(1) A study of all nonquota provisions of the law to determine both policy impact and outcome over a period of 10 or more years. (2) A study of advisory opinions by the Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs of the Department of State on visa issuances to determine whether this administrative practice is making policy which is not authorized by law or covered by expressed congressional intent. (3) A study of the education exchange program to determine whether admissions of this nonimmigrant class is being used as a subterfuge by people to gain immigrant status and benefits. (4) A complete study of non-immigrant-worker classes. What needs to be determined here is whether policy reflected in our immigration laws is realistic in light of current needs of the United States. (5) A study of the so-called commuters-people who work in the United States, but live in Canada or Mexico. The implications of this growing trend to immigration policy has never been touched, and it needs immediate study. (6) A complete review of the general grounds of exclusions and deportation of aliens under the immigration law. Policy so far as congressional control in this area is concerned is questionable. There are 31 grounds for exclusion and 25 or more for deportation of aliens. There has been no review of these matters since the law was enacted in 1952. We should determine whether the authorized grounds for exclusion or deportation are realistic in light of experience over the past 13 years. COMPETENT STAFF REQUIREMENT There are other areas of policy that should be examined and studied by the joint committee. But these are, in my opinion, the most urgent ones. It is obvious that a competent staff is required to undertake policy research activity of the magnitude implicit in the problem areas I have identified. WITNESS TESTIMONY BEFORE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE LEGISLATURE APPROPRIATIONS If the commitee desires me to go into the matter of why the House Subcommittee on Immigration and Nationality is not prepared to undertake these tasks, I am prepared to do so. Otherwise, I prefer to let the issue rest on the merits of my testimony before the House Subcommittee on Legislative Appropriations. As the record will show, that testimony was sufficient to bring about favorable action by the House. FISCAL YEAR 1966 BUDGET REQUEST The committee request is for $120.268.64 for the next fiscal year. This represents an increase of $100,000 in the funds authorized for the present fiscal year. Further, it represents a decrease of approximately $40,000 in funds originally requested for the present fiscal year. 49-381 0-65--21 PERSONNEL REQUESTED I invite your attention to the change in staffing pattern made in the proposal now before you. Last year's request carried line items for a director of investigations and investigators. I have dropped a chief investigator, one investigator, and a general staff assistant. The staffing pattern is thus concentrated on research personnel to undertake research activities consistent with the statutory responsibilities of the committee. In addition, provision is made for continuing the services of the staff director and for employment of a counsel, a secretary, and two stenographers. Total personnel costs under the pending request is $102,268.64. JOINT COMMITTEE HEARINGS The balance of $18,000 is broken down as follows: For hearings of the committee $500,000, including the expenses of expert witnesses on various subjects of study related to policy. There is some question as to how the expenses of the official hearing stenographers covering hearings of the committee are to be paid. I am advised that because of the statutory nature of the joint committee there are doubts that expenses of this nature can be covered through the usual appropriation to cover such costs. Accordingly, I am requesting authorization of funds to cover all aspects of public hearings to be held by the joint committee. TRAVEL To cover travel and subsistence costs of members and staff when away from Washington on official business, $8,000 is requested. This would include committee hearings and field studies undertaken by staff members. CONGRESSIONAL ASSUMPTION AND DISCHARGE OF CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES There are two final considerations which go to the heart of justification for the funds requested to activate fully the work of the Joint Committee. Those considerations are whether Congress shall assume fully its constitutional responsibilities for regulating immigration into the United States and how Congress shall discharge that responsibility. OPPOSITION TO DELEGATION OF CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH IMMIGRATION POLICY As to the first consideration, it is now clear that whichever branch of Government sets policy on immigration, in fact, regulates immigration into the United States. Major legislation calling for immigration reform now pending in the Senate and in the House of Representatives calls for the establishment of an Immigration Board and delegates to that Board all the major policy functions now held by the Joint Committee under section 401 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. In fact, a comparison of the language in the pending bills with the language of present law in section 401 reveals that it is practically identical. Congress is, therefore, confronted with the request to delegate its unquestioned authority for establishing immigration policy to an Immigration Board. I oppose this delegation of authority and I am convinced a majority of the Members of the House are equally opposed. It has been said that when a vacuum occurs in the exercise of authority someone or some force will move in to exercise that authority. It is my purpose to remove any doubts or misunderstandings about the ability or the will of Congress to exercise fully its unquestioned authority to establish immigration policy which regulates immigration into the United States. JOINT COMMITTEE ACTIVATION RECOMMENDED The second consideration is how Congress should discharge that responsibility. Thirteen years ago, Congress decided this task should be carried out by a Joint Committee. The opinion then was that a matter of this importance should be shared equally by the House and the Senate. To suggest that the House Subcommittee on Immigration and Nationality should carry this responsibility alone is out of tune with long standing precedents. Similarly, I suggest that having the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization along with the House subcommittee undertake separate policy studies would be an unnecessary duplication of work. The Joint Committee includes the ranking members of the respective subcommittees, with two exceptions, and I am confident the results of joint consideration of the policy problems I have outlined will produce constructive results. JOINT COMMITTEE CHAIRMANSHIP Senator MONRONEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Feighan. You are listed here as chairman. Does that mean chairman of the Joint Committee or chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration? Mr. FEIGHAN. I am chairman of both. Senator MONRONEY. You have been elected chairman of the Joint Committee? Mr. FEIGHAN. Yes. Senator MONRONEY. Would you supply for the record the minutes of the meeting-this point was raised in testimony yesterday. I think it should be cleared up-those present and voting would be necessary without going into any further exchange. (The following information was furnished subsequently :) Congressman Feighan was elected chairman of the Joint Committee to serve for the duration of the 89th Congress by resolution dated February 8, 1965, and signed by six of the then nine members of the Joint Committee. HOUSE IMMIGRATION SUBCOMMITTEE STAFF Senator MONRONEY. How many members do you have on your staff of the Immigration Subcommittee of the Judiciary? Mr. FEIGHAN. I don't know. They are changed quite often. I have nothing to do with the staff of the Judiciary Subcommittee. Senator MONRONEY. You have nothing to do with them. They work for you as chairman. Mr. FEIGHAN. They are in the subcommittee office. They are appointed solely by Mr. Celler who is the chairman of the full committee. There are five staff people. Senator MONRONEY. They are assigned to your subcommittee? Mr. FEIGHAN. Yes. JOINT COMMITTEE STAFF Senator MONRONEY. And you are asking for eight in this Joint Committee. Is that correct? Mr. FEIGHAN. Yes, sir. Senator MONRONEY. That will be eight to serve both the House and the Senate? Mr. FEIGHAN. Yes; as a Joint Committee. Senator MONRONEY. How will those be divided? You have a staff director. Who will select the staff director? Mr. FEIGHAN. I, as chairman, with the agreement of Senator Eastland. Senator MONRONEY. If this is to become a joint committee, it would be a jointly shared responsibility, would it not, so that certain staff members of the eight who are proposed would be the responsibility of the Senate participants? Mr. FEIGHAN. Yes. UTILIZATION STAFF OF HOUSE AND SENATE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY SUBCOMMITTEES Senator MONRONEY. Would it be your plan to utilize the five who are assigned to your subcommittee also to be assisting? Mr. FEIGHAN. No; absolutely not. Senator MONRONEY. Could we use the staff of the Senate Immigration Subcommittee also in the work of the joint committee? It would seem like they both work on immigration and it would be necessary to have a blending of the talents of the staff. Mr. FEIGHAN. That would be desirable but even last year Senator Eastland, chairman of the full Judiciary and also chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization expressed the view that he did not have men or personnel available on his staff to assign to the joint committee. Senator MONRONEY. I am sure this is not working in a vacuum. I know they are busy with special immigration matters, but to not use these regular staff members who are employed already would be violating sound business practices, if they have the time. Mr. FEIGHAN. If they have the time; that is the primary question. HOUSE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS Senator MONRONEY. Yesterday, however, we heard under the administration formulas that there were many reports made dealing with immigration policy. Mr. FEIGHAN. That is not correct. Senator MONRONEY. We were shown a number of pamphlets issued by Chairman Walters during his lifetime. Mr. FEIGHAN. I have been on that subcommittee. Senator MONRONEY. Apparently it is a very active subcommittee. Mr. FEIGHAN. It is very active. Last year and the year before, we had many hearings on population but we have not gone into policy. Senator MONRONEY. We didn't see the hearings but they were there and the reports were there and apparently from the titles that were read they seemed to deal strongly with immigration policy, not to the exclusion of the other. They illustrate some degree of competence on the part of the staff. You are familiar with those reports and you have helped on them, I am sure. Mr. FEIGHAN. Yes; I have presided over many of them. Senator MONRONEY. You are saying those are inadequate to meet the needs and the five that work in the subcommittee would not be available to assist the eight which would be serving both the House and the Senate. Mr. FEIGHAN. There are only two that work other than typing or messengers with the exception of last year the Republicans assigned a minority counsel. Senator MONRONEY. You have three at this time who are still called staff members. Mr. FEIGHAN. Two on the Democratic side and the minority have one counsel. Senator MONRONEY. You are asking only that the amount of $120,000 appropriated by the House be left in the bill? Mr. FEIGHAN. Yes. Senator MONRONEY. Senator Hayden. Senator HAYDEN. I have no questions. Senator MONRONEY. Thank you very much, sir. |