CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE

I am reluctant to deny relief In a case

of this kind, but there are at least two

persuasive considerations which compel

me to withhold my approval: (1) A much

more desirable remedy is provided for

in the revision of the Social Security

Act that I approved today, and (2) en- actment of S. 277 would establish for the

social security program an undesirable

precedent which until now has been

avoided.

Since 1939 the Social Security Act has

required that an application for the

lump-sum death payment be filed within

2 years of the death of the individual

involved. The courts have held that

failure to file application within this period may not be waived or excused, even though it arises from misunderstanding

or unawareness.

This bill would provide special relief

permitting one Individual to receive a social insurance benefit under conditions

identical with those under which, under

the basic law, the same benefit must be

denied to others similarly situated.

Such special legislation, as I stated in

vetoing H. R. 1334, 83d Congress, is un- desirable and contrary to sound principles of equity and justice.

This is not to say that there may not

in some cases be equities which warrant

extending the statutory time limit. But

any modification in the provisions of the

Social Security Act that might be desirable to allow for such cases should, I believe, be made in the basic law and

stated in general terms so as to be applicable to all persons similarly circumstanced, rather than requiring claimants

who believe that they have such equities

to seek individual relief through the

process of private legislation, which is

both burdensome and hazardous to the

claimant and costly to the public. The

revision of the Social Security Act approved today contains an amendment

to the basic law which would afford an opportunity, not only to Mrs. Pfeifer but

to all claimants similarly circumstanced, to become entitled to a lumpsum death payment under the Social Security Act upon showing good cause for

the belated filing of an application.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

THE WHITE HOUSE, August 1, 1956.

CITY OF ELKINS, W. VA.

S. 2182. I have withheld my approval

from S. 2182, a bill for the relief of the

city of Elkins, W. Va. This bill would re- lieve the city of Elkins of all liability to

repay a $75,000 loan (and all unpaid ac- crued interest) which it received from

the Reconstruction Finance Corporation.

The facts on this bill are clear. Under

the World War II defense area landing

program, the Federal Government un- dertook, under certain circumstances, to

build airports for communities which

would provide appropriate land. In July

1943 the city of Elkins agreed with the

Civil Aeronautics Administration to furnish land for an airport. The United

States Government agreed to pay the

cost of constructing the airport. Elkins

then applied to the Reconstruction Fi- nance Corporation and was granted a loan of $75,000 to purchase the land.

The loan was evidenced by $75,000 of

4 percent airport revenue bonds issued

by the city. The city has made no payment on principal and is now in default

on bonds aggregating $24,000. Some interest payments have been made but the

accrued and unpaid interest as of May

1, 1956, amounts to $22,400. Through

the Civil Aeronautics Administration, the

Government has expended over $1 million on the airport.

The issues involved in the bill are likewise clear:

1. The original agreement was and

Elkins has received and will continue to

receive benefits at least proportionate to

its relatively small share of the airport's

total cost.

2. The bill would give special treatment to a single community and thereby

discriminate against other communities

which built airports during World War

II with Federal assistance. Of over 500

municipalities, representing every one of

the 48 States, which entered into similar contracts with the Civil Aeronautics

Administration, the city of Elkins is the

only one which applied to the Reconstruction Finance Corporation for a loan

to finance the purchase. The proposed

legislation would relieve the city from

any obligation to repay the loan. Thus,

in effect, the Federal Government would

have both constructed the airport and

provided the land. No other municipality has received such special treatment.

3. The bill would set a precedent which

could be used by many other communities to urge cancellation of their obligations held by the Federal Government.

* In all, the Reconstruction Finance Corporation made loans to over 6,000 mu- nicipalities and other public bodies. Of

these, there are still outstanding 75 issues

of municipal obligations totaling approximately $7 million. To relieve Elkins as provided in this bill would be to give that

city a preference which was not given

to any other city granted loans by the

Corporation. Undoubtedly, special circumstances exist in many of the commu- nities whose obligations remain unpaid.

Testimony presented to the House Committee on the Judiciary suggests that the case for relief from their obligations

might be as persuasive as in the case of

Elkins. The precedent set by this bill

could, moreover, adversely affect collections on loans to local governments under

several other continuing Federal programs.

This bill involves one community and a relatively small amount of money; but

it would establish undesirable principles

and precedents affecting many other

communities and many millions of dollars. I have, therefore, withheld my approval of S. 2182.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

THE WHITE HOUSE, August 3,1956.

DATE OF MEETING OF 85TH CONGRESS

* S. J. Res. 203. On recommendation of

the majority and minority leadership of

* both the Senate and House of Representatives, I am withholding my approval of • Senate Joint Resolution 203, fixing the

.date of meeting of the 85th Congress.

January 7, 1957, the date fixed in the

* resolution, is the date prescribed by law

for the counting of the electoral votes for

-President and Vice President. I am

informed that the Congress cannot con- veniently count those votes on the same day that it assembles.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

THE WHITE HOUSE, August 8, 1956.

RATES CHARGED FOR ELECTRIC POWER BY SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION

S. 3338. I have withheld my approval

of S. 3338, an act relating to rates

charged for electric power and energy

marketed by the Southwestern Power

Administration, and for other purposes.

The only purpose which this legisla- tion could accomplish would be to prevent the Secretary of the Interior from

fulfilling the obligations imposed upon

him by section 5 of the Flood Control

Act of 1944, to establish rate schedules

which will return sufficient revenue to

amortize the investment in Federal multiple-purpose projects allocated to

-power, and to pay the necessary costs

incurred in operating and maintaining

*power projects. By its terms, S. 3338

grants a legislative moratorium which • prevents any rate increases for power

sold by the Southwestern Power Administration to any public body or cooper- ative until June 30, 1957. This would

result in a loss of $2,167,000 revenue dur-

* ing the present fiscal year.

Sound management requires that the

* Federal Government fix rates for electric energy and power from Federal projects which will return the taxpayers' investment, with interest, within a reason- able period of time. Revenues from

power sales by the Southwestern Power

Administration in 1955 were not sufficient to pay even the interest on the

portion of construction costs allocated to

power. Furthermore, these revenues have been insufficient to provide any re- - turn of the capital investment in power facilities since 1953. Enactment of the

bill will prevent the establishment of

compensatory rates until July 1, 1957.

Fears have been expressed that the

increased rates, which I am informed - amount to approximately 40 cents per month for the average rural customer,

proposed by the Department of the Interior will force upon preference customers--public agencies and cooperatives-- the burden of absorbing the deficit in

power revenues brought about by the

delivery of power to a nonpreference

customer under a 1952, 30-year contract

at unrealistically low unit rates. However, the fact is that under the proposed schedule of rates, these preference cus- tomers will pay for power at rates determined upon the assumption that all

power users must pay the rate necessary

to retire the capital investment allocated • to power on these multiple-purpose proj- ects. The preference customers will not

pay any of the deficit resulting, during * the repayment period, from the 30-year

contract.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

THE WHITE HOUSE, August 9, 1956.

VALIDATION OF CERTAIN MINING CLAIMS,

WYOMING

S. 3941. I am withholding my approval * of S. 3941, an act to provide for the validation of certain mining claims owned by Arthur W. Hyde, John H. Gossett, Clyne A. Bailey, and Manuel Silva, all of the

15152 July 27