would vote to liberalize completely the laws so that families could be quickly reunited.

I would give top priority to that.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Thank you very much, Mr. O'Hara.

Mr. O'HARA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Our next witness will be our able colleague from the great State of New York, the Honorable John M. Murphy. Will you proceed, Mr. Murphy?

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN M. MURPHY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I certainly appreciate the opportunity of being able to appear before the committee this morning.

I appear not for the sake of changing a law just for the sake of changes, and I do not subscribe to that theory at all.

However, I feel that in the instance of our immigration laws, the experience I have come in contact with indicates some changes are in order. I realize, of course, that in many sections of this country, and I would say in most sections of this country, there are people who feel they do not want any immigration into this country.

Through correspondence with hundreds of thousands of people in my own district, I have gotten the feeling they do not want any immigration into the United States and yet there are others who probably are from families who are first, second, or third generation and who have a more liberal attitude toward the immigration laws, feeling opportunities that this country offers should be offered or held open to people throughout the world.

I find that the quota system as it now is applied, particularly with people of Italian ancestry, Greek ancestry, and Polish ancestry, I find that the wait of so many years to unite families imposed by these quota systems, which allow quotas from Great Britain and Ireland and some of the other countries, that the urge to immigrate here is not as great and their quotas go unfilled and this could well be allocated to worthy people in these other countries who wish to emigrate for the sake of not only uniting a family or providing a skill to this country-perhaps people in Poland or other countries behind the Iron Curtain who want to escape persecution would want to come here.

I do not think our overall immigration should increase substantially and I think basically the numbers now prescribed in the legislation introduced of 164,582 is certainly adequate and just.

Mr. FEIGHAN. May I interrupt?

Mr. MURPHY. Yes, sir.

Mr. FEIGHAN. You are familiar, of course, with the fact that under the quota system, in the past 10 years only about 33 percent of alien admissions to the United States came under the national origins quota formula and about 67 percent have entered the United States on a nonquota or other specific legislation?

Mr. MURPHY. Yes; I am.

Mr. FEIGHAN. The total annual admissions of the last 10 years have been between 290,000 and 300,000 each year.

Mr. MURPHY. One problem which came to my mind through specific case history is this: Formerly people who had epilepsy, certain feeblemindedness, or mental retardation, they had difficulty in entering the country. I had a case of a young family, they were citizens and had a child who was not a citizen. This was a feebleminded child but he had been showing great progress. It would have to go back to its country, the country of Honduras, where there was no medical facility or technology to assist the child. This present legislation does provide for relief to that family in that particular instance.

I further subscribe to the creation of the Immigration Board which would constantly sit and prescribe any change in regulation which might be deemed necessary in keeping the regulations current.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Of course, you may or may not know that section 401 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which set up the Joint Committee on Immigration and Nationality Policy, composed of five Members of the House and five Members of the Senate, was for that specific purpose. That is statutory legislation.

Do you feel that that should not fulfill its statutory function and that the function of this joint committee representing Congress should give up its constitutional duty and transfer it to a board composed of some members who are not Members of Congress?

Mr. MURPHY. I think in the composition of the Board as prescribed here with two Members of the Senate and two Members of the House and three from the executive it would not be giving up any constitutional rights. The Board would merely prescribe regulations, whereas the law as enacted would be fulfilled by the legislative bodies.

Mr. FEIGHAN. The act set up section 401 appointing a Joint Committee on Immigration and Nationality Policy to perform that function of review. The Supreme Court decision of 1875, in the Interstate and Foreign Commerce case, they set forth definitely that Congress alone has the obligation, duty, and authority to review and regulate immigration.

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, I am certainly not in favor of any legislation which would restrict any constitutional powers of the legisla ture. However, I felt creation of this Board would be a worthy function to continually review the regulations and to update them as it might be deemed necessary.

Å further portion of this legislation would require a bond by students and other visitors. That is a worthy addition because of the abuses I have run into in the present immigration. It seems the abuses are in the student category and also in the category of exchange students. I think that that bond is a worthy addition to the law.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Abuses on whose part?

Mr. MURPHY. Of students who come here on a purely student basis and then fail to leave the country, and as such they create a problem for the Immigration authorities; whereas, if they had a bond, I think the removal and the return to their countries would be expedited. Mr. FEIGHAN. Are you referring to exchange students or regular students?

Mr. MURPHY. Regular students.

Mr. FEIGHAN. You mean we should or should not have a bond? I would like to get that clear.

Mr. MURPHY. We should have a bond.

Mr. FEIGHAN. I see.

You mentioned epilepsy. You are familiar with the fact that one of the purposes for exclusion of persons with epilepsy was that if they came to this country they might have to be hospitalized and in many instances would become a public charge which Congress in its wisdom wanted to avoid.

Of course, medical science has progressed in the past years so that through medication cases of epilepsy are arrested so that a person who years ago could not perform ordinary functions in society now, because of medication, is able to live a comparatively normal life. Mr. MURPHY. I agree with that statement, Mr. Chairman, that as such we should not allow feebleminded, epileptics, and that type of person in.

However, in a case where a family has a child where they should care for that child, and that child is feebleminded, retarded, or an epileptic, there should be a provision in the law to permit that family to have the child and not take it away merely because of its affliction which is no fault of its own.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Of course, there is an element of a person's becoming public charge of which we should take proper cognizance. You will agree with that?

Mr. MURPHY. I agree with that.

Those are my views on this legislation, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FEIGHAN. In relation to the priority and preference category, skilled workers, and giving elasticity to the law so that our country would become a haven for those who are victims of religious or political persecution or tyranny, or upheavals of natural causes, and niting or reuniting families, what priority of importance do you attach to the reuniting of families?

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, in assigning a clear-cut priority in the case of a skilled worker versus someone who is suffering religious or political persecution, or someone who is a member of a family, it is little difficult to tie it down so far as priority is concerned.

Personally I feel that the persecution should be the first priority, and family cohesiveness should be the second priority, and skill the hird priority.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Chelf?

Mr. CHELF. I would like to say this along the line of discussion of he chairman and out able colleague:

The subcommittee here has over the years, certainly since I have Deen a member, tried desperately to reconcile all the facts and look with favor on the reunion of families who are so unfortunate as to ave an epileptic in the family, or perhaps a youngster who does not ave too much power of reasoning or understanding. These are the ypes of cases which literally tear out your heartstrings.

I notice on many occasions in our committee we are always hopeful that the next doctor's report will be impressive and be favorable so bat we can go ahead and move to bring in that child.

I feel the record should be complete. I have seen these men do verything to the very nth degree, go as far as they possibly could go within the confines of the law, to reunite these families.

It has been a blessing to these many poor, unfortunate families, hat the great strides of medicine have alleviated and helped to solve To some extent this very grave problem with which we are confronted.

I can appreciate what the gentleman has had to say and what the chairman has had to say, and I feel that in all good conscience the record should show that this is a committee with a heart and this is a committee which desperately tries to reunite families and one which does its very best to follow out the primary object and purpose of the law which Congress has enacted.

That is all I have to say, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chelf, I would like to applaud the subcommittee on its actions in the past in that regard. Certainly it has done that. Mr. CHELF. You have to take individual cases. Where a child progressed we were for it all the way. Many times when they got to the level where the doctor said "The case has been arrested," bang. we moved right along. It has been our policy and I felt you should know.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FEIGHAN. The Chair would like to announce that tomorrow, June 30, it will be the last day for Members to testify on the pending immigration legislation. Interested Members may file statements after that date if they wish in lieu of making personal appearance.

All statements by members will be included in the record of hearings. Hearings will continue on Wednesday, July 1, to take testimony from the executive agencies. The Honorable Dean Rusk, the Secretary of State, will open this phase of our hearings.

The subcommittee will recess now until 2:30 this afternoon in the hope that the business on the floor of the House will have been concluded by that time so that we may afford the opportunity for Members of Congress to appear and testify if they so desire and find it convenient to do so.

Mr. CHELF. I want to commend and publicly applaud our chairman for what he has just said, especially allowing our colleagues the privilege to present their views either pro or con into the record.

I know there are so many who are under the whiplash of double duty, so to speak.

I have a meeting which is very important to my people, the people I represent, over in the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee. It has to do with the tobacco report. I find myself whipping back and forth as best I can.

Therefore I want to commend our chairman for allowing our colleagues the right to put in their statements, no matter how they may feel about this legislation.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chelf.

We shall recess until 2:30 this afternoon.

AFTERNOON SESSION

Mr. FEIGHAN. The subcommittee will come to order.

We will have as our first witness this afternoon our able colleague from New York, Mr. Ryan.

Will you proceed, Mr. Ryan.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM FITTS RYAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. RYAN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I thank you for the opportunity of presenting my views concerning a most important topic to me and my constituents-the revision of the present immigration laws. I am sure that you are aware that my office is one of the most active in regard to immigration matters. Because of the problems of my constituents, I have had the opportunity of observing the inequities of the present law at close range. This experience has led me to the conclusion that our present immigration laws must be changed and that such a change is long overdue. I have introduced H.R. 7740 which is identical to H.R. 7700, the administration's bill.

At the heart of this proposal is the eventual abolition of the national origins system of selecting immigrants. The results of the system are shown by some of the statistics. For example, Spain has the ridiculously low annual quota of 250. At this very time there are 15,258 Spaniards waiting to enter this country. A substantial number of these people have been waiting for a number of years. The Greek quota is 308 per year. Today there are 105,233 Greeks waiting to enter this country. Many of these people have been planning to come to this land of freedom for 15 or more years. The Polish quota of 6,488 is also grossly inadequate; 68,701 Poles wait today to be admitted into this country, many of whom have been on the list for 15 years or more. The Italian quota is absurd compared to the number of Italians who want to enter the United States. With an annual quota of 5,666 per year there are 263,878 Italians waiting to enter the United States, many of whom have been waiting 20 years or more. The national origins formula is inadequate and inequitable. By making arbitrary distinctions between peoples and value judgments as to what nationalities are more acceptable, I believe the national origins formula is inconsistent with our basic democratic principles. I think that a brief look at the birth of the national origins formula cannot help but point up the fact that it was the successful culmination of efforts made over 40 years ago to cut the flow of immigration from southern and eastern Europe, as well as from Asia, and at the same time to offer favorable immigration opportunities to members of what were then referred to as the Nordic or Aryan races. Call this what you may, it is nothing less than racial discrimination. It is contrary to our national ideals regarding equality of opportunity regardless of race, color, or creed. In the words of President Kennedy's July 23, 1963, immigration message:

The use of a national origins system is without basis in either logic or reason. It neither satisfies a national need nor accomplishes an international purpose. In an age of interdependence among nations, such a system is an anachronoism, for it discriminates among applicants for admission into the United States on the basis of accident of birth.

The national origins quota formula based on the 1920 census was enacted in 1924 and finally went into effect in 1929.

During the period from 1921 to 1929 there were temporary laws and interim national origins quotas.

36-382-64-pt. 1-15