of the Memorandum of Understanding have been reached or are about to be reached.

Mr. HURWITCH. This is perfectly correct, Mr. Chairman. That is exactly what we are doing.

Mr. FASCELL. That is not what you said the other day, Mr. Secretary. Mr. HURWITCH. In what sense?

Mr. FASCELL. You said that the thing that the Administration was reviewing was simply whether or not there were any cost reductions that could be effected in the program. We had been advised earlier that there was a high-level review of policy going on in the Administration, and your testimony, as I understand it, pointed in the opposite direction. You said quite clearly the review in process was directed to the question of cost, as I understood it.

The record can speak for itself on that point. Obviously, one of the first things that would be essential to any policy review would be the determination of whether or not the principal objectives of the Memorandum of Understanding were about to be achieved.

Mr. HURWITCH. I think there is a misunderstanding, Mr. Chairman. I cannot speak for the Administration. I am speakingMr. FASCELL. If you cannot, who can?

Mr. HURWITCH. I believe the President of the United States or the White House representative. This is a matter in which I represent one bureau, one department of the Executive. Mr. Palmatier represents another. The Bureau of the Budget represents a third and in this instance is the initiator acting on behalf of the White House following that policy review. I thought this had been made perfectly clear, this policy review was being undertaken at the request of the White House through the instrumentality of the Bureau of the Budget. Two departments of the Executive are involved; namely, the Departments of State and Health, Education, and Welfare.

I had assumed that we were speaking from that common background in our testimony here.

Mr. FASCELL. Maybe I misunderstood you, Mr. Secretary. If so, excuse me. I understood your testimony to be that the thing that was being examined in that review was not policy but simply cost elements. Mr. HURWITCH. No, Mr. Chairman. There is a misunderstanding. I welcome this opportunity to correct the record on this point.

When I had mentioned earlier such considerations as the tradition of our country to provide a haven for oppressed persons from Communist nations particularly as well as other people who are oppressed-the moral commitment that I believe we have to those Cubans who at considerable risk, personal pain and discomfort accepted our offer to be reunited with their families in the United States-those are policy considerations. Those are not monetary considerations, in my judgment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FASCELL. That is exactly what we are talking about, the policy considerations, not dollars. Are those the considerations which are under review?

Mr. HURWITCH. Yes, sir, of course.

Mr. FASCELL. They are?

Mr. HURWITCH. Yes, sir.

Mr. FASCELL. I didn't understand that.

Mr. HURWITCH. I am sorry I had not made myself clear and would like to

Mr. FASCELL. I got the impression from your testimony, quite frankly, that the review had been made and those decisions had been made with respect to policy.

Mr. HURWITCH. The White House will make the ultimate determinations with regard to foreign policy as is customary under our system, as you know. I was speaking from the standpoint of the Department of State in that in the conduct of our foreign affairs we have made an international agreement

Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Hurwitch, I thoroughly understand that. I used those same arguments in defeating the Clay amendment on the floor of the House. I felt it was inequitable and unfair to abruptly terminate this program after thousands of pople had given up everything they owned and placed themselves in jeopardy by relying on a commitment of the U.S. Government.

EXTENT OF THE U.S. COMMITMENT UNDER THE MEMORANDUM OF

UNDERSTANDING

But the basic policy question is, it seems to me, have we fulfilled our commitment under the Memorandum of Understanding with respect to the reunification of the families involved? It is my impres sion that relatives in categories A and B, included in that Memorandum of Understanding, have been largely brought to the United States except for the people on the United States supplementary lists whom the Cubans have refused to turn loose.

I think it is important for us to know, and for the administration to know, if that is a correct assumption. It seems to me this would have a very direct bearing on what our policy should be in the future both with respect to the Cuban Government and with regard to the airlift itself.

Can you throw any light on that?

Mr. HURWITCH. Mr. Chairman, I believe the record will show that I suggested that discussion of policy options be conducted in executive session.

Mr. FASCELL. Why don't we do that a little later this morning? We will complete the open session and then go into executive session so that you can discuss these questions and the various options that are available to us.

I think it is important that you clarified the record this morning because the way I read it the other day, the way I understood it, you were not reviewing the basic policy issues involved in the airlift. I am delighted that the record is clear.

Mr. HURWITCH. I welcome this opportunity

Mr. FASCELL. I have been really concerned about this difference in numbers that keeps on cropping up all the time and the fact that we do not seem to know what the full list is or whether our commitment has been fulfilled under the Memorandum of Understanding. Mr. HURWITCH. If I may be perfectly candid, Mr. Chairman. First of all, let me say I do welcome the opportunity to clear up any misunderstandings. Secondly, perhaps I would have been wiser to have kept to the text of the letter which said at least 250,000 and avoided

Mr. FASCELL. Leave it open-ended?

Mr. HURWITCH. Yes.

I was trying to be helpful. At the present, we believe as many as 300,000 Cubans may have originally registered. I do not believe that figure is inconsistent with the estimate of "at least 250,000" which you received last year.

Mr. FASCELL. I would agree with that.

Mr. HURWITCH. Fine.

Mr. FASCELL. It is when we don't really know where we started from or where we are going, that I become concerned.

CATEGORIES OF CUBAN REGISTRANTS

We have two categories of relatives under the agreement? They are both aimed at the reuniting of families, is that correct? That involves close relatives-father, mother, brother, sister and children?

STATEMENT OF HOWARD H. PALMATIER, DIRECTOR, CUBAN REFUGEE PROGRAM, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

Mr. PALMATIER. Category A is actually a little more restrictive. As you recall, at the beginning of the airlift there were about 13,000 refugee children in the United States whose parents were not here at all. At the time the exodus from Cuba occurred, commercial transportation was available but not to the extent it could take out everyone who wanted to leave. The parents of about 13,000 Cuban minors were put in the arms of anyone coming to the United States who would bring them. They had that type of faith in this country. Seven thousand of these children were put with private families in the United States. For the remaining number, the Federal Government was required to assume responsibility; it did so through the various church agencies.

President Johnson was quite anxious to reunite this group in particular. As a result, under the priority A part of the memorandum, priority was given to bringing out of Cuba the parents of those children in the United States who were single and under the age of 21.

You had split families. You might have a mother here with a minor, and the father still in Cuba; so priority was given to bringing out that father. With respect to sons and daughters, there was a limitation under priority A-they had to be single and had to be under the age of 21. Brothers and sisters were in the same situation. A married brother over the age of 21 did not come under priority A. It was a very close, immediate family movement in that sense.

I believe the memorandum says that after full capacity of the airplanes were no longer needed to bring out those in priority A, the movement of others could begin—that is, priority B, which we now have. That did happen in 1966. It is still a family reunion scheme. Under priority A there was this very, very close restriction on relationship.

Mr. FASCELL. Category B is basically still a family reunion?
Mr. PALMATIER. Yes, sir; that is correct.

Mr. GROSS. That is within a first-degree relationship?

Mr. PALMATIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. GROSS. I believe that you said-if I may, Mr. ChairmanMr. FASCELL. Certainly.

Mr. GROSS. I believe it was said, either by Mr. Palmatier or Mr. Hurwitch the other day, that these relationships were valid? Mr. PALMATIER. That is correct.

Mr. GROSS. Valid in that they are not coming in under any kind of fraudulent relationship?

Mr. PALMATIER. That is correct.

Mr. GROSS. Beyond the first degree?
Mr. PALMATIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. GROSS. Of family relationship?
Mr. PALMATIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Monagan.

Mr. MONAGAN. I will pass, if I may.
Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Morse.

Mr. MORSE. Not at the moment.
Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Kazen.

Mr. KAZEN. No questions.

HEW RESPONSIBILITIES-DATA PROCESSING

Mr. FASCELL. Did we receive testimony on the manner in which those who are on an installment list are processed to come into the United States, what paperwork takes place? I think you said the cases are processed on IBM cards?

Mr. PALMATIER. I can speak to that.

While HEW, as you know, has no legal responsibility with respect. to who is qualified to enter the United States or not, it so happened that at the time the airlift started, in December 1965, HEW did have in the Cuban Refugee Center in Miami IBM capabilities, so we were asked to become involved in the paper processing of the lists.

Mr. FASCELL. In other words, HEW became an agent of the State Department in carrying out the Cuban refugee program?

Mr. PALMATIER. A service agency, if you will. What happens is that from time to time, through the State Department Office in Miami, the Cuban Refugee Center receives installments from the Cuban master list. They are in the form of nominal rolls. The first item on the nominal roll, as I mentioned, is the name and address of the person in the United States the family in Cuba is going to be joining.

This is followed by the name, date and place of birth, and address of the people in Cuba who are going to be coming to the United States. At the Cuban Refugee Center, using our data processing equipment we make out a series of forms-I guess one of the best descriptions of them would be "investigative lead sheets." A packet of them, five as a matter of fact, are immediately turned over to the Immigration Service in Miami, Fla., which, using its contacts and so or, conducts a type of security vetting. At the same time that the Immigration Service. is conducting its vetting, we in turn in HEW, through the voluntary agencies that work with us, are in touch with the relative listed on the form to see-Does the relationship exist? Do the people want them to come? What type of assistance will they need once they get here? And so forth.

At a given point in time, in most instances, we in HEW have received a response from the so-called claimant-the person they are going to be joining and we have also received back from the Immigration Service a statement as to whether the persons being screened can or cannot come to the United States. We get all of these things together. We in turn, using the data processing equipment, reprint a nominal roll which is responsive to the original installment from the Cuban Government. We say, "From your installment No. 26"-as an example-"we find the following persons acceptable for movement to the United States." That is fundamentally the paperwork.

Mr. FASCELL. What does the Swiss Embassy get?

Mr. PALMATIER. From the Cuban Government?
Mr. FASCELL. Do they get a roll or cards?

Mr. PALMATIER. Yes, the nominal rolls, as I understand it, from the Cuban Government are turned over to the Swiss Embassy; they then come up to the United States, to the State Department office in Miami. The same channel, in reverse, is followed by us. The nominal rolls we print up are turned over to the Department of State. They in turn transmit them to the Swiss Embassy and, as I understand it, they are then turned over to the Cuban Government.

ROLE OF SWISS EMBASSY IN PROCESSING REFUGEE LISTS

Mr. GROSS. Does the Swiss Government or the Swiss Embassy have an actual physical presence at the airport at the time of boarding of these people?

Mr. PALMATIER. Perhaps Mr. Hurwitch should explain that.

Mr. HURWITCH. Yes; they do, Congressman Gross. In addition, we send down our own people, as we testified the other day.

Mr. FASCELL. What is the Swiss Embassy doing when they get this approved printout? Do they then make up a card for each individual coming to the United States?

Mr. FUNSETH. We return the cards to the Swiss Embassy in Havana and they turn them over to the Cuban Government.

Mr. FASCELL. Does the refugee center send cards to the Swiss Embassy?

Mr. PALMATIER. I think I know what the chairman is referring to. The actual IBM cards that are sent to the Swiss Embassy are blank IBM cards. They use them in the processing of the lists. I think they turn some of them over to the Cubans who are involved in the processing. The reason for this is that shortly after the airlift started and we began to receive the nominal rolls it became quite obvious, because of the quality of the paper and equipment that they had down there, we couldn't read the nominal rolls.

Mr. FASCELL. You mean the Cubans or the Swiss? The inadequate equipment was owned by whom?

Mr. PALMATIER. The Cubans.

Mr. FASCELL. We couldn't read their rolls, their printouts?

Mr. PALMATIER. That is right. So we actually began to furnish the

paper and the cards. We sent them to the Swiss Embassy.

Mr. FASCELL. Does the Swiss Embassy just deliver them in bulk?

Mr. PALMATIER. I cannot say. I don't know how the Swiss Embassy handles them. We are not involved in that.