CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE

the Senate, notified the Secretary of the

Senate that, on the following dates, he

had disapproved bills of the Senate of

the following titles, together with his reasons for such actions:

RELIEF OF THE CHAMBERLAIN WATER CO., OF

CHAMBERLAIN, S. DAK.

S. 228. I am withholding my approval

from S. 228, which would authorize the

payment of $3,116.40 to the Chamberlain

Water Co., of Chamberlain, S. Dak. This

sum would be paid to compensate the

company for relocation costs occasioned

by the Government's acquisition of its

former location for use in connection

with the Fort Randall Dam and Reservoir project.

Public Law 500, approved July 3, 1958,

makes provision for paying these removal

expenses and the Secretary of the Army

reports that the claim is now being processed. The present enactment, therefore,

is unnecessary.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

THE WHITE HOUSE, August 27, 1958.

MARY K. RYAN AND WILLIAM A. BOUTWELL

S. 489. I am withholding my approval

of S. 489, for the relief of Mary K. Ryan

and William A. Boutwell.

The bill would permit the two named

taxpayers to file claims for refund of

overpayment of income taxes for the

taxable years 1949 and 1950, based on

excludable cost-of-living allowances,

notwithstanding that the statute of limitations has barred the filing of such

claims.

The two taxpayers named in the bill

filed joint income-tax returns from

Alaska for the years 1949 and 1950. On

these returns the taxpayers included as

income certain "territorial cost-of-living

allowances." The Internal Revenue

Service had ruled, in 1948, that such allowances were includible in gross in- come. Subsequently, however, in October 1953, the Internal Revenue Service

ruled that such allowances were excludable. In late March 1954, some 5 months

after the publication of this second ruling, one of the taxpayers named in the

bill filed claims for refund for the years

1949, 1950, and 1951. Refund was

granted for the year 1951, but the 3-year

period of limitations prescribed by the

Internal Revenue Code of 1939 barred

refund for the years 1949 and 1950.

While it is true that, at the time the

second ruling of the Internal Revenue

Service was published, refund for the

year 1949 already was barred by the

V statute of limitations, the taxpayers did

have from October 1953 until March 15,

1954, in which to file a timely claim for

1950. The record on this bill affords no

explanation for the delay in filing such

a claim until after March 15, 1954, but it

does disclose that the taxpayer who filed

for the refund learned of the revised

ruling in November 1953. As for the

taxable year 1949, bills introduced in

the 84th and 85th Congresses would have

provided general relief from the application of the statute of limitations to refunds of income tax paid on the cost-ofliving allowances here in question.

Such legislation, however, has never

been enacted.

Congress has determined it to be

sound policy to include in the revenue

system a statute of limitations which,

after a period of time, bars taxpayers

from obtaining refunds of tax overpayments and bars the Government from

collecting additional taxes. Such a provision is essential to finality in tax administration. The basic justification for

a statute of limitations is that, after the

passing of a reasonable period of time,

witnesses may have died, records may

have been destroyed or lost, and problems of proof and administration of tax

claims become too burdensome and un- fair for both taxpayers and the Government. The basic purposes underlying

the statute of limitations continue in

force even in cases where, after payment

of a tax, the interpretation of the law

is changed by a judicial decision or by a modification in regulations and rulings.

Several thousand taxpayers received

"territorial cost-of-living allowances"

during the period of the Internal Revenue Service ruling that such allowances were not excludable from gross income.

This bill, by singling out two of these

taxpayers for special relief from the

statute of limitations, would unjustly

discriminate against other taxpayers

similarly situated.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

THE WHITE HOUSE, August 28, 1958.

GEORGE P. E. CAESAR, JR.

S. 571. I am withholding my approval

from S. 571, for the relief of George P. E.

Caesar, Jr.

The bill would provide that, notwithstanding any period of limitations or lapse of time, claims, exclusive of interest, for credit or refund of overpayments

of income taxes for the taxable years

1951 and 1952 based on exemption from

taxation of certain earned income re- ceived for personal services rendered

outside of the United States may be filed

within 1 year after the date of enactment

by George P. E. Caesar, Jr., of Aldie, Va.,

on behalf of himself and Claudia V. Caesar (deceased).

The records of the Treasury Depnrtment show that timely joint income. tax

returns were filed on behalf of the thxpayer and his wife for 1951 and 1952 but

that no claims for credit or refund for

those years were filed prior to the expiration of the statutory period for filing

such claims on March 15, 1955, and

March 15, 1956, respectively.

During the years 1951 and 1952 the

taxpayer earned certain income for personal services rendered outside of the

United States, and the taxpayer believes

that these earnings should have been excluded from his income under section

116 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code of

1939. The taxpayer also believes that his

failure to file timely claims for refund

should be waived because of personal difficulties resulting from the death of his

wife and also because an employee who

prepared his returns for 1951 and 1952

did not inform him of the necessity for

filing claims for refund within the period

prescribed by law. The records of the

Treasury Department show that the

death of the taxpayer's spouse occurred

on October 15, 1952, which date was 2

years and 5 months prior to the expiration of the period of limitations for filing

a claim for 1951 and was 3 years and 5

months prior to the expiration of the period of limitations for filing a claim for

1952.

The circumstances of this case are not

sufficiently unique to warrant special legislative relief. The statutory period of

limitations, which Congress has included in the revenue system as a matter of

sound policy, is essential in order to

achieve finality in tax administration.

Granting special relief in this case, where a refund was not claimed in the time and manner prescribed by law, would constitute a discrimination against other taxpayers similarly situated and would cre- ate an undesirable precedent.

Under the circumstances, therefore, I am constrained to withhold my approval

of the bill.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

THE WHITE HOUSE, September 2, 1958.

EXTENSION OF TIME FOR MAKING GRANTS UNDER

FEDERAL AIRPORT ACT

S. 3502. I am withholding approval of

S. 3502, "To amend the Federal Airport

Act in order to extend the time for making grants under the provisions of such

act, and for other purposes."

The main purpose of the bill Is to expand and continue the present Federal

program of aid to States and local com- munities for the construction and improvement of public airports. Under

the bill, the currently authorized program of $63 million a year through fiscal

year 1959, would be increased to $100

million a year and extended 4 years

through fiscal year 1963. Total Government expenditures would be increased by

$437 million.

Civil airports have always been re- garded as primarily a local responsibility,

and have been built, operated, and maintained by States and local communities.

During the period when the aviation industry was growing to maturity, it was appropriate for the Federal Government

to assist local communities to develop airport facilities. Through various programs, including the grant program au- thorized by the Federal Airport Act, well over $1 billion has been allocated by the

Government to the construction and improvement of local civil airports. In addition, over 500 military airport facilities

have been declared surplus and turned over to the cities, counties, and States for

airport use. These contributions, along

with subsidies to airlines, aeronautical

research, and the establishment and

maintenance of the Federal airways system, have greatly aided-in fact, have

made possible-the tremendous growth

of civil aviation in our generation.

Now, however, I am convinced that

the time has come for the Federal Government to begin an orderly withdrawal

from the airport grant program. This

conclusion is based, first, on the hard

fact that the Government must now devote the resources it can make available

for the promotion of civil aviation to

1958 19587
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE August 23

programs which cannot be assumed by

others, and second, on the conviction

that others should begin to assume the

full responsibility for the cost of con- struction and improvement of civil airports.

Over the past two decades, more and more airports have progressed to the

point of self-sufficiency. Aviation generally has achieved a state of maturity

in which the users should be expected to

pay an increasing share of airport costs.

With the continued growth of aviation

and the application of sound management principles, the progress toward airport self-sufficiency should continue.

I recognize that there will doubtless be a transitional period during which the

Federal Government will be required to

provide aid to urgent airport projects

which are essential to an adequate na- tional aviation facilities system and

which cannot be completed in any other

way. However, this bill does not provide

for a transitional program. Rather, it

sharply increases the level of the existing program. It does not provide for aid

to the most urgent airport projects, but

continues the current allocation formula

which is not related to broad national

aeronautical needs.

The existing program continues

through June 30, 1959, so no community

will be hurt by the withholding of ap- proval of this legislation. At the next

session of the Congress, the administration will recommend a transitional program to provide aid for the construction

of urgent airport projects that are es- sential to an adequate national aviation

facilities system.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

THE WHITE HOUSE, September 2, 1958.

AREA REDEVELOPMENT BILL

S. 3683. I am withholding my approval

from S. 3683, the area redevelopment bill.

Every year for the past 3 years I have

strongly urged the adoption of a program

of Federal assistance to communities of

substantial and persistent unemployment for the purpose of assisting those

communities to develop a sounder and more secure economic base. I regret that no action along these lines has been

taken by the Congress until this year and, needless to add, I am greatly disappointed that I find myself unable to approve the present bill.

My disapproval need cause no unnecessary delay in initiating a sound area as- sistance program. Even the unsound

program contemplated by S. 3683 could

not be of immediate help to any com- munity because the Congress, before adjournment, failed to provide any money

to carry out the bill's purposes. Until

the next session of the Congress, the

needs of areas of severe and persistent

unemployment can be met in part

through the new program of loans to

State and local development companies under the Small Business Investment Act

of 1958 which I recently approved.

The repeated recommendations of the

administration recognized that the major responsibility for planning and financing

the economic redevelopment of commu- nities of chronic unemployment must remain with local citizens if Federal programs are to be effective. The present

bill departs from this principle, and

would greatly diminish local responsibility. In doing so, and in including

other undesirable features, it defeats any

reasonable chance of giving effective help

to the communities really in need.

S. 3683 provides for less local participation in the costs of local development

projects than is proper or necessary to

stimulate and assure the continuing interest and support of local governmental

and private interests. The administration recommended loans, for periods of

25 years, in amounts not exceeding 35

percent of the cost of redevelopment

projects. S. 3683, on the other hand,

provides for loans for such projects for

periods of 40 years, at artificially low

interest rates, in amounts up to 65 percent of the total cost of a project.

S. 3683 proposes in addition a program

of Federal grants for public works in re- development areas under which it would

be possible to have no local participation

whatever. Moreover, the criteria for

making these grants are so loosely drawn

that, without indiscriminate use of

funds, administration of these provisions

would be almost impossible. This is a

field in which, if the Federal Government participates at all, it should be

able to rely upon local judgments backed

by significant local contributions.

S. 3683 is also defective in my judgment because its assistance in certain

instances, would be available in areas in

which unemployment is traceable es- sentially to temporary conditions. Federal assistance to communities where un- employment is not clearly chronic would

necessarily mean the assumption of re- sponsibility by the Government for the

direct support of local economies-an as- sumption of responsibility that would

have the most profound consequences.

I also believe it would be a grave mistake to establish, as this bill would, an area assistance program in the Housing

and Home Finance Agency. Such a program should be lodged, not with an agency concerned with residential housing and related matters, but rather with

the Department of Commerce which has

primary responsibility for business and

industrial development and a long experience in extending,to local areas technical aid for economic development.

S. 3683 also contemplates a Federal

redevelopment assistance, including

loans, in rural areas. There is serious

question as to whether Federal loans for

the construction of industrial buildings

in rural areas would be a proper or effective approach, much less a permanent

one, to the problems of surplus labor in

essentially agricultural communities.

It is my intention next January when

the Congress reconvenes to request the

Congress to enact area assistance legislation more soundly conceived to carry

out the purposes which I have repeatedly

stressed as being in the national interest.

It Is my hope that Congress at that time

will move with all possible speed to enact

such an area assistance program.

DWIGHT D.'EISENHOWER.

THE WHITE HOUSE, September 6, 1958.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SATURDAY, AUGUST 23, 1958

The House met at 11 o'clock a. m.

T e Chaplain, Rev. Bernard Braskamp,

D. D., offered the following prayer:

Jude 25: To the only wise God, our

Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion

and power, both now and forever.

Almighty God, our Father, we are again humbly uniting our minds and

hearts in the fellowship of prayer to

worship and adore Thy great and holy

name.

We pray that Thou wilt bestow the

benediction of Thy peace and the diadem

of Thy praise upon our President, our Speaker, the chosen Representatives of our Republic, and all who have served

during this 85th Congress in whatever

capacity.

May we have within our hearts the

joyous testimony that we have sought

to fulfill the duties and responsibilities

of our high vocation with a pure and

steadfast devotion.

Grant that we may leave this Chamber, commending and committing one another to Thy love and care and wth

the assurance that where Thou dost

guide Thou wilt also provide.

May the Lord bless us and keep us;

may the Lord make His face to shine

upon us and be gracious unto us; may

the Lord lift upon us the light of His

countenance and give us peace.

Hear us in the name of the Christ, our Saviour. Amen.

The Journal of the proceedings of yesterday was read and approved.

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

A message from the Senate, by Mr.

McGown, one of its clerks, announced

that the Senate had passed, with

amendments in which the concurrence of the House is requested, a bill of the

House of the following title:

H. R. 13580. An act to increase the public debt limit.

The message also announced that the

Senate agrees to the amendments of the

House to a bill of the Senate of the

following title:

S. 3683. An act to establish an effective

program to alleviate conditions of substantial and persistent unemployment and un- deremployment in certain economically depressed areas.

The message also announced that the

Senate Insists upon its amendments to

the bill (H. R. 7450) entitled "An act to

make the Policemen and Firemen's Retirement and Disability Act Amendments of 1957 applicable to retired for- mer members of the Metropolitan Police force, the Fire Department of the

District of Columbia, the United States

Park Police force, the White House Police force, and the United States Secret

Service; and to their widows, widowers.

and children;" disagreed to by the

House; agrees to the conference asked

by the House on the disagreeing votes

of the two Houses thereon, and appoints

19588