CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE October 14, 1968

H.J. Res. 691. Joint resolution extending

greetings and felicitations to Saint Louis

University in the city of St. Louis, Mo., In

connection with the 150th anniversary of its

founding.

On October 22, 1968:

H.R. 859. An act for the relief of Public

Utility District No. 1 of Klickitat County,

Wash.;

H.R. 7567. An act to amend the Internal

Revenue Code of 1954 with respect to the

definition of compensation for purposes of

tax under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act,

and for other purposes;

H.R. 11394. An act to amend certain provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954

relating to distilled spirits, and for other

purposes;

H.R. 13058. An act to repeal certain acts

relating to containers for fruits and vegetables, and for other purposes;

H.R. 14095. An act to amend the Internal

Revenue Code of 1954 so as to make certain

changes to facilitate the production of wine,

and for other purposes;

H.R. 15681. An act to consolidate and revise foreign assistance legislation relating to

reimbursable military exports;

H.R. 17735. An act to amend title 18,

United States Code, to provide for better

control of the interstate traffic in firearms;

H.R. 17864. An act to amend titles 5, 10,

and 37, United States Code, to codify recent

law, and to improve the code;

H.R. 18486. An act to amend the Internal

Revenue Code of 1954 with respect to the

treatment of income from the operation of a communications satellite system;

H.R. 18612. An act to enact title 44, United

States Code, "Public Printing and Documents," codifying the general and permanent laws relating to public printing and

documents; and

H.R. 18942. An act relating to the income

tax treatment of certain statutory mergers of

corporations.

On October 23, 1968:

H.R. 16025. An act to amend title 38 of

the United States Code with respect to eligibility for, and the period of limitation on,

educational assistance available under part

III of such title, and for other purposes.

On October 24, 1968:

H.R. 653. An act to amend the tariff schedules of the United States with respect to the

rate of duty on certain nonmalleable iron

castings, and for other purposes;

H.R. 2760. An act for the relief of Sondra

D. Shaw;

H.R. 14096. An act to amend the Federal

Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to increase the

penalties for unlawful acts involving lysergic

acid diethylamide (LSD) and other depressant and stimulant drugs, and for other

purposes.

H.R. 15147. An act to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide for the

naturalization of persons who have served

in active-duty service in the Armed Forces of

the United States during the Vietnam hostilities, or in other periods of military hostilities, and for other purposes.

H.R. 15971. An act to increase the participation of military judges and counsel on courts-martial, and for other purposes;

H.R. 17324. An act to extend and amend

the Renegotiation Act of 1951, and for other

purposes; and

H.R. 18373. An act for implementing Conventions for Free Admission of Professional

Equipment and Containers, and for ATA,

ECS, and TIR Carnets.

HOUSE BILL DISAPPROVED AFTER

SINE DIE ADJOURNMENT-ASSERTION OF LAND CLAIMS

I have withheld my approval from

H.R. 10256, "A bill to render the asser- tion of land claims by the United States

based upon accretion or avulsion subject

to legal and equitable defense to which

private persons asserting such claims

would be subject."

On November 14, 1966, I had the un- pleasant duty of withholding my approval from a similar bill, H.R. 13955,

89th Congress, relating to title to the

same 2,100 acres of land in California

covered by the present bill.

In my Memorandum of Disapproval on

the earlier bill, I urged that the Congress

permit the legal issue of title to be adjudicated in the traditional manner in the

courts, then, "If the case Is resolved

against the claimants and the Congress

believes that the equities were so com- pelling that relief should have been

granted, the Congress can act after the

factual issues hav3 been fully litigated

and a complete record has been assembled." H.R. 10256 does recognize that the

court is the appropriate forum for deciding the legal issue of title, but it goes

further. It grants the 19 individuals and

corporations claiming under the bill special and unprecedented defenses against

the United States such as laches, equitable estoppel, and adverse possession.

Since the parties are already in court,

the only purpose the bill serves is to

grant these special defenses to the claimants. Any one of these defenses could

preclude a decision on the merits of the

title issue. The bill has the effect of

changing, after the United States has

filed suit, the rules which would otherwise be applicable to a case of this kind.

If this bill were to become law, it would

establish a most undesirable precedent

with far-reaching consequences. It would

deprive the United States of its sovereign

immunity to loss of the public lands by

adverse possession, an immunity that is

essential if we are to provide adequate

protection of the people's interest in the more than 450 million acres of public

lands. Moreover, the Federal Government must necessarily act through its

officers and employees, and these agents

cannot always act in a timely fashion to

protect the public interest in lands because of other priorities, lack of funds or personnel, or other reasons.

California, where the land in question

Is located, and the adjoining State of

Arizona both protect their own lands

from alienation through adverse possession, and I believe the United States

should do no less.

In recent years, many hundreds of

trespassers on public lands along the

Colorado River have, as a result of Government action, left the land or have

arranged leases from the Government.

Others have been removed by court ac- tion, and others are still engaged in title

litigation. It would be manifestly unfair

to all of these persons whose cases were or are fully governed by the customary

legal rules to recognize special rules on

behalf of the group of claimants covered

by H.R. 10256.

For the foregoing reasons, and since

there has been no relevant change in the

facts and circumstances of this case

since my disapproval of the earlier bill, I

feel compelled to withhold my approval

from the present bill. I urge the Congress

to allow the pending case to go forward

to decision in accordance with the rules

of law governing all cases in which there

is a dispute over land claimed by the

United States.

LYNDON B. JOHNSON.

THE WHITE HOUSE, October 25, 1968.

HOUSE BILL DISAPPROVED AFTER

SINE DIE ADJOURNMENT-ROBERT L. MILLER AND MILDRED M.

MILLER

I have withheld my approval from H.R.

5677, entitled "An act for the relief of

Robert L. Miller and Mildred M. Miller."

H.R. 5677 would waive the requirements of the applicable statute of limitations to permit the Millers to file untimely claims for tax refund. For the rea- sons outlined below, approval of H.R.

5677 would constitute a very undesirable

step.

It is vital to the fairness and effective- ness of our tax system that taxpayers

who are in similar circumstances be

treated alike. This bill discriminates in

favor of the Millers and against all other

taxpayers who are barred by the statute

of limitations from recovering mistaken

overpayments of tax. There is no justification for discrimination of this sort.

The statutory periods of limitation

which Congress has included In the revenue laws are essential in order to assure finality In tax administration. They serve to bar, after the lapse of a reasonable

amount of time, both the filing of a claim

for refund by the taxpayer and the as- sessment of additional taxes by the Government. To override these statutory limitations in this case would open the door

to the filing of untimely claims for refund in any instance in which a taxpayer

made a mistake in filing his return or in

selecting an attorney or tax advisor. Such a development would seriously weaken

the statute of limitations in tax matters,

and would jeopardize the effective administration of the tax laws.

Special circumstances do not justify

granting relief in this case. The most

basic of a citizen's obligations under our

self-assessment system of taxation is the

obligation to file a completed, signed tax

return. In discharging this obligation,

taxpayers are free to choose whomever

they wish to assist them. However, the

obligation to file a correct return remains

the taxpayer's, even though he may ask

others to assist him in preparing his re- turn.

In this case, it is clear that the Millers are responsible and skillful business persons who were not unaware of their personal tax obligations. By 1952, they had

been signing their personal income tax

returns for 20 years, and had in fact

signed returns prepared by their attorney

in each of the four years immediately

preceding 1952. Nevertheless the Millers

failed to file their tax returns for 1952

and 1953 until February 15, 1960. No declarations of estimated tax were ever filed

by them. Under these circumstances, it is

clear that the problems which H.R. 5677

seeks to remedy are a direct result of the

Millers own failure to discharge the most

basic of the obligations imposed on all

31374