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.