Section 8 amends section 203 (a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which establishes preferences for immigrants with special skills and relatives of U.S. citizens and resident aliens.

Subsection (a) relaxes the test for the first preference accorded to persons of high education, technical training, specialized experience, or exceptional ability. Under present law, such persons are granted preferred status only if their services are "needed urgently" in the United States. The amendment allows their admission if their services would be "especially advantageous" to the United States.

Subsection (b) eliminates the second preference for parents of American citizens, now accorded nonquot a status by section 6.

Subsection (c) grants a fourth preference, up to 50 percent of numbers not issued to the first three preferences, to parents of aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence. It also grants a subsidiary preference to qualified quota immigrants capable of filling particular labor shortages in the United States. Under present law, if an immigrant does not meet the rigorous standards of the skilled specialist category, he is not preferred to any other immigrant even though he may answer a definite need in the United States which the other immigrant does not. The amendment allows to persons filling such a definite need a preference of 50 percent of visas remaining after all family preferences have been satisfied or exhausted.

Section 9 is purely procedural, and amends section 204 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which establishes the procedure for determining eligibility for preferred status under section 203.

Paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) provide for the filing of petitions, on behalf of the workers granted preference by section 8, by the persons who will employ them to fill the special needs. Paragraph (1) provides for approval of these petitions by the Attorney General, and paragraph (2) requires that he consult with the Immigration Board and interested departments of Government before granting preference to these workers with lesser skills.

Paragraph (2) also exempts skilled specialists from the present petition procedure, to conform to the new procedure established in paragraph (4). Under present law, persons with high education, technical training, experience, or ability, may qualify for preferred status only when a petition requesting their services is filed by a U.S. employer.

This requirement unduly restricts our ability to attract the educated, trained people whose services would significantly enhance our economy, national life, and general welfare. Thousands of such people have no way of contacting employers in the United States in order to get the necessary job. Even if they knew whom to contact, few jobs important enough to attract such highly skilled people are offered without personal interviews.

Only a few very large enterprises and institutions have representatives abroad with possible authority to hire. Thus many highly skilled applicants cannot obtain the jobs presently required for preference; they cannot be hired abroad, because hiring is done domestically; and they cannot be hired domestically until they enter. Moreover, the requirement of prearranged employment, as to these persons, is unnecessary. Such a requirement may serve two ends. First, it may help to insure that the immigrant, granted pref

erence for a defined purpose, will fulfill that purpose; if we need engineers, he should work as one.

Highly skilled specialists, however, will always work at their specialty, provided that employment is open. The only check needed, therefore, is that the Attorney General ascertain from the Boardwhich has consulted the Secretary of Labor and studied such problems with specific reference to immigrants-that job openings exist in the immigrants' special field.

The second end the present petition procedure may serve is confirmation of the applicant's own evidence of his training, education, or skills. Presumably he would not be employed unless qualified, but such confirmation is superfluous if proper controls are enforced when the visa is applied for. And since we allow immigrants to enter without U.S. citizens vouching for their loyalty a far more important matter there seems no reason to require their capability to be thus additionally supported.

Paragraph (4), therefore, allows the Attorney General to grant preferred status to highly skilled immigrants upon affidavit of the immigrants, supported by such other documentary evidence as he shall prescribe.

Section 10 amends section 205(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, providing for petitions to establish the right to preferred status as a relative of a U.S. citizen or lawfully resident alien, to conform to the substantive changes made by section 8.

Section 11 amends the fair share refugee law to remove a provision which has hampered its operation. Presently, that law allows the entry only of refugees within the mandate of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The provision relating to the United Nations mandate is stricken out, so that our refugee law is no longer subject to outside control.

There are a number of refugees from countries not mentioned in the United Nations mandate, and there is no reason why our immigration policy should be in any degree controlled by any outside agencies like the United Nations, and more particularly the United Nations High Commissioner's mandate.

In addition, subsection (b) repeals the fair share law's special provision for 500 difficult to resettle refugees; these have all been settled and the authority is now unnecessary.

Section 12 amends the old definition of the Refugee Relief Act to allow the admission of refugees from north Africa generally, and Algeria particularly, who are unable to return to their countries because of their race, religion, or political opinions. The act now admits such refugees from "any country within the general area of the Middle East," which is defined as the area between Libya on the west. Turkey on the north, Pakistan on the east, and Saudi Arabia and Ethiopia on the south. The amendment substitutes Morocco for Libya as the western border of this area.

Section 13 grants discretionary authority to the Secretary of State to specify the time and manner of payment of the fees for visa applications and issuances set by section 281 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The discretion granted will allow him to control two undesirable situations.

36-382-64 pt. 1-2

One, many people in countries with oversubscribed quotas register their names on visa waiting lists even though they have no present intention of immigrating; they regard the registration as insurance against a possible future move. These registrations make planning difficult and encumber administration.

The amendment would allow the Secretary of State to require a registrant to deposit part of the $5 visa fee at the time of registration. While not unduly burdensome on those who wish to come here, such a rule might discourage the most frivolous registrations.

Two, otherwise admissible immigrants, particularly refugees, are often unable to pay the $20 visa fee. Rather than bar them from entry, the Secretary is given authority to allow postponement of payment until they have earned the money here.

Section 231 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 203 (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 would 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 to 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 excludible 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 ensuring 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.

I wish to inform the subcommittee that I do not intend to ask for the enactment of H.R. 3926 and H.R. 6238, as their features are embodied in H.R. 7700.

I want to thank you members for being so patient to listen to me so long. I am sorry I took this length of time and I would like to place into the record, Mr. Chairman, the bill, H.R. 7700, and a comparative analysis of this bill with the existing law. I should like to have the privilege of putting that in the record.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Would you hand that to the Clerk?

Thank you, Mr. Celler.

Mr. Celler, what is your estimate of the number of aliens we can take and assimilate each year?

Mr. CELLER. Well, the bill provides for 164,000 each year. We actually take in each year roughly-for example, in 1963, we took in a total immigration of 306,000.

Mr. FEIGHAN. How many?

Mr. CELLER. 306,000. And in 1962, we took in 283,000. In 1961, we took in 271,000. In 1960, 265,000. In 1959, 260,000.

cludes quota and nonquota in fiscal years.

That in

Mr. FEIGHAN. Well, the average, roughly, in the last 10 years has

been about 290,000?

Mr. CELLER. I think so.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Maybe Mr. Besterman, who is sitting next to you, can give us that?

Mr. BESTERMAN. Your average, sir, is correct, Mr. Chairman. Mr. FEIGHAN. What is your estimate, answering my question? Mr. CELLER. Under this bill?

Mr. FEIGHAN. No, no. You personally, what is your personal feeling? What is your estimate as to the number of aliens we can take and assimilate each year?

Mr. CELLER. I think the amount that we take in now would be appropriate.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Celler, what relation do you feel unemployment in the United States should have to the number of aliens we admit each year?

Mr. CELLER. Some years ago, whenever we had an immigration bill up, we would always have objections from, for example, the AFL and the other labor unions. Now the situation has changed. The AFLCIO applaud this bill. They are supporting it wholeheartedly. Their theory is that, for example, when you bring into the country, say, 100 immigrants they are not all workers. But, they are all

consumers.

Probably half of them may be male, half female. Some of them may be children. Some of them may be middle aged, some may be old. They are not all workers. They figure probably of a hundred, there may be at the most 25 workers, but there are 75 consumers, and those who are consumers, in turn, create demand for goods, so that labor does not fear immigration any more, as they did in the past, and that is my answer.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Well

Mr. CELLER. I don't think it affects

Mr. FEIGHAN. My question is what relationship? Do you think there should be a relationship between the unemployment in the United States?

Mr. CELLER. There should be.

Mr. FEIGHAN. And the number of aliens that we should admit? Mr. CELLER. I think there ought to be a correlation, beyond question. For example, I wouldn't want to admit a million immigrants a year. That would undoubtedly disturb the balance, and might create a considerable amount of unemployment. I wouldn't want to see that.

However, the bill as proposed does not envisage any avalanche or a great plethora of immigrants coming in. It practically keeps the number, with few exceptions, as it is now. It doesn't make much of a change or an enlargement of the number that comes in.

We have unemployment, of course, as you know. We probably will always have a certain amount of unemployment. The people swing from one job to another. There is always a transition in that regard. We are trying to tackle that problem as best we may. We are in a degree of prosperity, yet we have the anomalous situation of almost 5 percent of our labor forces unemployed.

That is being tackled, I hope successfully, by the administration, and I don't think this new, this proposed legislation, would change

that situation.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Celler, do you feel that the impact of automation and technology on modern society should be related to the number of immigrants we admit each year?

Mr. CELLER. I don't know quite the import of that question, but I will try to answer it.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Well-go ahead.

Mr. CELLER. If a country has certain skills and talents which we can use, we should draw upon that reservoir for the purposes of adding to our skills and talents, for the good of our country. There is no monopoly on talent. We are not the last word on electronics. We are not the last word on atomic energy, and we are not the last word