at the conclusion of the hearings and make such statements and clarifications as I deem necessary. My statement on H.R. 7700 is before you, as well as a sectionby-section analysis. This material will conclude my testimony on H.R. 7700 at this time. Sincerely yours, EMANUEL CELLER, Chairman. JUNE 16, 1964. Hon EMANUEL CELLER, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, DEAR COLLEAGUE: On June 11, 1964, at 11:10 a.m., when we concluded our opening day of testimony on H.R. 7700, which you introduced, you had completed your reading of a prepared statement, consuming almost 50 minutes of the 1 hour. available for taking testimony, leaving only a few minutes for questioning by the members of the subcommittee before the bells rang calling us to the floor of the House for an early 11 a.m. session. At both the opening and closing of that hearing, I made it clear that hearings would resume at a time convenient to you and convenient to the call of the House. At that time I stated the importance of your testimony and the importance of the questions by members of the subcommittee on your bill and related matters would require this procedure. You agreed then to reappear at your convenience and you later agreed the date of Thursday, June 18, at 10 a.m., would be a time convenient to you, which was confirmed by my letter of June 13. Accordingly, I have set that date for the resumption of your testimony. I am confident you will agree that your testimony is vital to the success of our hearings. As the sponsor of the key legislation under consideration, as a leading authority on immigration, and as one regarded as very knowledgeable on the present law and all proposals made for change, your testimony is imperative at the outset of our hearings. Orderly procedures of the committee require that you complete your testimony before the subcommittee calls other witnesses. I hope you will agree on the need to avoid any further delay in completing these hearings. This subcommittee does not intend to depart from its orderly schedule of hearings on pending immigration legislation. To maintain that orderly schedule we must require all witnesses to appear and complete their testimony in the order Announced prior to the opening of these hearings. This is the most expeditious manner of proceeding with our hearings. I. therefore, request that you reconsider your letter of June 15 and that you appear before our subcommittee on June 18, as scheduled, so that we may complete your valuable testimony. With all good wishes, I am, MICHAEL A FEIGHAN, Chairman, Subcommittee No 1. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U.S., Hon. MICHAEL A. Feighan, House of Representatives. DEAR COLLEAGUE: I have before me your letter of June 16, 1964. I refer to previous communications, namely, your letter of June 13 and my reply of June 15, 1964. I repeat, I shall be pleased to appear at the conclusion of the hearings and make such statements and clarifications as I deem necessary. Sincerely yours, EMANUEL CELLER, Chairman. Mr. FEIGHAN. Under the circumstances, I see no point in delaying these hearings further. One week has already been lost from the chedule this subcommittee set and hoped to maintain. We will, therefore, proceed with the testimony of other members who wish to be heard. We are pleased to welcome as our first witness today our able colleague, Congressman Willis, of Louisiana, and we place in the record at this point the text of his bill, H.R. 9045. [H.R. 9045, 88th Cong., 1st sess.] A BILL To amend section 215 of the Immigration and Nationality Act Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) that portion of the first sentence of subsection (a) of section 215 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1185) preceding paragraph (1) is amended to read as follows: "When the President shall find that the interests of the United States require that restrictions and prohibitions in addition to those provided otherwise than by this section be imposed upon the departure of persons from and their entry into the United States, and shall make public proclamation thereof, it shall, until otherwise ordered by the President or the Congress, be unlawful—”. (b) Subsection (b) of such section 215 is amended to read as follows: "(b) After such proclamation as is provided for in subsection (a) of this section has been made and published and while such proclamation is in force, it shall, except as otherwise provided by the President, and subject to such limitations and exceptions as the President may authorize and prescribe, be unlawful for any citizen or national of the United States to "(1) depart from or enter, or attempt to depart from or enter, the United States unless he bears a valid passport; or "(2) travel to, enter, or travel in or through any country or area, or attempt to travel to, enter, or travel in or through any country or area, unless he bears a passport specially endorsed for and authorizing such travel or entry therein; or "(3) travel to, enter, or travel in or through any country or area, or attempt to travel to, enter, or travel in or through any country or area to which travel by United States citizens has been prohibited by the President." (c) The section heading of such section 215 is amended to read as follows: "TRAVEL CONTROL OF ALIENS, NATIONALS, AND CITIZENS". (d) The table of contents contained in the first section of the Immigration and Nationality Act is amended by striking out "Sec. 215. Travel control of aliens and citizens in time of war or national emergency." and inserting in lieu thereof "Sec. 215. Travel control of aliens, nationals, and citizens." STATEMENT OF HON. EDWIN E. WILLIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA Mr. WILLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I very much appreciate our invitation to testify today on H.R. 9045. a bill to amend the travel control provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, introduced by me on November 6, 1963. This bill was drafted after extensive investigation and hearings by the Committee on Un-American Activities relating to unauthorized travel to Cuba revealed serious weaknesses in present travel control laws. Briefly, my bill would make it a punishable offense to leave, or attempt to leave, or enter the United States without a valid passport; to travel, or attempt to travel to, in or through any country or area without a passport specifically endorsed for such travel; or to travel, or attempt to travel to, in or through any country or area in which travel has been prohibited by the President upon his determination such restriction is necessary in the national interest. There are, I believe, three basic matters to be considered relative to this bill: 1. The constitutionality of bans on travel to certain areas when the President determines that travel to or in them would be contrary to the national interest. 2. Demonstration that effective prosecution of area travel ban violators is, in many instances, impossible because of weaknesses in present statutes which impose criminal penalties for such travel. 3. Evidence that the bill, H.R. 9045, would eliminate the weaknesses referred to above, thus making possible effective prosecution of those who engage in illegal travel. First, as to the constitutionality of area travel bans: These bans, promulgated by the State Department, have been based on the power of the President of the United States to conduct foreign policy. There have been a considerable number of court cases testing this power in recent years. In not one of these cases has the Presidential power to impose area restrictions on travel been questioned by the courts. It is significant that in three recent tests of area bans on travel by American citizens, the general Presidential authority and the specific bans have been upheld by the district courts and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia-and the Supreme Court has denied certiorari in each case, thus, in effect, giving its affirmation to the lower court's decisions. I am referring to the 1959 cases of Worthy v. Herter (270 Fed. 2d 905) and Frank v. Herter (269 Fed. 2d 245), and to the 1960 case of Porter v. Herter (278 Fed. 2d 280). Even more recently, on February 20 and on March 30 of this year, two district court decisions-one by the District Court of Eastern Pennsylvania, and the other in Connecticut-reaffirmed this power. There is, I believe, no question whatsoever concerning the President's power, in the interests of the United States, to ban travel in certain areas and of the concomitant power of Congress to impose penalties for violations of these bans. On February 20 of this year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in reversing the conviction of William Worthy, a case I will refer to again, for reentering the United States from Cuba without a properly validated passport, held: "The right of the Congress to require passports and to impose reasonable restrictions upon foreign travel is not dependent upon the existence of a state of war, but may be exercised under the broad power to enact legislation for the regulation of foreign affairs.” As to the second point-the effectiveness of present statutes in making practicable the prosecution of violators of area travel bansI believe the following statement of fact will make all too clear the situation we are confronted with today and have been confronted with for many years: From May 23, 1947-when a ban was imposed on travel to Yugoslavia to the present, the President, through the Department of State, has during various periods, banned travel to or in Red China, North Korea, North Vietnam, Cuba, Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Rumania, the U.S.S.R., and Yugoslavia. Evidence developed by the Committee on Un-American Activities and other committees of the Congress including, I am sure, this subcommittee-indicates that, during these 17 years, hundreds of 36-382-64-pt. 1– -3 Americans have violated this travel ban. They have done so openly in many cases, making extended trips-most recently to Cuba-but also to Red China, to the various satellite nations in Europe, and to Russia, itself, during the periods when travel to each of these countries was banned. ́ Despite this fact, from 1947 to date, there had not been a single successful prosecution of a violation of any one of these bans until May 14 of this year-less than a month ago when Mrs. Helen Maxine Levi Travis was convicted in the Federal court in Los Angeles on two counts of illegal travel to Cuba. This conviction, no doubt, will be appealed. I should point out that one other conviction had been obtained in the Federal court in Miami, that of William Worthy on August 8, 1962, also for illegal travel to Cuba. This conviction, however, was reversed by the Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, on February 20 of this year as I mentioned a moment ago. Thus, the overall picture is a fantastic one. In effect, the unquestioned authority of the President to bar travel to certain areas is a near-empty, almost meaningless power. It exists, but-to date-the U.S. Government has not been able to make it truly effective. Why is this so? The reason stands out in my mind, after analyzing the recent hearings of the Committee on Un-American Activities-and also some earlier ones-is that there are certain serious weaknesses in the existing statutes under which prosecutions must be made. It must be kept in mind that while the President has inherent power to control travel and to ban travel in certain areas under certain conditions, he does not have the power to impose a criminal penalty on those who violate his restrictions. Violators can be punished only on authorization of the Congress, expressed in the enactment of legislation providing penalties for those who violate his travel bans. In attempts to make Presidential area travel restrictions meaningful, Congress has enacted a number of laws. 1. The (Passport) Act of July 3, 1926 (44 Stat. 887; 22 U.S.C. 211a). This act provides: The Secretary of State may grant and issue passports, and cause passports to be granted, issued, and verified in foreign countries by diplomatic representatives of the United States, and by such consul general, consuls, or vice consuls when in charge, as the Secretary of State may designate, and by the chief or other executive officer of the insular possessions of the United States, under such rules as the President shall designate and prescribe for and on behalf of the United States, and no other person shall grant, issue, or verify such passports. Twenty-six years ago-on March 31, 1938-the President of the United States, on the authority of this statute, issued the following regulation (22 CFR 51.75): The Secretary of State is authorized in his discretion to refuse to issue a passport, to restrict a passport for use only in certain countries, to restrict it against use in certain countries, to withdraw or cancel a passport alreay issued, and to withdraw a passport for the purpose of restricting its validity or use in certain countries. 2. The penal sanctions for the enforcement of the above-mentioned law and regulation are found in the act of June 25, 1948 (18 U.S.C. 1544), which imposes a prison term up to 5 years and/or a fine up to $5,000 on the basis of the criminal statute: Whoever willfully and knowingly uses and watch that word or attempts to use any passport in violation of the conditions or restrictions therein contained, or of the rules prescribed pursuant to the laws regulating the issuance of passports ✶ ✶ ✶ The committee's recent investigation of unauthorized travel to Cuba-and its past investigations of other violations of area travel bans-reveal that Communist violators of area travel restrictions do have concern about this statute. They have demonstrated their concern by attempting not to "use" their passports for travel they know to be illegal. Generally speaking, they have succeeded in this attempt and, to a large extent, rendered this statute useless as a means for enforcing area travel bans. What do they do? They will secure a passport before leaving the United States, so that their departure from this country will be lawful and not a violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (8 U.S.C. 1185), about which I will say more later. En route to their final destination-a country to which travel is banned-they will use this passport to travel to or through England, France, and/or other countries in the world where travel is permitted. When they actually reach their final destination, however the country to or in which travel by U.S. citizens is forbidden-they will not show or utilize their passport. Through Communist Party channels of one kind or another, they make arrangements with officials of the Communist country they are to enter and are provided, in advance, with an entry pass, permit, or "visa," which is not stamped in their passports as it should be, but on a separate slip of paper. This "slip visa," as it is called, is produced for the appropriate officials upon their arrival in the country in which travel is banned, and they are granted entry without the officials even seeing their passports. In the case of the group of 59 so-called students who traveled to Cuba last summer, they were provided with "slip visas" by the Cuban consulate in Czechoslovakia when they arrived in that country en route to Cuba. For many years, hearings of the Committee on Un-American Activities reveal, Communists have been resorting to this device to avoid a technical violation of the act of June 25, 1948, requiring lawful "use" of passports. To date, this gimmick has been successful in protecting them from prosecution under the statute. It is important to recall, in this respect, that the act of 1926 affects only the issuance and use of passports. It does not ban travel in any specific area. It appears that a statute providing a penalty for misuse of a passport is not and will not be an effective instrument for enforcing Presidential travel bans as long as Communist governments are willing, the interests of the Communist conspiracy, to permit U.S. party members, fellow travelers, or any others they believe will serve their interests, to enter their borders without producing their passports. And such governments will be ready to do this, I believe, as long as they exist. |