could look for no great change in the racial composition of the immigrants who would be admitted under the new bill.

Now, as a matter of fact, we talked a lot about skills. Do you not know that the law as it now exists is practically similar to the provisions of this bill about skilled people?

Senator ScoTT. About what?

Senator ERVIN. That the law as it now is worded is virtually the same as to the admission of skilled peoples as this bill. To make it plain, the McCarran-Walter Act says we shall seek to give first preference to 50 percent of those whose skills are urgently needed by the United States, and the new bill says we give a preference of 50 percent to those whose skills would be highly advantageous to the United States. I think that is an exercise in semantics, do you not? Do you see it point out any different? Are not the people whose skills are highly advantageous to the United States and urgently needed by the United States, and the people who have skills urgently needed by the United States are highly advantageous to the United States?

Senator SCOTT. I would assume the Senator is correct that there is not a great deal of difference there. The big difference is in the discriminatory application of who is skilled and who is not. Some people can come in now from Norway, and it is better that they should be skilled. But the same person with an equal skill from Poland cannot come in. That is the big difference, rather than the

Senator ERVIN. Well, as a matter of fact, under the existingSenator SCOTT (continuing). Rather than the semantics.

Senator ERVIN. Under the existing law where a quota is assigned of about 155,000, we could admit under this first preference, without any change in the law, approximately 75,000 skilled peoples and their families, could we not, without changing the law at all?

Senator SCOTT. I would have to say that I do not know.

Senator ERVIN. Well, that is a fact, and it is right interesting to know how many we got in the last fiscal year under an act which is practically the same as this act. We got 2,475 skilled people, and their families increased the first preference to 4,862 persons, leaving approximately 150,000 other persons to come in under the quota.

Senator SCOTT. I can only say if the Senator sees very little difference between the present law and the future, I would solicit his cosponsorship of S. 500.

Senator ERVIN. One of the arguments that is made for the passage of this law is that under this law we would receive people with the high skills that America needs; and yet the provisions of this bill and the provisions of the old law are identical except they change the words "skills urgently needed by the United States" to "the skills highly advantageous to the United States."

Now, I do not think by extending the provisions of this bill to people like those in the Congo we are going to get highly skilled people, and that is the main thrust of the bill with the exception of the provisions in reference to the Asiatic countries.

Senator SCOTT. We may have eliminated "urgently needed" in the theory of the Johnson administration that in this country we do not need anything, and yet we may prefer "highly advantageous" because presumably the admission of anything good is advantageous, but we do not want to admit we need it.

This may be a part of the administration theory, but unless it is, I cannot see much difference.

Senator ERVIN. I would say that is the major change which is no substantive difference, in order to be able to issue some high propaganda that we are trying to get people with high skills that are highly advantageous to the United States. I do not believe we are trying to keep away skills that are urgently needed by the United States, and that is the only change.

Now, 80 percent of the people admitted in the last fiscal year under the quota were not highly skilled people and had no relationship to the people already in America. So there is not going to be very much drastic change there, is there?

Senator SCOTT. I do not know. I assume that the Senator is referring to the fact that a large number of the people were admitted under the reunion-of-families aspect of the program.

Senator ERVIN. And that is what I would favor doing to take care of the family instead of destroying the immigration law which gives us a mathematical formula rather than a political formula.

Senator SCOTT. I cannot say that I am against reuniting children and parents.

Senator ERVIN. I am not either, and I have voted for bills to unite them, and there are only about 5,000 or 6,000 people in the world that are involved in that situation so far as we know, and we could let those come in without destroying the entire law and the basic foundation of our immigration law.

I appreciate your patience, Senator, and I hope you will excuse me for sort of arguing with you, but I may go back to practicing law any day.

Senator SCOTT. I may say to the Senator, also having been born in the South, I marvel at his ability to retain the simplistic views of my youth.

Senator ERVIN. Thank you.

Senator FONG. In every immigration quota, Senator Scott, 50 percent is allocated to skill, 30 percent to a second preference category, then 20 percent to a third preference, and then a fourth preference to whatever is left. In a country which has a minimal quota of 100, 50 percent is allocated to skills so you can only get 50 skilled people from that country. I think the whole premise is based on the fact that if we were to have it based on skill alone and not on national origins, we would get a lot of skilled people from other countries who are not able to enter now; is that it?

Senator SCOTT. I may say to the Senator I wish we could use the whole 50 for Japan to get those people who built that Tokyo-Hokaido railroad. Maybe we could have a railroad system in this country that works.

Senator FONG. Maybe we will be able to do it under this bill.

Senator KENNEDY. Senator, we appreciate your appearance here, your thoughtful presentation, and your response to the questions. Senator SCOTT. Thank you, Senator.

Senator KENNEDY. Our next witness is Senator Douglas who has rearranged his schedule to appear before the subcommittee this morning.

Senator Douglas?

STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL H. DOUGLAS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Senator DOUGLAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

I have prepared a statement which I will submit, and then I would like to speak informally about certain aspects of this problem.

Senator KENNEDY. The statement in its entirety will be printed in the record.

(Senator Douglas' statement in full is as follows:)

STATEMENT TO IMMIGRATION SUBCOMMITTEE IN SUPPORT OF S. 500

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the subcommittee for taking up this bill without delay. Public interest in immigration has been intensified by last fall's campaign, by President Kennedy's impressive book, "A Nation of Immigrants," and by President Johnson's recommendation for change mentioned both in the state of the Union message and in a special message to the Congress. By conducting hearings now, attention to the need for new legislation will be retained and broadened.

The testimony presented last week was informative and complete. I see nothing to be gained from reiterating all the proposed changes in the Immigration and Nationality Act which have been presented by the Attorney General, the Secretaries of State and Labor, and the Surgeon General. However, having served in the Senate for 17 years I can bear witness to both the strengths and weaknesses of our immigration law from my own experience.

PRESENT LAW CONTAINS SOUND PROTECTIONS

In general, Congress has established that a limited number of people should be permitted to enter the United States each year. Of this number, a percentage of persons with professional skills are given priority, as are certain close relatives of American citizens. These are natural and reasonable priorities. Senate bill 500 would retain this preference system with a few constructive changes.

In order to protect our society, the Immigration and Nationality Act enumerates a series of prerequisites to immigration. We must have assurances that each immigrant is in good health, that he will not become a public charge, that he has no police record, and that he will not in any way jeopardize the national security. We have authorized our State Department and the Immigration and Naturalization Service to make extensive checks to insure that, in every case, these prerequisites are met. These are the vital precautions which many people fear are being weakened when we talk of changing the immigration law. In fact, these restrictions would not be weakened by S. 500.

The Surgeon General has explained the only proposed changes in these restrictions; that is, those which would lift the ban on epileptics and give some flexibility to the provisions about mental retardation. These changes are proposed in response to (1) the medical advances in the treatment and control of epilepsy, and (2) the now common recognition that the expression "feeble minded" is an archaic term to describe any and all degrees of mental retardation.

NATIONALITY QUOTAS ARE UNNECESSARY

I would like to point out that under present law the ultimate criterion in the selection of immigrants is their race or nationality. This, of course, was achieved by making large portions of our total yearly quota available to those who were favored, and minimal portions to everyone else. Great Britain has an annual quota of more than 65,000 immigrants, and Greece, of 308. Hence, if today the British mother of an American citizen and the Greek mother of an American citizen were both to apply for visas to come to the United States, both would be given medical checkups. Both would be investigated to insure that they would not endanger the national security, that they do not have police records, and that they will not become public charges. Let us assume that the qualifications of both ladies are above reproach, and that their sons' petitions for them will be approved. Thereafter, the British lady will be assigned a

quota number and given a visa. The Greek lady will be registered on a waiting list and must anticipate a wait of at least 6 years. One could hardly blame the American citizen of Greek descent for feeilng that the citizen of British descent is significantly "more equal" than himself, in this great Nation which assures to all its people "equal justice under law."

I would like to give two case histories from my files to show that our country's interests are not well served by the national origins system.

In the spring of 1964 I was asked by the president of the University of Illinois to inquire about the visa application of a French teacher to whom the university had offered an associate professorship for the following fall term. The first preference petition which the university filed on her behalf was approved. The woman is a citizen of France and both her parents were French. Since the French quota for first preference was current, her chances of admission in time for the fall term seemed excellent. However, the young lady happened to have been born in Egypt while her father was teaching at a university in Cairo. Hence, she could only be charged to the oversubscribed quota for the United Arab Republic. Because she could not be given a visa to come here, she accepted a position at a university in Canada. For no logical reason we deprived one of our universities of a much needed teacher.

He is a

Fortunately, as Secretary Rusk pointed out last week, Congress has breached the national quota system a number of times by passing legislation to ease oversubscribed quotas and to admit certain refugees. For example, Public Law 87-885 facilitated the entry of certain first-preference professionals who were on hopelessly long wating lists by given them nonquota visas. Under provisions of this law, Albert I. Cho of Evanston, Ill., was given a nonquota visa. mechanical engineer employed by a prominent architectural firm in Chicago. Mr. Cho was educated in the United States, and both his parents have become American citizens. Because he was given a nonquota visa, he was able to become a "permanent resident alien." Without Public Law 87-885, he would still be waiting for a visa under the Chinese quota.

In 1963, Mr. Cho married a young Chinese nurse who was in this country on a student visa. They were married 3 days after Mr. Cho received permanent resident status. As the wife of a permanent resident, Mrs. Cho is only eligible for third preference under the same, hopeless, Chinese quota. She thus faced deportation as soon as her student visa expired. However, had Mr. and Mrs. Cho been married before his permanent resident status was secured. Mrs. Cho would have been allowed to adjust from student to permanent resident status as the wife of an alien whose first preference petition has been approved. I hope the irony of this situation is not entirely masked by the technicalities.

It is my feeling that separation of this young couple could not possibly serve any good purpose. For that reason, I have introduced a private bill for her relief. Thus, Mrs. Cho has not been required to leave the country. I cite this case-first, to show that the nationality quotas often cause unwarranted family separations, and, second, to show that Congress has recognized that the national interest could be better served by deviating from the nationality formula. Mr. Cho benefited from one of several laws passed since 1957 that have eased backlogs of desirable immigrants who have been waiting for years for quota numbers to become available. These have been humanitarian laws, for they have diminished long waiting lists and they responded to the needs of refugees from political and natural disasters. But it should be remembered that by these emergency laws we have waived the quota limitations for 141,598 aliens in 8 years. Under Senate bill 500 emergency influxes of refugees would be provided for within the annual quota, and long waiting lists would gradually and equitably be diminshed. S. 500 would preclude the need for further remedial legislation.

S. 500 REPRESENTS A CHANGE OF METHOD

As my distinguished colleague from North Carolina has explained, it would be impossible to draw up a law restricting immigartion without discriminating somehow between those who are admitted and those who are not. At issue now is whether we will retain the basically unjust criterion of national origin or whether we will reject that for a more equitable formula. I submit that the change for the better proposed in Senate bill 500 would not be a drastic change. We already have the sound personal requirements for eligibility and we shall keep them. We already have the preference categories for professionals and relatives of citizens, and we shall keep them. Intending immigrants now are

registered on waiting lists by date of application. It seems logical to transfer gradually from apportioning the yearly quota by nationality to apportioning it in chronological order by registration dates.

Under S. 500, the annual quota would be raised by less than 8,000 people and-because the entire quota would be used each year-the total increase in immigration is estimated at only about 60,000. We are not proposing a numerical increase of significant proportions, but, rather, a change in method. Senate bill 500 would gradually change the method of allocating the quota, and it would do so with explicit precautions to prevent any difficulty for people wishing to come here from countries that now have no waiting lists.

We are perfectly justified in having an annual limit to immigration. I certainly do not dispute that. But I feel very strongly that in choosing the limited number we will welcome each year, we should set aside, once and for all, considerations of race or nationality.

Senator DOUGLAS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I think we might as well recognize that the McCarran-Walter Act is, in a sense, the child of the Immigration Acts of the early 1920's, that it was built upon them and that it made only very minor changes in them.

Some members of the committee may be too young to remember the early 1920's, but I remember them very well. The original Immigration Acts were written under a strong drive made by the Ku Klux Klan not only to restrict the total quantity of immigration into the United States, but also to draw such immigration as was permitted from northern and western Europe rather than from southern and eastern Europe.

As members of the committee know, up until about 1895 the predominant immigration in this country came from northern and western Europe, from Great Britain, Ireland, Germany, the Scandinavian countries, and, to a lesser degree, from some of the other northwestern European countries.

Beginning about 1895, the character of immigration changed. The steamship companies developed immigrant service from Italy, from Greece, from Poland, and from Russia. And so by 1905 immigration was predominantly from these areas, and only to a very minor degree from northwestern Europe.

Furthermore, the volume of immigration increased very greatly. As I remember the figures, from 1900 to 1910 an average of about 1 million people a year entered the United States. This amounted to about 1 percent of the population. Incidentally, when Australia adopted a more liberal immigration policy, it took over this same figure from the United States and admitted immigrants at the rate of approximately 1 percent of its population a year, modeled directly upon our experience in the decade of 1900 to 1910.

Immigration, of course, fell off markedly during the war, but there was a burst of renewed immigration in the 2 years immediately following, from about 1920 to 1922, as I remember it.

The Ku Klux Klan, which was then very strong in the country and which politically controlled a number of the States, immediately started a movement both to restrict the total, and to alter the composition of the immigrants who were admitted. The aim was to reduce the total number to be admitted very markedly. I believe the total was cut by approximately five-sixths, from 1 million to about one-sixth of a million.