H.R. 7700. Those same reforms have received the endorsement of President Johnson. I go on record today as their strong advocate and urge the adoption. and enactment of the bill which embodies them.

Without going into great detail, because the details have, I know, been fully covered in earlier statements, I would like to point out that the administration's proposals would eliminate the national orgins quota system. The bar against Asiatics on the basis of race would be eliminated. The law would give preference in the quota to immigrants whose services would be advantageous to the United States.

The next group to be favored by these proposals, and, of course, by H.R. 7700, would be relatives of citizens or legal resident aliens of the United States. I cannot emphasize too strongly how important it is that families should be reunited-that aliens abroad should not be kept out of this country because of harsh and unyielding quotas which prevent them from joining their loved ones. Another item contained in H.R. 7700 is the admission, under proper safe-guards, of certain aliens afflicted with mental disorders. This, again, is for the purpose of permitting families to become united without any detriment to the welfare of the country at large.

In addition to the recommendations of the administration as embodied in H.R. 7700, I would like to suggest for your consideration, an amendment to section 249 of the Immigration and Nationality Act which relates to adjustment of status of certain deportable aliens in the United States. Under present law, such persons who are deportable generally for technical reasons must prove that they have resided continuously in the United States since prior to June 28, 1940. There are many aliens who arrived here after that date, but who have nevertheless been persons of good character, family supporters, and law-abiding individuals. That date, in my opinion, is now outmoded because it requires a residence of almost 24 years. In my estimation, it should be sufficient for a person who has been here 10 years to establish eligibility for adjustment of his immigration status in the United States without being forced to be deported and seek the doubtful possibility, if he comes from a country where the quota is oversubscribed, of obtaining an immigrant visa to return to the United States. This problem can be remedied by requiring that the alien shall have entered the United States prior to January 1, 1955, which would be approximately 10 years from the effective date of this legislation, if enacted. The amendment would simply change the date “June 28, 1940” in section 249 of the act to "January 1, 1955." I sincerely recommend the enactment of such an amendment.

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, I firmly believe that nothing that I have advocated in this statement would work to the slightest danger or detriment to the best interests and welfare of the United States.

Almost annually, Congress has enacted legislation permitting the admission of various aliens to the United States outside the national origins quota system. It is time that we admitted that our immigration policy is defective and must be changed. Let us accomplish that change now. Let us, in the words of the late John F. Kennedy, "eliminate discrimination between people and nations on a basis that is *** inconsistent with our traditions of welcome." Again, I thank you for this opportunity to express my views.

STATEMENT OF HON. STEVEN B. DEROUNIAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESSFROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 10893, legislation which I have introduced, is designed to expedite the entry into the United States of highly skilled aliens whose services are urgently needed and immigrants who have long been waiting for reunion with their relatives. My bill is drafted along the lines of several prior measures which were enacted into law. This bill and the prior enactments were born of a recognized need to alleviate drastically oversubscribed quota situations by conferring nonquota status upon certain preference aliens.

Before I introduced this bill, I carefully considered the introduction of an omnibus bill not unlike the many bills pending before the Judiciary Committee which propose a complete revision of our immigration laws. I wish to state that I basically agree with the purpose of these major omnibus bills. At this time, however, I am alerted to the demanding needs of our country to utilize the services of the many highly skilled individuals presently in the United States, as well as those individuals whom this Government has recognized as essential but who must wait until the quota system permits their entry. Although pending general bills propose relief for the oversubscribed quota, I realistically anticipate

the passing of much precious time through study, hearings, and consultations before any such major bill could be brought to the floor of the Congress. Again, I repeat, the United States can beneficially use the services of the many intending immigrants now. Hardly a day passes when there is not some request to assist a trained professional person-a beneficiary of an approved petition-to adjust his status in the United States so that he can properly take a place in industry or to join the professional ranks where permanent residence is a condition precedent to certification.

The bill that I have introduced proposes to allow entry into the United States beyond the quota for beneficiaries, regardless of national origin, second and third preference petitions which have been filed with the Attorney General prior to January 1, 1964. This encompasses, in addition to the skilled specialist falling within the first preference, the parents and unmarried sons and daughters of U.S. citizens and the spouses or unmarried sons and daughters of aliens lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence. Some of these intending immigrants have been waiting for 15 years to be reunited with their families in the United States.

The second section of my bill would confer nonquota status upon fourth preference beneficiaries; that is, those brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens and married sons and daughters of U.S. citizens who had registered for immigration to the United States prior to March 31, 1955, and who became beneficiaries of fourth preference petitions filed prior to January 1, 1964.

Any intending immigrant, in my opinion, who has maintained for over 9 years a desire to live in our country should be welcomed to join his relatives here.

I have been advised by the Department of State that an estimate of the number of aliens who would benefit from the enactment of my bill would be approximately 50,000. A breakdown of this figure would show that there are 4,510 beneficiaries of first preference petitions, 3,330 beneficiaries of second preference petitions, and 9,417 beneficiaries of third preference petitions. Additionally, 32,561 fourth preference beneficiaries would benefit from nonquota status.

I trust that my colleagues will take cognizance of the hardship caused by oversubscribed quotas and will join with me in seeking early consideration of this measure. The best interests of the United States will be served and many families will have happy reunions.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES C. DIGGS, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Mr. Chairman, I am here to testify on behalf of H.R. 4437 and similar immigra tion legislation which has been cosponsored by numerous Members of the House and the Senate. For more than a decade now, there has been a swelling public and congressional demand for revision of our basic immigration statute. Both of our national parties in their 1960 platforms urged the need for new and fair immigration policies consistent with principles of individual human dignity.

The 1952 governing immigration statute is restrictive and arbitrary, and discriminatory on the basis of race and national origin in provisions covering immigrants from eastern and southern Europe and from Asia and the Pacific.

The legislation proposed in H.R. 4437 and its like bills would remove arbitrary barriers on the basis of race and national origin and establish a new and equitable formula for immigration which does not so violently negate the American democratic, humane image, as does the standing 1952 law.

These bills would provide 250,000 quota visas per year, of which 50,000 would be available to refugees and/or escapees from communism without regard to quota areas. The remaining 200,000 quota visas would be allocated in categories80,000 to be divided among countries in proportion to the size of their popula tion, no country to get more than 3,000 numbers under this category; and 120,000 more visas annually allocated to countries based proportionately on the average of the total of the quota and nonquota immigration of that country during the past 15 years, no quota area getting less than under the old law with a maximum of 25,000 and a minimum quota of 200.

Quotas would be allocated to applicants either by country of birth or country of citizenship, provided domiciled for 10 years or more in the place of citizenship, All unused quota numbers at the end of the year would be pooled and divided among quota areas having a backlog of applicants waiting for immigrant visas. No quota area would get from this pool a number of visas greater than its regular annual quota and no more than 100,000 numbers would be used from the pool in any one year.

Quotas would be revised every 5 years based on latest data. Within the quotas, 60 percent would be available to blood relatives of a citizen or of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, their spouses, and children. The remaining 10 percent would be available to other qualified immigrants.

Persons born in the Western Hemisphere would remain nonquota and nonquota status would be expanded to include the parents of a U.S. citizen and the child, spouse, or parents of aliens admitted to the United States for permanent residence, Is well as persons with special skills.

This legislation would automatically eliminate the racially discriminatory Asia-Pacific triangle provisions.

This

Mr. Chairman, the world is in a forward-thrusting social movement. Nation has just moved in a long-awaited stride toward equality and human dignity For all its citizens. Its action has brought its world image into sharper focus with national creed. It is the right time to bring the Nation's immigration policies into the same kind of balance with democratic credo.

I urge this committee's approval of immigration legislation as proposed in H.R. 4437.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, for the record, I am here today so urge your favorable consideration of H.R. 7945, a bill I introduced to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act. As you know, this bill is the same as that recommended by our late President Kennedy and introduced by many of my colleagues in this Congress.

I believe that enactment of this legislation is long overdue. Our immigration policy is today based on an arbitrary and discriminatory system devised over 40 years ago, a system contrary to our democratic credo and way of life. Because of this system, many well-qualified immigrants, necessary for the enrichening and broadening of our population base, have not been able to enter the United States. Furthermore, many families have remained scattered throughout the world. Although I realize the members of the subcommittee are only too well aware of the many existing oversubscribed quotas, I would like to call your attention again to the shocking number of registrants awaiting action on their applications for C.S. immigration visas.

In Greece, for example, as of October 1, 1963, there were 58 registrations pending under the first preference category, 795 under the second, 814 under the third, 7,028 under the fourth, and 96,538 under the nonpreference, a total of 105,233. As Greece has an annual quota of 308, most of these registrants will never have the opportunity to come to the United States. The case is the same for Poland, which has an annual quota of 6,488 and a total of 68,701 pending registrations, and Italy with an annual quota of 5,666 and 263,878 pending egistrations.

Yet nations such as England, Germany, Ireland, Norway, and Sweden have huge undersubscribed quotas, which are not used year after year. Of the more than 1,862,000 quota immigrants authorized since 1952, only about 794,000 persons, approximately 60 percent of the total admissions authorized, were actually sued quota immigrant visas. In 1963 alone, some 53,192 quota numbers were not used.

It is an intolerable situation when persons applying for U.S. immigrant visas cannot use the excess quota numbers of other countries. It is time to retire our tational origins system and implement a more equitable immigration policy. I believe H.R. 7945, which would abolish this system, is a necessary step in edernizing our present policy.

If this legislation is enacted, hope for many of the thousands of Greeks, Italians, Poles, and members of other nationalities who want to enter the United States,

dat present cannot, will be revived. Minimum quotas of 200 for all countries would be immediately established, all quotas would be reduced in 20-percent ncrements every year and added to one quota reserve pool so that 5 years after actment there would no longer be any national quotas. Immigrants would then e able to apply for admission to the United States from the quota reserve pool td visas would be issued on a first-come, first-serve basis. The interests of ef gees. immigrants from countries with current quotas whose entrance might be urtailed as a result of this new system, and national security will be protected by ne provisions allowing the President to reserve a substantial number of quota umbers for these purposes. However, if the President reserves, against coningencies, any numbers during the year, but does not then find them needed,

they are to be issued as if not reserved. In addition, the Secretary of State is granted authority to terminate registrations of applicants who have declined visas.

Another proposed modification to the Immigration and Nationality Act included in my bill is the simplification of the procedure whereby eligibility for first-preference status may be established. At present, an immigrant may qualify for preferred status only when his services are requested by a U.S. employer in a petition filed with the Attorney General. My bill will give the many educated and well-trained applicants for U.S. immigration visas the opportunity to obtain first-preference status without first contacting prospective employers, a process always extremely difficult and often impossible.

Also included in this bill is a provision which would grant fourth-preference status to parents of aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence, and a subsidiary preference to qualified quota immigrants capable of filling particular labor shortages in the United States. This means persons who before had no hope of entering the United States because they could not meet the rigorous standards of the skilled specialty category may now, in all probability, do so.

Nonquota status will be granted to parents of U.S. citizens, and visa fee payment schedules will be reduced in some instances and revised in others to take the limited means of many immigrants into consideration.

I would like to point out before concluding my testimony that this legislation allows the administration a great deal of freedom. The Immigration Board to be set up will have extensive powers and responsibilities. Careful and thorough attention to the complex features of this bill in establishing administrative regu tions and procedures for the proposed new immigration program will greatly facilitate the implementation of this legislation. I am hopeful that this will be accomplished.

While I have only touched on some of the more salient aspects of my bill. I believe the subcommittee will agree that enactment of this legislation would greatly improve our immigration system and erase most of its more objectionabl features. I want to stress that it is in America's interest to have a more realistic and democratic selection process for immigrants. I urge the subcommittee to take the necessary steps to act promptly and favorably on this legislation.

STATEMENT OF HON. HAROLD D. DONOHUE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, may I express the very deepest appreciation, on behalf of untold thousands of naturalized American prospective American citizens, a great number of my colleagues, and myself. to you for the conduct of these hearings on proposed legislation to revise our current immigration laws, which is one of the most vitally important legislative subjects that today challenges our moral conscience and legislative prudenc It is my most earnest hope that very, promptly upon the conclusion of th hearings, committee initiative will be exercized to expedite congressional action before any adjournment takes place, on this pending legislation.

As one who has consistently advocated and supported continuing improve ments in and expansion of our immigration laws throughout my service in the House I wish to thank you for this opportunity to submit testimony in favor of H.R. 7700 and, of course, my own bill, H.R. 8883, which is practically identics to it. Let me emphasize right now that a particular measure or author is no the important thing in this matter. Our chief concern is to urge your approv of whatever bill or vehicle you deem best designed to remove and correct the obvious injustices that have been too long projected by the outmoded provision of our present immigration laws and regulations.

Even cursory examination of our present laws reveals their obviously unfsi and unpopular discrimination against the majority of the nations of the world This persistent discrimination has increasingly weakened our position and ou overtures of world leadership and has unwittingly delivered into skillful anti American hands an effective instrument for Communist propaganda agains the United States, as the proclaimed hope and asylum of the poor and persecuted the tired, and the homeless.

As a glaring example of discrimination a very heavy priority is given to imm grant applicants of the countries of Great Britain, Ireland, and Germany, pr there were more than 41,000 unused numbers in the last British quota. the other hand countries like Israel, India, China, and many others are permitte only 100 immigrants into the United States per year.

A brief review of the situation in other countries in southern and eastern Europe demonstrates similar and even greater discrimination. For example, Italy's yearly quota of 5,666 must, by some supposed miraculous process, attempt to cover well over 250,000 applicants. Greece has been granted a quota of 308 to process a backlog of over 100,000 qualified applicants. Poland is permitted only 6,488 persons per year to somehow be allocated among more than 60,000 annual applicants.

I feel certain that you and the great majority of Americans would judge this situation to be intolerable and it is, indeed, a matter which has seriously hurt the prestige ot fhe United States, both at home and abroad.

Along with other deficiences this outdated, outmoded, unjust, and discriminatory quota system is the substantive evil the legislation before you is designed to correct and whose adoption will, I believe, effect such correction.

Briefly reviewing the provisions of my bill and the other measures before you, we observe that their enactment would not result in any great increase in the total number of immigrants traditionally admitted to the United States; rather, the proposed legislation would eliminate, mostly over a period of 5 years, by pooling and redistribution, our present discriminatory system of national quotas and thereby alleviate the backlogs of those countries having the highest number of applicants.

Under the new quota system that would be achieved by this proposed legislation no country would be entitled to more than 10 percent of the entire annual allocation whereas under current law three nations are granted almost twothirds of all quota numbers. Another provision would establish an Immigration Board to review naturalization policy and to recommend fair and just use of unallocated quota numbers.

Further than that, by the adoption of these legislative proposals before you, close relatives of American citizens and resident aliens who have been on waiting lists for a heartbreaking length of time and those who could contribute the most, because of special skills, to the progress of the United States, would be granted highest priority regardless of their place of birth. The adoption of this provision alone would save countless expenditures of Federal money, as well as the time and energy of Federal legislators and agencies in the processing of private bills for the relief of extreme and unusual hardship immigration cases that come before this committee by the thousands every year.

Mr. Chairman and committee members, none of us should forget that this great Nation was itself founded almost altogether by immigrants. Certainly in advancing our position of world leadership and inspiration in these perilous days we can speak more convincingly for freedom everywhere when we have done our legislative utmost to give real freedom, real sanctuary, real family unity, and real opportunity to qualified immigrants who wish to begin a new life in this Country. Our national history reminds us that these are the kind of people in whose behalf the original American tradition of asylum was established and whose immigration to these shores has enriched our country from its earliest days right up to this very hour.

Mr. Chairman and committee members, in his immigration legislation recommendations to Congress our late and beloved President John F. Kennedy statedour investment in new citizens has always been a valuable source of our strength." With this sentiment and in his valiant spirit let us pursue this proven investment and I most earnestly hope that, in your wisdom and judgment, you will feel warranted in expediting your recommendation of congressional enactment of this egislation.

STATEMENT OF HON. DON EDWARDS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. Chairman, I introduced H.R. 7946 which is identical to H.R. 7700, introluced by the honored chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Emanuel Celler. Mr. Celler's bill embodies all of the provisions of the draft bill sent to the Congress n July 23, 1963, by our beloved late President, John F. Kennedy. I feel deeply rivileged to be a part of this new effort to bring order and equity to our immigation laws. Although I have been a member of the Committee on the Judiciary or less than a year, my tenure has been sufficient to acquaint me with the human nisery that flows from our inability to cope with legitimate cases through the nechanism of private legislation.

In my own district, as in virtually every other Congressman's, there are fine amilies who have suffered separation for years because our laws discriminate