will call the roll.

The Chief Clerk proceeded to call the roll.

ask unanimous consent that the order Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I for a quorum call be rescinded and that further proceedings under the call be dispensed with.

objection? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there

Mr. MCCARRAN. I object.

tion is heard. The clerk will continue The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objec

the call of the roll.