Mr. Chairman, I ask that the bills I have discussed be favorably reported out by this committee. Thank you very much.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Thank you, Mr. Matsunaga.

Mr. Moore?

Mr. MOORE. I was interested in Mr. Matsunaga's approach to the statute of limitations on deportation cases. I assume the gentleman is aware that there is a provision of law which does have the same effect as the statute of limitations but permits permanent cancellation of deportation orders under certain conditions, if a person has been in the country for a period of 7 years, shows good moral character and so forth.

Are you aware that is present law, and when you suggest a statute of limitations do you suggest a shorter period than 7 years?

Mr. MATSUNAGA. I am not fully aware of any law which in any way excuses via a statute of limitations a crime committed by an alien. My law proposes a 5-year statute of limitations due to the misconduct of the alien.

If 5 years intercede and proceedings are not begun to deport such alien within the 5-year period, then he would be protected by the statute of limitations. This is what I propose.

Mr. MOORE. You propose a statute of limitations on good moral character rather than on deportation. In other words, if the Service, as I understand your presentation, does not move at the end of 5 years to deport him by reason of moral turpitude, commission of a crime, or something of that nature, that excuses the alien from having to make a showing of good moral character during the period of time he is in the country?

Mr. MATSUNAGA. I am going on the theory of rehabilitation along the lines of criminology which is now the most common thing accepted. If a person commits a crime and for 5 years subsequently lives a good, clean life, but then proceedings are not begun against him within that 5-year period and he has maintained a good clean life. within the 5 years, then the fact he has behaved for 5 years should serve as an excuse for not allowing action to be brought against him for a crime which he committed 5 years ago.

I am in agreement with the gentleman that the present 7-year period recognizing one of good moral character, one who has proved himself to be a good, law-abiding resident of the United States, ought to be recognized under the present law as the gentleman says it does. Mr. MOORE. I am having a little difficulty following you. Anybody who has been in here who is a permanent resident for a period of 5 years may become a citizen and then could not be deported.

Mr. MATSUNAGA. Then suppose one applies for citizenship after having been here for 5 years?

Mr. MOORE. Right.

Mr. MATSUNAGA. Then it is discovered that he had been charged with some act of moral turpitude, and then action is brought against him, and his application for citizenship denied.

In the case of a citizen criminal who commits burglary, let us say, if proceedings are not brought against him within a 2-year period in most States, in Hawaii it is a 2-year period

Mr. MOORE. We have no statute of limitations on felony in my State at all. On misdemeanors we do but not on felonies.

Mr. MATSUNAGA. We have a statute of limitations for felonies, also, although not for capital crimes, and if proceedings are not brought within the prescribed time he is excused.

If we strike an analogy and find an alien has been a resident of the United States 5 years continually, and has behaved, I feel we should at least give him credit for those 5 years and consider him as having been rehabilitated.

Mr. MOORE. Even though during that period of 5 years he may have committed a crime or may not have been able to establish good moral character? Failure of the Service to move, you feel, is prejudicial to him at that time?

Mr. MATSUNAGA. If he had subsequent to his act 5 years ago misbehaved, and it can be proven that he had misbehaved, then the statute would begin to run from the date of the commission of the last act.

Mr. MOORE. I believe that is the way the law is written today, is it not? The showing has to be of good moral character from the time of the last indiscretion, whatever that might be.

Mr. MATSUNAGA. My proposal is that 5 years elapse from the time of the commission of the last crime or misconduct before he can be excused. I don't know whether I make myself clear.

Mr. MOORE. I have some difficulty following you because the statute is substantially that way at the present time, unless you speak of a more grievous crime-trafficking in dope, subversive activities, something of that nature. Are you speaking of a crime of consequence which would overshadow the law we have today? He must make a showing that during that period of time, 5 years, that he is of good moral character and that qualifies him for citizenship.

If in the examination of the prospective citizen it is developed that his background is not of substantially good moral character, they can refuse to admit him to naturalization.

How would your proposed law change that? It does not as I see it. Mr. MATSUNAGA. The distinction may lie in the fact that under the present law, one has the positive duty to show good conduct for 7 years or for 5 years. It does not prevent the Immigration Services from reviewing a crime committed in excess of 5 years prior to the date of examination, and reviving a charge which had been brought by the authorities against the alien involved, and by reviving the charge and bringing proceedings against him they may then deport him for an act committed prior to the 5-year period.

Mr. MOORE. But not 10 years. The law permits them not to go beyond 10 years unless he is a crewman or an exchange student. In other words, he could have committed a murder 11 years ago and if the murder is something you are going to deport him for the Service may not deport the individual. You propose that that be reduced to 5 years?

Mr. MATSUNAGA. I am not too familiar with the 7- or the 10-year provision that you speak of. I request that I be given time to make a study of it and make comparisons and find distinctions between what I am proposing here and the law as it now exists.

Mr. MOORE. Fine. I wish you would.

You have also H.R. 6159, which proposes simply to change the registry date from June 28, 1940, to December 24, 1952.

Mr. MATSUNAGA. On that I request I be allowed to submit a separate statement. A matter was brought to my attention which has caused me to give second thought to it.

Mr. MOORE. Fine. I will not question you on that, then, at this time.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Thank you, Mr. Matsunaga.

Mr. MATSUNAGA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this opportunity.

(The bills discussed by Mr. Matsunaga, other than H.R. 7745, which is identical to H.R. 7700, are as follows:)

[H.R. 6159, 88th Cong., 1st Sess.]

A BILL To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act relating to the lawful admission for permanent residence of certain aliens

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That clause (a) of section 249 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1259) is amended by striking out "June 28, 1940" and inserting in lieu thereof "December 24, 1952".

[H.R. 6831, 88th Cong., 1st Sess.]

A BILL To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to impose a limitation upon the time for the institution of deportation proceedings, and a limitation upon the time for the loss of United States nationality.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) title II of the Immigration and Nationality Act is amended by adding at the end of such title the following section:

"LIMITATION ON TIME OF COMMENCING DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS

"SEC. 293. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, any alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence shall not, on or after the date of the enactment of this section, be deported by reason of any conduct occurring more than five years prior to the institution of deportation proceedings against him."

(b) Section 340 of the Immigration and Nationality Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:

"(k) Except for the cases within the purview of the proviso of subsection (a), subsection (c) or (d) of this section, no proceeding shall be instituted under subsection (a) of this section more than five years after a naturalized citizen has been admitted to citizenship.'

SEC. 2. The table of contents of the Immigration and Nationality Act is amended by adding the following new item at the end of title II thereof; "Sec. 293. Limitation on time of commencing deportation proceedings."

[H.R. 6833, 88th Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to make the deportation provisions thereof inapplicable to any alien admitted for permanent residence prior to his fourteenth birthday or to any alien who has continuously resided in the United States for ten years immediately following his admission. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 241 of the Immigration and Nationality Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection: "(g) The provisions of this section shall not apply (1) to any alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence prior to his fourteenth birthday and who has continued to reside therein or (2) to any alien who has continuously resided in the United States for ten years after being lawfully admitted for permanent residence."

[H.R. 7810, 88th Cong., 1st Sess.]

A BILL To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to encourage travel to the United States on the part of nationals of Japan by requiring the Secretary of State to waive visa requirements with respect to such nationals coming to the United States as nonimmigrant visitors, and for other purposes

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That clause (1) of section 140(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1104(a)) is amended by striking out "except" and inserting in lieu thereof "including".

SEC. 2. Section 212(d)(4) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(4)) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new sentence: "The requirements of clause (B) of paragraphs (26) of subsection (a) shall be waived by the Secretary of State with respect to nationals of Japan traveling to the United States as nonimmigrant visitors in accordance with the provisions of section 101(a)(15) (B)."

SEC. 3. Section 212 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1182) is further amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:

"Notwithstanding any other provision of the immigration laws, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare may, with the consent of the Secretary of State, detail medical officers of the United States Public Helath Service, and the Attorney General may, with the consent of the Secretary of State, detail immigration officers to serve at one or more consulates of the United States in Japan. Such officers shall, at the request of any national of Japan with respect to whom the Secretary of State has waived the requirements of clause (B) of paragraph (26) of subsection (a) in accordance with the last sentence of paragraph (4) of subsection (d), conduct such physical and mental examinations and such other inspection as otherwise would be required upon the entry of such national into the United States. Such examinations and inspection shall be in lieu of any other examinations or inspection required under any other provision of the immigration laws."

SEC. 4. Section 214(b) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1184) (b) is amended by striking out the first sentence thereof.

Mr. FEIGHAN. The subcommittee will recess until the call of the Chair.

(Hearing recessed at 11:05 a.m.)

STATEMENTS SUBMITTED

STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH P. ADDABBO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate this opportunity to testify in support of the administration's bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act of which I am a cosponsor, H.R. 7901.

In my opinion, this legislation is misunderstood by great numbers of our citizens. I have found that many people believe that this legislation will greatly increase the annual overall quota which, of course, is not true. Basically this bill provides for the gradual elimination of the national origins system and establishes a new system for the distribution of quota numbers.

This proposed legislation would only permit that portion of the total quota which is unused to be reallocated to those countries which have long waiting lists. Preference would be given first to those people of skills needed in this country and other preference would be given with a view toward reuniting families-all of this within the overall quota of 165,000. Certainly this is the fair and equitable way to choose those who wish to enter our country.

Under this system, one can easily see that the immigrants would not be burdens upon our economy, as some charge, but in most instances they will be assets, bringing needed skills, and we must remember that they will become consumers. I firmly believe that the majority of immigrants will in some way add to the greatness of this Nation just as our ancestors, and all past immigrants, have. Fairness and equity demand revision of our present law, and I respectfully urge prompt and favorable consideration by the committee.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM A. BARRETT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I welcome and deeply appreciate this opportunity of submitting a statement to your committee in its consideration and scrutiny of the immigration laws of the United States, the immigration policy as embodied in those statutes, and the various legislative proposals which are now pending to amend the immigration and nationality laws of the United States, I urge the prompt and favorable consideration of my bill, H.R. 7846, introduced in the present Congress on July 31, 1963, and recommend its prompt and speedy

enactment.

My bill is identical with H.R. 7700 which was introduced by the Honorable Emanuel Celler, chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Both bills would carry out the recommendations of the administration for the revision, improvement, and correction of our immigration laws.

I will not here encumber the proceedings of the committee by further repeating the contents of my bill, or by setting forth an analysis of each section thereof. Your record already contains that material and I request that my statement be printed in the record of your considerations indicating that the analysis which is before you and which has heretofore been printed in the Congressional Record relates to my bill.

However, it should be made perfectly clear that the legislative proposal that I have introduced is in strict conformity with the recommendations of the late President John F. Kennedy, as contained in his message to the Congress of July 23, 1963, when he pointed out that there was a compelling need for the Congress to reexamine the immigration laws and, finally at long last, to enact a genuine reform of the national origins system of selecting immigrants. Those same recommendations have the unconditional support of the present administration under the leadership of President Lyndon B. Johnson. It goes without saying