Mr. BESTERMAN. The report on Mr. Cramer's bill, H.R. 5320, was requested on April 11, 1963.

Mr. POFF. Mr. Chairman, this is not a question; this is by way of

comment.

I think that all in this room ought to bear in mind that these cases are now pending and it is possible that what may leave this room by way of publicity might be alleged as grounds for a mistrial.

That is all I have to say.

Mr. WILLIS. Well, you opened the door. I don't fail to consider that. I never move, no inkling in any way, even when it is critical, in any way which without consideration I believe would not have that result. We didn't miss that point and I don't think it is our opinion it would not.

Mr. POFF. I am sure the gentleman did not. My comment was not made in criticism of the gentleman.

Mr. WILLIS. It will be urged.

Mr. CHELF. If they go to the Supreme Court, let them. What is the difference?

Mr. MOORE. I have nothing further, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Chelf.

Mr. CHELF. No further questions.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Thank you, Mr. Willis, and counsel.

Mr. PAUL G. ROGERS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, may I submit a statement for the record?

Mr. FEIGHAN. Yes, and we shall also insert Mr. Rodino's statement. STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL G. ROGERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Mr. Chairman, at this moment 73 Americans are touring Castro's island and telling the world about it not by postcard, but by press release.

These so-called Americans have gone to Cuba in defiance of the U.S. ban on travel in Cuba. The group follows the path to Cuba which was traveled last year by a similar group, who were subsequently called before the House UnAmerican Activities Committee-a hearing which erupted in near riot when the Castro visitors began to mock the democratic process.

Last year the number of Castro tourists came to approximately 59, this year the number has increased. I am told that Castro tried to recruit as many as 500 Americans earlier this year and offered enticing terms for his propaganda-rich Havana holiday. Each tourist was reportedly subsidized in the amount of $1,100 to $1,200, with Castro asking him to put up only $100 of his own money for the trip.

As was done last year, the group presently in Cuba went by way of a third country and not by going directly from the United States.

One of the leaders of the group now in Cuba, one Ed Lemansky of New York. was quoted as saying he himself was a Communist and that the group was united in its opposition against the U.S. travel ban on Cuban visits.

Section 215 of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides $5,000 in fines or up to 5 years imprisonment, or both, for any person found guilty of violating the provisions of that act. I urge that stiff action be taken against any American citizens who have exhibited no more respect for their country than these travelers to Cuba have.

I strongly urge the adoption of legislation to deal specifically with any American citizens who illegally travel to Communist Cuba. This legislation should require that the U.S. Department of State maintain full control over any travel to and from Cuba and make adequate provisions for those who would seek to circumvent any such travel ban. Presently, the law allows for prosecution only when there has been exit from or entrance to the United States as part of travel to prohibited areas. This legislation, which I urge be approved, would provide criminal sanctions for having visited or traveled through any prohibited areas.

Any U.S. national who illegally travels to Cuba should feel the heavy hand of his countrymen upon his return.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

STATEMENT OF HON. PETER W. RODINO, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Mr. RODINO. Mr. Chairman and my distinguished colleagues, I come before you today to discuss the proposed changes in our immigration policy. I have long advocated repeal of the national origins system and I have pledged my every effort for enactment of immigration legislation which will express the true concepts of freedom and equality for which this country stands a change which will recognize the dignity of the individual-predicated on the principle that one person is no less desirable than any other person regardless of his race or his place of birth.

I am pleased that this committee, the committee on which I serve, has the acumen and the determination to act on immigration legislation at this propitious time.

In every new Congress, since I came to Congress in 1949, I have introduced bills to repeal the national origins system-a system by its discrimination and inflexibility is an injustice to the thousands of citizens and residents separated from loved ones. The daily contact that we on this very subcommittee have with private bills reemphasizes the need to reunite families and reemphasizes the miserable anticipation caused by separation.

My appearance today is not a hollow gesture in the cause of immigration reform; I embrace the same dedication that our distinguished chairman, Mr. Celler, has demonstrated throughout his long service in the Congress.

Surely one of the greatest sources of the strength of this country is to be found in the diversity of the groups which make up the American Nation. America is a nation of immigrants, immigrants from many lands who have come to these shores seeking freedom, opportunity, and a new life. Each group has brought to this country its traditions, its culture, its own particular genius, and these in turn have become part of the American heritage. Diversity marks the various contributions to this heritage; unity has been the outgrowth of a shared experience, of shared values. The American Nation today stands as eloquent proof that there is no inherent contradiction between unity and diversity.

This heritage is inimitable-for the peoples coming to our shores have not been invaders, but seekers of human dignity and opportunity. Particular talent and particular genius mixed in the American melting pot have blessed this relatively young nation with a position in this world second to none.

The national origins system, embodied in our immigration laws, is & system conceived 40 years ago when a pattern of discrimination prevailed. During the first decade of the 20th century the vast increase of immigration to the United States created an uneasiness, an uneasiness accentuated during periods of economic crises; then, the perplexities in the wake of World War I abetted the already existing baseless fear of the unknown.

This discriminatory and inflexible system recognizes neither passage of time nor the great changes that have taken place in the world. It is antiquated and as out of step with the times as colonialism.

The late President Kennedy in a communication to the Speaker of the House of Representatives said, "it neither satisfies a national need nor accomplishes an international purpose."

Gentlemen, I ask you-how can we, as Americans, say to another American-your mother, your father, your brother, your sister cannot come to the United States-while, at the same time strangers, by virtue of their place of birth alone, are invited to the United States without quota restrictions. I ask you-how can we, as Americans, explain to another American that his mother or his father must wait years before coming to the United States while a next-door neighbor can immediately enjoy the presence of his parents in the United States. The sovereignty of this great Nation rests with the people and as we strive to insure equal rights and opportunities for all citizens we must not deny some citizens the sanctity and stability of the family. We have admitted immigrants into citizenship, now let us treat them equally as citizens.

I was privileged to join the distinguished chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary in cosponsoring legislation in support of the comprehensive proposal on immigration submitted to the Congress in a special message by the late President Kennedy. This legislation was strongly endorsed by President Johnson in his state of the Union message. My bill, H.R. 7738, is identical to H.R. 7700, the Celler bill. I will not recite the technical aspects of H.R. 7700 or H.R. 7738. Members of this committee have studied the measure and expert witnesses from the Government departments will be forthcoming. I want to emphasize the major premise of this legislation-a system of selectivity designed with equality and flexibility. Priority for the reuniting of families and the admission of muchneeded skills-service to national interest and service to human interest is paramount in this system based upon logic and reason.

We will not be admitting substantially more immigrants. Times and possibilities have changed. We can no longer admit everyone who wishes to come here and it is with sadness that we modify Miss Liberty's invitation. We must be able to provide for those who come here with jobs, with homes, with futures a modern society is limited as to the rate at which it can expand and accommodate new settlers. These are the limitations on our welcome and they are necessary for the well-being of the United States. But our limitations on prospective immigrants need not be arbitrary as to nationality, nor do they have to contradict the ideals America has represented in the world.

The futility of existing law is axiomatic. Every Congress since 1957 has been called upon to enact legislation to remedy deficiencies or to meet emergencies. Of course, each new enactment has taken some of the substance from the existing law-it now remains on the legislative books as a testimony to anarchy.

area.

Obviously, the Congress has recognized the need for reform in this I believe we should make this reform official policy by revising our outdated immigration laws to conform with the wishes of the American people and the Congress. If we agree that the present laws are unjust-by contradicting them in practice-let us take the final step-and the fairest step-by eliminating the theory of injustice. There are other bills pending before this committee which are directed toward immigration reform. I respectfully submit, Mr.

Chairman, that our major objective-the repeal of the national origins system-can best be served by approval by this committee and by the Congress of H.R. 7700. Any other approach I fear, as sincere and plausible as may be, will only tend to perpetuate the objectionable national-origin system under some other fallacious formula.

The administration bill, H.R. 7700, will repeal the long-criticized policy but yet will continue from existing law all safeguards to national security. Let us not equivocate_minor issues. Let us refresh our dedication to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and let us join together to approve this legislation to invigorate our society and enrich our culture through the infusion of new persons. Mr. FEIGHAN. Thank you very much.

The committee will recess to answer the call of the House. (Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the hearing recessed,)