Section 281 is further amended to equalize the visa fees paid by all immigrants; at present, nonquota or preference applicants must pay $10 more than persons not entitled to priority.

Section 14, like section 13, addresses the problem of "insurance" registrations. Many people who applied for visas years ago, and have been offered visas repeatedly, have turned them down each year. They wish only to preserve their priority against some future event. This addition to section 302(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act would allow the Secretary to terminate the registrations of those who had previously declined a visa. Like section 13, it also is important in connection with a projected reregistration of all applicants in certain oversubscribed quota areas, in which we have no way of knowing whether registrants have died, emigrated elsewhere, or changed their minds; the Secretary could terminate the registration of all persons who fail to reregister as required. The provision is not made mandatory to avoid embarrassing or endangering registrants in totalitarian countries, who have no desire to approach an embassy before visas are actually available for them.

Section 15 amends subsections (a) (4) and (g) of section 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to allow the entry of certain mentally afflicted persons. Under present law, no visas may be issued to aliens who are feebleminded or insane, or have had one or more attacks of insanity, or who are afflicted with a psychopathic personality, epilepsy, or a mental defect. This provision has an unfortunate effect on families seeking admission though one member, often a child, is retarded or feebleminded. Such families are forced to choose between leaving the child behind, or staying with it; in either case, the child is condemned to facilities for treatment which are often inadequate. The person afflicted may not enter even if the family is willing and able to care for him, nor even if he is one of the 85 percent of mentally afflicted persons who can be substantially helped by proper treatment.

The amendment gives the Attorney General discretionary authority to admit such persons who are the spouses, children, or parents of citizens, resident aliens, or holders of immigrant visas. The Attorney General, after consultation with the Surgeon General of the U.S. Public Health Service, would prescribe the controls and conditions on entry, such as the giving of a bond to insure continued family support, as would be appropriate in each case.

The bars to epileptics are removed entirely, since this affliction is now under the control of modern medicine. Those few epileptics whose illness prevents normal functioning will be excludable under the provision barring persons likely to become public charges.

Section 16 establishes the Immigration Board. The Board is composed of seven members. Two are appointed by the Speaker of the House, two by the President of the Senate, and three, including the Chairman, by the President. Members not otherwise in Government service are paid on a per diem basis for actual time spent in the work of the Board.

The Board's duties are to study, and consult with, appropriate Government departments on all facets of immigration policy; to recommend to the President whether to reserve quota numbers in the national interest under section 2; and to recommend to the Attorney General criteria for admission under the occupational preferences of section 8.

Section 17 grants consular officers discretionary authority to require bonds insuring that certain nonimmigrants will depart voluntarily from the United States when required. This amendment to section 221(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, by providing an additional safeguard against a later refusal to depart, would allow the issuance of visas in many borderline cases in which

visas are now refused to students and visitors.

STATEMENT OF HON. CORNELIUS E. GALLAGHER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, there is, as you know, broadbased sentiment for changes in procedures for the allocation of immigration quotas. For too many years we have permitted a system that favors the nations of one area of Europe but severely and unfairly restricts the quotas of other nations. There is within the Congress strong support for action that would erase the injustice of the present system-to provide a system of allocation on an equitable basis to people of all nations.

I know that this committee has spent a great deal of time in the consideration of the issue and I do not propose to attempt any presentation in detail for, I am sure, there is little, if anything, that I might say that you have not already considered.

I am here to give my support to the proposed legislation and to urge favorable action on my bill, H.R. 7958.

Mr. Chairman, the most important provisions of this bill are those that would revise our basic system of immigration quota control. It is my firm belief that the national origins quota system of our present law no longer reflects the sentiments of the American people. It is a futile anachronism of another age. It has not worked in actual practice to control the racial or ethnic composition of our immigration as it is intended to. But, even more important, it is subject to the criticism that it is based upon a fundamental principle of racial bigotry.

It seeks to attract immigration from the countries of northwestern Europe and to limit it from all other areas of the world, outside of the nonquota Western Hemisphere countries. This to my mind is an untenable foundation for our national immigration system in this day and age, and ought to be abolished.

This bill would not appreciably affect the number of immigrants admissible under the law. The overall quota would be increased only slightly-by about 5 percent. But the method of controlling immigration by place of birth would be eliminated so that all prospective immigrants would be granted equal footing in seeking to gain admission into the United States. The qualitative controls and preference categories for skilled aliens and family reunification will assure us of the admission of the most desirable types of immigrants.

Mr. Chairman, this immigration reform bill has been a long time in coming. It is the best of many alternative substitutes for the national origins system. It is not a radical bill designed to greatly increase immigration as some people seem to fear. It maintains 90 percent of the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act without change. It seeks only to remove the blemish of racial discrimination which has subjected the law to attack for many years. I urge favorable committee action.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT N. GIAIMO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I consider it an honor to have been invited to testify before this subcommittee in behalf of the bill I introduced, H.R. 8465, which would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1924. My bill is identical to H.R. 7700, introduced by the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the Honorable Emanuel Celler. This bill was drafted according to the recommendations of the late President John F. Kennedy, and has been endorsed by President Johnson. It contains those provisions necessary to institute a new and viable policy of immigration, consonant with those principles of liberty and equality which motivated our Founding Fathers and constantly demand our attention today.

Congressmen and citizens of these United States have, in the past few months, been called upon to examine carefully their commitment to the freedom and dignity of each man, regardless of race, religion, or national origin. The successful passage of the civil rights bill attests to the conscience of this Nation. And the Nation must once again search its conscience and voice its opposition to the discriminatory immigration policy which stands on our books as a cynical insult te the dignity of man.

It is now 12 years since President Truman called upon the Nation to do just his when he vetoed the immigration and nationality legislation which Congress submitted to him in 1952:

"I am sure that with a little more time and a little more discussion in this 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 Laturalization policy that will be fair to all."

During the 12 years that have elapsed, the suffering of those separated from their loved ones, suppressed politically, intellectually, and spiritually, oppressed onomically and socially, has not been abated. There is no Member of Congress ho should be deaf to their cries, there is no citizen of the United States who can wish to arbitrarily deny another the freedom for which he yearns.

This country was founded by immigrants who were fleeing tyranny and suppression. Its development and greatness are attributable to their descendants

from all over the world who have, since our inception, sought refuge on our shores. It is the diversity of origin, the intellectual and cultural exchange that constitutes our strength. We cannot turn our backs on our heritage and history; neither can we turn our backs on those who are today seeking our shores and are being turned away by our iniquitous policy.

Our

Almost 400,000 Italians and Greeks are on the list of the oversubscribed. quotas allow only 5,974 from these 2 countries to enter each year. These statistics indicate too great a discrepancy between our quotas and the demand. Consider the thousands in captive countries-Poland, Hungary, and Rumania for examplewho are virtually incarcerated because of our policy. Consider also the racist implications of our policy in regard to the Asian-Pacific triangle. It is not enough to revamp our national quota system, for such inequities are inherent in its form. The legislation which this committee is studying would remove the harsh arbitrary barriers of race and national origin which now govern the admission of immigrants. It would allow us once again to fulfill our responsibility as trustees of the freedom's torch. The spirit which guided our immigration policy in the past should guide it once again.

What was once a golden door to a cherished haven is today a forbidding curtain of restrictive, discriminatory policy.

This Congress has just enacted legislation aimed at the final elimination of the invidious vestiges of slavery and discrimination within our shores. I urge that Americans unite once again in bypartisan support of this bill which would end another example of discrimination and extend a sound promise of freedom to those throughout the world who are shackled by anguishing separation and tyranny. America's role of leadership in the free world is one of great sensitivity, and we must move toward an immigration policy consistent with Democracy beliefs in the individual worth of human beings.

STATEMENT OF HON. JACOB H. Gilbert, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee on the Judiciary, I am gratified that your committee is holding hearings on legislation to revise and liberalize our present immigration laws. Reform of our antiquated and unfair immigration laws is long overdue; so that we may better serve humanity and further the interests of equality, the obnoxious principle of "national origin" upon which our immigration system has been based since 1924, must be eliminated.

Our esteemed chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary introduced a bill. H.R. 7700, based upon the suggestions and wishes of our dearly beloved former President Kennedy. President Johnson also has requested and urged this Congress to approve the bill. I introduced an identical bill, H.R. 7902, to show my strong support. Ever since coming to Congress, I have introduced bills calling for å complete overhaul and liberalization of our immigration and naturalization laws. The need for sucn action on the part of Congress is forcibly brought home to me almost daily; my congressional district is one which contains a large percentage of immigrants and new U.S. citizens; many pathetic letters reach me describing the heartache resulting from interminable separation of members of a family, children are frustrated in their efforts to bring their parents here; relatives in many countries face a lifetime of waiting for their turn to be reached under our unfair quota system.

The task before your committee should be undertaken with compassion and forthrightness and the recognition of the fact that the proposed changes in our laws are reasonable and are demanded by existing circumstances. Our country became great under our earlier policy of unrestricted immigration. Those who sought refuge and freedom here contributed mightily of their brawn, their brains, and their loyalty; our Nation grew strong and prospered. The present quota system which is based on the place of birth or the racial origin of a human being has proved to be a blot upon our conscience as a nation. We must acknowledge that birthplace and racial origin of a human being do not determine the quality or the level of a man's intellect, his moral character, or his qualifications for becoming a part of our Nation and our society.

The administration bill and my identical bill provide that our future total immigration quota will be divided, regardless of the immigrant's place of birth, into categories completely divorced from the concept of race, nationality, citizenship, or place of birth. A person's skill, or his relationship to a citizen in the

United States or to an immigrant previously admitted to our country for permanent residence, will determine his inclusion in one of the categories listed. However, a large portion of the annual immigration quota will remain available for refugees and displaced persons so that we as a nation can serve humanity and help unfortunates. We shall also give those who wish to leave their homelands and seek opportunities here for themselves and their children, an opportunity to do so.

We are mindful of the sad situation which exists at present-when thousands of immigrant visas allocated under existing quotas are not used by certain nations, by immigrants born in those countries which we have "favored." At the same time immigrants born in other countries-less favored by us, if we are honest enough to admit it and which have infinitesimal quotas-have to wait for permission to come here for periods of 5 to 25 years. This is a shameful state of affairs and it must be brought to an end.

Under the new system the entire quota will be used in every 12-month period. The process of elimination of the national origins principle will continue for 5 years after enactment of the bill. We would have preferred that the old condemned system of national origins be wiped out immediately. However we must recognize that such a drastic change, if imposed overnight, would create havoc with the administrative processes of immigration and visa issuance by our consulates spread all over the world. Thus it is proposed to cut 20 percent of our quota in each of the 5 years succeeding enactment of the bill, and place that number of visas in a pool to be operated under the new system. At the end of the 5-year period, the new system will be in full effect, and the administrators will have gained necessary experience by that time through gradual use of the new system.

After the fifth year following enactment of the bill, all quota numbers would be drawn from a single worldwide quota of 164,582. Quota numbers would be allocated in the order of preference specified in amended section 203 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. That is, first call on the first 50 percent is given to persons whose admission, by virtue of their exceptional skill, training, or education, would be especially advantageous to the United States; first call on the next 30 percent, plus any part of the first 50 percent not issued to the skilled specialists, is given to unmarried sons and daughters of U.S. citizens, not eligible for nonquota status because they are over 21 years of age; first call on the remaining 20 percent, plus any part of the first 80 percent not taken by the first two classes, is given to spouses and children of aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence; and any portion remaining is issued to other applicants, with percentage preferences to other relations of U.S. citizens and resident aliens, and then to certain classes of workers. Section 203 further provides that within each class, visas are issued in the order in which applied for-first come, first served. These preference provisions, which under present law determine only relative priority between nationals of the same country, will now determine priority between nationals of different countries throughout the world.

No country would be allowed to receive more than 10 percent of the quota numbers available in any year (including those from the quota reserve pool and during the first 5 years, from the area's quota), with certain exceptions.

The bill contains many other necessary and helpful provisions. Among other things, it would grant nonquota status to parents of U.S. citizens.

The United States and worthy people all over the world need this bill. It is our responsibility to approve and pass it so that we may prove to all mankind that we truly believe in the equality of all men and that we are ready to welcome persons to our great land on a fair and equitable basis and to discard the old laws which are based on racial prejudice and are unfairly discriminatory.

I urge your Subcommittee on Immigration and Nationality to approve this important legislation. I look forward to the privilege of voting for it in our full Committee on the Judiciary. I shall do all in my power to secure its passage by the Congress, so that the changes provided can be brought about as soon as possible.

STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY B. GONZALEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate this opportunity to participate in your heavily scheduled hearings on pending immigration legislation. I am making this statement to urge you to give favorable consideration to H.R. 7883, which I introduced on August 1, 1963. This bill should be enacted to relieve a limited class of persons from certain hardships imposed upon them

because of the present wording of section 312(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Section 312 provides for a literacy test for all persons wishing to become naturalized as an American citizen. Subsection (1) of section 312 contains a proviso excepting any person who on the effective date of the act is over 50 years of age and has been living in the United States for periods totaling 20 years. My bill would strike out the words "*** on the effective date of this Act," and insert in their place the words "*** at the time of his petition for naturalization." The reason for the proposed change is that under the present wording of this section a closed end classification was established permitting persons to become naturalized if they came to this country prior to December 24, 1932; that is, 20 years preceding "the effective date of this Act." In removing this phrase from the law my bill would create an open end classification, allowing persons to fall within the exception set out in section 312(1) when they have lived in the United States for 20 years, even though they may have come in after 1932.

Before illustrating some of the hardships imposed by the present wording of 312(1), I would like to review some of the background of this section, the details of which I am sure all of the members of this subcommittee are well acquainted with.

Prior to 1950 the immigration and nationality law did not contain a literacy requirement. There was a requirement under the 1940 act that persons who wished to become naturalized must speak the English language, but there was no requirement that he be able to read and write in English. Section 304 of the 1940 act contained the following language:

"SEC. 304. No person except as otherwise provided in this Act shall hereafter be naturalized as a citizen of the United States upon his own petition who cannot speak the English language ***"

The literacy requirement for naturalization was first introduced into the law by section 30 of the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950. Section 30 of the 1950 act contained a proviso stating:

"SEC. 30. This requirement shall not apply to any person who, on the date of approval of this amendment, is over 50 years of age and has been legally residing in the United States for 20 years *** 97

Section 312 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 reenacted the literacy requirement with a similar proviso, thus in effect updating the exemption for persons age 50 with 20 years' residence in the United States by approximately 2 years. The pertinent portion of the present law is as follows

"SEC. 312. No person except as otherwise provided in this title shall hereafter be naturalized as a citizen of the United States upon his own petition who cannot demonstrate

"(1) an understanding of the English language, including an ability to read, write, and speak words in ordinary usage in the English language: Provided, That this requirement shall not apply to any person physically unable to comply therewith, if otherwise qualified to be naturalized, or to any person who, on the effective date of this Act, is over 50 years of age and has been living in the United States for periods totaling at least 20 years." As I have previously indicated, the only change in the existing law that my bill would make would be to take out the phrase "on the effective date of this Act" and to substitute the phrase "at the time of his petition for naturalization."

The effect of the present law is this: if a man emigrated from Mexico to the United States in 1932 and is now over 50 years of age he may be naturalized even though he cannot read and write English because he has resided in this country at least 20 years prior to the 1932 act. In fact such a man would have resided in this country 32 years. But if another man came to this country from Mexico in 1933, or 1935, or 1940, or anytime after 1932, he can never qualify for naturalization if he cannot read and write English. He may have lived here for 20 years, or 25 years, or 30 years. But he will never come within the exemption set out in 312(1) simply because he entered the United States after 1932. Of course, this also applies to persons who came to the United States from other countries. I have used Mexico as an example because in my hometown of San Antonio we have a number of persons who fall into the category I have outlined. We have people who are more than 50 years of age, in fact many of them are more than 60 years of age, and I recently received a letter from a man who came to this country from Mexico who is 71 years of age. He has children who were born in this country and who are therefore citizens. But he himself can never become a citizen because he came here after 1932 and he cannot pass a literacy test. Some of these people have lived here 25 and 30 years, they have worked hard most of