CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE

The next bill is H.R. 4815, transit and

sightseeing operations, District of Columbia.

On either Monday or Tuesday, there

are several resolutions from the House

Committee on Administration. The list

of resolutions was printed in the RECORD

the other day. Those resolutions will be

called up on either Monday or Tuesday.

Of course, there is the usual reservation that any further program will be

announced later and the usual procedure

that conference reports may be brought

up at any time.

CREDITS AGAINST UNEMPLOYMENT

TAX IN THE CASE OF CERTAIN

SUCCESSOR EMPLOYERS--VETO

MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT

OF THE UNITED STATES (H. DOC.

NO. 411)

The SPEAKER laid before the House

the following veto message from the

President of the United States:

To the House of Representatives:

I return herewith, without my approval, H.R. 6482, entitled "An act relating to the credits against the unemployment tax in the case of certain successor employers."

To help finance the Federal-State unemployment compensation system, the

Federal Government imposes on covered

employers an annual tax of 3 percent on

the first $3,000 of each employee's wages.

A special provision of law permits the

wages paid each employee by a predecessor employer to be taken into account for

purposes of the $3,000 annual limitation

on taxable wages by an employer who

succeeds to the business. This provision

is intended to insure that taxes paid

with respect to the wages of any one employee are not increased for any year as

a result of the business changing hands

during the year. This desirable purpose

is thwarted under present law, however,

whenever a predecessor does not qualify as an "employer" within the meaning of

that word as it is defined in the Federal

law.

H.R. 6482 would correct this situation,

but it would do so, not just prospectively,

but also retroactively to the beginning

of 1951.

Strict avoidance of retroactive tax

legislation, except in extraordinary and

compelling circumstances not here in

evidence, is essential to orderly tax administration, the Government's revenues, and the fair treatment of taxpayers.

Although constrained, therefore, to

disapprove the bill, I urge the Congress

at its earliest opportunity to enact new

legislation without retroactive effect.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

THE WHITE HOUSE, June 3, 1960.

The SPEAKER. The objections of the

President will be spread at large upon

the Journal.

Mr. MILLS. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent that the message

and the bill be referred to the Committee

on Ways and Means and ordered

printed.

The SPEAKER. Without objection, it

is so ordered.

There was no objection.

VETO MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATESTO AMEND THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1954 (H. DOC.

NO. 412)

The SPEAKER laid before the House

the following message from the President of the United States, which was

read by the Clerk:

To the House of Representatives:

I return herewith, without my approval, H.R. 6779 entitled "An act to

amend section 170 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (relating to the unlimited deduction for charitable contributions for certain individuals)."

Existing law allows a taxpayer an unlimited deduction for charitable contributions if the sum of his contributions

and Federal income tax payments in the

taxable year and in each of 8 of the 10

preceding taxable years exceeds 90 percent of his taxable income.

H.R. 6779 would provide that under

certain circumstances the 90 percent test

shall be considered satisfied in each of

2 consecutive years if the sum of the

contributions and income tax payments

for the 2 consecutive years exceeds 90

percent of the combined taxable income

for such 2 years. The bill is a temporary measure without effect after the 1968

taxable year. It would also apply retroactively to taxable years beginning after

December 31, 1956.

Nothing appears in the record on this

bill that would justify a departure from

the general rule that changes in the tax

laws should apply only prospectively. In

actual fact, the retroactive feature of

this bill is highly discriminatory. Some

taxpayers could avoid an otherwise assessable deficiency for 1957, 1958, or 1959

by using the bill's benefits to amend incorrect returns for those years, but other

taxpayers who filed correct returns could

not avail themselves of the bill's benefits

to claim a refund for those years.

Although unable to approve this bill,

I would be willing to sign new legislation provided it applied only prospectively and were truly designed to encourage substantial gifts to educational institutions and other recognized public

charities.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

THE WHITE HOUSE, June 3, 1960.

The SPEAKER. The objections of the

President will be spread at large upon the

Journal.

Mr. MILLS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the message and bill

be referred to the Committee on Ways

and Means and ordered printed.

The SPEAKER. Without objection, it

is so ordered.

There was no objection.

RED CHINA

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for

1 minute and to revise and extend my

remarks,

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to

the request of the gentleman from Iowa?

There was no objection.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, there has

been considerable misunderstanding

about a working paper prepared at the

request of a group of U.S. Congressmen,

designed for discussion, modification,

and improvement, which was misinterpreted in an Associated Press report, in

which my name was involved, dealing

with the question of Red China. There

was also a misunderstanding in the AP

report on the question of a unified Germany. I want the record to clearly show

that I have never been in favor of diplomatic recognition of Red China. I

voted against diplomatic recognition in

the Zablocki House Concurrent Resolution 369 on August 17, 1959.

During the past decade Red China has

emerged as the most highly organized

and the most powerful nation in Asia,

with one-fifth of the world's population-600 million people strong, dominated by the bloodiest government in the

world today. We simply cannot close

our eyes and pretend it is not there, for

it is an accomplished fact, whether we

like it or not. We look to Eastern Europe-Russia-in apprehension and fail

to realize that the Communist writers

have said that the way to world victory

is through Peiping. This is what we must

recognize about Red China. It is there;

it is organized for world conquest, and it can very well be a far greater threat to us

than Russia. In my opinion, the interests of the United States and of world

peace demand a drastic revision in our

thinking regarding the bloody government in China.

A recent poll of the United States conclusively demonstrated that the American people are more concerned about

the question of peace and the fear of

nuclear destruction than any other one

consideration. I am convinced that any

problems which the United States may

face are pale by comparison with this

constant and ever-present danger of nuclear war. Any discussion at Geneva on

the question of disarmament is only a

verbal exercise with no meaning unless it

includes Red China, and the Russians

cannot speak for Red China.

Just yesterday some facts were made

available to me which prove conclusively

that the Russians are transferring much

of their research and development equipment into northwest China in anticipation of reaching some agreement at Geneva. I was told that within 1 year it

is very likely that Red China will explode

her own atom bomb and so the nuclear

club grows ever larger.

Mr. Speaker, this is the reason why I

say that the survival of the human race

dictates that we open channels of communication with the leaders of Red

China. I do not advocate diplomatic

recognition of Red China-I do not believe it is necessary. As to what "opening of channels" means-I should like to

point out that in Warsaw for several

years now there have been discussions

between our special Ambassador in

Poland, Jacob Beam, and the Communist Chinese Ambassador to Poland.

That is one channel of communication,

and it was established by the Eisenhower

administration. Other such channels

are now absolutely necessary. The late

11822 June 3