United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

That case thus established the principle that when the United States makes a treaty on a subject within the treaty power the Congress can enact legislation to implement the treaty which it might not have power to enact in the absence of a treaty, and may thus enter a field normally reserved to the States.

That principle has been accepted without serious opposition for over 30 years. Senator BRICKER has in the past stated he favored it. Senate Joint Resolution 43 would kill the principle which stems directly from the express words of the Constitution and also from early cases (Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dall. 199 (1796) was the first of them).

Senate Joint Resolution 43, in part would amend the Constitution by adding thereto: "A provision of a treaty which conflicts with any provision of this Constitution shall not be of any force or effect. A treaty shall become effective as internal law in the United States only through legislation which would be valid in the absence of treaty."

The first sentence in this last proposal is based on the assumption that under the Constitution as it now stands a treaty may be valid although it violates the Constitution. There is no substantial basis for that assumption. The second sentence of the proposal would abolish the rule established in Missouri v. Holland. The result would be that even if a treaty deals within an appropriate subject of international agreement the Congress would have no power to implement it or make it effective in the United States, unless the subject matter were one on which Congress could legislate in absence of a treaty. Such a treaty as that with Canada relating to migratory birds would have no effect in States which did not pass legislation in accord with the treaty. Treaties giving aliens the right to do business or own or inherit land, with reciprocal rights for our citizens abroad, could be put into effect in any State only by State legislation. Even the treaty ending the Revolutionary War would be made unconstitutional. The effectiveness here of treaties on many other subjects plainly appropriate subjects of international agreements would depend entirely on approval by State legislation. The President and Senate would be left with power to make treaties on proper subjects of international agreement, but the Congress would be shorn of power to enact legislation to discharge our international obligations. Nothing in our past experience justifies such drastic measures.

The theory that under paragraph 2 of article VI a treaty may be supreme over the Constitution or that a treaty which violates any provision of the Constitution can be of any effect is without any basis in reason or in any adjudicated case. Treaties and statutes are on the same level and the Constitution is supreme over both. It will be noted that in paragraph 2 of article VI it is stated that this Constitution and the laws of the

United States which shall be made in pur

suance thereof; and all treaties made or which shall be made, under authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land. The fact that in mentioning treaties it is not said treaties måde in pursuance of the Constitution has been seized upon to support the argument that laws must be consistent with the Constitution, but treaties may be effective even though they violate the Constitution. It seems absurd to contend that a law enacted by the House, plus, the Senate, plus the President, must conform to Constitution, but that a treaty made only by the Senate and the President is valid even if it conflicts with the Constitution. To accept that contention would lead to the absurd concusion that a treaty may set aside a provision of the Constitution, although a statute later in point of time may abrogate a treaty. This slight variation in paragraph 2

of article VI leads to no such result and is hopelessly inadequate as a reason for attempting a constitutional amendment.

Sponsors of this proposal refer to it as the most important constitutional issue since the Civil War. Certainly it would disunite the United States in the foreign field in the devastating manner of secession.

This proposal and the differing but drastic limitations on our sovereign power proposed by Senator BRICKER would not have received the hearing they have had were it not for the assertions made that treaties might override the Bill of Rights. We reported last year that we were not convinced that any treaty conflicting with any provision of the Constitution is of any force. We are pleased to report that the Attorney General of the United States, Mr. Herbert Brownell, confirms our position.

Proponents of an amendment are fond of pointing to a speech made by Mr. John Foster Dulles in 1952 indicating that treaties might cut across the Bill of Rights but in the same speech he advocated further study of the whole problem. This has led him, as Secretary of State in 1953, to agree with the Attorney General that treaties rank only on equality with congressional enactments.

SENATOR BRICKER WOULD MAKE PEACE

UNCONSTITUTIONAL

If we are to protect our homes and cities from atomic destruction, we must have supervision and control of atomic bomb production. Only an international body can do this job, as our country proposed in the Baruch plan. But such supervision would necessarily involve an international body investigating and supervising matters essentially domestic and also rights of citizens in the production facilities of atomic bombs. As President Eisenhower said, supervision is But essential to reduction of armament. Senate Joint Resolution 1 makes the process unconstitutional.

For no apparent reason, Senator BRICKER would also cut off Americans from the right to have their rights adjudicated by an international claims commission or the International Court of Justice (if the United States should sponsor their cases).

In many other ways too long to enumerate here, section 2 of Senate Joint Resolution 1 would cut us off from our friends and allies and isolate us in this dangerous world. NEEDLESS REDTAPE ON TREATY RATIFICATION Both Senate Joint Resolution 1 and Senate Joint Resolution 43 would require a treaty to have five separate approvals before becoming effective as internal law. These approvals are:

1. Presidential signature on treaty.

2. Ratification by two-thirds of Senators voting.

3. Passage of supporting law by majority of House.

4. Passage of supporting law by majority of Senate.

5. Presidential signature on law.

mandatory procedure. It is a far cry even No other country in the world has such a from the simple proposal that treaties be ratified by a majority of each House which passed the House a few years ago. It is also wholly unnecessary since, when desired, the procedure can be required under the Constitution now. But it does not have to be each time, as these proposals would necessitate. THE POWER OF THE PRESIDENT IS ESSENTIAL TO THE PROTECTION OF THE UNITED STATES This country learned, in the days of the Continental Congress, that the legislature cannot fight wars. So the President is the constitutional Commander in Chief. But under Senator BRICKER's section 4 even the most routine agreements of an American general under battle conditions, if made with an ally, would require congressional authority. Congress cannot foresee everything. Only the enemy would be free from this

paralysis. We need only to look at the example of France to see that an all-supreme legislature may lose the liberties of a country through inability to exercise its power. Under our Constitution, the Executive, subject to checks and balances, has power to act when the Nation's existence is at stake. The congressional power to investigate, to confirm appointments and to appropriate money is a large weight in the scale. To encumber the President further than at present is not in the interest of the security of the United States.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons outlined, your committee is of the opinion that the proposals outlined in Senate Joint Resolution 1 and Senate Joint Resolution 43 are unnecessary, unwise, divisive, and dangerous. Your committee has adopted the following resolution:

"Whereas various proposals to amend the Constitution of the United States (known in the 83d Cong., 1st sess. as S. J. Res. 1 and S. J. Res. 43) have been the subject of hearings by a subcommittee of the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary;

"Whereas at such hearings the administration of President Eisenhower opposed such proposals as unnecessary, as not responsive to any constitutional need, and as dangerous to the country;

"Whereas such proposals have been reported on adversely by the Committee on Amendments to the Federal Constitution for the reasons outlined in its report:

"Resolved, That such proposals to amend the Constitution of the United States are opposed.

"Committee on Amendments to the

Federal Constitution: William D.
Mitchell, chairman; Lewis R. Gulick,
Henry S. Manley, Harrison Tweed,
John W. Davis, John J. Mackrell, Ken-
neth C. Royall.

"MAY 28, 1953.

"Note by the chairman: Since the preparation of this report, the Judiciary Committee of the United States Senate, by a divided vote, has reported out of committee to the Senate the following resolution embodying a constitutional amendment which is not materially different from Senate Joint Resolution 43:

"Joint resolution (as amended and approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee on June 4, 1953) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, relating to the legal effect of certain treaties and executive agreements

"Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

APPENDIX A-PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

Operative sections of Senate Joint
Resolution 1

1. A provision of a treaty which denies or abridges any right enumerated in this Constitution shall not be of any force or effect.

2. No treaty shall authorize or permit any foreign power or any international organization to supervise, control, or adjudicate rights of citizens of the United States within the United States enumerated in this Constitution or any other matter essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States.

3. A treaty shall become effective as internal law in the United States only through the enactment of the appropriate legislation by the Congress.

4. All Executive or other agreements between the President and any international organization, foreign power, or official thereof shall be made only in the manner and to the extent to be prescribed by law. Such agreements shall be subject to the limitations imposed on treaties or the making of treaties by this article.

5. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Operative sections of Senate Joint Resolution 43

1. A provision of a treaty which conflicts with any provision of this Constitution shall not be of any force or effect.

2. A treaty shall become effective as internal law in the United States only through legislation which would be valid in the absence of treaty.

3. Executive agreements shall be subject to regulation by the Congress and to the limitations imposed on treaties by this article.

4. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

OF

EXTENSION AUTHORITY TO MAKE LOANS TO FUR FARMERS

Mr. HENDRICKSON. Mr. President, I move that the Senate proceed to the

consideration of Calendar 485, S. 1152.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the bill by title.

The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. A 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 motion of the Senator from New Jersey.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate proceeded to consider the bill (S. 1152), which had been reported from the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry with an amendment, in line 10, after the numerals "1958", to insert "for the purpose only of making necessary supplementary advances to fur farmers now indebted for loans made under the foregoing authority", so as to make the bill read:

Be it enacted, etc., That the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture under section 1 (a) (1) of the act of April 6, 1949 (63 Stat. 43; 12 U. S. C. 1148a-1) to make loans to bona fide fur farmers in accordance with the last proviso in the paragraph headed "Regional Agricultural Credit Corporation" in title II of the Government Corporations Appropriation Act, 1949 (62 Stat. 1192), is hereby extended for the 5-year period ending on June 30, 1958, for the purpose only of making necessary supplementary advances to fur farmers now indebted for loans made under the foregoing authority.

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Mr. President, the purpose of this bill is to extend

for a period of 5 years the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture to make loans to fur farmers on a limited basis. I stress the words "a limited basis." I shall describe the limitations in a moment.

Less than 5 years ago the Congress established a loan program for the fur farmer. The purpose of this bill is to extend that loan privilege for 5 years additional, so that loans which have been made may be liquidated without any loss to either the persons obtaining the loans or to the Federal Government. This extension would limit loans to those who have already obtained loans. It would not permit additional loans to people who are not already borrowing money from the fund.

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

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I yield. Mr. LANGER. What is included in What is included in fur farming? What is the definition of fur-bearing animals?

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. The bill deals with fur farmers. It does not deal with fur-bearing animals. We talk about fur farmers—farmers who produce furbearing animals for commercial purposes. Such animals include mink, silver fox, and other animals used for the production of fur.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. PAYNE in the chair). The Senator will suspend until the Senate is in order. It is extremely difficult for the official reporters to report the debate unless there can be order.

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I will say to my friend from North Dakota that in 1949, for example, it was estimated by the Department of Agriculture that there were 7,000 fur farmers in the United States. At the present time there are about 5,000. Like some other categories of operators, they are beginning to pass out of the picture.

Mr. LANGER. I understand that the Russians are selling more furs in this country than they should. I am very sympathetic toward the bill and intend to vote for it.

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I am glad to hear the Senator say that.

Mr. LANGER. However, I am interested in knowing what fur-bearing animals are raised by fur farmers. What animals form the basis for these loans?

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. There is no distinction. Whatever fur-bearing animals the farmer produces, he is eligible for a loan.

Mr. LANGER. A cat has fur. Would the distinguished Senator say that a loan could be made to a farmer who raised cats?

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I am sure that I would not say that. The Secretary of Agriculture would probably turn down the application for such a loan. The loans about which we are talking were made in the 5-year period prior to the present time.

Mr. LANGER. Could not the Senator give us a list of the loans which have been made and tell us on what kind of animals they were based?

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I cannot give a list of the kind of animals, but I am sure that if I could furnish the Senator such a list, he would find that

it would be confined exclusively, or almost exclusively, to fox, mink, and perhaps muskrat. I do not believe it would include beaver, but there might even be some beaver.

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

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I should like to satisfy the Senator from North Dakota first. If the Senator from Montana can throw any light on the question, I am glad to yield to him.

Mr. MURRAY. Fur farming has become a well-recognized industry in the United States. Of course, it is confined to animals which provide fur of a character which is suitable for use in the fur industry.

Mr. LANGER. It certainly would include rabbits, would it not?

Mr. MURRAY. No; it would not include rabbits. It might include chinchilla rabbits.

Mr. LANGER. Ladies wear jackets made of rabbit skins.

Mr. MURRAY. But that is not a fur which would fall within this category, because rabbits are so plentiful that it is not necessary to make any provision for loans to those who provide rabbit skins.

Mr. LANGER. Rabbits may be plentiful in Montana, but they are not plentiful in my State.

Mr. MURRAY. At any rate, the furfarming industry is one which has been built up over the years, and requires a considerable investment. It seems to me that in periods when the industry is in distress it should be entitled to the privilege of securing loans.

Mr. LANGER. All I want is a definition of the term "fur farmer." I should like to know on what animals the loans are to be based. Would a rabbit farm

be included?

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Loans are made to fur farmers. That is the way the bill reads. way the bill reads. That is the way the original bill read. This bill does not deal with fur-bearing animals. It deals with fur farmers. with fur farmers. They produce commercial furs.

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

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I yield. Mr. WILLIAMS. To help clarify the question asked by the Senator from North Dakota, I think it is safe to say that if rabbits or any other types of furbearing animal are raised, a farmer may obtain a loan. Then the money can be used for the improvement of his home, for his living expenses, or for many other purposes.

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I do not agree with what the Senator from Delaware gives as his definition of a fur farmer. I do not believe the Department of Agriculture and those who are in charge of this loan program would handle the funds recklessly. The reason I say that is that in the experience we have had with this program 87 percent of the loans made have been returned to the Federal Treasury. I am very positive that the program has not been handled recklessly or extravagantly, or against the public interest.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Without getting into a discussion of whether or not the program has been handled extravagantly

or recklessly, I say that loans have been made without restrictions. There is nothing to prevent a man from using such a loan for the repair of his buildings, for his living expenses, or for some other type of farm expenses. All he has to do to qualify is to have fur-bearing animals on the farm, to call himself a fur farmer.

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. The Bureau of the Budget says this measure is all right. The proposed extension of the act is limited. It would not take in a new group of fur farmers. It would include only fur farmers who have already borrowed. The bill would make it possible to make further loans to them. That is done in order that the loans which are already outstanding may be liquidated without loss to the fur farmer and without loss to the Government.

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

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I yield. Mr. MILLIKIN. I was just about to suggest that the money which has been loaned, of course, has not been loaned directly to the fur-bearing animal. It has been loaned for the purpose of erecting sheds or shelters and for the purpose of providing various other facilities on the fur farm. It may be used for feed and other things.

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Yes. The loans may be used for all the purposes which the Senator has mentioned. A loan could also be used to permit the farmer to carry furs which he was unable to sell, in order that he might avoid selling them on a panicky market. He would thus be enabled to market them in an orderly fashion, to his best advantage and to the best advantage of the country.

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

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I yield. Mr. MILLIKIN. The distinguished Senator will undoubtedly remember that in 1946 countries abroad which had been piling up furs during the war suddenly dumped them into this country. In 1 year we received more than $100 million worth of furs from Russia. The impact of all those importations put many of our fur farmers out of business, bankrupting them on a widespread scale. Pelts went from $35 for a silver fox, as I recall, down to $10. That situation was brought to the attention of the Congress, and it was decided to afford some relief to fur farmers. Is not that correct?

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. That is correct. All that happened during a very prosperous time in this country,

not during a time of depression. It was at a time when the Nation was very prosperous. That disaster happened to the fur farmers for the reasons stated by my colleague. It was for those very reasons that the Congress responded to this necessity and provided a loan program.

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

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I yield. Mr. WILLIAMS. I point out to the Senator from Colorado that I was merely stating the position of the Department of Agriculture as set forth in its own letter, signed by Mr. Lassiter, the administrator of this program,

Included in the purposes for which the loans could be made, as the Senator from Colorado pointed out, were feeding the animals, construction of buildings, and living expenses of the applicants, for example. So it covers a multitude of purposes. The figure of 87 percent as repayment is like some other figures we have heard mentioned, probably purely an imaginary figure, which cannot be supported. The figures quoted in the letter contradict the 87 percent figure.

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I do not know how imaginary the figure is. It was submitted by the Acting Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, Mr. J. Earl Coke, under date of June 16, 1953. I do not think an official report to the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry would contain imaginary figures. I believe the report would be based on facts.

Mr. MILLIKIN. Mr. President Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I yield to my colleague.

Mr. MILLIKIN. In the letter to

which the Senator has referred it is stated:

Of the total of $4,362,333 advanced under this program through December 31, 1952, $2,798,274 had been repaid as of that date.

I am inclined to believe that it would be possible to "imagine" those figures down to the penny, but I doubt whether that was done.

Mr. MILLIKIN. I am very glad it has been developed that no new loans are involved. I believe at the beginning of his remarks the Senator emphasized the fact that this is not a program of making new loans to new people.

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. That is correct.

Mr. MILLIKIN. The purpose is to give an opportunity to make an orderly liquidation of loans which have already been made.

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. That is correct. That is stating the situation exactly as it is.

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

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I yield to my colleague.

Mr. MILLIKIN. We can well afford at least to liquidate in an orderly fashion the loans which have been made. It should be remembered that such loans cannot be obtained from a bank, or they would have been granted by a bank in the first place. That is why the Government got into the business. We cannot say to the fur farmers who have the outstanding loans, "We will cut you off. You can get your money from the bank.” They cannot do it.

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Every word the Senator has said is the truth. That is the way the matter has been handled. So far as I am concerned, to

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

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I yield. Mr. LANGER. What is the total amount of the loans?

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. My colleague has already read the figure as being $4,362,333.

Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, I think it is a very good bill and it should be passed.

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I thank the Senator from North Dakota. I am glad to have him say so. I feel that way about it, too. We should help our people by providing loans for them when they are overtaken by a disaster. I will say to the Senator from North Dakota that the funds out of which the loans are made are the same funds out of which the Department of Agriculture makes disaster loans. I do not exaggerate when I say to the Senator from North Dakota that the fur farmers were facing disaster; indeed, I may say they facing disaster; indeed, I may say they were facing a twofold disaster. They were facing the disaster of heavy importation of Russian and Norwegian and Labrador furs, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, they were faced with very high excise taxes placed upon fur garments. The Congress of the United States placed those excise taxes on furs. We are in partnership with the fur farmers and we ought to try to help them. The Government gets in taxes 20 percent of the price for which every fur garment is sold. So we are really partners of this is sold. So we are really partners of this group of farmers.

insinuation that the loans were not used in the right way, or that they may have been used for construction of buildings, and so forth. I have confidence that and so forth. they were used for the very purpose for which Congress made them available. I doubt that there has been any recklessness in the program at all, because we usually find out about such things. For example, if a neighbor sees a fur farmer building himself a large mansion on a hill, the neighbor would probably call our attention to it.

Our attention has not been called to any such thing going on. This is the first time I have heard any hint that any of the loans were used improperly. Mr. MILLIKIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further?

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I yield.

Mr. MILLIKIN. Is it not correct to say that the Department of Agriculture urged returning veterans in World War II to get into the fur-farming business?

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. That is correct. The Department of Agriculture did that. A great many of them lost their shirts.

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

Mr. MILLIKIN. Then we proceeded to make it possible for the foreign importations to come in and put the veterans out of business. Is that correct?

Mr. LANGER. I thank the distinguished Senator.

Mr. LANGER.

Senator yield?

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I yield to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. LANGER. Can the distinguished Senator tell us what the amount of the average loan is?

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I cannot tell the amount of the average loan.

Mr. LANGER. I should like to find out whether the loans were made to huge corporations, for example.

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. No. The loans were made to the little fellows, to the very small people. In 1950, 143 loans were made. In 1951, 85 loans were made. In 1952, 47 loans were made. In 1953, 37 loans were made. So a total of 312 loans was made. I cannot tell what the average size of the loan may have been. I do not have the data with me. I shall be glad to get it from the Department of Agriculture and place it in the RECORD.

Mr. WILLIAMS. What would that amount to in dollars?

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. If a fur farmer had 1,000 mink, of which the fair market value of a good mink, I suppose, is perhaps $35, that would amount to a total of $35,000; and that would be a good-sized fur farm.

Mr. WILLIAMS. That would be a big fur farm, would it?

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. It would be one of the larger ones.

Mr. WILLIAMS. The Senator from Colorado thinks most of the fur farmers, on the average, operate on a smaller scale than that, does he?

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I think they probably have 300 animals, on the average, at perhaps $50 or less per animal.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Let me say that at the time this measure was before our committee, I, too, was of the same im

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I yield. Mr. MILLIKIN. Is it not correct to say also that the farmers must try to do the best they can, and that the Department will take a mortgage on the property, and take as security everything it can get its hands on?

That is

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. correct. The Department of Agriculture does not simply make a loan on a promissory note. It takes a mortgage and gets the best paper it can get.

I yield now to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, did I correctly understand the Senator from Colorado to say that while the animals were losing their skins, the veterans were losing their shirts?

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Colorado. That may be one way of putting it. But the veterans did not lose their shirts, whereas I am sure the animals lost their hides or fur or skin.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BENNETT in the chair). Does the Senator from Colorado yield to the Senator from Delaware?

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I yield. Mr. WILLIAMS. When the Senator When the Senator said, a few minutes ago, that the purpose of the bill is to help the little fur farmers, what did the Senator mean in referring to the "little fur farmers"? We do not have such farmers in the East. Do those operations involve a million dollars or half a million dollars or how much?

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. It is in the thousands of dollars.

by the Senator from Colorado, and therefore the bill was reported without objection from the Committee on Agriculture tion from the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.

However, later I was told that perhaps we had been misinformed. I requested that the bill be held up until the committee obtained more information, because there are some things about the bill cause there are some things about the bill which I do not understand, and which I think many other Senators do not understand. In this bill we are not dealing with small farmers; we are dealing with big business.

For example, let us refer to the loans outstanding in Wisconsin, under this program. The original grant of loans outstanding in Wisconsin were $390,965. There are 11 borrowers in Wisconsin, and they have had 21 loans. Those 11 borrowers, representing 21 loans, have borrowed from the Government $390,965.

I was amazed to find that 1 man borrowed 80 percent of all that money; he borrowed exactly $325,000. Is that a little farmer?

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Of course, in Wisconsin, fur farming is more of a business than it is in Colorado. My experience is confined to Colorado and to the Colorado fur farms. I have visited a number of them, and they are very small. I cannot speak for Wisconsin, because the fur farms in Wisconsin are larger than those in Colorado. But I am sure that even including some larger loans made to fur farmers in Wisconsin, the situation cannot be very bad when there are more than 300 borrowers and when, so far, the total loans amount to only $4 million, approximately.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. PURTELL in the chair). Does the Senator from Colorado yield to the Senator from Delaware?

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I yield. Mr. WILLIAMS. I may say that although the situation in Wisconsin is an extreme one-I grant that-nevertheless I think there are some things in the

Senator's own State of Colorado that he might well examine. For instance, according to the report of the Department of Agriculture, exactly 29 persons in Colorado are affected by this bill. Those 29 persons have had advanced to them a total of 114 loans, and they have received from the Government a total of $735,386.75.

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. How much have they paid back?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I do not have that figure, but the balance they owe or the balance due is $554,471.11, plus $26,647.49 interest.

I may say that 21 of these 29 accounts with the Government are delinquent, and 4 of the 29 persons received more than 66 percent of the loans that have been made in Colorado. Are they the little fellows the Senator is so concerned about?

Mr. MILLIKIN. Mr. President, will my colleague yield to me?

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I yield. Mr. MILLIKIN. Does not that emphasize the importance of giving the Government a chance to get out from under these loans, and to provide for having them liquidated in an orderly fashion?

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Of course. That is the purpose and that is the effect of the bill, namely, to give the Department of Agriculture an opportunity to work out these loans.

Once more I wish to emphasize that this loan provision will not be made available to new borrowers. It merely will help those who already have received loans to work out their loan situation. Thus this proposal does not call for an expanded or extended program.

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

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I yield. Mr. WILLIAMS. Does not that emphasize a somewhat unfair feature of the bill? For instance, according to the Department of Agriculture's figures, there are approximately 5,000 fur farmers today. Among those 5,000 fur farmers, only 304 loans are outstanding, and there are 131 borrowers. Any fur farmer who has been thrifty and has paid off his loan will not be eligible, whereas those 131 who remain under obligation to the Government will be permitted to continue borrowing as usual for living expenses or anything else they might need.

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I know the Senator from Delaware does not indulge in double talk, but it seems to me that either we wish to get rid of this program or we do not wish to get rid of it. The effect of the bill is to get rid of the program, not to keep carrying it on for ever and ever and a day.

On the contrary, we wish to end the program, and to do so without destruction of some of the poor fellows in this industry who have been caught.

If the Senator from Delaware wishes to have an extended program, and wishes to have the program expanded, and wishes to have an increased amount available for loans, and wishes to increase the eligibility of fur farmers to receive loans, that is all right, although

that is not the purpose of this bill. This bill is restrictive and limited. One of the reasons why it is restrictive and limited is so that the bill can be passed by both Houses of Congress.

That is the situation. If the Senator from Delaware wishes to have a larger program, if he is complaining that the program is too restrictive, that can easily be changed, although I am not in favor of doing so.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Perhaps the Senator from Colorado would be in favor of taking such action for the benefit of his constituents, but you may be certain I am not in favor of expanding the program. On the contrary, I wonder when we are going to restrict it.

A moment ago the junior Senator from Colorado pointed out to the Senator from North Dakota how this bill will help many little farmers throughout the country. I may say that if the bill is passed, not one farmer in North Dakota will be able to obtain a loan, under the provisions of the bill, because it so happens that not one North Dakota farmer owes any money under this program. Thrift is penalized.

In the case of Illinois, only one person in Illinois would be eligible for a loan, but there is no limit on the amount of money he could borrow.

Mr. LANGER. Let me say that the reason why North Dakota farmers are not covered is that they have paid back their loans, including interest on them. They have completely paid off their loans.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I commend them for it. Certainly they should not be penalized.

Mr. MILLIKIN. I should like to ask how the North Dakota farmers would be penalized.

Mr. WILLIAMS. In this connection let us make a comparison with the RFC. We are talking about abolishing the RFC, just as we are talking about abolishing this fur-farmer-loan program.

Suppose, however, instead of planning to abolish the RFC., someone came forward with a measure proposing that the RFC could not make loans to new borrowers, but could continue to make new loans to all old borrowers-in other words, to those who already had a foot in the door. Certainly Congress would not consider for a moment passing such a bill. The Senator knows that we would never support any such bill as that; yet that is exactly the kind of bill we are being asked to support today.

loans outstanding. loans outstanding. The loans in the State of Colorado represent 40 percent of the outstanding loans, according to the statement. There are 29 men in the State of Colorado who had this money, and who borrowed under 114 loans. They owe today $554,471.11, plus interest, as I pointed out before.

Mr. MILLIKIN. The Senator indulges in easy assumptions. He refers to pouring the money down a rathole. I did not know that we had authorized anybody to pour money down a rathole. The purpose is to try to save an investment. How would the Senator meet the situation? Would he have all of it

Mr. WILLIAMS.

If the Senator will If the Senator will let me conclude, I shall then be glad to yield. Twenty-one of the twenty-nine Colorado accounts are delinquent. The argument has been made that they are small concerns. Four of them have borrowed $345,000, or two-thirds of all the accounts, and all of these four are delinquent. These are the little boys the Senator is so concerned about. Two of them have borrowed 40 percent of all the money, and their total is $225,000. Both accounts are delinquent. Some more poor little fellows.

stuff; pay what you can"? Is that the Senator's suggestion of the procedure to be followed in handling this matter? Or shall enough leeway be allowed to the lending agency to enable it to try to get the money back and to try to rehabilitate the borrower at the same time? What is the Senator's method?

Mr. WILLIAMS. The Senator's method is to stop loaning money to any man who has a record of having borrowed on nine different occasions without paying once. I may say to the Senator from Colorado that if the pending bill is not passed these loans are not

Mr. WILLIAMS. One of the men owes another $122,000. He had had a series of nine loans. Each time, a part of the money has been used to make a

payment to the Government, and a part of it, for new financing. But his account is gradually becoming bigger, month by month. The purpose of the pending bill is to continue the making of such loans. This particular individual started in 1949, and we have been loaning him money constantly. Every 3, 4, or 5 months, he has been back in the Federal till, and he still owes the first loan he ever made.

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

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

Mr. MILLIKIN. Will the Senator supply the gentleman's financial statement, so we may determine whether further loans should be made to him in the future?

Mr. WILLIAMS. If the Government

does not have his financial statement before this, it is too late now.

Mr. MILLIKIN. Then how can the

Senator judge the case? How can he determine whether the individual's financial circumstances warranted or did not warrant the making of additional loans, following the making of the original loan?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I am not judging the case. I am merely pointing out the

Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield.

Mr. MILLIKIN. I am unable to determine whether the Senator's complaint is that too many people received loans, or that not enough people received loans. What is the Senator's point?

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I may say that is my difficulty.

Mr. WILLIAMS. If the senior Senator from Colorado will permit, I should like to continue and I have a feeling you are beginning to realize where I stand.

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I will yield, because I am very curious, and my curiosity is getting the better of me.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, there were 131 borrowers, with a total of 304

knows, it is good business to make a loan to a man who is financially able; and if these men are financially able, then, let them make a payment to the Federal Government. If the facts seem to judge the case, then let them speak loudly. Extending a loan to a man who, during the period I have mentioned, has borrowed money from the Government on nine different occasions, without repaying it, does not make sense. If for 5 years a man cannot make a go of his operation, someone should call a halt. Shall we continue pouring the money down a rathole?

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

Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield.

ity to extend the time for 1 year, or for 5 years. There is no provision in the law that says the loans must be paid. Certainly I will go along, to give them a chance but I do not want them to con

tinue pouring money I will not say

down a rathole, but down a foxhole, or a minkhole if you like, if that phrase is better.

Mr. MILLIKIN. Mr. President, regardless of the individual's occupation, or the type of hole it is, I suggest the point is that an opportunity should be given to try to rehabilitate him, and to do it in a sound way, in order that the debt may be liquidated. Sometimes it involves more money, sometimes it means clamping down. It is a matter of judgment. But, most respectfully, I suggest that the distinguished Senator who is standing on the floor is not qualified to judge exactly how those loans should be handled. I suggest that we should allow enough time to the proper authorities to enable them to do the job.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I agree with the statement of the Senator from Colorado that I am not qualified to answer all these questions. It is for that reason that I thought it important that I submit this material to the appropriate committee of Congress in order that a proper study may be made of it. But the policy committee insisted upon this being brought up on the floor of the Senate as urgent legislation. In extending the fur loan agency we could almost interpret the initials RFC to signify the "Royal Fur Corporation," if we wanted to. We simply do not want to get the Government in a position of owning too many mink coats during the present administration.

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

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

Mr. DOUGLAS. Is it not true, financially as well as practically, that a fox hole is deeper and broader than a rat hole?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Apparently it is, from the amount of money that has been going down the hole.

I may say that the second Colorado borrower to whom I refer owes the Government, not on a single loan, but on