’ 4

J 0 9 / /

'

2 3 WAIVER OF NONIMMIGRANT VISAS

GOVERNMENT

Storage

U M E N T S

:B 1 ? 1976

T H E L I B R A R Y 

K A N S A S ST A T S U N lV c r to lT Y

H E A R IN G

BE FO R E T H E

SU BCO M M IT TE E ON IM M IG R A TIO N , C IT IZ E N S H IP , 

A N D IN T E R N A T IO N A L L A W

O F TH E

\

— ru —-^cQLn

= zr 

■ n ~ ~ J

i-A

~ ~ rH<t

= o

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIV ES

NINETY-FOURTH CONGRESS 

FIR ST SES SIO N

ON

H.R . 190, H.R . 2771, an d H.R . 8059

VISA WAIVERS

SE PTE M B E R 10, 1975

Ser ia l No. 23

Printed for the Use of th e Committee on the Jud ici ary

61-357

U.S . GO VE RN MEN T PR IN TI NG OF FICE 

WA SH INGT ON : 1975
COMM ITT EE ON TH E JU DIC IA RY

PET E R W. RO DI NO , J r., Ne w Je rs ey , Chair ma n

J A C K B R O O K S, Tex as

R O B E R T W. K A S T E N M E IE R , W isc on sin

DO N E D W A R D S, Cal if or nia

W IL LIA M L. H U N G ATE, Miss ou ri 

JO HN CO N YE R S, J r., Mich igan 

JO SH U A E IL B E R G , Pe nnsy lv an ia 

W A L T E R F LO W E R S, Alab am a 

JA M E S It. M AN N, So ut h Ca ro lin a 

P A U L S. SA R B A N E S, M ar yl an d 

JO HN F. SE IB E R L IN G , Ohio 

G EO RG E E. D A N IE LSO N , Califo rn ia 

R O B E R T F. DR IN AN , M as sa ch us etts 

B A R B A R A JO RD AN , Te xa s 

R A Y TH ORN TO N , Ar ka ns as 

E L IZ A B E T H H OLT ZM AN, Ne w Yor k 

ED W A R D M EZ V IN SK Y , Iowa 

H ERM AN B A D IL LO , New Yo rk 

RO MAN O L. M AZZ OLI , Ken tu ck y 

ED W A R D W. PA T TIS O N , New Yo rk 

C H R IS T O P H E R J. DO DD , Co nn ec ticu t 

W IL LIA M J. H UGHES, New Je rs ey 

M AR TIN A. RU SS O, Illin oi s

EDW AR D H UTCH IN SO N , M ichiga n 

R O B E R T M cC LORY, Il linoi s 

TO M R A IL SB A C K , Illinoi s 

C H A R LE S E. W’ IG G IN S, Cali fo rn ia 

H AM IL TO N F IS H , J r., Ne w Yor k 

M. C A LD W E L L B U T LE R , V ir gin ia 

W IL LIA M S. CO HEN , Main e 

CARLO S J. MOO RH EA D, Califo rn ia 

JO HN M. A SH BRO O K, Oh io 

H EN R Y J. H YDE, Illinoi s 

TH O M AS N. K IN D N E SS, Oh io

E ar l C. D u d le y, Jr ., General Co un sel

Gar ne r J. Cl in e , St af f Di re ctor

Her be rt F u c h s, Co un sel

W il lia m P. Sh a t t u c k, Co un sel

H. Ch r is t o p h e r Nold e, Co un sel

A la n A. P ar k e r, Co un sel

Jam e s F. F a lco , Co un sel

Mau ri ce A. B ar bo za, Co un sel

T h om as W. H u t c h is o n , Co un sel

A rth ur P. E ndres , J r. , Co un sel

Da n ie l L. Co h e n, Co un sel

F r a n k lin G. P o l k, Co un sel

T h om as E. Moo ney , Co un sel

A le xa nd er B. Co o k, Co un sel

Co n sta n t in e J. Ge k a s, Co un sel

A la n F. C o f f e y , Jr ., Co un sel

K e n n et h N. K lee, Co un sel

Ray m ond V. S m ie t a n k a, Co un sel

Subc om mit te e on I m m ig ra ti on , Cit iz e n s h ip , an d I nte rn at io nal L aw

JO SH U A E IL B E R G , Pe nnsy lv an ia , Chair ma n

P A U L S. SA R B A N E S, M ar yl an d H AM IL TO N F IS H , J r., Ne w Yor k

E L IZ A B E T H HOLT ZM AN , Ne w Yor k W IL LIA M S. CO HEN , Main e

C H R IS T O P H E R J. DO DD , Con nec ticu t

M A R TIN A. RU SS O, Illin ois

Gar ne r J. Cl in e, Co un sel

A rth ur P. E n dres, Jr ., Co un sel

Jan ic e A. Zar iio , A ss is ta nt Co un sel

Ale xa nd er B. Co o k, Ass oc ia te Co un sel

(II)
C O N T E N T S

T ext of —

H.R. 190____________________________________________________________

H.R . 2771__________________________________________________________

H.R . 8059 __________________________________________________________

W itnes se s—

Cha pm an , Ho n. Leo nar d F. , Co mmiss ione r, Im m ig ra ti on an d N atu ra liz at io n Se rv ic e___________________________________________________

P re par ed sta te m en t_____________________________________________

Ber ns en , Sam, gen era l co un sel, Im m ig ra tion and N atu ra li zati on Ser vice _______________________________________________________________

Gr eene. Ja m es , D ep ut y Com miss ione r, Im m ig ra ti on a nd N atu ra li zati on 

Se rvice __________________________________________________________

M ur ph y, Ho n. Jo hn M., a R ep re se nta tive in Con gr es s fr om th e S ta te

of New Yor k_____________________________________________________

P re par ed st ate m en t_____________________________________________

Ph ilio n, N or m an J., se nio r vic e pre si den t, G ov er nm en ta l and Public

Affa irs , A ir T ra n sp o rt ati o n A ss oc ia tio n___________________________

Pre par ed sta te m en t_____________________________________________

W alen tyno wicz, Hon . Leo nar d F., A dm in is tr at or, B ure au of Sec ur ity

an d C on su la r A ffai rs , D ep ar tm en t of S ta te ________________________

Pre pare d st ate m en t_____________________________________________

Wo n P at, Ho n. A nt on io B orja, a R ep re se nta tive in Con gr es s from th e

T err it ory of G ua m _______________________________________________

Pre par ed sta te m en t_____________________________________________

A dd iti on al m ate ri al—

App lic ation fo r no nim m ig ra nt vis as _________________________________

“W hy E ur op ea ns D on ’t—B ut Sh ou ld Visit th e U nited S ta te s, ” by

Elk an Allen (f ro m H ol id ay Mag az ine, A pr il-M ay 19 74 )___________

A pp en di x—

A ir T ra nsj m rt A ss oc ia tio n of America, le tt e r date d Octob er 3, 1975. 

to Ho n. Jo sh ua E il berg __________________________________________

American Autom ob ile Assoc iatio n, le tt er date d Se ptem be r 30, 1975, to 

lion. Jo sh ua E ilber g______________________________________________

American E xpre ss Co., le tt er da te d Se pt em be r 17, 1975, to Ho n. 

Jo sh ua E ilber g___________________________________________________

Amer ican Hotel an d Mote l Assoc iatio n, le tt e r date d Se pt em be r 17, 

1975. to Ho n. Jo sh ua E ilber g_____________________________________

Ann un zio , Hon. F ra n k , a R ep re se nta tive in Con gress from th e S ta te 

of Illin ois, le tt e r date d Se ptem be r 8, 1975. to Ho n. Jo sh ua Eilbe rg __

Gu am , L eg is la tu re of th e T err it ory of. Res ol ut io n No. 158___________

K ai se r, Il erl ie rt IT., Jr. , Dep ut y A ss is ta nt S ecre ta ry of T ra n sp o rt ation fo r Env iron m en t, Saf et y an d Con su mer s A ffai rs, pre par ed

s ta te m e n t____________ ___________________________________________

M us ter. W ill iam, publ is her , th e Ran d McN ally T ra v ele r's Alm an ac ,

pre par ed st ate m en t_______________________________________________

P an American W or ld A irw ay s, le tt er dat ed Octob er 22, 1975, to Ho n.

Jo sh ua Eilbe rg ___________________________________________________

Toohey, W ill iam I)., pre si den t. Disco ve r Am er ic a T ra vel O rg an iz atio ns, Inc., pre par ed st ate m en t___________________________________

W es te rn Tra ve l M er ch an ts , le tt er date d Octob er 20, 1975, to Hon. 

Jo sh ua Eilbe rg ___________________________________________________

Page

2

6

8

39

40

39

39

10

15

48

55

21

37

10

20

25

50

71

05

59

01

02

03

04

71

05

64

( t i l )
J i

'• i

f

*
WAIVER OF NONIMMIGRANT VISAS

W E D N E SD A Y , S E P T E M B E R 10, 19 75

H ou se of R ep re se nt at iv es ,

S ub co mmit te e on I m m ig ratio n,

Cit iz e n s h ip , an d I nte rnati onal L aw

of t h e C om m it te e on t ii e J ud ic ia ry ,

W asliington, DXJ.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:20 a.m., in room 

2237, Rayburn Home Office Building, Hon. Joshua Eilberg [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.

Present: Representatives Eilberg, Sarbanes, Holtzman, Russo, 

Fish, and Cohen.

Also present: Garner J . Cline and A rthur P. Endres. Jr., counsels; 

Janic e A. Zarro, assistant counsel; and Alexander B. Cook, associate 

counsel.

Mr. Eilberg. The hearing will please come to order.

Today's hearings have been called in order to consider various 

proposals which are designed to facilitate the admission of certain 

nonimmigrants—visitors for business or pleasure—to the United 

States.

These proposals which are commonly referred to as the visa waiver 

bills have been introduced over the last several Congresses, and during the 90th Congress this committee favorably reported similar 

legislation which was strongly recommended by the administration. 

There are currently three separate bills pending before the subcommittee, dealing with this matter—H.R. 190, H.R. 8059, and II.R. 2771.

At this time, without objection, we will introduce into the record 

the bills referred to.

(1)
2

04t ii C O N G R E S S 

1st S ession H. R. 190

IN THE HOUSE OF REPR ESENTATIVE S 

J anuary 14.1975

Mr. Annunzio introduced the following bill ; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend the Imm igration and Nationality Act to facilitate the 

entry of foreign tourists into the United States, and for other 

purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Sena te and Haase of 1* epresent a2 lives of the United, States o f America, in Uonyrcss assembled,

3 (a) Tha t section 212(d ) of the Imm igration and Na4 tionality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(d )) is amended by adding

5 at the end thereof the following new par agrap h:

6 “ (9) The provisions of subsection (a) (oth er than

7 paragraph s (2 ), (6 ), (9 ), (1 0), (1 5), (1 7), (2 3), (2G)

8 (A ), (2 7), (2 8), and (2 9)) may, pursuant to regulations

9 prescribed jointly by the Atto rney General and the Secre10 tary of State, be made inapplicable to aliens who arc seeking

I—O
3

2

1 to enter the United States as tem porary visitors for business 

- or pleasure for a period of not more than ninety days and

3 are nationals of foreign countries designated, in bis disere4 tion, by the Sec reta ry of State on the basis of recip rocity or 

° on tbe basis of a determin ation that such designation would 

b promote tbe foreign policy of tbe United States. Notwith - 

7 standing any other provision of this Act, such aliens may 

3 not be gran ted an extension of stay which would permit 

9

 them to remain in tbe United States more than ninety days

1 0 from date of admission, nor may they have their status

1 1 adjusted under section 244, 245, or 248 and, notw itbstandmg any provision of law or regulation governing tbe cliron43 ological order in which immigrant visa applications are

44 to be considered, an applicant for an immigrant visa, who

4° lias at any time been admitted as a nonimm igrant under

’ 6 this para graph and who has willfully remained beyond tbe

period of authorized stay or who lias failed to main tain the 

18 • • statu s in which he was admitted by engaging in employ4'^ ment or otherw ise, shall have a minium’ 1 period of two

O()

yea rs added to any priority date established for or by him

21 for the purposes of consideration for an immigrant visa,

22 such prio rity date being that date utilized in determining

23 . •

the chronological order in which immigrant visas are issued

21 . . . . to eligible imm igrants; in the ease of a prio rity date estab25 lisbed as of a date prec edin g Ins departu re from tbe United
4

3

1 States, the additional period added to this prio rity date

2 shall he two years plus any period of overstay between the

3 end of his authorized period of admission and the date of

4 liis departure from the United States; in the ease of a

5 priority date established as of a date subsequent to his

6 departure from the United States, the additional period

7 added to this prio rity date shall he two years.

8 (b) Section 238 (d ) of the Imm igra tion and Nationality 

Ac t (8 U.S.C. 1228(d )) is amended to read as follows:

“ (d) The Attor ney General shall have pow er to enter 

H into contracts, including bonding agreements with trans1 2 pollution lines, (1) to guarantee the passage through the

13 United States in transit of aliens destined to foreign countries,

14 or (2) to prescribe procedures designed to accomplish the

15 departure from the United State s of aliens who, under

16 section 21 2( d) (9 ), have entered the United States as

17 tem porary visitors for business or pleasure without possessing

18 a valid nonimm igrant visa. Notwith stan ding a ny othe r provi19 sion of this Act, such aliens may not have their classification

20 changed under section 24 8.”

21 Sec. 2. Section 221 (b) of the Imm igratio n and Na22 tionality Act (8 U.S .C. 1201(h )) is amended to read as

23 follows:-

24 “ (b) Each alien who applies for a visa shall he registered

25 and fingerprinted in connection with his application and shall
5

1 furnish copies of his photo graph signed by him for such use

2 as may be by regulations required. The Sec reta ry of State

3 and the Attorney General are here by authorized, in their

4 discretion and on the basis of reciprocity , pursuant to such

5 regulations as they may severally prescribe, to waive the

6

 requirements of this subsection and the requirem ent of fingcr7 printin g specified in section 262 in the case of any non3 imm igrant alien .”

9

 Sec. 3. This Act ma y be cited as “The Nonimm igrant 

10 Visa Ac t of 197 5” .

(51—357----- 75-
94t h C O X G Ii ESS 

1st S ession2771

IN TIIE HOUSE OF REP RES ENTATIV ES 

F ebruary 4,1975

Mr. Won Fat introduced (be following bill; wbicb was referred to the Com- 

• mittee on tbe Judicia ry

A B IL L

To waive the visa requ irem ents for aliens visiting Guam for not 

more tha n fifteen days.

1 Be it enacted by ilie Senate and House of Representor

2 tires of the United States of Americ a in Congress assembled,

3 Th at section 212 (a) (26) of the Imm igra tion and National4 ality Ac t (8 TJ'.S.C. 11 82 (a) (26) ) shall not apply with

5 respec t to any alien seeking to ente r Guam as a tem pora ry 

G visitor for business or pleasure for a period of not to exceed

7 fifteen days, if such alien is a natio nal of a foreign country

8 covered by this section. A nation is covered by this section

9 if it is so designated by the Sec retary of State on the basis

10 of reciprocity or on the basis of his determination tha t such

11 designation would prom ote the foreign policy of the United
7

o

1 States. Notwithstandin g any oilier provision of the Immigra2 lion and Nationality Act, any such alien, may not he granted

3 an extension of stay which would perm it him to remain in

4 Guam more than fifteen days from his date of admission, nor

5 ma y he have his status adjusted under section 244, 245, or 

fi 248 of such Act.
8

91ni CONGRESS 

1st S ession H. R. 8059

IX TH E HO US E OF BEP BESE XTATIV ES

J une 10,1975 ,

Mr. Mvkitiy of New York ( for himsel f and Mr. Lent) inf roduced the following, 

bi ll; which was referred to the Committee on the Jud iciary

To ame nd the Immigration and Nationality Act to facilitate the 

entry of visitors into the United States during its Bicentennial anniversary, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of leeprescnta2 tires of die U nited States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That this A ct may be cited as the ‘‘Visit U.S .A. Bicentennial

4 Anniversary A ct. ”

5 Sec. 2. Section 21 2( d) (4) (B) of the Imm igra tion

6 and Nationality Ac t (8 U.S.O. 11 82 (d ) (4) (B) ) is

7 amended to read as follo ws:

8 “ (B) on the basis of reciproc ity with respect to na9 tionals of foreign contiguous territo ry or of adjacent islands

I
9

o

1 and residents thereof havi ng a common nationality with such

2 nationals, or of nationals of other foreign territories during

3 calendar ye ar 1976, for periods not to exceed nin ety days

4 and with no further renewal, extension or adju stment in

5 status allowed, o r".

Mr. Eilberg. II.R. 190 would establish a permanent program for 

waiving the nonimmigrant visa requirement whereas H.R. 8059 is 

limited in duration to 1 year. On the other hand, II.R. 2771 is limited 

to the territory of Guam.

There are several competing considerations relating to this legislation which must be carefully examined by this committee, and 

I am sure t ha t the witnesses who will appear before the subcommittee 

today will greatly assist in this difficult task.

For example, supporters of the legislation properly recognize that 

there are numerous countries throughou t the world which admit visitors from the United States to th eir countries without requiring a visa. 

These supporters also maintain th at the elimination of a nonimmigrant visa requirement for short-term visitors will greatly increase 

tourism to the United States and will eliminate bureaucratic redtape 

during this Nation’s celebration of the Bicentennial.

On the other hand, these proposals represent a drastic departure 

from the traditional requirement of a nonimmigrant visa. In fact, 

some individuals have suggested tha t by enabling the foreign visitors 

to bypass the U.S, consular officials, this legislation would sacrifice 

necessary screening procedures; jeopardize national security; and 

exacerbate the illegal alien problem in this country.

The subcommittee looks forw ard to hearing from the various witnesses on all of these issues.

Before introducing our first witness this morning, I wish to note 

the presence of several Canadian parliamentarians whom we met with 

yesterday, who are in the hearing room this morning, and they are 

currently reviewing in detail the ir immigration policy and procedures. We had the opportunity—and I wish I had personally more 

opportunity—to briefly discuss matters of mutual concern; and it is 

apparent that your country shares a great number of the same problems tha t have plagued this subcommittee. We welcome your presence 

this morning.

It is interesting to note that the legislation we are considering today 

does not apply to Canada since natives of that country are the only 

persons in the world who are not required to obtain a nonimmigrant 

visa in order to visit the United States.
10

I would like to now welcome as our first witness, the Honorable John 

Murphy of New York, who has sponsored H.R. 8059, which would 

establish a 1-year visa waiver program during the Bicentennial. We 

welcome you, Congressman Murphy.

TESTIMONY OF HON. JOHN M. MU RPHY . A RE PR ES EN TA TIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM TH E STA TE OF N EW YORK

Mr. Mukpiiy. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. I certainly appreciate the 

opportunity to be here before this very distinguished subcommittee, 

and also want to extend a welcome to our colleagues from Canada.

Interestingly enough, when my State, which borders on Canada, 

held its last State convention, a Democratic nominating convention in 

upstate New York, I stayed on the Canadian side of the falls and was 

able to commute very easily back and forth to our convention hall. 

Of course, the Canadian facilities added so much to the entire complex, 

and it is an example of the great relationship between two gre at countries, when visitors can move so easily and flexibly back and forth 

across the border. Without exacerbating the problems tha t exist, if you carefully 

analyze the State Department letter, which T think constitutes one 

of the g reat “switcheroos” we have seen legislatively, you find recommendations on an issue that I thin k is a very simple issue, and a 

com monsense issue.

Of course, we, here, arc here through the efforts of our forebears 

who came from the four corners of the globe. And yet, our common 

heritage with other lands is separated by 200 years of culture, politics, 

and countless smaller divisions in the minds of men on both sides of 

both oceans. The American Bicentennial is a time not to build barriers 

between men, but to bring them down during the celebration of the 

birth of a nation.

H.R. 8059 and H.R. 9252 will eliminate some of the unnecessary 

visa requirements which were established durin g World W ar I, estab­ lished durin g wartime as a security measure, when the United States 

required each visitor to obtain a visa from an American consul abroad. 

These prescreening processes have been rendered obsolete by major 

increases in tourism from abroad, and. of course, a very drastic change 

in the world political situ atio n; a revolutionary reduction in traveltime 

from other parts of the world, and the fact tha t some 35 other nations 

require no visas from American tourists visiting the ir lands.

In 19G9 President Lyndon Johnson's Industry-Government Special 

Task Force on Travel stated that. “ Present entry procedures for vacation and business visitors to the United States are outmoded. They 

serve only to project an adverse image of this Nation's willingness 

to receive foreign guests.”

I might give you an example. On a visit to Teheran, Iran, last November—I had received over the years many complaints about the visa 

office there, and I decided to pay a visit to them myself. After spending 

about an hour I asked the consul officer why people had to sit from 7 

to 8 hours to wait for a visa. And. of course, his response was that this 

is typical of what you would expect.

I said, “Why do people have to get in line out here at 3. and 4, and 

5 o'clock in the morning?” lie said, “Well, t hat is native custom.”
11

Well. I started to question the people sitting, waiting for their 

visas. Xow. these natives have Ph. D.’s, they were attorneys, they were 

teachers; they were the finest people in tha t country tha t were coming to visit America. They send 16,000 of their children to American 

universities and schools each year; and they wait 6 and 8 hours for a 

visa.

So, I said to the consul officer, ‘‘What do you do after you issue a 

visa, do you have any checks to see that a person return s to the country 

of o rigin?” They have no check at all to see that the 30, to 60, to 90- 

day visa, or the type of visa th at is issued, is followed up on. So, 1 said, 

‘‘You are really participating in an exercise of futility here,” and yet, 

the people have to spend 6 to 8 hours to get a visa, and certainly don’t 

get the best impression of the United States, and a visa is supposed 

to be, I think, a welcoming document for a person visiting America.

At this point in our N ation ’s history, it would be most appropriate 

for the “Visit U.S.A. Bicentennial Anniversary Act” to become law. 

Enactment of the bill would increase foreign travel to this country, improve our foreign relations through promotion of a better understanding of America throu ghou t the world, improve our balance of payments and strengthen the dollar, and allow us to trea t travelers from 

abroad more efficiently and hospitably.

This legislation would empower the Attorney General and the Secretary of State to exempt, during calendar year 1976, nationals of foreign countries designated by the Secretary of State on the basis of reciprocity, from the requirement to have a visa prior to entry into the 

t nited States. To prevent abuse, the bill provides tha t:

1. En try authorized by the act may be for no more than 90 days, 

nor may such authorization be renewed or extended; and

2. The status of the visitor may not be adjusted to th at of an immigra nt durin g his visit.

It is further contemplated tha t the implementing regulations of 

the act would specify requirement to prevent the aggravation of our 

illegal alien problem. This would include such precautions as requiring nonrefundable roun d-trip tickets, and possession of a passport 

valid for 6 months beyond the term of his visit. In short, the bill 

would greatly facilitate the entry of foreign visitors into the United 

States without lessening the security of the Nation.

Now, the question of illegal aliens working has no relationship to 

this legislation, even though we see it brought up in the administration's letter. In my city you have many illegal aliens who are working. The wav to handle th at problem is for Im migration and N aturalization to notify them, to report with a plane, or ship ticket to leave the 

country; and also to just follow up administratively that way because 

whether they came in with a visa or without a visa, they are still in the 

status where this legislation would not affect their status at all.

We are near the celebration of the birth of what I consider the greatest Nation in the world, and for us to make it difficult for others to 

join us in this celebration is contrary to the spirit in which our Nation 

was founded. These visitors are not foreigners, but the same as our 

forebears, travelers to a new land.

Let’s share our country and its hospitality by removing the barriers 

to their visit. Elimination of these barriers is long overdue, and I urge 

tha t promp t and favorable consideration be given to th is act to insure 

tha t we may share our history with visitors from other lands.
12

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Eilberg. Thank you, Mr. Murphy, for advocating your bill, and 

coining before us this morning. Obviously, the subcommittee is interested in your ideas, partic ularly as we approach the Bicentennial, and 

that is why we are considering this legislation.

Just a few questions. Mr. Murphy, the records of the Immigration 

and Naturalization Service provided to us indicate tha t 5 to 10 percent of those who visit the United States on nonimmigrant visas do 

not return to their native land. Since we assume these facts to be correct, how do you react to tha t in light of your proposal ?

Mr. Murphy. I don’t think tha t this proposal and this problem are 

coincident; that 5 percent, in many instances-----

Mr. Eilberg. Five to ten percent.

Mr. Murpiiy. That 5 to 10 perecnt, those people in many instances are students and people who come here to be educated and possess skills, and th eir country will want them back; they should return 

to their countries. I ju st mentioned specifically the 16,000 Iran ian stu ­

dents. How does I ran get back those 16,000 students? Since they are 

trained, they should be going back to increase the technological base 

of that country and other countries.

The question is, is there a joint effort with those countries to assist 

them in having the ir nationals, who are now trained, go back to that 

country. And I thin k tha t is an immigration problem more than i t is 

a visa problem.

Mr. Eilberg. Isn’t it difficult to support your argument tha t many 

foreign persons do not come to the United States because of the visa 

requirements when actually the volume of temporary visitors fo r business and pleasure has increased substantially year afte r year?

Mr. Murptiy. It would naturally increase substantially, but when we 

look at ourselves in relation to the rest of the world, we were first in 

foreign tra vel; now we find that the United States is down in four th 

place in foreign travel. It is the movement of people on a world basis, 

and the freedom of movement in America that we are promoting here, 

friendship to America.

We see the economies of Japan, the economies of Germany and 

Western Eu rope increasing to the point tha t more and more people are 

traveling and want to travel to the United States. I think we have an 

artificial barrier to that travel.

Mr. Eilberg. During the consideration of visa requirements over 

the years the committee has never been presented with substantial and 

adequate evidence th at the visa requirement is a deterrent to travel to 

the U nited States by tourists. In other words, perhaps we are placing 

too much of a burden upon you with that question; but does the 

presence of the c urrent system restrict tourists, or potential tourists, to 

the United States? How do we prove that, and how do we know what 

the increase in volume would be, if any?

Mr. Murpiiy. I thin k it probably does not deter too many tourists. 

Maybe you could pu t a percentage figure on it, I think you would have 

to do a study. But it places an artificial barrier, and exacerbates the 

travel problems and the travel experience.

The first door to th e United States is tha t visa office, and that is the 

first impression that the first-time visitor has of the United States. 

And in many instances, the specific instance I just pointed out, it’s an 

unhappy 6- to 7-hour wait.
13

A policy of welcoming visitors, certainly in our Bicentennial year, 

is in order, we must drop the needless administrative burden we have 

created overseas.

Mr. E ilberg. You know, of course, th at many countries have a visa 

by mail process, so there is no waiting for the applicant in those cases. 

Isn ’t that an adequate way of hand ling the situation?

Mr. Murphy. That is one way, but how many countries does that apply in ? And it still is another administrative hurdle for the traveling 

person who wants to come.

Mr. Eilberg. Now, one other point. You and I serve on the Merchant 

Marine and Fisheries Committee, and share certain interests that 

arise and are dealt with in that committee. We are interested in U.S.- 

flag carriers, the maintenance of U.S.-flag carriers; and in that connection it is not inconceivable that the waiver procedure would increase the travel on non-U.S.-flag carriers to the detriment of U.S.-flag 

carriers. How would you react to that ?

Mr. Murphy. I would thin k that is a sales problem for the U.S. 

carriers. I don't think the visa requirement would a fleet any airline, 

or mode of transportation.

It. is a question of convenience; it is a question of traveltime; and i t 

is also a question of service. I t is up to free competition in the travel 

industry to provide a better service and to meet those requirements. 

Tha t is the way they get the business.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Russo, do you have any questions?

Air. Russo. I have no questions. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Cohen ?

Air. Coiiex. Just a couple, Air. Chairman.

Air. Alurphy, 1 am not sure in your statement what you mean when 

you say th at, “This would include such precautions as requiring lionrefundable round-trip tickets, and possession of a passport valid for 

6 months beyond the term of his visit.”

Why would you require a passport valid 6 months beyond the visit?

Air. Murphy. So that he would be able to be located by his country, 

or by our consular office, and it wouldn't expire durin g the period of 

time he had it here.

Air. Coiiex. Shouldn’t it be consistent with the 90-day period, so 

tha t the passport would terminate at the same time as the visit?

Air. Murphy. No; the passport should normally have quite a bit of 

a life in the sense of a visit. Usually our passport is a 5-year passport. 

You wouldn’t want to issue a passport that would expire 10 days afte r 

the person got out of the country, you want th at passport to be valid 

for a long period of time.

Air. Coiiex. Do you think anything should be done in preclearance 

before we allow anyone to come into the country, or should we allow 

them to enter without any sort of checking whatsoever? The statute 

now prohibits the issuance of visas to specified aliens who are mentally 

retarded, aliens who are insane, aliens who have a psychotic personality, aliens who are addicted to narcotics or alcohol, aliens who 

have contagious diseases, aliens who have been convicted of a crime 

for moral turp itude, and so forth.

Do you feel there is any v alidity in imposing a sort of preclearance 

check to people coming into this country ?

Air. Murphy. Passports are normally not issued to those people. And 

this doesn’t mean you don’t get checked. You go throu gh a passport

61 -3 57 -----7i
14

check, you go through a customs check, and that is normal procedure 

and is not deviated from.

Mr. Cohen. But the statute provides that no visa is issued to anyone falling into those categories; do you think tha t should still be 

observed ?

Mr. Murphy. I still think, by regulation, those people should be 

excluded.

Mr. Coiien. So, you would have some sort of preclearance, so it 

would not be a wholesale admission to anyone who wants to come and 

visit this country, the United States, for the Bicentennial ?

Mr. Murphy. That regulation could be established.

Mr. Cohen. Do you think there is any merit to the State Depart­ ment’s opposition to your proposal and others, based upon the increased possibility of terrorism ?

Mr. Murphy. No; because you would exclude those countries th at 

condone, or were suspected of terrorism. I think tha t you can handle 

most of the problems that way.

Mr. Cohen. So, would that include the Arab nations ?

Mr. Murphy. It would include certain Arab countries, North Korea, 

Vietnam.

Mr. Cohen. That is all I have, thank you.

Mr. Eilbero. Mr. Fish?

Mr. F ish. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to welcome our colleague from New York for being with us 

this morning. I think Mr. Cohen has touched on an important area, and I would merely like to elaborate on it. I understand tha t if someone wishes to come as a visitor, he will still be subject to exclusion if he has a criminal record, or was convicted of what, in our determination, involved moral turpitude; he may have pulmonary tuberculosis, or be from a country with a high rate of T B ; or he may have been involved in drug-related crime, which would not be considered by the country to be as serious 

as we might think of it. . .

I find it difficult to see how in such a brief span of time, particularly since we are expecting more visitors in the United States, and the Im­ migration Service’s lack of resources, how the consular officer assigned by the embassy to check the police records, and so on, will be able to 

check these things in a matter of minutes.

Air. Murphy. Well, the country of origin eliminates them, so to 

speak, they don’t issue passports to them.

Mr. F ish. I question that. I have been a vice consul, and people have come before me before they have medical examinations which are re­ quired by our visa office, to show tha t they don t have pulmonary 

tuberculosis, for example. On the question of-reciprocity, I would presume tha t would mean that visitors would not be accepted from countries like Saudi A rabia, who discriminate against the Jews. But to add to that, you hai e a problem of pressure from the Fa r East, countries who have achieved the ir quota of 20,000. It would seem, realistic to me to sav t hat the Koreans and Filipinos who have reached their 20,000 ceiling are going to t ry coming in here singing ankee Doodle in the Bicenten­ nial ye ar: so. it would be realistic to say those are the countries we woulcln’t authorize, and run into serious discrimination problems, in
15

my opinion, if we start picking ont the Arab nations, or Fa r Eas t 

nations. This is really what bothers me here.

Mr. Murphy. Well, I represent Chinatown and am relatively familiar with the situation you referred to. As th at person comes in with 

a passport and files a card, there is a record that he has come into the 

country.

But if you go back to the consular officer, he never does an ything 

about the visa he issued, to see whether, if he issued a 90-day visa— 

he never does anything about notifying anyone that this is a 90-day 

visa. Tha t entry card is the c ard of record, and tha t could be used as 

a vehicle for following up on people who would abuse this situation.

I frankly don’t see any abuse—you say from the Fa r East—I fr ankly find it from all over, representing a very ethnic district. And people 

who come in have come in without visas, and tha t is where the illegal 

labor comes from, not the people who come in as visitors, or otherwise. 

They come in by some other route; jumping ship, or otherwise; that’s 

where the problem originates.

Mr. Fish. Are you familiar with General Chapman’s testimony 

that he has given us this morning ?

Air. Murphy. No, I am not.

Mr. Fish. He points out—and I will read it to you:

I must point out th at H.R. 8059 would have the effect, probably undesired by its author, of applying the ninety-day restriction and the adjustment prohibition 

to nation als of contiguous t erritories and adjace nt isla nds as well as to n ationals 

of oth er countries.

As I understand, as was pointed out by counsel here, tha t would 

apply to Canada and Mexico, I believe, the contiguous nations, to the 

90-day visits limitation; the law now makes an exception in the case 

of contiguous countries. And General Chapman's testimony points out, 

as I have just read, tha t in your bill the 90-day restriction would apply 

to nations of contiguous territories.

Mr. Murphy. Well, there is no intent in the legislation to limit the 

movement under present conditions with Canada and Mexico.

Mr. Fish. So, you would be agreeable to an amendment of the 

legislation.

Mr. Murphy. Yes, if necessary; and I have not studied General 

Chapman’s testimony.

Air. Fish. That was, as you said, unintentional.

Air. Murphy. Yes.

Air. Fish. Thank you. Air. Chairman.

Air. E ilberg. Air. Murphy, I thin k we have concluded our questions 

this morning, and we thank you very much for coming to us and giving us the benefits of your view.

Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Air. Eilberg.

[The prepared statement of the Honorable John AI. Alurphy 

follows:]

Statement of II on. J ohn M. Murphy, a Representative in Congress From the

State of New York

“visit u.s.a. bicentennial anniversary act’’

Mr. Chairman, The bill before the Committee this morning. IIR 9252. is designed to help our country celebrate the 200th ann iversary of its founding by 

temporarily easing the visa requ irem ents for foreign visitors to our shores. Mr.
16

Cha irman, each of us here . . . not ju st in thi s room, but in thi s gre at nation, . . . owes his her itag e to an imm igr ant from a foreign nation. Every one 

of the sign ers of the Dec larat ion of Indepe ndenc e was a nativ e of an oth er country , born and raised in the colonies of England, Spain, Fran ce, Por tug al, and 

dozens of oth er coun tries who ruled the west ern hemisphere. Each of our founding fathe rs foug ht a bloody revolut iona ry wa r in order to pla nt the roots of this 

nati on in the Arm ground of reason and brotherhood.

Yet our common heri tage in oth er land s is sep arated by two hun dre d years of 

cultu re, politi cs and countless sma ller d ivision s in the minds of men on both sides 

of both oceans. The American Bice ntennial is a time not to build ba rri ers between 

men, but to bring them together for a celeb ratio n of the bir th of a nation.

HR 9252 will eliminate some of the unnec essary visa require men ts establish ed 

dur ing World Wa r I as secur ity measures, when the United Sta tes require d each 

vis itor to obtain a visa from an Amer ican consul abro ad. These pre-screenin g 

processes h ave been rendered obsolete by m ajor i ncrea ses in tourism from abroad , 

a revolutiona ry reduction in trav el tim e from any pa rt of the w orld, and the f act 

th at some 35 othe r natio ns require no visas from American tourists visitin g the ir 

lands. In 1909, Pres iden t Lyndon Joh nso n’s Indu stry- Gov ernm ent Special Task 

Force on Tra vel stated that—“pre sen t entr y proce dures fo r vac atio n and business vis itors to the United States ar e outmoded. They serv e only to pro ject an 

adve rse image of this nation's willingness to receive foreig n gue sts. ”

At thi s point in our nation’s history, it would be most appro pri ate for the “Visit 

U.S.A. Bice nten nial Anniversary Act” to become law. Enactme nt of t he bill would 

incre ase foreign travel to this coun try, improve our foreign rela tions throu gh 

promotion of a bet ter und erstandin g of America throug hou t the world, improve 

our balance of paym ents and stre ngthe n the d ollar , and allow us to trea t travel ­

ers from abro ad more efficiently a nd hospitably.

HR 9252 would empower the Atto rney General and the Secretary of Sta te to 

exempt, durin g cale ndar yea r 1976, national s of foreign countrie s desi gnat ed by 

the Sec reta ry of Sta te on the basi s of reciprocity, from the req uire ment to have 

a visa prior to entr y into the United States. To prev ent abuse, the bill provides 

th at (1 ) ent ry auth oriz ed by the Act may be f or no more tha n 90 days, nor may 

such aut horization be renewed or exte nded; and (2 ) the sta tu s of the visitor 

may not be adjusted to th at of an immig ran t dur ing his visit. It is fu rth er contemplat ed th at the implementing regulation s of the Act would specify requ irements to preven t the a ggr avation of our illegal alien problem. Thi s would include 

such pre cau tion s as requ iring non -refu ndab le round tri p tickets, and possession 

of a pas spo rt valid for six month s beyond the term of his v isit. In shor t, the bill 

would gre atly fac ilitat e the e ntry of foreign visi tors i nto the United Sta tes without lessening th e secur ity of the na tion .

We ar e nea rin g the celeb ration of the bir th of wh at I consider the gre atest 

natio n in ear th. For us to make it difficult for othe rs to join us in th at ce lebration 

is con trary to the spi rit in which our natio n was founded . These visi tors are 

not foreigners , but are the same as our foreb ears—t rav ele rs to a new land.

Let us share our country and its hos pitalit y by removing the ha rri ers to the ir 

visit. Elim ination of these ba rri ers is long overdue, and I urge th at prompt and 

fav orable consideration be given to thi s Act to ensu re th at we may sha re our 

history with visi tors from oth er land s.

Mr. E iubero. Our next witness is the gentleman from Guam. Members of the subcommittee had the opportunity to visit Guam during 

the recess; and one of the reasons why we are having the he aring this 

morning is because of the impetus given bv that visit.

It is my pleasure to introduce the Member of Congress from Guam, 

former Speaker of the House of Guam, and our associate the Honorable Antonio Borja Won Pat.

TESTIMONY OF HON. ANTONIO BORJA WON PAT, A 

REPR ESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM GUAM

Mr. Won P at. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, before T make my 

statement I want to take this opportunity to thank you and your distinguished colleagues who had the oppo rtunity to visit Guam on your 

recent trip abroad.
17

You have had the oppo rtunity, of course, to observe our unique 

problems on Guam, and on behalf of the people of Guam I want to 

extend our appreciation. I also want to than k you for scheduling these bills which you have 

before you today. I know t ha t the committee has a heavy workload; 

and without further ado—could I have some people from Guam, the 

Lieutenant Governor has not arrived, we have some distinguished 

visitors from Guam.

Mr. E ilberg, Mr. Won Pa t, I think there is a photographer, i f you 

wish him to stand in the corner of the room so he may take pictures 

of you, that is perfectly agreeable.

Mr. W on P at. Thank you very much, sir.

Mr. Eilberg. 1 thought you did have a photographer here.

Mr. Won P at. Well, yes, there is a photographer. I don't see him.

Mr. E ilberg. He is tak ing pictures.

Mr. Won Pat. All right, sir.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the legislation considered today is of great importance to the territory of Guam and, as 

Guam’s delegate to Congress and as a sponsor of this bill, I welcome 

this opportunity to appear in its behalf.

This bill would waive the visa requirements for nonimmigrant aliens 

seeking to visit the territor y of Guam for not more tha n 15 days. This 

would permit temporary visitors to enter Guam for business or pleasure without having to obtain a visa from the U.S. Government, as is 

presently required.

Presently, foreigners wishing to visit Guam, even for a few days, 

are required to process passports, visas, and other travel documents 

necessary for long-term visits to the mainland United States. Application of these documentary regulations in Guam is unrealistic and unnecessary. It overloads the capabilities of our foreign consulates and 

discourages foreigners from visiting Guam.

As Guam is outside the U.S. customs zone all travelers from Guam 

to the mainland of the United States, or Hawaii, must be processed 

throu gh customs upon arrival. Furth er travel to and from Guam is 

limited to air or waterborne carriers and is easily monitored and 

policed.

Present requirements and visitor travel are so extensive tha t consulates, such as in Tokyo, often issue group visas to accommodate the 

demand.

I originally requested the Secretary of State to waive the visa requirements through administrative means, but was informed this is 

not possible under the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality 

Act. Therefore, the legislation being considered here is necessary.

Waiving of the visa requirement as provided here is exceedingly 

important to Guam and is also of considerable significance to the rest 

of the Nation.

Serious economic difficulties which are besetting most of the world 

and are creating major problems in much of our own country have 

not left Guam unaffected. Guam’s unemployment rate is very high and 

increasing, as is the number of persons relying on other government 

programs and subsidies for support.

In addition to the effects of global and national economic difficulties, 

recent and continuing cutbacks in our national military operations 

adversely affect the economy of Guam.
18

Economic considerations have also adversely affected the international tourist industry. Tourism plays a vital part in the economy of Guam. Because of its location on the periphery of the Fa r East, 

Guam competes with numerous other attractive places for tourist 

dollars. This legislation would have several desirable results. It would 

greatly improve Guam’s attra ction for tourists. More precisely, it would remove an unnecessary and cumbersome hindrance to foreign tourists’ access to Guam. In turn, the resulting improvement in Guam’s 

economy would lessen its need for Federal funds. This legislation would also aid in our national balance of pay­ ments. In 1974, tourists in Guam, most of whom were non-U.S. citizens, introduced approximately $90 million into the local and national 

economies. As Guam is the showcase in Asia of U.S. democracy, any increase in visits by foreigners would have the added intangible but important benefits of contributing to international relations and foreign policies.

Although its dollar worth has not been calculated, elimination of unnecessary time-consuming and expensive paperwork would also be 

a valuable gain. This legislation would not adversely affect United States immigra­ tion. Any person traveling to the U.S. mainland, or Hawaii, would 

still be required to go throu gh U.S. customs. Thus, this bill could not provide a means for aliens to enter the U.S. illegally. As Guam is also 

an island far from the U.S. mainland, there is no available means for anyone to gain entry to the U.S. pro per through misuse of eased entry 

requirements to Guam. What is proposed is very simple. It would merely facilitate visits 

to Guam fo r brief visits by foreign businessmen and vacationers. How­ ever, its effects would obviously be much greater and far reaching.

In short, Mr. Chairman, this is one of those rare bills which would provide many important benefits without causing objectionable side 

effects. As such, I urge favorable disposition at the earliest date.

Mr. E ilberg. Thank you very much, Mr. Won Pat, I don’t know if 

you have had an opportunity to read the statements offered in advance 

by the other witnesses, but I understand th at the administration does 

not oppose the idea of your bill, it may require some modification. I 

thou ght you would be interested.

Mr. Won P at. Yes; I read the statement by the Department of State 

and the Commissioner of the Immigration and Natu ralization Service.

Mr. E ilberg. Mr. Won Pat, if your bill were to become law, would 

you predict whether or not additional immigration officers would be 

required on Guam, and if so, the extent of the Service’s additional 

responsibility ?

Mr. Won P at. I believe there is some need for a few more Immig ration personnel there because of the large number of applications for naturalization. You know, every 3 or 4 months we have quite a number 

of eligible resident aliens seeking U.S. citizenship.

Mr. Eilbf.rg. Because of the bill, do you have any idea how many 

additional officers might be required; have there been any studies?

Mr. Won P at. I don’t have a precise figure, but I have been aware 

for some time now of the need for additional personnel to meet the 

present what you call “influx of visitors.”
19

Mr. E ilberg. Now, also, Mr. Won P at, during consideration of these 

bills over the years, asking the same question I asked Mr. Murphy, this committee has never been presented with substantial, adequate evidence that a visa requirement is actually a deterren t to travel to the 

United States by legitimate tourists. In other words, how do you know tha t people are not coming to 

Guam because of the existing legal requirements ?

Mr. Won Pat. Well, we get these reports from our tour agents 

abroad about the difficulty of gettin g into Guam, and the time tha t 

is consumed getting the required travel documents. .

Mr. E ilberg. But can you say th at some people are not coming, and 

how many th at would be, because of the existing requirements ?

Mr. Won P at. No; I won’t say they are not coming because of tha t, 

but there are considerable delays as a result of that. People who want to come to Guam have to go throug h all these redtape travel requirements, and natu rally they defer coming rather tha n to go throu gh these 

processes.

Mr. Etlberg. Thank you. Mr. Fish ?

Mr. F ish. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Won Pat, is your bill in any way related to the Bicentennial year, like Mr. Murphy’s bill; or are you talking about permanent 

legislation?

Mr. Won Pat. It is not related to the Bicentennial, even though 

Guam is participating in the Bicentennial program.

Mr. Fish. It is permanent legislation.

Mr. Won Pat. It is permanent legislation, and applicable to just 

Guam, no other areas of the United States will be affected.

Mr. Fisii. I apologize for not having read your bill prio r to this 

hearing, but I would like to ask you if it contemplates th e concept of reciprocity that is embodied in the other legislation before us. In other words, would the judgm ent as to who will be relieved of the burden of getting a nonimmigrant visa vest in the Secretary of S tate 

and Attorney General, as it does in the other legislation?

Mr. Won P at. I don’t follow your question.

Mr. Fish. Well, I see in H.R. 2771 it says, “A nation is covered by 

this section if it is so designated by the Secretary of State on the basis 

of reciprocity,” so, there would be that decision. Now, let’s assume a visitor comes from an Asian country to Guam with a passport for 15 days, and then he wishes to proceed to Hawaii, 

or one of the mainland United States.

Mr. Won P at. He will be required to have the other necessary documents, including a visa for the mainland.

Mr. Fish. He then would have to apply for a visa while he is on 

Guam, to proceed furth er?

Mr. Won P at. Right.

Mr. F ish. I have no furt her questions, Mr. Chairman. T hank you.

Mr. E tlberg. Mr. Sarbanes?

Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Won Pat, I first want to thank you for your extraordin arily good statement, which I thin k makes a very strong case for this

legislation. .

I see a couple of problems, and I think we could probably work at those. One is the problem of an intermediate step for subsequent entry
20

into the United States. In other standards we apply for entry of a 

man into the United States, they should not be lowered bv him being 

able, to go to Guam first, and then here. You recognize that problem? 

Mr. AVon Pat. Yes, sir.

Mr. Sarbanes. Is there any difficulty in protecting against tha t 

problem ?

Mr. Won Pat. As a matter of fact, under the present statutes, although we all in Guam are American citizens, when we travel to the 

mainland, or to Hawaii, we are subject to immigration clearance before 

we enter the United States.

Mr. S arbanes. Once you get this legislation, you will probably have 

to live with it for a while. Assuming it is enacted, is 15 days the right 

tune period ? And I ask that question because 3 know, for example, the 

airlines provide package deals for people to make trips where they 

get reduced rates, but it requires them to be gone a certain period of 

time. "Would 15 days be the right time period, as opposed to, say, 

21 days ?

Mr. Won P at. T think tha t is adequate. You mean a shorter period?

Mr. Sarbanes. A longer period, a somewhat longer period. I don't 

want you to get 15 days and then discover that the airlines only give 

reduced rates if people take a 21-day trip.

Mr. "Won Pat. Well, of course tha t is a matter for the prospective 

visitor, then. But thinking of Guam. Guam is a relatively small island, 

and taking into consideration all the interests in Guam, if they travel 

from Guam to other islands, that will probably not take more than 10 

days. I do hope that they will stay longer, but T believe they will probably have exhausted all their means staying tha t long in Guam, 

anyway.

Air. Sarbanes. What you are telling me is that most visitors who now 

come to Guam from those areas which you are seeking to accommodate 

by this legislation, will stay under the 15-dav period: and any longer 

period would really not serve anv particular useful purpose?

Mr. AV on Pat. Well, T can say that many of these, Japanese in p articular, are honeymooners, they stay a few days before they get married over there, and spend their honeymoon there for a few days. I am 

informed that the average stay there is for 4 to 5 days.

Mr. Sarbanes. T have no further questions, Air. Chairman.

Air. Eii/BERO. Thank von very much, Mr. AVon Pat, for appearing 

before us this morning.

Air. AA7on P at. Thank you very much. Air. Chairman, and members 

of the committee.

[The prepared statement of lio n. AATon Pat follows:]

Sta tem ent of H on. A n to nio B. W on P at , a R epr es en ta ti v e in Con gr es s

F rom t h e T errit ory of Guam

Mr. C hairm an:

The legislation being considered today is of grea t importance to the ter ritory of 

Guam and, as Guam’s delegate to Congress and as sponsor of this bill, I welcome 

this opportunity to ap pea r in i ts behalf.

This hill would waive the visa requirements for non-immigrant aliens seeking 

to visit the Territory of Guam for not more tha n 15 days. This would permit 

tem porary visitors to enter Guam for business or plea sure withou t having to 

obtain a visa from the United States government, as is presently required.

Presently, foreigners wish ing to visit Guam, even for a few days, are required 

to process passports, visas, and other trav el documents necessary for long term 

visits to the mainland U.S. Application of these documentary regulations in 

Guam is unrealistic and unnecessary. It overloads the capabilities of our foreign 

consulate s and discourages foreign ers from visiting Guam.
21

As Guam is ou tsi de tlie U.S. cus tom s zone a ll trav elers fro m Guam to th e ma inland I .S. or Ha wa ii must he processed thr ou gh cus tom s upon ar riva l. Fu rthe r, 

trav el to and fro m Guam is lim ite d to air or water borne ca rr ie rs an d is easily 

mo nit ore d a nd policed.

Pr es en t requ ire ments and visitor trav el ar e so exten siv e th at consula tes, such 

as in Tokyo, oft en iss ue gro up vis as to accommodate the dem and .

I origi na lly requested th e Se cretary of State to waive th e visa requ ire ments 

throug h ad m in istrat iv e means bu t was inf orm ed this is no t possible un de r the 

provisio ns of th e Im mi grati on and Natio na lit y Act. Th ere fore, th e leg islati on 

bei ng considered here is necessary.

Wa iving of th e visa req uir em ent as pro vid ed here is exc eed ingly im po rtan t to 

Gu am a nd is als o of con sid era ble significa nce to the r es t of th e nat ion .

Serio us econ omic difficulties which ar e besetting most of the world and are 

crea tin g major problems in much of ou r own country have no t left Guam un af ­

fected. Gu am’s une mp loy me nt ra te is very high and inc rea sin g, as is th e number 

of perso ns relyi ng on othe r gover nm ent pr og rams and sub sid ies fo r sup port.

In add iti on to th e effects of glob al an d na tio na l economic difficulties, rec ent and 

continu ing cutbacks in our na tio na l m ilitar y op erati on s adve rse ly aff ect the 

economy of Guam.

Econom ic conside ratio ns have also ad ve rsely affected th e in te rn at io na l to ur ist 

indu stry. To urism pla ys a vital part in th e economy of Guam . Be cau se of its 

loc ati on on th e perip he ry of th e F ar Eas t, Guam com pete s with nu me rou s othe r 

at trac tive p lac es fo r tou rist do llars.

Th is leg islati on would have s evera l de sirable res ult s. It would gr ea tly imp rove 

Gu am ’s a ttra ct io n fo r tou ris ts. More precisely , it would rem ove an unnecessa ry 

and cum bersom e h indr an ce to for eig n to uri st s’ access to Guam . In t ur n, th e re su lting imp rov em ent in Gu am 's economy would less en its need for Fe de ra l fun ds.

Th is leg islati on would also aid in ou r na tio na l balan ce of pay ments. In 1974, 

to ur is ts in Guam , most of whom we re non-U .S. citizens, introdu ced ap prox im ate ly 

$90 millio n into th e local and na tio na l econom ies.

As Gua m is th e showca se in As ia of U.S. democracy, any increase in visit s by 

foreigne rs would have the added intang ible but im po rta nt benefits of co ntrib uting to in te rn atio na l relatio ns ami f ore ign policies.

Althou gh its do lla r wo rth ha s no t been calcu lated, elimi na tio n of unnecessa ry 

tim e con sum ing an d expensive pape rw ork would also be a va luable gain.

Th is leg islati on would not ad ve rsely aff ect United St ates im mi gration. Any 

per son tra ve lin g to th e U.S. main lan d or Haw aii would still be requ ire d to go 

th ro ug h U.S. custom s. Thus, th is bill cou ld no t pro vide a me ans fo r aliens to 

en te r th e U.S. ille gally. As Guam is als o an island fa r from the U.S. ma inl and, 

th er e is no av ailable me ans for anyo ne to gai n en try to th e U.S. prop er thr ou gh 

mi suse of e ase d en try r equir em ents to Guam. W ha t is propos ed is very simple. It would merely fa ci lita te visit s to Guam for 

br ief vis its by for eig n businessm en and vacatio ners. How ever, its effe cts wou ld 

obv iously be m uch gre at er and far-r eaching . In short, Mr. Ch air ma n, this is one of tho se ra re bills which would provide 

ma ny im po rtan t benefits with ou t causing obj ection able sid e effects. As such, I 

urge fa vo rable disposition a t the e ar lie st da te.

Mr. Eilberg. Our next witness is the Honorable Leonard F. 

Walentynowicz, A dministrator, Bureau of Security and Consular A ffairs, Department of State.

TESTIMONY OF HON. LEONARD F. WALENTYNOWICZ, ADMINIST RATOR, BUREAU OF SECURITY AND CONSULAR AFF AIRS, DEPA RTMENT OF STATE, ACCOMPANIED BY LOREN LAWRENCE, DEPUTY

ADMINISTRATOR AND JULIO ARIAS, DIRECTOR, VISA OFFICE

Mr. Walentynowicz. Good morning. Mr. Chairman, members of 

the committee. I have a statement which I can read or enter into the 

record.

Mr. Eilbf.rg. I would just as soon it was entered into the record, 

and hopefully you can summarize it.

Mr. Walentynowicz. Certainly, Mr. Chairman.

61- 35 7----- 75-------4
22

Mr. E ilberg. W ith ou t objection , th e sta tem ent will be made part 

of the record.

Mr. W alexttxowicz. As Con gressm an M urph y pointed out. our 

po sition here is som ewhat of a reversal of the position the St ate De ­

pa rtm en t has tak en at othe r times before th is com mittee. M e th in k 

the revers al is justifi ed fo r go od a nd sufficient reasons.

We perc eive the esse ntial question of this leg islati on is to be ju st 

exactly wh at are t he condition s in existenc e t oday t h at wou ld mak e it 

desirabl e, or u ndesirab le, to have visa wai vers as pro posed in the b ill.

W hile we recognize Congr essman M ur ph y’s des ire to fac ilitate 

trav el to the Un ite d States du rin g the Bicente nnial an d at other 

tim es— an d we encourage th is an d w ant to lie in a p osition to accommoda te it general ly—we do no t wish to aba ndo n othe r necessary re qu ire ­

me nts and con siderations fo r the en try of people into the I nit ed 

State s. We feel it is no t inco nsi stent to m onito r the e nt ry of people into 

th e U ni ted Sta tes, w ith th e general con cept of free movem ent of people 

and ideas. T th in k a rea son able mo nit oring system is im po rtan t in 

or de r to pres erve Am erica as the “Be acon of the W or ld ”. Tha t may 

be a lit tle bi t self-lau datory, bu t T perso nally feel th at Am erica is a 

gr ea t country , a nd while we are cele bra ting t he B ice nte nnial , we wa nt 

to continue to make Am erica be tte r th an ever. T hat is the reason we 

have tak en the posit ion we have in thi s legislation.

T hat is a br ief conceptual sum ma ry of ou r position, an d T will be 

ha pp y to resp ond to any questions, inclu din g some of the issues th at 

hav e alread y been br ou gh t up w ith respect to C ong res sman M ur ph y’s 

tes tim ony, and le gis lation de aling w ith Guam.

May I say th at ou r position w ith respect to Gu am is not incons iste nt. 

As Deleg ate Won Pat po inted out. Guam is a very uniqu e situation. 

We feel th at , in ter ms of the questions th at you asked, we have no 

evidence th at the eli mi natio n of visa req uir em ents in Gua m rea lly 

would lea d to more tra ve l. I recent ly ha d a 2 ^ ho ur dis ­

cussion wi th the Go vernor of Guam, and he fe lt th at as a help to 

Guam, a nd as a means of meetin g competit ion from o ther Pacific areas, 

they wa nte d to do some thing to enc ourage the movem ent of people 

fro m Ja pan and other areas.

We feel the Gua m wa iver wou ld no t hav e any of th e side effects 

th at Con gressm an M ur ph y’s gen eral pro posal s would, and fo r th at 

reason we have no objection to Guam. Fur th er , the wa y the bil l is 

worde d, the discretion is w ith th e Se cre tar y o f State , an d if exp erience 

ind ica tes th at the wa ive r req uir em ent is no t feasible, we can in consu lta tio n with the a utho rit ies in Gua m, reim pose th e visa requirement.

Mr. E tt.berg. Mr. Wale nty nowicz, on pages 1 an d 2 of yo ur statemen t you m ention th at the p as t ad ministratio ns su pp orted t his legislatio n qu oting from yo ur tes tim ony “until 1972. the ad minist ratio n 

made such legisla tion a nart of forma l leg islative proposals .”

You say th at such factors as illegal alie n pro blems, ter roris m, and 

the impli catio ns of wor ld demo graphy, are reas ons wh v the adminis ­

trat io n has change d its position and opposes th is leg islation.

Ca n you pro vide fo r the rec ord wh at acts of terror ism you are refe rr in g to. and wh at are the im plications of world demo graphy?

Mr. W alextyxowtcz. L et me ta lk b riefly about the im pli catio ns o f 

wo rld demo gra phy. Mr. M ur ph y touched upon it whe n h e b roug ht out 

th e po int th at in certa in are as of the wo rld im migratio n quo tas are
23

filled yea r a fter year. This being the ease, there is a n atural tendency 

for people from those areas to use nonimmigrant visas as a means of 

coming in here permanently and illegally. That is one example of 

what we mean by the implications of world demography.

There are other areas of the world where there are great pressures 

for people of those areas to come to the United States and countries 

like the United States to settle because opportunities are so much 

greater. The United States is one of the few areas of the world where 

there is a constant demand for people to come into for resettlement. 

Tha t is what we have to take into account in terms of world 

demography.

With respect to terrorism, sir, and without going into specific example, because I think th at may be somewhat sensitive, the point I am 

making is tha t our experience has shown that on several occasions we 

have been able to effectively monitor the movement of people who we 

have good reason to believe—based on our intelligence—are attem pting to enter the United States for the purposes of terrorism or related 

activities. The visa system—the double screening system which we 

now have, and which we suggest should be continued—has provided 

an effective means to continue that type of monitoring.

Air. Eilberg. Before I forget, would you at this tim e identify the 

two gentlemen with you ?

Mr. Walenttnowicz. Oh, yes ; I’m sorry. On my right is J ulio Arias, 

who is director of the Visa Office; and my senior deputy, Mr. Loren 

Lawrence. Both of these gentlemen are very experienced consular 

officers,

Mr. Eilberg. What efforts are being made, Mr. Walentynowicz, by 

the U.S. Government, to encourage residents from other countries to 

visit the U nited States, and to participate in our Bicentennial celebration? I am thinking of USIA, the Voice of America, et cetera; and 

how will the Department of State equip our consuls abroad to implement the current visa procedures?

Air. Walentynowicz. In answer to the first part of your question, 

sir, I don’t know the specific details, but T do know it is a matter of 

general administration policy that all of th e agencies of Government 

tha t you mentioned, together with the Department of Commerce and 

the Department of Transportation, are implementing plans, to encourage travel into the U nited States.

With respect to what we are doing at the State Department, let me 

give you an example. We perceive there will be a great demand by 

people to come into the United States in the Bicentennial when they 

also visit the World Olympics in Montreal, Canada, in 1976. We are 

rig ht now in the process of establishing a new physical plant in Atontrea l and also creating an additional cadre of help to potentially process visa applications in Alontreal to accommodate tha t particular 

demand. Beyond that , we are also in our budgetary operations, and 

also revamping resources within the Department and making allowances for the fact tha t if we receive increased demand for travel in 

the United States, we will have personnel available to meet this 

demand.

But it is a constant problem, sir. You know, we do have the problem 

of economy. So, whatever we do. we have to measure it in terms of 

what is feasible, too. AVe are trying to meet this demand, and I can
24

assure you. Mr. Chairman, that we are doing everything possible in 

terms of planning so that the idea of Bicentennial travel to the United 

States is not in any way discouraged by unreasonable delays and 

unnecessary red tape.

Mr. E ilberg. On pages 8 and 9 of your testimony you indicate th at, 

if acceptable alternatives can be worked out, the Department would not 

he opposed to the abolition of the nonimmigrant visa requirements. 

What acceptable alternatives do you have in mind ?

Air. Walentynowicz. At the moment we don't have any and tha t 

is why we oppose this legislation. We don’t find any acceptable 

alternatives. I would say tha t if conditions improve—for example, in 

terms of the changing world demography; if the demand by people 

to come into the United States would subside, if we would l>e better 

able to monitor and control the illegal alien problem within the United 

States so tha t we wouldn't have this competition between Americans 

and illegal aliens for jobs—if these things occurred, then perhaps we 

can take another look at this situation.

Also, if terrorism was reduced, if there was a worldwide condition 

wherein countries would not in any way, shape, or manner support 

terrorism and would universally and autom atically reject terrorism so 

tha t a terrorist would not find a safe haven anywhere, we would he 

compelled to rethink ou r position and we would then perhaps support 

this legislation.

Mr. Eilberg. Over the years the Department of State has taken 

various administrative measures to expedite tourist visa issuance; for 

example, the visa by mail and the automated lookout in 1966. These 

measures were taken because of the tremendous increase in visa issuance, without a commensurate increase in consular personnel.

Doesn't this legislation represent an attempt to expedite visa 

issuance, and therefore is not consistent with the earlier administrative 

steps taken by the Department of State?

Mr. Walentynowicz. Well, to the extent you eliminate the visa, it 

is consistent. But this must be distinguished from the way we impose 

our control, in other words, the systems which you described initially 

are ways in which we more efficiently administer the controls which we 

feel are necessary. The last step of eliminating control is, I think, 

a concept quite different. We can do any number of things to improve 

the efficiency of the controls we have in existence; but tha t doesn't 

mean tha t the controls we have in effect are unnecessary.

Air. Eilberg. Air. Walentynowicz, does the visa requirement give 

foreigners an unfavorable impression of the United States; have there 

been any adverse foreign policy consequences as a result of the 

requirement ?

Air. Walentynowicz. To mv knowledge, sir, no. I think we have 

individual problems, and T think understandably so. In many instances 

our efficiency can be improved, and we can be criticized for the kind of 

performance we deliver in the issuance of visas. But overall, we have 

more visitors coming to America than ever before—we issued more 

than 3 million visas and this has been something like a 300-percent 

increase in the last 5 or 6 years. This is indicative that people desire 

to come to the U nited States, notwithstanding the fact tha t we legitimately impose visa requirements.
Mr. Eilberg. In any event, if Congress enacts the legislation that is 

before us today, do you have any idea what manpower savings would 

be realized by the Department of State as a result of the reduced 

consular work?

Mr. AValentynowicz. I can’t give you dollar figures, but obviously, 

if we don't issue visas abroad, there will be a considerable savings in 

consular manpower. However, this has to be balanced in light of one 

thing, sir, if you eliminate the screening that is done abroad, and still 

retain the screening tha t should be done at ports of entry, which is 

wha t the bill proposes, you do not eliminate the screening responsibility of the INS, but rather you are simply shifting the work that is 

presently done in the embassies to the INS at the ports of entry.

In fact, tha t will be more discouraging to foreign visitors because 

in my judgment, if the IN S has to screen at the port of entry and then 

tell foreign visitors that they don’t have the proper documents, or that 

they have to go back and get a medical certification, or any number 

of things, as Congressman Murphy pointed out a few moments ago, 

you have a horrible delay at the point of entry, and you get much more 

irritation, in my judgment, than if you do the prescreening at the 

embassy where the person is able to go back and get additional documentation in a more comfortable setting.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Sarbanes, do you have any questions?

Mr. Sarbanes. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

IIow long does it take to get a visitor’s visa?

Air. Walentynowicz. It varies between the places where the application is made, sir.

Mr. Sarbanes. I understand that, but can you give me a general 

range of how long it takes ?

Mr. Walentynowicz. Oh, I think Air. Lawrence can respond to 

tha t question.

Mr. Lawrence. As Mr. Walentynowicz said, it depends on the post. 

The actual time involved in the issuing of a visa is not really tha t 

long. The applicant submits a short application form; it’s 5 by 9 

inches in size and has. I think. 35- or 36-odd questions. They are essentially questions of identification, purpose of visit, indication of your 

ability to afford the visit, and the large series o f questions th at you 

answer with a check that cover section 212, the excludable factors-----

Air. Sarbanes. Well, we have a copy of that. If I ’m a resident, let’s 

say, of the United Kingdom and I want to make a trip to the United 

States, what do I do. and how long does it take?

Air. Eilberg. Would the gentleman yield just for the purpose of 

puttin g into the record the application for a nonimmigrant visa? 

vY itbout objection, it will be made a part of the record.

[The document referred to follows:}
26

Application for Nonimmigrant Visa s

§ 41.110 Place of applica tion

family name GIV EN NA ME MIDDLE NA ME TRAVEL DO CU MEN T

HOME ADDRESS

PLACE AND DATE OF BIRTH DA Y M O YEAR CO MPL EX ION

HAIR EYES HEIGH T NA TION AL ITY MARKS

AAARITAL

STATUS

□ M □ S

□ W Q D

SEX

□ *»

□ «=

O C C U P A T I O N LENGTH AND PURPOSE OF STAY IN U. S.

.1 understood that possession of o visa does not entit le the beorer to enter the U S if upon arrival ot a port of entry he is found inodmissrble

I declare that the information contained in this applica tion , including ony statements mode o port thereof, hos been crammed by me and is correct

and complete to the best of my knowledge ond belief

Applicant interviewed by me ond application signed before me

At.

Signature of Applicant

---------------- ——----------------------------------------------* F O R M p c O C 7 , rj-d3 Z fo«M Arenovto. oudget bubeau n o vr-oto? io

ZCPO : 1962 O - 6510 35 2 • o-r

CLAS SIFICA TION POST SERIAL N O .

ISSUED O N FOR

Unltd. or ( ) Appl.

VALID TH RO UG H REFUSED O N

REMARKS

SERVICE N O .

TARIFF ITEM N O .

FEE PAID: U. S. $

LOCAL CY. EQ UIVA LE NT

— PH O TO —

APPLICATION FOR

NON IM MIGRA NT

VIS A

AND ALIEN

REGISTRATION

(a) Applications for regular and official visas

With the exception of certain aliens who a re in the United States who may be 

issued nonimmigrant visas under the provisions of § 41.120, every alien applying 

for a reg ular or official visa shall make application to thevconsular officer in the 

consular district in which he has his residence, except th at a consular officer 

shall at the direction of the Departm ent, or may in his discretion, accept an a pplication for a nonimmigrant visa from an alien having no residence in the consu lar 

distr ict if the alie n is physically p rese nt therein .

(ft) Applications for diplomatic visas

Application for a diplomatic visa shall be made at a diplomatic mission or a t a 

consular office autho rized to issue diplomatic visas, regardless of the nationality 

or residence of the applicant.

(For applications for crew-list visas see § 41.127[b])
27

PROCEDURAL NOT ES

1. Expeditiou s processing o f nonim migrant visa applications

Applications for non imm igrant visa s should be accepted witho ut delay and the procedures followed in processing such applications should be kept as simple and as brief as possible. Recommended steps for non imm igrant visa processing are described in the Issu anc e Proc edures (Nonimmigrant) Section of Appendix 

D. These steps should be followed as closely as possible.

2. Acceptance of application fro m alien applying outside his home district

In certa in eases con sular officers have refused to accept applications from alien s who are nonresid ents of the consular d istr ict, even though the applicant’s return to his home district would necessitate a long and costly journey. While 22 CFR 41.110 vests disc retiona ry autho rity in consular officers to reje ct visa ap ­ plications from nonimm igrant alie ns who are physically present in but not resi­ den ts of the consular dis tric t, the Dep artm ent expects th at such autho rity will 

seldom, if ever, be used.

8. Clearance procedures

A consular officer must be satisfied that an alien is qualified to receive a visa before he takes favorable action on an application, but this de term ination should he made in the ligh t of th e circumstances in each case. Generally speaking, grea ter flexibility in making cle arance checks should be employed in a nonimm igrant case tha n in th at of an imm igrant. In this connection reference is made to Item 2.10 of the Issuance Procedures (Nonimmigrant) section of Appendix D and also to Appendix E. Clearance Procedures. Nothing in this note reliev es the consular officer from checking the name of each app lica nt against the Lockout Book. 

(Amended)

4. Forw arding clearances when applicants inte nd to apply at consular offices

other than in their home dis trict

Consular officers are urged to accept and process applications made by residents of their dis tric ts even though it may not be possible to issue the visa prior to de­ pa rtu re of the alien from the d istrict. A clearance for the distric t which includes pertinent information from clea rances obtain ed from other dis tricts should be sent to the consular office a t which the alien intends to make his formal appli­ cation clearly indicating the d ist ric ts from which clearances have been obtained.

5. Transfer of visa dossiers

5.1 A visa dossier may be tra nsferre d from one consular office to ano ther withou t a specific request from the receiving post if th e sending post believes that the re is justification for such tran sfer and that the alien will appea r personally at the receiving offee to apply for a visa. Special priority should be given to the cases of app lica nts who, because of the ir profession, are in perm anent travel 

status. 5.2 All visa dossiers tra nsferre d from one post to another, whethe r by open mail or by pouch, should be transmitted by registered mail. 5.3 In considering the application of an alien previously refused a visa at anoth er office, the tra ns fer of the alien’s dossier from the office at which the 

refusa l occurred should be requested. 5.4 A brie f record of the tran sfer to an other office of th e dossier of a pending or refused visa case should be prepared on a 3 x 5 index card and filed in the car d index file. The card should contain a reference to the num ber and date of 

any tra nsferre d petition.

§ 41.111 Sup porting documents

(a) Au tho rity to require docume nts and consideration accorded'

The con sular officer shall have autho rity to require such documents as he may consider necessary to establish the alien’s eligibility to receive a nonimmigrant visa. All such documents submitted and any other evidence adduced by the alien shall be given consideration by the consular officer, inclu ding briefs subm itted 

by attorn eys or other representativ es.

(&) Unobtainable documents

In the event an alien establishes to the satisfactio n of the consular officer tha t any document or record require d under the autho rity of thi s section is uno btain­ able, the consular officer may acce pt in lieu of such document or record, other sat isfactory evidence of the fac t to which the document or record would, if ob-
28

ta in ab le , pe rt ai n. A do cu m en t or oth er re co rd sh al l lie co ns id er ed “u nobta in ab le ” 

if it ca nn ot be pr oc ur ed w itho ut ca us in g th e ap pli cant or a mem be r of his f am ily 

actu al hard sh ip o th er th an no rm al d ela y and inc on ve nien ce .

(c ) Pho to yr ap hs

Exc ep t as ot he rw is e pr ov id ed in th is para gra ph, ev er y alie n, sh al l fu rn is h w ith 

h is ap pl ic at io n id en ti ca l ph ot og ra ph s of hi m se lf in su ch nu m be r a s may be re ­

quir ed in th e di sc re tion of th e co nsu la r officer. The ph oto gra phs sh al l re flec t a 

re as on ab le like ne ss of th e alie n as of th e tim e they a re fu rn ishe d, and sh al l be 

l ’/2 by 1% inch es in siz e, un mou nted , w itho ut he ad co ve rin g, ha ve a light ba ck ­

gr ou nd , an d clea rly sh ow a fu ll fr ont vie w of th e fa ci al fe atu re s of th e al ie n. 

T he re ve rse of ea ch cop y of th e ph ot og ra ph sh al l be sig ne d by th e pe rson exec utin g th e ap pl ic at io n (s ee § 4 1.1 15( a) ) w ith th e fu ll na m e of th e ap plica nt . T he 

ph ot og ra ph re quir em ent may be wa ived , in th e dis cr et io n of th e c ons ul ar officer, 

in t he case of a ny a lien w ho is

(1 ) w ith in a cl as s of non im m ig ra nt s de sc ribe d in sections 101( a) (15 ) (A ), 

10 1(a ) (15 ) (G ) or 212 (d ) (8) of th e Act,

(2 ) w ith in a cl as s of non im m ig ra nt s clas sifiab le under th e vi sa sy mbo l 

NA TO -1 th ro ug h NA TO -7.

(3 ) an ap pl ic an t fo r a di pl om at ic visa,

(4 ) an ap pl ic an t fo r an official visa, or

(5 ) un der si xt ee n years of age .

A no ta tion of any su ch w ai ve r sh al l be mad e in th e spac e pr ov id ed in th e 

ap pl ic at io n form fo r th e alien ’s ph ot og ra ph . A ne w ph ot og ra ph ne ed no t bo 

re qu ired , in th e di sc re tion of th e co ns ul ar officer, if t here is on file a t th e c onsu la r 

office a ph otog ra ph which w as s ub m itte d in co nn ec tio n w ith a pri or nonim m ig ra nt 

vi sa ap pl ic at io n an d w hi ch st ill refle cts a re as onab le lik en es s of th e applica nt. 

( Am ended 5-25 -60, 25 F .R . 4577 ; 5-3 0-63 , 28 F.R. 5375)

Po lic e ce rti fic ate

(1 ) An al ie n sh al l be re qui re d to pre se nt a po lic e ce rt ific at e if th e consu la r 

offic er h as reas on to be lie ve th a t lie ma y hav e a po lic e or cr im in al reco rd , ex ce pt 

th a t no polic e ce rt if ic at e sh al l be re qu ired in th e ca se of an al ie n wh o is

(i ) w ith in a cl as s of non im m ig ra nt s de sc ribe d in section 10 1( a) (15) (A ) 

(i ) or (i i) , or se ct io n 101 (a ) (15 ) (G ) (i) , (i i) , (ii i) , or (i v ), or se ction 212 

(d ) (8 ), o f the Act. or

(i i) w ithi n a cl as s of non im m ig ra nt s clas sifiab le under th e vi sa symbo l 

NA TO -1. NA TO -2, NA TO -3, NA TO -4, or NA TO -6. (A me nd ed 5-25 -60, 25 

F.R. 4577)

(2 ) A police ce rt if ic at e is a ce rtific at io n by th e po lic e or oth er appro pri ate 

auth ori ti es st ati ng w hat , if an yt hi ng , th eir re co rd s show co nc erning th e alien.

(Se c. 222, 66 Sta t. 103 ; 8 U.S.C. 1202)

NOTES

1. W ai ve r of p ho togr ap h re qu irem en t

In ex er cising his dis cr et io n in th e w ai ver of th e phot og ra ph re qu irem en t fo r 

al ie ns wh o are w ithin th e cl as sifica tio ns en um er at ed in 22 CF R 41.1 11(c )( 1) 

th ru (4 ), th e co nsu la r officer shou ld co ns ider, am on g oth er fa ct or s, exis ting 

re ci pr oc ity in so fa r as nati onals of th e co untry in which th e co ns ul ar office is 

lo ca te d are co nc erne d. Any dev ia tion from re ci pr oc ity in th is re ga rd by th e fo reign go ve rnmen t co nc er ne d shou ld be re po rt ed to tii e D ep ar tm en t.

2. Color ph otog ra ph s

C on su la r officers may ac ce pt co lor ph ot og ra ph s from ap pl ic an ts fo r vi sa s. T he 

co lor ph otog ra ph m us t be pri nte d on a pap er ba se an d m us t mee t th e specification s ou tli ne d in 22 C FR 41 .1 11 (c ). Black and w hite p ri n ts wh ich ha ve be en 

co lored shou ld n ot be ac ce pted .

1. Rep ro du ctio n of do cu m en ts fo r alie ns by c on su la r officers

Se cti on 22 2( d) of t he Ac t us es th e wor ds “a ce rti fie d cop y of . . in re fe rr in g 

to cert ain do cu men ts to be pr es en te d by an al ie n ap pl yi ng fo r a noni m m ig ra nt 

vi sa . Th e law does not sp ec ify how su ch copie s sh ou ld he ma de. Alth ou gh th e 

bur de n of ob ta in in g an d pr es en ting th e ne ce ss ar y “cer tif ied copy” of th e do cu ­

m en t is up on th e alie n, some co ns ul ar officers ass is t al ie ns by ha vi ng c op ies m ad e 

fo r them on co ns ul ar re pro du ct io n fa ci lities . The D ep ar tm en t lia s no ob je ct io ns 

to th is pr ac tice if it ca n be ha nd led w ithout in te rf ere nce w ith th e no rm al wor k 

of t he office. Offices which re pr od uc e su ch do cu men ts fo r al ie ns are r em in de d th a t
29

they should char ge the copying aud certificatio n fees prescribe d by item nos. 47 

and 75 of the Tariff of Fees, Fore ign Service of the Unite d Sta tes of America. 

Such services are no taria l in ch ara cte r and should not norm ally be at tem pted by 

Visa Sections. Au alien desir ing to vis it the Unite d Sta tes temporarily for busine ss or temi>orar ily for plea sure may apply to the nea res t American Consular office or diplomati c mission for a non imm igra nt visitor visa.

Amer ican consuls are responsib le for dete rmining the classif ication of visa 

app lica nts as imm igra nts or nonimm igra nts and for the issuance or refus al of 

visas. The Imm igration and National ity Act, as amended, defines the term “immi gra nt” to mean every alien seeking to en ter the United Sta tes except an alien 

who establishes th at he is wit hin one of the nonimm igra nt classes enum erate d in 

the law. A app lica nt for a vis ito r vis a mus t esta blis h th at he has a reside nce in a for ­

eign coun try which he ha s no inte ntio n of aban do nin g; th at he is coming to the 

United Sta tes tem porarily fo r busines or pleasu re and th at he is able and intend s to ret urn abro ad upon the conclusion of his visit. Evide nce tha t the app lican t has close ties abr oad of a future which will nec essitate his retur n will be 

help ful in esta blish ing non imm igra nt vis itor sta tus . He mu st also show th at he 

has a passpo rt or oth er acce ptable trav el docum ent valid for ret urn abro ad at 

lea st six months beyond the period of time he desires to rem ain in the Unite d 

State s. The applica nt is also req uire d to satisfy the c ons ular officer t ha t adeq uate 

financ ial provision has been made to cover the expen ses of his stay in the United 

Sta tes and ret urn abroa d.

An alien in the United State s as a tem pora ry visitor for busin ess or plea sure 

is not permitted to accep t employme nt. A visitor who rem ain s in the United 

Sta tes beyond the period for which he has been given permission to stay by the 

imm igration autho riti es becomes su bjec t to de portation .

The validity period of a vis itor visa rela tes only to the perio d duri ng which 

it may be used in making app lica tion for admission into the United States and 

has no rela tion to the perio d of time the alien to whom it is issued may be 

auth oriz ed to stay in the U nited States. The perio d of v alid ity var ies in each case, 

depend ing upon the tre atmen t accorded American citiz ens by the country of 

which the alien is a nat ion al, but in no case may the validit y period extend 

beyond four years. Ord inarily the alien may apply any number of times for 

admis sion into the United Sta tes at a port of entry dur ing the validity period of 

the visa unless it is limit ed in the numb er of applica tion s fo r entry.

Mr. Lawrence. When that document is submitted, the automated 

visa lookout book check is accomplished, and if an interview is necessary and is accomplished, in a m atter of minutes—and it will vary 

at posts—the decision to issue it can be made.

If there is not a large line of applicants waiting, the visa can be 

issued on the spot. In posts where there is a long waiting list, the 

applicant may be told tha t, “Your passport will be available to be 

picked up at 2 o’clock this afternoon, or 3 o'clock this afternoon.”

The time of decision—the time our consular officer can talk to the 

applicant, and make the decision—is a matter of minutes. Time extends where there is an overwhelming number of people bearing down 

on the consular office for the visa at 8 o’clock in the morning, when 

the office opens, when you sort your way throu gh those people, get 

to them for an interview, and make the decision. Specifically the time 

it takes to get a visa, mindful of the manpower base worldwide, 

what is it, about 11 minutes?

Mr. Arias. Eleven minutes.

Mr. Lawrence. Eleven minutes on a worldwide basis, manpower 

against total number of visas.

Mr. Sarbanes. I ’m not quite sure if that is a helpful interesting 

figure. Eleven minutes, you take the total number of visas you issue, 

and the number of hours the State Department people put into it, 

and tha t gives you 11 minutes. What does tha t mean?

61—357 75----- 5
30

Mr. Walextynowicz. Th at’s hard to answer because it varies on 

the post.

Mr. Sarbanes. Well, you gave me the figures, you ought to know 

what it means. What is the significance of giving me the figure?

Mr. L awrence. Well, the significance of it is, it gives us a measurement, year bv year, of whether we are gaining against the totality of 

our crowds, or not gaining against the totality of our crowds. Our 

problem is crowds before we can get to the visa.

Mr. Walextynowicz. To answer your question, it just gives us a 

general measure, nowhere conclusive, of the kind of performance 

tha t we have. It is very general.

Mr. Sarbanes. Well, does the Department have, on a country -bycountry basis, with respect to applications for a v isitor’s visa, a nonimmigrant visa, how many of those are handled by mail, and how 

many of them require the applicant to appear for a personal interview 

that is handled in person ?

Mr. Walextynowicz. Well, sir, we don't have actual statistics, 

but it varies from country to country. The authority to issue a visa 

by mail—

Mr. S arbanes. Have you stopped keeping the statistics? Because in 

a repo rt out of this committee in 1968 there were percentage figures 

given as to what was handled by mail, and what was not. I assume that 

information obviously must have come from the Department.

Mr. Walextynowicz. I ’m sorry, I may have misunderstood you.

Mr. S arbanes. Is that still available?

Mr. Walextynowicz. Yes, th at ’s still available.

Mr. Sarbanes. Worldwide, or country by country ?

Mr. Walextynowicz. It would be country by country.

Mr. Sarbanes. Well, you could furnish us with a table that shows 

in a country we have had 52 percent, or something, th at were done by 

ma il; is that correct?

Mr. Walextynowicz. Yes, sir. And the percentage varies, depending 

on the circumstances we find in each country. There are a number of 

factors that influence the use of the mail. One, of course, is frau d, and 

another is the reliability of the postal service of the country.

Mr. Sarbanes. Well, I have a staff memorandum that says we made 

an inquiry of the Department and we were told by the Department 

it does not maintain a list of countries where personal appearances 

for nonimmigrant visas may be waived.

Mr. Arias. We do have statistics, Mr. Sarbanes.

Mr. S arbanes Well, if you could furnish us with that, I would appreciate it.

Now, mv next question, do you have any statistics which would say, 

from the time we received the application for a nonimmigrant visa 

in country X, we acted upon tha t application within 7 days in this 

percent of the cases; within 14 days in this percent of the cases; within 

30 days, and so forth.

Is tha t sort of a statistic available ?

Mr. Artas. We don’t have precise statistics from the time the application was filed. The statistics tha t we have relate to the actual time tha t 

was devoted to the processing of a visa, once the processing has commenced. But we have a general idea how long it takes to issue visas 

at the various posts.

Mr. Eilberg. Will the gentleman yield ?
31

Mr. Sarbanes. Yes.

Mr. E ilberg. I would like to make a statement for the record, following Mr. Sarbanes’ question. For your information, tha t is our staff 

memo dated September 10. The Department states it does not maintain a list of countries where personal appearance for a nonimmigrant 

visa may be waived. Now, if tha t is correct-----

Air. Arias. No, we do not maintain lists of countries and this applies 

universally.

Mr. Eilberg. B ut you ju st told Mr. Sarbanes that you could supply 

a list.

Mr. Arias. Statistics as to what the proportion is th at appearances 

can be waived.

Mr. Walentynowicz. In other words, we don’t say each country is 

waived, or not waived. We address it on a case-by-case basis. It is a 

matter at the discretion of the consular officer, acting on a case-by-case 

basis. Now, how the consular officer acts in any one country, or how 

often he acts-----

Mr. Sarbanes. There is no country, in other words, in which it is 

done all by mail, is tha t what you are saying?

Mr. Walentynowicz. That would be my understanding.

[Subsequent to the hearing the following letter was sent concerning 

these issues:]

Depar tm en t of Stat e. 

Wa shin gto n, D .C ., Dece mbe r 31,1 975.

Hon. J osh ua Eilb er g,

Ho use o f Repre sen tat ive s,

Washing ton, D .C .

Dear Mr. Ch a ir m an : When I appeared before you on September 10 to discuss 

the visa waive r bills, you and other members of the Subcommittee asked several 

questions about nonim migr ant visa issua nce procedures at our posts abroad. We 

have now completed a survey of 93 visa issu ing posts, and I would like to let 

you know the res ults.

We asked our posts to report the average length of time that transp ired between the receipt of a completed nonim migra nt visa application to the delivery 

of the visaed passpo rt to the appl icant or his agent. Our posts were asked to 

report this time period accordi ng to whethe r the applic ations were submitted 

in person, by m ail, or by a trav el a gent.

Well more than ha lf the posts queried reported tha t when the appl ication was 

submitted in person, the time period was less than one h al f day, and often only 

a few minutes. Ano ther 20 per cent of the posts responding reported tha t visas 

were issued the same day, and another 20 per cent said they were issued by the 

next day aft er receipt of the applic ation. Only three posts reported longer periods 

of time.

With regard to applicat ions received by mail, more than a third of the posts 

reported that app lication s were processed the same day as received, and anothe r 

third processed them by the second day. App licat ions received through travel 

agents had sim ilar tre atm en t: slightly fewe r than ha lf the posts reporting stated 

tha t such applicatio ns were dealt w ith on the da y received, and more than a third 

completed processing by the next day. Abou t a six th of the posts responding 

replied that travel agent-submitte d applicatio ns took more than two days to 

process, but explained tha t they generally were received in considerable number 

and usua lly well in adva nce of the scheduled trav el, so tha t they could be completed as the worklo ad pe rmitted .

Our posts were also asked to report the percentage of visas issued where 

personal appeara nce was waived , aga in broken down into how the appli catio n 

was received—by mai l, through a travel agen t, or in person. The responses did 

not differ sign ifica ntly according to the way an appl ication was received, but 

varied rathe r accordin g to the post’s perception of its frau d problem and the 

probable intentions of nonimmigran t visa appl icants to return to their country 

of residence.

Regard less of the way the application was received, more than ha lf the posts 

queried responded tha t persona l appea rance was waived for 90 per cent or more
32

applicants. About 15 per cent of the posts responding said that they waived personal appearance for only 10 per cent of their applicants, and some of these posts reported that they virtually never waived personal appearance. The re­ maining third of the posts queried reported answers somewhere in between; about half of these waived personal appearance more than 50 per cent of the 

time, and about half waived it less than 50 per cent of the time. I hope, Mr. Chairman, that this information will be helpful to you. Please call 

on me if you desire more precise data.

Sincerely,

Leonard F. Walen ty no wicz, 

Adm inistrator, Bureau of Sec urity and Consular Affairs.

Mr. Sarbanes. Now, I am interested as to whether the Department 

has any constructive suggestions about what we might do in response 

to the Bicentennial on the question of bringing in visitors, and so forth , 

without getting to the point of dropping the entire screening process.

At the moment you issue a visa which is good for varying time 

periods and for rather lengthy stays in this country. Has the D epartment, for instance, considered whether you might have a very streamlined different procedure for a 21-day visitor’s visa, or 30-day visitor's 

visa, something of tha t sort; and whether tha t might be tied to a 

round-trip ticket tha t in some way might have a legend placed on it, 

so that the return part cannot be cashed in? In other words, the visitor 

would siinplv lose money if it was not used for the return, putting 

an additional investment on the p art of the person.

You are running people through the same screening process—in 

theory at least, you may not be doing it in practice—if they stop in 

New York for 3 days on the way to somewhere else, for a brief visit, 

or come in for a week and go to Montreal for the Olympics, and then 

spend 10 days in the United States, coming down to Washington, 

seeing the sights and retu rnin g home, than if someone wants to come 

for 6 months, or even a longer period.

Mr. Walentynowicz. Tha t’s right.

Mr. Sarbanes. The question I am putting to you : What constructive 

suggestions can you make to set up a category tha t would be fairly 

limited in terms of dura tion of stay, and purpose, and thus develop 

a more streamlined process. And what problems do you see in somethin g like that?

Mr. Fisii. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. Sarbanes. Yes, sir.

Mr. Fisii. I think the witness nodded his consent, th at essentially 

the same process applies. But, is that really the case? I ’m thinking of 

an individual, a well-known member of the community, the business 

community and a friend of the embassy staff who wants to come and 

visit the United States. It seems to me that application would be processed on the basis of discretion by the consular officer quite differently 

than somebody who was an unknown quantity, and much quicker.

Mr. Walentynowicz. T hat’s why I answered “ Yes.” In theory the 

screening remains the same; but that person can more readily convince 

the consular officer on the basis of credible information, in other 

words, that person may be known to the consular officer, or has access 

to data that can persuade the consular officer much more readily than 

a perfect stranger who makes an application.

Mr. F isii. Isn’t the basis for the entire law expressed in the consular 

officer’s feeling?

Mr. Walentynowicz. T ha t’s right.
33

Mr. Fis h. You realize th e pro ced ure , th at he satis fies him self, and 

he co uld mak e up his mind with ou t an y in form ation .

Mr. W alentynowicz. Th at is true .

Mr. Fis h. T ha nk y ou.

Mr. Walentynowicz. Now, in ter ms of yo ur question, sir, we are 

co nti nu all y ex plo rin g the situa tio n. But th e things th at concern us— 

an d you talked about it —is th at we reall y do n't know ahead of tim e 

wh at will be the ap pl ic an t’s attitu de once he arriv es in th e Un ite d 

State s, and th at is the rea son we go thr ou gh th e scr een ing process. We 

do n’t kno w if he is in good fa it h com ing as a vi sito r; wh eth er lie is 

just go ing to use the visa as a s ub te rfug e; w hether he, once h e ge ts into 

the Uni ted Sta tes, m ay change his m ind and stay here longer , et cetera.

Now, one o f th e pro blems th at I foresee— an d p robably th is is a questio n th at can be ans wered by IN S—w ha t devices do we hav e to effectiv ely move a person ou t of th e co untry once he o verstays, or in some 

way v iolates h is ten ure of stay ? Now, when we ge t to t hat q uestion, we 

get into problem s o f rig ht s, a nd w hether we h ave a n efficient and effectiv e way of m oving th at perso n out o f the c ount ry ; the se are t he compe tin g con sideration s.

Th e Dep artm en t wa nts to enc ourag e peo ple to come an d celebrate 

the Bicente nnial of the Uni te d State s, an d those who come in good 

fa ith we wish to enco ura ge as much as possible.

Mr. Sarbanes. W ha t is th e Dep artm en t do ing to enc ourage them, 

othe r th an ma kin g th at sta temen t?

Air. AValentynowicz. W ell , we are coopera tin g by telli ng our consu lar officers abroa d to be at titu di na lly sen sitive as they are ma kin g 

judg men ts—t he po int th at Mr. Fi sh made. In othe r words, how. We 

are tryin g to provide t he p hy sic al pl an t equip me nt so t h at visa ap pl icat ion s are more efficiently an d more quickl y screened. We are t ry in g 

to coo per ate wi th air lin es an d host governm ents by prov iding the m 

service as ra pi dl y as possible. We are tr yin g to do a whole hos t of 

th in gs ; bu t we don’t th in k th is should mea n the ab an do ning of the 

scree nin g process.

Mr. Sarbanes. We ll, I do n' t sug gest th at . I am ju st askin g abo ut 

dif fer ent catego ries to be created in orde r to expedite th is ma tte r. 

Would ge tti ng a visa be a sam e-d ay proposition in most instances?

Air. W alentynow icz. Yes.

Air. Sarbanes. Genera lly a ro un d the world ?

Mr. L awrence. Ge nerally aro un d the world, pa rtic ul ar ly the visito r’s-type visa.

Air. S arbanes. Pa rtic ula rly wha t?

Air. L awrence. Par ticu la rly the visit or’s-type visa.

Air. Sarbanes. And th at req uires, in the major ity of cases, the ap ­

peara nce a t th e emb assy o r consula r office ?

Air. L awrence. T ha t is go ing to vary on a c ou ntry-to -cou ntry basis. 

Th roug ho ut C entra l Eu rope , fo r example, an d I d on ’t ha ve th e stat istic s wi th me, bu t I wou ld ha za rd th at the m ajor ity of the visas are 

issu ed by mail in those areas. In oth er are as wh ere we hav e pressu res 

of populat ion s, pre ssu res of economy, peop le de sir ing no t to come to 

the Un ite d Sta tes , bu t peo ple de sir ing to ex it th ei r co un try fo r econom ic op po rtu nity, com ing t o us disguised as vis ito rs, the concept of 

visa by ma il isn 't wo rk ab le; we have to sit dow n and examin e the
34

evidence, make a judgment the best we can on the basis of the data in 

front of us.

Mr. Eilbero. Mr. Fish ?

Mr. F isit. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Walentynowicz, in the line of questioning pursued by Mr. Sarbanes, T think it’s very useful for us to make a determination whether 

it is feasible for the work normally done by a consular officer in the 

field, whether i t can be done by Immigration inspectors at the port of 

entry. We get down to testing the bona fide positions. My understanding is 

tha t one seeking entry into the United States is presumed to be an immigrant, and it’s up to the applicant to persuade the consular officer, 

or the immigration officer, that he is indeed a bona fide nonimmigrant.

Mr. Walentynowicz. Absolutely right.

Mr. F isii. Now, this is the principal burden tha t is involved here. 

Could you, or your associates here, tell us what type of information 

is sought to establish to the satisfaction of the Foreign Service officer, 

or the admitting officer, tha t the alien is indeed a bona fide tourist ?

Mr. Walentynowicz. Let me start, and then Mr. Lawrence and Mr. 

Arias will pitch in. We have to be convinced tha t he is not an immigrant, that is, he has 

a place where he intends to return. In other words, what are his roots 

in the country he is coming from ; and if he is in a third country, the 

reasons he will go back to his country of origin. Things like bank accounts, family connections, ownership of real estate, a job. These are 

all important considerations which the consular officer, in making his 

inquiry, is going to look out for.

Mr. Fish. Is it true also that the consular officer has the ability 

to check on a variety of the statements made by the applicant?

Mr. Walentynowicz. Th at’s correct. You are highlighting the 

points tha t I am making; these are factors tha t lie's got to be satisfied 

with. The consular officer at an embassy, is in a much b etter position to check with less discomfort to the applicant, which is also important. If we want to encourage travel, we have to make it reasonable 

for the applicant. If it’s done there, it will be with less discomfort 

to the applicant than if it is done by INS a t the p ort of entry, under 

pressures of time. "What, will the applicant do when he is waiting 

at the port of entry while the INS is doing its screening?

Mr. Fisi i. Do your associates wish to elaborate on th at?

Mr. Lawrence. I thin k he covered this totally. The elements that 

I get in making the judgment is tha t the consular officer is living 

in the country and has the opportunity to develop the type of localized 

knowledge that you have to have in order to put the type of evidence 

and material given to you into some type of perspective to make a 

decision.

There are countries in the world where a visa officer will look at 

evidence, knowing full well it was printed yesterday, for the purpose 

of satisfying the requirement. Our visa officers develop the capability 

of recognizing more accurately the material tha t was developed 

yesterday as opposed to material tha t is bona fide; and it is this onthe-spot judgment that we believe is helpful.

Mr. F ish. As State Department representatives I would like to 

explore with you something that disturbs me. In the bill before us 

the Secretary of State is constantly referred to as having the power
35

to designate in his discretion, on the basis of reciprocity or on the 

basis of a determination that such designation would promote the 

foreign policy of the United States, tha t such nationals would be 

allowed to come in without documentation for a visit.

Has the State Department explored this, and thought about it in 

terms of foreign policy implications, blatant discrimination, which 

would seem to follow such a standard?

Mr. L awrence. We have considered it ; tha t is the reason we oppose 

the bill.

Mr. Fish. I s tha t the principal reason ?

Mr. Lawrence. That is one of them. It would be difficult to draw 

the line, given the discretion. And we also have the problem, sir, 

tha t if Congress enacts this bill, it would be a signal that we should 

exercise discretion. In other words, it would indicate congressional 

inten t that we should relax. We would be put in a position, then, to 

make hard judgments, which may have more adverse foreign policy 

consequences for us than the law as it is now.

Mr. Fish. I have one other question, Mr. Chairman, if you will 

bear with me. The more practical aspect—and correct me if I ’m 

wrong—it appears to me, based on sections of the Immigration and 

Nationality laws of the United States, tha t there are more than 26 

categories of nonimmigrant visas, of which 4 in the “B ” class, pertain 

to temporary visitors for business and pleasure.

In addition, there are five categories under treaties. Now, do you 

anticipate a problem for 1 of th e 26 who are not business or pleasure, 

such as students, spouses of students, or many others who will still be 

required to have a nonimmigrant visa, not knowing tha t they are 

required, simply gettin g their ticket and coming to the United States, 

they are causing a real tieup at the port of entry.

Mr. Lawrence. That’s right, we feel tha t is a problem. That is a 

problem of education, but it s till is a problem.

Mr. Fish. Do you thin k it is possible to educate them?

Mr. Walentynowicz. The World? Not tha t quickly; given a span 

of time, yes; but not by the Bicentennial year. Tha t is an additional 

factor, sir and a good point.

Mr. Fish. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Eilbf.rg. Mr. Cohen, do you have any questions?

Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As I understand it, the actual interview conducted averages about 

11 minutes?

Mr. Walentynowicz. Dividing the figures out, yes, sir.

Mr. Cohen. And during that time you determine and verify the 

type of information submitted by the applicant?

Mr. Walentynowicz. Yes, sir.

Mr. Coiien. And I understand also, it is in the discretion of the 

consulate to inquire about a police record if he thinks there might 

be a police record?

Mr. Walentynowicz. Yes, sir.

Mr. Cohen. Do you check t ha t out in every instance?

Mr. Walentynowicz. It’s a matter of discretion, sir. It would 

be impossible given the fact th at you issue 3 million visas over the 

period of 1 year, and every applicant brings in a police record, even 

it ’s negative; it would be impossible but again, it’s a matter of 

judgment. We have professionals out in the field and they have to
36

make (lie judgment that based upon the background information 

tha t the applicant is giving, he is telling the tru th when he says he 

has no police record; and then it’s left at that. On the other hand, 

if the officer has a suspicion, he says, “Go hack to the police authority 

and get me your record.”

Mr. Cohen. Did the Republic of Germany waive visa requirements 

for participants at the Olympics, or visitors to the Olympics in 1972?

Mr. AA alentynowicz. I don’t know, sir. Mr. Lawrence, do you know ?

Mr. Lawrence. They waived the requirements for American citizens, but I don’t know whether tha t was universally true.

Mr. Cohen. I was just wondering, in terms of your statement, 

whether the State Department is rethinking its original position, 

based on the occurrences at Munich.

Mr. Walentynowicz. Pa rtly .

Mr. Cohen. In what way was that influential ?

Air. AA alentynowicz. Simply because it was an act of terrorism. 

In other words, since there are acts of terrorism being conducted 

worldwide, a variety of examples, not only-----

Mr. Coiien. Let me stop you righ t there. Do you mean to stop any 

person seeking a visa for a visit to this country tha t comes from a 

nation in which acts of terrorism are being condoned bv that 

government ?

Air. AA alentynowicz. Xo. We don't look at it from the point of 

view of a particula r place tha t he comes from because, as you know, 

we have discovered th at by a variety of sophisticated means a person 

can acquire evidence of natio nality from any country, get a false passport, and this type of thing.

Air. Coiien. But you said earlier if they condemned terrorism. I 

don’t understand-----

Air. AValentynowicz. AVell, I am talking about an international, 

worldwide concept. In other words, what I am suggesting is, achieving a worldwide consensus that terrorists would not be accommodated, 

a universal condemnation.

Mr. Coiien. I don't understand how th at relates to the question of 

waiving visas for foreign visitors.

Air. AV alentynow’tcz. It would be only one factor, sir, tha t would 

help us in deciding whether or not it was prudent for the United 

States to waive visas. I f we felt th at no country would support terro rist activities, then it's less likely tha t terrorism would occur. But as 

long as countries do support certain terrorist activities, even incidentally or reluctantly, or whatever terms you want to use, it makes 

it more difficult for us-----

Air. Cohen. I assume if a group came over to New York City and 

committed an act of sabotage, that they would be prosecuted and 

apprehended here in our country, under our laws; is th at correct?

Air. AA7alentynowicz. If we could retain jurisdiction. One of the 

problems of terrorism is the fact that terro rists usually don’t live in 

the country where they commit the act of terrorism, and go to some 

third country as a haven.

Air. Coiien. But even our current law doesn't discriminate against 

anv country that condones terrorism.

Air. AA’ ALENTYNOWICZ. N o , s ir.
37

Mr. Lawrence. But unde r our current law we do have the ability, 

with some frequency, to iden tify an individual known as a terrorist, to stop the issuance of his visa, and generally pass the word.

Mr. Coiien. I don’t question that.

Mr. Walentynowicz. Bu t the point is, your approach is from a 

country-to-country type of view, sir; we are approaching it from an individual applicant point of view. The fact that a person comes from a particular country may have some significance, but it isn’t conclusive. We don’t say that all people from this country are te rror­ ists—that is totally unfair—but conversely, we can’t say, just because 

you come from this country you are not a terrorist.

Mr. Coiien. I just was not aware of your statement to the effect 

that once we have worldwide condemnation of terrorism, tha t then we may proceed w ith this type of visa waiver requirements.

Mr. Walenttnowicz. That would be one factor we would consider 

in terms of the question of safety and security, but certainly not the 

only one.

Mr. Eilberg. Thank you very much, Mr. Walentynowicz, and your 

associates, we appreciate you r testimony. [The prepared statmeent of Leonard F. Walentynowicz follows:]

Statement of Hon. Leonard F. Walentynowicz, Administrator, Bureau of

Security and Consular Affairs, Department of State

Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to be here today to testify on the question of waiving the nonimm igrant visitor visa require­ ment, either for the Bic ente nnial Year or on an indefinite basis. We in the Departme nt of Sta te feel th at the re has been, over the years, a vast qua ntity of misinformation put out on this question and th at many people who involve 

themselves in it misund erstand the tr ue issues at stake. There was a time when the Dep artm ent favo red such legislation. The Under­ secretary of Sta te testified in favor of it before thi s Subcommittee in 3968. Until 1971, the Admin istratio n made such legislation a pa rt of its form al legis­ lative proposals. But time passes and circumstances change. Policy positions are reviewed and reassessed—and, when wa rrante d, they are changed. This process has occurred on this matt er and we now are opposed to legislation of this kind, at lea st und er pre sen t circumstances, because of various factors. Principa l among these are the illegal alien problem, terr orism and the implications of world demography. You have, I believe, our wr itten report on the bills in question here, so I will not att em pt to go into extensive detail on our objections to this sort of proposal. The re are, however, certain points which I would like to make at this time. First, the proponents of thi s bill argue that the very existence of the non­ immig rant visa requirem ent is a deterrent to travel. Presumably, the rationale is th at bona fide tou rists considering a possible tri p to the United States for their ann ual vacation, etc., abandon the idea when they learn th at they will have to apply for and obtain a visa in connection with arrangin g their trip, thus caus ­ ing a loss of potential foreig n currency earn ings for the United States. They a rgue fu rthe r th at this reaction is so general abroad th at the overall tota l of lost foreign currency earn ings is a significant factor in our balance of payments. Now, I am prepared—the Dep artm ent of State institu tionally is prepared—to concede that thi s argument may be a valid one. But—and I emphasize th at —we are not pre­ pare d to accept it as valid unless a nd until some objective evidence which would satisfy reasonable men is presented to corroborate it. Over the last several years, we have made on a variety of occasions in various contexts and invited the proponents of this argument to present such evidence to us for o ur consideratio n. To this date, no such evidence has reached us from any source, in or out of 

government. On a more serious issue, I think that the proponen ts of thi s legislation mis­ und erstand the very na ture of the existing immigration system. One hundred years ago, the United States began the process of controlling the entry of aliens into this country—first, qualitatively ; then almost fifty y ears la ter quan tita tively.
38

At about the same time as the establishment of quant itativ e controls on immigration, the control system—tha t is to say, the operational procedures for distinguishing between those who were eligible for entry and those who were not— 

was augmented by the establishm ent of the visa requirement. Prio r to that 

time, all control was exercised through the inspection process at the port of entry. 

Now, we have the double-check system.

The point to be considered is this—the visa requirement is no t a total cont rol; 

it does not represent a substantive decision concerning the kinds of aliens we 

wish to admit or wish to exclude in the abstract. It is nothing more than a 

procedural device which allows us to distinguish between the parti cula r alien 

we wish to admit and the one we wish to exclude. Its abolition will have no 

effect on the substance of our law dealing with kinds of people we will permit to 

enter—the same classes of aliens who are excludable today, will remain excludable after enactment of this bill. What will change is solely the way in which we 

screen aliens to separate the excludable ones from the admissible ones.

Now, let us envision the situation if the visa requirements are waived for 

any significant numbers of aliens and let us assume that our colleagues in the 

Immigration Service have the necessary resources to conduct effective screening at po rts of entry without the help of any preliminary screening by consular officers. ( I will refrain from commenting on the question whether i t is operationally 

possible to arrive at tha t point, for tha t is a matter more appropria tely for the 

Service to address.) In effect, we are positing tha t the single screening process 

at the port of entry will be j ust as effective as the double-check system. What 

will happen? The aliens whose visa applications would have been refused had 

they been required to go through the visa process will be screened out by the 

inspectors at ports of entry and either excluded and deported or permitted to 

withdraw7 their applications for admission and retur n on th eir own whence they 

came. Thus, our control system would be functioning effectively, but consider 

the image of the United States. With the visa requirement, the aliens screened 

out are aliens who never are able to begin their trip because they cannot approach a port of entry without a valid visa. Without the visa requirement they 

are aliens who have expended hun dreds of dollars on a ir fare for what becomes 

nothing more than a few hours stopover at the airport here. Should this occur 

on a large scale—and the possibility is good tha t the scale will be large—the 

spectacle of large numbers of a liens being turned away at the door, so to speak, 

w’ould not be an edifying one and I think such a spectacle could well do more 

to blight our image throughout the world than maintenance of t he visa requirement, particu larly in those instances where entry is denied because of insufficient 

documentation.

On the other hand, if the single screening at the port of entry should prove 

less effective than the existing double-check system, then w*e are confronted with 

the possibility of seriously aggravating the already difficult illegal alien problem. Moreover, we simply cannot ignore the terrorism situation. The possibility 

tha t aliens may seek to enter the United States to commit acts of terrorism here 

rather than in France or Italy or Malaysia remains constantly with us. Reducing t he effectiveness of our screening processes at such a time would seem to be 

a most impruden t course of action.

In conclusion, let me say tha t—on the theoretical level—wre are not opposed 

to the abolition of the nonimmigrant visa requirement. We are not against change 

on principle and, if acceptable alter nativ es can be worked out, we would see 

no in herent reason for perpetuation of the requirement.

For example, enactment of H.R. 9S2 and its effective implementation over a 

period of time could significantly reduce the scope of the illegal alien problem 

by curtailing or even removing the economic incentive to illegal entry and stay. 

Should this occur, as we all hope it will, we should review the situation and, 

if other considerations such as security do not preclude taking such action, 

we might well be in a position then to favor a broad waiver of the nonimmigration 

visa requirement.

At the present time, however, we do not believe tha t eithe r domestic or internation al conditions are such as to justify doing so. This concludes my prepared 

remarks and I will be most happy to respond to any questions you may wish to 

put to me.

Mr. E ilberg. Our next witness is the Honorable Leonard F. Chapman. Commissioner, Imm igration and Naturalization Service. At this 

time I will ask you to summarize your statement, General Chapman;
39

and without objection your entire statement will l^e placed in the record as though read.

If you would identify your associates.

TESTIMONY OF HON. LEONARD F. CHAPMAN, COMMISSIONER, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, ACCOMPANIED

BY JAMES GREENE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER; AND SAM BERNSEN, GENERAL COUNSEL

Mr. Chapman. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to lx? 

here. With me are Mr. James Greene, Deputy Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization Service, and Mr. Sam Bernsen, General 

Counsel of the INS.

With your permission, then, I will summarize very briefly.

Air. E ilberg. Would you, please?

Mr. Chapman. I will confine myself to the central portion of my 

statement where we express the opinion of the Department, the Justice 

Department and the Immigration Service on the two bills, H.R. 190 

and H.R. 8059, which would waive the visa requirements; one permanently, and one during the Bicentennial year.

It is our opinion tha t there should be no relaxation of requirements 

for nonimmigrant visas, and that these bills not be enacted. We are 

presently inundated with millions of illegal aliens, many of whom 

hold or seek jobs in competition with Americans. With widespread 

unemployment in numerous countries throughou t the world, work 

opportunities in the U nited States are a powerful attraction to aliens. 

These job opportunities must be safeguarded for our own citizens and 

permanent residents.

The discontinuance of visa requirements for visitors would deprive 

us of a valuable device for maintaining such safeguards. Th at device is 

the consular screening abroad of nonimmigrant visa applicants. If ineligible, the alien can be rejected in his home country before he can 

even embark for the United States. Significantly, we understand, 

American consuls denied over 30,000 nonimmigrant visa applications 

in fiscal year 1974.

It is therefore clear th at consular screening helps to stem the influx 

of ineligible visitors, many of whom are ineligible because they intend 

to seek work in the United States. As this committee has heard on 

many occasions, the job attra ction is precisely the magnet which 

another bill, II.R. 8713, is designed to turn off, and until employers 

are prohibited by law from employing aliens not authorized to work, 

in our view, additional visa waivers should not be authorized.

Mr. E ilberg. May I interrupt you at this point and simply ask this: 

If the illegal alien bill were to become law, would your position on this 

legislation be the opposite ?

Mr. Chapman. No, sir. I do not believe that visas should be waived— 

the possibility still arises; and then, the effectiveness still remains to 

be proven. We believe it will be quite effective, but I still believe there 

will be people who seek to evade its provisions, and may well succeed 

in doing so for a limited period of time. Even working for a limited 

period of time in the United State s is a fanta stic sum to the unemployed people from poor countries in the world. So, I think there will 

still be people who will seek to evade it and benefit from the economic advantage of this society.
40

It seems to us tha t another important reason against the enactment 

of these two bills is, without the safeguard of consular screening, there 

may be an increase in the entry of terrorists, as previously discussed.

There are other features. The bills would predicate a waiver on reciprocity, and would permit waivers to promote foreign policy. Most 

foreign countries, the argum ent goes, do not require visitors from the 

United States to have visas, and, therefore, in the interest of promoting 

foreign policy and good relations with such countries, the United 

States should reciprocate.

The flaw in tha t argum ent is, what may work for other countries 

doesn’t necessarily work in the United States, and should not be imposed on the United States.

In many foreign countries there are strict internal police controls 

on the movement of persons, a concept th at is repugnant to our philosophy. In most foreign countries aliens who are inadmissible, or who 

remain unlawfully, can be summarily removed. But in the United 

States, under our constitutional standards, aliens are entitled to a 

panoply of rights ranging from formal hearings with legal representation to administrative appeals and judicial review, including the right 

to petition the Supreme Court. These are time consuming, and sometimes they take years. I, therefore, do not find reciprocity or the promotion of foreign policy an adequate basis for waiving visas.

Another point which should be addressed is the role of the carrier, 

such as its effectiveness in screening prospective vis itors; I state in my 

statement—and I won’t go into further details—there has been a good 

deal of thought given to this subject over the years. In those years, 

when the matter has been studied, it has not been found feasible to 

make the carrier role a pa rtic ula r role of responsibility.

With regard to costs, there would be increased costs to the Immigration Service; we would have to increase immigration inspectors; we 

would have to increase our judges for exclusion hearings at ports of 

entry, trial attorneys, clerks, our adjudicators, and the like.

In short, for what we believe are solid and sufficient reasons, we 

recommend against the enactment of the two bills that would waive 

visas for nonimmigrant visitors to the United States.

Now, with respect to the bill, H.R. 2771, we would make a minor 

change in the law, limited solely to Guam; we have no objection to 

tha t proposal.

One point should be clarified, we believe, and that is tha t admission 

to Guam is admission to the United States within the meaning of the 

Immigration and Naturalization Act, and therefore the bill should 

be amended to make it clear th at the alien would be admitted to Guam 

under the condition tha t his sojourn be restricted to Guam, and would 

not entitle him to proceed on to the United States.

Also, as the bill would be enacted as permanent legislation, it would 

be preferable to enact it, as suggested, as an amendment to the Im migration and Nationality Act, rather than as separate law. The impact 

of tha t bill on the Immigration Service would be very small.

Mr. Eilbero. Mr. Chapman, we thank you for your statement, and 

I would like to ask you a couple of questions.

When you testified on this bill in 1968 you stated tha t in all likelihood immigration officers would soon be required in London. Paris, 

Rome, to participate in preinspection before coming to the United
41

States as a tourist. What is your view of preinspection abroad, in 

either implementing this legislation, or an alternative approach to it?

Mr. Chapman. We favor preinspection in the countries overseas, 

and it would, of course, substitute, in a way, if put into effect, for the 

consular officer. It would require additional immigration officers, and 

it would also require agreement by the host countries. It is a way of 

handling the screening that would work.

Mr. E ilbekg. As we are considering the legislation before us this 

morning, if we elected to act favorably upon the bills you objected to, 

how would a person be removed from the United States if he were 

found to be excludable, and should the rights of administrative judicial review be available to him ?

Mr. Chapman. Well, sir, yes; I thin k it is clear tha t is the r ight that 

now pertains, it would have to be continued, applied to aliens entering 

under these restrictions. The means for removing him would be deportation proceedings, or in some cases voluntary departure.

Mr. Eilbekg. So, you are saying tha t the right to adjudication would 

still be available to an individual in the United States, even though 

the visa was waived.

Air. Bernsen. That is correct.

Mr. Eilbekg. If we enacted the legislation we are discussing this 

morning, what measures would be taken by IXS to insure departure 

of aliens admitted under this bill; what mechanisms would you 

employ?

Air. Chapman. We Mould employ the same machinery tha t we use 

now for detection and apprehension of an alien who is illegally in the 

United States. It's good machinery, it works effectively, but only to 

the limits of its capability. We are inundated, and the number of immigration investigators we have, who are charged with tha t function, 

is very small. We have a total of 900 investigators in all the cities of 

this country, and they are looking for some millions of illegal aliens, 

of whom we estimate at least a million are working. It is, obviously, 

an overwlielming problem.

Now, our view of waiving the visas is simply this, th at it would add 

substantially to the number of aliens who are illegally in the country 

and are seeking to work, or are w orking.

Air. Eilberg. Air. Fish ?

Air. Fish. Thank you, Air. Chairman.

General Chapman, 1 appreciate your remarks in your statement,, 

limited to the territory of Guam, and need for clarification that this is 

not tantamount to entry into the United States.

If the bill were passed, would this entail American immigration 

officers being stationed on Guam, so that when a visitor comes for a 

limited period of time, he could come to an immigration officer on 

Guam and ask for an application to proceed further to the mainland 

United States ?

Air. Greene. There would be no person who would authorize the 

immigration officer to permit them to—he could not issue them a visa.

Air. F ish. AVell, we couldn't have U.S. Foreign Service personnel on 

a U.S. territory.

Air. Greene. Tha t’s right.

Air. Fish. Visitors would have to go back to Jap an, or wherever 

they came from, to apply.
42

Air. G reene. Th at would lx4

 my best judgm ent.

Mr. B ernsen. I agree with that.

Mr. Chap man. A s you know, we do have a sma ll Im migratio n O ffice on Guam.

Mr. Fish. Now, Ge neral , du ring o ur hearin gs that you pa rticip ated 

in on ille gal aliens, you testified th at 5 or 10 percen t of the 600,000 

visitors to o ur country overstayed th eir visits a nd became ille gal aliens.

Mr. C hap man. That is correct.

Mr. F ish. How would you feel th at a waive r o f th e visa requir em ent 

would affect the illeg al alien populat ion ?

Mr. Chap man. Oh, I th in k it could only increase it in su bs tantial 

measure. The 5 to 10 perce nt figure is of some 6 millio n tempo rary 

pers ons. Ou r records show 5 to 10 perc ent do no t leav e at the end of 

th ei r autho riz ed time. Many of those we ap preh en d wo rki ng in th is 

co un try , are visitors who overstayed th ei r tim e. If the visa req uir em ent were waiv ed, the n the consula r screen ing wou ld not acco mplish an ything , it ’s obvious th at the numb er would 

increase very substan tia lly . I th in k we would have very lar ge nu m­ bers of people en terin g th is country wi th the i nten tio n of n ot leav ing.

Mr. Fish. Ge neral, on page 1 o f y ou r te stimo ny yo u are r ef er ring to 

H.R . 190 and you say, “U nd er reg ula tio ns prescri bed jointly by the Se cretary of State and th e Atto rney Gener al, the se aliens wou ld be 

subje ct only to the gr ou nd s of exclusion applicab le to alie ns who are insane , afflicted with a dangero us contagious disease, crim ina ls, persons 

lik ely to become a public charg e, pr io r dep ortees, narco tics vio lators , 

an d subversives.” Are you refe rrin g to th e class of alie ns th at are pro posed to come 

here w ith out a v isa, in th at section?

Mr. Chap man. Y es, sir. Th e law h as 30-some exclu dabil ity crite ria , 

and the pro posed legisla tio n wou ld waive all bu t th e ones th at are 

listed .

Air. Fis h. W ell, tho se are pr et ty serious offenses, an d wi thou t precleara nce in t he field, i f a pers on arri ves w ith a p assport, do you believe 

th at yo ur imm igr ati on inspecto rs are ca pab le, as someone goes by him , 

to d etermine if this perso n is a cri minal, pr io r dep ortee, or a n arc otics violator, afflicted with a dangero us contag iou s disease, or any of these 

othe r cate gories ?

Mr. Chap man. We wo uld certa inly atte m pt to, bu t it would be 

mu ch more difficult to at te m pt to do th at here th an in the home 

country .

Mr. F istt. W hen a plan e comes in and 150 or 200 people are g ettin g 

off, how much tim e is no rm ally spent by an im migratio n inspec tor, 

loo kin g at docum entation , say, at K ennedy I nt er na tion al A irpo rt?

Air. Chap man. Oh, a m at te r of seconds, or a minu te, or a mi nute 

an d a h alf.

Air. Fis h. I un de rstand from ou r Ca na dian visit ors they spe nd 

abou t 11 seconds inter view ing th ei r visitors. It seems ra th er difficult 

to me to asc ertain all th is.

Air. Chap ma n. We ll, of cours e, the ins pecto r at th e po rt of en try 

doesn't ha ve the source m ate ria l at all—th at the c on sular officer has in the hom e cou ntry. Al l an ins pecto r rea lly has is his look-out book, 

which we would have to ex pa nd to includ e t his m at er ia l; and his own 

judg men t.

Afi’. Fish. I th in k you were not in the room whe n I rea d par t of
43

your testimony to Congressman Murphy, our first witness, and it had 

to do with your pointing out tha t H.R. 8059 would have the effect of 

applying a 90-day restriction provision to nationals from contiguous 

territories and adjacent islands. Would you like to explain tha t 

statement?

Mr. Bernsen. H.R. 8059 is the bill that would for the period of 1 

year allow visitors to come in without visas for the Bicentennial year. 

And the wav tha t bill is drafte d, it amends section 212(d) (4) of the 

Immigration and Nationality Act, which authorizes waivers of visas 

for Canadians. And by so doing that, the restrictions tha t H.R. 8059 

adds, would also apply to Canadians; and those restrictions would 

limit the visit to 90 days, and prohibit any change in classification. We 

felt that the auth or did not intend to do that.

Mr. Fish. I ’m sure. Thank you very much.

Mr. E ilberg. Mr. Sarbanes?

Mr. Sarbanes. General, startin g with the working premise that we 

are not simply going to drop the requirement of visas, what can we 

do to streamline and improve this system, so people who come as 

visitors can really be moved thro ugh quickly.

For instance, let me ask you this question. I)o you at the moment 

put an immigration and natu ralization inspector on, say, a jumbo jet 

that carries 200, 250 people tha t are going to arrive all at once at the 

port of entry, Kennedy, or wherever else it is, and process them aboard 

the plane, so when they arrive all but six of them are simply waived 

through, the job having been done; the other six have to have furt her 

checkouts at the p ort of entry ?

Mr. Chapman. We do not do that now.

Mr. Sarbanes. What is the problem with doing that?

Mr. Chapman. Just the manpower to do so. We do have preinspection in Bermuda and two or three places in Canada, and at 

Nassau, where we preinspect.

Mr. Sarbanes. If the Service were to be given the resources, would 

it welcome an expansion of preinspection, would it favor tha t and say 

that is a positive step forward?

Mr. Chapman. Absolutely. We have requested that a good many 

times, hut have not succeeded in gaining approval.

Mr. Sarbanes. Now. does the Department feel that the visa clearance needs to be done by the State Department abroad, or is there a 

process tha t could be developed abroad, that would be a one-step 

process, tha t would get together both visa and entrance—not to be 

done here. But it would be done in a one-step process, and then be in 

a position to just move on.

Mr. Chapman. Tha t is the preinspection process, and tha t is the 

way it works now, in Bermuda and Nassau, and two or three places in 

Canada. The persons embarking are inspected by a U.S. Immigration 

inspector as they board the airplane.

Mr. Sarbanes. And they must previously have a visa?

Mr. Chapman. Not in the case of Canadians, hut elsewhere, yes. Tn 

any event, the entire inspection is done there, and when the plane lands 

at JF K. or Friendship, the entire plane load is moved out through 

the airport and out without any fu rther inspection.

Mr. Sarbanes. Now, what I was getting at, whether you could work 

it out in countries gradually, where you didn’t have to go through one
44

process to get a visa, and then another process for preinspection, you 

get all of that together in one process; and when you are cleared, you 

come on into the United States.

Mr. G reene. One of the difficulties we have in that, Congressman— 

in other words, you go through the consul as you are doing now, and 

you get your visa, and you go to the plane to emhark, there can be a 

sifting. For example, the visa in many countries is issued for a 4-year 

interval. The man, the first time he gets the visa, satisfies the consul 

and makes his trip to the United States, a bona tied trip . After he 

learns the ways of life he comes hack the second time and it is determined th at he has $10, instead of $300; so, he is automatically going to 

take a job.

So, it is important—and experience bears tha t out—that the final 

check before you depart for the United States is guaranteed admission 

into the United States.

Mr. Sarbanes. Why not just have a preclearance abroad and satisfy 

that, and you are clear to come in? The next time you wanted to come 

in, you would have to get another preclearance, and not even have the 

visa requirements. Have some sort of requirement that is encompassed 

within the preclearance process^

Mr. Cohen. I'm confused. We want to retain the preclearance procedure to make sure we don’t have mentally ill, those who commit crimes 

coming into the country. What function does the visa serve, other than 

the preclearance; isn't that one and the same thing?

Mr. S arbanes. No. You go in and get a visa in some country for 4 

years, right ? Then you come in the first time, and you meet, in a sense, 

the conditions tha t you represented when you got the visa, you get 

clearance by Jmmigration at the port of entry here.

You may go back 2 years la ter and come back in. You may never get 

the visa now, if you went and asked for it, on the basis of changed conditions. But if you have the visa, it’s still yours, it’s valid for 4 

years; and then you are stopped at the inspection at the port of entry.

"What T am suggesting is, whether we ought to give some thought to 

going to preclearance over there, hut not give you a visa that runs fo r 

4 years, and it is all brought together in one process each time you 

want to come. Now, the consequence of this may well be tha t the Immigration and Naturalization Service will have to have an increase in 

staff and assume the responsibility, and the State Department will be 

eliminated in this picture altogether.

Now, on the basis of the testimony this morning, it strikes me this 

is really a very forward step, perhaps, and we ought to give some 

thought to it, getting the State Department out of the picture, and 

letting you run the thing. The State Department people have no 

interest in streamlining this process. I think tha t was obvious by the 

testimony this morning. It’s the same old game, and meanwhile you 

have a lot of people who legitimately want to visit the country, highly 

educated and sophisticated with standards of living in many instances 

becoming comparable to the United States, and yet, they encounter all 

kinds of—how long did it take the last person to get cleared off from 

the 300-passenger jumbo jet and move through Immigration at 

Kennedy ?

Mr. Cohen. If the gentleman would yield. There is one point I 

was going to make, he mentioned Kennedy Airpor t and Friendship 

Airp ort, and he omitted Bangor International Airport. [Laughter.]
45

That should be corrected in the record. And, we can do it much 

faster, I should add. [Laughter.]

Mr. Sarbanes. Mr. Chairman, could we send a copy of this statement to the Maine Chamber of Commerce? [Laughter.]

Mr. Cohen. I wish you would.

Mr. Eilberg. I would like to go on.

Mr. Chapman. To answer Mr. Sarbanes’ question, it would depend 

on whether the plane held U.S. citizens, or aliens, or what.

Mr. Greene. Assume they are visitors, from the time the first passenger stepped oh, until the last passenger stepped off, it frequently 

takes over an hour in that kind of situation.

We try to clear passengers on the average of at least 30 seconds 

per passenger.

I might suggest, it may be possible to get the best of two worlds 

from tlie point tha t you were developing. If the U.S. immigration 

officer standing in London had access to the computer of the State 

Department, or some bank where all these people who tried to get 

in and violated their status might be stored, and make the check at 

that point; in other words, we would have access to the same information available to the consul. I think then we could do this immediate 

check as they come up to the counter, get in the air, be on the ir way; 

and in the United States they wouldn't have to go through another 

inspection. This way, I think, you could accomplish the point tha t 

you were making, you would have up-to-date inspection each time 

lie went to the United States.

Mr. Sarbanes. But you would much prefer, would you not, to be 

able to stop a person at the port of departure-----

Mr. Greene. Embarkation.

Mr. Sarbanes [continuing]. Because they did not meet the requirements, rather than have them arrive here and say, ‘‘You don’t meet 

the requirements.”

Mr. Greene. That is not at all selfish. In fact, sometimes they 

could overcome the disability if they could go home and get another 

document. Whereas, when they are in the United States, they have 

spent their money; tha t is a lot of money to go back, and that causes 

a great deal of concern. I am sure some people have gone home that 

were bona fide, and we just didn 't believe them on the spot.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Fish ?

Mr. F tsii. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Greene, is it not the case, what you are describing is currently 

the practice in Canada, where we have immigration personnel stationed 

in places, American, for those who wish to enter the United States?

Mr. Greene. Yes. sir, with the concurrence of the Canadian Government, And eventually they may put people into the United States 

inspecting their people who are r eturning to Canada.

Mr. Eilberg. Miss Holtzman ?

Miss Holtzman. I pass, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Eilberg. Gentlemen, thank you very much for appearing here 

before us this morning.

Mr. Chapman. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Leonard F. Chapman follows:]
46

Stateme nt of Leonard F. C hapm an, J r.. Com mission er. I mm igration

and Naturalizatio n Service, Depa rtme nt of J us tic e

Mr. C ha irm an , mem be rs of th e Su bc om mittee , it is a ple as ure to agai n ap pea r 

be fo re you. I am accomiMinied by Mr. Ja m es F. Gr eene, D ep uty Co mm iss ione r, 

an d Mr. Sa m Be rnsen. G en er al Co un sel.

I unders ta nd th a t th e Su bc om m itte e’s princ ip le in te re st to day is in th re e bills 

whi ch wou ld fa cil it ate th e en tr y of non im m ig ra nt s in to th e U ni te d Sta te s. Th ese 

are H.R . 190, H.R. 8059 an d H.R . 2771. Th e opp ort un ity yo u ha ve affo rded me 

to com men t on th is pr op osed leg is la tion is ap pr ec ia te d.

H.R . 190 wo uld am en d th e Im m ig ra tion an d N ationali ty Act by es ta bl is hi ng a 

cl as s of al ie ns wh o could com e to th e United S ta te s te m pora ri ly w ithou t vi sa s as 

vis it ors fo r bu sine ss or ple as ure fo r a pe rio d of not more th an ni net y da ys . 

P as sp orts, ho wev er wo uld be re quir ed . Eligi bility wou ld be lim ited to trav eler swh o a re na tion al s of co un trie s de si gna te d by th e S ecr et ar y of S ta te on th e ba si s 

of re ci pr oc ity or on th e ba si s of his det er m in at io n th a t su ch de si gn at io n would 

pr om ot e th e foreign polic y of th e United Sta te s. Und er re gula tions pr es cr ibed 

jo in tl y by th e Sec re ta ry of S ta te an d th e A ttor ne y Gen eral, th es e al ie ns wo uld be 

su bje ct only to th e gr ou nd s of ex clus ion ap pl ic ab le to al ie ns who ar e insane , 

aff lic ted w ith a da ng er ou s co nt ag io us di se as e, cr im in al s, pe rs on s like ly to become 

a pu bl ic ch ar ge , pri or de po rtee s, narc oti cs vi ol at or s, an d su bv er sive s.

U nd er th e bil l such vis itors w ou ld no t be allo wed to st ay beyo nd th e n in et y-d ay 

pe riod no r could th ey ha ve th e ir sta tu s ad ju st ed or ch an ge d under section 244.. 

245 or 248 of th e Im m ig ra tion and N at io na lity Act. Th os e wh o re m ain beyond 

th e pe riod of th eir au th orize d sta y or en ga ge in unau th ori ze d em ploy men t wou ld 

have a minim um pe rio d of t wo years a dd ed to a ny pri ori ty d ate e st ab lish ed on an 

im m ig ra nt vi sa w ai ting li st.

The b ill wo uld also a uth ori ze th e A tto rn ey Gen er al to e n te r in to c ontr ac ts w ith 

tr an sp o rt ati o n line s to p re sc ribe p ro ce du re s de sig ne d to ac co mplish th e depart ure 

fr om th e U nited S ta te s of t he n in et y- da y visito rs. W ai vers o f cert ain re gis tr at io n, 

fing er print in g, and photo gra ph in g re qu ir em en ts of nonim m ig ra nts are also 

pr ov id ed .

H.R. 8059 re la te s to th e B ic en te nn ia l A nn iv er sa ry of th e U nite d St at es . Thi s 

bi ll wou ld am en d th e Im m ig ra tion an d N ational ity Act so th a t duri ng th e B ice nte nnia l do cu men ts no rm al ly re qui re d of al ie ns fo r te m pora ry ad mission to 

th is co untr y ma y be waiv ed . The bill wo uld do th is by te m pora ri ly en la rg in g th e 

exis ti ng au th o ri ty of th e A ttorn ey Gen er al an d th e Sec re ta ry of S ta te to w ai ve 

noni m m ig ra nt vi sa s or pass ports o r bo th on th e ba si s of re ci pr oc ity. Thi s au th o rit y appears in section 2 1 2 (d )(4 )(B ) of th e Im m ig ra tion an d N at io nal ity Act 

but m ay be ex ercise d on ly w ith re sp ec t to nati onals of fo re ig n co ntiguo us te rrito ri es an d ad ja cent is la nd s. H.R . 8059 wou ld per m it th is w ai ver prov isi on to be 

in vo ke d fo r nat io nal s of al l o th er co un trie s duri ng c al endar year 1976 fo r pe rio ds 

not to ex ceed ni ne ty day s an d wou ld pro hib it an y fu rth e r re ne w al, ex tens ion, or 

adju st m ent in st atu s.

I m us t po in t ou t th a t H.R . 8059 wo uld ha ve t he effec t, pr ob ab ly un de sire d by it s 

au th o r, of ap pl yi ng th e ni ne ty -d ay re st ri ct io n an d th e adju st m ent pro hi bi tion 

to nati onals of c on tig uo us te rr it o ri e s an d adja cent is la nds as we ll as to nat io nals 

of oth er co un tries. Also, str ic tl y as a te ch ni ca l m att er, I wou ld sugg es t th a t a 

te m pora ry im m ig ra tion sta tu te such as th a t co nt em pl at ed by H.R . 8059 sh ou ld 

not be en ac te d as an am en dm en t to th e ba sic per m an en t la w co nt ai ne d in th e 

Im m ig ra tion an d N at io nali ty Ac t.

Bec au se of fu nd am en ta l si m il ari ti es in H.R . 190 an d H.R. 8059 T wi ll co mmen t 

on b oth of th es e bi lls n t th is p oin t an d th en d iscu ss H .R. 2771.

W ith re sp ec t to H.R. 190 and H.R. 8059 it is my op inion th a t th er e shou ld be 

no re la xati on of r eq uirem en ts fo r no n- im m ig ra nt vi sa s an d th a t th es e bills sh ou ld 

not be en ac ted. The U nited S ta te s is pr es en tly in unda te d w ith mill ions of ill eg al 

al ie ns , m an y of wh om ho ld o r seek jobs in co mpe tit ion w ith American s. W ith 

w id es pr ea d un em pl oy men t in nu m er ou s co unt ri es th ro ughout th e world, wor k 

opport unitie s in th e U ni ted S ta te s are a po werful a tt ra c ti o n to aliens . Th ese jo b 

opport unitie s m us t be sa fe guar ded fo r ou r own re si den ts . D isco nt in ua nc e of visa 

re qu ir em en ts fo r vis itors wou ld de pr iv e us of a va lu ab le de vice fo r m ai nta in in g 

su ch sa fe gu ar ds . T hat de vice is th e co ns ul ar sc re en in g ab ro ad of no nim m ig ra nt 

vi sa ap pl ic an ts . If ineligible, th e al ie n ca n be re je ct ed in his ho me co un try be fo re 

he ca n even em ba rk fo r th e U nite d Sta te s. Si gn ific an tly Am er ic an consuls de nied 

395,0 36 no ni m m ig ra nt v isa appl ic at io ns in FY 1974.

It is t her ef ore c le ar th a t consu la r sc re en ing h el ps to stem th e in flux o f i ne ligi bl e 

vis itor s, m an y of wh om are in el ig ib le be ca us e th ey in te nd to seek work in th e
47

Un ited St ates in vio lat ion of the im migr ati on law . As th is com mittee ha s hea rd 

tim e and aga in, the job at trac tion is precisely th e ma gnet which an ot he r bill, 

H.R. 8713, is des ign ed to tu rn off, and un til employers ar e prohibited by law from 

employing ali ens not au thorized to work, ad ditio na l vis a wa ive rs sho uld not be

au thorize d, n n „ .

An oth er im po rtan t reason ag ains t en ac tm en t of H.R. 190 an d H.R. 80->9 is th a t 

with ou t the sa fe gu ard of consula r scree nin g abroad thr ough th e vis a syste m 

th e po ten tia l for en try by te rr or is ts could inc rea se. This, I sub mit, is a ris k no t 

worth taking in exchange fo r questio nable benefits th at might accrue to th e 

Un ited States fro m expa nd ed visa waiv ers .

It also ap pe ars to me th at sev era l of th e concep ts in H.R. 190 and H.R. 8059 

ar e unsound. Th e two bills wou ld pr ed icate visa wa ive rs on rec ipr ocity an d H.R. 

190 in ad ditio n wou ld pe rm it wa ive rs to pro mo te for eig n policy. Most foreign 

countries, the argu men t goes, do no t requ ire visitors fro m the United St ates to 

obtai n visas. Th ere fore, in th e in te rest of prom oti ng f ore ign policy throug h good 

relatio ns with such co un tri es and fa ci lita ting i nt er na tio na l tra ve l in the je t age, 

th e Un ited St ates sho uld rec iprocate . Th e flaw in th e argu men t is th at w ha t may 

wo rk for othe r co un tri es un de r th ei r syste ms of gov ern me nt may not be wo rka ble 

for, and should n ot be im posed upon, th e Un ite d State s. In m any foreig n c ou ntrie s 

th er e ar e st ri ct in te rn al police contr ols on th e movem ent of persons, a concept 

which is repu gn an t to t he Am eric an philos oph y. In most foreig n coun tries aliens 

who ar e ina dm iss ibl e or rema in un lawfu lly can be summ ari ly removed. In th e 

Un ited State s, un de r ou r c on stitu tio na l stan da rd s, a lie ns are entitled to a p anoply 

of rig ht s rang ing from fo rm al he arings with leg al repr esen tatio n to ad m in is trativ e a ppeals and ju dicial review includ ing the rig ht to pe tition th e Supreme Co urt. 

Needless to say e xh au sti on o f r ights ar e tim e co nsu ming an d c ase s m ay ta ke yea rs 

to ru n th ei r course. I th erefor e do no t find rec ipr ocity or th e pro motion of fo reign policy an ade qu ate basis fo r w aiv ing v isas.

An oth er point wh ich should be ad dressed is th e role of t he ca rrier, such as its 

effe ctiv ene ss in screening prosp ect ive vi sito rs abroad, and its res ponsibility . 

H.R. 190 would lea ve th is m at te r to be resolved by co ntracts with th e ca rr ie rs 

and Government regu lat ions. In the la st 7 or 8 years du rin g which sim ila r bills 

we re un der conside rat ion , the role of th e ca rr ie r ha s been th e subje ct of much 

stu dy and dis cussion am ong th e Go ver nm ent age ncies an d the Air Tra ns po rt 

Associatio n. W ha t evolved was a proced ure by which th e pro spe ctive vi sito r 

wou ld be requ ire d to pu rcha se a no nt ra ns fe rrab le an d nonrefun dable rou nd tr ip 

tic ket. The ca rr ie r als o would o bta in fro m th e alien pr ior to em barkati on a signed 

statem en t th at he wa s no t a member of an exclu dable cla ss which wou ld ma ke 

him ineligible u nd er t he v isa wa ive r and th at he would not enga ge in employment 

in the Un ited St ate s. Th e ca rrie r wou ld be lia ble for paym ent of de ten tio n 

exp ens es if th e alien on ar ri val wa s de tained for an exclusion he aring bu t th e 

ca rr ie r would no t be su bjec t to any lia bi lit y if th e alien, following adm ission , 

overs tay ed or engage d in employm ent. Although rem ova l of an alien exc luded 

fro m adm issi on would be at th e exp ense of the tran sp or ta tio n company, th at 

exp ens e would ac tually be borne by the alien who would hav e to su rren de r to th e 

ca rr ie r the unuse d po rtion of his rou nd tr ip tic ket. Thu s, exc ept fo r pa ym en t 

of deten tio n exp enses of an arrivi ng alien, th e ca rr ie r would be relieved of al l 

res po nsibility if it sel ls th e alien a no ntrans fe rrab le. no nrefu nd able rou nd tr ip 

tic ket, ob tai ns his signed sta temen t of eligib ilit y, and as sures th at he is in possession of a valid pa ss po rt showing th at he is a na tio na l of a des ign ate d country . 

In th e years in which th e m at te r ha s been stu die d it ha s not been fou nd feasibl e 

to ma ke th e c ar rier role more effective or responsible .

W ith rega rd to costs, if H.R. 190 is enact ed so th at it becom es effective fo r 

th e Bicente nnial An niv ersary, sig nifica nt ad ditio na l resource s wou ld be requ ire d 

by the Service. Assuming, but not con ced ing th at ten million aliens , who mi gh t 

no t oth erwi se come, would be indu ced to visit the Un ited States du rin g th e Bi centenn ial, the ad ditio na l cos t to the Service would be o ver 29 million do lla rs du rin g 

th e yea r. The cos t would include th e inspection and docume nta tio n of un vis aed 

visitors and the app rehension , det entio n and expulsion of vio lators . In s ubsequent 

years, with ou t th e at trac tion of the Bicente nnial , th e numb er of vis ito rs wou ld 

undoubted ly drop. If th e reduce d numb er is estim ated at two million abo ve th e 

presen t norm , the cos t to the Serv ice would be ove r 5 million do lla rs an nu ally. 

Incid ental ly, if H.R. 190 is ena cted it would co ns titute pe rm an en t leg islati on an d 

would make th e tempo rary enactm ent of TT.R. 8059 unnecessa ry. Should the 

Con gress enact visa waive r leg isla tion only fo r th e Bicente nnial , the no n-recu rring cost fo r that ye ar is estim ated a t o ver 29 millio n dollars.
48

H.R. 2771 re la te s to tr av el to Gu am . T hi s bil l wou ld pr ov id e th a t under 

specified co nd itio ns th e sta tu to ry re qui re m en t fo r pre se nta tion of no nim m ig ra nt 

vi sa s an d pa ss por ts wou ld no t he ap plic ab le to al ie ns se ek in g te m po ra ry ad m is ­

sion in to Gu am as vis itors fo r bu sine ss or ple as ure fo r a pe riod not to exceed 

fif tee n da ys . Thi s pr ov ision wou ld be av ai la ble only to nati onals of a fo re ig n 

countr y de sign at ed by th e S ecre ta ry of S ta te on th e b as is of re ci pr oc ity or on th e 

ba sis of his det er m in at io n th a t su ch de sign at io n wou ld pr om ot e th e fo re ign 

po lic y of th e United S ta te s. How ev er, an al ie n ad m it te d under th e bill wo uld 

not be pe rm itte d to re m ai n in Gu am mor e th an fiftee n da ys an d he wou ld be 

in el ig ib le fo r adju st m ent of hi s st atu s to th a t of a la w fu l per m an en t re si dent 

under se ction 244 or 245 of th e Im m ig ra tion an d N at io nal ity Ac t or fo r a ch an ge 

in hi s no ni m m ig ra nt cla ss ific at io n unde r secti on 248 of th a t Act.

As H.R. 2771 wo uld mak e on ly a m in or ch an ge in law lim ited solel y to Gu am , 

th e D ep ar tm en t of Ju st ic e has no ob jection to it s en ac tm en t. How ev er, on e po in t 

in th e bill sh ou ld be clar ified. Ad mi ssion to Gu am is ad mission to th e U ni ted 

S ta te s w ith in th e mea ni ng of section 101 (a ) (38 ) of th e Im m ig ra tion an d N ati onali ty Act. The re fo re th e bill shou ld he am en de d to m ak e it c le ar th a t th e al ie n 

wou ld be ad m it te d on co nd iti on th a t hi s so jo ur n is re st ri cte d to Gu am . Als o 

as th e bill wo uld be en ac te d as pe rm an en t le gi sl at io n it wo uld be pr ef er ab le to 

en ac t it as an am en dm en t of th e Im m ig ra tion an d N at io nali ty Ac t ra th e r th an 

a s a se para te law .

The im pa ct of th e bill on th e Se rvice bu dg et wou ld be minim al.

T han k you , Mr. Cha irm an . I wi ll be pl ea se d to answ er your qu estio ns .

Mr. Eilberg. We have one more witness. Mr. Norman J. Philion, 

senior vice president, Governmental and Public Affairs, Air Transp ortation Association.

Mr. Philion, would you identify your associate for the record, 

please ?

Mr. P hilton. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. I am accompanied this 

morning bv Mr. Gabriel Phillips, who is vice president of Int ern ational Services.

Mr. Eilberg. May I ask if you can summarize your statement and 

give us the high points of it.

Mr. P hilion. I can summarize it very briefly.

Mr. Eilberg. Without objection, your entire statement will be i ncluded in the record.

TESTIMONY OF NORMAN J. PHILION, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT,

GOVERNMENTAL AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, AIR TRANSPORTATION

ASSOCIATION

Mr. P hilion. This is a very important issue. Mr. Chairman, and 

we are delighted that you are holding these hearings; and w’e are delighted with the opportunity to participate.

We appear before you on behalf of the scheduled airlines industry 

of the United States, and urge you to report favorably the bill to permit visitors from abroad to enter the United States without visas dur ­

ing our Bicentennial celebration.

We very firmly believe that the visitor visa is a deterren t to travel. 

We are convinced, in our best business judgment, tha t the waiver of 

the visitor visa, p articularly for those countries th at provide the principal market areas for our efforts to promote travel to the United 

States, will result in an increase in travel to this country.

It is a national policy of this Government, originating in the Congress. to promote and facilitate travel to the United States. As a matter 

of policy, dating back to the early fifties, this Government urged other 

nations to eliminate visas for American citizens, in order to encourage
49

American citizens to travel abroad and assist in the economic redevelopment of those nations as a part of the Marshall plan.

In other words, for many years we have urged other countries to 

waive visas, and our country is the only major country requiring visas 

for visitors today. Other countries still require American citizens to 

have visas, hut in most cases it is retaliation for our practices.

That briefly summarizes my prepared statement. 1 would like the 

opportunity, Mr. Chairm an, to make a few observations in connection 

with the testimony of the witnesses this morning.

Mr. E ilberg. Go ahead.

Mr. Philion. We were shocked and surprised this morning at the 

reversal of the administration’s position on the visitor visa question. 

The last three administrations have supported legislation of this kind. 

I am almost reminded of hearings on th is subject in the early fifties, 

and we are healing today the same basic concerns being expressed 

about the security of the Nation. We are vitally interested in the 

security of this Nation, but we fail to understand how the visitor visa, 

really, in most cases, helps to preserve the security of this Nation.

As indicated by several witnesses this morning, a number of visitor 

visas are now being handled throu gh the mail. I would remind this 

committee, the subcommittee, of the testimony the last time you held 

hearings, by the Und er Secretary of State, who pointed out to you 

that the consular officer abroad relies wholly on the way the questions 

are answered in a mail application, he doesn’t see the visitor. He 

simply mails back the passport and the passenger then conies to the 

United States.

Under the statute the immigration inspector at the port of entry is 

the only person authorized bv our immigration law to make a final 

decision on entry into this country, the visa does not authorize entry 

into this country.

With respect to questions tha t arose about discrimination this morning, the law already discriminates against various countries, and 

against various persons. For example, section 212(d) (4) now authorizes the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, acting jointly, to 

waive visas from visitors from contiguous countries and adjacent islands. We don’t do that. We do it in the case of ('an ada ; we do it in 

the case of some travelers crossing the Mexican border; we do it for 

some adjacent islands where preclearance exists, but certainly we do 

not do i t generally within the scope of authorization today.

Some rather large numbers were discussed in connection with the 

number of aliens illegally in this country today. We are not privy to 

information about these aliens, but we would suspect that the vast 

majority are probably those who crossed our land borders. We just 

don’t see how the people we are talking about, that we are trying 

to promote and encourage to come to this country, who will invest 

in transportation, in touring arrangements around this country, are 

those likely to remain in the United States illegally.

This is particularly so with the major market areas. We estimate 

that with the visitor visa waived in 1976, travel to this country will increase up to 25 percent over the normal growth expected for next year. 

And to give you a measurement of the impact of th at kind of growth, 

our best estimate is tha t this would increase travel from just eight
50

countries by about 450,000 people. On the basis of the Government s 

data on average expenditures-----

Mr. E ilberg. Excuse me, Mr. Philion, I don't want to take too much 

time, but what proof do you have of the 25 percent increase in tourism. 

How can we be expected to accept th at without substantiation ?

Mr. Piiilion. We cannot provide you with any substantiating evidence, it is based on our business judgment. We know what is happening in the world in terms of travel. We are in constant communication 

and contact with our colleagues abroad, the travel agency industry, 

foreign airlines, people who market travel abroad, and that is based on 

the ir judgment, as well as o ur own. We can see what has happened 

to travel in other countries.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out th at in 1960, 15 years ago, 

our share of the international travel market was nearly 8 percent. 

Last year our share of the international travel market was just a little 

over 6 percent. So. we are not even keeping pace with the growth in 

international travel.

Mr. E ilberg. Mr. Philion, one still has to go to the airline to get a 

ticket, go through a security check; and also, of course, get a passport.

You place a great deal of significance on the waiver of the visa and 

yet. all these other elements are still present. This member has a little 

trouble understanding the emphasis tha t is placed on the waiver of 

visa, that is only one element involved in travel from other countries 

to the United States.

Mr. Philion. The average traveler coming to this country, Mr. 

Chairman, can in one stop pick up his ticket, his entire package tour 

from a travel agent or airline office. That can be done by a simple telephone call, he can pick up his ticket by mail.

The person living some distance from the embassy, if he does not 

want to surrender his passport, or trus t the mails in applying for his 

visa by mail, he then has to travel all the way to the consular office.

I would like to provide the subcommittee with an article published 

by a w riter for the London Sunday Times last year, of the problems 

he had in getting a visa to come to the United States: 2 days it took 

him, long hours of standing in line. You heard some data this morning 

about the length of time it required to issue a visa, some period of 

minutes. T doubt. Mr. Chairman, that these data take into account the 

long periods of time standing in line, and a repeated coming back to 

the consular office to pick up the visa.

[The following article was submitted for the record by Mr. 

Ph ilion :]

[F ro m H olida y Ma gazin e, A pri l- M ay 19 74 ]

Why E uropeans D on’t—B ut Should—Vis it th e United States

(B y Elk an Alle n)

L a st April my wife ha d onr fi rs t ba by , an d I de cide d th a t sh e ne ed ed a ho lid ay 

ns soo n as po ssible . We w an te d somep lac e hy gi en ic an d Eng lish -spe ak in g, in ca se 

tw o-mon th-old Cha rley ne ed ed a do ctor . Thi s eff ec tiv ely cu t out so ut he rn Eu rope , 

w her e B ri ti sh peop le lik e us norm al ly go fo r su m m er va ca tion s.

T h a t le ft st ay in g in th e U.K. or do ing so m ethi ng th a t is vir tu all y ne ve r do ne 

by th e B ri ti sh : go to America fo r a fa m ily hol id ay . Tn fac t, I do ubt i f an y fo re ig n 

fa m ilie s ev er tr av el in th e U.S . pure ly to en joy them selves. You may ge t a re la ­

tive ly fe w sing les or c ou ples t ak in g a dvan ta ge of t he e co no mical air li ne fare s an d 

G re yh ou nd’s .$149 A m er ip as s tick et . You m ay find ple as ure be ing comb ined w ith
51

business. But vacation in America as we would in France, Ita ly or Sp ain. Our 

frie nds thou ght we m ust be m add er or richer than they had thought. “It’s all skyscrapers, isn’t it?” . . . “You’ll get mugged” . . . "Seriously, tak e a gun with you” . . . “Costs the ea rth”. . . “All the towns are exac tly the same 

as each oth er” . . . “Watch out for the floods and the hur ricane s.” Those were some of the reactions when we announced where we intended going. America as a vacatio nland has a decidedly negative image abroad, and there is almost total ignorance of what the coun try is like outside New York. 1 lie movie industry is partly to blame, with its concentration on crime, but so is the 

official tou rist propagan da, with its stereotyped pictures of Miami Beach and 

Disneyland. Once we had made the decision to visit the States, my first call was at the U.S. Embassy in London’s Grosvenor Square, I wanted leaflets and maps th at would stimu late some thoughts as to where, in the vast laud, to stay. Even though I had been there before seve ral times to work, I had only a sketchy idea of the rela tive locations of the big vacation areas, and wasn't sur e that I knew 

where they all were. I asked for the tou rist info rma tion section. “The re isn’t one,” the man at the desk replied. But surely there was somewhere th at told would-be visitors some­ thin g about America? “We used to have a tou rist office nea r Piccadilly, but th at was closed a few months ago.” Unbelievingly, I aske d the way to the library. 

With indifference bordering on hostility, the ladies the re sta ted t ha t they existed 

to help businessmen, not tourists. Defeated, I went to the biggest travel agent in town. Yes, they had tours of the U.S. arrang ed by the airl ines. Or there was a 14-day trip th at took in the Grand Canyon, New Orelans, and Niaga ra Falls. “No, I don’t want to tour, and my wife is frighten ed of flying.” In th at case, they were very sorry but they 

couldn’t help me. I went to the American Exp ress office in the H aym arket. Could they suggest a vacation hotel? No, they couldn’t recommend one, or book me in any hotels, unless I would make all my tra vel arrang ements thro ugh them. No, the re was 

nowhere else in E ngland I could go for help. By thi s time, I was getting angry. I looked in my address book for the Ameri­ cans I knew in London and called them all. Where was the nicest place to spend 

a holiday? How should I go about it? From ha lf a dozen phone calls (I know quite a lot of Americans—I ’m the 

television editor of The London Sunda y Times—but I don’t suppose many Englishmen know any), I emerged with the idea of ren ting a house somewhere—• 

anyw here—in New England for, say, a month. Back to the Embassy librar y for lists of real estat e agents in New England who might ren t me a house. No such list or book av ailab le. How about a look a t 

the curre nt Boston Globe, then, for classified ads? Sorry, they don 't tak e the 

GZo6e-*-or any other New Engla nd newspaper. OK, OK, just let me see th e Yellow Pages for any vacation town in New England. Would you believe it, they don’t 

carry any phone books that supply t ha t information. Then the idea of a house swap occurred to me. I had a list of holiday centers I had compiled from cha ts with my American friends, so I turned up the name of the local paper in one of the towns (miraculously, they did have a list of 

new spapers), the Free Press in Burlington, Vermont, where one of my London 

acquaintances had been raised. I called the news editor across the A tlan tic and asked whether he would print a paragr aph suggesting an exchange of houses. 

By lunchtime the next day, a GE executive had offered us his lakeside house in Burlington for the month of July, in return for ours in Kentish Town.

By shopping around the shipping offices I had also found th at a Greek line, Chan dris. had a very inexpensive cruise from Southampton to Philade lphia and 

back again, five weeks later (a fter the ir ship, the EUenis, had taken Americans 

for trips to the Carrib bea n). They und ercu t the Queen Eliz abe th II and the 

France by more than half, and I was able to book round trips in a larg e and delightful stateroom for $350 each; the worst cabin of the reg ula r liners would have been $620 each, and a comparable Touris t Class stateroom , $960. The 22- to 45-day excursion air fare would have been about the same price we ha d paid, but with 14 d ays’ room and board thrown in. (Apparently, it can ’t be the fare 

that is holding up tourism from Brit ain to America.)

Now it was time to go back to Grosvenor Square for visas. My wife and I both 

had visas in the past and they needed renewing, but our two-month-old baby
52

had to ha ve one in ca se he in te nded to ove rthr ow th e go ve rn m en t while he was 

in th e U.S.

T he line st re tc hed ou t al m ost as fa r as M ac be th 's cr ac k of do o m ; th er e m us t 

hav e been a th ou sa nd so uls w ai ti ng in th e ra in to han d in th e co mplete d visa 

fo rm s th a t earl ie r they had qu eu ed to get. The visa office op en ed fo r a br ie f tw o 

hours in th e morning , clo sed fo r lunc h, opened fo r anoth er tw o sh o rt h ou rs , w hile 

our lin e grew long er an d long er. Th e sole su rl y co nc ierge— an E ng lish m an — 

seem ed to de ligh t in send in g ap pli cants to th e en d of th e lin e and he mad e on ly 

sp or ad ic an d ine ffi cie nt att em p ts to co ntro l th e crow d. A t la st I w as a t th e fr ont 

and han de d ou r fo rm s in w ith a si gh of re lie f.

“C om e ba ck an d colle ct it to m or ro w ,” I w as tol d. So th ere I w as ag ai n th e nex t 

da y, w aitin g in th e same long, long lin e, und er th a t se rg eant m ajo r’s mal ev ol en t 

eye, ju st to co lle ct th e fo rm s an d stam pe d pa ss po rts.

A m er ic an to uri st s wh o com e to E ng la nd do n’t ne ed a visa , and I do ub t if e ve n 

su ch ar ch en em ie s of c ap ital is m as Cliou En- Lai an d Le on id B re zh ne v w an te d one 

to ge t w ithin ac tu al sh oo tin g dis ta nce of th e Pre si den t. So w hy di d I an d al l 

th os e oth er as pi ring vis itors ha ve to lin e up fo r tw o day s? Most of th em pr ob ­

ab ly had pr es sing do mestic re as ons fo r vi si ting re la ti ves in th e S ta te s; th ere 

can’t ha ve been m an y re gula r to u ri st s wh o wo uld ha ve stoo d fo r it, an d I ’m not 

su re th a t I wo uld ha ve if al l our oth er ar ra ngem ents h ad n ’t be en made. Is it 

po ss ible t h a t th e U.S. go ve rn m en t do es n’t w ant us to uri st s?

How ev er, from our ex pe rie nc e, th e comm on pe op le of th e U.S . do. Tak e th e 

da y of our arr iv al a t Ri dg ew oo d Driv e, B ur ling to n, Vermon t. I t see med lik e a 

dr ea m . The ho us e tu rn ed out to be th e so rt of labo rs av in g, op en -plan, sp lit -le ve l 

do micile we ha d see n be fore on ly in a television se ries , an d we fe lt as th ou gh 

we w er e D or is Da y an d Roc k H ud so n them se lv es as we co nt em pl at ed th e fam ily 

roo m, th e fenc eless lawns , an d th e tw o- ca r ga ra ge , al l of w hi ch E ur op ea n ho us es 

somehow lack . We had no t ye t un pa ck ed an y of our ba gg ag e whe n th ere c am e th e 

fi rs t of m an y ring s of th e do or ch im es.

It w as on e of t he n eigh bo rs b ear in g w elcom e gif ts : a va se of rose s an d a la vi sh 

co lor pic tu re book of Vermon t in sc ribe d an d sign ed by te n co up les wh o clu bb ed 

to geth er to gr ee t us. The n ca me anoth er well-wishe r bea ri ng a pla te of Eng lish 

mu ffins to re m ind us of home. W e hadn’t th e h e a rt to te ll he r, ev en whe n we go t 

to kn ow her as a fr ie nd , th a t we do n’t ha ve Eng lis h muffin s in Eng land . (W e 

ha ve cr um pe ts, which a re q uite di ff er en t.)

Tw o lo ts of st ra w berr ie s w er e th e nex t gi fts. Some of th e ch ildre n tu rn ed up 

to m ee t th e b ab y an d offer to s it a ny tim e. Th e teleph on e ra ng w ith t wo in vitat io ns 

to F o u rt h of Ju ly par ties . An d, w ithin 24 ho ur s, we ha d been le n t a crib, a fe ed ­

in g pl at e, a st er iliz er , a hi gh chair , an d oth er us ef ul item s fo r Cha rle y. To to p 

it all, anoth er ne ig hb or tu rn ed up w ith a ju m p su it sh e ha d go ne ou t an d bo ug ht 

fo r him, w ith an em br oi de re d te nnis em ble m, be ca us e sh e had hear d me sa y I 

w as go ing to jo in th e lo ca l te nnis club fo r th e mon th. (I ncid enta lly, th a t tu rn ed 

ou t to be th e only ex pe nditure co st in g mor e th an it s Eng lish eq ui va le nt . I pai d 

as muc h fo r one m on th ’s m em be rs hi p as I do a t my ow n clu b fo r a ye ar .)

Su ch w arm th an d gen er osi ty co nt in ue d th ro ughout our vi si t. T ra dit io nal 

Amer ican and Vermon t ho sp it ali ty un do ub tedl y ac co un te d fo r p a rt of it, but 

th ere w as cl ea rly a spec ial welc om e fo r st ra ngers wh o had ch os en to com e so 

fa r—a nd a gain st the ti de— to sp en d th eir h olid ay s.

An d th ey made, su re we en jo ye d ou rselv es. Can th ere be an y b ett er plac e fo r 

a ho lida y th an Ne w E ngl an d? B re ath ta k in g n atu ra l bea uty w her ev er one lo ok s: 

arc hit ectu re of de ligh t and c h a rm ; sw im ming in la ke s an d cre eks: th e sea off 

Main e, w he re th e fr es h seafoo d a t th e lo bs te r po un ds pr ov id es an unadult era te d 

ga stro no m ic th ril l; c ra ft s an d m use um s; an d. fo r us. a p art ic u la r att ra cti o n in 

th e in num er ab le a nti que sho ps, countr y s ales, au ct io ns an d (u nk no w n in Eur op e) 

th e co nst an tly in tr ig uin g gara ge sa les, lawn sales, po rc h sa les, a tt ic sales , ba se ­

m en t sales.

W hi le American s are bu yi ng up B ri ti sh an tiques in Lon do n's Por to be llo Roa d 

m ar ke t, we wer e ev ery bit as ac qu is itiv e, bring in g ba ck ho me w ith ns a Ti ffan y 

la m psh ad e th a t used to han g in a ho use in W hi te R iv er Fal ls , a wed ding pa tchwor k quil t foun d a t th e M et ho di st Chu rch sa le at Geo rgia Cen ter, a ch ild’s ro ck ­

in g c hair bo ug ht a t au ctio n, a Rag ge dy Ann doll from th e Col ch es te r Ju ly F ourt h 

sale, an d a coup le of ho ok ed ra g ru gs , wh ich are un kn ow n in Eng land , t i t w as 

luck y we w er e go ing h om e by bo at , w ith no ba gg ag e re st ri cti ons. ) W e foun d th a t 

pr ic es of an tiqu es , lik e foo d, m ot or in g, wi ne (y our C al ifor ni a ch ab lis is ch ea pe r 

an d b ett er th an th e equiv al en t in F ra n ce), an d ho te ls w er e lo w er th an in 

B ri ta in —a nd mos t of E ur op e.
53

As we ha d th e use of ou r exc ha ng e ho st’s ca r (a nd he o u rs ), we tra ve lle d al l 

ov er Ver mon t, New H am ps hi re an d Maine, an d we re welc omed eve rw he re with 

ope n arm s. "T ou ri st ” is n’t th e di rt y word it ha s become in so muc h of Eu rop e. 

We cou ld alw ay s find hot w at er to he at th e ba by ’s bo ttl es ; wh en ou r ni gh t’s b ooking we nt wro ng in Bo oth bay H ar bo r, th e mot el pr op rie to r took ha lf an ho ur off 

fro m his wor k to dr ive ah ea d of us in th e ca r to an ot he r mo tel ; st ra ng er s took 

sn ap s of us an d ma ile d the m to us a ft e rw a rd ; we ha dn ’t tim e in fo ur wee ks to 

ta ke up all th e din ne r in vi ta tio ns the good peop le of Bu rli ng to n sho wer ed on us.

All of wh ich is lea din g up to po int ing ou t th at th e wa y to a tt ra c t the ar m ies of 

to uri st s th a t the n at ur al be au tie s and hu ma n w ar m th of Am eric a des erv e, is 

to co nc en tra te on th e per son -to-pe rso n ap proa ch . Th e da y bef ore we lef t, a ft e r 

five wee ks of suc ces sful, eco nom ical goin g it alo ne, I ap pe ar ed on NBC ’s “To da y” 

sho w wi th the D ire cto r of th e Un ited St at es Tr av el Ser vice . The rea son I 

co uld n’t ge t so much as a ma p of Am eric a in Lon don , he e xp lai ne d, wa s th at the y 

ha d dec ided to spen d th ei r fin an cia l all oc ati on on wo rki ng th ro ug h tra ve l ag en ts. 

And I cam e home to find hu ge colo r ad s ru nn in g in B ri tis h ma gaz ine s urgin g 

po ten tia l vis ito rs to tra ve l al l ove r Am eric a on 14- day lig ht ni ng fou rs.

Bu t “I f I t’s Tu esd ay Th is Mu st Be Be lgi um " is no t th e wa y Eu rope an s lik e 

to see a cou ntr y. We ar en ’t use d to wh istl e-s top to ur s, cro wd ing the ma in sig ht s 

in to an ho ur an d a ha lf, an d ru sh in g on to the ne xt plac e. Ou r whole app roac h is 

f a r mo re le is ur el y; we muc h pr ef er to see one pla ce in de pt h—a nd come bac k 

la te r to see an ot he r. In st ea d of at te m pt in g to pr oje ct Am eri can -style rus har ou nd s on to ur is ts who pe rv ers ely beli eve th a t in an ho ur you ca n't rea ch th e 

essenc e of the Gr an d Can yon or the Ro cki es or New Or lea ns or Hu nti ng do n 

Cre ek (b et you ’ve ne ve r he ar d of th at —i t’s ne ar the ex qu isi te tow n of Mid dlebu ry, Ver mon t, an d we sp en t an aft erno on laz ing in th e pools th e re ), th e U.S. 

go ver nm ent sho uld get to ge th er with the ind iv id ua l st at es —so me of whi ch ha ve 

he al th y to ur is t- at tra ct io n bu dg ets —to pr oj ec t one ar ea a ye ar . If Eu ro pe an s 

cou ld be stop ped th in ki ng ab ou t “A me ric a” as one hug e un it, an d be dir ec ted to 

specific ar ea s, the y would ha ve to re-th ink th ei r who le at ti tu d e to St ate sid e ho lida ys. Sell Fl or id a or C olo rad o or t he So uth —no t th e U.S.A.

The y cou ldn ’t do be tte r th an to st a rt with Ve rm ont , wh ich no t one En gli sh ma n 

in tw o hu nd red kno ws an yt hi ng abo ut, ex cept th a t it ha s mo onl igh t. We cou ldn ’t 

even begin to ex plo re al l we wa nte d, an d th e li st of pla ces wh ere we di dn ’t go 

an d thi ng s we di dn ’t do (t h e fe rr y rid e ac ro ss La ke Ch am pla in, th e Gr an dm a 

Moses coll ecti on in Be nn ing ton , th e grac iou s hom es of Woo dsto ck, ne ar by F o rt 

Tic ond ero ga, th e sid e tr ip s to Ca na da an d N ia g a ra ), even in th ir ty da ys , is 

lo ng er th an th e hug e li st of th in gs we did re lis h; red -pain ted ba rn s, cove red 

bridg es, th e ma gnif icen ce of th e Gre en M ou nta ins , th e ne ar by New Ha m ps hi re 

ra ng es , an d the si de tr ip t o A cad ia Natio na l Pa rk .

O rd in ar y Am eri can s, too, cou ld be muc h be tt er inf orm ed on w ha t for eig n 

to ur is ts re all y w an t to see. A di ne tte is fa r mo re al lu rin g to us who don’t ha ve 

the m th an th e fa nc iest “F re nc h” re st au ra nt . Ba ttl eg ro un ds of yo ur W ar of In ­

dep end enc e ar en ’t ve ry in te re sti ng , I ’m af ra id , to tho se who we re ta ug ht li tt le 

ab ou t it a t school. W ha t we do ap pr ec iat e fro m yo ur pa st is yo ur dom est ic 

ar ch ite ct ur e, wh ich ou tsi de th e big cit ies , is ge ne ra lly mo re gra cio us an d l>egu ili ng th an th a t fou nd in th e av er ag e B rit is h tow n. Yet, tim e a ft e r tim e, we 

foun d loca l peop le ap olo get ic wh en the y sho uld ha ve been prou d, an d gui deb ook s 

an d ma ps ar e mo re con cer ned wi th au to ro ut es th an pla ces to swim an d n at u ra l 

be au tie s.

Ho use .sw app ing , low -cos t re nt al s, an d ine xp ens ive cab in mo tels sho uld he 

em phasi zed in trav el pu bl ici ty. Eu rope an s st ill th in k of Am eric a as an ex pe nsive clip jo in t, alt ho ug h even in New Yor k, we fou nd a sm all hote l on 58 th 

St re et , betw een F if th an d Si xt h Ave nue (goo d eno ugh fo r Br oad wa y st a r 

Gl.vnis Jo h n s) , wh ere we we re abl e to re nt a two-roo m su it e with kit ch en an d 

ba thr oo m fo r less th an a re la tiv el y cru mm y Lon don hot el ch arge s fo r a dou ble 

roo m.

Th er e mu st he a po te nt ia l m ar ke t of a hu nd re d mil lion Eu rop ea n fa m ili es 

w ai tin g to disc ove r Am eric a as a ho lid ay co un try . May be—a s the who le vis a 

ha ss le sug ge sts —you don ’t re al ly w an t us. B ut th e or di na ry folk of th e Rid gewood Dr ive s do. And I su sp ec t the y spe ak for mos t Am eri can s.

Mr. E ilberg. Do you have another point you would like to make?

Mr. P ittlton. I would like to complete this example on the economic 

impact of the growth of travel that we anticipate. I n round numbers,
54

about 450.000 additional people will come to this country next year 

from just eight countries alone, without the visa requirement, Tha t, 

based on average expenditure data published by the Government, 

will result in an additional $207 million in V.S. dollar receipts to ou r 

Nation. And, based again on Government data, where the average dollar receipt translates into jobs in this country, tha t would result in the 

creation of 13,300 jobs. Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the subcommittee would 

provide other public witnesses an opportunity to testify on this subject, in view of the position taken by the State Department and the 

Justice Department. It has taken the entire travel and tourism industry by surprise. While we speak for the airlines, there are many 

other segments of the travel industry, the hotels, the railroads, buses, 

steamship companies, all of the large and small businesses that partic ipate in travel and tourism in this country have a great stake in this 

legislation, and I would hope tha t they be given an opportunity to 

express their views.

Mr. E ilberg. We will consider that, Mr. Philion. In the meanwhile 

we would encourage you to submit additional statements, and encourage others to submit statements; they will be considered by the 

subcommittee. I have a couple of questions I would like to ask you. Tt is difficult to 

support your argument tha t many persons do not come to the 

United States because of the visa requirements, when actually the 

number of people coming for business or pleasure has increased substantially year after year.

Mr. P hilion. Two comments, Mr. Chairman. First, the number of 

visitors to this country has not kept pace with the growth in international travel generally. Yes, there has been a significant increase in 

travel to this coun try; we think it should be greater.

Second, there is a great deal of evidence already available on the 

deterring effect of the visa. We were disappointed that because of the 

administration’s position the Department of Commerce did not 

testify this morning. The Department prepares and distributes a 

monthlv analysis of travel to this country.

Mr. Eilberg. Let me inte rrup t and say that the Department of 

Commerce and Department of Transportation both were invited to 

testify, but evidently, what we, have heard this morning is the position 

of the administration. T am aware that their positions were originally 

different, but apparently this latter position has developed; tha t is 

my personal reaction.

Mr. P itilion. Well, I think these monthly summaries of travel d ata 

and reactions abroad will point out tha t the visa still remains, 

particularly in a country like the United Kingdom, a deterrent to 

travel to the United States.

Mr. Eilberg. Let me ask you a practical matter. Would not enactment of this legislation impose additional burdens on carriers in many 

cases.

Mr. P hilion. Tt would impose new burdens on the transportation industry, and we would be willing to accept them.
55

Mr. Eilberg. Do you have anything additional ?

Mr. P iiiliox. No, nothing.

Mr. Eilberg. Miss ILoltzman?

Ms. Holtzmax. Mr. Chairman, if T may be permitted to comment, 1 think the witness raises some good po ints; but at the same time 

he fails to recognize th e seriousness of the question. In an area, for 

example, such as New York City, somewhere between GO and <0 p ercent of the illegal aliens apprehended in the last year were persons 

who had overstayed the ir visitors’ visas. So, while nationally it may 

be true tha t most people come by land, certain areas such as New York 

City, our country’s illegal alien problem is not one of that nature.

But, if Canada is going to have the Olympics next year, I agree with 

you tha t many persons might want to come and visit the I nited 

States; they may find themselves in Canada and think it would be a 

good idea to visit the United States, but because of redtape won’t be 

able to. You say the visa is a deterrent. It would be helpful, however, if you 

gave us figures as to that effect.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. P iiiliox. May I comment, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Eilberg. Yes.

Mr. P iiiliox. We are concerned, too, about this illegal alien problem 

and its effect on employement, that is why we have supported and hope 

II.R . 8713, referred to this morning, will be enacted; it will help in 

this area.

Mr. Eilberg. Thank you very much, Mr. Philion.

[The prepared statement of Norman J . Philio n follows:]

Statement of Norman J. Pitilion, Senior Vice President, Government and

P ublic Affairs, Air Transport Association of America

My name is Norman J. Philion. I am Senior Vice President—Government and 

Pub lic Affairs of the Air Transpo rt Association of America which represents 

vir tua lly all of the scheduled airlines of the United State s. I appreciate the 

oppo rtun ity to app ear before the Subcommittee during its consideration of proposed visa waiver legislation. The airlin es, along with oth er segments of the 

travel and tourism ind ustry of the United States, have long advocated legis lative 

autho rity to waive the visa requirement on a reciprocal basis for temporary 

visitors from frien dly foreig n countries. We believe tha t the visito r visa requirement presently imposed by the Im mig ration and Nationality Act is burdensome, unnecessary and discourages tra vel to 

our country. This require ment should be eliminated for as many foreign visitors 

as possible b ecaus e: It is U.S. national policy, as developed by the Congress, to promote and 

fac ilitate tourism to this country from abroad

Curren t U.S. law req uires all visitors, except those from contiguous 

countries and adjac ent islands, to secure a visa from our consular offices 

abroad in orde r to apply to a U.S. Imm igration Inspector at the point of 

entry for permission to enter the United States tem porarily for business 

or pleasure Most countries do not require visiting U.S. citizens to secure visas

Most countries do not require visito rs from other countries to secure visas

Some of the few rem aining countries requiring U.S. citizens to have visas 

do so only because of the U.S. requirement Presidential Commissions in each of the last two Administrations strongly 

recommended legislation to waive the visitor visa requirem ent

Many thousand s of overseas visitors will he in Canada next year withou t 

visas to atte nd the Olympics, but will be deterred from visiting here if a 

U.S. visa is required
56

Man y th ou sa nd s of addit io nal ov er se as vis it ors are ex pe cted to att end onr 

bi ce nt en ni al ce le br at io n n ext yea r, bu t m an y mor e pote nti al vi si to rs will be 

di sc ou ra ge d if a U.S . vi sa is re qu ired

R el ax at io n of our v is it o r vi sa re qui re m en t will in cr ea se tr avel to th e 

U ni te d S ta te s In cr ea se d tr av el to th is co unt ry will pr om ot e a b ett er under st andin g of 

America th ro ug ho ut th e world, im prov e our ba lanc e of p ay m en ts, an d st im ula te ad di tional em pl oy men t in th e to uri sm in dust ry of th e U nited S ta te s

II.R . 84)59 wo uld el im in at e th e vis itor visa re qu irem en t duri ng 1976. It wo uld 

em po w er th e Atto rn ey G en er al an d th e Sec re ta ry of Sta te , ac ting jo in tly, to 

ex em pt ci tize ns of oth er co untr ie s on th e ba si s of re ci pro ci ty from th e vi sa 

re qu ir em en t fo r vis its duri ng our bi ce nt en ni al ce lebr atio n. T his ex em pt ion wo uld 

be ap pl ic ab le fo r vis its of 90 day s or less, an d a vis itor uti lizi ng the ex em pt ion 

wou ld be pr oh ib ited from se ek in g an y adju st m ent of his no n- im m ig ra nt st atu s. 

W hi le we would ha ve pre fe rr ed mo re p er m an en t visa w ai ve r au th ori ty , we nev er ­

th el es s en do rse II.R . 8059 and we ur ge th e Su bc om m itt ee to give th is pr op os al 

pr om pt an d fa vo ra bl e co ns id er at io n.

W e be lie ve it en tire ly fittin g th a t citiz en s of oth er co untr ie s be en co ur ag ed to 

v is it us du ri ng th e 200tli anniv ers ary of our nat io n. In our vie w, en ac tm en t of 

II.R . 8059, th e prop osed “V is it U.S.A. B ic en te nn ia l A nniv er sa ry Act”, wo uld 

give re al mea ning to th e in vit ati on th a t has been ex te nd ed to our fr ie nd s ab ro ad 

to vis it us ne xt ye ar. Many pote nti al vis itor s simply ca nnot unders ta nd why we, 

un like mos t ot he r co un tries, st il l in si st up on a co mplicated , tw o-step “invit ati on 

ac ce pt an ce ” proc ed ure— a pro ce du re by wh ich th e ho st only ac kn ow ledg es in th e 

firs t st ep th at the in vi te d guest may com e to th e host 's do or to find ou t in th e 

second st ep w he th er th e in vit ati on was ge nu ine. II. R. 84)59 wo uld rem ov e th is 

“p re ju dic e” ag ai nst U.S. des tined in te rn ati onal tr avel, a t le as t fo r a on e-ye ar 

pe rio d. We es tim at e th a t th e anti cip ate d nu m be r of arr iv in g fo re ign vis itors ca n 

be in cr ea se d by up to 25 perce nt, if th is bill is en ac te d, w ith th e la rg es t nu m be rs 

co ming fr om th e U ni ted Kingd om , German y, th e Sca nd in av ia n co untr ie s an d 

Ja pan. The air lines ha ve a dir ect in te re st in ex pa ndin g tr av el an d to ur ism . The a ir ­

lin es tr an sp o rt ab ou t 95 per ce nt of al l com mo n carr ie r pas en ge rs to an d from 

th e U ni ted St at es . Th ey st an d to ga in from th e en ac tm en t of H.R. 84)59 an d th e 

in cr ea se d tr avel bu sine ss th a t it will ge ne ra te . Su ch ad dit io nal bu sin ess, ho wev er, 

is im port ant to th e U.S. a ir li n e in dust ry , an d to oth er A m er ic an in dust ri es , beca us e it wi ll he lp st im ula te econ om ic reco ve ry an d gr ow th, an d en ha nc e tr avel 

an d to ur is m e mploy men t opport unitie s th ro ugh ou t th e n at io n.

Co nc ern ha s been ex pr es se d th a t re la xin g th e vi sa re quir em en t co uld le ad 

to an in cr ea se in th e num be r of alie ns ille ga lly em ploy ed in th is co un try. We 

be lie ve th is risk to be m in im al in vie w of th e lim ited ap plica tion of II.R . 8059, 

an d be ca us e of U.S. Im m ig ra ti on Se rvice re gu la tions th a t will be re qu ired to 

c arr y ou t its in te nt. In th is co nn ec tio n, we wou ld ex pe ct su ch im plem en tin g 

re gula tions to re q u ir e: l) tl ia t ti ck et s fo r tr an sp o rt ati o n of vis it ors w ithout vi sa s 

be on a ro un d- trip ba sis, or co ve r th ir d co un try dest in ati o n s; 2) th a t such ti ck et s 

be no n- re fu nd ab le w ithin th e U ni ted S ta te s; and 3) th a t su ch vi si to rs ex ec ut e 

af fida vi ts st ati n g in el ig ib ility fo r ad mission under oth er pr ov isio ns of th e Im ­

m ig ra tion an d N ati onali ty Ac t. Th ese re qu ir em en ts will mak e ce rt ain th a t a 

v is it o r’s ab ility to st ay on as an ill eg al al ie n wou ld be no g re ate r th an it is when 

he e nte rs w ith a va lid vis a. Moreover, anoth er m ea su re is now w ai ting Hou se ac tion whi ch wo uld he lp c or ­

re ct pr ac tice s ca us in g mo st of th e ill eg al al ie n ab us es in th is ar ea . II.R. 8713, 

soo n to be re po rted by th e Ju d ic ia ry Co mm ittee, wo uld m ak e it un la w fu l fo r th e 

fi rs t tim e fo r an em pl oy er to kn ow ingly em ploy an al ie n in th e United S ta te s 

wh o ha s no t been la w fu lly ad m it te d fo r pe rm an en t reside nc e. U nd er th is le gi slatio n. em ploy ers wou ld be su bje ct to a civil as se ss m en t, an d wou ld be su bj ec t on 

fu rth e r viol atio n to cr im in al co nv ictio n w ith pun is hm en t by fine or im pr ison men t.

U nd er th e circ um stan ce s, th e air lines be lie ve th a t th e nati onal ob jective of 

pr om ot in g an d fa cil it ati ng tr avel to th e U nited S ta te s ca n be att ain ed co ns is te nt 

w ith oth er nat io na l ne ed s an d go als . Elim in at io n of th e vis it or visa re qu irem en t 

w ill st im ula te bu sin ess, econ om ic de ve lopm en t an d em ploy men t, an d im prov e in te rn ati o n al re la tion s. And th is can be ac co mplish ed w ithout in an y way le ss en ­

in g se curi ty or un de rm in in g th e ba sic pr in ci pl es of our im m ig ra tion laws. W e 

re sp ec tfully urge , th er ef or e, th e en ac tm en t of H.R. 8059.
57

Mr. Eilberg. Before adjourning this meeting, I would like to say 

farewell to our Canadian friends. I wish we had more time to spend 

with you, and perhaps you could have testified this morning.

From the Floor. We could, if you wanted to. [Laughter.]

From the Floor. But the proposal of the bill m ight not be accurate. 

[Laughter.]

Mr. E ilberg. The subcommittee is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, subject 

to the call of the Chair.]

APPENDIX

American Express,

New York, N.Y., November 18,1915.

Hon. Joshua Eilberg,

Chairman, House Committee on Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship and International Law, Rayburn Building, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman : May we ref er to you r lette r of Septem ber 29, 1975 concern ing the possibility of add itio nal hearing s on various bills which would elim inate the need for cer tain tem porary visit ors to obt ain a non- immigran t visa to 

travel to the United States. We wish to ass ure you th at American Express Company continues to urge you to hold add itional hea rings to receive tes timony from 

us and othe rs in the tra ve l/tou ris m industr y who b elieve th at legislation should 

be enact ed to elim inat e this ba rrier to increased tra vel to the Unite d Sta tes by 

foreig n visitors, partic ula rly durin g the Bice nten nial ye ar in 1976.

In the meantim e, it seems oppo rtune to provide you and your subcom mittee 

with pertin ent info rma tion and comments which hav e emerged as a res ult o f our 

review of the testim ony and statem ent s subm itted to you r subcommittee on this 

proposal.

We hav e take n pa rti cu lar note of the revised position of the Adm inis tration 

as expre ssed by the De par tment of State which form erly favo red visa waive r 

legislation. In this reg ard the Admin istrator-B ure au of Secu rity and Consular 

Affairs has supplied us wit h add itio nal info rma tion relativ e to the curre nt position on the visa waiver proposal. In a let ter to us dat ed October 7, 1975, the 

Ad ministrat or stat ed, “One of the principal arguments adva nced in sup port of 

such a proposal is th at the non- immigran t visa is a de ter ren t to tra vel to this 

coun try by legitima te tourists. This argu men t may in fac t be valid, but we h ave 

made nume rous requ ests over the pas t two yea rs th at those who make it prese nt 

objective evidence to sup por t it. No person or orga niza tion eit he r in the government or the private secto r has presented such evidence to da te. ”

Coming from a Bureau concerned with securit y matt ers and visa issuin g staf f 

problems, this sta tem ent is not surp risin g, but it does reve al th at the proposal 

is cur ren tly being looked at by the Adm inis tration only in context of the tra vel 

res tric tive sta tut ory scheme of the Imm igra tion and Nat ion ality Act of 1952, as 

amended . Unf ortu nate ly, th is sta tem ent does not tak e into accou nt the long his ­

tory of this issue or recognize the implications of oth er expres sions of U.S. governm ent policy to facil ita te intern ati on al tra vel thro ugh the simplificatiou or 

elim inati on of visa proce dures among othe r measures.

The United States gove rnment knows th at visa proce dures and requ irem ents 

act as definite d ete rre nts to int ern ati on al trav el. It h as known this over the years 

by vir tue of work on Fa cil ita tio n Annex 9 to the Chicago Convention on Civil 

Aviatio n of 1944, work ing on the fac ilita tion recom mendations of the United 

Nati ons Conference on T rav el & Tourism of 1963 and most recen tly as a partic ipan t in recomm endations concernin g visas contained in the 1975 Conference on 

Security and Cooperation in Euro pe, the Fin al Act of which was signed by the 

Pres iden t.

The sta tem ent also does not give recognition to the provisions of the In tern ation al Tra vel Act of 1961, as amend ed, which calls for action to fac ilitat e travel 

of foreig n visitors to the United States . Nor does this sta tem ent adm it to the 

general agreemen t among those official governm ent offices deal ing with the promotion of inte rna tional tra vel th at of the many fac tor s and problems det err ing 

the developm ent of int ern ati on al trav el, visa requ irem ents ran ks high. Of course, 

th at is one reason so many governme nts with a policy of encouragin g tra vel to 

their countri es have elim inat ed visa requ irem ents fo r temporary visitors.

Specifically in the case of the United State s, a survey of tra vel sales agen ts 

made by a research firm for the Dep artm ent of Commerce Unite d Sta tes Trav el 

Service in 1968 liste d twenty-one factors or serious problems of selling trav el to 

the U.S. This survey esta blished “Visa Requ irem ents” as third on the list (a ft er 

cost factors, i.e. H igh Transpo rtation Fare s, Currency Exc hange Ra te and High

(5 9)
60

Pric es in ilie U.S., and “Language Problems’’) of item s making sales difficult and thus deterring tra vel to the U.S.

We recognize tha t it is difficult to measure th e de terring effect. However, during the hearings before your subcommittee Mr. Philion of the Air T ransport Associa­ tion of America, in response to a question concerning the visa as deterren t to travel, stated th at in the best business judgment of his members and associates travel to the United Sta tes could be increased up to twenty-five percent from selected foreign markets thro ugh the simplification of forma litie s and elim ination 

of advance visa requirements.

To support our own ju dgm ent th at visa requirements represent a real deterren t to legitimate visitor tr ave l to the U.S.A., we initiated a survey through over 100 of our offices in forty-two foreign countries of t he procedures followed, the time in­ volved, and the conditions und er which visas are obtained either by mail or at the Consulate. Included in our survey, was a request to furnish us with exam­ ples of cases where business was lost because of the requirem ent and their esti­ mate of the increased visitor business which would res ult if procedures were 

simplified and advanced visas eliminated. We have not entirely completed our analysis of the res ults of the survey, but we would like to give you the preliminary findings on the numbers of in­ creased visitors based on 1974 totals which could be expected annually from spe­ cific foreign countries. We have grouped the findings by country into the are as utilized by the U.S. Departme nt of Commerce in their publica tion “Foreign Visitor 

Arrivals to the U.S. by Country of Perman ent Residence.”

Europe

From the E uropean are a the U.S.A. could ex pect a t lea st 63,000 additional visi­ tors from nine countries a s follows : Austria 2,100; France 8,300; Germany 11,800; Greece 6,200; Ita ly 2,400: Luxembourg 3,000; Norway 6,100; Por tugal 1,200; United Kingdom 22,500. Offices in Belgium, Ireland, Finland, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland did not believe visa requirements had significant effect 

on sales of travel to the U.S.A.

South America

From the South American a rea the U.S.A. could expect 33,500 additional visitors from five countries as follows: Colombia 18,100; Ecu ado r 9,500; Paragu ay 400; Peru 3,700; Venezuela 1,800. One country in the survey, Argentina, repo rted U.S. 

visa requirements had no deterr ent effect on travel.

Central America

From the Centra l American are a the U.S.A. could expect 20,500 additional visitors from three cou ntries repo rting as follows: Costa Rica 5,800; Guatema la 

8,300; H onduras 6,400.

West Indies

Only one country was surveyed in this area , Haita, which estimated an addi­ tion al 2.600 visitors. Of intere st in this report is the significance attache d to the fact th at Canada to our no rth does not now require visas fo r Ha itia n visitors.

Asia

From this are a we could expect an additional 41,700 visitors from ten coun­ tries surveyed as follo ws: China Taiwan 2,100; Hong Kong 6,100; Ind ia 6,000; Iran 3,200; Israel 2,600; Ja pa n 15,300; Philippines 3,700; Pakis tan 1,000; Thailand 500; Turkey 1,200.

Oceania

Two countries repo rt an add itio nal 17,000 v isitors could be expected. Australia 

11,000 and New Zealand at least 6,000.

Africa

Only two countries were surveyed, South Africa and Egypt. South Africa (which requires visas for U.S. citizens) does not believe any additional visitors to the U.S. would result. Egy pt repo rts th at existing foreign currency control 

restric tions effectively pr eve nt promotable visitor tr ave l to the U.S.A. You should understand the foregoing is based on info rma tion collected from those in the field dealing not only with making travel arrangements, but also intere sted in the promotion of tourism from their marke ts to many destinations, including the U.S.A. on a day-to-day basis. Their reports indicate four general 

ways travel is dete rred.
61

First, where visas can be obtained by mail to avoid trijis to a visa issuing 

office tile length of time involved prevents “last min ute” or "impulse” tr ave l.

Second, long waits at consulate s and requ ests for excessive supp orting documentation lead to prospective visitors becoming annoyed or discouraged, often 

choosing.other destina tion s to visit.

Third, the requ irem ent of tran sit visas for travelers on extensive itin era rie s 

who wish, or could be persuade d, to stop over in the U.S.A. for sho rt visits to 

sightsee, shop or visit frie nds and rela tives cause much lost business. Many do 

not want to take the time involved or wish to pu t up with what is termed “the 

hassle” of obtaining a U.S. tra ns it visa.

Fou rth, group business of travelers on tours, or atte nding conferences, conventions and meetings with the U.S.A. as the des tina tion or included in the 

itinerar y is often cancelled because individuals do not have the time or cannot 

easily obtain a visa. There are reports indicating a reluctan ce by trave l agents to 

promote such group trav el, even where special promotional far es have been established by carriers, because of the unce rtai nties caused by th e need to obtain a 

visa.

We hope the above fiehl estim ates of lost business will serve to assure your subcommittee that the procedures and conditions of obtaining visas in advance do 

in fac t significantly deter travel by legitimate visitors to the U.S.A. and the 

promotional efforts by those who would increase such trave l.

We are continuing our inve stigation of this matter and will provide you with 

add itional material when it is completed. We would do this as a witness i f add ition al hearings are scheduled or in the form of a statem ent for the record if that 

is the alternative.

We are looking forw’ard to hea ring fu rth er from you in this regard. 

Sincerely yours,

J ames A. Henderson.

Ame ric an H otel & Motel Asso cia tio n,

Washington, D.C., September 11,1915.

Hon. J os hu a E ilrerg,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, and International Law,

House Committee on the Judiciary, liaybum House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman : The American Hotel & Motel Association is a federation 

of hotel and motel asso ciations located in the fifty states, the District of Columbia, Pue rto Rico and the Virgin Islands, having a membership in excess of 

8,000 hotels and motels, containing in excess of 900,000 rentable rooms. The 

American Hotel & Motel Association maintains offices at 888 Seventh Avenue, 

New York City, and at 777—14th Street, N.W., W ashington, D.C.

We wish to use this opportunity to briefly express our views in support of a 

bill, II.R. 8059, th at is pending before your Subcommittee. That bill, as we understand it, would w’aive the visa requ irement during 1976 on a reciprocal basis 

for tem porary visitors from friendly foreign countries. The exemption from 

visas would also be good for visits of 90 days or less, and a visitor, as construed 

under the bill, would be proh ibited from seeking any adjustment of his nonimm igrant status.

AII&MA feels th at II.R. 8059 is certainly wa rra nte d at thi s time, in view of 

the upcoming Bice ntennial celebration. We do not agree, however, with the 

Adm inistratio n that II.R. 8059 would exacerbate the illegal alien situ ation or 

endanger the intern al security of the United States. Surely, anyone bent on 

subverting th e United States will find a way to surrepticio usly e nte r the country. 

Respecting illegal alien s who are gainfully employed in the United States, we 

do recognize that th at is a problem and one deserving of atte ntion. But, that 

problem ought not be used to totally destroy ano ther good idea. Visa waiv er 

had been endorsed by Presidential Commissions in each of the last two adm inistrations. It was a good idea then and remains a good one now.

We would ask this Subcommittee that if it can ’t see fit to rep ort out H.R. 8059 

intact, remembering it is only a “one-year” bill, then at the very least, this 

Congress should require the Departm ents of State and Imm igration to develop 

procedures immediately to alle viate the long delay s at most custom areas. Especially, efforts should be made now to facil ita te entry into the United States
62

from Can ada by the many thousands of foreign nationa ls who will be atte ndi ng 

the 1976 Olympics.

Sincerely,

Albert L. McDermo tt,

Washin y ton Represe ntati ve.

Sta te me nt by Hon. F ra nk Ann un zi o, a Represen tat ive in Congre ss

F rom t h e Stat e ok I ll inoi s

Mr. Chairman, tha nk you for this opp ortunity to tes tify before your Subcomm ittee on II.R. 190, the bill I intro duced to ease the ent ry requ irem ents for 

foreign tou rists visiting the United States.

With hundred s of thou sands of families across the country pinching pennies, 

and unemployment rang ing upw ard s of 8.2 percent, not as many people are 

consid ering an overseas holiday this year. Not as many are even travelin g 

aro und the co un try ; some are relo cati ng to t ry and find new jobs.

Yet over 200 million trips were take n by people all over the world las t year, 

cre atin g a highly profitable to ur ist market on which other coun tries active ly 

capitaliz e. In the las t Congress, the National Tourism Resources Commission 

sub mitted its report on the tou rism needs and resour ces of the United Sta tes 

thro ugh 1980. It clear ly outlined the magn itude of tourism and its poten tial. In 

1970, for example, tourism expend itur es in the Unite d Sta tes tota led $50 billion, 

and the Commission rep ort projecte d expend itur es of $127 billion in 1980.

Thes e expenditu res could in tu rn significantly affect the general economy— 

our economy, th at desp erat ely needs bolsterin g. Fo r every $4 of income earn ed 

dire ctly by tourism, ano the r $3 is gene rated indirectly. Each $20,000 spent by 

fore ign tou rists in the United Sta tes cr eate s one new job.

This is why I reintroduced H.R. 190, a bill I sponsored in past Congresses. 

II.R. 190 would amend the Imm igra tion and Nat ion ality Act to fac ilitat e the 

ent ry of foreign tou rists into the United State s. It would gr an t the Secretary 

of Sta te and the Atto rney Gene ral autho rity to exempt visitors coming for 90 

days or less from all but the most seriou s of the 30-odd grou nds of ineligib ility, 

as well as from the visa requirem ent. Only a pas spo rt would be necessa ry. This 

privilege would apply only to nat ion als of foreign coun tries designated by the 

Sec reta ry of Sta te on the basi s of reciprocity or on the basis of a dete rmin ation 

tliat such a design ation would promote the foreig n policy of the United State s. 

Appr oxima tely 35 nat ion s do not requ ire visa s from American to ur is ts ; we 

req uire them from national s of all coun tries except Cana da and Mexico.

The re is no danger th at thi s bill would cre ate loopholes in our immig ration 

law or escape hatc hes for illega l aliens. Sections 6 and 7 are specifically aimed 

at curbi ng the employment of illegal aliens by esta blishing penalties both for 

th eir employers and for nonimm igra nts who accept employm ent in violation of 

their sta tus .

Thorough safegu ards are also provided to prev ent abuse of the foreign visitor 

provisio ns. Aliens enterin g und er this program would have no option either to 

exte nd th eir 90-day time lim it or to ad jus t th eir status. They would be required to possess a valid pas spo rt and a nonrefun dabl e roun d tri p ticket. Any 

alien who willfully rema ined beyond the 90-day period would be penalized by a 

delay of 2 years in his pri ori ty date for issua nce of an imm igra nt visa. Those 

who threa ten danger to our people would continue to be tot ally excluded—the 

confirmed crimin al, the insane, those afflicted wit h contag ious diseases, an ar ­

chist s, and viola tors of our narc otic s laws, to give example. In brief, the bill 

would simplify the procedur e fo r gra ntin g a vis itor’s permit withou t in any way 

jeop ardi zing th e secu rity of our country.

By relaxing some of the dispen sable, cumbersome requ irem ents visitors must 

now face, we would, at leas t, be providing a welcome mat for our foreign guests 

and visitors. As i t is now, we do have a U.S. Tra vel Service th at h as been t ryin g 

to promo te the allure of our cou ntry in foreig n lands, bu t the y work on a very
63

limited budget. Jamaica, the size of our Sta te of Connecticut, has fou r times as 

large a budget.

Once and for all, we would turn arou nd the travel deficit—the difference 

between what U.S. travelers spend abroad and wh at foreigners spend here, and 

cre ate new jobs for our own citizens as well.

Our Bicentennial is coming up next year, and surely visitors from foreign 

lauds will wan t to come and help us celebrate. They will want to see and experience our gre at country with their own eyes and ears. As it is now, the Communist 

countries of the world are about the only ones who require a visa from American 

tourists. We are really a fa r friendlier nation than th at ; our free press and 

media proclaim that around the world. So what better way, to truly welcome 

our foreig n friends on our 200th birthday, tha n by rela xing the regulations for 

their arrival.

I strongly urge my Colleagues on this Subcommittee to give their approval 

to II.K. 100.

Statement of Herbert H. Kaiser, Jr., Deputy Assistant Secretary of

Transportation, for Environment, Safety and Consumer Affairs

The Department appreciates this opportunity to subm it its views on legislation to fac ilitate the entry of tourists and businessmen into the United States 

by waiver of non-im migrant visitor visa requirements. While the Departm ent 

supp orts the objective of increase d tourism advanced in H.R. 190, H.R. 8059, 

we believe that the legislation fails to provide proper safe gua rds to deal with 

the problems of overstays by alie ns seeking employment and potentia l thr eats 

to our security by terror ists. We have no objection to enactment of H.R. 2771 

subject to the technical suggestions being made by the Departments of Sta te 

and Justice.

Since our inception in the spring of 1967, the Dep artm ent of Tra nsporta tion 

has supported legislation th at would make it easier for tou ris ts and businessmen 

from abroad to visit the U.S. We have examined the visa waiver as one of the 

ways in which the number of passengers using U.S. flag intern ational and domestic carriers can be increased. Increase d tourism is of sub stantial importance 

to the transp ortation industry. It has a substan tial economic impact on the 

countries involved. Worldwide tourist expenditures in 1974, exclusive of fare 

payments, tota led $29 billion, an increase of 5.1 percent over 1973.

Because Americans travel abroad in increasing numbers and tend to spend 

more abroad tha n their foreign counterpar ts visiting the U.S., we consider it an 

important goal to increase the number of foreigners visiting the U.S. to help 

keep our trav el payments deficit in check as well as to stim ulate the U.S. tra ns ­

portation and tourism industries. Commerce Department data indicate th at the 

U.S. travel deficit was $3.1 billion in 1974, of which $1.2 billion rela ted to 

transp ortation.

Our efforts to promote travel to the U.S. have included “Visit-USA” fares, an 

“Americans at Home’’ program, and other efforts to welcome foreig n visitors. 

Reciprocal visa waivers have been examined as an add itional tool to increase 

travel and tourism here. Bu t while the visa waiver concept is appealing, we are 

unab le to supp ort enac tmen t of H.R. 190 or H.R. 8059 until proper safe guards can 

be found to significantly reduce the illegal alien problem and the threat of 

terrorism. We recognize the value visas may have in screening potential visitors 

prior to arriv al at p orts of entry to eliminate those visitors who may pose a risk 

in either of these areas.

For these reasons, we cann ot supp ort enac tmen t of H.R. 190 and H.R. 8059 

at thi s time in deference to reasons which are being set forth more fully by the
64

Departments of State and Justice. Similarly, we defer to tlieir views on the 

desirability of enacting H.R. 2771.

Western Travel Merch ants,

Cody, Wyo., October 20, 1975.

li o n . J oshua Eilberg,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, and International Laic,

U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

How do you do, Mr. Eilberg !

Legislation now before your Subcommittee would relax visa barriers during the

Bicentennial year. I t’s with respect to th at legislation and fu rther reform of visa 

issuance procedures tha t I come to you today.

First, I'd like you and your committee to know tha t our company supports 

legislation that would drop visa barriers during the Bicentennial year. Second, 

it ’s the position of this company tha t the entire matter of visa issuance be revised 

and REFORMED.

I know that you and other Subcommittee members recognize tha t some 80 

foreign nations do not require visas of U.S. citizens visiting their countries for 

purposes of business or pleasure travel on a short term basis. At a time when 

distances are shrinking and . . . more and more . . . we see a world community 

of travel developing, it would seem appropriate tha t the United States reciprocate 

for the short term business or pleasure traveler.

Western Travel Merchants joins with Discover America Travel Organizations 

(DATO) and all of its members in urging you and your Subcommittee to review 

and recommend reform of regulations pertaining to the issuance of visas to enter 

the United States.

Dick Ludewig, Proprietor.

Statement of William Muster, P ubl isher, th e Rand McNally Traveler’s

Almanac, Member, Board of Directors, Delta Queen Steamboat Co.

Dear Mr. Chairma n : Until recently most of us in the travel industry have 

been preoccupied with the annual exodus of Americans to foreign shores. We 

seldom gave much thought to the economic impact of the in-bound foreign tourist.

All of that is now changing quickly—especially in view of our Bicentennial 

celebration. Today the U.S. is the world’s most popular tourist destination.

We Americans have a spectacular nation to show off to the world. Our scenic 

wonders are incomparable, our amusement parks are world famous and our 

treasure of historic sites, monuments, landmarks and museums offer a remarkable 

display of man's history and his works.

We have officially welcomed the world to help us celebrate our 200th anniversary next year. It is a gracious and well-intended invitation, but unfortunately 

it is difficult, if not impossible, for many foreign nationals to accept.

Our visa restrictions are very stringent and the foreign tourist frequently 

encounters considerable difficulty, delay and personal inconvenience to get a 

visa to enter our country.

H.R. 8059 and other bills which serve to reduce visa restrictions in the Bicentennial year have the enthusiastic support of my publication, the Traveler’s

Almanac and the Steamboat Delta Queen. We especially favor granting reciprocity to those nations who for so many years have made it easier for Americans 

to travel abroad by eliminating their visa requirements for U.S. tourists. They 

have profited well by their decision and I believe we can realize comparable 

benefits.

I should add that the Society of American Travel Writers, whose officers are 

now on a round-the-world junket to officially welcome foreign press to the U.S.,
65

lias unanimously endorsed this legislation. Tlie President of our Society, Mrs. 

Carolyn Patterson, regrets that she could not be here to submit a statement in 

behalf of the Travel Writers. We sincerely hope the Committee on the Judiciary will favorably report out

this legislation. William Mustek.

American Automobile Association,

Falls Church, Va., September 80, 1975.

Hon. J oshua Eilbebg,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, and International Law, House Judiciary Committee, U.S. House of Representatives, Rayburn House

Office Building, Washington, D.C.

Dear Chairman Eilberg: The American Automobile Association, whose membership of more than 17 million is vitally interested in removing barriers to travel, supports the objective and calls for the enactment of legislation to ease visa requirements for foreign visitors who wish to visit the United States. As we approach the 200th birthday of our country, AAA feels it is important that outdated visa restrictions be eliminated and replaced with new regulations tha t will enable citizens of other countries to see what their countrymen of 

another era created with their foresight and courage. We feel that our position is well stated in our resolution on this subject which 

reads as follows:

R E -2 . E S T A B L IS H M E N T OF A U .S . TO U R IS T V IS A

In order to assure the success of efforts to increase tourist traffic from other countries to the United States, we, as a nation, must develop an atmosphere of hospitality which begins the moment the prospective tourist arrives at the U.S. Embassy or Consulate abroad for his visa. Every means must be sought, con­ sistent with our national security, to make it as simple and convenient as possible for foreign nationals to enter our country as temporary visitors. The AAA recom­ mends amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act, establishing a new “tourist visa” category for “an alien or a resident in a foreign country who desires to enter the U.S.A. as a tourist for a period not to exceed ninety days.” The amendment should provide for reciprocal privileges from other countries and 

for summary deportation in the event of violations. We commend you and your colleagues on the subcommittee for your timely consideration of this matter and urge that the legislation be reported favorably 

to the full committee.

Yours sincerely, J ohn de Lorenzi,

Managing Director,

Public Policy Division.

Statement of Willtam D. Toohey, President, Discover America

Travel Organizations, Inc.

Mr. Chairman and Members. My name is William D. Toohey. I am President of Discover America Travel Organizations, Inc. (DATO). DATO is the national 

organization of the United States tourism industry. Its membership includes over 820 organizations and agencies whose concern is the development and promotion of tourism to and within the United States by both residents and foreign visitors. Its membership also includes the state and
GG

terr itorial government tou rist offices and the convention and visitors’ bureaus of 

America’s principal cities.

The Discover America program to promote tourism to and within the United 

States was established in response to a Presidential Proclamation in 1965. In 

1909, the present DATO was formed by a merger of Discover America, Inc. and 

the National Association of Travel Organizations, the latter of which had been 

established in 1941. DATO and its predecessors have long been active in constructive programs to increase the flow of foreign travelers to the United States. 

We have worked closely with the U.S. Travel Service and other government 

agencies in a highly successful government-industry “Visit USA” program.

We applaud your conducting hearings on legislation which would waive visitor 

visas. We believe that the realities of world tourism render long overdue modernization and the easing of visa requirements. DATO has consistently advocated 

the enactment of legislative authority to waive the visa requirements on a reciprocal basis for temporary visitors from friendly foreign countries. Our predecessor. the National Association of Travel Organizations, expressed its support of 

such legislation in the last hearings held on this subject, in 19(58.

The visitor visa requirements presently imposed by the Immigration and 

Nationality Act are burdensome, unnecessary and discourage travel to our country. Because we believe this requirement should be eliminated for as many 

foreign visitors as possible, we strongly urge this Subcommittee to give favorable 

consideration to H.R. 190, H.R. 8059, and H.R. 2771. While we would prefer permanent visa waiver authority, we would regard favorable action on H.R. 8059 

as a first important step toward reform of the present outmoded and cumbersome 

procedures imposed upon foreign visitors.

The economic dimensions of U.S. tourism are immense—the more than 4 million Americans employed in the industry represent approximately 5 percent of 

civilian employment. It is a labor intensive industry, employing more low-skill, 

hard-to-place workers than other types of industry. When laid off, tourism 

employees often have relatively few job alternatives. Tourism employment sustains more people per dollar of payroll than most other industries. Tourism, an 

industry grossing more than $60 billion annually and in 1970 representing 5 percent of the nation's gross national product, generates a payroll of more than $24 

billion. Furthermore, at least 97 percent of the firms engaged in lodging, food 

service, travel arrangement and gasoline station services are classified as small 

businesses. Tourism contributes $4.4 billion a year in taxes to federal, state and 

local treasuries. Tourism is generally recognized as the number one industry in 

terms of receipts and employment in Nevada, Florida and Hawaii and is either 

the second or third large st industry in most remaining states. In 1972, the U.S. 

Travel Data Center estimated tha t travel expenditures on trips 100 miles or 

more away from home produced expenditures topping $1 billion in each of eight 

sta tes : California, Florida, Texas, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Michigan 

and Ohio.

The question is ask ed: is visa waiver legislation necessary when larger numbers of foreign visitors are coming to the United States each year? The answer 

is yes. Our share of the world tourism market has not been increasing at the 

rate it would have been had we removed visa barriers and improved certain 

admission practices. There are 85 million individuals throughout the world who 

have the financial ability to travel to the United States. Only a small portion of 

these have visited our country. In simple economic terms, bringing a visitor to 

the United States is equivalent to exporting an item worth about $400 because, 

on the average, each overseas visitor spends th at amount of money while in the 

United States. And the U.S. Travel Service estimates tha t each $15,000 spent by 

visitors creates one new job. In 1974, according to their figures, an estimated 

323.000 American jobs were supported through international tourism. Indeed, 

in 1974, receipts from foreign visitors reached an estimated $4.7 billion, thus 

ranking tourism as this country’s sixth largest export. But, in 1974, of the total 

international tourist arrivals—209 million—the United States had only 6.7 percent. While worldwide tourist receipts reached $29 billion in 1974, the United 

States share was only 16.7 percent.

International payments problems—specifically negative trad e balance—have 

plagued the U.S. for some time. A major factor contributing to the situation has 

been a persistent, and large, deficit in our balance of international travel. For 

each one dollar spent by U.S. citizens for travel in foreign countries, only 56 

cents is spent by foreigners visiting in the U.S. in 1974, the result was a $3.6 billion deficit in the total travel account. It is apparent that increased earnings from 

foreign visitors are needed to cover this travel deficit. Foreign visitor receipts
have a majo r impact on t he U.S. extern al posi tion as well as on rat es of ex change.

The present visa procedures are outmoded and in urg ent need of improve ment. Our capability of admi ttin g visitor s has not kept pace with the increase in num ­ bers of business and ple asu re visito rs. We req uire foreig n visit ors to go thro ugh essenti ally the same process to obtai n perm ission to ent er this country as we did 50 years ago. In 1917, as a World War 1 secu rity measure, an Exec utive ord er was issue d requ iring each foreign visi tor to the United Sta tes to obtai n a nonim­ mig ran t visa from an American consul abroa d. This procedure has surviv ed over the pas t hal f cent ury and has become pa rt of our imm igration law. It needs to he restru ctu red cons isten t with the int ern ation al travel realiti es of the 197()’s.

Air Tra nsp ort Assoc iation of America (AT A) has concluded th at passag e of II.It. 8059 would incr ease the ant icip ated num ber of arr ivi ng foreign visitor s by up to 25 percent with the larg est numb ers coming from the United Kingdom, Germany, Jap an, and the Scandin avian coun tries. ATA also emphasiz es th at in 1975 the re has been a drop in int ern ational visitors and th at the U.S. sha re of the inte rna tion al tra vel ma rke t ha s declined so far . One 1971 study, prepar ed by the Office of Facilitation of the Dep artm ent of Trans por tation and based on 1909 arriva ls, esti mated th at 100,000 more visitor s would come t o the Unite d Sta tes if visa requ irem ents were elimin ated. As foreign visi tors spend for lodging, food, clothing, tra nsp ort ation, en terta in­ ment and other outlays incidental to travelin g, the exp end itur es are multiplied into high er levels of em ploym ent and income in the tour ism and tour ism-sup port ­ ing indu strie s. Increase d exp end itur es would stim ula te our slu ggish economy an d help the hotel-motel, tra nspo rta tio n and recreation components of the tour ism ind ustry which have been particular ly har d hit by the recent recession and infla­ tion and by the high cost of fuel which has had a dampe ning effect on trave l. Ena ctm ent of visa wai ver legislation will enco urage more foreign imp orte rs to come t o the U.S. to pu rch ase U.S. pro ducts, services and franch ises. Trans por ­ tat ion companies, the tra vel tra de an d the U.S. T rave l Sendee could promote the new waiv er proced ures. Prom otion of conventions and business meetings in the U.S. cou ld be in creased. Alien employees of American firms abroad could readily att en d se mina rs, conferences, and te chnical o r sa les meetings. DATO urges th at Congress pass visa wai ver legislation to elim inate unneces­ sar y and cumbersom e ba rri ers which inh ibit foreig n tour ist s and businesspeople in trav elin g to th e United States. This will improv e our foreign relation s and pro ­ mote a bet ter und ers tan din g of America throug hou t the world. It will improve our balance of paym ents and stre ngt hen the dollar. It will reduce t he manpower requ irem ents at fore ign servi ce posts in designated countries. It will fac ilitat e the Imm igration Service 's implementation of preclearan ce. It will stimu late the U.S. tour ism ind ust ry and resu lt in add itional employment. It will allow us to trea t tra veler s from abr oad more efficiently a nd more hospitably. In coope ration with pri vat e ind ust ry and stat e and city governm ents, the U.S. govern ment is seeking to at tr ac t more vis ito rs to our sh ores in 1976. This new legislation can be 

a vit al pa rt of th at effort. Citizens of friendly cou ntri es should be encouraged to visit us during the cele­ bra tion of our 200t h ann ive rsa ry. The “Visit USA Bicente nnia l Annivers ary Act’’ (H.R. 8059) invites our frien ds from abro ad to vis it ne xt year. Many would- be visitors nei the r un der sta nd nor accept our complic ated, two-step visa pro­ cedures. Under thi s procedure, first th e host appro ves one’s coming to his door, then through a second step, one is invited to en ter the coun try. Und er thes e cir­ cumstan ces, a v isa is n ot a “welcome’’ to the cou ntry. Ena ctm ent of H.R. 8059 will put the United Sta tes i nto th e mainst ream of the intern atio nal tren d to elim ina te unnec essary ba rri ers to int ern ational travel . Most coun tries in Wester n Europ e—as well as some in Ea ste rn Europe, Asia. Africa, and South America—hav e modernized tra vel procedur es by elim inat ing 

the requir ement t ha t a visa be obtained. An American citize n today is free to tra vel throug hou t Western Europe with his pas spo rt as his only require d trav el document. This legislation would per mit the Unite d States to reciproca te to the c itizens o f Western Euro pe with the sa me tre atm ent th at those cou ntr ies now afford America ns. This legislation will avoid proce dures we are pres entl y constrained to follow which ofte n sugge st an un ­ frie ndly attitud e and engend er feeling s o f su spicion. In fact, the prese nt complex procedures sometimes a pp ear as i f they were designed to discourage th e p ote ntial 

trav ele r, which is no t the ir inten tion. The impression we give to each indi vidual tour ist who comes to the Unite d Sta tes is an im po rtant pa rt of ou r long-range foreign policy. We have alw ays
68

encouraged tourism from abroa d not merely fo r balanc e-of-pa yments purpos es 

bu t because we ar e confiden t th at exposure to our coun try and our way of life 

will win us friends.

In dealing with individuals , even more tha n in dealing with governments, it is 

im po rta nt th at we be open an d car efu l to avoid ba rri ers which this legislation 

could elimina te.

It is difficult to und ers tan d why the present Adm inis trat ion has decided not 

to sup port visa waiv er legis lation. This would see m to be a ma jor h isto rica l shi ft 

from a long-standing natio nal policy. The thr ee previous Adm inis trations suppor ted visa waiver legislation . Pre sidential commissions in the las t two Administ rat ion s—Industry-Gover nment Special Task Force On Trav el (19 67 -19 68) 

and the Nationa l Tour ism Resources Review Commission (1 97 0- 19 73 )—have 

strongly recommended enactm ent of such laws. Congress in the Int ern ati on al 

Tra vel Act of 1901 (Pu blic Law 87 -63) art icu lated th at the natio n’s policy was 

to provide an d fac ilit ate tou rism to th is coun try from a broad.

The recently adopte d Helsink i Accord declares th at the partic ipa ting sta tes 

int end “grad ually to simplify an d to adm inis ter flexibly the proce dures for exi t 

and en try ”, and “to ease regulation s concern ing movement of citize ns from the 

oth er par ticipa ting Sta tes in their ter rit or y”. In Septem ber the Dep artm ent 

of Tra nsp ort ation issued its first comprehensive sta tem ent of national tra nsp ortatio n policy. T he De par tme nt pledges to “work vigorously to simplify ent ry and 

de partu re cleara nce proce dures for passenge rs”. The newly-fo rmed World Tou rism Organization, of which the United States is a member, supports the easing 

and elim inati on of visa ba rrie rs. And, at the la st Unite d Nations Conference on 

Inter na tio na l Trav el and Tour ism, he ld in 1963, delega tes concluded th at “gove rnment shou ld exten d to the maxim um number of countrie s the practice of abolishing . . . the r equireme nt of e ntry visas for temporary vis itors.” In a let ter d ated 

March 17, 1975 and dire cted to Congressman Fre d B. Rooney, Secr etary of the 

Treas ury William E. Simon sai d : “The U.S. ex por ts of t rav el and tran spo rta tio n 

wil l grow in an orde rly ma nne r only if the development of inbou nd tourism continu es to be a national pri ori ty. ” For the pas t 15 yea rs ena ctm ent of visa waiver 

legislation has received broa d sup port from the executive bran ch of our government , an d we see no rea son for change in t ha t policy.

We would like to respon d to the two princ ipal objections of the Imm igration 

an d Naturaliz atio n Service (I N S) and the Bu rea u of Secu rity and Cons ular 

Affa irs (Vis a Office) to H.R. 190 and H.R. 8059. Their object ions are based on 

th ei r fea rs of illegal alie ns and of terro rism . We do not deny the severity of the 

illeg al alien problem and we in no way wish to unde rmine the basic princ iples 

of o ur im migratio n law. The re are sound reasons to deny admis sion to the United 

Sta tes eit he r as per ma nen t reside nts or as long-term visitors nearly all of the 

classes enum erate d in Section 212 of the Imm igra tion and Nationa lity Act. But 

we believe th at many cr ite ria fo r inelig ibilit ies should not be a pplie d in the case 

of sho rt-term t ou rists or busin ess vi sit or s: and moreover, th at the procedures for 

admi ttin g these visi tors sho uld be simplified by recognizing them as a distinc t 

category.

H.R. 8059 is, in effect, a one-y ear experim ent. In ord er to preve nt abuse by 

illega l aliens seeking employ ment in thi s coun try, the bill provides th at a temporar y visi t is limited to 90 day s and th at the status of the vis itor may not be 

adjus ted to th at of a n immig ran t d uring th e visit. It is fu rth er con templa ted th at 

the implementing regulat ions of the bill will specify cer tai n requi rements, such 

as ix>ssession of a non- refundable round tri p tick et and a valid passpo rt in order 

to reduc e the illeg al alien problem . Further more, ena ctm ent of II.R. 8713, banning the hiring of illega l alien s, would do much to remove the economic incentive to illegally ent er and stay . We thin k II.R. 8059 offers a uniqu e oppo rtunity 

to susp end visa barri ers durin g th e Bicentennial and by so doing, to encourage 

int ern ati on al visitors to cele bra te th e b irth of our natio n.

We do not agree with INS and the Visa Office th at passage of II.R. 190 and 

II.R. 8059 would increase the likeliho od of terrorism by aliens. Any alien intent 

on comm itting ter ror ism in the United Sta tes will find a surrep titi ous way to 

en ter the country. The Depar tment of Sta te can prov ide its infor mation on 

terro ris ts to INS officials for their use a t the po rt of entr y. Also countrie s 

known for terror ist activities could be excluded from the visa waiv er program. 

Fin ally , the consular officer relies on answ ers fur nished him by the alien. If he 

has no information to the co ntrary , he issues a visa. It is not cle ar wh at he r elies 

upon or th at he has exte nsiv e access to the securit y files of the Cent ral Intel ligence Agency or oth er s ecu rity and intellig ence agencies.
69

II.R. 2771 addresse s itse lf to a unique s ituation. We sup por t the bill and urge 

prom pt consideration.

The tour ism ind ust ry has wait ed seven yea rs for hearings on visa waiver 

legisla tion. We very much app rec iate the conside ratio n being given by thi s Subcommittee to this im po rtant subject. One r esult will certain ly be a bet ter un der ­

standi ng of the problem and the complexity of the issue. We hope, however, 

th at cer tain concrete res ults will also emana te from these heari ngs. If it is the 

Subcomm ittee’s judgment th a t II.It. 8051) not be reported, we hope th at it will 

tak e other actio ns on visa requi reme nts. It seems app rop ria te at thi s time for 

the Subcommittee to request the INS and the Visa Office t o tak e pro mpt and 

positive actions to improve pre sen t visa programs. We urge the Subcommittee to 

do so, since it is not cle ar to us th at these agencies perceive the inadequa cies of 

the pre sen t visa system nor ar e willing to under tak e necessary reforms.

Citize ns of friendly foreign coun tries who today wish to vis it the United 

Sta tes for brief periods find it with in their means and abi lity to do so. And they 

hav e come in ever -incr easin g numbers. In 1937, we admitted approxim ately 

65,000 tou rists to the United State s. In 1947, th at number rose t o appr oxim atel y 

155,000. In 1957 it was alm ost 350,000. In 1907 th e figure on tri ps for business 

and plea sure f rom cou ntri es oth er tha n Cana da and Mexico had grown to almost 

V/2 million visitors. And the upw ard sp ira l continues. In 1974 nonimm igrant 

visas totalled over 3 million. More tha n 2 million tou rists receive d visas to vis it 

the United States in Fiscal Yea r 1974. Technology is not stan din g still. With 

mamm oth aircraft and faster-than -sound flight, we may expec t the ann ual num ­

ber of tou rists to the United Sta tes to incr ease by geome tric proportions.

We do not und erst and why more has not been done to improve the cumbersome process of obta ining visa s and why thi s country ha s not been able to 

develop a category of qualified foreig n tourist s to bypa ss the U.S. Consu late 

altog ether. When the gre at ma jor ity of overse as business and plea sure visitor s 

come from six countries, it would seem th at much more could be done to ease 

clea ranc e processes and all evi ate long delays. Almost everybody who is a tour ist 

or a business person in Eur ope has a valid passport. Some progre ss has been 

made in libera lizing and moder nizing visa proced ures—part icu larly thro ugh 

the mail- order visa, insti tut ed in 1963, thro ugh the indefinite visa and tra ns itwithout-v isa regu lations adopted in 1967, and through the joi nt aut hor ity 

deleg ated cons ular officers and imm igrat ion officials to issue waive rs in cer tain 

cases in the field. But. much more can be and needs to be done at the adm inis ­

tra tio n level by the Depar tment s of Sta te and Just ice.

New and better proc edures are needed to improve the admission process. 

More can be done with pre-sc reening abro ad to fac ilitat e admiss ion of tou ris ts 

upon arr iva l at the U.S. ports of entry. INS officials could be statione d in such 

cities as London, Fr an kf ur t and Rome and hav e in their lookout books the 

add itio nal information which has been developed by the St ate Dep artm ent. 

Imm igra tion officials could be stationed aboard the lar ge r planes to conduct 

inspections. Modern technology must be utili zed more efficiently to secu re 

pass enge r man ifest s well in adva nce of a plane’s arriv al and thus to elim inat e 

much of the secur ity pape rwork.

The logic of precleara nce lead s to the even tual consolidation of the func tions 

of the Imm igrat ion and Na turaliz atio n Service, and the Bureau of Secu rity 

and Consu lar Affairs. U.S. tax pay ers are pres ently paying for a double-check 

system for the proce ssing of visitors ’ visas. A 1971 estimate of visi tor visa 

issua nce activity for the previous fiscal yea r placed the cost at .$2,241,000. A 

sim ilar esti mat e proj ecte d th e cost for fiscal 1976 at $3,941,000. Cannot the 

info rma tion th at the Burea u of Security and Cons ular Affairs develops be 

furn ishe d to the imm igration inspe ctors ? What is needed is less overla pping 

of func tion s and more efficient procedures. If a consular officer can issue a visa 

on the basis of an applica tion subm itted by mail, it would seem th at an 

imm igrat ion officer could do the same. And for th at ma tter, if the con sula r 

procedure can be hand led by mail, is it act ual ly nec essary ? We rai se these 

questions because we believe the time has come for a thor ough recon sider ation 

of the ent ire visa procedure. We have suggested th at the init ial burde n of 

reev alua tion be placed on the Sta te Dep artm ent because visa reform mus t begin 

at the point of dep arture , necessarily involv ing our rela tions with foreign 

coun tries. Much has been made of th e need for reli able da ta on foreig n visitors to the 

United States . It is argued that, notwi thstandin g visa obstacle s, foreign visitors 

conti nue to come in lar ge r numbers every year . Fu rth er, the argu men t goes, 

visa obstacles are not a de ter rent to the free flow of business and pleasure
70

visitors from friendly countries. Concern about the need for reliable figures on 

the problem of overstay has also been expressed. Empirical evidence on these 

questions would be useful, but we do not believe such answers would settle 

the fundamental issues involved in existing visa practices. The question is 

whether these practices can be improved either legislatively or administratively 

or both. We believe improvements can be made. Some experimentation with 90 

day waivers in a few friendly countries seem justified. Moreover, it certainly 

seems that much more could be done administratively to facilitate entry into 

the United States by foreign visitors. Simply put, the issue is whether the 

Congress and the present Administration are satisfied with the current visa 

system. If they are not, ar e they prepared to take constructive steps to improve 

the system?

On the question of developing reliable data, we request tha t the Subcommittee 

asks INS and the Visa Office to undertake the development of such data. The 

relevant statutes charge them with the responsibility for visa procedures. Their 

position in carrying out the visa laws puts them in a unique position to provide 

reliable statistics. For data concerning overstays, their own records are the 

best source. While they have indicated tha t nonimmigrant overstays range 

from five to ten percent, there is nothing in the present record about the basis 

for this figure, possible procedures to reduce it or projections for the future. 

On the question of how many potential visitors are deterred from travel to the 

United States because of the visa obstacle, INS and the Visa Office again are 

best situated to provide the answer. They have the face to face dealings with 

potential foreign travellers. They receive the correspondence. They are best 

able to study this question and report their findings to this Subcommittee.

The Subcommittee might also deem it appropriate to ask the U.S. Travel 

Service and the Department of Transportation’s Office of Facilitation to lend 

their services to further study these questions. The U.S. Travel Service regularly 

conducts surveys through its six offices which are located in majo r international 

markets.

By making these requests, the industry does not seek to relieve itself of the 

responsibility for developing better data on these and other questions which 

bear on the visa waiver issue. Discover America Travel Organizations and 

representatives of tourism industry components have already investigated how’ 

these figures and others might be developed. In 1968, a DATO European factfinding mission learned from those engaged in selling travel to the United States 

tha t visa requirements were a major deterrent to travel to the U.S.A. These 

sellers reported tha t their clients felt they were being simply tolerated, rather 

than warmly welcomed, by U.S. visa officials.

It is clear tha t the tourism industry regards the visa obstacle as a deterrent 

to inbound travel from overseas. While executives of tourism industry components may not have conducted systematic surveys on the adverse effect of visa 

barriers, they have their varied experience in the industry as well as their 

business judgment on such matters. It is their unanimous judgment tha t visa 

requirements are a deterrent and tha t the federal government should ease or 

eliminate them so t hat the U.S. tourism industry can compete more effectively 

in the world market. In the final analysis, whatever is done to make travel 

to this country simpler and easier is likely to increase the volume of inbound 

visitor travel.

Many potential visitors feel it takes considerable time, effort and planning 

to get a visa. The proposed legislation would make it possible for citizens of 

designated countries to simply possess a passport, a vaccination certificate and 

a nonrefundable round trip ticket. U.S. citizens traveling abroad to approximately 80 countries as short-term visitors are not required to obtain visas for 

either business or pleasure travel. Americans would be able to travel to additional countries without visas if the United States would reciprocate. The few 

countries tha t continue to require visas from U.S. citizens do so because of 

visa requirements in U.S. law. Elimination of these requirements would improve 

our international image and make it easier to sell our services, products and 

vacation areas. Accordingly, we urge favorable action on the three bills.

In closing, we urge the Subcommittee to suggest formation of a governmentindustry task force on visa practices. Representatives of INS, the Visa Office, 

the U.S. Travel Service and the Office of Facilitation of the Department.of 

Transportation could be asked to work with representatives of interested tourism 

industry components to improve current visa practices. Subjects such as revised 

practices, modernized procedures, the development of better statistics, special
71

arrangements for the Bicentennial, 1976 Olympics in Canada, and similar events, 

could be considered and the activities of the task force could be set out in a 

report which would be furnished to the Subcommittee within six months.

Discover America Travel Organizations again thanks the Subcommittee for 

its consideration of nonimmigrant visa legislation. We stand ready to assist you 

whenever you might request it.

Aib Transport Asso cia tio n of Americ a,

Washington, D.C., October 3, 1975.

Hon. J os hu a Eilber g,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, and International Laic,

U.S. House of Representatives, Washinffton, D.C.

Dear Cha irman E ii .berg : During the course of the recent hearings held by

your Subcommittee on proposed visa waiver legislation, it was pointed out by 

the Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service th at II.R. 8059, 

as presently drafted, would have the effect of applying the ninety-day restriction 

and the renewal, extension or adjustment prohibition to nationals of contiguous 

territories and adjacent islands, as well as to nationals of other countries. Since 

this is an unintended result, II.R. 8059 could be slightly modified in the following 

manner:

“ (B) on the basis of reciprocity with respect to nationals of foreign contiguous 

territory or of adjacent islands and residents thereof having a common nationality with such nationals, or nationals of other foreign territories during calendar 

year 1976 (for periods not to exceed ninety days and with no furthe r renewal, 

extension or adjustment in status allowed), or”.

If revised in this way, it becomes clear tha t the existing authority permitting 

waiver of the visa requirement remains unaffected, and the ninety-day restriction 

and the renewal, extension of adjustment prohibition apply only to nationals of 

countries other than contiguous territories and adjacent islands.

We would appreciate the opportunity to comment on this m atter, and respectfully request that this letter be made a part of the hearing record.

Sincerely,

Norma n J. P h il io n.

P an A me ric an World Air way s, 

Washington, D.C., October 22, 1975.

H o n . J os hu a Eilberg,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, and International Laic,

Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Cha irman : I would like to thank you in behalf of Pan Am for 

bolding hearings on II.R. 9252, the “Visit U.S.A. Bicentennial Anniversary Act”,

designed to ease visa requirements during our Bicentennial Year.

Pan Am strongly supports enactment of this bill, because it would greatly 

encourage foreigners to participate in our country’s Bicentennial and facilitate 

international traffic.

At a time when the U.S. is suffering a severe travel deficit (over $400 million 

in the first six months of 1975), it is incongruous tha t travel to this country be 

discouraged. Not only do we make it difficult for foreign visitors to make temporary visits, but our stringent visa requirements as imposed by the Immigration and Nationality Act are in direct opposition to the U.S. national policy of 

promoting tourism to our country, as stated by the International Fair Competitive Practices Act.

The following are examples of problems which would be alleviated with passage 

of II.R. 9252:

(1) In 1976, the Olympic Gaines will be held in Canada. Many visitors to this 

event will be tempted to combine their trips with a visit to the U.S.A., if they 

do not need visas. Pan Am does not serve Canada and would have limited access 

to this market, but, should the visa requirement be lifted, Pan Am would benefit 

from considerable additional traffic.

(2) Pan Am’s network of routes converge from all over the world to major 

U.S. gateways from which passengers may proceed to other continents on Pan 

Am flights. Passengers would avail themselves of U.S. stopovers if they could 

do so easily without needing a visa and thus generate excellent revenue and 

assist the balance of payments. Similarly, travel between Europe and Japan,
/ 2

Au str alia and New Zealand via the U.S.A. would be made fa r more attrac tive.

(3) Foreign passengers arriving in the U.S.A. without visas are usually ad ­

mitted to accomplish the purpose of their tr ip s; however, the car rier ina dve rtently allowing this tra vel is fined $1,000 pe r passenger. Visa Waiv er legislation 

would preclude such fines on our financially-suffering intern ationa l airlines.

(4) Passengers who are refu sed carriag e at flight departu re time because they 

do not possess valid U.S. visa s will often cancel the tri p entirely or else obtain 

visas and tra vel on other carrie rs and are thus lost to Pan Am.

Should the Visa Waiver legislation be passed, U.S. imm igration preclearance a t 

ma jor foreign gateways could be a gre at asset in tigh tening up required U.S. 

sec urity and avoiding possible deportations which are costly to the airlines. 

Thus, passage of H.R. 9252 cle arly will promote better understanding of America, 

improve our balance of payments, and incre ase employment in the U.S. tourism 

ind ustry. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity of having thi s statem ent included 

in the record of hearings for H.R. 9252.

Cordially, S. G. Tipton,

Senior Vice President,

Federal Affa irs.

Thirteenth Guam Legislature 1975 (F irst) Regular Session

RESOLUTION NO. 15 8

(Introduc ed by J. F. Ada)

Relative to requesting the House Subcommittee on Immigration to give its 

speedy approval to H.R. 2771 relative to wa iver of visa req uirements.

lie it resolved by the Legislatu re of the Te rritory of Guam.

Whereas the Territory of Guam is an imp ortant destina tion for Jap ane se

to u ris ts ; an d

Whereas Japane se tourists visiting Guam constitute a major pa rt of the 

economy of the island ; and

Whereas Guam’s tourist tra de h as suffered both from the worldwide recession 

and also from the bad publicity ema nating from the Vietnamese refugee and 

repa triate situa tion on the island ; and

Whereas the waiver of visa requirem ents for Jap ane se tourists visiting 

Guam would tend to increas e the number of said tou rists visiting the islan d; 

andWhereas a n increase in the number of tou rists to Guam would have a sal uta ry 

effect on the economy of the island ; and

Whereas a waiv er of visa requirem ents would be in the best inte rests of 

both the United S tates and the people of Gu am ; now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House Subcommittee on Imm igration is respectfully requested to give it s speedy endorsement to H.R. 2771; and be it furth er

Resolved, Th at the Speaker certify to and the Legislative Secretary attest 

the adoption hereof and th at copies of the same be therea fte r transm itte d to 

the Chairman, House Subcommittee on Immigration; to Represe ntative Antonio 

B. Won I’at and to the Governor of Guam.

Duly and regu larly adopted on the 24th day of September, 1975.

Conception Cruz Barrett,

Legislative Secretary,

J oseph F. Ada,

o

Speaker.