If it were not for the fact that this is an election year with all the work that means for the Members why there is not a doubt but what we would have conducted hearings just as soon as Congress adjourned. I would have asked and I should have received authority from the House to have this committee sit in session either here or any other place for the purpose if necessary of hearing the witnesses, and so forth, but under the circumstances that will be impossible.

It was, therefore, the intention of the Chair to point out as a suggestion that a subcommittee be appointed to hear the controversial questions because there will be a number of sections which are controversial and we could let the subcommittee decide and recommend to the whole committee the disposition the subcommittee deems appropriate in regard to the various phases of the nationality law.

Now what is the wish of this committee? Do you think a subcommittee should be appointed to consider this matter or do you think that the whole committee should sit? I thought that you perhaps would prefer not to burden the whole committee with this matter but that a subcommittee could handle it in a few weeks and then report to the full committee for our final action.

Mr. REES. Mr. Chairman, how much time do you think would be required for a subcommittee to conduct these public hearings? The CHAIRMAN. It might take several weeks. You see if you take Illinois, Pennsylvania, New York, and about four other States whose bar associations have been keenly following this legislation, and other groups and organizations throughout the country, it will undoubtedly take several weeks of hearings to consider all those groups. You must appreciate that this is the first time in the history of the Republic that we are trying to codify something so that any of us who must refer to these laws will understand it.

All of you gentlemen know that today you must go and look in 20, 30, or 40 volumes in order to ascertain and be able to get a report on the status of an alien on questions, say, of expatriation, or repatriation, or whatever the case may be.

Mr. REES. That part of the law of course is very important but that part to my mind would not be controversial except to the extent that we are changing the law.

The CHAIRMAN. That is quite true but the fact is that the task is up to the committee. At present we are acting as a judge and jury and we are doing something which is not political, it is nonpartisan. We must take up this task and dispose of it.

Mr. REES. I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, and I believe it should be done.

Mr. MASON. The changes should be made.

Mr. REES. The changes should be made but if there are not many changes there would not be many hearings required, but if there are a number of radical changes proposed we would of course have to have more hearings.

The CHAIRMAN. Then what I would do would be to have the subcommittee request the chairman of that subcommittee or the vicechairman of that subcommittee to confine the examination of witnesses to controversial questions.

Mr. REES. I think that is right, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. And they would not have to hold lengthy discussions on noncontroversial matters.

Mr. REES. I think that would take care of it.

The CHAIRMAN. That would solve your whole problem.

Mr. REES. I agree with you because if you are going to open the whole thing up it would take a great deal of time.

The CHAIRMAN. If we want to open the whole subject up we can spend two years or more on it because the bill itself embraces something like 92 pages.

Mr. MASON. It is the codification of the nationality law, not naturalization.

The CHAIRMAN. It is everything.

Mr. MASON. It does not cover immigration.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hazard, will you give an explanation? You are acquainted with this proposal.

The moment you open up these hearings, gentlemen, you will be flooded with petitions from bar associations and from various organizations and the reason I wish to have Mr. Hazard discuss these matters is because the State and Labor Department people know just exactly what the situation is.

Mr. REES. Let us get the matter straight. Don't you mean that you have two jobs? One is codification of the laws-the codification of the laws means that you are just going to correlate the laws and put them in the form of a code.

The CHAIRMAN. That is right.

Mr. REES. Then, Mr. Chairman, if along with that you are going to modify or change the laws; if at the same time you are going to do that, then you are going to raise another question. Isn't that so? The CHAIRMAN. That is right.

Mr. REES. So then I think the committee should agree without much difficulty and without very many hearings that there should be a codification of the laws. However, if now you are going to talk about changes that should be made in the code and there are to be a lot of changes made in the laws then that raises another question. The CHAIRMAN. That is quite true.

Mr. REES. Then to what extent and how far are we going to do that? The CHAIRMAN. Well, you will have Mr. Avra M. Warren, Chief of the Visa Division of the State Department, who is here now and who has been very active and helpful, and who will be right at your side; and then you will have Mr. Henry B. Hazard, administrative assistant to the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization; and you will have bookkeepers and such experts who will be here during all of the sessions for the purpose of guiding you in any way you want. Mr. REES. And they will give their views as to wherein the law can be made more workable and practicable.

The CHAIRMAN. That is right. You might find in instances that the two Departments will differ, and in such cases the subcommittee will work it out.

Mr. REES. That is right. Now, isn't that about the extent to which this subcommittee will go?

The CHAIRMAN. That is right.

Mr. REES. As you know, if you are going to open it up for general changes in the law that is another thing.

The CHAIRMAN. I agree with you because then you will never get through.

Mr. MASON. However, Mr. Chairman, when you are doing a job instead of just correlating all of the laws, if you find in the present set-up and you know definitely that there are many changes that should be made to make the laws more workable and sensible and practicable and understandable, it would be silly it seems to me just to codify what you have got when you know that certain changes ought to be made.

Mr. REES. I agree with you and that is probably about as far as we could go as far as codification is concerned.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. Hazard, will you please give us a brief summary and survey of the bill, if you can?

STATEMENT OF HENRY B. HAZARD, DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH, INFORMATION, AND EDUCATION, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION, LABOR DEPARTMENT

Mr. HAZARD. Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee: The proposed code does two things. It rearranges the law in logical and systematic form, that is in the form of a code but, in addition, it attempts to clarify, and there are some changes that have been included in the codification to make it more workable.

On the whole it is the present law arranged in systematic and orderly form with some changes that were felt to be desirable.

It consists of five chapters.

The first chapter consists of definitions, which we do not have in any of our naturalization or citizenship laws as a rule.

It also determines nationality at birth in one chapter; what constitutes nationality of the United States at birth.

It has a chapter dealing with nationality through naturalization and then has another chapter that consists of the provisions relating to the loss of citizenship or nationality; plus a criminal code in relation to the violation of the naturalization and citizenship laws.

There have not been a great many changes in the situation as it now exists, but there have been some. For instance, in the matter of naturalization there have been great difficulties experienced with various classes of persons who served in the armed forces of the United States, or merchant vessels of the United States, and as regards the different qualifications of persons serving in different branches of the service. All of them have been placed in a single group and the requirements made uniform for the entire group.

In the matter of proving residence in cases of that kind there has been nothing in the present law showing just what constitutes satisfactory evidence in cases where a man has been serving on merchant vessels for several years or where he has been serving in the military forces. There has been no definite method under the law by which residence may be proved in such case. The clarification of points of that kind has been attempted in the proposed code.

The CHAIRMAN. Then practically it should not be much of a task. Mr. HAZARD. I should not think so, Mr. Chairman. Of course, there will be persons and groups such as those whom you have indi

65495-45- -3

cated, bar associations, who have definite ideas as to possible changes in our laws. But it seems to me that if those groups could in advance be requested to submit their views so that your committee or subcommittee would know definitely what their ideas are, then if you desire you could call witnesses and take testimony as to the points upon which there is controversy, leaving your committee or subcommittee to determine as to those points as to which there is no controversy whether the features of the law that are proposed are desirable. The CHAIRMAN. Is that clear enough, gentlemen?

Well, now, Mr. Hazard, do you know of any possible controversy that may exist at the present time in regard to the Departments of Labor and State?

Mr. HAZARD. Do you mean as between the two Departments?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. HAZARD. Are there any matters under controversy between the two Departments at the present time?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. HAZARD. I believe the Departments are fairly in harmony, Mr. Chairman, as to the whole code because the three Secretaries have agreed upon this code and have submitted it to the President with their recommendations that it be adopted.

The CHAIRMAN. The President's message is along the same line. Mr. HAZARD. The President's message submits it for the consideration of Congress.

The CHAIRMAN. Then I think we have a pretty clear picture of it. Shall we then authorize the Chair to appoint a subcommittee for the consideration of this bill? I think that will be the better way. Mr. MASON. Do you need a motion for that?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, and then I will make the appointments within a day or two.

Mr. MASON. I make that motion.

The CHAIRMAN. The motion has been made that the Chair appoint a subcommittee to consider H. R. 6127, a bill to revise and codify the nationality laws of the United States into a comprehensive nationality code, and authorizing the subcommittee to conduct public hearings or executive sessions as they choose, and call upon the two Departments for whatever assistance they need and then report to the full committee.

Mr. REES. I will second that motion, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. The motion has been seconded by Mr. Rees. All in favor of that motion signify their assent by saying "Aye," those opposed "No."

The "ayes" have it and the Chair will make his decision within a day and notify the various members of the committee who have been appointed to serve on the subcommittee.

Now how big a subcommittee should we have?

Will you amend your motion, Mr. Mason, to cover that?

Mr. MASON. I would suggest three and two or four and three, but not have too large a subcommittee.

The CHAIRMAN. How about five-three, and two; three on this side and two on yours?

Mr. MASON. That is all right.

Mr. KRAMER. Of course we can discuss it in the full committee.
Mr. MASON. We will have to discuss it in the full committee.

I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, a subcommittee of five-three, and two.

The CHAIRMAN. The motion has been amended by Mr. Mason that the chair appoint a subcommittee of five, three Democrats and two Republicans. The Chair hears no objection and it so ordered.

Mr. HAZARD. Mr. Chairman, may I say that the representatives of the Department of Labor will be very happy to cooperate with the subcommittee and the full committee and I am sure that I speak likewise for the other two Departments.

The CHAIRMAN. How about you, Mr. Warren?

Mr. WARREN. We will be glad to assist the subcommittee and the committee in every possible way.

Mr. KRAMER. When he says the Department of Labor does he mean Mrs. Perkins, the Secretary, too?

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hazard means the experts of the Department of Labor.

Mr. MASON. He means the Department of Labor.

Mr. KRAMER. I have never found Mrs. Perkins would cooperate. Mrs. O'DAY. I found her to be very cooperative.

Mr. KRAMER. I believe she is very cooperative with some people 'but I never found her to be very cooperative yet and I say that for the record. I have found very few people who found her cooperative.

Mr. MASON. Mr. Chairman, if any member of this committee has cause to say what Mr. Kramer has been trying to say I would be that member, but I refrain.

The CHAIRMAN. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

The CHAIRMAN. I will make my announcement later of the members of the subcommittee.

(Thereupon at 11:10 a. m. the committee proceeded to the consideration of other business.)