Mr. Chayes. The State Department doesn't waive the provisions. I should start by saying that 243(g) is a section administered by the Justice Department and the Attorney General has primary responsibility for interpretation and administration. The Attorney General has from the beginning interpreted 243(g) as involving waiver power. I had never had occasion to examine the question at all until this matter came up, and I have made only a cursory examination, but I think the judgment is sound that there is waiver power under 243(g).
Mr. Dulles. May I just ask one question there. Our file that I have before me, and your very helpful paper——
Mr. Coleman. Commission Document No. 2.
Mr. Dulles. Commission Document No. 2 doesn't indicate really the basis on which the Texas authorities were holding up the visa. Does that appear anywhere in the record?
Mr. Chayes. I don't know. It may appear in our attachment B answers. In essence it was that they thought this fellow had behaved pretty badly and he wasn't entitled to any special consideration.
Mr. Coleman. That is why at this time I would like to read into the record part of the regulation under which they will waive. It says:
"If substantial adverse security information related to the petitioner is developed, the visa petition shall be processed on its merits and certified to the regional commissioner for determination whether the sanction should be waived.
"The assistant commissioner shall endorse the petition to show whether the waiver is granted or denied and forward it and notify the appropriate field officer of the action taken."
In other words, that since some derogatory information was in the file, and since Oswald was the petitioner, the initial decision made by the field officer of the Immigration Service was that the waiver should not be granted.
Mr. Chayes. That is correct.