Mr. CRAMER. I lost the gentleman. Mr. POFF. I say, the new crime which is created by H.R. 5320 and which would apply only during times of national emergency applies only with respect to those nations with which we do not have diplomatic relations. Mr. CRAMER. Correct. Mr. POFF. That is all I have. I would like to ask the gentleman several questions. The gentleman is aware that when an application is made for a passport, the individual must state on that application the countries to which he seeks approval to travel or to have that passport issued and validated for travel. Mr. CRAMER. That is correct. Mr. MOORE. Now, I am afriad we are getting into a condition of the mind here with respect to one section of your proposed legislation that I would like to sort of explore a little bit with you. I want to pose this hypothetical situation. A student or anybody seeking to travel to an unauthorized country makes application for an American passport to travel, as he states in his application, to England and France and perhaps Germany. After receipt of that passport, he makes his way into a country for which travel approval is not given, and he subsequently finds his way into, say, Cuba. Does your bill in any way set up a presumption that travel per se in an unauthorized country is a violation of law? Mr. CRAMER. Yes. Lines 22 to 25, page 2, of the first bill, H.R. 5320, states as follows: Or to travel to, or to interrupt his journey in transit through, any country with which the United States does not maintain diplomatic relations or has canceled or supended such relations. That makes the travel itself a crime. Mr. MOORE. I question that because you follow in the complete. section the language which you quoted, this language, "or to conceal or falsely state in the application." Now, I want to take care of the situations and I want to know whether the gentleman's bill takes care of situations in which the application makes no reference whatsover of the man's desire to go to X country to which travel is unauthorized. Mr. CRAMER. Well, I think there are two answers to the question. No. 1, the passports today are specifically on the reverse side stamped to the effect that travel to North Korea, Red China, Cuba, North Vietnam is prohibited. Those are the four countries not permitted to be visited under this passport. Mr. POFF. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield? Mr. MOORE. This is the point that I would like to pursue just a little further. Mr. CRAMER. Let me say secondly Mr. MOORE. Let me finish my sentence. That, in itself, is not the answer to the problem I pose, but you may continue. Mr. CRAMER. I understand it is not. Secondly, the language on lines 12 through 22 which deals with departing or coming into is intended to cover what the gentleman is talking about or to conceal or falsely state in an application for a passport or for permission to depart from the United States such person's intentions to travel *** any country with which the United States does not have ***. Now, that is intended to supplement the present language because under the present language the question the gentleman raised undoubtedly is the loophole. Mr. MOORE. I will pose it in more simplified terms. Does your bill make travel to an unauthorized country a violation of the law? Mr. CRAMER. Such travel itself under both bills is illegal. Mr. MOORE. What you are presenting for our consideration, this is a weakness I see in both Mr. Willis' bill and that which you have proposed. I think what we desire to do is, after testimony has been submitted here, try to either amend, if amending is necessary, to take care of the points I make. My second question is: Do you make the mere statement-say a man returns to this country; he has a valid American passport. I assume somebody is going to have to ask him a question or there will be a form handed to him, "Did you travel to Red China?" and he says, "Yes." Now, does your bill make that a violation of law and is he caused to suffer the penalties that are set forth in your bill? Mr. CRAMER. Yes. Lines 22 through 25 would make that travel and his admission of the crime automatic. Mr. MOORE. Lines 22 to 25? Mr. CRAMER. The travel itself under H.R. 5320. If he comes back and says, "Yes; I went to a restricted country," he has admitted guilt. Mr. MOORE. All right. Now, show me in H.R. 5320 where that is a violation of law. You ask him to state that. To state it conversely, If he says, "No; I did not," and that is a false statement, then you make that a violation of law. Mr. CRAMER. Lines 22 through 25 would make the admission of the fact that he traveled, the travel itself, a crime. Mr. MOORE. Let me ask this question with respect to this same area. Do you feel that we can set up in this proposed legislation any sort of a presumption that if he travels to a country unauthorized that we consider his application for a passport to have been falsely made and place the burden upon him to prove otherwise? Mr. CRAMER. I think you are getting into not as sound a ground for legislation from the standpoint of court context in setting up a presumption where I don't think the presumption approach is necessary because you make the travel itself illegal. What you are getting at is making it illegal for somebody to actually travel. It is the actual traveling or the planning on traveling and not accomplishing the travel. Mr. MOORE. That is not my idea. I assume you are now saying to me travel per se to an unauthorized country is illegal. Mr. CRAMER. Unquestionably under both bills; that was the objective of them. Mr. MOORE. As you note, section 215 presently provides certain penalty provisions, one of which I think is $5,000 or 5 years' imprisonment or both. I notice in your bill, H.R. 11603, which adds a section 216 to the Immigration and Nationality Act, you set up a different scope of penalties. Is there any specific reason why they should not perhaps be the same, or Mr. CRAMER. I would not have any objection. I think it is strictly discretionary with the committee. I say my purpose in reducing the number of years, I feel the broader the discretion that you give, as is done in H.R. 11603, that possibly the broader the discretion, then the lesser the penalty. I mean, I just personally feel that if this is the reason-for instance, I will say to the gentleman from West Virginia, we are not talking about Communists and subversive activity type situations in all instances and I pointed out the example of Zanzibar. If it involves communism and a conspiracy to overthrow the Government, the penalty should be heavy, the heavier the better, but where the restriction on travel is for other reasons I don't think such a heavy penalty is justified. Mr. MOORE. You really don't? Mr. CRAMER. That is just my personal opinion. Of course, if the committee disagrees, I have no objection to their changing the penalty, but that is my personal feeling. Mr. MOORE. I mean just the last statement that you have left hanging there bothers me just a little bit. This is, I assume, in the discretion of the judge as to how much of a fine and how many years in prison would be imposed. If he just sort of inadvertently steps behind the Iron Curtain and then steps right back, you are going to give him a year or a day in jail and a dollar fine; but if he stays 3 months and perhaps carries with him some Life magazines that tell our secrets, you are going to fine him $5,000 and 5 years in prison? Mr. CRAMER. I am not the judge but I imagine the judge would deal with the factual situation. All this does is set the top penalty. I repeat that it is my belief that where you give broad discretion, as we are doing in this instance, where you don't have a national emergency, where you are not at war, and in instances where you have not withdrawn recognition and where your justification for restricting travel may be other than subversive activities or promoting the overthrow of the Government in the United States, that I think the penalty should not be so severe. That is my personal opinion. If the committee disagrees, I would be glad to conform to its wishes. Mr. MOORE. In which class do you put these various junkets to Cuba with the student group? Mr. CRAMER. I have stated very pointedly in my statement that as far as I am concerned there are a number of them and their leaders, and Mr. Lemansky is an example, who are admitted Communists. It is my belief that many of them are going there for subversive training purposes and they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If I were the judge, I would give them the maximum penalty. Mr. MOORE. To follow up the question posed to you by the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Poff, I would assume that you feel that if the Congress finally enacts a combination of these bills which we have before us that you feel it would be necessary to make some changes in our passport applications to have the individual state that he does not intend to travel to these countries. Mr. CRAMER. The gentleman has made a very important point which is the second point I wanted to make in answer to his inquiry previously. Mr. MOORE. Go ahead. Mr. CRAMER. You ask how the false statement is going to be effectuated in the application for the passport. Mr. MOORE. Right. Mr. CRAMER. I would contemplate that this bill becoming law, the State Department would then revise its application form and a question specifically would be included: Do you intend to travel to a restricted country? If that were falsely answered, it automatically is a violation. That is the second point I wanted to make, and I am glad the gentleman brought it up. Mr. MOORE. Do you have any objection to our suggesting a change in language as the ultimate authority designated to make this finding which you have set forth in H.R. 11603 so that it is in some ways compatible with section 215 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to strike the Secretary of State and put the President of the United States in that position? Mr. CRAMER. I stated that it probably is a preferable approach. Mr. MOORE. Now, there is one thing that you also left hanging that I would like for you to tell me what you meant by it. Perhaps maybe I did not hear you correctly, but you used the term "constitutional right to travel" in response to a question which was posed to you by Mr. Poff. I would like an explanation of what you referred to, keeping in mind the decision of the fifth circuit in the Worthy case. Mr. CRAMER. I call your attention to the Worthy case decision itself. The syllabus No. 13, Constitutional Law, "The right to travel outside the United States is a right which is within protection of the Constitution." Mr. MOORE. That is the term to which you apply constitutional right to travel? Mr. CRAMER. Correct. It is on the basis of the discussion in that case in which the court apparently recognizes a right, though it be restricted. Mr. MOORE. I want to emphasize that. Mr. CRAMER. And can be restricted by Congress where the national interest requires. Mr. MOORE. And the court in that particular case so found? Mr. CHELF. He has the right to travel subject to provisions of the law. Mr. CRAMER. Yes. Mr. CHELF. And restrictions imposed by the President. Mr. CHELF. Either or both? Mr. CRAMER. As our foreign affairs and national interest requires, and that is a broader restriction than "in times of national emergency" and broader than relating to countries from which we have "withdrawn recognition." Thus is the constitutional basis for my second bill. Mr. MOORE. I thank the gentleman very much. Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, may I just say, I want to thank the subcommittee for its time. In closing, I would like to say that I have had reason to give very lengthy study and have done considerable investigation relating to this question of travel, first as the vice chairman of the Latin American Task Force on the Republican side in the House, and, secondly, because of my devoted interest in and concern about the Cuban situation in particular. I wish to state to this subcommittee that, in my opinion, the consideration of this legislation is one of the most important items of business before the Congress of the United States. It is my sincere hope that this subcommittee will in its wisdom vote out some legislation to close these loopholes to prevent this travel, to prevent our young students from being indoctrinated in communism in Cuba or any place else, within the constitutional framework. I am hopeful that it will be done soon enough so that the Congress can act upon it because, as I say, I think it is one of the most vital issues facing the Congress at the present time and the United States if the cold war against communism, and in Cuba in particular, is going to be won. Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Cramer, as a result of your thorough study of a very critical problem, you have rendered an extremely valuable contribution to our committee, for which we are grateful. Mr. CRAMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. FEIGHAN. The next witness is Congressman Byron G. Rogers from Colorado. Mr. Rogers. STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON G. ROGERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for the record and proper identification my name is Byron G. Rogers, Representative from the First Congressional District of Colorado which is the city and county of Denver. I have introduced H.R. 10389, which is a duplicate of the chairman's bill, H.R. 7700. More than 50 Members of Congress have heretofore introduced identical legislation, 10 of which are members of the House Judiciary Committee. Mr. MOORE. Excuse me. Did you say 50? Mr. ROGERS. My understanding is in excess of 50. I am sure that the record will reflect that. It is my further understanding that the chairman of our committee has heretofore appeared and testified as to the full contents and sectionby-section analysis of this particular bill. Mr. FEIGHAN. I beg your pardon. What did you say? 36-382-64-pt. 1- 6 |