The Democratic leaders of Congress, with two-to-one
majorities were more interested in seeking a political issue than in providing
the assistance so badly needed by the depressed areas.
The original administration program provided
far more real help to the areas which needed it, such as the Pennsylvania
and West Virginia and other depressed coal-mining areas than the Democratic
bill, which was passed deliberately to provoke a Presidential veto.
What the President asked for would have provided
Scranton well over $1½ million in loans. What they passed would
have provided well under $1 million.
What they passed would have helped Wilkes-Barre-Hazleton
by about $1.6 million. What they rejected - the President's bill - would
have provided $2.6 million.
Their approach allowed Charleston, W. Va.,
under $600 thousand. The program they rejected would have provided almost
a million dollars.
What caused this difference? You may have
heard already, and you will hear, that the bill they passed had more money
for these areas than the one the President proposed.
But this is the difference:
Theirs was straight pork barrel. It spread
more dollars so widely - into place after place that did not need this
sort of help that places like Scranton, where help is critically needed,
were left begging. They used the shotgun of politics instead of the rifle
of national interest. No responsible President could have approved it.
Moreover, when the President urgently renewed
his appeal for depressed areas legislation in the rump session of Congress,
the Democratic leadership, once again ignored the recommendation. Again
the issue was more important to them than the need of the people.
Nothing can now be done until the Congress
reconvenes in January. At that time, I consider it to be of the highest
urgency that the Congress put aside political considerations immediately
and act at once on this question which involves a great deal of human anxiety
and even suffering.
In my opinion, Congress should enact legislation
along the lines of the legislation sponsored by Senator Scott and congressmen
Van Zandt, Fenton, and Saylor to set up a $200 million program for the
distressed areas, and for which two-thirds of the Republicans voted in
the Senate. The bill exceeds the original administration request by $20
million and raises Federal participation in the development loans from
35 to 50 percent. I favor these and other aspects of the Scott-Van Zandt-Fenton-Saylor
bill; which could already have been enacted by the Congress, and which
I am confident the President would have approved.