Mr. Chairman: That was the case in all of the
amendments offered with the exception of one or two. Even
the vote on the revised old age pension bill amendment was
almost a party vote. I call attention to what I consider the
rather remarkable fact that on an amendment so far reaching
as the one to substitute the bill for the old age pension
provisions of the administration bill, more than half of the
Republicans present on the floor at that time voted yes and
they stood up and were counted. 38 of them voted yes and
that is more than one-third of the entire Republican
membership of the House, while only 18 Democrats out of a
total of 160 present and out of a total Democratic membership
of 332 voted in favor of that amendment.
Why, Mr. Chairman, even the amendment offered by
the distinguished gentleman from Ohio to include a small
Federal contribution to states to aid them in providing for
their blind people was voted down by a solid party vote.
Just two gentlemen on the Democratic side voted
yes, and stood up to be counted on that vote, while every
Republican voted for it. Do my Democratic friends mean to
tell me that they did not want to vote for that amendment?
We know you wanted to. We saw many of you looking toward the
Leader's table with a look almost of longing in your eyes.
Why, Mr. Chairman, every gentleman in this House knows that a
single nod from the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee
seated at the table across the aisle would have brought every
Democrat to his feet in approval of that amendment.
But the nod did not come, Mr. Chairman and the
blind man will continue to beg with his tin cup on the street
corner.
It is not what you did in this bill that is so
wrong, it is what you did not do that will disappoint and
dissatisfy the country. You had such a wonderful chance in
this legislation to give us a real solution to the problem of
old age and unemployment. The country was hoping for it. It
was waiting for it. It was expecting it. You have not done
your duty either by the country or by yourselves.
Mr. Chairman, there is a little good in this
Administration bill as well as some bad. Its greatest faults
are those of omission rather than of commission. In
considering how one should vote upon a bill as inadequate and
unsatisfactory as this one is, a Republican is confronted
with the same old situation, and the same old question that
has confronted him in every major piece of administration
legislation that has been offered in the last two sessions of
the Congress.
In most of this major legislation, there has been a
crumb of good, and in order to get that crumb we have had to
take the bad along with it. Never have you permitted us to
improve one of your major bills. Never has your three to one
majority allowed us to substitute a better bill for it.
Never have you gone the whole way upon the solution of any
problem, even when the majority of the individual membership
on both sides of the House desired it. We have been given
always what the Executive Department wanted us to consider,
and we have been allowed to consider nothing else on that
particular subject.
With less than one-third of the membership of the
House on the minority side, we have been rendered helpless
against your overwhelming majority, and so, as usual, we must
determine now in this bill whether the good outweighs the
bad. When I say "we," I am referring to Republicans. I
know, of course, that our Democratic friends are not burdened
with that kind of a problem, because they will vote upon this
bill as they have voted on all of them. That is, as a party
measure.