World Court, because the Senate insisted on attaching crippling reservations to international agreements which would have made the United States a member of those world bodies. Some of the greatest parliamentary battles ever fought in the United States have been fought in the Senate over the ratification of crucial treaties. ask unanimous consent that the table showing these actions may be printed at this point in my remarks. There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: Date approved by Senate Title Feb. 7, 1952. A protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the accession of Greece and Turkey. Date approved by Senate Mar. 20, 1952. Do... 73 to 2. Do... There have been complaints that the present provision of the Constitution requiring a two-thirds vote by the Senate for the ratification of treaties sets up a difficult roadblock and permits a rela- Apr. 1, 1952. A supplementary extradi- Voice. tively small minority to block the will of the majority. Extensive study and consideration have been given to the proposal to require a simple majority or at best a constitutional majority for the ratification approval of treaties. In fact, the whole burden of argument on the question of treaties, up until very recent months, has been that the process of senatorial approval of treaties is too demanding and too severe. But lately, Mr. President, a countercomplaint has arisen, namely, that the procedure for ratifying treaties is too easy, holds great dangers for the rights and liberties of American citizens. The country and the Senate have been told that two-thirds of the United States Senate cannot be trusted to protect the interests of the United States in consideration of treaties and international agreements. There has been proposed a constitutional amendment-the socalled Bricker amendment-which would take from the Senate the power and the authority to judge the worth and desirability of certain kinds of treaties and would make it unconstitutional to negotiate treaties covering matters which the advocates of the Bricker resolution believe should be beyond the power of the United States even to consider. tion convention between July 4, 1952. A convention between the Voice. July 4, 1952... An agreement between the United States of America and Canada, for promotion of safety on the Great Lakes by means of radio. June 13, 1952. A protocol between the United States of America and Ireland, supplementary to the consular convention. Voice. Voice. Voice. Convention on relations be- 77 to 5. Protocol to the North At- 72 to 5. July 4, 1952.. An international convention Voice. 4 conventions, formulated at (R-voice. the 28th (maritime) session of the International Labor Conference. S-voice. Y-voice. Z-voice. Mr. President, I do not intend at this time to engage in a discussion of the Bricker amendment. That should be discussed all by itself. In my judgment, it is one of the most dangerous proposals June 13, 1952. A consular convention be- Voice. ever made in the Senate. One of the chief arguments made in support of that proposal is that sometimes, or on some occasions, treaties are ratified by the United States Senate without adequate consideration. They are ratified, it is said, by voice vote, with only a handful of Senators on the floor. tween the United States of America and Ireland. July 4, 1952. A highway convention be- Voice. Apr. 1, 1952. A convention between the Voice. Obviously, Mr. President, such things July 4, 1952. A certified copy o Last year the press carried accounts of the fact that when the Senate ratified one treaty, a consular convention with Ireland, only 2 Senators were in the Chamber, one of whom was the Presiding Officer. On another occasion, when the Senate approved the adherence of Greece and Turkey to the North Atlantic Treaty, and only half a dozen Senators were on the floor. There was so much public criticism of that occurrence, that the action was reconsidered by unanimous consent, and a yea-and-nay vote was had. Mr. President, I have had prepared a list of treaties acted on by the Senate in 1952. There were 25 treaties so considered, of which 5 were acted on by yeaand-nay votes and 20 by voice vote. I of a protocol Voice. dated in London, Aug. 31, 1950, prolonging for 1 year, after Aug. 31, 1950, the international agreement regarding the regulation of production and marketing of sugar. June 13, 1952. A consular convention and Voice. an accompanying protocol of signature between the United States of America and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. July 4, 1952. Convention between the Voice. United States of America and Switzerland, for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to taxes on estates and inheritances. Mr. LEHMAN. In my judgment, Mr. President, all the treaties acted upon in 1952 were highly important ones, including the 20 that were ratified by voice vote. One of these was the security treaty between the United States and the Philippines, and another was the security treaty between the United States, Australia, and New Zealand. These treaties fit into the framework of our Pacific defense system. Surely they were important treaties. I do not believe that they, or any of the others, should have been decided by voice vote. The country, and history itself, are entitled to a record of the votes of the Members of the Senate when acting on such vital matters as an international treaty, with all its implications. I know, Mr. President, there might be some treaties of only minor importance. In these days, however, they are very few. Every one of the 25 treaties approved by the Senate last year affected the national security of our country, and even the fate of the world. It seems to me that in the case of every treaty the Senate should require a yeaand-nay vote. A quorum call should be required before a vote on a treaty. The country must be assured that treaties, which become a part of the supreme law of the land, are voted on by at least a majority of the Senate. Mr. FREAR. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LEHMAN. I am glad to yield. Mr. FREAR. Is it not possible for any Senator to suggest the absence of a quorum? Mr. LEHMAN. Of course, it is within the right of any Senator to suggest the absence of a quorum. After all, we know that Senators cannot be on the floor all the time, and are not on the floor constantly. The Senator from Nevada [Mr. MCCARRAN] was kind enough to compliment me on my fairly continuous attendance on the floor of the Senate, but I would be the last person in the world to claim that I am present every hour and every minute of a legislative day, because I am not. I am certain that is true of most of my colleagues, if not all of them. Mr. FREAR. The Senator from New York has been very diligent in his attendance on the floor of the Senate, and I think he should be complimented for it. What I was trying to bring out was that it is the privilege of any Member of the Senate to suggest the absence of a quorum. Perhaps it should be the duty of the majority leader or the minority leader to do that, but I believe that if the Senator from New York or any other Senator desired to accomplish what the Senator from New York is proposing, he could effectuate it himself. Mr. LEHMAN. If I were on the floor during the call of the calendar and an important treaty came up for consideration, in all probability I would suggest the absence of a quorum. However, that would not necessarily mean that I could demand the yeas and nays with any certainty that they would be ordered. It makes no difference how frequently or infrequently I am on the floor, or how frequently or infrequently the distinguished Senator from Delaware is on the floor, to me the argument seems incontrovertible that when action is to be taken on treaties or measures proposing constitutional amendments, a quorum call should be mandatory, and the yeas and nays should be ordered, so that the views and the vote of each individual Member of the Senate may be recorded. Mr. FREAR. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a further question? Mr. LEHMAN. I yield. Mr. FREAR. I think there is much merit in what the Senator from New York is saying. If the Senator has offered a resolution proposing to amend the rules to accomplish that purpose, I am certain he will have many supporters in the Senate. What I was trying to bring out by my questions was that the Senator from New York was not deprived of the privilege of the floor to suggest the absence of a quorum in the instance he was discussing. Perhaps the Senator has stated that. I may have misunderstood what he said. Mr. LEHMAN. I had said that what I had said that what had been done was not unique under the rules of the Senate. My quarrel and criticism is with regard to the existing rules of the Senate, which permit such action. The rules should be changed so as to make impossible the ratification of a treaty with only 2 Senators on the floor, as happened in one case, one of whom, as I pointed out, was the Presiding Officer, I thank the Senator from Delaware for his encouragement in the matter. I believe my proposal will have very wide support, and I hope very much that among the supporters will be the junior Senator from Delaware. Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LEHMAN. I yield. Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. When the Senator speaks of the Unanimous Consent Calendar, I think he should call the attention of the country especially to one feature. Unless he does so, he may be casting a reflection on the Senate. Any Member of the Senate may register an objection to a unanimous-consent request merely by filing his objection with the majority leader or the minority, or with those who have been designated by them to receive such objection. The Senate has always recognized that right. Senators have often registered objection to the unanimous-consent passage of a bill when they were absent from the city, and such objection has been recognized. Of course, as the Senator well understands, the unanimous-consent procedure is a method of handling unobjectedto measures, in order to expedite the XCIX-574 business of the Senate. I do not know how we could operate unless we had the unanimous-consent device. Senators have been very careful to see to it that no measure was ever enacted by unanimous consent when any Senator, whether he was present in the Chamber or not, had registered an objection to it. Such objection has always been accepted by Senators who were present in the Chamber. I think that fact should be mentioned in connection with the present discussion, so that the country will understand what we mean by unanimous consent. It does not mean that we slip something through when only 1 or 2 Senators are present. When a measure is on the calendar every Senator has the privilege of voicing his objection to the consideration of that measure by unanimous consent, by the very simple step of calling his objection to the attention of the majority leader or the minority leader. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MCCARRAN. Mr. President Mr. LEHMAN. Let me first reply to the Senator from Colorado. Of course, he has stated the situation accurately. I thought I had made it clear in my remarks that I was not criticizing or attacking any Senator, or the author of the proposed constitutional amendment. I am possibly criticizing myself for lack of vigilance. But the question of agreeing to a constitutional amendment or a treaty, the two most important functions of the Senate, should not be left to the vigilance of an individual member. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LEHMAN. I know that any Senator can object. I am not suggesting that we change the rules of the Senate with regard to action on the Consent Calendar so far as legislation is concerned. My proposals, which have been submitted in the form of amendments to the rules, relate to two questions, namely, the consideration of constitutional amendments and the consideration of treaties. We should make it mandatory to have a quorum call and a yea-and-nay vote, and not leave the decision to the discretion or vigilance of any individual Senator. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LEHMAN. I promised to yield first to the Senator from Nevada. Mr. MCCARRAN. Mr. President, in his zeal to make the argument for his proposal, the Senator from New York has either advertently or inadvertently impugned the motives of the then chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the senior Senator from Nevada, in connection with the passage of the resolution proposing a constitutional amendment. Let me say to the Senator that he has made a misstatement of fact to the country. When that amendment came up in the 82d Congress, it came up at a time when the then leader, Senator McFarland, was absent from the city. It came up when the present minority leader was acting as majority leader. It came up on a motion to consider it, and not on the merits of the resolution at all. The next day, when the question arose and the leader, Senator McFarland, had returned to the Senate, he moved to table the motion to consider the joint resolution. There was no discussion on the merits at all; nor was the resolution itself before the Senate for discussion. So the Senator from New York has misstated the facts, and should correct his record in that respect. Let me go a little further, because I think I am justified in defending my position, in view of the utterances of the Senator from New York. The resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution, which passed the Senate, was a matter of nationwide note. The American Bar Association had taken note of it. The Supreme Court had taken note of it. In the Steel case the Supreme Court of the United States had handed down a decision containing the very essence of the amendment which was suggested to the Committee on the Judiciary by the Senator from Nevada. The Supreme Court of the United States, by a majority, had declared, just as the resolution declared, certain principles. However, a minority of the Supreme Court had seen fit to express themselves otherwise. Because of the danger that some time or other there might be a majority of the Supreme Court which would follow the then minority opinion of the Supreme Court, we thought it best to place the decision of the Supreme Court in the Constitution, so as to make it more emphatic. The entire question was discussed by the Judiciary Committee. It was discussed by the Senate. Speech after speech was made on the floor of the Senate. So when the Senator from New York seeks to impugn motives, as he does indirectly, whether wittingly or unwittingly, he is outside his argument. Mr. LEHMAN. The Senator from New York would like to answer the Senator from Nevada. The Senator from New York has leaned backward in his remarks to make it clear that he did not question the sincerity, the motives, or the legal rights of the Senator from Nevada. It was so stated several times in the course of my remarks. So far as the motion to table the motion to consider the measure was concerned, the vote was 42 to 32. That certainly shows that the question which was to be considered loomed pretty large in the minds of a great many Senators as a controversial question. Finally, with regard to the decision of the Supreme Court in the Steel case, as I recall and I believe I am correct, although I would refer to the memory of some of my legal colleagues who are more learned in the law and in court decisions than I possibly could be-that decision related only to the conditions surrounding the seizure of the steel mills by the President of the United States. I recollect nothing in that decision which laid down a general, unbreakable rule that under no circumstances could the President seize property. That is the difference. There was certainly a clear-cut decision on the part of the majority of the Supreme Court with regard to this one action of the President in the seizure of the steel mills, but that decision did not go one inch beyond that point. I now yield to the Senator from Oregon. Mr. MORSE. I note that my good friend the Senator from Colorado [Mr. JOHNSON] has left the Chamber. I wish to make a statement, and then I shall notify him of the statement, so that he may make any further statement he desires to make. I wish to express a difference of opinion with respect to the conclusion stated by the Senator from Colorado, and I shall deal with the subject later today when the representative of the Independent Party gives his weekly report to the Senate. I respectfully disagree with the conclusion of the Senator from Colorado, if I heard him correctly, that the Senate is always very careful to see to it, when a Senator makes an objection on the call of the calendar, or when he makes known that he is in opposition to a measure on the calendar, that his rights are respected. I stand here to testify to the contrary on a series of occasions when my minority rights in the Senate have not been protected by any such rule of courtesy as that to which the Senator from Colorado alluded. Therefore I wish to say to the Senator from New York that I do not believe that his proposals to reform rules go far enough. I will discuss the subject later in the day. Clear protection should be provided for a minority in the Senate. I do not care who the Senator is whose rights are involved. There definitely should be a required quorum call before action is taken on a measure to which it is known the minority is opposed and there should be an enlargement of the rule with respect to the requirement of yea-and-nay votes.. votes.. We should also modernize the procedure, as I shall point out later. For example, we ought to have an electric voting machine above the desk, and we ought to save the taxpayers the hours of time we now waste by quorum calls and yea-and-nay votes. All we should be required to do when voting is to press a button on our desks. Oh, there would have to be some changes made in the procedures of the Senate. I recognize that fact. I will discuss the subject at some length later. It would also mean that we would stop the outworn system of holding sessions of the Senate and committee meetings at the same time. We would have to adopt an efficient schedule for conducting the work of the Senate. I definitely desire to express my disagreement with the Senator from Colorado, if he seeks to give the American people the impression that this great fraternity is always very careful to see to it that minority rights are protected. From experience I testify to the contrary. Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon for his remarks. I agree with him. Many changes in the rules of the Senate could be made with great advantage to the Senate and the country. However, my two proposals are confined to action on treaties and on constitutional amendments, of which we have had some glaring examples of failure to act providently and wisely in the past few weeks. There should be, further, an automatic requirement that the vote on assenting to treaties be a recorded vote, with each Member of the Senate present giving or withholding his consent to ratification. So, I am proposing an amendment to rule 37 requiring a quorum call and requiring a yea-and-nay vote on the ratWith this rule in ification of a treaty. effect the public need never fear that anything so important as a treaty will slip by unnoticed and unconsidered by more than a handful of the Members of the Senate. As I have said, my other proposal would establish the same requirements in the case of a resolution proposing to amend the Constitution. It would require a quorum call preceding a vote and then the yeas and nays. In both these cases, if my proposals were adopted, quorum calls and yea and nay votes would be compulsory, and we would not again be in a position of considering an amendment to the Constitution on the consent calendar or of ratifying treaties by the voice vote of a handful of Senators. I hope that the rules committee will give early and sympathetic consideration to these proposals. Mr. FREAR. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LEHMAN. I am glad to yield to the Senator from Delaware. Mr. FREAR. I should like to inquire whether the Senator from New York would object to an amendment to his proposal to the effect that the majority leader shall give notice a certain number of days in advance that a proposed amendment to the Constitution or a treaty would be considered by the Senate, in addition to requiring a quorum call and a yea-and-nay vote. Mr. LEHMAN. I have no objection to such an amendment being an addition to my proposal, but not as a substitute. Mr. FREAR. No; in addition. Mr. LEHMAN. Yes. My thesis is that in the case of treaties and proposed constitutional amendments there must be, under the rules of the Senate, recognition of the same constitutional provisions which pertain to the question of overriding a presidential veto. There should be a quorum call, to be followed later by a yea-and-nay vote, whereby the vote of each Senator would be recorded. I have no objection to any amendment which would strengthen my proposal. Mr. FREAR. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further? Mr. LEHMAN. I am glad to yield. Mr. FREAR. An amendment to the An amendment to the Constitution requires action by both Houses, whereas the ratification of a treaty is the province of only the Senate. Of course, a Senate rule could not apply to both bodies. On a proposed amendment to the Constitution action must be taken by both Houses, whereas in connection with the ratification of a treaty action is taken only by the Senate. Of course I realize the Senator from New York is proposing a change in the rules of only one body, namely the Senate, and any changes we make in our rules do not affect the House. Therefore his suggestion would apply only to the Senate. Mr. LEHMAN. That is correct. My proposal would apply only to the Senate, not to the House of Representatives. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY TO MAKE LOANS TO FUR FARMERS The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (S. 1152) to extend for a period of 5 years the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture to make loans to fur farmers. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the committee amendment. Mr. BUSH. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING clerk will call the roll. OFFICER. The The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the call of the roll be rescinded and that the further proceedings under the call be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The question is on agreeing to the committee amendment. The amendment was agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill is open to further amendment. If there be no further amendment, the question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill. The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, and was read the third time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall it pass? [Putting the question.] The "ayes" appear to have it. Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, on this question I ask for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were not ordered. Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, the vote has not yet been announced, has it? The PRESIDING OFFICER. No, it has not been. Mr. WILLIAMS. Before the final vote is taken on this measure, I think the Senate should be sure it understands exactly what it is doing. The Senate is asked to extend the authority for a fur-farming loan agency which might be described as an RFC for the fur industry. In speaking yesterday evening, I said the agency might be described either as an RFC or as a Republican Fur Corporation. It is a special loan agency for the benefit of 131 fur farmers only. It is restricted to the fur farmers who already are indebted to the United States Government. This loan agency would not be available to any of the other 5,000 fur farmers in the United States. In connection with this matter, Mr. President, let me say that I understand on Monday there will be before us a bill for the purpose of liquidating the RFC. If the provisions of that bill were similar to the provisions of the fur-farm loan bill that now is before us, then no doubt that proposal would be to liquidate the RFC and to prohibit it from making any further loans, except in the case of those who already have outstanding loans from the RFC-in short, those who already have a foot in the door, and whose loans are outstanding and unpaid. For instance, Henry Kaiser and other large industrialists have borrowed millions and millions of dollars from the Government of the United States; and under such a proposal, they could continue to borrow for 5 years more, but no others could borrow. In short, the agency would be operated for the exclusive benefit of those who already had borrowed from the United States Government, and whose loans were outstanding or delinquent. Of course, such a proposal would be laughed off the floor of the Senate. Yet that is exactly what is proposed to be done in the case of the fur farmers. The lending authority would be extended for 5 years, but it would apply to exactly 131 fur farmers in the United States. Not another citizen of the United States would be eligible to receive a loan under the provisions of this bill, however, there is no limit as to what this favored group can get. In breaking down that figure, we find the numbers for the various States. For instance, only 29 persons in Colorado would be eligible for such loans. Today, 21 of these are delinquent in the loans they already have received from the United States Government. Yesterday I pointed out how 4 of those 21 persons had borrowed over two-thirds of all the money that is now outstanding by fur farmers in Colorado. Those men would be eligible, under the provisions of this bill, to borrow more money from the United States Government. Thus far they have been living on money borrowed from the United States Government; using it to cover not only their expenses in the fur business, but also their living expenses and other expenses of a miscellaneous sort for items in connection with their establishments. Some of the borrowers are delinquent on loans advanced to them as long ago as 1949. Mr. President, in order to show how these loans have gradually been accumulating, let me point out that in one case the borrower received an additional loan of $8,950 on January 12, 1953, and on April 24, 1953, he borrowed $10,150. Today he owes the United States Government a total of $122,081.86. He is delinquent on 4 or 5 of his loans. He has used some of the money he has borrowed to make the payments on some of the other loans. Systematically, over the last 4 or 5 years, this one man-and he is no different from many of the othershas been returning to the public till every 3 or 4 months, getting additional loans of $5,000 or $10,000 to cover his operating expenses and his living living expenses. Mr. President, if we are going to start a relief agency, let us say so. Let us tell the American taxpayers that this is one of the reasons they are being called upon to support a continuation of the high tax policy of the previous administration. Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, will the Senator from Delaware yield to me? Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield. Mr. LANGER. Judging from what the Senator from Delaware said yesterday, apparently when the interest payments come due on the loans these borrowers borrow more money from the Government in order to be able to pay the interest. Mr. WILLIAMS. That is correct. They also have borrowed money in order to have funds with which to pay their living expenses. Mr. LANGER. Some of the borrowers returned 9 or 10 times, to borrow more money, I understand. Mr. WILLIAMS. The particular person to whom I have just referred has returned to the Government eight times since receiving his original loan. He received two additional loans this year. Altogether, he owes the United States Government a little over $122,000. His case is not much different from any of the others. Another one of these men has returned to the public till 11 times in the last 5 years. He and the other men in this group are now asking that the authority to make loans to them be extended for 5 years more so that they will be able to ride 5 years more on the Government gravy train. Mr. President, in order to show that I am not singling out Colorado fur farmers for criticism, I shall refer to the situation in various other States. For instance, in Michigan there are 20 borrowers. Those 20 persons have 53 loans outstanding. Today 11 of those 20 persons are delinquent in paying their loans. We find that 1 of the borrowers in Michigan has borrowed 43 percent of all the money that has been advanced under this program to Michigan fur farmers. He now owes the United States farmers. He now owes the United States Government $104,768.42 and wants more. So, Mr. President, let us not kid ourselves that in this case we are dealing with small farmers. We are not dealing We are not dealing with "little farmers," as was stated yesterday by a number of Senators who are advocating the passage of this bill. A number of those Senators referred to "the little fellow" who perhaps would need $300 or $400 or $500. It is said that certain "little farmers" might have to go into bankruptcy if they are unable to obtain such "little" loans. That is just political window dressing. As a matter of fact, we find that in nearly all cases the smaller loans have been paid. It is said that 87 percent of the loans to these fur farmers have been paid. That is true in number of loans only not dollar volume, but most of the loans which have been paid have been the small ones, whereas many of the large loans are outstanding, and many are delinquent. Many of the fur farmers who have received the large loans are the ones who now are riding the Government "gravy train" and wish to be able to continue to ride it for 5 years longer. As I have said, one fur farmer in Michigan borrowed $104,768.42, representing 43 percent of all the outstanding loans to all the fur farmers in the State of Michigan. That loan is outstanding; and under the provisions of the pending bill, that borrower would be given the right to keep his foot in the door and keep on dipping his hand into the public till for 5 years longer. That fur farmer has made only small payments on the loans he has received thus far. Mr. President, 11 of the fur farmers in Michigan who have received such loans from the Federal Government today are delinquent in the payments on their loans. We find that $390,965 has been advanced to fur farmers in the State of Wisconsin. Those loans were made to 11 fur farmers in Wisconsin. Twentyone loans were made to them. In this case, $95,989.32 of those loans, in addition to the interest, is outstanding, unpaid, today. Furthermore, we find that in Wisconsin, where $390,965 has been advanced as loans, under this program, to the "little farmers" one of the "little farmers" received $325,000, or 80 percent of all such loans made to fur farmers in Wisconsin. Let us not kid ourselves. This is not a measure to help the little farmer; it is nothing less than a scandalous giveaway program for a handful of large operators. Mr. WELKER. Mr. President, will the Senator from Delaware yield to me. Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield. Mr. WELKER. Has all the money which has been borrowed been used primarily for fur farmers, or does the Senator from Delaware have information that some of the money has been used for other purposes, such as tourist camps? I have heard rumors to that effect. Mr. WILLIAMS. I cannot say that any of the money has been used for such other purposes, although it has been reported that some of the money has been used to liquidate certain obligations with banks. I am frank to say that one of the employees reported to me-and this matter should be substantiated before the name is stated-that one of the men actually built a tourist camp with some of this money. I think that matter should be further checked. It is one of the things we should know before voting on this measure. It was one of the things which caused me to ask that the measure be held up until that information could be obtained. As I recall, the bill came from the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, by unanimous vote. I, as one member of the committee, voted for it. But, at the time, I never dreamed that we were voting for a bill to carry along a half-dozen men in the United States who were to get two-thirds of the advantages of the proposal. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield to the Senator from Michigan. Mr. FERGUSON. Who has been supervising the loans? Mr. WILLIAMS. The loans are being supervised by the Department of Agriculture under the Farm and Home Administration. Mr. FERGUSON. Why is the Senator from Delaware not criticizing the man who did this? Mr. WILLIAMS. Because I think it is a matter of criticism directed largely against the Congress. I think that before I criticize the Department of Agriculture I should know how the loans were made; and we do not at this time have that information. Congress passed the law, and we must take our part of the responsibility. Likewise how we vote today will indicate our approval or disapproval of the program as operated. The Department of Agriculture was never set up as a banking agency. It is not a banking organization. loaning agency does not belong in the Department of Agriculture. I would point out, however, that I think the Department of Agriculture should be criticized for ever having let a half-dozen men run wild with it. A Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? I yield. Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. FERGUSON. The Congress originally found that it was a business which was in very serious financial condition, one of the reasons for it being that furs were being imported from the Soviet Union. I think the action which was taken originally was proper. I know of no other agency which would have been better qualified to supervise the loans than the Department of Agriculture, since it deals directly with agricultural matters, including the raising of furbearing animals. If, as the Senator from Delaware says, it has advanced money with which to pay interest to the Government merely in order to keep the loans in good shape, that would appear to the Senator from Michigan to be one of the absurdities. Those responsible for that are the ones who should be criticized. It is not a matter of criticism of the Congress for having tried to save the fur industry originally, at a time when other people were receiving loans. Various other groups of farmers were getting loans, and the same privilege was being extended to the fur farmers. If the authority was abused, the criticism should be on the department responsible for it, and I, for one, wish to say on the floor of the Senate that any employee of the Department of Agriculture who abuses authority conferred by the Congress should be discharged. To advance money merely to keep a loan in good shape by paying the interest to the Government is in my opinion an absurdity, and no one should do it. I ask the Senator, if the power or authority to loan money to borrowers was not for the purpose of enabling them to avoid going broke, and so that they would be able to repay the money owed to the Federal Government. If not, then the borrower should not get the money, and we should not extend the authority to let him have it. As I understand, the purpose is merely to keep the borrowers in business, in order that they may repay what they now owe to the Government. Mr. WILLIAMS. That is correct. Mr. FERGUSON. That is a good thing. But if there are abuses then those who are guilty ought to be discharged from the Government service. Mr. WILLIAMS. That is all right, if in theory it works that way. This arrangement was first made in order to save an industry, and I agree with the Senator from Michigan that the Congress had the best of motives in passing such legislation. The committee reported the bill to the Senate with the best of intentions, thinking it would help the poor fellows in this particular industry, but not with the idea of bailing out half a dozen operators. I point out again that if a measure of this kind were necessary 5 years ago in order to offset the importations of fur from Russia, why did not someone in the administration put a stop to such importations? They could very easily have done so. Mr. FERGUSON. That is why last fall the people changed the administration, so that we could do some of the things we are now saying should be done, and which I hope will be done. Mr. WILLIAMS. That is the situation exactly. I may say that last fall the people also voted to stop pouring the taxpayers' money down ratholes, foxholes, minkholes, or skunkholes. They definitely did not approve such a giveaway program as this. I spoke of an individual who had gone back to the Government for more money on 11 different occasions. On an average of about every 3 months or 5 months he has gone back for another $5,000 or more to cover his operating and living expenses. I should like to know how well that individual is living. There are a great many people who could use more money with which to pay their living expenses. Mr. FERGUSON. Does the Senator have any evidence that the money referred to is being used to pay living expenses? If he has, I should think that the person in the Department of Agriculture who approved the loan for that purpose should be discharged immediately. Mr. WILLIAMS. All the evidence I All the evidence I have is that which I received from the Department of Agriculture itself. I have before me a letter from the Department of Agriculture, Farmers' Home Adminis tration, signed by Dillard B. Lasseter, Administrator, under date of May 1, 1952, from which I read: Loans are made to cover necessary expenses directly related to the breeding, feeding, and marketing of animals and pelts, including minor repairs to buildings, the purchase of essential equipment needed in the business, and living expenses for the applicant. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further? Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield. Mr. FERGUSON. Does that refer to an original loan, and is there any law authorizing the loaning of money to people for the purpose of paying their living ple for the purpose of paying their living expenses and to provide personal support? Mr. WILLIAMS. This was in reference to any loan, as it has operated, and in the pending bill there is exactly the same authority, so far as such individuals are concerned. There is no dif ference. If Congress approves of that loose policy then vote for this bill-then try to explain it to the taxpayers. Mr. FERGUSON. Has the Senator consulted the General Accounting Office to ascertain whether the original law was actually violated in the making of advances for living expenses? Mr. WILLIAMS. In reply to the Senator from Michigan, I may say I am not a lawyer, and I have not consulted the General Accounting Office. Nevertheless, the Department of Agriculture plainly states that the loans have been extended during the past 5 years for miscellaneous expenses, including living expenses. The borrower to whom I referred, who has been back to the Government on 11 different occasions, has been borrowing, in connection with such additional loans, the necessary requirements of ments of his living expenses. That might even include a mink coat for his wife. Mr. WELKER. Mr. President, will the - Senator yield? Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield to the Senator from Idaho. Mr. WELKER. I may say that we have a fur industry in my State. Many farmers are engaged in that industry. I do not know how many of them borrow money. I ask the Senator whether he is aware of the fact that every small mine operator in the State of Idaho has closed down, that miners are completely out of work and are walking the streets seeking employment, and that many of them are destitute, and are now or will soon be on relief? That is the situation in the giant Coeur d'Alene mining area. If loans are to be made to farmers engaged in the fur industry, where are we to draw the line? The Senator from Nevada and I expect later in the day to speak on the subject of the mining industry in the State of Idaho. Would the Senator from Delaware be in favor of saving the mine owners and operators? Mr. WILLIAMS. I think there is no question that if we are going to engage in this activity at all, we cannot single out one industry or a handful of individuals, or, as in this case, almost single out 6 or 8 men in the United States who are benefitting primarily from this program. I refer to the particular individuals who are borrowing $100,000 or $200,000. This is special privilege legislation in its worst form. We did a lot of speechmaking in the last campaign and said we were opposed to the extension of the RFC because of recent examples of influence-peddling and scandals. We campaigned against the very things which are now being asked to be approved. The States of Michigan and Colorado are not glaring examples. For instance, in the State of Wisconsin, as I have previously pointed out, 80 percent of the money, or $325,000, loaned in connection with fur farming in that State went to one man. We are giving to that man authority to continue borrowing, if he wants to, over and over again from the United States Government, for the next 5 years. Why? |