CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE

and ideals upon which our Government

is based.

The Commission, since its creation,

has placed the ideas I have mentioned

on the drawing board. It is intimately

acquainted with the problems involved

in the erection of the Monument; it has

advanced the memorial; and I recommend that the Commission be authorized

to complete the task.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

THE WHITE HOUSE, May 14, 1960.

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE

ASSOCIATION-VETO MESSAGE

FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE

UNITED STATES (H. DOC. NO. 390)

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. 7947 entitled "An act relating to

the income tax treatment of nonrefundable capital contributions to Federal National Mortgage Association."

When a financial institution sells a

mortgage to the Federal National Mortgage Association, the institution is required to purchase shares of Association

common stock at par value in an amount

equal to 2 percent of the unpaid principal

of the mortgage. The market price for

this common stock has been appreciably

lower than its par value. H.R. 7947 would

permit the financial institution to deduct

as a business expense the difference between par value and market value when

it sells the common stock it was required

to purchase.

I am sympathetic with the objectives

of the bill. But it provides for the retroactive application of the proposed

amendment in a highly discriminatory

manner. This is a defect which is sufficiently serious to require my disapproval. Generally, changes in the tax laws

should only apply prospectively, for retroactive amendments result in substantial administrative problems. Wholly

apart from this, however, the particular

provision for retroactivity in H.R. 7947

would benefit only those taxpayers who

previously claimed the deduction contrary to the announced position of the

Internal Revenue Service; the bill would

not permit refund or credit to those taxpayers who accepted the position of the

Internal Revenue Service and paid their

taxes. I cannot approve such discrimination.

In view of this defect, I withhold my

approval from H.R. 7947.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

THE WHITE HOUSE, May 14, 1960.

The SPEAKER. Without objection,

the bill and message will be referred to

the Committee on Ways and Means and

ordered to be printed.

There was no objection.

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATION ACT

Mr. VINSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent to take from the

Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 10777) to

authorize certain construction at military installations, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto,

disagree to the Senate amendments, and

agree to the conference asked by the

Senate.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to

the request of the gentleman from Georgia? The Chair hears none, and appoints the following conferees: Messrs.

VINSON, KILDAY, DURHAM, RIVERS of

South Carolina, ARENDS, GAVIN, and VAN

ZANDT.

UNIVERSAL TRADES, INC.-VETO

MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT

OF THE UNITED STATES (H. DOC.

NO. 389)

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. 1456, a bill for the relief of

Universal Trades, Inc.

The Renegotiation Board, in 1955, ordered Universal Trades, Inc., to refund

to the Government $50,000 in excessive

profits subject to applicable Federal tax

credits. The law provides a 90-day period, after the conclusion of the Renegotiation Board proceeding, in which to

apply for a review of the case by the

Tax Court of the United States. Universal Trades did not file such a petition.

Under H.R. 1456 jurisdiction would

now be conferred on the Tax Courtsome 5 years after the expiration of the

90-day period.

Universal Trades claims that income

of $92,481.54 was improperly included in

its 1952 renegotiation proceeding. A

change in the company's accounting

method did move this income from 1952

to 1953 for income tax purposes, but for

renegotiation purposes no such transfer was made. This treatment was

equitable, appropriate for renegotiation

purposes, and in accordance with the

Renegotiation Act.

Finally, no valid justification appears

for the corporation's failure to file a petition with the Tax Court within the

prescribed 90-day period. At all times

before and after issuance of the Board's

order, Universal Trades was in full possession of the facts pertaining to the

accounting method used by the Board.

Under the circumstances, therefore, I

am constrained to withhold my approval

from the bill.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

THE WHITE HOUSE, May 14, 1960.

The SPEAKER. Without objection,

the bill and message will be referred to

the Committee on the Judiciary and ordered to be printed.

There was no objection.

POSTPONEMENT OF ROLLCALLS

UNTIL THURSDAY

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I

ask unanimous consent to address the

House for 1 minute.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection

to the request of the gentleman from

Massachusetts?

There was no objection.

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, on

May 12 I submitted a unanimous-consent

request, which the House graciously

granted, that any rollcalls on Monday,

Tuesday, or Wednesday be postponed

until Thursday. It was my intention

that any rollcalls asked for today or tomorrow would go over until Thursday.

If Calendar Wednesday is exercised, it

would not apply to that particular day

because there would be no necessity of

it. My purpose in asking that rollcalls

go over until Thursday was that if Calendar Wednesday is exercised there

would be freedom on the part of those

exercising their rights under the Calendar Wednesday rule. So, Mr. Speaker,

I ask unanimous-consent that so much of

my unanimous-consent request as applied to Wednesday be withdrawn. I

have discussed this matter with the distinguished minority leader.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to

the request of the gentleman from

Massachusetts?

Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Speaker, reserving

the right to object, that means that if

there are rollcalls on Calendar Wednesday, they will be had on that day.

Mr. McCORMACK. On the legislation that day, yes; but rollcalls that

might be ordered today or tomorrow will

go over until the following Thursday.

Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to

the request of the gentleman from

Massachusetts [Mr. MCCORMACK]?

There was no objection.

PROGRAM FOR THE BALANCE OF

THE DAY

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I

ask unanimous consent to address the

House for 1 minute.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection

to the request of the gentleman from

Massachusetts?

There was no objection.

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, further legislation for today was the military construction appropriation bill for

1961. At the time that was programed

it was overlooked that the authorization

bill has not yet been enacted into law.

Therefore that bill cannot very well

come up today. I just wanted the Members of the House to understand that

that bill will not be brought up today

and cannot be brought up until the authorization bill comes out of conference,

is passed, and, I assume, signed. In any

event, it will not come up until a later

date.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the

gentleman yield?

Mr. McCORMACK. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. GROSS. Then what is the business for the remainder of the day?

Mr. McCORMACK. There is no further business. I scheduled certain bills

for the latter part of the week, but I do

not feel justified in bringing them for10366 May 16