It provides for the gradual elimination of the national origins quota system. This is the first bill to my knowledge that recognizes the problems that would arise in eliminating the existing system by providing for its gradual phasing out rather than its abrupt abolition.

The bill contains another special provision to smooth out the transition in changing from the present system. It authorizes the President to reserve a portion of the quota numbers available under the substitute quota system to avoid hardship in the cases of immigrants who would be prevented from gaining admission into the United States because of the reductions in the national origins quotas. The purpose of this provision is to prevent discrimination against natives of those countries that are granted preferential treatment under the present quota system. Since the bill provides for immigration on a first-come, first-served basis, natives of such countries as Great Britain, Ireland, and Germany would not able to obtain an immigrant visa for some time to come, were it not for this special provision.

The heart of the bill, then, is contained in its provisions creating a substitute for the national origins quota system. In broad outline these provisions are not complex. With the abolition of the national origins system after a 5-year phasingout period, immigrant visas would be available to any qualified alien without regard to the country of his birth.

In order to qualify for admission, an alien would, of course, have to meet the rigid admissability provisions of the law which, with some minor modifications, are preserved by the bill.

The bill also maintains the existing preference categories, with some modifica tions.

Thus, under the bill, skilled aliens and close family relatives of people settled here would be given admission preference.

The overall total quota would be increased only slightly, from the present 158,000 to around 165,000. This increase results from a provision of the bill raising minimum quotas from 100 to 200.

Finally, the bill provides that the natives of no one country may receive more than 10 percent of the total quota numbers available in any one year. This is to insure that no nation will be able to monopolize the quota to the disadvantag of immigrants from other countries.

Mr. Chairman, these are the basic elements of the provisions of the bill that would substitute for the discredited national origins quota system. They were worked out in consultation with those in the Government who are most familiar with the administrative problems of running the immigration program. I have every confidence, therefore, that they will work.

What is more, they will work in a manner that will not unnecessarily offend anyone, as our present system does. They will not, as some people seem to fear, open up the so-called floodgates to immigration.

This bill provides for a long overdue reform of the basis of our system of quantitative immigration control. It maintains all of our qualitative controls with some modifications which will improve them. There are no sleight-of-hand provisions in the bill designed to expose us to vastly increased immigration. President Kennedy cannot be accused of participating in such a plan. President Johnson has also given his unqualified endorsement to the bill. To those who have such fears regarding this bill, I would echo the words of Franklin Roosevelt that they have nothing to fear but fear itself.

I most emphatically urge you to give this bill your full consideration and to take the necessary steps to report it favorably.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM T. MURPHY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Mr. Chairman, may I compliment the Committee on Immigration for their determination to conduct hearings on the question of amending the present Immigration Act of 1952. I completely support the administration bill, H.R. 7700, and my companion bill H.R. 7904.

Although there are several alternate proposals, some of which are acceptable to my point of view, yet under the circumstances, I feel that in order to accomplish the objectives indicated, that the most objective premise would indieste that a unified agreement on the administration's legislation would bring about the desired results.

The proposed reforms are meritorious, but necessary in order to promulgate the reforms intended. A united front would be the practical approach to these problems.

President Kennedy's message was analytical and superb as to its practical acceptance of the various problems affecting the policy of the United States.

The history of the question is fully developed in his message. He points out the inapplicability of the present prescriptions in the law. He also indicated the policy of the Federal Government in alleviating the present premises of governments who feel that the laws are restrictive to their friendly policy to the United States.

The McCarran-Walter Act engenders a policy, under its distribution formula, which follows the Johnson Act which is inimical to the present concepts and run contrary to our ideals of understanding.

In the last decade, 21⁄2 million aliens who entered the United States-only about 11⁄2 million entered under the present law.

It can be stated that in nine acts passed by the Congress accounted for the excess number. Thus a reformation of the law is indicated.

The injustices of the quota theory have been emphasized by President Kennedy and President Johnson.

The McCarran-Walter Act did modify some of the provisions of the Johnson Act-yet the basic policies remain the same today.

The total figure of entries are not a problem, but the distribution formula violates the fundamental concept of our Nation's ideals and understanding. As previously stated, in the last decade 22 million persons entered the United States, yet only 11⁄2 million entered through the McCarran-Walter Act controls. The others entered through nine special statutory laws and special regulations. Thus, it is self-evident that the present law does not serve the purposes intended. Positive legislation is necessary to bring about these necessary changes in the injustices resulting from the quota theory. The national origin system is a policy both in law and fact. The fact that the Congress has found it necessary to circumvent the act is evidence enough of the inadequacy of the present law. Members of the Congress have had experience in circumventing the law legally in matters affecting constituent interests in their districts.

The

Of course, a free entry or loose regulatory theory of immigration is ridiculous. We should determine our immigrant entries to our economical growth to protect our labor market a wide-open policy of unlimited immigration could wreck our economy.

The changes provided in H.R. 7700 are as follows:

I. ABOLITION OF THE NATIONAL ORIGINS SYSTEM

(1) The basic purpose of the bill is to abolish the "national origins system,” and to allow immigration on a first-come, first-served basis within preference categories.

(2) The transition to the new system will take place gradually, over a 5-year period. The quota of each country will be reduced by 20 percent the first year, 40 percent the second year, etc.

(3) The present total quota of about 157,000 will be increased by 8,000 to enable raising of minimum quotas from 100 to 200.

(4) During each of the first 5 years, the "pool" created by the annual 20-percent reductions, together with all unused numbers from the previous year, will be allocated to immigrants from oversubscribed areas.

(5) At the end of the 5-year period, all national quotas will have been abolished and all quota numbers will be in the "pool." Numbers from the "pool" will then be allocated on a first-come, first-served basis within preference categories: (a) First preference will be given to those whose skills are "especially advantageous" to the United States.

(b) Second and third preference will be given, as before, to close relations of U.S. citizens and resident aliens.

(c) Remaining visas will be allocated as follows: up to 50 percent among other relatives of U.S. citizens and resident aliens; up to one-half of the remaining visas to immigrants filling a particular labor shortage; the remainder to "new seed."

(6) An Immigration Advisory Board is established, composed of two members appointed by the Speaker of the House, two by the President of the Senate, and three by the President. This Board is to advise on immigration matters and to help to implement the new legislation.

(7) During and after the 5-year period, the President may, after consultation with the Board, reserve up to 50 percent of the "pool":

(a) To avoid undue hardship resulting from the quota area reductions; and (b) In the national security interest.

(8) After consultation with the Board, the President may also reserve up to 20 percent of the "pool" for refugees.

(9) No more than 16,478 visas (10 percent of the total) may be allocated to any quota area except under the President's authority to reserve numbers from the "pool."

II. OTHER PROVISIONS

(1) The so-called Asia-Pacific triangle is eliminated. Persons of Asian stock will come in under the quotas of their places of birth rather than those of their remote ancestry.

(2) Immigrants eligible for nonquota status must apply as nonquota immigrants. The fee provisions are revised, however, to make the total cost to a nonquota or preference immigrant the same as the cost to a nonpreference immigrant.

(3) Nonquota status is extended to all parents of U.S. citizens as well as their spouses and children.

(4) Nonquota status is also extended to natives of all independent Western Hemisphere countries.

(5) A simplified petition procedure is established for first preference skilled workers. The Attorney General need only determine that an opening exists in a field rather than that a particular employer has an opening.

(6) The "fair share" law is amended to eliminate any reference to the United Nations High Commissioner in order to avoid dependence on external limitations and to liberalize the law.

(7) The definition of the western border of the "Middle East" in the Refugee Relief Act is expanded from Libya to Morocco.

(8) The Secretary of State is granted discretion concerning the time and manner of visa fee payments.

(9) The Secretary of State is also granted authority to terminate registrations of applicants who have declined visas and to require reregistration by applicants. (10) Issuance of visas is permitted to certain mentally ill persons; and epileptics. (11) Consular officers are granted authority, in borderline cases, to require certain student and visitor nonimmigrants to post bonds.

Thus, the abolishment of the national origin system, and to permit the entry of those filing within preference categories on a first filing basis of selection.

STATEMENT OF HON. LUCIEN N. NEDZI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Over a decade has passed since the enactment of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, to replace the act of 1924. The 1952 act, by consolidating and codifying a number of statutes into a single law and by making some other refinements, did improve previous legislation. Nevertheless, it perpetuated several discriminations and inequities.

It is now time for Congress to produce new immigration legislation-legislation which is equitable, practical, and in the tradition of American humanitarianism. This legislation can and should be without partisan slant.

An enlightened and humane immigration policy has been one of the keys to America's greatness. There has been no period in history when immigrants to the United States have not rewarded this Nation with energy and devotion and talent. As Oscar Handlin, one of our main chroniclers of immigration, has said: "Once I thought to write a history of immigrants in America. Then I discovered that the immigrants were American history."

America has put its stamp on countless immigrants. grants have made a mark in return.

And countless immi

human race have been The helping hand, the Here, in 1964, through

When values expressing enlightment and justice for the tested, America has consistently stood up to be counted. assurance that someone cares, is in our best traditions. its elected representatives in Congress, by revising the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, is another opportunity for Americans to stand up and be counted.

The last really big bulge in the immigration tables came in 1901-10. The immigrants of that period came, especially, from those nations most discriminated

against by today's quota system.

One by one, these men and women have been passing away, and they are not being replaced in anything approaching like numbers. A certain sadness must overcome those of us who live in industrial areas, with their rich variety of ethnic groups, when we see these aged people, many of them our own relatives, pass away. We know how they made that long and perilous crossing to our shores, coming here with optimism and in full vigor. We know of their contributions of brain and muscle, of how they raised their children to be good Americans, and how they saw their sons off to war. And now, only a small percentage of those who could provide that same burst of energy in the 1960's are being given the opportunity to do so. Since the legislation we seek would continue to limit the number but would emphasize selection based on skill, health, and character, we are depriving ourselves as well as depriving them, should it fail.

For over two centuries, Europeans have dreamed of America as the land of opportunity. And most of those who came here, found it was the land of opportunity. So strong was their dream that new immigrants, in each succeeding wave, provided new drive for America. As they learned for themselves of America's greatness, they reminded those already here and comfortably settled of America's unique heritage—this forming of one nation out of many peoples. It is stating the obvious to say that all of us in this body are the product of immigrant forefathers. And, in many cases, as in mine, of immigrant fathers. We should, therefore, have a special feeling for those men and women of other lands whose greatest ambition in life is to become citizens of the United States. Immigrants created our Nation and immigrants helped develop it. Their hinger for political and economic freedom found fulfillment here. And they have proved assimilable.

Harry Golden, author of "Only in America," who has written some of the most perceptive articles on immigration to be found anywhere, has said, "The immigrants always feel themselves inferior and, therefore, they try much harder. Immigrants know this by instinct. They know they cannot change their appearatce, their foreign accents, and their strange habits in a short time, but they know despite all this, they can enter an open society in America if they try hard enough.' Our whole national development attests to our early and continuing belief in immigration.

America has been, and continues to be, the place where most emigrants would like to move to and build their lives.

Nobody is suggesting we open the door to unlimited immigration. But we do seek to introduce a greater measure of equity in who does come in.

The platforms of both political parties contain stirring commitments to revise the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. Perhaps it can be said that these planks were adopted for purposes of imagined political gain. Actually, immigration legislation does not have widespread popular support. I believe the revision should be made out of our sense of justice and equity, regardless of whether there is any political advantage to be gained. If this bill passes, it will be because of its inherent rightness.

Admittedly, any talk of immigration arouses some latent fear of job competition. Ironically, some opposition comes from the same ethnic groups which were themelves the beneficiaries of more liberal entrance requirements. They sometimes fnd their brothers different from people they knew in the old country 40 or 50 years ago. The idyllic and romanticized memory of the homeland does not quare with the people coming in after World War II. We should not be surprised at this, for each new immigrant has created apprehension in the old.

Actually, despite the quota system, our Nation's record on immigration is a pretty good one. Over 21⁄2 million immigrants have been admitted to this country since 1952, including nearly 1 million displaced persons, refugees, and escapees. The shortcomings of the 1952 act have fortunately been recognized and partially corrected by special, short-term legislation and favorable administrative rulings. It is an interesting fact that out of that total 21⁄2 million, 3 out of 5 persons were admitted outside the quota provisions. Moreover, nations with very small quotas have been among the most substantial contributors of recent immigration. Italian immigration, for example, has been 3 times greater than its quota allotment; Greece's 16 times its tiny quota. This illustrates, in part, where the demand is.

I think that the time has come for Congress to revise the quota system. The size of immigration-250,000 a year-is one we have handled and can handle. But the allocation should be made more equitable.

The quota system is an artifical formula designed 40 years ago to give preference to immigrants from some countries while practically closing the door to people from other countries. From the aspect of inherent inequity as well as the conduct of our foreign affairs, the 1952 act is difficult to defend.

The legislation I support, the Hart-Celler bill, is concerned with the number of immigrants to be admitted and the allocation of that number.

The Hart bill authorizes 250,000 quota visas yearly, of which 50,000 are to be made available to refugees and/or escapees without regard to quota areas. No country shall receive more than 25,000. It allows a yearly flow of not more than one-seventh of 1 percent of our population.

All unused quota numbers at the end of the year are to be pooled and divided among quota areas having a backlog of applicants waiting for immigration visas. In no case shall a quota area get from this pool a number greater than its regular annual quota, and no more than 100,000 numbers may be used from the pool in any 1 year.

The criteria to be used are noble and intensely practical, emphasizing (1) the reuniting of families; (2) providing for emergencies and a chance for political refugees; and (3) attracting persons of skill and talent. They are the criteria of a sound immigration policy.

The four most heavily oversubscribed nations, in terms of applicants, are Italy, Greece, Yugoslavia, and Poland.

Italy, with a present quota of 5,666, has a proposed quota of 15,648. Greece, whose present quota is only 308, has a proposed quota of 3,458. Yugoslavia, with a present quota of 942, has it raised to 5,295. And Poland, with a present quota of 6,488 has it increased to 13,848. The pattern of immigration over the last 15 years is woven into the HartCeller formula. The new quotas are closely related to the actual immigration experience of recent years.

If we adopt this legislation, we will have acted in the tradition of the American dream.

STATEMENT OF HON. PHILIP J. PHILBIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS

REDISTRIBUTE IMMIGRATION QUOTAS

Mr. Chairman, I am very thankful to you and the members of the subcommittee for giving me the opportunity to present my views on my bill, H.R. 1106, an important immigration measure.

This bill would amend section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act so as to provide that all quota numbers not used in any year shall be made available to immigrants in oversubscribed areas in the following year, and for other purposes. I think it can be readily seen from the title of the bill that it would accomplish very worthwhile objectives without increasing immigration quotas, and that would seem to me to promote desirable reform of our immigration laws. I favor every reasonable proposal to increase quotas and liberalize the law.

As the distinguished chairman and members of this subcommittee so well know, there are some countries in northern Europe where the quotas are now under subscribed, and some countries in southern Europe where the quotas are heavily oversubscribed in varying degrees.

This situation is all the more difficult because of the fact that some of these quotas are very small to begin with. This is due largely to the way the respective quotas are established under the nationality rule.

It has been suggested that the overall quotas should be raised, that broader exceptions should be written into the law, that all close relatives of American citizens, veterans, and legally admitted aliens otherwise qualified, should be admitted. Many proposals have been made to this end and now are pending. I am sure this distinguished subcommittee always has in mind the practical aspects of immigration legislation and our past experience and difficulties encountered in passing liberalizing legislation in this field. But admittedly, these problems should not deter us as Members of Congress from doing out duty as we see it, to infuse into our immigration laws a more humane spirit that would accommodate them to the needs of a great cosmopolitan country like our own which has welcomed so many immigrants from many lands to our shores, and opened up for them and their dear ones the wide vistas of opportunity that citizens and residents of this great free Nation enjoy.