Mr. RODINO. That the gentleman will agree that it may be necessary since the term "passport," as defined in the Immigration and Nationality Act, merely states it is a travel document issued by competent authority.

Mr. WILLIS: Yes.

Mr. RODINO. And any competent authority, whether friendly or not, could then stamp a book and call it a passport.

Mr. WILLIS. I think that that statute "competent authority" can't speak for other countries. They are talking about competent American authorities. What I am trying to say is if that would improve the bill, I am all for it.

Mr. RODINO. Further question.

Have you considered the possibility, and I know, of course, that we cannot deny reentry to a citizen of the United States, presently that is the Supreme Court interpretation.

Mr. WILLIS. That is right.

Mr. RODINO. However, is it within bounds to consider that we could make the travel of these people who are anxious a one-way ticket to another country prohibiting entry otherwise as a penalty?

Since these people are so anxious to denounce the United States and seeming to think it is not the right kind of a place to live in, I think that possibly we might give consideration to making it a one-way ticket.

Mr. WILLIS. Perhaps this interpretive document handed to me by counsel might be a closer answer to your question.

It will be noted that while my bill in clause (3) of subsection (b) makes it a penal offense to travel to, enter, or travel in any country or area in which travel has been prohibited, I have maintained in clause (1) as a distinct or alternate offense the language of the present statute making it an offense to depart from or enter the United States unless the person bears a valid passport.

Likewise, in clause (2) a separate offense is established for travel to such prohibited areas unless the individual bears a passport specifically endorsed for and authorizing such travel.

The purpose of retaining these optional and separate offenses requiring either a valid passport, or a passport specifically endorsed for travel to certain areas, is to make clear that the President may establish such a requirement as a means of registering or recording the identity of persons who do seek to leave the United States, or travel abroad, should the Executive find this desirable. It is clear, however, that these are only optional charges. Clause (3) will be undoubtedly the principal provision under which prosecutions will be facilitated. With respect to clause (1) of subsection (b), as to the provisions there dealing with entry as well as departure, should the committee be of the opinion that there is substance to the second Worthy case of February 20, striking down a similar provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, making entry an offense, I can say to the committee that if the words "or enter" on lines 12 and 13 were stricken from the bill, this would not at all affect my bill in any material respect.

Under the present statute, I believe that the entry prohibitions did not constitute an offense isolated from the departure clause. It appears to me that the entry provision was simply a part of the original

unlawful transaction of departure from the United States, and could be sustained only in connection with an unlawful departure. The entry provision was principally intended to solve a venue problem. Where the Government in certain cases might not know the point of departure, it might on the other hand know the point of entry, and although a departure and entry may be charged as separate counts of an indictment, I do not believe that they are all one transaction and would not justify cumulative penalties. The second Worthy case did not consider the entry provision in this light. It was not necessary for the court to reach the constitutional issue raised in the Worthy case dealing with reentry. I therefore believe the decision is wrong.

I may be wrong, but I want to hold on to our opinion and I think this probably answers your question.

Mr. RODINO. Yes.

Mr. WILLIS. In other words, one of the quarrels with the decision is not to consider as a part of the general scheme, the unlawful departure from the initial was illegal, and I think they could have put both together.

Mr. RODINO. Yes. In other words, would it be possible to consider that if there were such an unlawful departure, then any entry would therefore be illegal and therefore concluding that this could be a one-way ticket?

Mr. WILLIS. Why he was not indicted for unlawful departure but only for reentry, I don't know, but it is one of these peculiar cases that is presented to the court. Therefore, the point I make was not necessarily before the court, their lawful departure, because there was no separate count on that.

Now, how they pitch their case on reentry, which poses problems, I recognize that, or when there was such a clear case of unlawful departure is a thing I don't understand. There may be reasons for it but the decision doesn't disclose them. There may have been a venue problem, as pointed out.

Mr. RODINO. The reason I have asked this is because I wonder in my mind whether or not when these people who are so bold as to say, Well, we are going to depart nonetheless would then dare do so knowing that they might be met with a closed door and not be able to

reenter.

Mr. WILLIS. I don't think the court would uphold that. I think they want to test their theory or right to travel and the hell with our foreign policy. That is why they did this traveling. They are doing it in open defiance, an invitation of prosecution, it would seem. Mr. MOORE. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. WILLIS. They could have been more discreet.

Mr. MOORE. As I read your testimony, it is not only the group's questioning of the travel ban, they have now by various advertisements advocated the direct opposite of our foreign policy decision in Vietnam practically inviting rebellion to the President in that respect, are they not?

Mr. WILLIS. Yes.

Mr. MOORE. So, if we settle this with respect to the travel ban, we have no assurance that these same individuals, feeling as strongly as they do, and in so many areas which are completely alien to the present policies of the United States, are going to test every one of

them.

Mr. WILLIS. I think the gentleman is right. We will have to face them as they are presented. This is one of them. I am at least trying to cope with this one.

Mr. RODINO. Thank you very much.

We should consider making this as strong as we possibly can to protect the interests of the United States when some people are so intent on going to other countries and denounce the United States. I think that then we ought to take that kind of a measure which would at least confront them with the test as to whether or not they want to return, desire to be U.S. citizens.

Mr. WILLIS. Because here, you see, the Executive is way ahead of the legislative. The President has issued a ban. It is applicable but there is no criminal sanction to the Presidential ban, so it is our move. We are either going to uphold the Executive action or we are going to let them slip under the fence.

Mr. MOORE. Will the gentleman yield for just a question following on that?

Mr. RODINO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I have concluded.

Mr. MOORE. May I follow with a question?

Does the gentleman from Virginia yield?

Mr. POFF. Yes, sir.

Mr. MOORE. Do I understand that perhaps you have a serious question in your mind about the present pending indictments against those that went to Cuba?

Mr. WILLIS. No. It is difficult but they have been indicted. One has been found guilty but, you see, you are presented with a situation where these people, in effect, or most of them, have supplied the proof, generally speaking, making it unnecessary to prove a thing which normally makes it difficult to meet because, as I pointed out in my statement, they deliberately did this for their own reasons. My guess is to test.

In the meantime, they are getting by and propagandizing, but you must not forget that those are the people who are bold enough to tell us about it. We do know that the cases we can't reach under the present technical requirement of proof, and so on, in the shape of our statutes run into the many hundreds.

Mr. MOORE. Thank you.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Poff.

Mr. POFF. Mr. Chairman.

I gather that the gravamen of your testimony is that the President has a power, that the power is sterile, that the Congress has the power to make the President's power effective, and that your bill would make the President's power effective. Am I correct so far?

Mr. WILLIS. That is the whole thrust of it all.

Mr. POFF. Of course, the President then is interested in this legislation.

Mr. WILLIS. Oh, I am quite sure. It was the former President and the President before the former President who has been signing these proclamations in appropriate situations. While I have not talked to any of them, it is obvious that they are, all of them, and the Justice Department.

Mr. POFF. Has the Attorney General, Department of Justice?

Mr. WILLIS. Well, one or two things I prefer not to mention. The answer is "Yes," that the Department of Justice is interested. I would hope that their favorable report should come today.

Mr. POFF. I was just getting to that point. I don't know that a formal request has yet been made. May I ask counsel?

Mr. BESTERMAN. Mr. Chairman, a formal request for a report on Mr. Willis' bill was made of the Justice Department 6 days after the bill was introduced, as soon as the bill was referred to this subcommittee. The report has not been received.

After Mr. Willis' testimony was scheduled for today, sir, I made an effort to obtain the report from the Justice Department. This was last Thursday, June 11. I ran into difficulties. A telephone message I received yesterday in the afternoon is to the effect that the report has been prepared in draft form and is being sent to the Bureau of the Budget for the usual clearance, and we may expect a formal report by next week.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Do I understand you correctly that within 6 days after the introduction of this bill a request was made to the Justice Department, which would mean November 12, 1963?

Mr. BESTERMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. CHELF. That is almost 7 months.

Mr. POFF. We can expect, however, a report from the Department of Justice promptly?

Mr. WILLIS. That is my understanding from your counsel.

Mr. POFF. Now, the gentleman may not be familiar with the contents of other legislation of a similar nature and may not be prepared to answer questions about it.

Mr. WILLIS. I will tell you whatever I know if you ask the questions. Generally, the area of my interest has been the area which was the subject of a hearing, and the overseeing of what we did is still going on within the area of the jurisdiction of my Committee on UnAmerican Activities.

As happens so often, and that is the problem, we meet on this committee, they say: "You are in business but you don't report legislation." The trouble is, ours is a committee of dual functions, investigative and legislative. Certain things we legislate on that we have the power to; others we call hearings within our jurisdiction and then we do what I am doing now, introduce a bill as Tad Walter did so often and we sponsor the legislation through other committees.

So, if you go into other areas, I don't know if I can respond, but I will try.

Mr. POFF. Precisely what I mean is, would you be able to compare your bill, for instance, with the Cramer bill?

Mr. WILLIS. I would imagine they have the same objective to have it an effective law. I don't know about this particular wording. I see Mr. Cramer's bill is H.R. 5320 and was introduced in April or last year, prior to my bill. Now, I would judge, and this is no criticism, that perhaps mine might meet the situation more squarely because we have since the introduction of his bill had the benefit of bearings which he did not have. Without even reading it, I am quite sure that we have practically the same thing in mind.

Mr. POFF. As the gentleman may not yet be aware, Mr. Cramer has introduced another bill, subsequent to your's dated June 15th, which is H.R. 11603.

36-382-64-pt. 1—4

Mr. WILLIS. This year?

Mr. POFF. Yes.

Mr. FEIGHAN. That is the one I have.

Mr. WILLIS. I see.

Mr. POFF. The approach is somewhat different. I think the objectives are identical but I just wondered if you cared to compare the approaches and express your opinion as to the preference.

Mr. WILLIS. I would be glad, if asked, to submit a memorandum on it but I can't be critical of his bill. I mean I can't make a critical examination without more careful study.

Mr. POFF. I assume that no request has yet been made of the Department of Justice for a report on H.R. 11603?

Mr. BESTERMAN. The bill was referred to this subcommittee this morning.

Mr. Cramer's predecessor bill, H.R. 5320, introduced April 1, 1963, has been sent to the Department for a report shortly thereafter. The report is again overdue by several months.

Mr. CHELF. You mean to say that Mr. Cramer's original bill was introduced in April of 1963 and we have no report on that either? Mr. POFF. Exactly.

Can counsel advise when the request was sent to the Department of Justice for a report on that bill?

Mr. BESTERMAN. I will supply the date, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PoFF. All right.

Mr. Chairman, I don't know if it is necessary, but I would like to feel free, if future indications felt it would be wise, to draw on the expertise of the staff based upon the information available to them through these hearings and otherwise.

Mr. WILLIS. I certainly have no objection to that. I welcome it. Mr. POFF. At this point, we won't make a formal request for a formal memorandum.

Mr. WILLIS. All right.

Mr. POFF. Mr. Chairman, I am interested in a matter which, in some respects, is collateral to the matter under inquiry but which was brought rather dramatically into focus by the witness' testimony.

As the witness knows, I introduced a bill last year which simply would have the effect of extending the geographical jurisdiction of the sedition statute to acts of sedition committed by American citizens or permanent resident aliens on foreign soil. The jurisdiction of the sedition statute currently is limited to the United States, to admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States. That bill has passed the House and is now pending in the Senate and has been pending there for more than a year.

Now, the gentleman referred to the conduct of one Phillip Abbott Luce and others in concert with him who signed an ad which it would appear to me clearly constitutes an act of sedition. As the gentleman knows, that act of sedition was committed on American soil if it was an act of sedition.

Does the gentleman know if the Department of Justice has moved to prosecute this act?

Mr. WILLIS. I am advised that, as we usually do, we sent to the Department of Justice those cases, the testimony of those witnesses who, in our opinion, merited scrutiny for possible action. I say