origins quota system for a period of 35 years, if this were actually the concept, then we would be adhering to those numbers that are allocated under the national origins quota system as based on the census of 1920.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Rodino, would you permit the witness to finish his answer?

Mr. RODINO. Surely.

Mr. TREVOR. If I may, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Rodino, I would like to read this resolution which was adopted at the annual convention of the American Coalition of Patriotic Societies on February 5, 1964:

RESOLUTION No. 3, IMMIGRATION, PRESERVE THE PROTECTIVE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT, MCCARRAN-WALTER ACT

Whereas hearings are being held on S. 747 and other politically motivated bills to greatly liberalize the protective Immigration and Nationality Act; and Whereas S. 747 would give increased discretionary power to appointed officials of the executive branch of the Government to determine, among other things, the annual quota of any quota area; and

Whereas the bill would pool unused quotas for use of any territory under United Nations trusteeship, and all other inhabited lands shall be attributed to a quota area specified by the Secretary of State;

Whereas an increase of the number of quota immigrants to 250,000 annually is acknowledged, with nonquota immigrants including refugees, to add more than 100,000; and

Whereas the cost of the multilation of our protective immigration system is measured in loss of job opportunities and high taxes for job retraining, unemployment compensation, schools and education, housing, relief rolls and other welfare programs:

Resolved, That the American Coalition of Patriotic Societies calls to action all patriotic organizations and individuals to support the mathematically cal culated, fair and generous Immigration and Nationality Act, the McCarran-Walter Act, without weakening amendments or destruction as vital to the preservation of individual liberty under constitutional government in this Republic.

Sir, that was adopted on February 5, 1964. We are going to have another annual meeting at the end of January next year, and the problem certainly will be reconsidered then.

I have here a resolution which, while not binding on my organization, was adopted by one of our cooperating societies, the Lynchburg chapter of the Virginia Society of the Sons of the American Revolution. This was adopted July 24, 1964. I will just read you the resolved portion.

Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Lynchburg chapter, Sons of the American Revolution, takes its stand to uphold the McCarran-Walter Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 and calls upon our Senators, Congressmen, and all loyal citizens of the United States to uphold and support the law now existing.

Sir, I do not want to dodge your question in any way, and I would like to say our organization has opposed many of the liberalizing additions to the basic immigration law. We feel there is a lot of good in this national origins principle, and that the more that our immigration laws are governed by it, the better it will be. We do not regard it as in any way discriminatory or unfair.

If you think about it, the national origins provision holds a mirror up to the people now in the country and attempts to provide that the people who come in shall be a reflection of those who are already here. My mind goes back to the old days before the national origins provision existed, when we had many little ghettos certainly in New York

City, where groups of people from various lands moved in and settled together and did not become absorbed in the mainstream of American life. It appears to us that this national origins provision has done a great deal to correct this and allow the people, since they are in total as much as possible like the people already here, to move into the mainstream of American life.

Mr. RODINO. You realize, of course, that the national origins system as it presently works out is based on the census of 1920. If you believe that the national origins quota system is something you would like to adhere to because it has worked properly, then would you be in support of having the national origins quota system applied as it does today to the present population of the United States?

Mr. TREVOR. I think there are some arguments for this. I think also that we know the persent quota based on 1920 has worked pretty well. I would certainly think this matter ought to be thought over and investigated very carefully before such a change were made.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Rodino, I might add on that particular question, basing the formula on the census of 1960 rather than 1920, that I have been advised by whom I consider reliable sources that if that were done, in no instance would any nation have its proportionate quota increased by more than 1,000 or possibly 1,500, which amazes me. Mr. RODINO. I am amazed myself, if that is the fact, because the figures I have of the breakdown of the ethnic groups in the United States right now certainly belies what you say, but if you say you got it from a reliable source, I certainly cannot question it, although I have my own sources, and the sources that I have are based on the census figures of the United States as of 1960. I guess we cannot argue this point now.

Mr. POFF. I think the chairman has raised a point which bears further exploration. Mr. Chairman, if it would be in order at this time, I would like to move that this subcommittee request precise information of the appropriate authorities of the executive agencies of the Government on this point for inclusion in the formal record.

Mr. RODINO. I agree.

Mr. FEIGHAN. That will be done.

(The information follows:)

Hon. MICHAEL A. FEIGHAN,

SEPTEMBER 3, 1964.

Chairman, Subcommittee No. 1, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. FEIGHAN: As requested in your letter of August 17, we are transmitting herewith estimates of immigration quotas for the quota areas using the 1960 date in place of data for 1920 as required in section 201 (a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The estimates of the population for 1960 are comparable in definition to the 1920 estimates now used for computation of the immigration quotas. The immigration quotas have been computed assuming a rate of one-sixth of 1 percent of the estimated population.

For 1960 the residual category "All other quota countries" represents the quota population left over after the major countries have been taken out, and the quota for this residual is calculated at one-sixth of 1 percent. Actually the size of this quota would be somewhat larger since the residual contains a relatively large number of countries which would have extremely small quotas under the usual formula, but which in practice are assigned minimum quotas

of 100.

The estimates of the 1960 quota population for the countries shown separately are based on data which were available in early 1963. Additional data which

have become available since that time would permit some refinement of the
estimates but in all likelihood would not materially change the size of the quotas.
If we can be of further assistance to you and your committee, please call on

us.

Sincerely yours,

RICHARD M. SCAMMON,
Director, Bureau of the Census.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,

BUREAU OF THE CENSUS,

Washington, D.C., August 31, 1964.

PROVISIONAL ESTIMATES OF THE NATIONAL ORIGINS OF THE WHITE POPULATION
AND IMMIGRATION QUOTAS BASED ON 1960 AND 1920 POPULATION

(The population figures are comparable to the 1920 figures used as a basis
for quota determination under the Immigration Act of 1924 and also as a basis
for present quotas under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The figures are
for the white population; the only element in the population taken into account
in determination of quotas under the Immigration Act of 1924. This 1920
population was made up of four components: colonial stock, grandchildren and
later generations of immigrants, children of immigrants, and immigrants. The
first two of these components were brought forward to 1960 by computing their
natural increase on the basis of appropriate age, specific birth and death rates.
For these two components, the 1960 distribution by national origin or quota area
was assumed to be the same as that of 1920. The last two components are repre-
sented in the total by adjusted figures from the 1960 census for the native of
foreign or mixed parentage and the foreign born. Quotas are computed assuming
a rate of one-sixth of 1 percent. The figures have not been completely adjusted
for boundary changes.)

1 Immigration and Nationality Act, 4th ed. (revised through June 30, 1964), 8 U.S.C. 1151, sec. 31(s).

* Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.

* Canada, the 20 Latin American Republics, and the Canal Zone.

Mr. RODINO. Thank you very much, Mr. Trevor.
Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Poff?

Mr. Porr. The witness in his prepared statement I think made the point that immigration has been in the neighborhood of some 300,000 for the last several years, of which approximately one-third has been under the quota system. What might be a little unclear in the witness' responses to the questions posed by my colleague from New Jersey is that by far the vast majority of the 200,000 outside the quota system come to this country as nonquota immigrants from the Western Hemisphere. It might have appeared to some reading the record as it now stands, that the 200,000 came principally from some of the 12 liberalizing acts which the Congress has passed since the WalterMcCarran Act was first enacted. This is not quite accurate. Mr. TREVOR. That is correct, sir.

Mr. POFF. As a matter of fact, in order that the record may be clear on this point, according to the annual report of the Immigration and Naturalization Service in 1963, between June 30, 1959, and June 30, 1963, total nonquota immigrant entries were 203,224, of which 144,677 were natives of the Western Hemisphere countries and an additional 3,067 were the spouses and children of such immigrants.

Mr. Chairman, since the House is meeting early today and we have other witnesses scheduled, I shall not prolong the interrogation at this point. I rest.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Trevor, we appreciate your appearance today and the testimony which you have given. On behalf of the committee, I wish to express our appreciation.

Mr. TREVOR. Thank you for hearing me.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Our next witness is the Most Reverend Edward E. Swanstrom, executive director of the Catholic Relief Services of the National Catholic Welfare Conference. Bishop Swanstrom appears in his capacity of honorary chairman of the American Council of Voluntary Agencies for Foreign Service and in behalf of a number of organizations affiliated with that council.

We are glad to have you with us today, Bishop Swanstrom, and I extend to you on behalf of the committee a cordial welcome.

Bishop SWANSTROM. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. POFF. Mr. Chairman, it is absolutely imperative that I leave the committee for a few moments. I am anxious that the witness understand that I will return just as soon as I possibly can.

Mr. FEIGHAN. You may proceed, Bishop Swanstrom. Bishop Swanstrom, for the purposes of the record of the hearings, would you kindly identify the gentlemen appearing with you?

STATEMENT OF BISHOP EDWARD E. SWANSTROM, HONORARY CHAIRMAN, AMERICAN COUNCIL OF VOLUNTARY AGENCIES FOR FOREIGN SERVICE

Bishop SWANSTROM. I am Bishop Swanstrom, executive director of the Catholic Relief Service of the National Catholic Welfare Conference. I am the honorary chairman of the American Council of Voluntary Agencies for Foreign Service, and for a number or years was privileged to act as chairman of its committee on migration and refugee problems.

I have been asked to present a statement on behalf of the 26 voluntary agencies which constitute the committee on migration and refugee problems, all of whom have been engaged for a great many years in assistance to immigrants, aliens, and refugees. Everyone is aware of their competence in this particular field, and it is on the basis of their years of experience that I submit their views.

With me today are several of the agency executives. I know that some have already appeared before your committee, but you may still have some questions that you wish to direct to them as well as to myself. I should like to introduce Mr. Donald E. Anderson, director, Lutheran Immigration Service; Mr. James P. Rice, executive director, United Hias Service, Inc.; Mr. Chester L. Rawski, executive director, Polish American Immigration & Relief Committee, Inc.; Teymuraz K. Bagration, executive secretary, vice president, and overseas director of the Tolstoy Foundation, Inc.; Rev. John W. Schauer, director of immigration services, Lutheran Church World Services; and Mr. James Norris, executive assistant to myself at Catholic Relief Services.

Mr. CHAIRMAN. It is not without significance that four Presidents of recent years, Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy of happy memory, and Johnson, have over the years frequently publicly stated that the fundamental and outstanding inadequacy, indeed the lamentable injustice, in our present immigration and nationality law is the national origins quota system. They have frequently stated that such a concept is entirely without basis in either logic or reason. Their forthright stand in this matter was well summarized by President Johnson in his plea for "lifting the bars of discrimination against those who seek entry into the United States by the enactment of new proposed legislation."

The Committee on Migration and Refugee Problems heartily endorses the basic principles and objectives contained in the immigration legislation now pending before the House. In particular, we strongly endorse those provisions which eliminate the national origins quota sytem as the basic formula for determining who shall enter the United States as an immigrant.

You, yourself, Mr. Chairman, before whose subcommittee we are privileged to appear today, pointed most dramatically to the inadequacy of our present immigration legislation when you said before the bar association at Greensburg, Pa., on May 24, 1957, that you consider our present immigration policy as reflected by the controlling laws outdated, inadequate, and certain to cause us not only embarrass ment but the loss of respect and friendship of millions of people who look to us as the defenders of human freedom and the hope of a better world of tomorrow. You went on to say that the national origins formula applies to conditions prevailing in 1921 and 1922. It has no practical relationship to the political demands of the modern day.

Events of the past 12 years leave no doubt that we must effect major changes in our basic immigration laws so that we may have an immigration policy to support our best national interests.

We are all happy to note in your statement on immigration policy on June 6, 1963, that you feel it vital that our immigration policy must, like all U.S. policy, serve the common good of our people and must