You may disagree, and I assume you do that very sincerely, but our best estimate is that it would bring that number into the United States, or close thereto.

I want to conclude by asking you one question. I assume the gentleman advocates, since he answered with respect to H.R. 7700, that the gentleman advocates a complete turning over to the executive branch of the Government all control of the immigration in this country and to relieve the Congress of any necessity whatsoever with respect to it.

Mr. LINDSAY. The gentleman is talking like Goldwater now in his simplification. I don't know what the gentleman is talking about with that question.

Mr. MOORE. The administration bill provides in a period of 5 years there will be no quotas, various boards should be set up to control them, that we might as well put the immigration subcommittee completely out of business. All will be vested in the Chief Executive of the United States and the Attorney General.

Mr. LINDSAY. That is what you have got now.

Mr. MOORE. I would like to think in a way we have a law which provides

Mr. LINDSAY. Congress makes the law.

Mr. MOORE (Continuing). Which provides certain qualifications that have to be met. Does not the gentleman think at all that if you relieve even 156,000 numbers we are talking about under the present system and give them to the Chief Executive without regard to any distribution or any formula whatsoever-there is none in the administration bill-that we are abdicating in the Congress complete control over who comes into this country?

Mr. LINDSAY. You do that now. You tell the executive there shall be so many quota numbers from countries A, B, C, D, et cetera. From then on, subject to standards of preference and whatnot, which nobody is suggesting, even in the administration bill, be waived, the executive branch administers the program. The Congress does not run the show.

Mr. MOORE. I grant you I think the gentleman certainly is right in that contention, but do you not see that this is a further erosion of congressional control?

Mr. LINDSAY. No, I do not.

Mr. MOORE. You do not at all?

Mr. LINDSAY. I do not think my bill does that, and from what I have examined of the administration bill in its theory about removing the national-origin basis of the quota. I do not think so. You are providing a general pool like you do on a country-to-country basis at the moment. That is not giving up congressional control at all. I do not understand the gentleman's question.

Mr. MOORE. What control do we have?

Mr. LINDSAY. That is the question I ask the gentleman. What control do we have at the moment? We assign quotas country by country at the moment.

Mr. MOORE. Right.

Mr. LINDSAY. What I am suggesting is that we get away from that, that we have a world pool here, a general pool, that it be operated on a first-come, first-served basis.

Mr. MOORE. The gentleman is not naive or innocent enough to believe pressures could not be exerted by any one of a number of areas in the world today that this or another country is not getting a fair shake on numbers coming in. Where does the problem lie? It lies on the desk of the President of the United States. You are suggesting that immigration be used as an instrument of foreign policy of the country.

Mr. LINDSAY. If the gentleman would permit me, at the present time in every country, any big-quota country or small-quota country, the applications for visas are handled on a first-come, first-served basis; the Congress does not change that, it has no control over it.. That is administered by the State Department overseas. That first-come, first-served basis is subject to certain criteria as to preference.

You do the same thing under the proposal that I am suggesting. I take it you would also under the administration proposal. Except you do not confine the pool within a country. You have a global pool

instead.

Mr. MOORE. You relieve any accountability as to where the numbers go.

Mr. LINDSAY. You can have them account all you wish to, and the Executive should account.

Mr. MOORE. Now you are coming back a little closer. Then you desire the Executive to account on the areas that he is going to make the numbers available.

Mr. LINDSAY. Of course, they will be accounting to Congress at all times as to where the quota stands, how far the applications go back. You know where they come from.

Mr. MOORE. The gentleman is aware the administration bill permits the President to reserve 50 percent to a pool of his own to be used in any way he wants to use them. We do not give that latitude in the operation of our law today.

Mr. LINDSAY. I do not understand that even the administration bill permits unlimited numbers in the pool. It has a ceiling. It retains the same overall quantity as we do now; is that right?

Mr. MOORE. It permits the executive branch of the Government to retain control over 50 percent of the numbers, to use them as they see fit.

Mr. LINDSAY. Is there anything in the present law that requires the Executive to issue all of the visas to a country like Great Britain or Italy, or what have you at the moment, every year?

Mr. MOORE. No.

Mr. LINDSAY. What you are saying is that it be mandatory that all allowed visas be used.

Mr. MOORE. I am not suggesting a thing. I asked the gentleman if he did not feel that in the administration bill and by supporting the administration bill he was advocating the complete abdication of this area by the Congress. I said to the gentleman that the administration bill provides that the Chief Executive can set aside 50 percent, up to 50 percent, of the number to be used as he sees fit.

Mr. LINDSAY. All I said to the gentleman was that I am in favor

Mr. MOORE. Plus another 20 percent for refugees. He can take up to 70 percent to do with as he sees fit.

Mr. LINDSAY. In other words, he is permitted not to use all of the quotas that the Congress makes available is what you are saying.

Mr. MOORE. I am talking about the proposed administration bill. Mr. LINDSAY. That is exactly it. As I understand it, the administration bill provides that the administration or the executive branch does not have to use all the quota numbers that are made available to it, 154,000 a year, whatever it is; correct?

Mr. MOORE. It has nothing to do with that. The same numbers come into the country, 156,000 people.

Mr. LINDSAY. Quota numbers.

Mr. MOORE. That is the salesman pitch on the administration bill-no more people coming into the country. We take the 156,000 people or numbers and we give immediate authority in the administration bill to the Chief Executive to take 50 percent of those and use as he sees fit plus another 20 percent set aside for refugee use. I am talking about the use of quota.

Mr. LINDSAY. I understand.

Mr. MOORE. We give him without regard to these safeguards in the law complete control over 70 percent of what today is thought to be about 156,000 people to do with as he sees fit.

Mr. LINDSAY. What safeguards in the law?

Mr. MOORE. I am talking about today they are issued under various preferences.

Mr. LINDSAY. No; as I understand the administration bill-I may be wrong-it is that the preference categories are retained.

Mr. RODINO. Except where the President in his discretion wants to retain 50 percent from the pool and 20 percent for refugees.

Mr. LINDSAY. That is a subject that perhaps should be adjusted by the subcommittee.

Mr. RODINO. The gentleman asked if that is alarming to you. Mr. LINDSAY. If I were a member of the subcommittee and were writing the bill, I think I would retain the preference categories. I think I would retain first, second, third, and fourth preferences because I think they are desirable from the point of view of what is best for the country. That is the way I would draft it.

Mr. MOORE. Does the gentleman now understand what the administration bill provides in that regard?

Mr. LINDSAY. Possibly.

Mr. MOORE. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. LINDSAY, what priority of importance do you attach to reuniting families under your proposal?

Mr. LINDSAY. Very high.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Given a choice between admitting immigrants who have relatives in the United States-that is, a family residing in the United States-and immigrants with no relatives residing in the United States, which would you prefer or give a higher preference? Mr. LINDSAY. Those who have relatives in the United States.

Mr. MOORE. Then in the process of uniting families you do not feel that the principle of reuniting families should apply equally to citizens and to aliens of the United States, that the citizen should have the prior preference?

Mr. LINDSAY. Yes.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Rodino.

Mr. RODINO. I merely want to thank the gentleman for his appearance here. I know that although I do not agree with the entire concept, I do recognize how interested the gentleman is and has been in liberalizing our immigration law. I was happy to hear him state he would enthusiastically endorse the administration bill if it were reported out of this committee.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Lindsay. We appreciate this opportunity that you have afforded us.

Mr. LINDSAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to have been here.

(The document submitted by Mr. Poff, entitled "Probable Effect of an Immigration to the United States of 350,000 Persons, 1960-2000," follows:)

PROBABLE Effect of an Immigration to the United States of 350,000

PERSONS, 1960-2000

Immigration at the rate of 350,000 per year for the next four decades and the anticipated descendants of such folk would by the year 2000 probably constitute about 6 percent of total U.S. population. This percentage was derived on a linear projection, assuming a continuing increase at the rate of 1.7 percent per year the same rate which has been estimated by the census in population projections for the next 20 years for the United States. Since a large percentage of immigrants to the United States are comprised of southern and west-central Europeans whose homeland rate of natural increase is 0.9 and 0.6 percent per year, respectively, this assumption that those who come to the United States will increase at the present U.S. rate of increase may be open to some criticism. However, once they arrive in the new home, it would seem to be the safer assumption that their rate of increase will be substantially that of U.S.-born citizens.

The U.S. population has been increasing at the rate of about 1.7 percent per year. If this rate is sustained for the next 40 years, we can expect a total population of about 350 million; a more modest rate of increase (1.5 percent per year) would result in a population of about 320 million.

Allowing for an immigration of 350,000 per year, and making the assumption of a constant rate of natural increase not unlike that of native-born U.S. citizens, the United States could expect that, by the year 2000, these immigrants and their progeny would account for about 6 percent of total population or that this group would account for 0.15 percent of the total population each year for the next 40 years.

A sample showing a natural increase among 1,000 immigrants at varying rates is shown in the following table:

Growth among 1,000 population at various rates of natural increase

Mr. FEIGHAN. We will adjourn until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. (Whereupon, at 4:40 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Tuesday, June 23, 1964.)

(Mr. Lindsay's bill is as follows:)

[H.R. 11446, 88th Cong., 2d sess.]

A BILL To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act, and for other purposes

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the "Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1964".

TITLE I-GENERAL

DEFINITIONS

SEC. 101. (a) Paragraph (27) (A) of section 101 (a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)) is amended by striking out "or the spouse" and inserting in lieu thereof ", spouse, or parent".

(b) Paragraph (27) (C) of section 101 (a) of such Act is amended to read as follows:

"(C) an immigrant who was born in any independent foreign country of North, Central, or South America, or in any independent island country adjacent thereto, or in the Canal Zone, and the spouse and children of any such immigrant, if accompanying or following to join him;".

(c) Paragraph (33) of section 101(a) of s 1 Act is amended by striking out the last sentence thereof.