« PreviousContinue »
World Court, because the Senate insisted ask unanimous consent that the table
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
Senate There have been complaints that the present provision of the Constitution re
73 to 2.
Feb. 7, 1952- A protocol to the North Atquiring a two-thirds vote by the Senate
lantic Treaty on the accesfor the ratification of treaties sets up a
sion of Greece and Turkey. difficult roadblock and permits a rela- Apr. 1, 1952. A supplementary extradi- Voice.
tion convention between tively small minority to block the will of
the United States of Amerthe majority. Extensive study and con
ica and Canada. sideration have been given to the pro
July 4, 1952. A convention between the Voice.
United States of America posal to require a simple majority or at
and the Republic of Finbest a constitutional majority for the
land, for the avoidance of
double taxation and the ratification approval of treaties.
prevention of fiscal evaIn fact, the whole burden of argument
sion with respect to taxes
on estates and inheriton the question of treaties, up until very
ances. recent months, has been that the proc
Do..... A convention between the Voice.
United States of America ess of senatorial approval of treaties is
and the Republic of Fintoo demanding and too severe. But late
land, for the avoidance of
double taxation and the ly, Mr. President, a countercomplaint
prevention of fiscal evahas arisen, namely, that the procedure
sion with respect to taxes for ratifying treaties is too easy, holds
July 4, 1952.- An agreement between the Voice. great dangers for the rights and liber
United States of America ties of American citizens.
and Canada, for promo
tion of safety on the Great The country and the Senate have been
Lakes by means of radio. told that two-thirds of the United States June 13, 1952-. A protocol between the Voice.
United States of America Senate cannot be trusted to protect the
and Ireland, supplemeninterests of the United States in consid
tary to the consular coneration of treaties and international July 4, 1952... A protocol prolonging for 1 Voice.
vention. agreements. There has been proposed
year after Aug. 31, 1951, a constitutional amendment-the so
the international agree
ment regarding the regucalled Bricker amendment which would
lation of production and take from the Senate the power and the
marketing of sugar.
July 1, 1952.-- Convention on relations be 77 to 5. authority to judge the worth and desir
tween the 3 powers and ability of certain kinds of treaties and
the Federal Republic of would make it unconstitutional to nego
Do.... Protocol to the North At-| 72 to 3. tiate treaties covering matters which the
lantic Treaty, signed at advocates of the Bricker resolution be
Paris on May 27, 1952.
July 4, 1952.- An international convention Voice. lieve should be beyond the power of the
for the high-seas fisheries United States even to consider.
of the North Pacific Ocean,
together with a protocol Mr. President, I do not intend at this
relating thereto. time to engage in a discussion of the Do----- 4 conventions, formulated at R-voice. Bricker amendment. That should be
the 28th (maritime) ses- Is-voice.
sion of the International | Y-voice. discussed all by itself. In my judgment,
(z-voice. it is one of the most dangerous proposals
June 13, 1952. A consular.convention he Voice.
tween the United States ever made in the Senate.
of America and Ireland. One of the chief arguments made in
July 4, 1952. A highway convention be- Voice.
tween the United States of support of that proposal is that some
America and the Republic times, or on some occasions, treaties are
Apr. 1, 1952- A convention between the Voice. ratified by the United States Senate
United States of America without adequate consideration. They
and Canada, relating to are ratified, it is said, by voice vote, with
the operation by citizens
of either country of certain only a handful of Senators on the floor.
radio equipment or staObviously, Mr. President, such things
tions in the other country.
July 4, 1952. A certified copy of a protocol Voice. have happened.
dated in London, Aug. 31, Last year the press carried accounts of
1950, prolonging for 1 year,
after Aug. 31, 1950, the the fact that when the Senate ratified
international agreement one treaty, a consular convention with
regarding the regulation of Ireland, only 2 Senators were in the
production and marketing
of sugar. Chamber, one of whom was the Presid June 13, 1952. A consular convention and Voice. ing Officer. On another occasion, when
an accompanying protocol
of signature between the the Senate approved the adherence of
United States of America Greece and Turkey to the North Atlantic
and the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Treaty, and only half a dozen Senators
Northern Ireland. were on the floor. There was so much
July 4, 1952. Convention between the Voice. public criticism of that occurrence, that
United States of America
and Switzerland, for the the action was reconsidered by unani
avoidance of double taxamous consent, and a yea-and-nay vote
tion with respect to taxes
on estates and inheritwas had.
ances. Mr. President, I have had prepared a
Apr. 1, 1952. Texts of a proposal by the Voice.
Government of Canada list of treaties acted on by the Senate in
and a proposal by the 1952. There were 25 treaties so consid
Government of Australia
relating to seasonal zones ered, of which 5 were acted on by yea
established in annex II of
the international load line and-nay votes and 20 by voice vote. I
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 business of the Senate. I do not know the merits of the resolution at all. The Senator from New York is proposing, he how we could operate unless we had next day, when the question arose and could effectuate it himself.
the unanimous-consent device. Sena the leader, Senator McFarland, had reMr. LEHMAN. If I were on the floor tors have been very careful to see to it turned to the Senate, he moved to table during the call of the calendar and an
that no measure was ever enacted by the motion to consider the joint resoimportant treaty came up for considera- unanimous consent when any Senator, lution. There was no discussion on the tion, in all probability I would suggest whether he was present in the Chamber merits at all; nor was the resolution itself the absence of a quorum. However, that
or not, had registered an objection to it. before the Senate for discussion. So the would not necessarily mean that I could Such objection has always been accepted Senator from New York has misstated demand the yeas and nays with any by Senators who were present in the the facts, and should correct his record certainty that they would be ordered. Chamber.
in that respect. It makes no difference how frequently I think that fact should be mentioned Let me go a little further, because I or infrequently I am on the floor, or how in connection with the present discus think I am justified in defending my frequently or infrequently the distin- sion, so that the country will under- position, in view of the utterances of the guished Senator from Delaware is on the stand what we mean by unanimous con Senator from New York. floor, to me the argument seems incon
It does not mean that we slip The resolution proposing an amendtrovertible that when action is to be something through when only 1 or 2 ment to the Constitution, which passed taken on treaties or measures proposing Senators are present. When a measure the Senate, was a matter of nationwide constitutional amendments, a quorum is on the calendar every Senator has the note. The American Bar Association call should be mandatory, and the yeas privilege of voicing his objection to the had taken note of it. The Supreme and nays should be ordered, so that the
consideration of that measure by unani. Court had taken note of it. In the Steel views and the vote of each individual
mous consent, by the very simple step case the Supreme Court of the United Member of the Senate may be recorded. of calling his objection to the attention States had handed down a decision con
Mr. FREAR. Mr. President, will the of the majority leader or the minority taining the very essence of the amendSenator yield for a further question? leader.
ment which was suggested to the ComMr. LEHMAN. I yield.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the mittee on the Judiciary by the Senator Mr. FREAR. I think there is much Senator yield?
from Nevada The Supreme Court of merit in what the Senator from New Mr. MCCARRAN. Mr. President the United States, by a majority, had York is saying. If the Senator has Mr. LEHMAN. Let me first reply to declared, just as the resolution declared, offered a resolution proposing to amend the Senator from Colorado. Of course, certain principles. However, a minority the rules to accomplish that purpose, he has stated the situation accurately. of the Supreme Court had seen fit to I am certain he will have many sup- I thought I had made it clear in my re express themselves otherwise. Because porters in the Senate. What I was try- marks that I was not criticizing or at of the danger that some time or other ing to bring out by my questions was that tacking any Senator, or the author of the there might be a majority of the the Senator from New York was not de- proposed constitutional amendment. I Supreme Court which would follow the prived of the privilege of the floor to sug am possibly criticizing myself for lack of then minority opinion of the Supreme gest the absence of a quorum in the in vigilance. But the question of agreeing Court, we thought it best to place the stance he was discussing. Perhaps the to a constitutional amendment or a decision of the Supreme Court in the Senator has stated that. I may have treaty, the two most important func Constitution, so as to make it more misunderstood what he said.
tions of the Senate, should not be left emphatic. Mr. LEHMAN. I had said that what to the vigilance of an individual member. The entire question was discussed by had been done was not unique under the Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the the Judiciary Committee. It was disrules of the Senate. My quarrel and crit- Senator yield?
cussed by the Senate. Speech after icism is with regard to the existing rules
Mr. LEHMAN. I know that any Sen speech was made on the floor of the of the Senate, which permit such action, ator can object. I am not suggesting Senate. So when the Senator from New The rules should be changed so as to that we change the rules of the Senate York seeks to impugn motives, as he does make impossible the ratification of a
with regard to action on the Consent indirectly, whether wittingly or unwittreaty with only 2 Senators on the floor, Calendar so far as legislation is con tingly, he is outside his argument. as happened in one case, one of whom, as cerned. My proposals, which have been Mr. LEHMAN. The Senator from New I pointed out, was the Presiding Officer, submitted in the form of amendments York would like to answer the Senator
I thank the Senator from Delaware for to the rules, relate to two questions, from Nevada The Senator from New his encouragement in the matter. I be- namely, the consideration of constitu York has leaned backward in his remarks lieve my proposal will have very wide tional amendments and the considera to make it clear that he did not question support, and I hope very much that tion of treaties. We should make it the sincerity, the motives, or the legal among the supporters will be the junior mandatory to have a quorum call and rights of the Senator from Nevada. It Senator from Delaware.
a yea-and-nay vote, and not leave the was so stated several times in the course Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Mr. Pres decision to the discretion or vigilance of of my remarks. ident, will the Senator yield? any individual Senator.
So far as the motion to table the moMr. LEHMAN. I yield.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the tion to consider the measure was conMr. JOHNSON of Colorado. When the Senator yield?
cerned, the vote was 42 to 32. That cerSenator speaks of the Unanimous Con Mr. LEHMAN. I promised to yield tainly shows that the question which sent Calendar, I think he should call the first to the Senator from Nevada. was to be considered loomed pretty large attention of the country especially to one Mr. MCCARRAN. Mr. President, in in the minds of a great many Senators feature. Unless he does so, he may be his zeal to make the argument for his as a controversial question. casting a reflection on the Senate. Any proposal, the Senator from New York Finally, with regard to the decision of Member of the Senate may register an has either advertently or inadvertently the Supreme Court in the Steel case, as objection to a unanimous-consent re impugned the motives of the then chair I recall—and I believe I am correct, alquest merely by filing his objection with man of the Judiciary Committee, the though I would refer to the memory of the majority leader or the minority, senior Senator from Nevada, in connec some of my legal colleagues who are more or with those who have been designated tion with the passage of the resolution learned in the law and in court decisions by them to receive such objection. The proposing a constitutional amendment. than I possibly could be that decision Senate has always recognized that right. Let me say to the Senator that he has related only to the conditions surroundSenators have often registered objection made a misstatement of fact to the coun ing the seizure of the steel mills by the to the unanimous-consent passage of a try. When that amendment came up in President of the United States. I recolbill when they were absent from the city, the 82d Congress, it came up at a time lect nothing in that decision which laid and such objection has been recognized. when the then leader, Senator McFar down a general, unbreakable rule that
Of course, as the Senator well under land, was absent from the city. It came under no circumstances could the Presistands, the unanimous-consent proce- up when the present minority leader was dent seize property. That is the differdure is a method of handling unobjected- acting as majority leader. It came up ence. There was certainly a clear-cut to measures, in order to expedite the on a motion to consider it, and not on decision on the part of the majority of
the Supreme Court with regard to this confined to action on treaties and on con course I realize the Senator from New one action of the President in the seizure stitutional amendments, of which we York is proposing a change in the rules of the steel mills, but that decision did have had some glaring examples of fail. of only one body, namely the Senate, and not go one inch beyond that point. ure to act providently and wisely in the any changes we make in our rules do not I now yield to the Senator from past few weeks.
affect the House. Therefore his sugOregon.
There should be, further, an auto- gestion would apply only to the Senate. . Mr. MORSE. I note that my good matic requirement that the vote on as Mr. LEHMAN. That is correct. My friend the Senator from Colorado [Mr. senting to treaties be a recorded vote,
senting to treaties be a recorded vote, proposal would apply only to the Senate, JOHNSON) has left the Chamber. I wish with each Member of the Senate present
with each Member of the Senate present not to the House of Representatives. to make a statement, and then I shall giving or withholding his consent to notify him of the statement, so that he ratification.
EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY TO may make any further statement he de So, I am proposing an amendment to sires to make. rule 37 requiring a quorum call and re
MAKE LOANS TO FUR FARMERS I wish to express a difference of opin- quiring a yea-and-nay vote on the rat The Senate resumed the consideration ion with respect to the conclusion stated ification of a treaty. With this rule in of the bill (S. 1152) to extend for a period by the Senator from Colorado, and I
effect the public need never fear that of 5 years the authority of the Secretary shall deal with the subject later today anything so important as a treaty will of Agriculture to make loans to fur when the representative of the Inde
slip by unnoticed and unconsidered by farmers. pendent Party gives his weekly report to
more than a handful of the Members The PRESIDING OFFICER. The the Senate. of the Senate.
question is on agreeing to the commitI respectfully disagree with the con
As I have said, my other proposal tee amendment. clusion of the Senator from Colorado, if would establish the same requirements Mr. BUSH. I suggest the absence of I heard him correctly, that the Senate in the case of a resolution proposing to
The is always very careful to see to it, when amend the Constitution. It would re
PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will call the roll. a Senator makes an objection on the quire a quorum call preceding a vote and call of the calendar, or when he makes then the yeas and nays.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call known that he is in opposition to a meas
In both these cases, if my proposals the roll. ure on the calendar, that his rights are were adopted, quorum calls and yea and Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that the order respected. I stand here to testify to the nay votes would be compulsory, and we contrary on a series of occasions when
would not again be in a position of con for the call of the roll be rescinded and my minority rights in the Senate have sidering an amendment to the Consti- that the further proceedings under the not been protected by any such rule of
tution on the consent calendar or of call be dispensed with. courtesy as that to which the Senator ratifying treaties by the voice vote of The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withfrom Colorado alluded.
a handful of Senators. I hope that the out objection, it is so ordered. Therefore I wish to say to the Senator rules committee will give early and sym
The question is on agreeing to the from New York that I do not believe that pathetic consideration to these pro- committee amendment.
The amendment was agreed to. his proposals to reform rules go far posals.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill enough. I will discuss the subject later
Mr. FREAR. Mr. President, will the in the day. Clear protection should be Senator yield?
is open to further amendment. provided for a minority in the Senate. Mr. LEHMAN. I am glad to yield to
If there be no further amendment, the I do not care who the Senator is whose the Senator from Delaware.
question is on the engrossment and third rights are involved. There definitely Mr. FREAR. I should like to inquire reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed should be a required quorum call before whether the Senator from New York action is taken on a measure to which would object to an amendment to his for a third reading, and was read the it is known the minority is opposed and proposal to the effect that the majority third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill there should be an enlargement of the leader shall give notice a certain numrule with respect to the requirement of ber of days in advance that a proposed having been read the third time, the yea-and-nay votes.. We should also amendment to the Constitution or a
question is, Shall it pass? [Putting the modernize the procedure, as I shall point treaty would be considered by the Sen
The “ayes" appear to have it. out later. For example, we ought to ate, in addition to requiring a quorum have an electric voting machine above call and a yea-and-nay vote.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, on the desk, and we ought to save the tax Mr. LEHMAN. I have no objection to
this question I ask for the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were not ordered. payers the hours of time we now waste such an amendment being an addition
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, the by quorum calls and yea-and-nay votes. to my proposal, but not as a substitute. All we should be required to do when Mr. FREAR. No; in addition.
vote has not yet been announced, has
it? voting is to press a button on our desks. Mr. LEHMAN. Yes. My thesis is that
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No, it Oh, there would have to be some in the case of treaties and proposed con
has not been. changes made in the procedures of the stitutional amendments there must be,
Mr. WILLIAMS. Before the final Senate. I recognize that fact. I will under the rules of the Senate, recogni
vote is taken on this measure, I think discuss the subject at some length later. tion of the same constitutional provisions the Senate should be sure it understands It would also mean that we would stop which pertain to the question of over
exactly what it is doing. the outworn system of holding sessions riding a presidential veto. There should of the Senate and committee meetings at be a quorum call, to be followed later by thority for a fur-farming loan agency
The Senate is asked to extend the authe same time. We would have to adopt a yea-and-nay vote, whereby the vote
which might be described as an RFC for an efficient schedule for conducting the of each Senator would be recorded. I
the fur industry. In speaking yesterday work of the Senate.
have no objection to any amendment evening, I said the agency might be deI definitely desire to express my lis which would strengthen my proposal. scribed either as an RFC or as a Repubagreement with the Senator from Colo Mr. FREAR. Mr. President, will the lican Fur Corporation. It is a special rado, if he seeks to give the American Senator yield further?
loan agency for the benefit of 131 fur people the impression that this great fra Mr. LEHMAN. I am glad to yield. farmers only. It is restricted to the fur ternity is always very careful to see to it Mr. FREAR. An amendment to the farmers who already are indebted to that minority rights are protected. Constitution requires action by both the United States Government. This From experience I testify to the con Houses, whereas the ratification of a loan agency would not be available to trary.
treaty is the province of only the Senate. any of the other 5,000 fur farmers in the Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, I thank
Mr. President, I thank Of course, a Senate rule could not apply United States. the Senator from Oregon for his remarks. to both bodies.
to both bodies. On a proposed amend In connection with this matter, Mr. I agree with him. Many changes in the ment to the Constitution action must President, let me say that I understand rules of the Senate could be made with be taken by both Houses, whereas in con on Monday there will be before us a bill great advantage to the Senate and the nection with the ratification of a treaty for the purpose of liquidating the RFC. country. However, my two proposals are action is taken only by the Senate. Of If the provisions of that bill were similar
to the provisions of the fur-farm loan Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, will the and under the provisions of the pending bill that now is before us, then no doubt Senator from Delaware yield to me? bill, that borrower would be given the that proposal would be to liquidate the Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield.
right to keep his foot in the door and RFC and to prohibit it from making any Mr. LANGER. Judging from what the keep on dipping his hand into the public further loans, except in the case of those Senator from Delaware said yesterday, till for 5 years longer. That fur farmer who already have outstanding loans apparently when the interest payments has made only small payments on the from the RFC-in short, those who al come due on the loans these borrowers loans he has received thus far. ready have a foot in the door, and whose borrow more money from the Govern Mr. President, 11 of the fur farmers in loans are outstanding and unpaid. For ment in order to be able to pay the Michigan who have received such loans instance, Henry Kaiser and other large interest.
from the Federal Government today are industrialists have borrowed millions Mr. WILLIAMS. That is correct. delinquent in the payments on their and millions of dollars from the Gov-. They also have borrowed money in order loans. ernment of the United States; and under to have funds with which to pay their We find that $390,965 has been adsuch a proposal, they could continue to living expenses.
vanced to fur farmers in the State of borrow for 5 years more, but no others Mr. LANGER. Some of the borrowers Wisconsin. - Those loans were made to could borrow. In short, the agency returned 9 or 10 times, to borrow more 11 fur farmers in Wisconsin. Twentywould be operated for the exclusive bene- money, I understand.
one loans were made to them. In this fit of those who already had borrowed Mr. WILLIAMS. The particular per case, $95,989.32 of those loans, in addifrom the United States Government, and son to whom I have just referred has
tion to the interest, is outstanding, unwhose loans were outstanding or delin- returned to the Government eight times paid, today. quent. Of course, such a proposal would since receiving his original loan. He Furthermore, we find that in Wisconbe laughed off the floor of the Senate. received two additional loans this year. sin, where $390,965 has been advanced as
Yet that is exactly what is proposed Altogether, he owes the United States loans, under this program, to the "little to be done in the case of the fur farmers. Government a little over $122,000. His
farmers" one of the "little farmers" reThe lending authority would be extended case is not much different from any of ceived $325,000, or 80 percent of all such for 5 years, but it would apply to exactly the others.
loans made to fur farmers in Wiscon131 fur farmers in the United States. Another one of these men has returned sin. Not another citizen of the United States to the public till 11 times in the last Let us not kid ourselves. This is not would be eligible to receive a loan under 5 years. He and the other men in this a measure to help the little farmer; it the provisions of this bill, however, there group are now asking that the author is nothing less than a scandalous giveis no limit as to what this favored group ity to make loans to them be extended away program for a handful of large can get.
for 5 years more so that they will be able operators. In breaking down that figure, we find to ride 5 years more on the Government Mr. WELKER. Mr. President, will the the numbers for the various States. For gravy train,
Senator from Delaware yield to me. instance, only 29 persons in Colorado Mr. President, in order to show that Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield. would be eligible for such loans. Today, I am not singling out Colorado fur Mr. WELKER. Has all the money 21 of these are delinquent in the loans farmers for criticism, I shall refer to the which has been borrowed been used prithey already have received from the situation in various other States.
marily for fur farmers, or does the SenUnited States Government. Yesterday I For instance, in Michigan there are
ator from Delaware have information pointed out how 4 of those 21 persons
20 borrowers. Those 20 persons have that some of the money has been used had borrowed over two-thirds of all the 53 loans outstanding. Today 11 of those
Today 11 of those for other purposes, such as tourist money that is now outstanding by fur 20 persons are delinquent in paying their camps? I have heard rumors to that farmers in Colorado. Those men would loans. We find that 1 of the borrowers effect. be eligible, under the provisions of this in Michigan has borrowed 43 percent of Mr. WILLIAMS. I cannot say that bill, to borrow more money from the all the money that has been advanced any of the money has been used for such United States Government. Thus far under this program to Michigan fur other purposes, although it has been rethey have been living on money borrowed farmers. He now owes the United States ported that some of the money has been from the United States Government; us Government $104,768.42 and wants more,
used to liquidate certain obligations with ing it to cover not only their expenses in So, Mr. President, let us not kid our banks. the fur business, but also their living selves that in this case we are dealing I am frank to say that one of the emexpenses and other expenses of a miscel- with small farmers. We are not dealing ployees reported to me—and this matlaneous sort for items in connection with with "little farmers,” as was stated yes- ter should be substantiated before the their establishments. Some of the bor- terday by a number of Senators who are name is stated that one of the men rowers are delinquent on loans advanced advocating the passage of this bill. A actually built a tourist camp with some to them as long ago as 1949.
number of those Senators referred to of this money. I think that matter Mr. President, in order to show how “the little fellow” who perhaps would should be further checked. It is one of these loans have gradually been accumu
need $300 or $400 or $500. It is said the things we should know before voting lating, let me point out that in one case
that certain "little farmers” might have on this measure. It was one of the the borrower received an additional loan to go into bankruptcy if they are unable things which caused me to ask that the of $8,950 on January 12, 1953, and on to obtain such "little" loans. That is measure be held up until that informaApril 24, 1953, he borrowed $10,150. just political window dressing.
tion could be obtained. Today he owes the United States Govern As a matter of fact, we find that in As I recall, the bill came from the ment a total of $122,081.86. He is de- nearly all cases the smaller loans have Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, linquent on 4 or 5 of his loans. He has been paid. It is said that 87 percent of
been paid. It is said that 87 percent of by unanimous vote. I, as one member of used some of the money he has borrowed the loans to these fur farmers have been the committee, voted for it. But, at the to make the payments on some of the paid. That is true in number of loans time, I never dreamed that we were votother loans. Systematically, over the only not dollar volume, but most of the ing for a bill to carry along a half-dozen last 4 or 5 years, this one man—and he loans which have been paid have been men in the United States who were to is no different from many of the others, the small ones, whereas many of the get two-thirds of the advantages of the has been returning to the public till large loans are outstanding, and many proposal. every 3 or 4 months, getting additional are delinquent. Many of the fur farm Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, will loans of $5,000 or $10,000 to cover his ers who have received the large loans are the Senator yield? operating expenses and his
his living the ones who now are riding the Govern Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield to the Senaexpenses.
ment "gravy train” and wish to be able tor from Michigan. Mr. President, if we are going to start to continue to ride it for 5 years longer. Mr. FERGUSON. Who has been sua relief agency, let us say so. Let us tell As I have said, one fur farmer in pervising the loans? the American taxpayers that this is one Michigan borrowed $104,768.42, repre Mr. WILLIAMS. The loans are being of the reasons they are being called upon senting 43 percent of all the outstanding supervised by the Department of Agrito support a continuation of the high tax loans to all the fur farmers in the State culture under the Farm and Home Adpolicy of the previous administration. of Michigan. That loan is outstanding; ministration.
Mr. FERGUSON. Why is the Senator those who are guilty ought to be dis ference. If Congress approves of that from Delaware not criticizing the man charged from the Government service. loose policy then vote for this bill—then who did this?
Mr. WILLIAMS. That is all right, if try to explain it to the taxpayers. Mr. WILLIAMS. Because I think it in theory it works that way. This ar Mr. FERGUSON. Has the Senator is a matter of criticism directed largely rangement was first made in order to
rangement was first made in order to consulted the General Accounting Office against the Congress. I think that be save an industry, and I agree with the to ascertain whether the original law fore I criticize the Department of Agri Senator from Michigan that the Con was actually violated in the making of culture I should know how the loans gress had the best of motives in passing advances for living expenses? were made; and we do not at this such legislation.
Mr. WILLIAMS. In reply to the Sentime have that information. Congress The committee reported the bill to the
ator from Michigan, I may say I am not passed the law, and we must take our Senate with the best of intentions, think
a lawyer, and I have not consulted the part of the responsibility. Likewise how ing it would help the poor fellows in this
General Accounting Office. Neverthewe vote today will indicate our approval particular industry, but not with the idea less, the Department of Agriculture or disapproval of the program as oper of bailing out half a dozen operators. I plainly states that the loans have been ated. The Department of Agriculture point out again that if a measure of this extended during the past 5 years for miswas never set up as a banking agency. kind were necessary 5 years ago in order cellaneous expenses, including living exIt is not a banking organization. A to offset the importations of fur from penses. The borrower to whom I reloaning agency does not belong in the Russia, why did not someone in the ad- ferred, who has been back to the GovDepartment of Agriculture. I would ministration put a stop to such importa ernment on 11 different occasions, has point out, however, that I think the De tions? They could very easily have done been borrowing, in connection with such partment of Agriculture should be critiSO.
additional loans, the necessary requirecized for ever having let a half-dozen Mr. FERGUSON. That is why last fall ments of his living expenses. That men run wild with it.
the people changed the administration, might even include a mink coat for his Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, will so that we could do some of the things wife, the Senator yield? we are now saying should be done, and
Mr. WELKER. Mr. President, will the Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield. which I hope will be done.
Senator yield? Mr. FERGUSON. The Congress orig Mr. WILLIAMS. That is the situation
Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield to the Seninally found that it was a business which exactly. I may say that last fall the ator from Idaho. was in very serious financial condition, people also voted to stop pouring the tax
Mr. WELKER. I may say that we one of the reasons for it being that furs payers' money down ratholes, foxholes, have a fur industry in my State. Many were being imported from the Soviet minkholes, or skunkholes. They defi farmers are engaged in that industry. Union. I think the action which was nitely did not approve such a giveaway I do not know how many of them bortaken originally was proper. I know of program as this. I spoke of an indi- row money. I ask the Senator whether no other agency which would have been vidual who had gone back to the Gov- he is aware of the fact that every small better qualified to supervise the loans ernment for more money on 11 different mine operator in the State of Idaho has than the Department of Agriculture, occasions. On an average of about every closed down, that miners are completely since it deals directly with agricultural 3 months or 5 months he has gone back out of work and are walking the streets matters, including the raising of fur for another $5,000 or more to cover his seeking employment, and that many of bearing animals. If, as the Senator from operating and living expenses. I should them are destitute, and are now or will Delaware says, it has advanced money like to know how well that individual is
soon be on relief? That is the situation with which to pay interest to the Gov- living. There are a great many people in the giant Coeur d'Alene mining area. ernment merely in order to keep the who could use more money with which to If loans are to be made to farmers enloans in good shape, that would appear pay their living expenses.
gaged in the fur industry, where are we to the Senator from Michigan to be one
Mr. FERGUSON. Does the Senator to draw the line? The Senator from of the absurdities. Those responsible have any evidence that the money refor that are the ones who should be criti. ferred to is being used to pay living ex- speak on the subject of the mining in,
Nevada and I expect later in the day to cized. It is not a matter of criticism of penses? If he has, I should think that dustry in the State of Idaho.. Would the Congress for having tried to save
the person in the Department of Agri- the Senator from Delaware be in favor the fur industry originally, at a time
culture who approved the loan for that of saving the mine owners and operwhen other people were receiving loans.
purpose should be discharged imme- ators? Various other groups of farmers were
diately. getting loans, and the same privilege was
Mr. WILLIAMS. I think there is no being extended to the fur farmers. If have is that which I received from the in this activity at all, we cannot single
Mr. WILLIAMS. All the evidence I question that if we are going to engage the authority was abused, the criticism Department of Agriculture itself. I have should be on the department responsi
out one industry or a handful of indible for it, and I, for one, wish to say on
before me a letter from the Department viduals, or, as in this case, almost single the floor of the Senate that any emof Agriculture, Farmers' Home Adminis
out 6 or 8 men in the United States who ployee of the Department of Agriculture Administrator, under date of May 1, 1952, gram. I refer to the particular indi
tration, signed by Dillard B. Lasseter, are benefitting primarily from this prowho abuses authority conferred by the from which I read: Congress should be discharged. To ad
viduals who are borrowing $100,000 or vance money merely to keep a loan in Loans are made to cover necessary expenses $200,000. This is special privilege legisgood shape by paying the interest to the directly related to the breeding, feeding, and lation in its worst form. Government is in my opinion an absurd marketing of animals and pelts, including
We did a lot of speechmaking in the minor repairs to buildings, the purchase of ity, and no one should do it.
last campaign and said we were opposed essential equipment needed in the business, I ask the Senator, if the power or au and living expenses for the applicant.
to the extension of the RFC because of thority to loan money to borrowers was
recent examples of influence-peddling not for the purpose of enabling them
Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, will and scandals. We campaigned against to avoid going broke, and so that they the Senator yield further?
the very things which are now being would be able to repay the money owed
Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield.
asked to be approved. The states of to the Federal Government. If not, then Mr. FERGUSON. Does that refer to
Michigan and Colorado are not glaring the borrower should not get the money, an original loan, and is there any law
examples. For instance, in the State of and we should not extend the authority authorizing the loaning of money to peoto let him have it. As I understand, the ple for the
purpose of paying their living Wisconsin, as I have previously pointed purpose is merely to keep the borrowers expenses and to provide personal sup
out, 80 percent of the money, or $325,000, in business, in order that they may re port?
loaned in connection with fur farming pay what they now owe to the Govern Mr. WILLIAMS. This was in refers in that State went to one man. We are ment.
ence to any loan, as it has operated, and giving to that man authority to continue Mr. WILLIAMS. That is correct. in the pending bill there is exactly the borrowing, if he wants to, over and over
Mr. FERGUSON. That is a good same authority, so far as such individ again from the United States Governthing. But if there are abuses then uals are concerned. There is no dif- ment, for the next 5 years. Why?