Mr. POFF. Mr. Chairman.

I understand you to say now that your principal interest is in H.R. 2896 and H.R. 10271.

Mr. MILLER. That is right.

Mr. POFF. The gentleman introduced H.R. 2896 on January 28, 1963. Knowing of the gentleman's keen interest in that matter, our committee immediately requested departmental reports under date of February 18, 1963. This committee asked the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Celler, to draft a letter to the Secretary of State and to the Attorney General of the United States. He did so and dispatched it that day.

Then on April 9, 1963, a similar letter was written to the Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and this subcommittee and the full committee have yet to receive the departmental reports in response to those requests.

Perhaps the gentleman could help us get those reports.

Mr. MILLER. I will try.

I want to say, Mr. Poff, I can only plead that I have been delinquent in this matter in not perhaps following these more closely. I have an interest.

Mr. POFF. On the contrary. I do not infer the gentleman has been delinquent. The departments have been delinquent and the gentleman cannot be blamed for their delinquency.

Mr. MILLER. I am not trying to imply this. I must say that, as you know, I head the committee that is a rather new committee that has the great responsibility of passing on a $5,200 million a year authorization bill and this has taken a great deal of time and has required nearly all of my energy during this period.

I shall do my best to urge the State Department and the others, too, to get those reports in as quickly as possible.

I assure you if I am privileged to be back here next year, if we don't get these two subjects this year, we will get after them again.

Mr. POFF. I earnestly think the gentleman thinks I intended to infer that.

Mr. MILLER. No; I don't want to give any impression of that nature. The gentleman did not do that; you were very kind in pointing out to me why we didn't get some action.

Mr. POFF. Thank you.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Thank you, Mr. Miller.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FEIGHAN. The next witness will be our able colleague, the Honorable B. F. Sisk, of California.

Mr. Sisk.

STATEMENT OF HON. B. F. SISK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. SISK. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for providing this opportunity to make a brief statement before your committee.

I am here to make a brief statement, Mr. Chairman, on H.R. 8025. which is an amendment to the basic act to amend section 301(a)(7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Now, I have several copies of my brief statement here if anyone would care to have them in front of you.

I would just like to briefly read this; it will only take a very few

moments.

Mr. Chairman, section 301(a)(7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act reads as follows:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: A person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States, who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent may be included in computing the physical presence requirements of this paragraph.

Now, H.R. 8025, Mr. Chairman, on which I am testifying, and which I introduced on August 12, 1963, to amend section 301 (a) (7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, reads as follows:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 301(a)(7) is hereby amended by striking out all that portion of the section appearing after the word "Provided," and inserting in lieu thereof the following: "That the requirement of presence in the United States shall not apply to any United States citizen serving in the Armed Forces of the United States who temporarily resides abroad under orders issued by any branch of the Armed Forces of the United States."

May I earnestly urge the incorporation of this amendment in the general legislation your committee is considering?

First, I would like to point out that enactment of this legislation would affect the citizenship rights and privileges of very few persons. And, second, it would correct an injustice by eliminating an unnecessarily prejudicial restriction against such persons who might be affected by section 301 (a) (7).

I am speaking of those persons who are born to naturalized-citizen servicemen serving in the Armed Forces at oversea posts before completion of the now required 10-year residency provision. Because the serviceman father has not completed this residency period, his child, born abroad, must go through the naturalization process before becoming a citizen of the United States. Needless to say, if the servicemen were stationed in the United States when the child was born, without regard to the 10-year residency requirement, the child would automatically be a natural-born American.

Oversea military duty of the father, of course, is not voluntary, but is at the request and command of the U.S. Government. It is grossly unfair to child and father alike and deprives such offspring, among other things, of becoming the President of the United States.

This unfair situation was called to my attention by Alc. Thomas Grogan, a native of Ireland, whose son, Patrick Michael, was born in England while he was assigned to an airbase in that country. Mrs. Grogan, a native of Switzerland, was not a citizen at the time of her son's birth. Airman Grogan is a loyal citizen and was performing his patriotic duty to his newly adopted country; however, he did not have the necessary 10 years of residency after receiving citizenship at the time of Patrick Michael's birth in 1942.

This infant should not be penalized as a result of what I consider to be a senseless provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act as it now stands; nor should others who find themselves in similar circumstances be so penalized. Enactment of this general legislation, of course, would not affect Patrick Michael Grogan directly, but it

will help to remedy an injustice to children born in the future of servicemen at oversea posts who find themselves, involuntarily and under assignment to protect our national interests abroad, in the same situation as Airman First Class Grogan. Nor do I think your committee would want to deprive citizenship to a child of a serviceman because the father was serving overseas at the order of the Government.

In closing, may I mention that this suggested change would in no way affect the residency requirement of naturalized citizens not serving in the Armed Forces.

I note in the third line of the text of H.R. 8025 a typographical error. It reads "301(a)(1)"; it should, of course, read "301 (a) (7)". That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate the opportunity of briefly explaining what I believe to be, as I say, legislation that actually would affect very few people, but there is a peculiar quirk of the law here which, in this instance, I think works an injustice on those few cases in which they find themselves shortly, the 10-year residency and involuntary service in the Armed Forces stationed overseas.

Mr. FEIGHAN. For the purpose of the record, I think you should state just what the injustice is.

The child could come here and become naturalized, but I think it very good that you have brought this situation to our attention and certainly it is a subject to be given very serious consideration. Mr. ŠISK. I appreciate the opportunity.

Of course, the child can become naturalized; the injustice would seem to be even going through that process. Of course, the fact is here again there have been only 36 Americans who have become President of the United States. Here again, this person, regardless of his qualifications, would forever be precluded because of a requirement, a quirk, to me, in the law of this land that would actually disqualify him to be President of the United States. This may or not be important in some member's mind but I do think it is worthy of some consideration.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Well, I don't think it is necessary to go into the question of the eligibility of such a person to become President at this time.

Mr. SISK. I appreciate that.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Poff.

Mr. POFF. As I understand it, your bill would be confined to members of the Armed Forces. It would not apply to diplomatic personnel serving abroad, for instance?

Mr. SISK. The language is very specific, if the gentleman has a copy of it there in front of him. It applies only to people serving in the Armed Forces and under direct orders of any branch of the Armed Forces of the United States.

Mr. POFF. The question was not an idle question.

This subcommittee has considered several bills involving diplomatic personnel in such situations.

Mr. SISK. I understand.

Mr. POFF. Do you think it should be confined to military personnel and should be denied to consular and diplomatic personnel?

Mr. SISK. That issue, of course, is not present in my case. The justification for the situation which I am predicating this bill on has

to do with men who have no power unto themselves to avoid this situation because they are under direct military orders.

Now, if I was a diplomat or in the Foreign Service, in the first place I could leave the Service because it is a little different from being drafted into military service. I could leave the Service in the first place.

In the second place, I could return home or at least on temporary leave and have my child born in this country. Yet, if I was stationed today in Vietnam, in Saigon, as a member of the Armed Forces and under direct military orders which precluded my doing that, it seems to me it still is specifically a different category to the diplomatic or Foreign Service. In other words, you would not have the freedom of action as a member of the Armed Forces that you would have as a member of the Foreign Service.

Now, I am not here stating that I would oppose opening it up to these people. It is something that I would give consideration to. would not want to open this section very wide; I don't see the need of

it.

I am specifically directing my attention to people who are involuntarily bound to some area outside the United States by virtue of being in the uniform of this country and serving in that capacity.

Mr. POFF. Speaking in support of the point the gentleman is making, there is another element of involuntariness involved. Members of the Armed Forces must request permission to marry, must they

not?

Mr. SISK. This is not a marriage problem that occurs in this case. Mr. POFF. I understand, but the child involved is the issue of such a marriage.

Mr. SISK. That is correct, or could be. Of course, this would not be true in this case. This was a case where actually these people were married in this country and then went overseas. The bill will not solve their case. I will be frank to say to you that if the general law was to amend it as I am recommending, and as I believe to be justified in this case, I probably might be back before you, assuming my constituents think enough of me to send me back, with a private bill in which I think I might ask that Patrick Michael Grogan be so considered under this. At the present time, of course, the private bill would not be worthwhile without the general amendment of this nature to the basic law.

Mr. POFF. It is my understanding that the net effect of striking the proviso now in that paragraph and inserting the proviso in your bill would be to exempt military personnel from any and all parts of the 10-year residency requirement. Is that correct?

Mr. SISK. I do not believe it goes that far. You say any and all parts of the 10-year requirement. Of course, it is my understanding that, of course, he would have had to have resided here, of course, 5 years before he received his citizenship papers before he could become a naturalized citizen.

Secondly, it is my understanding that the law at the present provides that he shall receive credit for his military service either in or out of the United States, in addition to his actual physical presence in the United States.

There are very few cases such as this in which he finds himself that even with a combined total of his physical presence in the United

States he is here as a physical presence-plus his military service overseas, it is not sufficient to bring him up to the 10-year level. In this instance, this then would eliminate the requirement for the 10year residency specifically as it would be concerned with this individual.

Mr. PoFF. Of course, this section of law does not apply only to the naturalized citizens.

Mr. SISK. I understand.

Mr. POFF. Clearly it seems to me the language of your bill would have the effect I suggest, and I quote, "That the requirement of physical presence in the United States shall not apply."

So, I believe it would have the effect, whether the gentleman intends that or not; I believe it would have that effect.

Mr. SISK. Well, I think that would be a correct interpretation. In other words, it would be my understanding that he simply would not have been required to have been in this country 10 years prior to the birth of this child and, to that extent, it does exempt him from that provision.

If I understand the gentleman, that is the question he has in mind. Mr. POFF. Yes; I believe that is essentially what I have in mind. Mr. SISK. Serving in the Armed Forces under, of course, orders of the military service.

Mr. POFF. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Thank you, Mr. Sisk.

Mr. SISK. Thank you.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Our next witness will be our able colleague, Mr. Farbstein, from New York.

Would you proceed, Mr. Farbstein?

STATEMENT OF HON. LEONARD FARBSTEIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. FARBSTEIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want you to know I appreciate the privilege of being permitted to appear here and speak this morning on behalf of what really is the administration's immigration bill, the Kennedy bill, and the Johnson bill, which has been introduced by many Members, and I have joined with them because it seems to me that this bill embodies that which is most logical at this time, one that is most feasible and one that could be enacted without too much difficulty.

Of course, it is not the ultimate in liberalizing immigration into the country; nevertheless, it is my opinion that this would be an excellent beginning insofar as the liberalization of the immigration law in doing away with the nationalities quota.

Now, I particularly am interested in liberalizing the immigration laws because my district is composed of people from practically all of Europe and also from Asia. For instance, from eastern Europe, I have Poles, I have Czechs, I have Hungarians, I have Rumanians, I have Irish, I have French, I have Jewish, and I have Chinese.

That area from Manhattan that I represent is a conglomerate one and one that is extremely interested in the liberalization of the inmigration law.