Y gANUS STATF ItNWFRSITY 11BRARIES

ioao

90//1 WAIVER OF TOURIST VISAS

GOVERNMEN't

StorageA11600 662661 

HEARING

BEFORE

SUBCOMMITTEE NO. 1

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NINETIETH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

H.R. 15651

A BILL TO AMEND THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT

TO FACILITATE THE ENTRY OF FOREIGN TOURISTS INTO

THE UNITED STATES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Serial No. 14

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

•

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

p2-368 WASHINGTON: 1968
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

EMANUEL

MICHAEL A. FEIGHAN, Ohio

EDWIN E. WILLIS, Louisiana

PETER W. RODINO, JR., New Jersey

BYRON G. ROGERS, Colorado

HAROLD D. DONOHUE, Massachusetts

JACK B. BROOKS, Texas

WILLIAM M. TUCK, Virginia

ROBERT T. ASHMORE, South Carolina

JOHN DOWDY, Texas

BASIL L. WHITENER, North Carolina

ROBERT W. KASTENMEIER, Wisconsin

JAMES C. CORMAN, California

WILLIAM L. ST. ONGE, Connecticut

DON EDWARDS, California

WILLIAM L. HUNGATE, Missouri

HERBERT TENZER, New York

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan

ANDREW JACOBS, JR., Indiana

JOSHUA EILBERG, Pennsylvania

CELLER, New York, Chairman

WILLIAM M. McCULLOCH, Ohio

RICHARD H. POFF, Virginia

ARCH A. MOORE, JR., West Virginia

WILLIAM T. CAHILL, New Jersey

CLARK MAGGREGOR, Minnesota

CHARLES McC. MATHIAS, JR., Maryland

EDWARD HUTCHINSON, Michigan

ROBERT McCLORY, Illinois

HENRY P. SMITH III, New York

WILLIAM V. ROTH, JR., Delaware

THOMAS J. MESKILL, Connecticut

CHARLES W. SANDMAN, JR., New Jersey

TOM RAILSBACK, Illinois

EDWARD G. BIESTER, JR., Pennsylvania

CHARLES E. WIGGINS, California

BESS E. DICK, Staff Director

WILLIAM R. FOLEY, General Counsel

GARNER J. CLINE, COUnSei

HERBERT FUCHS, Counsel

WILLIAM P. SHATTUCK, Counsel

JERomE M. ZEIFMAN, Counsel

BENJAMIN L. ZELENKO, Counsel

CHARLES J. ZINN, Law Revision Counsel

DONALD G. BENN, Associate Counsel

DONALD E. SANTARELLI, Associate Counsel

FRANKLIN G. POLK, Associate Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE NO. 1

GENERAL JURISDICTION OVER JUDICIARY BILLS AS ASSIGNED.

SPECIAL JURISDICTION OVER IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY

MICHAEL A: FEIGHAN, Ohio, Chairman

PETER W. RODINO, JR., New Jersey ARCH A. MOORE, JR., West Virginia

HAROLD D. DONOHUE, Massachusetts WILLIAM T. CAHILL, New Jersey

JOHN DOWDY, Texas CLARK MAcGREGOR, Minnesota

GARDNER J. CLINE, Counsel

DONALD G. BENN, Associate Counsel

(n)
CONTENTS

Testimony of—

Hon. Nicholas deB. Katzenbach, Under Secretary of State, accom- panied by Nathan Lewin, Deputy Administrator, Bureau of Security Page

and Consular Affairs 4

Hon. Raymond F. Farrell, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturali- zation Service, Department of Justice, accompanied by James L. Hennessy, Executive Assistant 22 Hon. John Black, Director, U.S. Travel Service, Department of Commerce 26 Hon. Donald G. Agger, Assistant Secretary of Transportation for International Affairs and Special Programs 31 Statements received from—

Air Transport Association of America 33 American Automobile Association 34 American Society of Travel Agents, Inc 35 Transportation Association of America 36 Telegram received from National Association of Travel Organizations__ 38

Hon. JOHN MCCORMACK,

Speaker of the House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

H.R. 15651, TO AMEND THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT TO FACILITATE THE ENTRY OF FOREIGN

TOURISTS INTO THE UNITED STATES

THURSDAY, MARCH 21, 1968

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE NO. 1 OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 2237,

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Michael A. Feighan (chairman

of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Feighan and Rodino.

Staff members present: Garner J. Cline, counsel; Donald G. Bonn,

associate counsel.

(The executive communication and the bill, H.R. 15651, follow)

[House of Representatives, 90th Cong., second sess., Doe. No. 263]

COMMUNICATION FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TRANSMITTING

A PROPOSAL To ELIMINATE UNNECESSARY AND CUMBERSOME BARRIERS WHICH

INHIBIT FOREIGN VISITORS AND BUSINESSMEN FROM TRAVELING TO THE UNITED

STATES

THE WHITE HOUSE,

Washington, February 28, 1968.

Dear MR. SPEAKER: I ask the Congress to eliminate unnecessary and cumbersome barriers which inhibit foreign visitors and businessmen from traveling to the

United States.

Over a half century ago we began to require each foreign visitor to obtain a visa

from an American consul abroad.

This process of pre-screening obliges every visitor—other than a national of

Canada or Mexico—to establish to the satisfaction of the consul:

—that he is not ineligible for a visa under some 25 specified grounds of eligibility.

—that he has a residence abroad to which he intends to return;

—that he will not accept employment while in the United States.

Those requirements have been rendered obsolete by a major increase in tourism

from abroad, by a revolutionary reduction in travel time, and by the fact that 35

other nations require no visas from American tourists.

This system clearly must be reformed.

Last Monday, I received a report from my special Industry-Government

Commission on Travel. The report outlined a broad program to increase tourism

to the United States, improving our balance of payments and promoting international understanding.

With regard to these entry requirements, the Commission stated: "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.'

By imposing time-consuming entry requirements, we discourage tourism to the

United States at a time when we are acutely concerned with our balance of

payments.

(1)
2

By imposing stringent requirements, we appear to a foreign visitor to be

greeting him grudgingly rather than graciously.

By imposing complicated requirements, we add an unnecessary and increasingly expensive workload to our consulate staffs abroad.

I believe the time has come to stop imposing these unnecessary requirements

on our visitors. To accomplish this, I propose the Non-immigrant Visa Act of

1968.

This Act would authorize the Secretary of State and the Attorney General to

issue regulations exempting visitors to the United States for 90 days or less from

from the visa requirement and from all but the most serious grounds of ineligibility.

Under the Act:

—The Secretary of State would designate the countries whose citizens would

be entitled to this privilege. Initially, this would be done on the basis of

reciprocity.

—Foreign nationals who have been convicted of serious crimes, or narcotics

traffickers, will still be barred.

—Entering aliens will continue to be examined by immigration and naturalization service officers at points of entry.

This will afford full protection to our internal security.

—Persons entering under these conditions will be required to have a valid

passport, and a nonrefundable round-trip ticket. They will not be allowed

to alter their status as a visitor while they are in this country.

This new Act will improve our foreign relations and promote a better understanding of America throughout the world.

It will improve our balance of payments and strengthen the dollar.

It will allow us to treat travelers from abroad more efficiently and more

hospitably.

With the cooperation of private industry, the government is seeking new ways

to attract more visitors to our shores in 1968. This new Act can be a vital part

of that effort.

The Secretary of State will shortly send to the Congress further recommendations to improve our non-immigrant visa laws.

I consider the proposals in this letter to be of urgent concern. I ask the Congress

to give them prompt and favorable consideration.

Sincerely,

z

A BILL To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to facilitate the entry of foreign tourists into the

United States, and for other purposes

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of

America in Congress assembled, That (a) section 212(d) of the Immigration and

Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(d)) is amended by adding at the end thereof the

following new paragraph:

"(9) The provisions of subsection (a) (other than paragraphs (2), (6), (15), (17),

(26)(A), (27), and (29)) may, pursuant to regulations prescribed jointly by the

Attorney General and the Secretary of State, be made inapplicable to aliens who

are seeking to enter the United States as temporary visitors for business or pleasure

for a period of not more than ninety days and are nationals of foreign countries

designated, in his discretion, by the Secretary of State on the basis of reciprocity

or on the basis of a determination that such designation would promote the foreign

policy of the United States. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,

such aliens may not have their status adjusted under section 245 or 248."

(b) Section 238(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1228(d))

is amended to read as follows:

"(d) The Attorney General shall have power to enter into contracts, including

bonding agreements with transportation lines

'

(1) to guarantee the passage

through the United States in transit of aliens destined to foreign countries, or

(2) to prescribe procedures designed to accomplish the departure from the United

States of aliens who, under section 212(d) (9), have entered the United States as

temporary visitors for business or pleasure without possessing a valid nonimmigrant visa. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, such aliens

may not have their classification changed under section 248."

SEC. 2. Section 221(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.

1201(b)) is amended to read as follows:

LYNDON B. JOHNSON.

[H.R. 15651, 90th Cong., second seas.]
3

"(b) Each alien who applies for a visa shall be registered and fingerprinted in

connection with his application and shall furnish copies of his photograph signed

by him for such use as may be by regulations required. The Secretary of State

and the Attorney General are hereby authorized, in their discretion and on the

basis of reciprocity, pursuant to such regulations as they may severally prescribe, to waive the requirements of this subsection and the requirement of

fingerprinting specified in section 262 in the case of any nonimmigrant alien."

SEC. 3. This Act may be cited as "The Nonimmigrant Visa Act of 1968".

Mr. FEIGHAN. The subcommittee will come to order.

The purpose of the hearing today is to receive testimony on H.R.

15651, a bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to

facilitate the entry of foreign tourists into the United States. The provisions of this bill are a direct result of the recommendations of the

President's Industry-Government Special Task Force on Travel, and

were embodied in an executive communication to the Congress.

In essence, H.R. 15651 would authorize the Secretary of State and

the Attorney General to issue regulations exempting aliens coming

to visit the United States for 90 days or less from the visa requirement

and from all but the most serious of the present grounds of ineligibility.

These grounds of ineligibility which would not be waived by this

bill pertain to aliens who are insane, afflicted with any dangerous

contagious disease, liable to become a public charge, prior deportees,

or who are without a valid passport, or entering to engage in activities

prejudicial to the public interest, or entering to engage in espionage

activities.

In return for the privileges extended, this bill would also impose

certain restrictions to reduce the possibilities that mala fide visitors,

such as intending immigrants, would attempt to gain entry with no

intention of leaving. Accordingly, any alien entering the United

States under the provisions of this bill would be ineligible to have his

status adjusted while in the United States to any other nonimmigrant

or immigrant status. Further authority would be given the Attorney

General to enter into contracts with transportation lines designed to

accomplish the departure from the United States of these nonvisa

visitors by the end of the maximum allowable visit of 90 days.

Additional safeguards would be incorporated into the applicable

regulations, including the requirement of a nonrefundable round trip

ticket, and would be in addition to those already existent in the

inspection procedures by Immigration and Naturalization Service

officers at points of entry.

The major purpose of this legislation is an integral part of the

President's overall program to increase foreign travel to this country,

and thereby help to improve our foreign relations through promoting

a better understanding of America throughout the world.

In addition, such tourism to the United States will have a salutary

effect upon our balance of payments. Such objectives are certainly

commendable, and we are privileged to have expert witnesses from.

the Department of State, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Commerce to present the expected benefits and proposed

regulations required to attain them.

Our first witness will be our old friend the Honorable Nicholas deB.

Katzenbach, Under Secretary of State.

On behalf of the subcommittee, we want to extend to you a very

warm welcome. It has been a little while since you have been here.

So we are very happy to have you.
4

STATEMENT OF HON. NICHOLAS deB. KATZENBACH, UNDER

SECRETARY OF STATE, ACCOMPANIED BY NATHAN LEWIN,

DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, BUREAU OF SECURITY AND CONSULAR AFFAIRS

Mr. KATZENBACH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is a pleasure to be back before this committee.

I have a prepared statement which, with your permission, I would

like to proceed with.

Mr. FEIGHAN. That will be fine.

Mr. KATZENBACH. I am pleased to testify today in support of H.R.

15651, the Nonimmigrant Visa Act of 1968. In transmitting this

proposed legislation to Congress almost a month ago, the President

urged its prompt enactment for the following three reasons:

First, it "will improve our foreign relations and promote a better

understandirg of America throughout the world."

Second, "it will improve our balance of payments and strengthen

the dollar."

Third, "it will allow us to treat travelers from abroad more

efficiently and more hospitably."

Let me begin by describing the situation to which this legislation

is addressed, because I think it will then become apparent how its

enactment can contribute substantially to each of these three important objectives.

Magnificent technological developments have taken place over the

past few decades in the field of international transportation. One

consequence of these rapid advances has been the growing volume of

international travel.

Friendly citizens of foreign countries who today wish to visit the

United States for brief periods find it within their means and ability

to do so? And they have come in ever-increasing numbers.

In 1937, we admitted approximately 65,000 tourists to the United

States. In 1947, that number rose to approximately 155,000. In 1957,

it was almost 350,000. And last year—in 1967—almost 1% million

visitors arrived here from countries other than Canada and Mexico

on trips for business or pleasure.

Technology is not standing still. And with mammoth aircraft and

faster-than-sound flight, we may expect the annual number of tourists

to the United States to increase by geometric progression.

Private studies have estimated that a decade from now the number

of tourists visiting the United States will run between 7% to 10 million

annually.

Our procedures for the admission of visitors have not kept pace

with this growth. For we are still making foreign tourists go through

essentially the same process to obtain permission to come to this

country as we required 50 years ago. In 1917, as a World War I

security measure, an Executive order was issued requiring each foreign

visitor to the United States to obtain a nonimmigrant visa from an

American counsul abroad. This procedure has survived over the past

half century, and it is now part of our immigration law.

What it means is that any national of a foreign country other than

Canada or Mexico cannot visit the United States unless he first

applies for and obtains a visa at a U.S. embassy or consulate abroad.
5

The applicant must establish to the satisfaction of the consular

officer that he is not ineligible under some 25 grounds of ineligibility

specified in the Immigration and Nationality Act, that he has a

residence abroad to which he intends to return, and that he will

not accept employment while in the United States.

Let me discuss briefly the grounds of ineligibility. Section 212(a)

of the Immigration and Nationality Act specifies certain classes of

aliens who are declared "ineligible to receive visas" and who are to

"be excluded from admission into the United States."

There are good and sufficient reasons to keep out of the United

States as permanent residents or as long-term visitors nearly all of the

classes enumerated in section 212(a). But many of these ineligibilities

are inappropriate in the case of short-term tourists or business visitors.

Congress recognized as much when, in section 212(d) (3) (A), it

authorized the Attorney General and the Secretary of State acting

jointly to waive, for the purpose of a nonimmigrant visa, any of the

enumerated ineligibilities other than those directly relating to national security.

Under this authority, the overwhelming number of nonimmigrant

cases involving ineligibilities under section 212(a) now result in the

eventual admission of the applying alien—but only after he has been

told that he is ineligible and after time and effort have been consumed

in obtaining an individual statutory waiver in each case.

The Departments of State and Justice have taken certain administrative measures over the past few years in an attempt to grapple

with the mounting problem caused by the cumbersome process of

obtaining a visa.

Several years ago we authorized consulates to accept nonimmigrant

visa applications by mail. In some posts, such as London, over threequarters of the applications processed are handled by mail. In other

posts however, much nonimmigrant visa work is still done in person

by the burdensome work of personal interview.

Just last year another innovation was instituted when consulates

were authorized to issue visitor visas of indefinite validity to nationals

of certain designated countries who had reason to make repeated

short-term visits to the United States.

In addition, to expedite the process of obtaining waivers of ineligibility, consular officers and Immigration and Naturalization Service

officials have, for some time, been delegated joint authority to issue

waivers in certain kinds of cases in the field.

Desirable as these administrative steps are, they do not reach to

the heart of the problem. So long as a potential foreign visitor is

obliged to obtain a visa from a U.S. embassy or consulate abroad,

he is compelled to spend his time and energy and ours so that we may

determine in advance of his arrival whether he is eligible to enter the

United States.

And so long as an intending visitor is initially declared ineligible

under section 212(a)—even if that ineligibility is subsequently

waived—good will has been wasted and unnecessary effort expended..

The proposed Nonimmigrant Visa Act of 1968 would modernize

the visa procedure and obviate these administrative difficulties by

permitting a qualified foreign tourist to bypass the U.S. consulate

altogether. It would also empower the Secretary of State and the

92-868--68-2
6

Attorney General to declare many of the ineligibilities of section 212(a)

inapplicable to a select group of nonimmigrants.

Let me emphasize, at the outset, the limited scope of this proposed

legislation:

First, it applies only to a certain kind of nonimmigrant: the

temporary visitor who wishes to come here for business or pleasure

for a period of not more than 90 days. It does not apply to students,

long-term visitors, temporary employees, or any of the other nonimmigrant classifications.

Second, it applies only to nationals of countries designated by the

Secretary of State either on the basis of reciprocity or on some other

foreign policy consideration. We do not anticipate invoking it initially

with respect to nationals of Eastern European countries—except for

those who are coming to designated international conferences.

Third, only certain of the ineligibilities in section 212(a) are subject

to waiver. The bill itself specifies six ineligibilities—in addition to the

requirement that the alien possess a valid passport which must be

retained.

Fourth, any alien entering without a visa under this proposal would

be ineligible for adjustment or change of status. He cannot, in other

words change to the status of an immigrant, student, or temporary

employee during his stay here. This provision is designed to prevent

this means of entering the country from being used as a way of

evading the normal immigration process.

Finally, nothing in the bill prevents any prospective tourist from

applying for a standard nonimmigrant visa if he wishes to do so.

All that is proposed is that an alternative route be made available for

the very large number of bona fide short-term tourists and business

visitors who now must obtain nonimmigrant visas.

We have given substantial thought to how this proposal would be

implemented. We contemplate that the Secretary of State will designate, by public notice, the countries whose nationals may be admitted

as 90-day visitors under section 212(d) (9).

Nationals of those countries will be able to come here without visas

and with an automatic waiver of certain specified paragraphs of

section 212(a) if they possess nonrefundable roundtrip tickets and if

they submit, prior to embarkation for the United States, a completed

and signed form in which they certify that they are not ineligible for

admission under the retained provisions of section 212(a) or other

applicable provisions of the law.

On their arrival here, such visitors will be screened by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which will determine whether

they are, in fact, eligible to enter the United States. If they are

turned back by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the

transportation line will have the responsibility of carrying them home.

Let me say just a word about the Immigration Service's inspection here. Although many visitors are processed in a short period of

time, the Immigration Service is capable of checking them all against

its lookout book—as it does now.

To make this port-of-entry inspection as complete as possible, the

Department of State would supplement the material in the Immigration and Naturalization Service lookout book with whatever information we have. This would make the check as effective for purposes of

national security as the separate checks are now.
7

The problem of internal security is, I know a worrisome one. But

I am convinced it is in no way enlarged by this legislation. All information in the hands of the Department of State which would affect

the alien's eligibility under the provisions of law designed to protect

national security would be made fully available to the Immigration

Service for use in compiling its lookout book.

Let me now return to the three goals specified in the President's

message. I think it is clear that the Nonimmigrant Visa Act of 1968

would be an important step in their achievement.

Enactment of this legislation will "improve our foreign relations

and promote a better understanding of America throughout the

world' because it will put the United States into the mainstream

of the international trend to eliminate unnecessary barriers to international travel.

Most countries in Western Europe—as well as some in Eastern

Europe, Asia, Africa, and South America—have modernized travel

procedures by eliminating the requirement that a visa be obtained

abroad.

An American citizen today is free to travel throughout Western

Europe with only his passport as a travel document. This legislation

would permit the United States to give to the citizens of these nations

the same treatment that those countries now provide Americans.

The President noted in his message that under our present procedures

"we appear to a foreign visitor to be greeting him grudgingly rather

than graciously." Certainly, the leading nation of the free world

cannot afford to perpetuate such an image.

We are no longer suspicious of the stranger on our shores; today we

welcome him for the good will he brings and takes with him as well as

for the benefits our economy derives from his visit. We do ourselves

and our cause no good if we appear reluctant to allow free entry to the

United States.

In fact, we look forward to the day when private citizens will be free

to travel around the world with an absolute minimum of documentation. The time has come for the United States to demonstrate its

support of this trend by the elimination of our own unnecessary

procedures.

The President noted that this legislation "will improve our balance

of payments and strengthen the dollar." It does so in two ways:

First, the recent report of the Industry-Government Special Task

Force on Travel recommended the enactment of this very legislation

as a means of encouraging tourism to the United States. The director

of the United States Travel Service, who is also scheduled to testify

today, will discuss in detail the effects this bill will have on tourist

travel to the United States.

But it is obvious that whatever is done to make travel to this

country simpler and easier is likely to increase the volume of such

travel. And increased tourism to the United States means a narrowing of the tourism deficit which has contributed so substantially to the

present balance-of-payments crisis.

A second and less obvious—though equally compelling—balance-ofpayments benefit is the effect that such legislation will have on our

manpower abroad.
8

In the 35 countries which permit American citizens to visit without

visas, our consular personnel spent about 300,000 man-hours (the

equivalent of 160 man-years) in fiscal year 1967 processing tourist

visas.

A substantial reduction in the number of consular positions abroad

can thus be effected if this proposal is enacted. Even if some increase

in the staff of the Immigration Service is necessary, the total reduction

of government expenditures should be significant. And, what is even

more important, the greatest saving in terms of our expenses abroad

is preventive.

For if no action along the lines proposed in this bill is taken, the

size of our consular staffs will have to increase several fold as the

volume of visitors to the United States grows. If 10 million tourists

travel here several years from now, as is projected, we will have to

provide six or seven times as many visa officers at consulates abroad

to process the applications.

Finally, the President observed that this bill "will allow us to

treat travelers from abroad more efficiently and more hospitably!'

The Travel Task Force commented in its report that the procedures

we now follow "bespeak an unfriendly attitude based upon feelings

of suspicion" and that they "almost appear designed to discourage

the potential traveler."

I need not, of course, tell this committee that such a result is not

the purpose of our law, and that we attempt, in our administration

of it, to facilitate the admission of those who are entitled to enter the

United States in either immigrant or nonimmigrant status.

The impression we give to each individual tourist who comes to

the United States is an important part of our long-range foreign

policy. We have always encouraged tourism from abroad not merely

for balance-of-payments purposes but because we are confident that

exposure to our country and our way of life will win us friends.

In dealing with individuals, even more than in dealing with governments, it is important that we be open and hospitable. And it is in just

this respect that the "unnecessary and cumbersome barriers" which

this legislation would eliminate are most harmful.

Mr. Chairman, for these reasons I repeat to this committee the

request in the President's message that the Nonimmigrant Visa Act

of 1968 be given prompt and favorable consideration.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary, for your

very excellent presentation on the issues contained in this bill.

I would like to ask you: How has the present nonimmigrant visa

procedure restricted or hindered travel to this country?

Mr. KATZENBACH. I think it has restricted it in several ways, Mr.

Chairman. It is mainly the cumbersomeness of the procedures,

despite our efforts to streamline them. These procedures require a

foreign visitor to this country to go to the nearest consulate or

Embassy and to answer several questions and provide documentation

as to his answers before he can be issued a visa.

What seems to me important, if we are really going to try to

increase tourism to the United States—for the balance-of-payments

reasons and for other reasons—is that we make it as easy as possible

for the airlines, the shipping lines, the travel agencies, to promote

travel to the United States.
9

It is a great deal easier for them if they are in a position of saying,

"Do you have a valid passport?" And almost everybody who is a tourist

or a businessman in Europe for example does have a valid passport.

They say, "That is all that is required. Here is the paper you are going to have to sign on grounds of ineligibility but that is all that is required. All you have to do is certify this, have a round trip ticket with the second return ticket nonrefundable, and that is all that is required."

It is a very simple procedure. You can sign the brief piece of paper and be done with it.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Secretary, since nonimmigrant visa issuances have been steadily increasing, why is this legislation necessary?

Mr. KATZENBACH. I would expect nonimmigrant visa applications

to steadily increase. The point I think, Mr. Chairman, is that foreign tourism is not increasing at the rate that it would increase if we remove various blocks to it and if we were more active in promoting travel to the United States and made it as easy as possible.

One would expect tourism here to increase just purely on the basis that we live in a pretty affluent society. Europe is pretty wealthy:

People do want to visit the United States. There is a bigger popu- lation which increases the number of visitors. But the important thing is to get as much of that as we can.

After all, as much as it has increased here, it has increased more in other countries. When I was recently in Europe on balance-of-payments discussions with various government officials of seven European countries, almost without fail they said, "You can do much more to improve your balance-of-payments position on the tourism part.

You are not doing it."

People like the Swiss who have been in the tourist industry—it is

a very important part of the Swiss economy—were critical of what

we hadn't done. They mentioned in particular our cumbersome re- quirements for visas and the fact that there just simply wasn't enough promotion and we didn't make it attractive enough. We created the impression that we really didn't welcome visitors to the United States.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Secretary, how would this procedure work as a

mechanical matter in the foreign country?

Mr. KATZENBACH. In the foreign country, as a mechanical matter, it would never require the foreign visitor to visit any U.S. official. If he had a valid passport, the airlines or the travel agencies or whoever

was acting for him in selling him his ticket would provide him with a

piece of paper which would tell him the grounds of ineligibility for admission to the United States which would remain.

And he would certify at the end of that that none of these grounds applied to him. He would have this nonrefundable round trip ticket.

If he then arrived in the United States and his name was in this lookout book as someone who was not eligible, he would be on the plane going back the other way.

If he was not on the list, then he would be in this country and be a

visitor for 90 days. But there would be a minimum of fuss and bother.

Of course, the overwhelming percentage of the people who come as tourists to the United States are not ineligible under any of the grounds which apply.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Rodino?
lp

Mr. RODINO. Mr. Chairman, thank you for yielding.

Mr. Secretary, in line with tie statement you made a while ago that

this new policy is in accord with the recommendations submitted by

the Industry-Government Special Task Force on Travel, I ask this

question and assume that this is what would come about—a new climate.

However, doesn't it appear to you that this new policy is a little bit

inconsistent with the proposal that is now being considered by committees of the Congress whether we are going to impose taxes on those

people who would travel to other countries? In one way we restrict

travel to other countries on people who are more prone to travel, the

students and those who want to visit their relatives in other countries,

and yet at the same time we say, "We want to encourage travel coming

here."

Doesn't this strike you as being somewhat inconsistent?

Mr. KATZENBACH. No Mr. Congressman, I don't think that is

inconsistent. Nobody likes to restrict or deter travel by Americans

in any way. Therefore, it is much better over the long run if we can do

pomething to balance the tourism account by attracting more tourists

into the United States and continue to have Americans go abroad.

The fact is, however, that at this moment we run a deficit on the

tourism account of over $2 billion, as a difference between what

foreigners are spending to come here and what Americans are spending

abroad. On our current account that wipes out all of our trade surplus.

So we come out with a slight net loss on the current account if you put

in tourism with trade.

It is surely better to balance it by attracting more people here.

But you have the two sides of the ledger. What the tax proposals are

trying to do is to encourage Americans over the short range to postpone

some of their travel abroad or to at least not stay as long or spend as

much for balance-of-payments reasons. At the same time we are trying

to increase foreigia tourism here with the thought that any tax which

discouraged Americans from going abroad would be temporary.-

Nobody likes it in the sense that nobody wants to discourage travel.

Mr. RODINO. I agree with you Mr. Secretary, that we should

encourage travel. I very frankly find it difficult to accept the type of

proposal which is presently before the Congress which definitely,

in my opinion, serves to restrict travel abroad on the part of the

American who wants to tour other countries. It does, in my judgment

and in the judgment of many people whom I have talked with, seem

to impose a kind of barrier.

Mr. KATZENBACH. I certainly don't think there is any inconsistency

in the sense that however one feels about tax on American tourists

going abroad, it shouldn't affect one's judgment about this bill,

which would encourage foreigners to come here.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Secretary, does the present indefinite validity

visa adequately serve the purposes of this bill?

Mr. KATZENBACH. I think it does for the businessman who is the

frequent visitor. But it doesn't for the tourist who is coming over, who

is a once-a-year or once-every-5-years or once-a-lifetime visitor to the

United States, or even for the businessman who wants to make an

occasional trip and is not a frequent visitor.

I would expect that even with the passage of this bill, the businessman who makes frequent visits to the United States would continue
11

to get a visa which gives him a right to make an indefinite number

of trips because we would in our regulations have to take measures

to insure that the 90-day provision was not constantly and consistently

used in such a way that a person could extend it and spend 180 and

360 days. We would have to deal with that problem. We would want

to keep the visitor who visited 10 times a year, outside of this special

provision. So I think he would go get a visa.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Secretary, for the purposes of the record,

would you state what provisions of section 212(a) would continue to

apply?

Mr. KATZENBACH. Yes. The effect of the regulations would be to

continue the inadmissibility of the following: (1) the insane (2) aliens

who are mentally retarded, who have had one or more attacks of

insanity, are afflicted with psychopathic personality or a mental defect,

unless accompanied by a responsible person who would care for the

alien during his entire visit; (3) sexual deviates; (4) aliens afflicted

with a dangerous contagious disease; (5) aliens sentenced to imprisonment for 18 months or more upon conviction of a crime within the

past 5 years and aliens sentenced to imprisonment for more than 5

years, at any time; (6) aliens coming to engage in prostitution and

allied activities; (7) aliens who are likely to become a public charge;

(8) previous deportees; (9) stowaways, (10) aliens who have been convicted of any offense involving traffic in narcotic drugs or marihuana

or who are engaged in such traffic; (11) aliens who are not in possession

of a passport; and (12) aliens who would be dangerous to the security of

the United States.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Secretary, how would the alien know whether

he came within an excludable category?

Mr. KATZENBACH. He would sign a piece of paper that would sum

it up in the way that I have in simple language. It would say, "You are

ineligible for admission and may be denied admission to the United

States upon arrival if" and would then list all of these things. At the

bottom he would say, "I certify that none of these apply to me."

Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Secretary, doesn't this merely shift the determination of eligibility from the consular office to the aliens themselves?

Mr. KATZENBACH. Yes, to some extent that is true, but it is true

now to a considerable extent. The consular officer goes through an

interview or sees an application submitted by mail which asks these

questions. The alien answers them. If the consular officer has no information to the contrary, he issues the visa. So it is not perfection in

any event.

With respect to the cases that are serious, the most serious ones

are the security ones. All the information that is in the hands of the

U.S. Government with respect to persons of this kind would be the

basis of the Immigration Service lookout book. So that would be a very

simple matter. It is not particularly burdensome simply to check the

name upon arrival.

Of course there is the Public Health inspection when the traveler

arrives here. He has that in any event, as far as contagious diseases are

concerned.

With respect to the others, if we have any information conflicting

with the certification, we may send them back notwithstanding his

own certification.
12

In many of these instances, frankly, Mr. Chairman, if we don't

have any information to the contrary, as I say we now take the person's

word for it.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Secretary, would this proposed procedure apply

to countries behind the Iron Curtain?

Mr. KATZENBACH. It could, because it gives the Secretary of State

that kind of discretion. It is not our intention to do so, at least at the

outset, although two Iron Curtain countries have abolished any visa

requirements temporarily so far as American visitors are concerned.

Mr. FEIGHAN. You primarily would enact this procedure on the

basis of reciprocity?

Mr. KATZENBACH. Primarily, yes. Although there are two Iron

Curtain countries that have temporarily abolished visa requirements,

we would not intend, at least initially, to apply it there. I think we would

want some experience, for one thing, as to how it operated. We would

take it a little slowly in extending the privilege beyond Western

European countries and some others which, from the point of view of

the purpose of it, are where we find the people who are most likely to be

traveling. They are the people who most likely would be in a financial

position to come to this country. That is the major purpose of the bill.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Secretary, what penalties would you propose

for the alien entering the United States under the provisions of this

proposed bill and who then violates his status by overstaying the

90-day period or by accepting an appointment?

Mr. KATZENBACH. I think primarily the sanction would be simply

to return him. There could be other sanctions.

The thing that I think would perhaps be an effective sanction in

most of these instances would be to make sure that if that person who

came and overstayed and took employment, and so forth, were on a

priority list or had a labor certificate and was going to seek immigrant

status, that he go to the bottom of the list. It could be used as a

sanction against his future admission to the United States in another

status.

Mr. FEIGHAN. I was going to ask you what about the registered

immigrant who enters for 90 days but then decides to wait here using

judicial or administrative delays until his visa number comes up.

Could you deprive him of his priority number by regulations or would

it be necessary to include it in this legislation?

Mr. KATZENBACH. I think it would be desirable to include it in the

legislation. The bill does provide for no change of status here. I think

it is also extremely important that we don't let people use this provision to get an advantage over somebody who doesn't use it. I would

think that so far as the loss of priority is concerned, it would be good

to provide that by law. If you wish I would be happy to suggest some

language on that score.

I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that if the committee reports this bill,

it would make a strong statement about this point so it might deter

any exceptions in the future by special legislation on that subject. I

think it is important to recognize that people should not take advantage of a 90-day provision to get a preferred status in this country.

(The information to be furnished follows)

On page 2, line 8, H.R. 15651, add the following after the period:

"Notwithstanding any provision of law or regulation governing the chronological order in which immigrant visa applications are to be considered, an ap-

,11i1M1•10
13

plicant for an immigrant visa, who has at any time been admitted as a nonimmigrant under this subsection and who has willfully remained beyond the period of

authorized stay or who has failed to maintain the status in which he was admitted

by engaging in employment or otherwise, shall forfeit any priority for consideration for an immigrant visa if the date on which that priority is based precedes the

date of his departure from the United States. Notwithstanding the provisions of

section 205 the approval of an immigrant visa petition is revoked automatically

as of the date of approval if the beneficiary forfeits his priority date as provided

in this section."

PROPOSED REGULATIONS OF IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE TO

IMPLEMENT ADDITIONAL PROVISION IN H.R. 15651

Amend 8 CFR 205.1(a) by adding the following paragraph at the end:

"Upon a determination by a consular officer with respect to an applicant for

an immigrant visa, or by an immigration officer with respect to an applicant

for adjustment of status, that such applicant after admission as a temporary

visitor pursuant to section 212(d) (9) of the Act had during that visit wilfully

failed to maintain the status in which he was admitted or had wilfully remained

in the United States beyond the period of his authorized stay, the approval of

any petition filed on his behalf at any time prior to the date on which he departed

from the United States following such admission shall be automatically revoked,

and such petition may not be revalidated."

Amend 8 CFR 205.1 by adding the following as paragraph (e):

"(e) Aliens who are in the United States as temporary visitors pursuant to section 212(d)(9). Any petition filed on behalf of an alien while he is within the

United States pursuant to an admission under section 212(d) (9) of the Act shall

be denied upon the District Director's determination that such alien, during his

stay following such admission, wilfully failed to maintain the status in which

he was admitted or wilfully remained in the United States beyond the period

of this authorized stay. Notwithstanding any other provision of his part, no

appeal shall lie from the denial of a petition under this paragraph."

41.8 Nonimmigrants to whom certain provisions of section 212(a) shall not be

applicable

(a) Inapplicability of visa requirement of section 212(a)(26)(B). A visa shall not

be required of an alien seeking admission to the United States as a temporary

visitor for business or pleasure for not more than 90 days who (1) is a national of a

country designated by the Secretary of State pursuant to section 212(d) (9) of the

Act and paragraph (c) of this section or is the accompanying spouse or child of

such national; (2) is transported to the United States on a vessel or aircraft of a

transportation line that has entered into an agreement with the immigration and

Naturalization Service on Form 1-427 pursuant to section 238(d) (2) of the Act,

or travels to the United States from contiguous territory other than by vessel or

aircraft; (3) presents a valid passport and a properly executed Form 1-7; (4) is not

ineligible under any provision of section 212(a) of the Act or, if he is within such

provision, it is inapplicable to him in accordance with the terms of paragraph (b)

of this section; and, (5) was never refused a nonimmigrant visa by a United States

consular officer.

However, if all aliens who have at some time been denied a visa were to be

referred to the consular office for either a visa or a letter stating they are eligible

for the visa waiver, we believe that one of the most important objectives of the

bill would be negated.]

(b) Inapplicability of certain other provisions of section 212(a). The provisions

of the following paragraphs of section 212(a) of the Act shall be inapplicable to

an alien within the purview of paragraph (a) of this section: Paragraphs (1),

(3), and (4) with respect to the provisions of those paragraphs relating to aliens

who are mentally retarded, have had one or more attacks of insanity, are afflicted

with psychopathic personality or a mental defect, if the alien is accompanied by a

responsible person in whose care the alien will remain during the entire visit;

paragraphs (5) and (7) if the alien is not likely to become a public charge; paragraph (9) if the alien was not convicted within the past five years and sentenced

to imprisonment for eighteen months or more and if he was not sentenced at any

time to imprisonment for more than five years; paragraph (11); paragraph (12)

unless the alien is coming to the United States to engage in any conduct described

92-868-68-----3
14

in that paragraph; paragraphs (13), (14), (16), (19), (21), (22), (24), (25), (28)

and (31).

(c) Designation of countries whose nationals may be admitted under this section.

Paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section shall be applicable to:

(1) nationals of countries designated by the Secretary of State by Public

Notice published in the Federal Register pursuant to the provisions of

section 212(d) (9) of the Act; and,

(2) a national of any country except Albania, Communist-controlled China

("Chinese Peoples' Republic"), 

Cuba, 

North Korea ("Democratic Republic

of North Korea"), North Vietnam ("Democratic Republic of Vietnam"),

Outer Mongolia ("Mongolian Peoples' Republic"), or the Soviet Zone of

Germany ("German Democratic Republic"), who presents evidence issued

by the United States sponsor of such conference that he is a delegate to or

participant in an international conference designated by the Secretary of

State as being of significant interest to the United States, and the accompanying spouse or child of such delegate or participant.

(d) Classification and restrictions. An alien admitted pursuant to section

212(d) (9) of the Act shall be accorded classification symbol B-3 and shall be

ineligible to apply for change of status under section 245 or 248 of the Act, or for

extension of stay. A B-3 alien who becomes deportable may be granted the

privilege of voluntary departure without the institution of deportation proceedings

as provided in section 241(b) only if he establishes that he is ready, willing and

able to depart promptly from the United States or he establishes that his

inability to depart promptly is due entirely to circumstances beyond his control

Mr. FEIGHAN. Don't you think this legislation would result in a

sharp increase in the number of private bills introduced?

Mr. KATZENBACH. I think it would if there was an effort to use it

for that purpose and if the Congress did not make a clear-cut recognition that it was not going to allow adjustment of status for people

who came in on this kind of a basis and then pleaded the hardship of

going home.

There is no particular hardship in their going home because they

already have a nonrefundable ticket.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Rodin°.

Mr. RODIN°. On that question of a nonrefundable ticket, how do

you propose to determine whether the ticket, which you may construe

to be nonrefundable, is really nonrefundable?

Isn't this going to be a contract between a foreign national and a

tourist agency? And wouldn't you be violating some basic private

right of individuals to contract between themselves?

Mr. KATZENBACH. I don't think so, Mr. Congressman, because

in our contract with the transportation companies we would make

them responsible for the transportation back home and require that

they sell unrefundable tickets to such visitors.

MT. RODIN°. I hope it works.

Mr. KATZENBACH. I think it will.

Mr. RODINO. Mr. Secretary, you advanced the projection of the

number of tourists who might be visiting the United States within the

decade, between 7% to 10 million annually.

Is that projection based on the present procedure or the procedure

which we would adopt in this bill?

Mr. KATZENBACH. It is a projection that is based on this bill plus

other steps in a policy of increasing tourism.

As you get, for example, your large jet carriers, they must travel

with a load both ways on your Atlantic travel or your Pacific travel

to make a profit out of this. So if you look at this huge advance in

terms of spaces available, it can accommodate this many people.
15

There will be a tremendous incentive to do so. The comparable figures

for Americans going abroad, we would anticipate, would go up, too.

Mr. RODINO. I don't know whether I make myself clear, Mr.

Secretary.

If we do not enact this bill and still require the intending tourists

to have immigrant visas, would you still stick with the 7% to 10 million

figure you gave?

Mr. KATZENBACH. No, I think the figure would be lower if we didn't

do that. But it is almost impossible to make any projection as to the

effect of this particular bill that you can stand on and prove to anyone.

I do know that the experts in this the tourism people, the airlines,

the shipping companies, feel that this kind of procedure would make

a substantial difference in their promotion of tourism to the United

States. But how to measure it on a projection is too speculative for

me to know.

Mr. RODIN°. In other words, it would be difficult to ascertain what

the increase of nonimmigrant visitors would be under this bill?

Mr. KATZENBACH. Yes, because you are really dealing with a

psychological question to a large extent, and it ties in with other

things—how many package tours, how much promotion, all of this.

Mr. RODINO. Mr. Secretary, it would appear to me that preinspection abroad would facilitate admission of tourists upon arrival at

the U.S. ports of entry.

I am wondering if there has been any thought given to such a

proposal? If so, what conclusions have been reached?

Mr. KATZENBACH. There has been some thinking on that. Mr.

Farrell would be more of an expert than I. But they do have this

kind of a system in various places. I think we do it in Puerto Rico,

we do it in Montreal, if I recollect correctly, and I could certainly

envision the possibilities of principal airports doing a preinspection

so as to facilitate this in the United States.

In addition to that, I think it is possible to speed up that process as

you get into modern technology. I think you can get passenger manifests well in advance of the arrival of a plane. These can be gone over,

checked against the lookout book, and you can get rid of some of the

work in that way and speed up the process.

But I would think that a preinspection in some places where there

is a large amount of tourism would be a possibility.

Mr. RODINO. Wouldn't you say that under this bill, Mr. Secretary,

we are merely shifting the burden of responsibility in determining

admissibility of the alien or the intending tourist from the consular

officer to the immigration inspector? Isn't this what is actually going

to take place?

Mr. KATZENBACH. The immigration inspector does that anyhow.

So we are not significantly increasing his job. There is really a double

check system now. What would happen is that the information that is

now separately kept in a consular office or in the Embassy and the

information that the Immigration Service has would be consolidated

into your one book on ineligibles. All that information would be provided and the names would be there. So that everything we knew that

we could now be applying against this could be applied by the immigration inspector.
1

16

I think really about the only result to him is that he has got a somewhat bigger book to go through. He still speaks to every foreign visitor

coming into the country, checks his name against that lookout book

now, and I don't really think it would significantly increase that

burden.

Mr. RODINO. It may not increase that burden, but at the same time

the consular officer who was taking an adverse action certainly would

have stopped right then and there.

Mr. KATZENBACH. Yes, on the adverse actions, the thing would.

have stopped right then and there. Really, the great bulk of the adverse actions have been adverse actions that have been taken by the

consular officer for fear that the person was not genuinely a nonimmigrant and that what he wanted to do was to get to the United States

and then apply for adjustment to immigrant status.

So that in a sense, Congressman, it really- discriminated against

some poor people who had relatives in the United States and wanted

to come to visit them.

Mr. RODINO. I agree with you, Mr. Secretary. I have experienced

many cases like that.

Mr. KATZENBACH. They were denied that kind of a visa for fear

that they would stay permanently. This bill would eliminate that, but

then you have got to be tough at the other end and say, "We are going

to be tough about your status. You can come to visit your relatives

but you are not going to get any advantage out of doing it."

Mr. RODINO. I agree with you. At least in my experience in the

Congress in the past 20 years, I know there were many people who

wanted to visit their relatives here. I know of many obstacles and

difficulties they encountered when going before a well-intentioned

consular officer who took upon himself the authority to probe the

mind of the individual and say, "Well, I know that this is a case where

you are not .coming back" and stop then and there.

Mr. KATZENBACH. I think the round trip ticket coupled with

tough adjustment of status provisions would mean that we would no

longer have to worry, really, about that. That has been the big

worry of the consular officers.

Mr. RODINO. Mr. Secretary, I would disagree on that score because

I know of cases where there have been round trip, nonrefundable

tickets which in my judgment showed a clear intention on the part

of these people to return aboard and who didn't have the kind of

money to spend, or to throw away. Yet, with all of this it was determined in the mind of a consular officer that the intention was not

bona fide. They were just going to the United States to stay and just

bought this ticket only to misrepresent the case.

Mr. KATZENBACH. We would get rid of that problem.

Mr. RODINO. Yes. Mr. Secretary, I have one last question.

What advantage would this kind of a procedure have in terms of

time over the present procedures including visas by mail? Can you

tell us something on that score?

Mr. KATZENBACH. It is hard to estimate those times. Let me just

sort of give you the range of them.

If you apply for a visa by mail, not including the time necessary for

the person to collect the necessary documentation that has to accompany it and assuming that he has all of that documentation, then he

would probably get his visa in about 7 or 8 days from the time,he

applied for it by mail.

-
17

If he went around to the Embassy or the consular office, it would

depend on the length of the line, which might in turn depend on the

season of the year. But from the time he actually saw the consular

officer, assuming he had all the documentation and not counting the

time in line, it would take him about 15 minutes.

If there was then a problem about it, and he was potentially ineligible and it was a situation where you had to seek a waiver, then that

time element goes up 30, 60, 90, and 100 days in that very small

percentage of the cases.

Our interest, of course, is to make it as simple as possible.

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

Mr. FEIGHAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.

You have been extremely helpful as usual.

I do also want to state for the record that you have been accompanied by Mr. Nathan Lewin, Deputy Administrator of the Bureau

of Security and Consular Affairs.

We are very happy to have had you with us, also, Mr. Lewin.

Mr. LEWIN. Thank you.

(The State Department submitted the following statistics to further

answer the inquiry concerning time saved if visas were issued by mail:)

NONIMMIGRANT VISAS ISSUED TO NATIONALS OF COUNTRIES WHICH GENERALLY DO NOT REQUIRE

VISAS OF U.S. CITIZEN VISITORS

Nationality

Fiscal year 1967 1st half fiscal year 1968

Visas issued Revalidations,

-:;:orary

visitors 1

Visas issued Revalidations,

temporary

Nonimmigrant visitors 1

total

Temporary Nonimmigrant

total

Temporary

visitors

Austria 9,797 8,281 678 4,665 3,901 351

Barbados 1,675 1,520 4 1,461 1,260 15

Belgium 11,235 9,980 497 6,376 5,759 260

Botswana 12 1 19 1

Cyprus 301 172 2 215 119 3

Denmark 13,358 11, 192 957 6,473 5,167 381

Finland 7,252 6,238 371 2,904 2,199 107

France 80,751 71,811 5.244 46,038 41,346 2,442

Germany 101,609 91.303 5,356 48,497 42,824 1,686

Great Britain 197, 615 174, 889 11,685 81, 500 69, 915 5,002

Greece 15,114 9,727 663 10,234 6,250 370

Guyana 3,124 2,415 152 2,184 1,541 55

Iceland 1,782 1,382 44 1,111 862 8

Ireland 11,624 10,147 417 6,442 5,816 304

Israel 18, 173 14, 156 1,124 10, 758 7,978 600

ltaly 53, 273 47, 432 5,357 31,156 27, 939 2,794

Jamaica 16, 324 13, 974 2,257 8,626 7,436 1,150

Liechtenstein 25 24 2 32 31 1

Luxembourg 429 382 9 339 317 1

Malawi 50 5 92 14

Malta 631 581 1 160 138 1

Monaco 33 32 1 33 31 2

Morocco 1,607 1,106 82 869 696 72

Netherlands 34, 038 30, 226 3,767 14,020 12, 218 1,378

Norway 16, 551 7,683 293 7,997 3,881 158

Paraguay 798 462 2 447 246 2

Portugal 6,436 5,306 407 4,127 3,547 240

San Marino 23 22 1 14 13 2

Spain 17, 364 11,803 790 9,056 6,458 516

Sweden 21,528 18,742 860 10,305 8,582 499

Switzerland 24,275 22, 275 726 12, 834 11,860 428

Thailand 4,421 1, 139 8 2,864 603 3

Trinidad and Tobago_ _ _ _ 8,219 6,917 303 6,774 5,774 147

Tunisia 527 281 9 314 223 8

Turkey 3,749 2,478 136 2,064 1,303 89

Uruguay 3,448 2,696 24 1,653 1,249 14

Subtotal 687,171 586, 780 42, 229 342, 653 287, 497 19, 089

Grand total 1, 152, 103 931, 057 84,268 604,807 479,947 43,632

I Estimated.
18

NONIMMIGRANT VISAS ISSUED AT POSTS IN COUNTRIES WHICH GENERALLY DO NOT REQUIRE VISAS OF U.S

CITIZEN VISITORS

Area total

Fiscal year 1967 1st half fiscal year 1968

Visas issued Revalidations, Visas issued Revalidations,

temporary temporary

Nonimmigrant Temporary visitors Nonimmigrant Temporary visitors'

total visitors total

American Republics Area_ 39, 759 33, 342 3,226 22, 831 19, 061 1,316

Europe 534, 673 460, 352 24, 944 252, 860 213, 917 9,536

East Asia 12, 182 6,944 944 7,944 3,933 449

Near East and Asia_ __ _ 29,464 19,847 804 17,915 10,921 235

Africa 2,645 1,685 6 1,356 1,005 1

Subtotal 618,723 522, 170 29,924 302,906 248,837 11,537

Grand total 1, 152, 103 931, 057 104, 274 604, 807 479, 947 54, 983

NON IMMIGRANT VISAS ISSUED AT POSTS IN COUNTRIES WHICH GENERALLY DO NOT REQUIRE VISAS OF U.S.

CITIZEN VISITORS

Post

Fiscal year 1967 1st half fiscal year 1968

Visas issued Revalidations,'

Visas issued Revalidations,I

temporary

visitors

Nonimmigrant

Temporary

visitors

temporary

visitors

NonimmigrantTemporary

visitors

AMERICAN REPUBLIC'S AREA

Barbados: Bridgetown 5,079 4,451 61 2,700 2,383

British Honduras: Belize 1,638 1,122 16 1,155 830 3

Guyana: Georgetown 3,087 2,495 174 2,144 1,519 41

Jamaica: Kingston 16, 867 14, 592 2,794 8,302 7,231 1,230

Paraguay: Asuncion 796 471 6 419 221 8

Trinidad: Port of Spain 8,585 7.276 175 6.573 5,681 34

Uruguay: Montevideo 3,607 2.335 1,538 1,196

EUROPE

Austria: Vienna 7,431 6,310 365 3,449 2,777 135

Bahamas: Nassau 8.683 7,568 2,735 5,805 5,254 1,534

Belgium:

Brussels 7,315 6,205 200 4,052 3,555

Antwerp 3,551 3,265 77 2,263 2,041 62

Bermuda: Hamilton • 721 624 155 452 382 121

Denmark: Copenhagen 11,950 9,857 643 5,899 4,531 212

Finland: Helsinki 6, 124 5,318 191 2,369 1,732 55

France:

Paris 56,031 47,960 3,463 31,000 26,969 1,213

Bordeaux 3,198 3.077 29 1,610 1,518

Lyon 4,603 4,357 84 2,905 2,730 24

Marseille 3,825 3,617 27 1,774 1,603

Nice 2,757 2,633 153 1,753 1.695 39

Strasbourg 2.769 2,613 4 1,254 1.184

French West Indies: Martinique 2,028 1,865 1,545 1,508

Germany:

Bonn 5,339 4.178 20 3.622 2,969

Berlin 6,533 6, 154 255 3,049 2,807 1

Bremen 7,379 6.164 179 1,768 1,499

Duesseldorf 13,500 12,439 89 5,440 4,952

Frankfurt 18,011 16.693 713 8,244 7,408 131

Hamburg 16, 572 13, 065 510 7,844 5,948 144

Munich 11,878 10,930 576 6,290 5.728 4

Stuttgart 14, 111 13, 225 409 6.210 5.737 30

Great Britain and Northern Ireland:

London 119,254 103,515 5,064 51,591 42,920 2,213

Belfast 6,142 5,862 3 1,571 1,454

Edinburgh 24,908 23,749 120 6,564 6,204

Liverpool 21, 227 19, 436 1,594 7,295 6,559 547

Iceland: Reykjavik 1,804 1.422 34 1,135 888 3

Ireland: Dublin 9,911 8,447 438 5.502 4,956 297

Italy:

Rome 9,362 7,517 866 5,672 4.708 231

Florence 2,424 2,255 254 1.305 1, 188 126

Genoa 2,047 1,022 141 881 556 118

Milan 6,862 6,228 586 4.221 3, 597 284

Naples 4,726 4,128 186 2,359 2,005 88

Palermo 4,907 4,748 161 2,857 2,793

Trieste 1,454 1, 141 82 860 758 46

Turin 1,846 1,708 162 1,246 1,152 62

Luxembourg: Luxembourg 510 448 433 370

Malta: Valetta 574 533 140 126

1 Estimated.
19

NONIMMIGRANT VISAS ISSUED AT POSTS IN COUNTRIES WHICH GENERALLY DO NOT REQUIRE VISAS OF U.S.

CITIZEN VISITORS-Continued

Fiscal year 1967 1st half fiscal year 1968

Post Visas issued Revalidations,1

Visas issued Revalidations,1

temporary

visitors

Nonimmigrant

Temporary

visitors

temporary

visitors

Nonimmigrant

Temporary

visitors

EUROPE-Continued

Netherlands:

The Hague 150 46 77 32

Amsterdam 14, 234 12, 338 1,454 5,770 4,832 508

Rotterdam 11,336 9,981 649 3,873 3,272 204

Netherlands Antilles: Curacao 2,816 2,472 689 1,592 1,435 264

Norway: Oslo 15, 355 6,510 168 7,486 3,371 85

Portugal:

Lisbon_ 2,526 1,742 120 1,282 963 54

Oporto 429 370 277 230

Ponta Delgada 433 399 263 249

Spain:

Madrid 7,266 5,259 366 4,117 2,876 103

Barcelona 2,044 1,892 146 1,155 1,071 73

Bilbao 3,078 751 1,318 389 58

Seville 463 932 274 240 2

Valencia 490 396 283 240

Surinam: Paramaribo 655 580 69 332 270 28

Sweden:

Stockholm 14, 430 12, 821 521 6,958 6,046 390

Goteborg 6,130 5,241 193 2,906 2,211 47

Switzerland:

Bern 8, 127 7,491 6,076 5,369

Zurich 12, 444 11,395 1 6,589 6,060

EAST ASIA

Fiji Islands: Suva 1,899 1,660 153 1,011 907 73

Hong Kong: Hong Kong 5,769 4,053 791 4,026 2,387 376

Thailand: Bangkok 4,514 1.231 2,907 639

NEAR EAST AND ASIA

Men: Aden 48 40 Closed

Cyprus: Nicosia 310 195 204 117

Greece:

Athens 9,515 4,929 6,744 3,227

Thessaloniki 544 414 14 301 220 4

Israel: Tel Aviv 16, 077 12, 440 783 9,087 6,500 228

Turkey:

Ankara 1,242 450 2 641 204

Adana 54 36 34 16

Istanbul 1,528 1,258 3 818 600 2

Izmir 146 85 2 86 37 1

AFRICA

Angola: Luanda 73 67 12 11

Malawi: Blantyre 168 43 84 25

Morocco:

Rabat 721 264 371 231

Casablanca 674 631 6 382 371 1

Tangier 104 91 72 54

Mozambique: Lourenco Marques 47 43 28 24

Southern Rhodesia: Salisbury 358 292 163 127

Tunisia: Tunis 500 254 244 162

1 Estimated.
20

POSSIBLE MANPOWER SAVINGS RESULTING FROM THE WAIVING OF TEMPORARY VISITOR VISA REQUIREMENTS

AT POSTS IN COUNTRIES WHICH GENERALLY DO NOT REQUIRE VISAS OF U.S.CI TI ZEN VISITORS

Post

Visas issued Percentage

of

total

NIV's

Temporary visitor

Nonimmigrant

total

Temporary

visitors

Man-hours 1 Man-year

savings

American Republics Area:

Barbados: Bridgetown 5,079 4,451 87.6 3,810 1

British Honduras: Belize 1,638 1, 122 68.5 1,910

Guyana: Georgetown 3,187 2,495 78.3 1,991

Jamaica: Kingston 16, 867 14, 592 88.5 9,972 4

Paraguay: Asuncion 796 471 59.2 648

Trinidad: Port of Spain 8,585 7,276 84. 8 5,783 2

Uruguay: Montevideo 3,607 2,935 81.4 1,861

Total 39, 759 33, 342 83.9 25, 975 7

Europe:

Austria: Vienna 7,431 6,310 84.9 5,383 2

Bahamas: Nassau 8,683 7,568 87.2 5,826 2

Belgium:

Brussels 7,315 6,205 84. 8 3,549 1

Antwerp 3,551 3,265 91.9 3,806 1

Bermuda: Hamilton 721 624 86.5 286

Denmark: Copenhagen 11,950 9,857 82.5 5,023 2

Finland: Helsinki 6,124 5,318 86.8 2,518 1

France:

Paris 56, 031 47, 960 85.6 26, 703 12

Bordeaux 3,198 3,077 96.2 3,047 1

Lyon 4,603 4,357 94.6 3,661 1

Marseille 3,825 3,617 94.6 933

Nice 2,757 2,633 95.5 1,324

Strasbourg 2,769 2,613 94.4 1,766

French West Indies: Martinique 2,028 1,865 92.0 1,401

Germany:

Bonn 5,339 4,178 78.2 2,080 1

Berlin 6,533 6,154 94.2 10, 352 4

Bremen 7,379 6, 164 83. 5 2,694 1

Dusseldorf 13, 500 12, 439 92. 1 6,703 3

Frankfurt 18,011 16,693 92.7 7,712 3

Hamburg 16, 572 13, 065 78.8 14, 323 6

Munich 11,878 10, 930 92.0 6,992 3

Stuttgart 14,111 13,225 93.7 6,899 3

Great Britain and North Ireland:

London 119,254 103,515 86.8 29,024 13

Belfast 6,142 5,862 95.4 3,374 1

Edinburgh 24,908 23,749 95.3 6,727 3

Liverpool : 21, 227 19,436 91.6 5,265 2

Iceland: Reykjavik 1,804 1,422 78.8 1,237

Ireland: Dublin 9,911 8,447 85.2 4,136 1

Italy:

Rome 9,362 7,517 80.3 10, 192 4

Florence 2,424 2, 255 93.0 4,633 2

Genoa 2,047 1,022 49.9 2,545 1

Milan 6,862 6,228 90.8 5,237 2

Naples 4,726 4,128 87.3 5,296 2

Palermo 4,907 4,748 96.8 9,289 4

Trieste 1,454 1, 141 78.5 1,366

Turin 1,846 1,708 92.5 2,172 1

Luxembourg: Luxembourg 510 448 87.8 155

Malta: Valletta 574 533 92.8 474

Netherlands:

,The Hague 150 46 30.7 8

Amsterdam 14,234 12, 338 86.7 4,456 2

Rotterdam 11,336 9,981 88.0 7,588 3

Netherlands Antilles: Curacao 2,816 2,472 87.8 2,349 1

Norway: Oslo 15,355 6,510 42.4 3,530 1

Portugal:

Lisbon 2,526 1,742 69.0 2,516 1

Oporto 429 370 86.2 502

Ponta Delgada 433 399 92.1 1,358

Spain:

Madrid 7,266 5,259 72.4 3,351 1

Barcelona 2,044 1,892 92.6 1,593

Bilbao 3,078 751 24.4 689

Seville 463 392 84.7 481

Valencia 490 396 80.8 453

Surinam: Paramaribo 655 580 88.5 522

Sweden:

Stockholm 14,430 12, 821 88.8 7,273 3

Goteborg 6,130 5,241 85. 5 2,284 1

See footnotes at end of table, p. 21.
21•

POSSIBLE MANPOWER SAVINGS RESULTING FROM THE WAIVING OF TEMPORARY VISITOR] VISA REQUIREMENTS

AT POSTS IN COUNTRIES WHICH GENERALLY DO NOT REQUIRE VISAS OF U.S. CITIZEN VISITORS-Con.

Post

Visas issued Percentage

of

total

N IV's

Temporary visitor

Nonimmigrant

total

Temporary

visitors

Man-hours 1 Man-year

savings

Switzerland:

Bern 8,127 7,491 92.2 5.488 2

Zurich 12,444 11,395 91.6 4,873 2

Total 534,673 460,352 86. 1 263, 417 100

East Asia:

Fiji Islands: Suva 

Hong Kong: Hong Kong 

1,899

5,769

1,660

4,053

87.4

70.2

2,245

7,952 3

Thailand: Bangkok 4,514 1,231 27.3 2,267 1

Total 12, 812 6,944 57.0 12,464 4

Near East and Asia:

Aden: Aden 48 40 83.3

Cyprus: Nicosia 310 195 62.9 491

Greece:

Athens 9,515 4,929 51.8 8,376 4

Thessaloniki 544 414 76.1 2,415 1

Israel: Tel Aviv 16,077 12, 440 77.4 7,354 3

Turkey:

Ankara 1,242 450 36.2 560

Adana 54 36 66.7 233

Istanbul 1,528 1,258 82.3 3,067 1

Izmir 146 85 58.2 73

Total 29,464 19,847 67.4 22,569 9

Africa:

Angola: Luanda 73 67 91.8 129

Malawi: Blantyre 168 43 25.6 25

Morocco:

Rabat 721 264 36.6 90

Casablanca 674 631 93.6 831

Tangier 104 91 87.5 245

Mozambique: Lourenco Marques 47 43 91.5 270

Southern Rhodesia: Salisbury 358 292 81.6 1,281

Tunisia: Tunis_ 500 254 50.8 183

Total 2,645 1,685 63.7 3,054

Totals:

American Republics Area 39, 759 33, 342 83.9 25, 975 7

Europe 534, 673 460, 352 86. 1 263, 417 100

East Asia 12, 182 6,944 57.0 12, 464 4

Near East and Asia 29,464 19, 847 67.4 22, 569 9

Africa 2,645 1,685 63.7 3,054

Grand total 618,723 522, 170 84.4 327, 479 120

1 Estimated: Man-year savings estimated on the basis of 2,080 man-hours per man-year, rounded downward to the

next full man-year to allow for growth in other visa activities, and to provide for necessary leave and holidays.

NONIMMIGRANT VISAS ISSUED AND REVALIDATED AT FOREIGN SERVICE POSTS

Fiscal year 1965 Fiscal year 1966 Fiscal year 1967

Per- Per- PerArea Issued and Total centage Issued and Total centage Issued and Total centage

revalidated by mail by revalidated by mail by revalidated by mail by,

mail mail mail

AF 16, 738 5,525 33 18, 376 5, 588 30 20, 122 6,200 31

ARA 451,317 65,630 15 '384 252 82, 399 21 2 339, 405 81,496 24

EA 114, 793 38, 245 33 125, 146 43, 124 34 150, 259 55, 019 37

EU R 510, 362 231, 298 45 566, 697 254, 946 45 680, 481 338, 672 50

N EA 48,754 13,476 28 51,756 15,990 31 55,112 16.905 30

Total 3 1,141, 964 354, 174 31 4 1, 146, 227 402, 047 35 5 1, 246, 379 498, 292 40

1 In addition 74,259 border crossing cards were issued at interior Foreign Service posts in Mexico.

2 in addition 163,485 border crossing cards were issued at interior Foreign Service posts in Mexico.

3 In addition 7,117 issued in the Department.

4 In addition 8,148 issued in the Department.

5 In addition 9,998 issued in the Department.
22

Mr. FEIGHAN. Our next witness will be another old friend, the

Honorable Raymond F. Farrell, Commissioner of Immigration and

Naturalization in the Department of Justice, accompanied by Mr.

James L. Hennessy, executive assistant. It is always a pleasure to have

either one or both of you with us.

Mr. FARRELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Would you care to make any statement or shall we

just ask you questions for the record?

Mr. FARRELL. Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Katzenbach has stated

it all so clearly that I think I can best serve the interest of this committee by making myself available for questions.

STATEMENT OF HON. RAYMOND F. FARRELL, COMMISSIONER,

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION, DEPARTMENT OF

JUSTICE, ACCOMPANIED BY JAMES L. HENNESSY, EXECUTIVE

ASSISTANT

Mr. FEIGHAN. If an alien arrives in the United States under this

proposed legislation and is found to be excludable, what steps would be

taken to effectuate his removal from the United States?

Mr. FARRELL. We would have to go through the same procedures

we go through today with the visaed applicant for admission. If the

examining immigrant inspector did not believe the alien was clearly

and beyond a doubt entitled to admission, he would inform the

alien that he was being held for a further hearing before a special

inquiry officer of the Service under section 235. From an order of

excludability and deportation entered by a special inquiry officer,

there would be an appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals here

in Washington, which would conclude the administrative procedures

in the case. Pending the final administrative review, the alien would

be held in dbtention ; would be permitted to return; or would be paroled

into the United States on a deferred inspection basis under section

212(d)(5). Our current procedure is to detain relatively few applicants for admission.

If the final decision is to exclude and deport the alien, under the

terms of the contract between participating carriers and the Service,

the steamship line or airline which brought the alien to the United

States would be obligated to honor the return trip portion of the ticket

and to remove him .from the United States.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Could the alien who was found to be excludable contest his excludability through judicial review?

Mr. FARRELL. I think the only way would be through a writ of

habeas corpus which is I think what you had in mind.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Would it not be feasible for immigration officers

stationed abroad to preinspect aliens destined for the United States

as tourists?

Mr. FARRELL. In connection with some of our thinking in connection with the new jumbo jets, we have thought that we might have

to come to this. We might have to have people stationed in at least

four countries abroad, London, Frankfurt, Rome, and places like that.

But we haven't quite crossed that bridge. It may be that if we had a

little experience with the 90-day tourists, we might have to come to

that.
23

Mr. FEIGHAN. At present, Mr. Commissioner, approximately how

many names are listed in the lookout book used by the immigration

inspectors in screening aliens at the port of entry?

Mr. FARRELL. There are approximately 47,000 names.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Are you in a position to advise the committee how

many aliens are excluded at the port of entry because their name is

listed in the lookout book?

Mr. FARRELL. I don't have the exact figure, Mr. Chairman. But

it is approximately 1,000. There are some others, of course, which are

excluded without hearings also at the ports.

Mr. FEIGHAN. In your opinion, Mr. Commissioner

'

would the

combining of the State Department lookout book with the Immigration

Service lookout book make the screening process too burdensome and

too unwieldy at the port of entry?

Mr. FARRELL. No, sir. I think that we will have to devise some

method of obtaining the name of passengers coming in in advance.

It also may be that some of these people will be coming from specific

countries such as Italy and we might be able to break it down by

nationalities. There are some other things that we probably could do

in this connection. Our present book is cumbersome in a way. We have

been trying to find ways of working with it a little better. I think we

are going to be able to handle that.

I think also this provision in the regulation that Mr. Katzenbach

referred to will help us. That would be one where if a person knows,

he is on a waiting list to come here for permanent residence and he

knows if he violates this 90-day rule that he would go to the bottom of

the list. I think this will be a great deterrent. I also think that some of

the things we are trying to work out now with the Social Security

Administration would be very helpful.

We plan to transmit to Social Security under section 290 of the

immigration law the names of these people who may have appeared

to have violated the rules. They would run them against their list to

see whether any of these people are working to enable us to find them

more readily and expel them.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Rodino.

Mr. RODINO. Mr. Commissioner, would you suggest then that we

write into the legislation a provision which would dictate that the name

of that individual who was here for 90 days as a nonimmigrant go

down to the bottom of the list?

Mr. FARRELL. Congressman, that would require legislation. Yes, I

think it would be desirable.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Do you think it should be included in this?

Mr. FARRELL. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. RODINO. Commissioner, you heard the Under Secretary testify

a while ago in answer to one of my questions.

The question was whether or not, in his judgment, he did not believe that the action that would be contemplated here would not be

merely a shifting of the burden of responsibility in determining admissibility from the consular officer to the immigration officer. What would

you reply to this?

Mr. FARRELL. Mr. Congressman, it certainly would. But I do feel

we can handle this. It may be that we will handle it as we have been

doing in the past. We may have to eventually, as I say, have some

people abroad in several countries.
24

Mr. RODIN°. In view of the fact that the Secretary also projected

quite a radical increase in the number of tourists who would come to.

the United States, and considering the proposed increase that might

come under this new policy, wouldn't this mean adding to the staff of

immigration inspectors considerably?

Mr. FARRELL. I am not really prepared to say that it would. I

think we would have to augment it. We might have to have some

people abroad as you have indicated. I think, however, that if we

can keep these people from taking employment in the United States,

that this would go a long way toward solving the problem.

People actually won't stay in a country unless they can work

there. With these provisions which would put them down at the

bottom of a waiting list which they might be on, I think with that

plus the fact that their names would be submitted to the Social

Security agency so that they couldn't obtain employment—as the

only people who are allowed to work in the United States, as you

know, are U.S. citizens and resident-aliens and other people with

permission—I think there won't be any incentive for these people to

remain in the United States beyond the 90-day period.

Mr. RODINO. Mr. Commissioner, returning to the question I

addressed to the Secretary concerning nonrefundable, round trip

tickets, in your experience as the Commissioner, you have dealt with

those who have come here, who have overstayed their time and sought

to stay indefinitely.

Could you tell us whether in the course of your investigations you

have found that some of these aliens had purchased nonrefundable

tickets and still showed an intention to stay here through this apparatus of nonrefundable ticket?

Mr. FARRELL. Yes, Mr. Congressman. Some of them did have

round trip tickets. But here, of course, it is going to be stamped right

on it that it is a nonrefundable ticket. The carriers are going to impress this upon them, that we do have this added factor, and that

there are certain penalties that will be provided in the event they do

stay beyond the 90-day period.

Mr. RODINO. In other words, the nonrefundable ticket which is

supposed to act as a protective measure really doesn't always work.

An individual can have a round trip, nonrefundable ticket and still

sty here.

Do you think it is going to alter that person's intentions if that is

what he decides to do?

Mr. FARRELL. Mr. Congressman, I think they had the round trip

ticket but I don't think it has stamped right on there that it is nonrefundable. I don't think it has been impressed on them by the carriers

to the extent we are going to enforce this law.

Mr. RODINO. So then you would conclude in this case, especially

where many people are in very moderate circumstances, the sum of

money involved here would be sufficiently prohibitive to keep them

from staying here on a permanent basis?

Mr. FARRELL. I think so, Congressman, in the majority of cases.

It is a psychological factor involved. Then, as I say, we do have this

addition of the penalties and the fact they go down to the bottom of

the list and the fact they could be also perhaps subject to other

penalties if they didn't tell the truth about things.
25

Then, also, there is the fact that they wouldn't be able to work

and therefore there wouldn't be much inducement for them to try

to stay.

Mr. RODINO. Mr. Commissioner, would this proposed legislation in

any way minimize our security screening procedures and if so, to any

substantial extent prejudice us?

Mr. FARRELL. I don't think so, Mr. Congressman. We go into these

things rather thoroughly. Our experience with people who have come

here over the years as visitors has been that most of them actually

leave. It is perhaps only 1 percent that we have to be concerned with

from an enforcement standpoint.

Mr. RODINO. Would false or fraudulent statements in the form

which would be filled out at the airline terminal be subject to prosecution in the United States?

Mr. FARRELL. Sir, it was our thought that we would treat that as

though it had been a false statement made before a U.S. consul. It

would put them in the position of having obtained a visa by fraud and

therefore they would be ineligible to return to the United States at

any time as a permanent resident under the existing law.

I suppose they could also be prosecuted for a false statement to a

Federal official in the same manner that they can now be prosecuted

for a false statement to the U.S. Consul abroad.

Mr. RODINO. You don't contemplate any huge number in this area?

Mr. FARRELL. NO, sir.

Mr. RODINO. I have one last question, Mr. Commissioner.

Would you describe the method for granting a waiver under the

provisions of section 212(d) (3) of the Immigration and Nationality

Act, the waiver of grounds of excludability for security reasons?

Mr. FARRELL. First, it is first referred to as the law is now, it comes

to us from the State Department after they have looked into it, and

have made a definite recommendation to the Immigration and

Naturalization Service. It is really up to the Attorney General to

delegate it.

Then if we concur in that, the waiver is granted.

Mr. Hennessy has reminded me that in efforts sometimes to expedite

these, we have been able to accomplish them in as short a period as

3 weeks.

Mr. RODINO. In your judgment, Mr. Commissioner, the bill

presently before us with the suggestions you have made, is the kind of

bill that you feel would do the job that has been indicated by the

Secretary in promoting more tourism to the United States, and at the

same time would safeguard under the proper restrictions and proper

guidelines the national security interest?

Mr. FARRELL. Yes, I do, Mr. Congressman, because I feel that

perhaps some of these provisions could even be extended to other than

the 90-day tourist and would give us a lot more effective enforcement

than we have now.

Mr. RODINO. Thank you, very much.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Thank you, Mr. Commissioner, and Mr. Hennessy

for your usual very comprehensive and illuminating testimony.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Our next witness will be Mr. John W. Black,

Director of the Travel Service of the Department of Commerce.

We extend to you a very warm welcome, Mr. Black.

You may proceed.
26

STATEMENT OF JOHN W. BLACK, DIRECTOR, U.S. TRAVEL

SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Mr. BLACK. I have a very,brief statement.

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am pleased

to appear in support of H.R. 15651, a bill to eliminate the mandatory

visa requirement for certain overseas visitors and businessmen.

The essential arguments for this legislation have already been

presented to you in the President's communication of February 23,

and in the testimony of previous Government witnesses. I would

only add to these remarks by stressing the importance of this measure

in our efforts to promote a greater flow of foreign travelers to the

United States in alleviation of our critical balance-of-payments

problem.

The legislation before you applies only to overseas travelers. Last

year our deficit with overseas countries was $898 million, or about 43

percent of the total imbalance in our travel account. During the 7

years our government-industry "Visit U.S.A." program has been

in operation, we have made considerable progress in building up

overseas traffic.

Last year approximately three times as many business and pleasure

visitors entered the United States as in 1960, and our receipts from

these visitors rose by 170 percent, from $224 to $604 million.

Even so, our overseas deficit increased by $135 million because of

the greater number of American tourists going abroad.

I believe the relative success of our Government's travel program

has been greatly aided by the progress made during this period in

liberalizing visa procedures—particularly .through the mail order visa,

instituted in 1963, and the indefinite visa and transit-without-visa

regulations adopted last year. But more needs to be done.

The Tfavel Advisory Committee to the Secretary of Commerce

has consistently recommended to the executive branch that action be

taken on the matter of visa waiver. Typical of the committee's attitude

on eliminating the visa requirement is the following resolution which

it adopted in 1966:

The Travel Advisory Committee, noting that 1967 has been designated International Travel Year and noting further the overall objective to bring into equilibrium our payments balance, urges introduction of visa waiver legislation on a

reciprocal basis with friendly countries at the earliest opportunity during the

next Congress.

One of the primary themes we have tried to exploit in our promotional program is the friendliness and hospitality of the American

people. .Adoption of the proposed legislation would give further thrust

to this message by making our Government's greeting of visitors

appear gracious rather than grudging.

Thank you.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Black.

What is the type of visitor you are trying to reach through the

provisions of this bill?

Mr. BLACK. This would apply primarily to tourists and businessmen, at least those who don't have the indefinite visa or the long-term

Visa. But I think the primary objective here is the tourist who comes

to the United States usually in many cases for the first time or on a

very infrequent basis. We; from the research we have done, see that

r
27

a greater and greater percentage of our tourists are first-time visitors.

Almost a third of them from Europe now are first-time visitors.

It is these people we can attract with somewhat more ease if we

make the visa requirement less onerous or abolish it.

Mr. FEIGHAN. You are quite confident that the provisions of this

bill would result in the increase of such travel?

Mr. BLACK. I would agree completely with Secretary Katzenbach

and his remarks on that. But the effect will be to increase travel.

I think my greatest reason for believing that, sir, is that the people

who are making money out of promoting travel are airlines, travel

agents, and tour operators who have been consistently urging this as

a way of building up business. It is going to help them and help us.

I don't think they would urge that if in their own good business

judgment they didn't think it would be valuable.

Mr. FEIGHAN. What kind of programs would you undertake to

publicize this new type of visitor status?

Mr. BLACK. We would, depending upon the availability of funds,

certainly make great mention of this in the trade press. We have a

trade advertising campaign. We would do the same kind of thing in

promoting this as we did in promoting the mail-order visa.

We ran several ads proclaiming the fact, "Now you can get a visa

by post," and so forth. We would do the same thing here. We would

make this an essential element of any consumer advertising we have.

Mr. FEIGHAN. I suppose the foreign or U.S. transportation companies and travel agents would participate and cooperate in every

way?

Mr. BLACK. Yes: I think foreign travel agents who are selling

"Visit U.S.A." would. It would be of great sales value. I am sure

they would join in that.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Rodino?

Mr. RODINO. Mr. Black, let me ask you, in the event the suggestions of the Industry-Government Special Task Force on Travel are

carried out, such as reduction of rates and fares and exemptions from

certain taxes, would you think that we would experience any domestic

criticism (from the Americans who travel throughout the United

States and wouldn't enjoy the same kind of privileges as a foreign

tourist would?

Mr. BLACK. Mr. Rodino, I think we might get some of that. In

fact, we already have gotten a little bit of it. Whether it is justified

or not—I don't think it is—the reactions still come. I don't think it is

going to be terribly important. But we have had it.

Mr. RODINO. How would you justify that kind of discrimination,

so to speak?

Mr. BLACK. We have to justify it, I suppose, in the same way we

justify the proposal for a travel tax on Americans going overseas.

We have a very critical balance-of-payments program. We are having

to take some extreme measures to increase the flow of travel to this

country and cut down our so-called travel deficit.

I don't think, personally, over the long run this is the way to promote travel to this country. I don't think we should increase travel by

putting our tourism in the bargain basement, over the long run. I think

we have got a lot to sell in this country. I don't think it is overpriced.
28

We have a critical situation with us today, and this may be one way

of hypoing the flow of visitors to this country, to get us over this

emergency period.

Mr. RODINO. You heard my question directed to the Secretary

whether or not he didn't consider it inconsistent that we are asked to

impose a travel tax on certain tourists who travel overseas.

It seems to me it places a restriction on travel of the American

tourist who wants to visit relatives abroad, or who, as a student, wants

to acquire more knowledge, more information. In doing this, he, too,

promotes better relations between our country and other countries.

It is in keeping with the objectives and the goals that were set out in

the President's message when this task force was set up.

It seems to me to be a little inconsistent with what we are asked to

do here. We are saying, "We want to encourage visitors to come into

our country," and yet we want to place restrictions on those who go

out of the country by imposing travel taxes on them.

Mr. BLACK. I would have to answer that in very much the same

way the Secretary did. I think it is regrettable that it has to be done.

We all recognize that. I am not sure it is inconsistent. I would cite this

example: Foreign countries have been doing the same thing for years

and years.

The British, for example, have placed very strict currency regulations on their citizens more recently. They had more liberal regulations

before, but they were still measures designed to keep more Britons at

home or spend less pounds sterling abroad. They have been doing that

at the same time they have been encouraging, in a very marvelous

way, travel from the United States.

They don't require visas of American citizens, et cetera. This could

be said of many other countries. No one has accused them of being

inconsistent.

As I say, I am sorry that we have to do this in this emergency situation. I don't think it could be described as creating an inconsistent

situation.

Mr. FEIGHAN. You mentioned the restrictions by Great Britain

on the amount of money that their citizens can take abroad with them.

Have you made a study of the amounts of money that other countries

permit or restrict their citizens?

Mr. BLACK. Yes; we provided detailed information on that. Most

countries—I would say about half of our major foreign markets—do

have some kind of travel currency limitation. But, with the exception

of the British, none of them are really significant in deterring our

efforts there. 'I hey are quite liberal.

Mr. FEIGHAN. We would like to have that for the record.

Mr. BLACK. I would be happy to provide it.

('1 he information to be furnished follows:)
29

Restrictions on the sale of dollar exchange for tourist travel

CARIBBEAN

Country Allowance

Barbados 

Bermuda 

British Leeward Islands

Windward Islands.

Dominican Republic 

Jamaica 

Trinidad and Tobago 

$700 per person per year.

$1,405 per person with no limit as to per

year or per trip. No limit on domestic

currency.

and British $700 per person per year.

$100 per person each 6 months.

$700 per person per trip.

$700 per person per year with additional

amounts granted.

CENTRAL AMERICA

El Salvador 

Guatemala 

$500 per person per trip, with an amount up

to $2,000 allowed on request to the central

bank.

$2,500 per person per year.

SOUTH AMERICA

Argentina 

British Guiana 

Brazil 

Chile

Colombia

Surinam 

$1,000 per person per trip, with $500 allowed

for minors.

$393 per person per year.

Unrestricted if the currency is exchanged at

the Brazil exchange market.

$500 per person per trip for travel outside

Latin America.

$30 per person per day with a maximum of

$1,800 per year.

$1,050 per person per trip with additional

amounts granted.

Austria 

Cyprus 

Finland 

Greece 

Iceland

Ireland

Italy

Malta 

Monaco 

Netherlands 

Norway 

Portugal 

France 

Spain 

EUROPE

$1,000 per person per trip, plus $577 in

domestic currency.

$700 per person per year with additional

amounts authorized.

$238 per person per trip for travel. The $125

allowance for shorter trips has been

discontinued.

$266 per journey (2 journeys per year)

which amount includes $66 in Greek

currency.

$240 per year, plus cost of international

transportation.

$700 per adult per trip.

$1,600 per person per trip. This raised from

$880 per trip per year.

$700 per person per year with additional

amounts granted.

$1,200 per person per trip, which includes

$200 in francs.

$830 per trip of up to 14 days plus $42 per

day up to 75 additional days, with additional amounts granted.

$700 per adult per year and $250 per year

for children under 12.

Unlimited.

Do.

$750 per person per trip, including $50 in

domestic currency, and transportation

can be paid for in advance.
30

Restrictions on the sale of dollar exchange for tourist travel—Continued

EUROPE—continued

Country

Sweden 

Turkey 

United Kingdom 

Yugoslavia 

Cameroon, Republic of 

Ethiopia 

Ghana 

Guinea 

Libya 

Malagasy Republic 

Morocco 

Nigeria, Federation of 

Sierra Leone 

Sudan 

Tunisia 

Republic of South Africa 

Uganda 

Zanzibar 

Allowance

$1,170 per person per trip with additional

amounts granted.

$222 per person per year.

$120 per person per trip, plus $36 in domestic currency.

$35 per person per year for travel to North

America.

AFRICA

All payments for travel subject to approval

by the Exchange Office.

$420 per person per year.

$140 per adult per year and $98 per minor

per year.

Allowance subject to individual license.

Increased to $1,400 per year.

$507 per person per year.

$5 per person each 6 months.

$270 per person per year.

$700 per person per year with additional

amounts granted.

$288 per person per year $72 per child

under 16 per year.

$96 per person per year.

$2,800 per adult per year, and $1,120 per

year for children under 12.

8700 per person per year with additional

amounts granted.

Do.

MIDDLE EAST

Aden 

United Amb Republic (Egypt)___ _

Iran 

Iraq 

Israel 

Jordan 

Syria 

$840 per person per year with additional

sums granted.

$46 per person per trip.

$500 per adult per year; $250 per child

under 10 years of age.

Adult residents of Iraq are allowed $840 per

year without prior approval of the Central Bank of Iraq. For adults, the 1st $420

is duty free, and amounts over this and up

to $1,400 are subject to a duty of 5 percent, and amounts over $1,400 at 12 percent. For Iraquis under 18 years, the 1st

$210 is duty free.

$350 per person per trip.

$33.60 per day for 1 month, with additional

amounts possible.

$375 per person per trip.

FAR EAST AND PACIFIC

Australia 

Burma

Unlimited.

$10 plus any amount sanctioned by the

Foreign Exchange Controller for travel.

No allowance for pleasure travel.

Do.

India Do.

$100 per person per trip.

$500 per person per trip for pleasure travel.

Allowance subject to approval by the Bank

of Korea.

Cambodia 

Ceylon

Indonesia 

Japan

Korea
31

Restrictions on the sale of dollar exchange for tourist travel—Continued

FAR EAST AND PACIFIC—continued

Country Allowance

Laos Allowance subject to approval by the exchange control authorities.

Malaysia $1,400 per person per year.

Nepal No allowance for pleasure travel.

New Zealand $1,680 per person per year, except if an

allowance has been granted for travel in

the previous 3 years, this amount is reduced to $560.

Pakistan $420 per person once every 3 years for a

limited number of tourists per month.

Philippines October 1967 unofficial guidelines on banks

to limit sales of dollars for pleasure travel

to $30 per person per day.

Singapore $1,400 for each person with additional

amounts granted.

Taiwan $300 in foreign currency and $200 in cash

per person per trip.

Thailand $630 per person per trip for pleasure travel

or $40 a day for not more than 90 days,

whichever is greater.

Vietnam Authorization required from the National

Exchange Office.

Source: Department of State and International Monetary Fund.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Roclino?

Mr. RODINO. I have one last question, Mr. Black.

In reading the report of the President's Industry-Government

Special Task Force on Travel, I note that there were a number of

recommendations that were made by this task force. I would like to

know what steps have been taken in private industry to implement or

carry out the recommendations of the task force?

Mr. BLACK. I can't give you a really detailed answer on that. The

steps that were promised or undertaken to be made by private industry

are mainly in the area of increased promotion of travel to the United

States and in the offering of the special discounts.

At the moment we have pledges that this will be done, pledges from

hotel companies rent-a-car companies, and so forth that the discount

will be offered. i'Ve are now trying to devise a system whereby these

will be implemented.

Finally, I think industry has responded well to the recommendations

of the task force. But they are still only about 6 weeks old now. It is

too soon to know exactly what the outcome will be.

Mr. R0D1N0. Thank you very much, Mr. Black.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Thank you very much Mr. Black. We are very

happy to have had the benefit of your testimony.

At this time we will have the statement by the Honorable Donald

G. Agger, Assistant Secretary of Transportation for International

Affairs and Special Programs.

(The statement follows:)

STATEMENT BY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION FOR INTERNATIONAL

AFFAIRS AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS, DONALD G. AGGER

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to respond to your request for the views of the

Department of Transportation on H. R. 15651, the Nonimmigrant Visa Act of

1968.
32

The Department supports the provisions of this bill and urges its enactment at

the earliest date. Such action by the Congress will provide a major breakthrough

in the restrictive and cumbersome processes that are imposed on visitors to the

United States. In addition, it will contribute greatly to improving the image of

this country and enhance our efforts to attract visitors, thereby strengthening

our balance-of-payments position.

The Department of Transportation bases its support of this legislation also on

a realization that the time is upon us when we must create a totally new environment in international border crossing and terminal area processes if we are to

reap the benefits of modern transportation technology and accommodate the large

number of travelers that are forecast for the 1970's. It is incumbent upon government, industry and the public to pursue improvements in national and international regulations, procedures and documents which apply to the movement of

people and goods by all modes of transportation.

It is to meet this challenge of changing technology that the Department of

Transportation has developed a broad facilitation program designed to identify

and to alleviate those impediments in the transportation system that limit the

full attainment of safe, convenient, and economical transportation.

Government and industry leaders have been appointed to the Transportation

Facilitation Committee and its task forces and work groups for the purpose of

studying and recommending changes which will contribute to an improved and

modern transportation environment.

Fundamental to improving the procedures for passenger handling at international terminals is the need to eliminate every process or document that is not

absolutely essential in the identification or clearance process. In the case of this

legislation, the visa for nonimmigrant visitors has been identified as a document

which is not required.

The Transportation Facilitation Committee will seek to engage industry and

government in an evaluation of all such documentation. The Committee's efforts

will be directed toward the elimination and simplification of documents. When

appropriate, the Committee will encourage automation of those processes and

documents that must be retained.

The recommendations of the President's Industry-Government Special Task

Force on Travel and the Aviation Committee of the International Cooperation

Year Program are consistent in urging that entry procedures for visitors to the

United States reflect a friendly and welcoming image and still protect the security

and health of the nation.

The Department of Transportation not only supports the waiver of the nonimmigrant visa but also would encourage the automation of the "look-up" procedures. Today every visitor to the United States is confronted upon his arrival

with an objectionable manual search of his name in a mysterious black book.

Many countries are considering the possibility of introducing a card-type passport that can be read by optic or magnetic scanners. With such a system, an

invalid document or an undesirable visitor would be identified swiftly and

automatically.

As a progressive step toward the modern, efficient and hospitable transportation environment which the United States must achieve, I commend to you the

Nonimmigrant Visa Act of 1968 and urge its enactment.

Mr. FEIGHAN. The committee will adjourn, subject to the call of

the Chair.

(Whereupon, at 11:32 a.m., the subcommittee recessed, subject to

the call of the Chair.)

(In answer to a question raised during the hearing, the State

Department replied by the following letter:)

Hon. MICHAEL A. FEIGHAN,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: At the Hearing on March 21 on H.R. 15651, the Nonimmigrant Visa Act, the question was raised whether an alien coming to the United

States under the provisions of the bill would be subject to a criminal penalty if

he made a false statement in the card he would fill out in the foreign country prior

to his boarding the carrier.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, D.C., April 5, 1968.
33

It is contemplated that the prospective alien visitor would be required to fill

out, prior to boarding the carrier, a card that would identify him and would list

the grounds of ineligibility for admission which would continue to apply under

the proposed law and the regulations. Among other things, he would be required

to certify on the card that he was not ineligible under any of those provisions. He

would display this card to the airline and, on arrival in the United States, would

present it to an Immigration Inspector as part of the process of applying for

admission.

Under this procedure, we would think that any false statement or entry by

an alien on this card would make him liable to prosecution under Section 1001,

Title 18 U.S.C. This section, in summary, makes it a crime to falsify or conceal

a material fact or make any false, fictitious or fraudulent misrepresentations or

use any document knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent

statement or entry "in any matter within the jurisdiction of any Department or

Agency of the United States."

A false statement on the card might also constitute a violation of Section 1546

of Title 18 relating to fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and other entry documents.

Sincerely yours,

BARBARA M. WATSON,

Acting Administrator, Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs.

(The following statements were received for insertion in the record

at this point:)

Hon. MICHAEL A. FEIGHAN,

Chairman, Subcommittee No. 1, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Air Transport Association of America, on behalf

of its member carriers which include virtually all of the scheduled airlines of the

United States urges that prompt and favorable consideration be given to H.R.

15651, a bill to facilitate the entry of foreign tourists into the United States.

In transmitting this proposed Nonimmigrant Visa Act of 1968 to Congress on

February 23, the President stressed that he considered this matter to be of urgent

concern. We wholeheartedly concur with that evaluation. As we all know, the

United States is confronted with a serious and persistent balance of payments

deficit. It is incumbent upon every sector of our economy to make positive contributions to the alleviation of that problem. Enactment of H.R. 15651 will offer a

great assist to the travel industry in achieving that goal.

The cultural, political and economic benefits of international travel have long

been recognized. These factors, as well as the impact of foreign exchange travel

earnings upon international trade balances, have prompted many countries to

undertake successful programs to promote tourism to their shores. The President's

own Special Task Force on Travel has launched a vigorous and imaginative program to that end in this country. In terms of reducing the "travel gap", such an

affirmative program can and will be far more effective than measures to restrict

the travel of our citizens abroad. In short, there is no reason why we should make

our own people miserable if we can accomplish the same thing by making other

people happy.

As the President and his Special Task Force have recognized, the simplification

of border-crossing formalities such as the waiver of vistor visas has played a highly

significant role in the tourism programs of other countries. Thus, United States

citizens now enjoy visitor visa waiver privileges granted by some 35 nations. By

authorizing the Attorney General and the Secretary of State jointly to issue

regulations exempting pleasure and business visitors to the United States for 90

days or less from the visa requirement, H.R. 15651 will bring this country into

step with that long list of host nations.

The last decade has seen dramatic changes, not only in the United States but

throughout the world, in disposable income levels, leisure time, and consumer

spending habits. Years ago, international tourism was popularly considered a

luxury solely within the reach of an affluent minority. Today, with the immeasurable stimulus offered by the technology of the jet age, this is no longer true. The

United States stands in competition with all other countries as a destination area

for international travel.

AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA,

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,

Washington, D.C., March 26, 1968.
34

Our obsolete visa requirements represent a handicap to that competitive effort.

We cannot expect to secure a position in the front ranks of the world's host

nations if we issue a warm invitation and then require the invitee to go to some

lengths to get permission to come—indeed, to prove that he is not ineligible to

come. We must do all that we can to make these guests welcome.

While the favorable impact of increased tourism upon our balance of payments

is self-evident, it should be recognized that another, indirect benefit is inherent

in this proposal. Data have been submitted to the Committee reflecting the

magnitude of our visa issuance effort abroad today. Substantial savings can be

realized by the sharp reduction in visa processing requirements promised by this

Bill.

In urging that H.R. 15651 be enacted, we would support promulgation, by government regulation, of certain requirements for visa-free visits to this country,

as outlined in the President's letter. Specifically, possession by the visitor of a

non-refundable departure ticket should, in and of itself, satisfy the condition

prescribed in Section 2 of the bill to accomplish the visitor's departure from the

United States.

Enactment of the Nonimmigrant Visa Act of 1968 would greatly assist the

Government and the travel industry in their common mission to encourage more

citizens of other lands to visit the United States. We therefore urge this Committee to give prompt and favorable consideration to H.R. 15651. We respectfully

request that this letter be included in the record of the hearings on this proposal.

Cordially,

S. G. TIPTON,

President.

AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION,

Washington, D.C., March 21, 1968.

HOD. MICHEL A. FEIGHAN,

Chairman, Subcommittee No. 1, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

MY DEAR MR. FEIGHAN : On behalf of the 10,700,000 member American

Automobile Association, I would like to take this opportunity to advise you of

this organization's support for H.R. 15651, the Nonimmigrant Visa Act of 1968,

and to request that you make this letter a part of the printed record of your

deliberations on this subject.

As you know, the legislation before you is one of the principal recommendations

advanced by the President's Task Force on Travel, a group on which the AAA

was honored to serve.

The recommendation embodied in the bill before you for consideration is the

most important, forward-looking, positive step yet taken by the Administration

in its attempts to alleviate travel's part of the dollar drain.

For many years the AAA has worked for freedom of travel across international

boundaries while promoting tourism. This looks toward not only individual enjoyment, but also an interchange of peoples to bring about better understanding

which can contribute to peace among nations.

We have a long-standing resolution on this subject, which reads as follows:

"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, consistent 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 recommends 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.'

Thanking you for your consideration in this matter, I remain, with all best

wishes.

Sincerely,

GEORGE F. KACHLEIN, Jr.,

Executive Vice President.
35

Re H.R. 15651.

110H. MICHAEL A. FEIGHAN,

Chairman, Subcommittee No. I, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The American Society of Travel Agents, Inc. (ASTA),

on behalf of its more than 7,000 members throughout the world involved in travel

and tourism, urge your Subcommittee to give prompt and favorable consideration

to H.R. 15651, a Bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to facilitate

the entry of foreign tourists into the United States.

President Johnson, in a letter dated February 23, 1968 urging Congress to

•enact this proposal, noted that it had been recommended by the President's

Industry-Government Special Task Force on Travel. ASTA supported the work

of the Task Force in formulating its recommendations, and has promised its

,continued cooperation with the Presidential Commission on Travel also headed

by Ambassador Robert M. McKinney. This Commission was established to

implement the recommendations of the Task Force.

ASTA, on behalf of the travel agency industry, has long sought the elimination

of unnecessary and cumbersome barriers to travel. We, therefore, would welcome

the elimination of certain visa requirements as proposed by this Act.

It appears that the provisions of the Act which give the Attorney General and

Secretary of State discretion in designing regulations concerning temporary

visitors for business or pleasure are adequate to assure against possible security

problems. We welcome the provision in the Act which makes the extension of

the no-visa requirement available on a basis of determination that such designation would promote the foreign policy of the United States in addition to the basis

of reciprocity with other governments.

As the result of widespread talk about possible Congressional action which would

restrict the right of U.S. citizens to travel outside the Western Hemisphere, our

country has suffered a loss of prestige throughout many areas in the world. In

addition, our reputation as the No. 1 host country has tended to suffer with the

possibility that the government may impose mandatory restrictions on the

right of our citizens to exercise freely their Constitutional guarantee of right to

travel. It is ASTA's firm conviction that the imposition of such travel restrictions

is not only highly undesirable, but unnecessary.

One of the best analyses concerning the proposed travel restrictions is that

contained in the 1968 Joint Economic Report issued on March 18 by the Joint

Economic Committee of the Congress of the United States wherein it stated:

"The proposed travel expenditure tax, designed to save $250 million by

restricting American travel to Europe, is too restrictionist in principle, likely

to lead to widespread evasion, likely to lead to retaliation and unlikely to

realize its objective."

The report goes on to state:

"It should be shelved and replaced by an all-out immediate effort to save

some $250 million by vigorously implementing the February 19 McKinney

Committee recommendations for attracting European travelers to the United

States with package discounts."

As we have indicated, one of the specific recommendations of Ambassador

McKinney's Committee was the enactment of H.R. 15651. Therefore, in order to

offset the adverse publicity and loss of prestige which our government has suffered

throughout the world as a result of the talk of imposing travel restrictions on U.S.

citizens and in order to establish conclusively the determination of the Congress

to take positive steps to attract tourism to the United States, thus substantially

reducing our travel deficit, we urge the Committee to give prompt and favorable

consideration to this Bill.

Sincerely,

AMERICAN SOCIETY OF TRAVEL AGENTS, INC.,

New York, N.Y., March 20, 1968.

GEORGE L. FICHTENBATJM,

Executive Director.
36

TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA,

Washington, D.C., March 27, 1968.

Hon. MICHAEL A. FEIGHAN,

Chairman, Subcommittee No. 1, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: On behalf of the Board of Directors of the Transportation Association of America, I wish to submit a statement in support of H.R. 15651,

entitled the "Nonimmigrant Visa Act of 1968."

Our supporting statement is based on TAA's International Transportation

Facilitation policy to encourage action to facilitate the movement of passengers

and cargo across international boundaries. This policy was adopted by the Board

of Directors on May 23, 1967, after endorsement by member representatives of

users, investors, and air, freight forwarder, highway, oil pipeline, railroad, and

water carriers.

Also enclosed is a January 1968 publication entitled "Transport Technological

Trends", referred to in the statement. This TAA publication summarizes the

current trends for all transport modes, including airlines and maritime carriers

which serve the international markets of the world. Under Secretary of State

Katzenbach emphasized transport technology in his statement on March 21, 1968

in support of H.R. 15651.

We respectfully request that our statement be included in the record of hearings on H.R. 15651. In view of the fact that copies of this letter and the enclosures

are being sent to all members of your Subcommittee, you may wish to include

the publication in Committee files rather than include it in the printed transcript

of the hearing.

Sincerely yours,

HAROLD F. HAMMOND.

Mr. Chairman and Members of Subcommittee No. 1, my name is Harold F.

Hammond. I am President of the Transportation Association of America (TAA),

with general offices located at 1101 17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. This

statement is submitted on behalf of TAA to express its policy position in support

of H.R. 15651, a bill designed to facilitate the entry of foreign tourists into the

United States.

I. DESCRIPTION OF TAA AND ITS ACTIVITIES

For the record, TAA is a non-profit national transportation policy-making

organization which devotes its entire time and effort to the development and

implementation of sound national policies for the maintenance of the strongest

possible, transportation system under private ownership and management.

The membership of TAA is comprised of representatives of transport users of

all types, investors, and carriers of all modes, including air, freight forwarder,

highway, oil pipeline, railroad, and water carriers. Its membership also includes

individuals such as educators, transportation consultants, lawyers, and other

professional persons.

TAA does not engage in the promotion of one form of transport against another,

but seeks to represent what is best in the broad public interest. We have set up

a careful procedure for the establishment of policy, in order to assure fair and

thorough consideration of pending subjects before final positions are adopted.

The procedure is briefly as follows: Issues are raised for study and analysis

by eight permanent advisory committees or "Panels" of recognized national leaders in the transportation industry. Approximately. 300 such leaders participate

in this continuing activity of the User, Investor, Air, Freight Forwarder, Highway, Pipe Line, Railroad, and Water Carrier Panels. It is in this echelon of

policy-making that constructive compromise solutions to specific issues are reached

among the represented interests.

Panel recommendations are reviewed in turn by the Policy Development Committee, comprised of the chairmen of the respective Panels, following which the

subject under review is then submitted to the 117-man Board of Directors for

action. The Board includes not only top executives of all carrier modes just mentioned, but also senior officials of leading banks, insurance companies, investment

companies, manufacturers, suppliers, agricultural interests, and professional persons.
37

II. TAA POSITION ON THE PENDING LEGISLATION

H.R. 15651 was introduced on February 28, 1968 by Mr. Celler, Chairman of

the House Committee on the Judiciary, following transmittal on February 23, 1968

of a letter from President Johnson to the Congress urging passage of such legislation. In essence, the bill would authorize the Secretary of State and Attorney

General, by regulation, to waive the existing requirement for foreign businessmen

and other visitors traveling to the United States to obtain visas from an American

Consul abroad. Such waiver would apply to persons visiting this country for 90

days or less, provided they possessed a valid passport and a non-refundable

round-trip ticket.

Pursuant to the bill, (1) the Secretary of State would designate the countries,

on the basis of reciprocity, whose citizens could be so treated, (2) foreign nationals

convicted of serious crimes or narcotics traffic would still be barred, and (3) visiting aliens would still be examined by Immigration and Naturalization Service

officials at the points of entry.

For many years TAA has had some policies affecting international transportation and gave increasing attention to this subject in the past two years. The Board

of Directors, on May 23, 1967, adopted the following general policy on International Transportation Facilitation:

"TAA should encourage action to facilitate the movement of passengers

and cargo across international boundaries."

Since then, a detailed facilitation program has been developed and just recently

announced. Included in such program is the following item:

"Legislation should be enacted to provide for waiver of United States visas,

on a reciprocal basis, for travelers from friendly countries when visiting the

United States."

It is believed significant to state that all eight TAA Panels, representing all

carrier modes, as well as user and investor interests, supported the adoption of

the above-stated policy position.

III. SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS

The arguments in support of this legislation have been advanced very persuasively by President Johnson in his above-mentioned letter of February 23, 1968;

by the testimony of Under Secretary of State Katzenbach and Director Black of

the United States Travel Service; and by supporting statements already filed

by industry representatives, notably that of the President of the Air Transport

Association, Mr. Stuart G. Tipton. The need for positive steps to facilitate the

flow of overseas visitors and businessmen to the United States is not only readily

manifest, but it has become all the more imperative from the fact that we require

visas for travelers from 35 countries which do not require visas for American

travelers.

We have noted the testimony by Mr. Katzenbach to the effect that rapid advances in the volume of international travel is in part attributable to what we

describe as the "transportation technological revolution." He states:

"Magnificent technological developments have taken place over the past

few decades in the field of international transportation.

"Technology is not standing still. And with mammoth aircraft and f asterthan-sound flight, we may expect the annual number of tourists to the United

States to increase by geometric progression."

TAA has been devoting increasing attention in recent months to the actual or

possible national transportation policy implications of technology trends. The

subject legislation is an example of an international transport policy issue affected

by such "revolution".

Accordingly, we hope that your Subcommittee and the Congress will support

the enactment of H.R. 15651.
38

(The following telegram was received for insertion in the record at

this point:)

APRIL 1, 1968.

Hon. MICHAEL A. FEIGHAN,

Chairman, Subcommittee No. 1, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.:

The National Association of Travel Organizations, trade association for the U.S.

travel industry, whose membership includes over 800 key travel organizations, as

well as the State travel offices, respectfully urges that prompt and favorable

consideration be given to H.R. 15651, a bill to facilitate the entry of foreign

visitors into the United States. Passage of the Nonimmigrant Visa Act of 1968

would immeasurably aid in encouraging more citizens from abroad to visit the

United States thereby helping to ease our balance-of-payments situation.

We'd appreciate having this telegram inserted in the record.

Respectfully,

JAMES C. GROSS,

Executive Director, National Association of Travel Organizations.