against anyone who did not happen to be born in Northern Europe. Our immigration policies since 1924 have made a mockery of the words of Emma Lazarus inscribed on the pedestal of the Statute of Liberty, "Give me your poor, your oppressed ***" We open our door of welcome only to those who have no serious need to immigrate, and for the few who manage to wait their turn for years on oversubscribed quotas or who come under the restrictive exceptions.

Previous administrations and previous Congresses have tried without success to make the necessary reforms. I earnestly hope that the 88th Congress will be remembered not only for recognizing that man is one family, in this country by passage of the civil rights bill, but also by affirming our acceptance of that truth by the just and responsible changes in our immigration law that are so long: overdue.

That our immigration laws need basic reform has been recognized by both national parties. The Democratic platform of 1960 contained the following plant on immigration:

"We shall adjust our immigration, nationality, and refugee policy to eliminate discrimination and to enable the members of scattered families abroad to be united with relatives already in our midst.

"The national origins quota system limiting immigration contradicts the founding principles of this Nation. It is inconsistent with our belief in the rights of man.

"The revision of immigration and nationality laws we seek will implement our belief that enlightened immigration, naturalization, and refugee policies and humane administration of them are important aspects of our foreign policy. The Republican plank reads:

"Immigration has been reduced to the point where it does not provide stimulus to growth that it should, nor are we fulfilling our obligation as a haven for the oppressed. Republican conscience and Republican policy requires that the annusł number of immigrants we accept be at least doubled.

"Obsolete immigration laws be amended by abandoning the outdated 1920 census data as a base and substituting the 1960 census.

"The guidelines of our immigration policy be based upon judgment of the individual merit of each applicant for admission and citizenship."

In the letter which President Kennedy sent to Congress with the draft legislation he said this bill would end "discrimination between peoples and nations on a basis that is unrelated to any contribution that immigrants can make and is inconsistent with our traditions of welcome."

I will not take the time of the committee to detail the specifics of the bill with which you are all well acquainted. Permit me, however, to mention briefly the major points.

First, the present arbitrary barriers to immigration on the basis of race and na tional origin would be replaced by a new formula based on equality and fairplay Secondly, the hodge-podge of special legislation which has plagued Congress ic cure specific hardship cases could be reduced to a minimum.

Thirdly, families which have been cruelly separated can be reunited.

Fourth, training, talent, and skill will be considered to the benefit of our cultural and economic development.

This bill is the result of careful study and is the distillation of the work of many people both in and out of Government. The Committee on the Judiciary ought to report out this bill intact. I think that time has come, about which Presider: Truman spoke when he vetoed the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 Unfortunately the Congress overrode that courageous veto. President Trumar said, "I am sure that with a little more time and a little more discussion in th country the public conscience and the good sense of the American people will assert themselves and we shall be in a position to enact an immigration and naturalization policy that will be fair to all."

A little more time and a little more discussion has occurred—a full 12 years of time and talk. President Johnson has asked us to get on with this reform fo: reasons of "common sense, common decency, and for the common good."

STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL A. FINO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for granting m this opportunity to participate in your hearings on numerous immigration bills. I am here to explain the provisions of and urge favorable action upon a bill that I have introduced.

This bill, H.R. 8048, provides for the loss of U.S. citizenship by any person who, while a member of the Armed Forces of the United States, is convicted of certain acts of misconduct during any period when the United States is at war or engaged in armed hostilities. The specific acts which would be made grounds for expatriation would be for a member of the Armed Forces, while the captive of an enemy, to act in a manner contrary to law, custom, or regulation to the detriment of fellow prisoners in order to secure favorable treatment by his captors. Conviction of such conduct by a court martial would be required for such expatriation to become effective. Mr. Chairman, ever since the end of the Korean war we have seen a succession of turncoats returning to the United States after having gone over to the enemy until they became aware of the error of their ways. Many of these men had curried favor with their captors at the expense of their buddies. It is disgraceful to think that these wayward individuals who thought more of their own hides than of the welfare of their fellow prisoners should be permitted to return to this country and continue to enjoy all the benefits and privileges of U.S. citizenship.

A dishonorable discharge or other court-martial punishment does not, in my opinion, make up for the heinous and traitorous conduct of these men. As members of the Armed Forces they took and oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same. By their cowardly conduct they have broken this oath. Forfeiture of their U.S. citizenship is not, in my opinion, too great a penalty to inflict upon these individuals.

This bill may seem a harsh measure to some, Mr. Chairman. I do not think that it is. It merely provides an additional penalty for acts that are now prescribed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice and extends their applicability to periods when the United States is engaged in armed hostilities as well as at war. I believe that the penalty provided by the bill fits the crime. I urge you to give serious consideration to the bill.

STATEMENT OF HON. O. C. Fisher, a REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. Chairman, your committee is giving consideration to proposals that our traditional quota system, based upon national origins, be scrapped. I am opposed

to this. The national origins quota system has been in effect since 1922. It is traditional, sound, and sufficiently flexible to cope with unusual situations that arise from time to time.

This Nation is suffering from chronic unemployment. There is a housing shortage in many areas. Too many people in congested areas lead to riots, demonstrations, and disruptions. Indeed it is high time that instead of seeking ways to increase our immigrants we think in terms of population controls and more education in the field of birth control.

As the late and lamented Congressman Francis E. Walter once said: “* * * The United States has a principal obligation to its own country first, rather than to the outer world." Before seeking more immigrants at a higher rate let us do more about getting our own house in order. Rate of imports under the quota, plus other admissions, now exceed 300,000 annually.

The quota system is an orderly time-tested method of admitting those who are deserving and who may be expected to contribute the most to our society and our heritage.

Mr. Chairman, once the dike is broken and our quota system is scrapped, the United States may well become the dumping ground for overpopulated European countries. We should and can be very choosy about who is admitted. And certainly if the quota method goes out there will be less choice and a much larger influx.

Unfortunately, there is and has long been political overtones in this movement to outlaw our barriers against more immigration from certain areas. Let us consider this issue on a basis of merit and what is best for America. When that is done I feel confident our traditional immigration laws, with the quotas based upon national origin, will be protected and maintained.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN E. FOGARTY, A RepresentativE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND

Mr. Chairman, I welcome the privilege and the opportunity of submitting this statement to this Immigration Subcommittee in its consideration of the various legislative proposals to amend our immigration and nationality laws. I urge the prompt and favorable consideration of my bill, H.R. 7976, introduced in the present Congress on August 7, 1963, and recommend its speedy enactment.

My bill is identical in content with H.R. 7700, which was introduced by Mr. Celler, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and both bills would carry out the recommendations of the administration in respect to revisions to be made in the immigration law.

The word "revisions" is perhaps too weak a term to describe what would be accomplished by this legislation. In his message to the Congress of July 23, 1963, the late President John F. Kennedy pointed out that there was a compelling need for the Congress to reexamine the immigration laws and in particular, to enact a fundamental reform of the national origins system of selecting immigrants. I am in full accord. A copy of the President's message is attached and I request that it be included as part of my remarks.

It is not my purpose to encumber the record by including at this point in my statement a full analysis of the legislation which I have introduced; however, a section-by-section analysis thereof is attached and I request that it be included in the record as a portion of my remarks.

One of the most basic defects in our immigration system is that, established in 1924, which bases the quantum of immigration from the various countries in the world upon the national origins of the population of the United States in 1920. There is no sound reason, and in my view there never has been, a logical basis for such a system of selecting and limiting immigrants who may come to this counrty. Statistically, it is established that the present system discriminates unjustly, unreasonably, and unfairly against certain countries and races, particularly those from southern and eastern Europe and from other parts of the world.

Because of the fallacy implicit therein, while thousands of prospective immigrants from those places are prevented from obtaining visas to come to the United States because their quotas are oversubscribed, many thousands of quota numbers go to waste because they are available only to persons coming from the Nordic or northern areas of Europe whence the pressure for immigration is comparatively

low.

My bill would do away with the national origins system and in its place establish a method whereby immigration to the United States will be influenced and regu lated on the basis of the skills of the immigrant, the value thereof to the needs of the United States, family relationships to persons already here, and priority of registration. The highest priority would go to those whose abilities would add to the national welfare; next would come persons wishing to be reunited with their relatives.

This bill would come into effect gradually so as to avoid unreasonable hardships upon persons who were depending upon the present system for seeking admission to the United States. Furthermore, the bill would have flexibility to permit adjustments to be made in the administration of the immigration law when necessary to prevent undue restrictions upon natives of other nations.

Existing quotas would be reduced gradually and the numbers released thereby would be placed in a pool to be distributed on a new basis. No one country would receive over 10 percent of the total quota numbers authorized in any one year. An Immigration Board would be set up to advise the President upon the reservation of a designated percentage of the unallocated quota numbers, and to formulate recommendations to the President regarding the use of the quota reserve pool.

My bill further would abolish the inequity which now exists resulting from the failure of the present law to permit the utilization of all authorized quota numbers. As many as 60,000 quota numbers are wasted each year because natives of the countries involved do not seek, in sufficient numbers, to migrate to the United States. This deficiency would be corrected by my bill.

The bill, in addition, would repeal the discriminatory provisions in existing law establishing a harsh and unjustified formula regulating immigration of persons who are attributable by race to an area within the Asia-Pacific triangle. This is one of the most notoriously offensive sections of our present law which would be wiped from the books.

As is well known here in Congress and among my constituents, I have always been in favor of removing barriers which prevent the reuniting of families. In

that direction my bill would give nonquota status to parents of American citizens, thereby permitting their timely migration to this country. In addition, the bill would give a prefernece in the quota system to parents of resident aliens, instead of forcing them to wait on the same quota waiting lists with persons in other categories who have no connections in the United States.

The bill would also modernize and liberalize the procedure for granting preference to highly trained or skilled immigrants who are needed in the United States for the improvement of our economy and culture. The bill would also remove the discrimination resulting from the numerical limitations upon their quotas with respect to the newly independent nations of the Western Hemisphere.

One of the most important provisions, in my opinion, contained in the bill which I have introduced is that which would permit the admission to the United States of family members who would be otherwise excludable because of mental illness or defect. The bill would grant discretionary authority in this respect to the Attorney General, under proper safeguards, to waive the provisions of law which would prohibit the admission of persons afflicted with certain mental problems. The bill also makes a technical change with respect to the registration of certain quota visa applicants and to regulate the time of payment of visa fees.

As President Kennedy said in his message to the Congress on July 23, 1963, the enactment of the measures which he recommended, and which are contained in my bill, will not solve all the problems of immigration. Nevertheless, these proposals have the full support of the present administration under the leadership of President Lyndon B. Johnson and nothing less than full and complete enactment should be regarded as acceptable by the Congress. If this bill is enacted it will mark a further step in the progress of the United States toward realization of its ideals; it will eliminate discrimination and serve to raise the stature of the United States in the eyes of the entire world now so concerned with the problems of humanitarianism and elimination of discrimination as between peoples and races, nations and nations.

In addition to the proposals which are already contained in my bill, H.R. 7976, I urge the enactment of additional legislation to amend clause (a) of section 249 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1259) by striking out the date "June 28, 1940" and inserting in lieu thereof "December 24, 1952". The purpose

of this proposal is to revise and liberalize that section of the law which permits the adjustment of immigration status of certain aliens who entered the United States many years ago and who are deportable from this country principally on technical grounds. My proposal would move up the date prior to which entry must have occurred from June 28, 1940, to December 24, 1952. No change would be made in the present requirements regarding continuous residence, good moral character, and the like. By changing the date to December 24, 1952, the law would establish the date of entry as prior to the effective date of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the present basic code. In other words, a benefit would be granted to persons who entered this country before the new requirements which became effective at that time.

No harm would result to this country from the enactment of this proposal. On the contrary, it would serve to permit the reuniting of families and to permit technically deportable aliens to remain in this country without harshly tearing them away from the arms of their loved ones here. I urge favorable and prompt consideration by this committee of this proposal.

Mr. Chairman, I am also the author of a bill, H.R. 10160, which I introduced in the present Congress on February 27, 1964, and I urge and recommend its prompt enactment. At the time of the introduction of this bill I pointed out in my remarks that this proposal would permit the immigration of mentally retarded persons under the same conditions as have been imposed upon the victims of tuberculosis. My interest in the problems of the mentally afflicted are well known to all. In regard to immigration the problem is a particularly distressing one because it affects the basic unit of society-the family.

Consider the heartbreaking results which must follow under existing law merely because a child or other relative in a migrating family is mandatorily excludable from the United States without any recourse because of mental retardation. Shall the child be wrested from the arms of its mother and placed in the speculative care and custody of an institution or stranger abroad? Shall the whole family be forced to remain outside of the United States because of the dreadful affliction of the child? In my view, the answer to both of these questions must be in the negative.

Due recognition must be given to the progress of this country in health and rehabilitation, in health and health-related research sponsored and supported by

36-382-64-pt. 1--19

the Federal Government. Thousands of programs are now in effect under legislation providing providing for child care, study of mental retardation, construction of research centers, and training of special teachers. This country has made tremendous advances in the health field and I believe from the legal aspect in regard to the administration and application of the immigration laws we should also look forward. This country should not deprive itself of the presence and contribution of persons and their families in this country merely because of affliction with illness which can be controlled and, in some respects, cured or at least alleviated. Accordingly, I reiterate my strong recommendation that my bill, H.R. 10160, be promptly enacted so that here, too, the United States can exhibit to the world at large its policy of alleviating hardship, of reuniting families, and of advancing the course of progress in all possible respects.

THE WHITE HOUSE. The White House made public today the following letter from the President to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives:

Hon. LYNDON B. JOHNSON,

President of the Senate, Washington, D.C.
Hon. JOHN W. MCCORMACK,

Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.

JULY 23, 1963.

DEAR MR. PRESIDENT (DEAR MR. SPEAKER): I am transmitting herewith, for the consideration of the Congress, legislation revising and modernizing our immigration laws. More than a decade has elapsed since the last substantial amendment to these laws. I believe there exists a compelling need for the Congress to reexamine and make certain changes in these laws.

The most urgent and fundamental reform I am recommending relates to the national origins system of selecting immigrants. Since 1924 it has been used to determine the number of quota immigrants permitted to enter the United States each year. Accordingly, although the legislation I am transmitting deals with many problems which require remedial action, it concentrates attention primarily upon revision of our quota immigration system. The enactment of this legisla tion will not resolve all of our important problems in the field of immigration law. It will, however, provide a sound basis upon which we can build in developing an immigration law that serves the national interest and reflects in every detail the principles of equality and human dignity to which our Nation subscribes. Elimination of discrimination based on national origins

Present legislation establishes a system of annual quotas to govern immigration from each country. Under this system, 156,700 quota immigrants are permitted to enter the United States each year. The system is based upon the national origins of the population of the United States in 1920. The use of the year 1920 is arbitrary. It rests upon the fact that this system was introduced in 1924 and the last prior census was in 1920. 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 anachronism, for it discriminates among applicants for admission into the United States on the basis of accident of birth.

Because of the composition of our population in 1920, the system is heavily weighted in favor of immigration from northern Europe and severely limits immigration from southern and eastern Europe and from other parts of the world. An American citizen with a Greek father or mother must wait at least 18 months to bring his parents here to join him. A citizen whose married son er dauther, or brother or sister is Italian cannot obtain a quota number for them for an even longer time. Meanwhile, many thousands of quota numbers are wasted because they are not wanted or needed by nationals of the countries to which they are assigned.

I recommend that there be substituted for the national origins system a formuls governing immigration to the United States which takes into account (1) the skills of the immigrant and their relationship to our needs, (2) the family relation ship between immigrants and persons already here, so that the reuniting of families is encouraged, and (3) the priority of registration. Present law grants a preference to immigrants with special skills, education, or training. It also grants a preference to various relatives of U.S. citizens and lawfully resident aliens. But it does so only within a national origins quota. It should be modified so that those with the greatest ability to add to the national welfare, no matter