The practical effect of this legislation would be to increase the duty on imported bicycles having a cantilever or curved frame, weighing less than 36 pounds from the present duty of $1.875 each, but not less than 114 percent nor more than 221⁄2 percent ad valorem to a new rate of $3.75 each, but not less than 222 percent nor more than 30 percent ad valorem. I am informed that approximately one-half of current imports of bicycles that are imported under the lightweight classification are those with cantilever or curved frames, and would be subject to this approximate 100-percent increase in duty.

The enactment of this legislation within a short time after the 1961 negotiations and following the opening of new opportunities for trade expansion under the recently approved Trade Expansion Act would hamper our efforts to improve the position of American industry in foreign markets.

Under the Trade Expansion Act, a wider variety of relief is available to assist American firms suffering from imports. Should the American bicycle industry demonstrate the need for this relief, it should be provided.

On October 23, 1962:

RICHARD C. COLLINS

I am withholding my approval from H.R. 3131, a bill for the relief of Richard C. Collins. The bill directs the Court of Claims to grant a rehearing to Mr. Collins, of Billerica, Mass., in connection with his contesting the action of the Department of the Treasury in demoting him to a lower grade.

The facts concerning this legislation are as follows. Mr. Collins was employed by the Internal Revenue Service. He was notified on November 27, 1956, that his work was unsatisfactory and thereafter that he was separated for inefficiency. However, the district director decided, after further review of

Mr. Collins' case, that a more compassionate step would be to demote him to a lower grade. After the civil service regional office at Boston and the Board of Appeals and Review of the Civil Service Commission in Washington held that the demotion was valid and warranted, Mr Collins instituted suit in the Court of Claims in April 1958. The Court thoroughly reviewed his case and held that his demotion complied with applicable regulations, procedures, and laws. The court subsequently denied a motion for reconsideration.

Mr. Collins, who appeared before the court in his own behalf, contends that because of improper civil service procedures and through his own lack of understanding of legal procedures, he failed to emphasize the most important aspects of his case. The Court of Claims, however, appears to have fully considered the applicable statutes and regulations and Mr. Collins had previously presented his views before the agency and before the Civil Service Commission in a lengthy hearing.

In summary, I do not believe that a constitutional court should be directed to hear particular matter once disposed of. Mr. Collins has had his day in court. If each dissatisfied litigant were to be permitted repeatedly to litigate his claim, there would scarcely ever be an end to litigation against the Government.

MRS. HELENITA K. STEPHENSON

I am withholding my approval from H.R. 9285, a bill for the relief of Mrs. Helenita K. Stephenson. The bill would pay veterans' death benefits in a lump sum of $5,144.29 to Mrs. Stephenson for the period 1946-55, during which she was remarried and ineligible for such benefits.

The asserted basis for this payment is that her remarriage was annulled in 1955 because her husband had fraudulently misrepresented his

wealth and health, and from a legal point of view remarriage did not therefore exist during those years.

Mrs. Stephenson's entitlement to veterans' survivor benefits derived from the death of her husband in service in 1943. The monthly payments to her on this account were terminated in 1946, in accord with the law that remarriage is a bar to such benefits. Also in accord with longstanding regulations and practice, the payments were resumed in 1955 when her remarriage was annulled. Death benefits were paid all during the period of her remarriage on behalf of her children, continuing even after they were in college.

Mrs. Stephenson's situation appears to be no different from thousands of similar cases where individuals have not been given lump-sum settlements to cover the period of an invalid remarriage. While it may be, given the grounds of the annulment, that she did not receive adequate support during her remarriage, in view of all the circumstances this does not seem to be adequate reason for the retroactive payment proposed. Retroactive payments in this program are inherently objectionable because the program is based on the rule that death benefits are compensation toward support of the widow for current monetary loss resulting from the service death of a husband. A remarriage, even one subsequently annulled, must be assumed to replace that loss and to remove the Government's obligation to do so.

Approval of this bill would therefore seriously discriminate against similarly situated widows of veterans and it is important that we preserve the integrity and impartiality essential to the administration of programs involving hundreds of thousands of veterans and their dependents. This we cannot do if we grant special privilege or favored treatment as proposed by H.R. 9285.

APPENDIX

Fulbright of Arkansas. Gruening of Alaska. Hayden of Arizona.

Hickenlooper of Iowa.

Hill of Alabama.

Javits of New York.

Johnston of South Carolina.

Kuchel of California.

Lausche of Ohio.

Long of Hawaii.

Long of Louisiana.
Long of Missouri.

Magnuson of Washington.

Monroney of Oklahoma.

Morse of Oregon.

Morton of Kentucky.

Smathers of Florida.

Talmadge of Georgia.

Wiley of Wisconsin.

Young of North Dakota.

Hruska of Nebraska. Jackson of Washington. Keating of New York.

McCarthy of Minnesota. McGee of Wyoming. Mansfield of Montana. Moss of Utah.

Muskie of Maine. Pastore of Rhode Island. Prouty of Vermont. Proxmire of Wisconsin. Scott of Pennsylvania. Smith of Massachusetts. Stennis of Mississippi. Symington of Missouri. Williams of Delaware. Williams of New Jersey. Yarborough of Texas. Young of Ohio.

1 Appointed by the Governor to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Francis Case.

2 Appointed by the Governor to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Henry Dworshak. 3 Appointed by the Governor to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Styles Bridges. • Appointed by the Governor to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Andrew F. Schoeppel.

1967. Class 2

Mr. Allott of Colorado.

Anderson of New Mexico.

Bartlett of Alaska.
Boggs of Delaware.
Case of New Jersey.
Cooper of Kentucky.
Curtis of Nebraska.
Douglas of Illinois.
Eastland of Mississippi.
Ellender of Louisiana.
Hickey of Wyoming.
Humphrey of Minnesota.
Jordan of Idaho.2

Jordan of North Carolina.
Kefauver of Tennessee.
Kerr of Oklahoma.

McClellan of Arkansas.
McNamara of Michigan.
Metcalf of Montana.

Miller of Iowa.

Mundt of South Dakota.
Murphy of New Hampshire.
Mrs. Neuberger of Oregon.
Mr. Pearson of Kansas.*

Pell of Rhode of Island.
Randolph of West Virginia.
Robertson of Virginia.

Russell of Georgia.

Saltonstall of Massachusetts.

Mrs. Smith of Maine.

Mr. Sparkman of Alabama.

Thurmond of South Carolina.
Tower of Texas.