bill, for 5 weeks, a bill which passed the other body without a single dissenting vote. Five weeks, I might note, is more time than has been devoted by our committee to all of the following bills-housing, International Monetary Fund, the gold reserve requirement, coinage, permission to grant the commercial right to banks to deal with revenue bonds.

Mr. PATMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the

Adair

Griffiths

Hardy

Harvey, Ind.

Moss

Multer

Pirnie

Farnum

Martin, Mass.

Mr. BROCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, it has been a long day and I know we are all tired, so I rise with some reluctance to address myself to this bill. However, I do want to make a couple of points on the rule.

I am opposed to it for two basic reasons: First of all, I do not understand the need for haste in the consideration of this legislation. Second, I do not beSecond, I do not believe that this is the proper way for this body to legislate.

I find it rather ironic to note that the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency has before the House today three resolutions to discharge the Committee on Rules from consideration of legislation. I recall the gentleman from Texas was one of us who voted against the adoption of the 21-day rule last January. Also it is very curious that he is now championing the cause of expediency and asking the House to act with speed and dispatch in view of the fact that our committee has been considering another bill, the bank merger

Mr. PATMAN. I think the gentleman is mistaken in his statement that I voted against the 21-day rule.

Mr. BROCK. If I am, I apologize. I thought that was the fact of the matter. I think it is also somewhat ironic that after just having voted on a piece of civil rights legislation, most of us received today a letter from the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary asking us to oppose this rule on the grounds that it is singlepurpose and class type legislation. Why is haste required? For 7 years the Federal Reserve Board has been coming before our committee with a request to remove all exemptions, not just one.

Mr. POOL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BROCK. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. POOL. What religious organizations are affected by this amendment to the Banking Holding Company Act? I have been trying to figure out from this report what it affects and what organizations it affects.

Mr. BROCK. To my knowledge, the ment to the Bank Holding Company Act only organization affected by this stateis the du Pont charitable foundation for crippled children.

Mr. POOL. They have this in the report:

During the hearings it was attempted to ascertain what organizations would be brought under the broadened bill, but your committee was unable to develop

information.

this

I want to know what it does cover. Does it cover Catholics, Baptists, Methodist, Masons, Knights of Columbus. I have never seen anything like it.

Mr. BROCK. I thank the gentleman for his contribution.

The committee in its wisdom was not able to find out, either.

Mr. POOL. This is a single-shot piece of legislation aimed at one man down in Florida who is the trustee for the Du Pont estate. That is what it is. Is that right?

Mr. BROCK. That is the essence of my objection to the rule.

Mr. POOL. It should be on be on the private bill calendar instead of here on the 21-day rule. Do you not think so?

Mr. BROCK. I agree that we should broaden the bill to increase the coverage and remove all exemptions. That is the purpose of my remarks. The Federal Reserve Board for 7 years has been requesting us to remove all exemptions from the Bank Holding Company Act. They sent 25 specific recommendations to our committee. Yet we vote out a bill,

and bring it up under the 21-day rule, which affects only one corporation. In committee in executive session I offered an amendment which would have removed all other exemptions. It was opposed on the grounds that we had not had adequate testimony on other exemptions.

The fact of the matter is that we have had substantial testimony on these other exemptions. We had, if I recall correctly, at least two members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors testify to the effect that they had consistently requested the committee to remove other exemptions.

Secondly, I question whether this bill represents a proper legislative approach for the House of Representatives. The chairman said in his initial remarks that this is a bill involving only the Du Pont estate and that is the nub of it. That is the one company affected. In the committee report the gentleman from Texas referred to, we were unable to find-that is, the committee was unable to find-any other company or organization affected by this bill. The Federal Reserve Board was asked if they could ascertain whether any other charitable organization was affected and they said they could not.

We do not consider in this bill any other area of exemption, although we have numerous other areas; agricultural cooperatives, labor unions, other banks and holding companies. The problem is that if we legislate in this body by considering those bills which affect only single areas which have achieved some degree of public attention, when there are other areas of concern, then it is literally impossible for a committee to engender support in attacking those other areas of concern. After we have taken the public heat off by passing one bill taking away the exemption from the one company which happens to have the press or some particular special interest group on its back, possibilities for further legislation in the field become slim or nonexistent.

I hope the House will defeat this rule, not because I do not think we should remove the exemption; this is a very debatable point. I personally think we should remove all exemptions from this act. We should insist that the committee, acting in full responsibility and in full knowledge of the facts, give full hearings to removing all exemptions. Then we can bring before this body legislation which is not class legislation, which is not punitive, but which is all inclusive in its scope and application to all organizations under the Bank Holding Company Act.

Mr. UDALL. Mr. Speaker, sometime between now and sunrise I hope we get down this list to the Federal salary bill which is one of the seven resolutions on the calendar today. I doubt that there are very many Members on the other side of the aisle who have not written glowing letters in the last month to the Federal employee organizations telling Federal employee organizations telling them how much you love them, what great friends of theirs you are. But you great friends of theirs you are. But you are picking a fine way to show it here tonight. I also doubt that there are very many on the other side of the Chamber who have not demanded an Chamber who have not demanded an early adjournment of Congress. If this strategy tonight succeeds, and I do not think it will, you will either delay adthink it will, you will either delay adjournment by 2 weeks or you will defeat the 1965 salary bill.

I am really intrigued with the new look in the Grand Old Party. It takes brilliant generalship, in my judgment, to revive the old coalition in the attempt revive the old coalition in the attempt to prevent consideration of a civil rights bill which two-thirds of the House said earlier tonight ought to be debated and voted upon. I think it takes brilliant strategy to defeat a pay bill for 21⁄2 million Federal employees in order to prove you love the Du Pont family.

Somebody has pointed out that the GOP controlled the House of Representatives twice in 34 years. Tonight I can understand a little better why.

Mr. BROCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. HOSMER].

Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the gentleman from Arizona, and it is this. Who was it, his side of the aisle or ours, that decided on the order in which these bills decided on the order in which these bills were to be presented? If it was his side, why did they not bring up the pay bill as the first bill?

Mr. UDALL. If the gentleman will yield, I would say that the leadership yield, I would say that the leadership decides the order in which resolutions decides the order in which resolutions are brought up. My friend, the gentleman from California, surely believes with me that the House ought to be able to work its will. If any of these 21-day resolutions are bad, then they ought to be voted down. Let us vote them either up or down. However, we stalled for up or down. However, we stalled for about 6 hours on the resolution providing for the consideration of the FEPC ing for the consideration of the FEPC bill before it was adopted by a margin of more than two-thirds of the Members voting. If the pay bill is defeated or delayed, I think the responsibility will be layed, I think the responsibility will be quite clear.

man.

Mr. HOSMER. Would this bill be subject to a point of order on the ground that it is equivalent to a bill of attainder.

Mr. BROCK. The gentleman is asking the wrong gentleman; I do not know. Mr. PATMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. UDALL].

the gentleman knows it. I want to vote for that bill just as much as he does.

Mr. UDALL. If the gentleman will yield further, I am concerned with the Federal employees' salary bill on which Federal employees' salary bill on which we have worked long and hard and it is a good bill. It either ought to be voted is a good bill. It either ought to be voted up or down. I cannot help but notice who prevented a vote on that bill.

Mr. BROCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. SIKES].

Mr. SIKES. Mr. Speaker, I believe the House of Representatives is interested in fair play in all of the legislation which it enacts.

It has been pointed out, and I reiterate the fact that this is punitive legislation, designed and pointed at one organization. This is not fair play.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Federal Reserve Board has for the past 7 years sent 25 recommendations to the Congress each year intended to eliminate imperfections in the Bank Holding Company Act. These recommendations would do away with all exemptions, not just one, not just the Du Pont exemption. These recommendations would do away with all exemptions. But they have been ignored.

Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to understand why those recommendations were ignored through all the years and why we have a bill before us at this time pointed just at the Du Pont organization.

Mr. Speaker, I carry no brief for the Du Ponts. I do appreciate the fact that they have industry located in the congressional district which it is my honor to represent. That industry provides good jobs for the people. It is a sound industry. So I do not apologize for being against legislation that is pointed only at that one organization, and which ignores and perpetuates all other exemptions.

A little later, at the appropriate time, Mr. Speaker, I believe my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. BENNETT), will offer an amendment which would bring all exempted organizations under this act in the manner which the Federal Reserve Board has recommended. It would treat everyone equally. This is fair play. I am going to vote for the gentleman's amendment. But I do believe the bill as it is now written is bad legislation. Both the rule and the bill should be defeated.

Mr. BROCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. BENNETT).

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak briefly on this act, because it does affect a concern which has very substantial headquarters in the district which I represent.

Mr. Speaker, I have made a thorough study of this legislation and I attended many of the hearings held thereon. I have come to the conclusion that this bill is an improvement over the law as the law now exists. It would be a much better bill if very substantial amendments were added to the bill.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps it would be a little in point to say something about what this bill proposes to do. For many years the banking laws of our country have said that a bank cannot also operate a nonbanking business at the same time, for various good reasons. One good reason is that perhaps that nonbanking business might slip a little here and there once in while and there might be a tendency on the part of the bank to

bail out that particular concern against the interests of the general public and to some extent of the depositors of that bank. That has been the law for quite some time.

Mr. Speaker, in 1956 a law was passed saying that even banking holding companies, concerns that owned and held banks provided that there were two banks involved-would be prevented from indulging in a nonbanking business. But when that bill went from the House of Representatives to the other body and came back, it came back with very substantial exemptions. These exThese exemptions included churches, they included labor unions, they included a good number of other concerns, including testamentary trusts.

Mr. Speaker, I personally think that the Du Pont concern, a testamentary trust, is a wonderful concern, providing great charitable benefits for the citizens of our country. Primarily crippled children and aged are assisted.

Mr. PATMAN. The gentleman is very fair in his statement, and I appreciate it personally. it personally. I believe he stated that this bill is an improvement over the present law.

Mr. BENNETT. Yes, that is true.

Mr. PATMAN. But even if the gentleman were unsuccessful in his efforts to get the bill amended, he would still vote for it?

Mr. BENNETT. Yes; Mr. Ball has taken this up with me and asked me about it. I have known Mr. Ball for most of my life. I said "You have been an example to me of great integrity, you have been an example of great independence; and I hope both of these

Mr. BENNETT. I do not want to answer it until I get through. If I get through I will be glad to answer. If I have made any mistakes I will be glad to be corrected. My time is limited. The gentleman has the floor, and he can ask me questions in his own time. I want to talk about this bill. I am trying to put this into perspective.

I came to the conclusion this bill was a good bill over the law as it now exists even though it may pick out only one concern. They cannot find any concern other than the Du Pont estate.

Let us realize that the Federal Reserve Board has repeatedly gone on record asking for all of these exemptions to be eliminated. Let us look at the paradox: a great big bank like Manufacturer's Trust with all of its numerous branches can be many times the size of the Du Pont concern and yet not be covered by the law or this bill at all, because it is one company with branches, not separate banks. There is no logic in such a legal situation. Labor unions are not covered either and there are other concerns not covered, such as churches and others. These exemptions were written in by the Senate in 1956 and passed by the House and became the law of our country. These exemptions should all be eliminated.

It would be an advantageous and a proper thing to eliminate the exemptions for testamentary trusts, such as the Du Pont trust. There is no reason why a testamentary trust owning banks should also own railroads when comparable banking concerns are prohibited from doing this. We should consider the fundamental idea established by law that a bank should not be allowed to run nonbank enterprises.

I intend at the proper time to offer an amendment to carry out all of the Fed

on the floor as I intend to vote for the bill even if it is not amended."

Mr. PATMAN. May I make this comment, and this is the testimony of Mr. Balderson, vice chairman of the board under Mr. Martin? He made this statement when he testified on this bill:

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System favors enactment of H.R. 7371.

Mr. BENNETT. I am glad they agree with me.

Mr. PATMAN. The gentleman made one statement I do not understand. He referred to handling a trust under a subsidiary.

Mr. BENNETT. I think I said Manufacturer's Trust.

Mr. PATMAN. I believe that would be very unusual. I believe the gentleman made a mistake.

Mr. BENNETT. Maybe I do not know all about banking that the gentleman from Texas does. I know that in the State of Florida you are not allowed to have branch banks. The separate banks of the Florida National Bank chain are less than 40 I am sure. There are many single banks of larger size than the entire Du Pont chain in the United States and they are not covered by this bill because their business is done by numerous branches and not by separate banks. You see the great big buildings of the branches and the assets of the branches they are all big. You think they, the branches, are big banks, but they are actually branches. I may have the wrong banking word. It is either “subsidiary" or "branch". There are certain banks of great size that have many branch banks and they are not covered. I know that to be the fact.

I know my bill would change this after my amendment is passed. If my amendment is passed, it will apply not only to a banking situation where there may be

The gentleman from Texas [Mr. PATMAN] in his first statement said we are dealing in this bill only with the Du Pont Co. This should be reason enough for everyone to vote against the rule and to vote against the bill itself. This is punitive legislation and applies to only one company. This should be sufficient reason to vote against the rule and the bill at this time when we are supposedly considering general legislation.

Mr. PATMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TALCOTT. I yield to the gentle

man.

Mr. PATMAN. It only involves one company because only one company is exempted under the law. It should never have been exempted. They got special privileges. Since that one company got the exemption, this would remove that one company.

Mr. TALCOTT. Is that statement actually accurate, Mr. Chairman? There are many exemptions made under the bank holding company act-for religious organizations and fraternal organizations and unions and so on.

Mr. PATMAN. This has nothing to do with those other exemptions. We could not include them all in one bill. Mr. TALCOTT. There are too many exemptions but they all could be included in one bill.

Mr. PATMAN. The gentleman had his day in court. I asked the gentleman to bring in any witnesses he wanted to and he never did produce any.

Mr. POOL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TALCOTT. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. POOL. The committee report says that during the hearings they attempted to ascertain what organizations would be brought in under the broadened bill, but your committee was unable to develop this information. So they do not know.

Mr. TALCOTT. Well, that is true. As a matter of fact, the bill H.R. 7371 does not take into consideration fraternal organizations, religious organizations, unions, and a number of other similar organizations.

I requested of the Federal Reserve Board a list of all the trusts that might be involved in this bill. They were unable to supply me with the names of any trusts other than the Du Pont Co. which would be involved. I personally wrote to about 10 other trusts concerning this matter, asking if there would be some likelihood of their entity being included in H.R. 7371 and each wrote back and claimed that they would not

be included under this bill. So the fact is the bill is very carefully drawn to include only the Du Pont estate and this, of course, does make it very special legislation to which I think all of us should object. We can get around this very easily. The members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System have for a number of years suggested amendments to the Bank Holding Company Act and they have submitted to the Committee on Banking and Currency a list of 25 suggestions. We could take them and incorporate all of them and have a good bill. This was suggested in committee by a sizable number of members of the committee.

I would like to quote from a letter that most of us received today which was signed by the gentleman from New York [Mr. CELLER] chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. For many years the gentleman from New York [Mr. CELLER] has been a champion of the 21day rule. He is an eminent lawyer and is chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. This is what he wrote:

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., September 10, 1965. DEAR COLLEAGUE: On September 13, House Resolution 499 will be before the House requesting a rule on H.R. 7371, a bill ostensibly designed to do away with exemptions from the provisions of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956. We urge you to vote against

the rule and the bill.

During the past 7 years, the Federal Reserve Board has sent the same 25 recommendations to the Congress designed to eliminate imperfections in the act. These recommendations would do away with all exemptions to the act, yet H.R. 7371 affects only one legal entity in the United States, the Alfred I. du Pont Estate in Jacksonville, Fla. During the course of the hearings, the statements which were submitted in support of H.R. 7371 demonstrated that the bill was not an effort made in good faith to plug the holes in the Bank Holding Company Act, but rather that the bill was aimed squarely at the Du Pont estate for reasons which have little to do with the original purpose of the act.

The bill is single-purpose, punitive legislation affecting one legal entity only-exactly the type of legislation our forefathers fled from in the old country, which led to the creation of the United States and the establishment of this House. If the Bank Holding Company Act is imperfect, let us hold hearings on the act in its entirety and eliminate any and all exemptions. Any modifi

cation through patchwork and single-purpose legislation will only serve to discrimi

EMANUEL CELLER, Member of Congress, and ROBERT L. F. SIKES, Member of Congress. That is a great combination.

Mr. PATMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HANNA. I thank the chairman chairman for yielding.

I have sat here with some real satisfaction hearing that the gentleman would like to go further than we are going. It appears to me that whenever one is against what is taking place, there are two courses he can take. He can either say, "You should not be doing it at all" or, "I do not like what you are doing, for you are not going far enough."

In order to get the record straight as to what we are doing we must realize that we have a bill which merely provides that the law of the United States is that if one owns a bank and he is in the banking business, whether there are a great many branches or there are not a great many branches has nothing to do with the Bank Holding Act. Whether you have a lot of banks or whether you have one branch, one bank with a lot of branches, has nothing to do with it. You can be in the banking business, but you cannot be in other businesses. That is what the Bank Holding Act provides. There was an exemption for testamentary trusts.

House for a long time; both Members on Gentlemen, you have been around this this side and many of you on the other side. How do amendments get into bills? Do you go in with a blanket amendment? Do you think all the people who were not covered by the bill have come in under one blanket amendment conceived at one fell swoop? Do you suppose that the labor leaders have cozened up to the people in the Du Pont Trust and said, "Fellows, let's get together and get out of that bill?" You can bet your bottom dollar that that did not happen. They got out on their own. Du Pont got out as a testamentary trust. You can be sure the fingerprints of the Du Pont Co. were carefully kept off the amend ment on the testamentary trust. they single shotted it. We are not trying to put their fingerprints on the bill now. They tried to single shot it; we are trying to single shot it.

But

It seems to me that the question of whether you should or should not take out such a provision in one fell swoop places it in the position of the fellow who came up and said to another, "How is your wife?" The second fellow said, "Compared to whom?"

The answer to the question will be somewhat different. Compared to whom?

whether a testamentary trust should be The question that is asked here is are merely saying, "Yes. You single shotted to get included out. We will have to single shot to include you in."

That is what this bill does. With all the hearings that were conducted and all the testimony that was taken on the question, that is all that came out of it: "You were included out by an initiated

amendment which was a single shot. You will by this bill be covered by the national law by this bill which is a single shot.

I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. BROCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Speaker, the issue before us is whether the resolution providing for debate on the bill should be adopted.

First, I wish to commend the gentleman from Texas for his fairness in following the precedent of the Rules Committee when they present a rule before the House in yielding half the time available to the minority side. That was the problem involved in connection with the previous resolution for considering the FEPC bill. There was no opportunity for the House to consider the merits of the question as to whether the rule should be adopted. In my judgment, the ment, the question whether a rule should be adopted-and I think in the judgment of most of the Members-depends on whether or not the committee that has considered the bill has indeed considered it, has printed hearings available, and has a written committee report. I finally got a copy of the committee report. There were only about five committee reports available on our side at the Clerk's desk. The document room is closed, and has been closed for several hours.

I tried to determine whether committee hearings were available. I understand there were committee hearings, but they are not available here in the Chamber because the committee room is closed.

In order to intelligently debate the issues-and we have been hearing about some of them, as to whether this matter has been properly prepared so that the House can consider it we need such documents.

The issue, as I see it, has been pointed up by the very brief debate on the substantive matters. The conclusion is

that this is not ready for debate at this time.

matters which come before us from the Let me point out the difference between Rules Committee and matters which come before us under the 21-day rule. Before the Rules Committee those of us who are not on the committees involved are given an opportunity, if we choose, to appear, and to say whether we have been heard or whether people we know should have been heard or have not been heard. We are given an opportunity to express our views before the Rules

Committee as to whether the matter is

the procedures of the 21-day rule? I submit that the 21-day rule is an extraordinary remedy. If it is to be used, it should be used only if the Rules Committee has not provided an adequate forum for those who would like a bill reported and for those who disagree as to whether the bill should be before the House, so that they can be heard.

ready and timely for debate.

Where can any of us be heard under

I believe the time we are spending on each one of these resolutions providing the procedures for debating these various bills should be spent to some degree in pointing out wherein the Rules Committee has failed, if at all. Perhaps the committee has failed on some of these particular bills.

I do not know why this bill could not have gotten a regular rule, if the House leadership had been interested, or if anyone had wanted to bring it up. I understand it was not even brought up before the Rules Committee.

I would assume, on something of this nature, although there is some controversy involved, the controversy might have been resolved.

I certainly do understand why the previous matter which was brought up under the 21-day rule might not have been ready for consideration. Anyone who Anyone who cared to read the committee report could read the minority views, for example, of the gentleman from Nebraska, Congressman DAVE MARTIN, which pertain to the procedures followed by the committee, as to whether the matter was ready for floor debate and the timeliness of bringing the matter before the House.

This matter should have been discussed. The majority could have worked its will. I am sure it would have.

We all saw the manner in which the gentleman from New York, the chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor, said to the minority leader [Mr. FORD], "I will yield you 10 times the amount of time I am going to use, and I am going to use 30 seconds." That was done, instead of the procedure which the gentleman from Texas used. Again I commend the gentleman from Texas for immediately yielding half of the time allotted to him to those on the other side who have points they wished to make, a total of 30 minutes.

Let me make one correction in explanation of a difference of opinion between the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. BROCK] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. PATMAN] on the vote on the 21-day rule. The gentleman from Texas pointed out that his vote was on the previous question. There was no record vote on the 21-day rule itself. That technically is correct, and I believe it explains the confusion.

we were privileged to bring it up. Do you not think that was plenty of time to give the Committee on Rules?

Mr. CURTIS. I do not want to yield further, because I want to comment on that.

This is the type of discussion I would have expected on the floor of the House during the consideration of a rule under during the consideration of a rule under the 21-day rule. This would permit members of the Committee on Rules to respond so that those of us in the House who are neither on the Banking and Currency Committee nor the Committee on Rules could vote on this with intelligence. I hope we will vote down this gence. I hope we will vote down this rule and consider this in an orderly fashion at the proper time of day.

You make the law as it should be in order to treat everyone fairly and equally. That is what we were trying to do.

We considered every amendment which was suggested. The gentleman from California offered amendments. The gentleman from Tennessee offered amendments. Amendments were offered I think by every minority Member and some majority Members. We considered every one of them. Debate was not cut off on a single one. Each amendment was fully and thoroughly discussed. Then there was a vote. Out of 12 members of the subcommittee it was a unanimous vote for this bill-a unanimous vote. Eight Democrats and four Re

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I would like to echo the remarks of the gentleman from Missouri in thanking the chairman from Missouri in thanking the chairman of the committee for his generosity in yielding time, allowing those of us who do have a concern with this rule and this bill to speak our minds. Regardless of the feelings of the gentleman from California as to our particular motivations, I point out that the Federal Reserve Board has requested that all exemptions be removed. I personally have introduced a bill to that effect. I think we are sincere

in requesting that the committee give full consideration to the entire scope of the Bank Holding Company Act. This is the Bank Holding Company Act. This is the reason why we object to this bill. It is a valid reason, I think, and we request is a valid reason, I think, and we request you vote against the rule.

Mr. TODD. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BROCK. I yield to the gentleman.

full committee and after full discussion, going into the hearings, with the printed hearings available, contrary to the remark made by the distinguished gentleman from Missouri, we acted on it. We did have full hearings on this bill.

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PATMAN. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. CURTIS. I did not say that. I said they were not here on the floor.

Mr. PATMAN. The gentleman knew have gotten the hearings or the reports that this bill was coming up. He could last Friday or last Thursday or any time last week. They were available. because they are not available tonight does not mean that they have not been available. They are available.

Just

The Federal Reserve Board endorsed this bill unanimously. These other matters can be brought up at any time that

Mr. BROCK. The gentleman knows full well the arguments which will be made against the amendment on the floor. That is the reason why we would like to have the amendment considered in committee as properly as possible.

Mr. TODD. I thank the gentleman. However, we can consider the amendments on the floor.

Mr. PATMAN. I suggest to the gentleman that the bill was reported on June 21, 1965. I asked for a rule. I

wrote Judge SMITH, the chairman of the committee, in just as courteous a way as I possibly could and in just as humble a way as I could asking him for consideration of a rule. That was June 21, 1965. We did not hear from him at all. We never heard a word from him. Every week the staff would call, and would be informed that the chairman was still considering it and had not scheduled anything on it. We waited 42 days, not 21, and filed the resolution. Then, 21 days after that, which is today,

Mr. Speaker, I would like to discuss what Mr. BROCK, the gentleman from what Mr. BROCK, the gentleman from Tennessee, just suggested, namely, that Tennessee, just suggested, namely, that this should be considered in the com

mittee. I do not believe any committee ever acted more fairly in every possible way in the consideration of a bill than way in the consideration of a bill than we acted in the consideration of this bill. we acted in the consideration of this bill. We had every witness that wanted to be heard brought before the committee. The gentleman from California [Mr. TALCOTT] said, "Can we not find somebody who will be involved in this bill?" That is the language written in the report. We asked Mr. TALCOTT to find somebody. That was all right. We never necessarily know who is involved in bills.

are other bills pending on this subject before your committee. We will consider these bills. However, I was thinking of my dear friends on the Republican side. This is one time they could create for themselves a new image, just a little better image. You know, I feel saddened over the situation. I believe in a twoparty system. I think we ought to have competition among the parties and have real competition.

Then we could have better laws, they would be better discussed and more fully discussed and people would be better informed. But when our permanent minority party-and we have to call them the permanent minority party, because they have not been in the majority long enough to be anything else except a permanent minority party, and they continue to make themselves the permanent minority party-I want to urge them to change that image, and start tonight by voting for a bill in the interests of the people, like this bill. Quit that old trickle-down theory that you have in your mind; quit that business; it does not belong here-such as this high-interest deal that the Republicans always put out every week, every day-high interest, high interest-and tight money.

Why, it would wreck this country to do what the Republicans are advocating. I hope they change that image a little bit