I may state that I am strongly in favor of organic revision and improvement of the immigration laws by this Nation, although I fully appreciate the very difficult problems that are involved in accomplishing this task.

It would, therefore, seem to me that the proposal contained in my bill being moderate, fair, and reasonable and requiring no massive departure from the policy Congress has followed in the past presents a very attractive, reliable, current method of bringing about desirable reforms in our immigration laws. Such a measure, in my opinion, could pass the Congress.

I will not go into the various theories, or the philosophy, of immigration laws in general, but I should like to stress this one point, and that is the great, compelling desirability of establishing policies and laws here that would encourage and permit the reuniting of familites, thus making it possible for our fellow citizens and residents of this country to bring their dear ones here to join them in larger numbers and more quickly than has been permitted in the past under existing law.

For these reasons, I think that my pending bill has special and very broad appeal. It has been endorsed in principle by President Truman, by President Eisenhower, by President Kennedy, and I understand that President Johnson may also be favorably disposed and sympathetic toward the proposal. It is a sane, practicable approach to a very thorny problem and it has wide support in the Nation.

It seems quite understandable that such a moderate, yet effective, measure to accomplish a result that most Americans want, would meet with strong favor on the part of the American people, and I hope and urge that this subcommittee will, at an early date, grapple boldly with the problem involved here, and approve my bill, or one like it, that will enable us to take a step forward from the maze of formalism and technicality and rather complacent attitude and method which the Nation has been pursuing, and enact a law that will in the real sense help many loyal Americans to be reunited with their families from overseas.

This measure would also emphasize our interest in perpetuating and enriching the spiritual doctrines we have embraced throughout our national life of affording a haven and refuge for the oppressed, the persecuted, and the lowly within the boundaries of our Nation.

Such a measure would be cordially received, not only at home, but abroad, where the people of many nations, nationalities, and races are observing us with a critical eye to ascertain whether we really mean what we say when we talk about America being the land of freedom, equality, and opportunity, and a place where people are treated equally under the law, and given the benefit of constitutional safeguards, equal privileges and entitlements that have meant so much to our Nation and the world.

It goes without saying, gentlemen, that I will be thankful for any mature consideration you may find it possible in your hearts to extend this bill. With great respect for this splendid subcommittee and its brilliant chairman, I hope and urge that you will be able to take early action along these lines.

It is believed by a great many Americans that the national-origin system is unfair, unworkable, and discriminatory in its operation. Notwithstanding that fact, if we accept it as many do, it remains that my bill leaves undisturbed the present overall immigration quota totals.

On the other hand, the bill seeks to redistribute some 60,000 or more, unused quota numbers, which are lost each year through lack of applicants in certain countries among countries where long quota waiting lists and heartbreaking delays exist, and where the quotas are generally heavily oversubscribed.

The bill has its proper safeguards in that it would permit the Government over a 5-year period to recapture from any of the affected countries quota numbers which were redistributed to other nations and which would be lost forever if not sed under present immigration laws.

I assert with ample justification, I believe, that my bill would correct certain inequities arising from the act, which provides such small annual quotas from such countries as Italy and Greece as well as several other countries.

For example, the idea of Italy and Greece, nations from which in a true sense we have drawn so much of our national heritage in terms of freedom, personal aberty, and culture, having less than 6,000 quota numbers is understandably unjustifiable, logically inconsistent, and disruptive of those cordial understandings and sympathetic bonds of approval, friendship and trust which are necessary to enlightened international policy.

36-382-64-pt. 1-21

It can be said that not only Italy and Greece, but Lebanon, Turkey, Poland. Lithuania, Israel, and some other countries, too, have not been accorded proper quotas, considering the quality of loyalty, fidelity, and constructive contributions of the natives of those countries, who have been outstanding citizens and residents of our own Nation.

We can well take notice of the fact that the operation of our immigration laws has been in many instances harsh, unfair, unsympathetic, and arbitrary with regard to the applications of many splendid American citizens who have sought to promote reunion with their relatives in these countries.

Unquestionably the quotas have been discriminatory_toward the countries of southern Europe, the Near East, and other nations. It should be noted that northern European countries' quota numbers have been undersubscribed at an increasing rate and that the quotas of southern Europe and other parts of the world have been oversubscribed at a very heavy rate.

I should also like to make the point that this condition is bringing disillusionment and resentment to a great many American citizens who feel that their own Government is not treating them fairly in preventing their reunion with their own flesh and blood and close relatives abroad, and I do not believe that this is a healthy or wholesome situation.

My bill offers a ready remedy for the injustices and inequities that have resulted from our basic immigration laws, and since my bill would move in a very substantial way to rectify these conditions, I would be especially grateful to this subcommittee for extending the measure the most sympathetic and painstaking consideration, because I believe the measure is definitely in the public interest of our own Nation as well as beneficial to our foreign policy, to the morale of our citizens, and to a better understanding in the world.

Thank you very much for the opportunity of expressing my views on this legislation.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROMAN C. PUCINSKI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

IMMIGRATION ACT AMENDMENTS

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate your extending me this opportunity to participate in your hearings on pending bills to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act. I am here to urge favorable action on the administration's immigration bill, H.R. 7700. I am a cosponsor of the bill, having introduced H.R. 8869, an identical bill.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, this bill would change the fundamental immigration policy of the United States by abolishing the existing national origins quota system and providing a new system for the numerical control of immigration. A number of other amendments to the immigration law are contained in the bill, but they are incidental in comparison to its provisions affecting the quota system.

The national origins quota system, which has shaped our policy of immigration selection for 40 years, has been stanchly defended and condemned since it was first enacted. I am in the camp that objects to the policy it embodies. Many proposals have been evolved over the past dozen years or so since the national origins system was reenacted by the McCarran-Walter Act to provide a substitute for it. I believe that the pending administration bill is the best, the most soundly reasoned, the most workable proposal of this nature that has been offered. This bill would not significantly increase the numbers of immigrants admissable to the United States, as many of its uninformed critics seem to fear. It would maintain the overall quota now in existence, increasing it by only around 7,000 a year by its provision raising the minimum quotas from 100 to 200.

As you know, it would not change the system overnight, but provides for a gradual retirement of existing quotas over a 5-year period. It also contains provisions to prevent immigrants in presently oversubscribed quota areas from monopolizing immigrant visas during the transition period in which the quota reserve pool it creates is being established.

One important change that the bill would make concerns quota numbers that presently go unused under the national origins system. Under existing law, for example, Great Britain has an annual quota of over 65,000, but during the last 5 years it has not used half of its quota allotment. Similarly, one-third of the quota numbers for all quota areas have not been utilized during recent years, and this at a time when the quotas of some countries, including Italy, Greece, Spain,

Portugal, and the country of my national origin, Poland, were heavily oversubscribed. This situation has been anomolous, to say the least. This situation could not exist under the bill's provisions for granting immigrant visas on a first-come, first-served basis, subject to a limitation of 10 percent for any one country and the President's authority to reserve quota numbers for special purposes. In addition the bill would allow unused quota numbers in any year to be utilized during the following year.

Mr. Chairman, the enactment of this bill is urgently needed to rid our nationa] law of its last vestige of unjustified racial discrimination. This discrimination,

as Secretary of State Rusk has testified before you, has unfortunate effects upon the domestic and foreign affairs of this country. I have great confidence in the bill. I do not believe that it would increase immigration to a degree that would pose any serious problems to our national economy. The Secretary of Labor and Attorney General have testified to this during your hearings. I urge that you take favorable action on the bill.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN J. ROONEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the subcommittee, I very much appreciate the opportunity to appear today to present a statement relative to the revisions which I have proposed in my bill, H.R. 7739, to amend our basic immigration and nationality law.

First, let me congratulate you, Mr. Chairman, for the forward step you have taken in providing these public hearings where those of us in the Congress and in the executive branch along with the many nongovernmental agencies can express our views on this vital matter.

I am sure that all thinking Americans believe the amendments which my bill proposes are long overdue. I am equally sure that the Congress has a real mandate to take affirmative action to correct the unconscionable restrictions which we as Americans have placed upon those who would become our fellow Americans.

The immigration policy which we have been following since 1920 is not only distasteful to millions of Americans but it is completely at odds with our American heritage of justice and equal rights for all mankind. It is also at odds with the great humanitarian efforts which this country has consistently made throughout the world to assure all mankind the right to live in peace and freedom and to the greatest degree possible to live in a land of their own choice.

These barriers to admission are closely allied to and just as vicious as those other barriers which caused President Johnson to say last December, "We are not true to our national heritage when we erect barriers to Negroes, the MexicanAmericans, to Oriental-Americans, to Spanish-speaking Americans from Puerto Rico, to American Indians, and indeed to any minority group."

Mr. Chairman, one would have to observe only a small portion of the daily reports received from our embassies or to talk with but a few of our ambassadors to realize what a serious handicap our highly discriminatory immigration policy creates to our achieving maximum benefits in our relationships with many foreign governments.

The evil in our present immigration policy lies in the national origins quota concept which in essence creates a "caste system" of the people who would migrate to our country. It says in effect, "We don't care how deserving you as an individual may be, we don't care how much your contribution to this country may be, we don't care how long you have waited to join your loved ones who are here. We shall admit or reject you primarily on the basis of your parentage and your place of birth." If these deserving applicants for immigrant visas happen to be from eastern or southern Europe, from the farflung areas of Asia, or from the newly developed countries of Africa, we must tell them that their chances of becoming Americans are exceedingly slim or even nil. It is the concept that permits this situation which President Johnson has called, "utterly unworthy of our traditions and our ideals."

It is true that over the years we have made sporadic and feeble attempts to ease restrictions to accommodate certain groups of immigrants or to meet certain emergencies, but we have never taken the necessary action to remove the obnoxious and inhuman restrictions contained within the bill itself. While providing easement for a few persons we have persisted in keeping the door locked against others just as deserving. The action with which the Congress is faced is a rela

tively simple and painless operation. It calls for the elimination of the quota system based on national origin and substitutes therefor a new formula of fair play. It does not propose a drastic wrecking of our whole immigration process. Indeed, it proposes gradual modifications over a period of 5 years. It provides the necessary means to admit a fair share of refugees. It provides for the admission of immigrants whose skills and professions are urgently needed during these critical days. Few Americans realize the extent to which even under our present restrictive immigration policy, this country has benefited and used to great advantage the scientific and engineering skills of immigrants. I wish more Americans were aware of the contents of a report issued by the National Science Foundation some months back which indicates for the years 1949-61 a total of 44,430 scientists and engineers were admitted to this country. It needs no stretch of the imagination to realize the tremendous contribution made by that group, composed of 33,466 engineers of all types, 10,308 natural scientists, and 658 professors of engineering and scientific subjects.

Those who wish to retain the restrictive provisions inherent in our extant immigration law fail to recognize the greatness of the niche which immigrants have carved in our history. Those who fear immigration and would keep our doors closed fail to appreciate the extent of the contribution immigrants and their children have made to the development of American cultural, social, and economic life.

Mr. Chairman, I maintain that this country can no longer ignore the debt our country owes to great men of stature like Enrico Fermi, Albert Einstein, Igor Sikorsky, Eugene Ormandy, Jan Paderewski, Dr. Teller, and Leopold Stokowski. These and the scores of other foreign born great American heroes of equal caliber attest to the sanity of removing the arbitrary barriers which preclude admitting the types and kinds of people most needed in our land.

These proposed revisions are vital, also, in that they seek to remove the inhumane barrier that precludes the reuniting of families. As Americans we take great pride in the depth and importance of our family composition, yet many new Americans are denied the privilege of living and working together in a family circle. The need for such a change in our law is not only of pressing social significance but it is an extremely moral obligation.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would recount some very poignant words spoken by President Johnson when he addressed a White House meeting on immigration and refugee matters on January 13 of this year, I quote:

"Now I would hope that each of us and all of us are descended from immigrants. I hope we would ask ourselves this question: How would we feel if we were put in the other fellow's place? Maybe by doing that and engaging in a little introspection for a time we would find it a good feeling to apply the Golden Rule and do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

"I would hope that we would do nothing hasty and makeshift, but I hope that we would apply the tests that I have outlined and the standards that I have suggested, doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, and asking them what contribution they could make to their country, and asking yourselves how you would feel if some of your very special members of your family were involved and were facing what now appears to be almost insurmountable obstacles. "So instead of using the test of where the immigrant was born, I would hope we could apply a somewhat more nondiscriminatory test of the special training and qualifications of the immigrant and his relationship to the persons in the United States and, actually, the time that he applies for admission. These objective standards, I believe, would serve the national interest, and I would hope that the Congress at this session would find that a majority of its Members could follow this path."

It is then our obligation to remember the driving forces behind immigration, to be ever mindful of the debt which this country owes immigrants and to shape our policies to remove the un-American barriers which preclude our opening our doors to those who need us and whom we ourselves need even more. I hope, Mr. Chairman, your committee, under your guidance, will lead the Congress to taking positive and affirmative action to achieve the requisite revisions to our Immigration and Nationality Act.

STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN S. ROSENTHAL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

IMMIGRATION ACT AMENDMENTS

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to have this opportunity to testify concerning the legislation pending before this subcommittee providing for basic changes in the Immigration and Nationality Act. I appear today to speak in support of the pending administration bill, which I cosponsored by introducing H.R. 7928.

Why should this law be amended? Why has the administration submitted proposed legislation which has received to cosponsorship of over 75 Members of the Senate and House of Representatives? Just what is the dissatisfaction with the present law?

By and large, I would say Mr. Chairman, that the majority of the provisions of the McCarran-Walter Act are good legislation and acceptable even to its most ardent critics. It is a complex statute, as you know-not the type of thing a speedreading course graduate would undertake to apply his talents to. If he did he would find himself in trouble before he worked his way through section 101, the opening section of the law.

Most of the qualitative immigration controls and procedures, as well as the nationality provisions of this law, are unobjectionable and acceptable to all.

The most serious single area of controversy regarding this law is the national origins quota system it adopted—a residual preserved from the Immigration Act of 1924.

This system has been criticized by many as being discriminatory and based upon outmoded theories of racial superiority. It has been defended by others as a pillar of strength in preserving the ethnic composition of the American people along the lines of our forefathers. Both sides in this argument may have been guilty at times of oversimplifying the truth.

I believe the truth-here and now-is that, regardless of the original purpose of the national origins system when it was formulated 40 years ago, it is now an outmoded and unnecessarily offensive system and what is more it has not worked in actual practice to control the pattern of immigration into this country.

You gentlemen are most familiar with immigration statistics. You know that two-thirds of the immigrants admitted to this country in the last 12 years have been nonquota immigrants. Only one-third have come in under quotas and of these we cannot say that the system has been controlling, since the large quota countries like England and Ireland have not used half of their allotted numbers. The only thing the national origins system has done has been to arbitrarily exclude immigrants from small quota countries while immigrant visas from other countries have gone begging.

As the late President Kennedy stated in his message transmitting his proposed immigration bill last year: "The use of a national origins system is without basis in logic or reason. It neither satisfies a national need nor accomplishes an international purpose. In an age of interdependence among nations," he went on to say, "such a system is an anachronism for it discriminates among applicants for admission into the United States on the basis of accident of birth.'

The administration's immigration bill would do away with all of the futile and unnecessary problems raised by the national origins quota system. The startling fact about this bill is its simplicity in dealing with a complex problem. And yet I have faith in its soundness and feasibility because it was put together under President Kennedy's direction by the people most familiar with the operation of the immigration law-the experts and technicians in the executive department who run the system. It is a reasonable and moderate proposal which adjusts to the new philosophy over a period of 5 years.

You gentlemen of the subcommittee are quite familiar with the provisions of the bill. I shall, therefore, not belabor the record by repeating an explanation of them right now.

In summary let me say that I am convinced that the present immigration quota system is out of date. It unnecessarily prevents many worthy immigrants from entering the United States simply because of the accident of their place of birth. This is unjust to the immigrants and their families in this country and it reflects an inaccurate picture of our national ideals and beliefs. The administration bill offers a sound and workable solution to these problems, without substantially increasing the overall limitation on immigration. I therefore urge its favorable consideration.