and make a start by voting for a bill like this. Do you know what interest it is costing the country today, or what it would be costing today if Mr. Eisenhower had not permitted them to raise interest rates higher than they were in 1953, on January 20, when he came into office? If he had just kept them exactly where they had been during the Truman time and the Roosevelt time-when they were sufficiently high and adequate? GovGovernment bonds for over 12 years stayed at 22-percent interest, did not go up, did not go down. They stayed there in the public interest. They went up a little bit before 1953, but very little, and for obvious reasons. If Mr. Eisenhower had held that line we would not be paying almost $12 billion a year interest on the national debt today. We would only be paying $6 billion interest on the national debt today. That is something you can take your pen and paper and figure out for yourself, exactly how much that high-interest policy is costing the American taxpayers. Today the people who pay interest in this country are paying not $30 or $40 billion a year, but over $75 billion a year. That is just interest, just interest on the national debt and other debts. It is entirely too much. I wish our Republican friends would quit thinking so much about high interest and tight money and help us get back on the track with reasonable rates of interest, and have more money for the good things in life that the American people need. This very committee that we are talking about now, the Committee on Domestic Finance of the Banking and Currency Committee, had hearings over a long period of time about high interest by one concern that has been bilkingand I use the word bilking-the young, drafted servicemen in this country and charging them up to 65 percent and 100 percent interest, having them sign notes and contracts in blank and everything else. The excise tax reduction is a good example. That is a perfect case. It proves the point, and I hope the gentleman from Michigan will listen to this and stay on his feet because I want him to hear it. You know, it is the first time that excise taxes have been decreased in such a substantial way, and as a result the taxpayers paid more money into the Treasury. Why was that? It is because the people at the bottom, the low-income groups and the poverty stricken people, the money they get they spend it right quick and it goes up. Mr. Speaker, money travels 30, 40, 50, 100 times back and forth during the year. Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. PATMAN. Not right now. Just wait a minute and then I will yield to the gentleman. In most cases before the year is over the Government has actually gotten its money back. That was proven in the excise tax case. That is percolating up. But when you start to percolate down like the situation is in this Du Pont case in Florida, giving them millions of tax-exempt money every year, it does not go down. It does not percolate down. There is no velocity to the money that is poured in at the top. So, Mr. Speaker, this is a percolatingup deal where everyone is being helped. If you dissolve this empire and take the railroads and the banks and separate them and take all of the big businesses they own and separate them and give other people an opportunity and compel them to obey the law just like everyone else is compelled to obey the law, we will all be helped by it. This administration and the Truman administration have been the most inflationary administrations in the history of the United States, at least during modern times. Then and now the American people are suffering from the inflationary policies of the Democratic administration. Mr. PATMAN. Mr. Speaker, I do not yield further. I am going to answer the gentleman. The level periods of time which I I will take the period from June 30, 1939, to June 30, 1951. That was 12 years. That is when Mr. Roosevelt had a Federal Reserve Board that was looking after the interests of the people of the country and not just the banks. And, you know, they kept the interest rates at 22 percent. Never during that time was the interest rate on long-term Government bonds above that rate, and not one time did any person have to sell his bonds at a loss. They were always sold at par and accrued interest. That rep Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Mr. Speaker, Mr. GERALD R. FORD. The gentle- Mr. PATMAN. The gentleman does not really make that as a serious state ment? Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Yes; I most certainly do. Mr. PATMAN. If we talk 10 minutes, you say it is a filibuster. If you take 6 hours, it is no filibuster. Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Let me just tional debt increased under the Republi- Mr. GERALD R. FORD. The gentle- Now, Mr. Speaker, let us take a look at that 12 years. During that time we have the longest soup lines in history. We had 12 million to 15 million people unemployed. Part of that time people were losing their homes and shotguns were used against the sheriff to keep him from selling homes at forced sale. They could not buy automobiles and appliances. Their money was piled back in the bank representing the greatest potential inflationary specter that any civilized country on earth ever had for a part of that time. Mr. ARENDS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. PATMAN. No. I listened to you fellows and I yielded you the time. A part of that time we were shooting away a quarter of a billion dollars a day on the battlefields. During that 12 yearsthere never was a rougher 12 years—bad, good, inflationary, deflationary, depression, and hard times. The Federal Reserve Board kept the interest rates on long-term bonds at exactly 2.5 percent. Nobody had to sell their bonds below par. You can do that at any time. Allowing interest rates to rise hurts the poor man; it is against the poverty drive; it is creating poverty as a matter of fact. They tell you you ought to have high interest to stop inflation but this has never worked. Whenever you have that kind of remedy it is like putting out a fire with gasoline. Mr. ARENDS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. PATMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois. Mr. ARENDS. Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed the friendship of the gentleman from Texas for many years. I heard him make this same speech quite frequently. Maybe I can get it to use myself. Mr. PATMAN. I wish you would. I wish your party had paid attention to it. Mr. ARENDS. A few years ago there was another gentleman from out in the Far West who was an expert on money. He came down here with charts time after time, and talked about the monetary system. After one of these speeches, or during one of these speeches, a gentleman punched me in the ribs and said "There is a gentleman in addition to the 11 who knows about this monetary system, because only 12 men are supposed to know anything about money." I suppose the gentleman is 1 of 12. Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Mr. Speaker, on this vote I ask for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken; and there were-yeas 201, nays 171, answered "present" 3, not voting 57, as follows: [Roll No. 291] YEAS-201 Green, Oreg. Green, Pa. Addabbo Albert Anderson, Tenn. Annunzio Bandstra Beckworth Bell Mr. PATMAN. There are people who are for high interest and the trickle- Ashley down theory who submit views like that. The truth is you have practically ruined this country on high interest and tight money. We cannot stand another 8 years of a Republican administration doing that. It was a good thing we passed that constitutional amendment that no President could serve longer than two terms because if Eisenhower had been in office all this time we would never have gotten out from under this tremendous load. We would have a debt of $600 billion, with an interest of $36 billion a year. We would not have the money to pay anything else. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. PATMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa. Mr. GROSS. If business is so good why did the State of Texas lead the rest of the States last year in bank failures? Mr. PATMAN. How many did we have? One? Mr. GROSS. Many more than that. Mr. PATMAN. I know of but one. It is like the fellow talking about crime increasing among the Chinese by 300 percent. That was because one Chinaman had violated three separate traffic laws, and that is how they reached the 300 percent. There is only one bank failure I know of. Mr. GROSS. I will be glad to provide the chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency with a list. Mr. PATMAN. That is not an alarming figure. I believe in the private enterprise system. In the private enterprise system you make good loans and bad loans. Sometimes you have a loss. Mr. BROCK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. PATMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee. Mr. BROCK. I have enjoyed the colloquy with the gentleman very much, but I would like to get back to the issue. I want to ask the chairman a question. I believe he made one statement I would like to correct. You said that the income of the beneficiaries of the estate was tax exempt. Mr. PATMAN. That particular one of $8 million going to the trust was tax exempt. Mr. Speaker, when the bill comes up we will consider every amendment they want us to consider. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question. The previous question was ordered. The SPEAKER. The question is on agreeing to the resolution. Bolling Brademas Brooks Brown, Calif. Burke Burton, Calif. Byrne, Pa. Clevenger Cohelan Conte Corbett Corman Craley Hechler Hicks Holifield Olson, Minn. O'Neill, Mass. Ottinger Greigg Grover Matthews Gubser Michel Gurney Minshall Hagan, Ga. Mize Haley Moore Hall Morse Hansen, Idaho Morton Nelsen Henderson Randall Herlong Pickle Reid, N.Y. Poff Mr. Multer for, with Mr. Talcott against. Mr. Kirwan for, with Mr. Martin of Alabama against. Mr. Keogh for, with Mr. Hébert against. Mr. Daddario for, with Mr. Derwinski against. Mr. Lindsay for, with Mrs. May against. Mrs. Kelly for, with Mr. Adair against. Mr. Toll for, with Mr. Harvey of Indiana against. Mr. Charles H. Wilson for, with Mrs. Bolton against. Mr. Helstoski for, with Mr. Bray against. Until further notice: Mr. Celler with Mr. Griffin. Mr. Mills with Mr. Harvey, of Michigan. Mr. Moss with Mr. Martin, of Massachusetts. Mr. Weltner with Mr. McClory. Mr. Wright with Mr. Pirnie. Mr. Young with Mr. Johnson, of Oklahoma. Mr. Holland with Mr. Ryan. Mr. Bonner with Mr. Thomas. Mr. Thompson of Texas with Mr. Farnsley. Mr. Gallagher with Mr. Sisk. Mr. Steed with Mr. Casey. Mr. Cameron with Mr. Baring. Mr. Roosevelt with Mr. Kluczynski. Mr. Culver with Mr. Hardy. The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Mrs. Griffiths with Mr. George W. Andrews. the second paragraph, says: Mr. TALCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I have a live pair with the gentleman from New York [Mr. MULTER]. If he had been present he would have voted "yea." I voted "nay." Therefore, I withdraw my vote and vote "present." Mr. RONCALIO changed his vote from "yea" to "present." Mr. FULTON of Pennsylvania changed his vote from "yea" to "nay." Mr. PELLY changed his vote from "nay" to "present." Mr. HORTON changed his vote from "nay" to "yea." The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE Mr. POWELL. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of clause 23, rule XI, I call up Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Mr. Speaker, would the distinguished gentleman from New York speak loud and clear so we will know exactly what he is intending to do? Mr. POWELL. Mr. Speaker, this is the second time that I have been almost insulted today. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of clause 23, rule XI, I call up House Resolution 478 providing for the consideration of H.R. 9460 which has been pending before the Committee on Rules for more than 21 calendar days without being reported by the said committee. The Clerk read the resolution, as fol lows: H. RES. 478 Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 9460) to provide for the establishment of the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities to promote progress and scholarship in the humanities and the arts in the United States and for other purposes. After general debate, which shall be confined to the bill, and shall continue not to exceed two hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and Labor, the bill shall be read for amendment sion of the consideration of the bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto under the five-minute rule. At the conclu Recognition for the motions shall be in the order in which they have been entered on the Journal. The SPEAKER. The Chair will state that the gentleman is talking about an uation now. Mr. WAGGONNER. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn. Mr. CEDERBERG. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry. The SPEAKER. Does the gentleman Mr. POWELL. I do not yield, Mr. Mr. WAGGONNER. Mr. Speaker, I The SPEAKER. Might the Chair suggest that the gentleman from New York yield for a parliamentary inquiry? Mr. POWELL. For a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker, I yield. Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Mr. Speaker, is it the intention of the distinguished chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor to yield time to the minority? Mr. POWELL. Mr. Speaker, that is Mr. WAGGONNER. Mr. Speaker, I Mr. CEDERBERG. Mr. Speaker, a The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it. Mr. CEDERBERG. Mr. Speaker, would a motion at this time be in order to enlarge the Rules Committee to 435 Members? The SPEAKER. Is the gentleman making a serious parliamentary inquiry? Mr. CEDERBERG. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my parliamentary inquiry. Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry, if the gentleman from New York will yield? The SPEAKER. Does the gentleman Does the gentleman from New York yield to the gentleman from Missouri for a parliamentary inquiry? Mr. POWELL. Only for a parliamentary inquiry; yes. The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry. Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, insofar as the discharge calendar as listed on our calendar of unfinished business refers to clause 4, rule 27, wherein is it possible, referring to my previous point of order with reference to an additional bill being out of order and not being considered to be so considered? The SPEAKER. The Chair would advise the gentleman from Missouri that to final passage without intervening motion the House is operating under clause 23 except one motion to recommit. Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, a point of order. of rule 11. Mr. HALL. If the Speaker will allow me to submit further, under the yielding Mr. POWELL. We have not gone into Mr. POWELL. I am going to take 10 seconds from myself, and the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, the author of the bill and the chairman of the subcommittee, is going to take 3 minutes. I will be happy to yield to the gentleman 3 minutes and 10 seconds. Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, a point of order. The SPEAKER. We are trying to coordinate matters. Mr. SMITH of Virginia. I think a point of order takes precedence. The SPEAKER. That is true. The gentleman will state his point of order. Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Just a few minutes ago I raised a question of the division of time on the last resolution that was up for consideration. The gentlethe Chair conceded, that the usual rule man from Texas readily conceded, and and presentation of the rule is that there is 1 hour for debate, that time to be equally divided between the majority and minority. The SPEAKER. What is the gentleman's point of order? Mr. SMITH of Virginia. The point of order is that under the rules of the House half the time is controlled-under the rule-by the majority, and the other half, 30 minutes, is yielded to the minority. That has been the rule ever since I have been around here. The SPEAKER. The Chair will state that the control of time in the present parliamentary situation rests with the gentleman from New York [Mr. PowELL]. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. SMITH] has referred to the action taken on the last resolution. That was a mat ter within the judgment of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. PATMAN]. The gentleman from New York [Mr. PowELL] has control of the 1 hour and he can dispose of that time as his judgment dictates. Mr. SMITH of Virginia. That is not the usual rule, Mr. Speaker. The SPEAKER. islation needs any long debate. The question is, simply, Will the House allow the consideration under the proposed resolution of this bill, H.R. 9460, and during which time everyone will have an equal opportunity to discuss it both in general debate and under the 5-minute rule. As the distinguished chairman We are not operat- of the Committee on Rules said today in a colloquy with me, I have petitioned the Committee on Rules for hearings on this measure on a number of occasions and it was decided by that great committee that it had business which it considered to be of greater consequence and that the Committee on Rules could not reach this legislation. ing under the usual rule. Throughout Mr. SMITH of Virginia. the day and evening, Mr. Speaker, I have observed that we have not been operating under the usual rules. The SPEAKER. When the Chair states that we are not operating under the usual rule, the Chair means by that we are not operating under the rules of the House governing the situation where a rule is reported out of the Committee on Rules where the custom for years has been to yield time to a Member on the minority side. The present situation as to the control of time is more comparable to a conference report for example where the Member in control of the conference report has control of the time and it is a matter of his judgment. Does the gentleman from New York [Mr. POWELL] yield to any Member and, if so, to whom or does the gentleman from New York seek recognition for himself? Mr. POWELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge the adoption of the resolution H.R. 478, which provides for the consideration of H.R. 9460, a bill providing for the establishment of a National Foundation of the Arts and Humanities. The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman from New York has expired. Mr. POWELL. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee that reported this bill out. He has been working on this for many years and is the author of this bill, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. THOMPSON], after which I will be very happy to yield to the distinguished colleague from Alabama [Mr. GLENN ANDREWS] 10 minutes. I now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. THOMPSON]. Mr. THOMPSON of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of our committee. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the adoption of the resolution, House Resolution 478. The adoption of this resolution will simply authorize the House to work its will on the bill, H.R. 9460, which is cosponsored by more than 100 of our colleagues in this body. The purpose of this bill is to create a National Foundation of the Arts and Humanities. It is an open rule providing for the debate to be equally divided on both sides of the aisle with sufficient time to enable both sides to express their position clearly. Under the rule, if adopted, any amendments may be offered. It is a perfectly open rule on a subject that has been before this great body for a great, great many years. Mr. Speaker, I do not think at this late hour that the substance of the leg The chairman of the Committee on Rules advised that we use this procedure, it being, he said to me then, and repeated to me this afternoon, a part of the rules of this body. I might point out, as the chairman of the Committee on Rules explained this afternoon, that the bill is an administration bill and deserves the consideration which it would get under the rules of this body. It is a bill in which the House should be given an opportunity to work its will. What the ultimate disposition of it will be is a question for the House to decide on consideration, full debate, and final disposition of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule. It will enable the House to work its will on H.R. 9460, a bill to create a National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities. This is a small bill, but it is important. During my second term in the House, I had the privilege of sitting on a subcommittee taking testimony which led to a great bill, the National Defense Education Act. That was our reaction to Sputnik I. But There was a thread running throughout our hearings. Yes, we need scientists, engineers, and technicians. we also need people who can use the new technology and the new devices and the new knowledge; people who can turn them to the use of mankind. That was the undertone of the testimony. It was a caveat that many of us had in mind when we wrote that bill. Now the time has come to make sure that our supply of humanists is large enough so that in future years machines remain the servant of mankind, and not vice versa. I find it significant to recall the caveat of the National Defense Education Act hearings at this time. We propose to act in the area of the humanities while we still glow from the most recent exploit of our astronauts. In that great adventure there were many mishaps. The failures and the mishaps were all those of machines. Man once more proved his individual importance. This is the importance of the humanities. In essence the humanities are the study of man in relationship to his environment. Mr. Speaker, I could speak much further on the high purpose of H.R. 9460, and I shall do so when we are in Committee. I shall also discuss the me chanics of the program we propose to authorize. Today I desire to persuade our colleagues to support the rule. First off, this bill, or bills with a similar purpose, has more Members of the House as cosponsors than any other bill that has been before this body in this Congress. Over 100 Members have expressed their affirmative interest in this proposal by introducing bills. The hearing record is filled with testimonials from the academic community. It would consume most of time allowed on this rule to list them all. These are just a few of the academicians who endorse this proposal: Dr. J. A. Stratton, president, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Dr. Gustave Arlt, president, Council of Graduate Schools; Dr. Kingman Brewster, president of Yale-he was invited as an opposition witness; Dr. Frederick Burkhardt, president, American Council of Learned Societies; Dr. Barnaby Keeney, president, Brown University; Dr. Frederick Dorian, of Carnegie Institute of Technology; Dr. Robert Goheen, president of Princeton; Dr. John T. Fey, president, University of Wyoming; Michael Rapuano, president, American Academy in Rome; and Alvin C. Eurich, president, Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies. Business leaders are also for this bill. They include Thomas J. Watson, Jr., chairman of the board, International Business Machines; Nelson Poynter, publisher, St. Petersburg Times; Stanley Obermiller, president, National Art Materials Trade Association; and Lee C. Deighton, chairman, the McMillan Co. A great many professional and cultural associations also endorse this legislation. islation. Some of them are the American Institute of Architects, the Association of Research Libraries, the National Council on the Arts and Government, American Association of Museums, Print Council of America, National Federation of Music Clubs, American Library Association, National Association of Women Artists, and the American Parents Committee. Then there are distinguished performers: Charlton Heston, Miss Lillian Gish, Frederick O'Neal, Ron Rawson, and Theodore Bickel. Labor organizations supporting the bill are the AFL-CIO, the Steelworkers, the Autoworkers, and all of the unions within the performing fields. Witnesses from the Government who testified in favor include Roger Stevens, chairman, National Council on the Arts; Francis Keppel, Commissioner of Education; Harry C. McPherson, then the Assistant Secretary of State for Cultural Affairs; L. Quincy Mumford, the Librarian of Congress; S. Dillon Ripley, Secretary to the Smithsonian Institution; John Walker, Director, National Gallery of Art; Dr. Glen T. Seaborg, Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission; and Leland J. Haworth. Additionally it has been enacted in the other body. Finally, this bill is a part of the legislative program of President Johnson. Mr. Speaker, a piece of legislation with such a wide backing from within and without the Congress, deserves the consideration of the House. Mr. GLENN ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee has been most fair, in my opinion, during the hearings on this sub For this reason, I urge my colleagues ject. to support the rule. Mr. POWELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. GLENN ANDREWS] 10 minutes. Mr. GLENN ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I regret very much that the ranking member of our subcommittee, who is not able to be present today, has taken a position against the bill. He has done He has done so not because of its stated purpose-the development of the arts and humanities but because it would set up a brand new set of places for education that were untried, untested, and, it was thought, needed some thorough examination. The minority views are printed. They are very conclusive. I yield such time as he may need to my colleague, the gentleman from New York [Mr. REID]. Mr. REID of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding. The hour is late to deal with the substance of the bill, the consideration of which is authorized by House Resolution 478. I will merely state that H.R. 9460 enjoys bipartisan support. As the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. THOMPSON] has pointed out, over 100 Members support the bill. Many Members on this side of the aisle support it. I think it is clear that in America today there is a growing feeling that the arts and humanities deserve greater recognition and support at the national level, particularly since there is great emphasis in this day and age on the sciences. I intend to support the bill. I believe in it. I also plan to offer an amendment at the appropriate time. Finally, I would say that it is true, as stated in the minority views, that the bill did go through the full committee at a very rapid rate-roughly, 15 minutes. In my judgment, there was not adequate time for consideration. However, the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee [Mr. THOMPSON], has given the bill very careful thought and study over the years. I believe on balance it is a bill that should be supported. I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. GLENN ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he might need to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. FULTON]. Mr. Mr. FULTON of Pennsylvania. Speaker, as one of the cosponsors of this legislation, I am glad to join with the gentleman from New York [Mr. REID] in stating that the bill has bipartisan support. In fact, as has been stated, over 100 Members of the House have sponsored similar legislation, if not identical. As a member of the Committee Science and Astronautics, my position is that we should likewise place emphasis on the arts and humanities, for the Nation is growing up culturally. This will be a good advance for us. It is one of the best bills I have seen on this particular subject. on Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. GLENN ANDREWS. I yield to Mr. GROSS. It was indeed interest- Mr. POWELL. Mr. Speaker, I move The previous question was ordered. Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Mr. Speaker, Adams Addabbo Albert Anderson, Bandstra Barrett Beckworth Boland Bolling Broomfield Callan Carey Carter Cederberg Don H. Dent Denton Diggs Dingell Hawkins Collier Johnson, Pa. Colmer Cooley Cramer Dague Farnum Fascell Feighan Fino Flood Fogarty Foley Ford, William D. Fraser Frelinghuysen Fulton, Tenn. Giaimo Gibbons Gilbert Gilligan Gonzalez Grabowski Gray Green, Oreg. Joelson Jones, Ala. Karsten Kastenmeier Kee Leggett Long, Md. McCarthy McDade McDowell McGrath Machen Green, Pa. Aspinall Hardy Greigg Baring Harvey, Ind. May Harvey, Mich. Mills |