TO AMEND THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT MONDAY, JUNE 22, 1964 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 a.m. in room 346, Cannon House Office Building, the Honorable Michael A. Feighan (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Feighan, Poff, Chelf, Moore, and Rodino. Also present: Walter M. Besterman, legislative assistant, and Garner J. Cline, associate counsel. Mr. FEIGHAN. The subcommittee will come to order. We resume the testimony today on pending immigration legislation with our able colleague, Congressman Byron G. Rogers, First Congressional District of Colorado, continuing his testimony from last Friday, June 19. At the outset, I would like to clarify a point in our hearings of last Friday. When a question was raised as to whether our colleague, Congressman Byron Rogers, would be able to return today in the event he did not complete his testimony on Friday, he stated he would be happy to do so, but-and I quote "not to the point of harrassment or intimidation of that nature." I would like to inquire of our able and esteemed colleague just what he meant by "harrassment or intimidation." Did you infer that this subcommittee has harassed or intimidated any Member or any witness? STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON G. ROGERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO—(Resumed) Mr. ROGERS. As far as I am concerned, after you read into the record the letters that you wrote to the chairman and his response thereto, and when I stated to you that the chairman agreed that he would return here and discuss this matter, then if the senior Member, chairman of the committee, is then criticized because he did not return here and testify as you may have found convenient to yourself, I do not know what may happen in that instance and, therefore, I placed the reservation that I did. It is not necessary for me to be harassed by this subcommittee. Mr. FEIGHAN. Explain that. Just what do you mean by harrass ment? Mr. ROGERS. All right. You and I know that it took exactly 10 years or more to rewrite the Immigration and Nationality Act that was approved in 1952, the Walter-McCarran Act. This legislation proposes to amend that in several particulars. If I am expected, because I am a member of the committee, to sit here and analyze section by section each one of these proposals, I would say that that is beyond the obligation that should be required of me. That is No. 1. It was for that reason that I made that statement. Mr. FEIGHAN. Do you feel that questions by members of this committee in an effort to examine the implications for proposed changes in our immigration laws are a form of harassment or intimidation? Mr. ROGERS. No, but also the question of my convenience and the convenience of this committee may be a problem. Let me make it clear with you. I will sit right here and go over item by item on any part of it as long as you want to, if you feel that it will help. resolve this problem. Mr. FEIGHAN. That is the only point for which these hearings are conducted. Mr. ROGERS. That is true, but did you not state here the other day that the chairman read this statement and before you could ask him any questions he ran off and you could not get him back here? Did you not make that statement? Mr. FEIGHAN. I made the statement, and the record is very clear that he read his statement for 50 minutes and we had an opportunity for 10 minutes to question him. He agreed to come back at his convenience. His convenience was ascertained to be a week from last Thursday, which delayed the hearings. But we patiently agreed to postpone the hearings until that date. Then after Chairman Celler had agreed to come back and to testify, to complete his testimony on last Thursday, he wrote a letter and said that he would not. Then I wrote him what I consider a very polite letter, which is in the record, asking him to reconsider so that we would have an opportunity to question him to determine what the facts are with reference to the sections of the proposed bill. May I ask the able gentleman from Colorado: Do you believe or do you agree that the subcommittee has a duty to establish the facts to the extent possible on pending immigration legislation? Mr. ROGERS. That is why I appeared here, to try to help you estab blish those facts. Mr. FEIGHAN. How do you get intimidation? A person is here to answer questions. Mr. ROGERS. Is there anything wrong with saying I would not be intimidated? Have I accused you or the subcommittee of intimidation of me? I reserve the right, when you asked would I be here today and would I come back, I told you "Yes." Do you want to call me here day after day? I have no assurance that you will not do that. Certainly, I reserve the right to make my own determination if I appear here and try to answer questions dealing with this legislation. If you want to ask questions dealing with this legislation. do it; forget this question of intimidation and let us get down to the situation. Mr. FEIGHAN. You were the man who brought up the subject which is why I think the record should be clear. Mr. ROGERS. Let me ask you, as a Member of Congress, do you not reserve the right to go before any committee, and if they should proceed with intimidation or other matters, to walk out from them? Mr. FEIGHAN. You have not made clear Mr. ROGERS. You have not answered my question. Mr. FEIGHAN (continuing). What harassment or intimidation is. It is not within the purview of this subcommittee. I do not know what you are talking about unless you explain. Mr. ROGERS. I have the right to make that determination as a Member of Congress, and I will exercise it if I think it arises. Mr. FEIGHAN. Are you aware, then, that Chairman Celler agreed to resume and to complete his testimony, and then backed out? Mr. ROGERS. No; I am not aware of such. Mr. FEIGHAN. You read the communication between Mr. Celler and the chairman of the subcommittee; did you not? Mr. ROGERS. All I read was he agreed to come back before your subcommittee. Mr. FEIGHAN. What? Mr. ROGERS. I understood he agreed to come back. Mr. FEIGHAN. That is correct. Mr. ROGERS. And he having so stated, I have no reason to disbelieve it. Mr. FEIGHAN. You are not inferring, are you, that Mr. Celler was harassed or intimidated? Mr. ROGERS. I do not know. Certainly, if I am a chairman of a committee and a member of a subcommittee continues to have to write me four or five letters in connection with my appearance here before the committee, I would think twice if I was the chairman of the committee. Mr. FEIGHAN. In the interest of ascertaining the facts in the proposed bill, do you think it is improper for members of this subcommittee to ask questions? Mr. ROGERS. I am not saying it is improper for the members of the subcommittee to ask anything of any witness that may appear here; but I am saying that you, as chairman of the subcommittee, insisted that the chairman do thus and so at your convenience and that when he told you in a letter that he could not appear and would appear later, you then brought in this situation. Mr. FEIGHAN. In the first instance, this subcommittee set forth before hearings were commenced the format which we were to follow. In that we were to hear Members of Congress and then following that to hear members of the executive Secretary of State Rusk, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, Secretary of Labor Wirtz-and then those at the operating level. After that, members of voluntary agencies and the public. This subcommittee reserves the right to follow the format which it has set up. We intend to and shall follow that. We do not want anyone to say that he will come here and make final statements and not subject himself to any question with reference to whatever he may have to say. Mr. ROGERS. Did the chairman ever tell you he would not submit himself to questions from this subcommittee? Mr. FEIGHAN. In his letter he said he would appear and make whatever statements-we can get it from the record-state whatever he deemed necessary, which is his privilege to say what he will do, but it is our privilege to decide what we will permit to be done. This subcommittee is in charge of these hearings and we shall continue to be in charge and follow the format we have set. Well, Mr. Rogers, what is your estimate of the number of aliens we can take and absorb or assimilate each year? Mr. ROGERS. Let us get your question. Would you have the reporter repeat the question, please. (The pending question was read by the reporter.) Mr. ROGERS. That will depend upon the circumstances and the finding of the Board that is set up by section 16 of this proposal. Mr. FEIGHAN. You have no opinion on that, I take it? Mr. ROGERS. No; I have no definite opinion about it, but it would vary from time to time. Mr. FEIGHAN. What is your estimate, if you have any, of the total number of aliens, quota and nonquota, who would be admitted under your proposal? Mr. ROGERS. That again goes back to the same answer to the previous question. That is going to depend, first of all, upon the need in this country and, second, upon whether or not there are certain relatives who meet certain qualifications to come in under the preferences. I would believe that after this legislation is enacted and where relatives would be, should we say, brought over or who desired to come under that quota, that perhaps after it is filled or after many who meet the qualifications under it are admitted, that there would probably be less likelihood for requests under that setup. These matters and questions you are asking me deal with technical information that I am sure could be well supplied by the State Department and the Immigration Service. If you want me to get that information, I will be happy to get it and to place it here. Mr. FEIGHAN. I just wanted your personal estimate. Mr. FEIGHAN. All right. I have heard your answer. Do you see any distinction between quota and nonquota immigrants in terms of computing the total number of aliens to be admitted each year? Mr. ROGERS. Let us have the question repeated. (The pending question was read by the reporter.) Mr. ROGERS. Of course, you and, I know that quota and nonquota are different, in different categories. Nonquota does not come under the quota system, quota is set up under the system we have now and also under the proposed system. Is your question: Do I see whether there will be a greater number admitted than were admitted under the present system if this bill was enacted? Is that the substance of your question? Mr. FEIGHAN. Do you think there should be any distinction as to the numbers, so many limited to quotas, so many to nonquota? Mr. ROGERS. We do not, sir. I do not understand that we now admit them on that basis. Mr. FEIGHAN. There are a certain number admitted under quota. Mr. ROGERS. Yes, but you are talking about quota and nonquota admissions, as I understand your question. Mr. FEIGHAN. Yes. Mr. ROGERS. Certain people may qualify as nonquota, others must come under quota. Mr. FEIGHAN. That is correct. Mr. ROGERS. The question to me is: What difference would it make under this bill as distinguished from existing law? Is that what you asked? Mr. FEIGHAN. Yes. Mr. ROGERS. My answer to that is that whenever it may be, it is adequately taken care of under this proposal that I have introduced along with 50-some-odd other Members. Mr. FEIGHAN. Do you believe Congress should set a ceiling by law on the total number of immigrants to be admitted each year, both quota and nonquota? Mr. ROGERS. It would depend upon the circumstances for that particular year and the finding of this Board. They may be less than now provided by the quota or it may be more. That is the objective of this legislation, the flexibility. Mr. FEIGHAN. Do you feel that a ceiling by law should be enacted in any round numbers? If so, what would be your estimate? Mr. ROGERS. As far as I am concerned, I would have no particular objection to a ceiling being placed; provided, however, that the objectives which would permit qualified aliens to get an immigrant visa to enter this country Mr. FEIGHAN. Do you feel we should set a particular ceiling by law on the number to be admitted, quota and nonquota, either separately or both together? Mr. ROGERS. Let us put it this way. That this bill takes all the quotas and puts it in one pool. It also authorizes nonquota entries. There is nothing in here that I know of that permits the admission of more than is authorized. Mr. FEIGHAN. There is a slight variation, an increase in that, but we will not go into it. Mr. ROGERS. There is a slight variation, but Mr. FEIGHAN. There is a doubling of the quotas of certain countries from 100 to 200, about 6,000. Mr. ROGERS. Yes. Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Rogers, your bill calls for a 5-year transition period, after which the national origins formula for admission would be abolished and in its stead we would have one worldwide quota of approximately 165,000 per year; is that correct? Mr. ROGERS. That is what I tried to explain a moment ago to you when you asked about unlimited and limited numbers. Mr. FEIGHAN. Do you feel Congress should maintain any checks or balances on the decision of the Immigration Board? Mr. ROGERS. May I point out to the distinguished chairman that if the Speaker of the House appoints a group and the Vice President, President of the Senate, appoints the other, where they have majority control, as compared with what the Executive may appoint, that those members are most likely to be interested in what Congress is thinking, with the result that you are having probably as good control over as is possible. Mr. FEIGHAN. But the administration bill provides no congressional checks or balances. You are talking only of those four members of the Board that would be appointed but not Congress exercising its duties, its constitutional duties. There would be no checks and balances. |