The administration's proposal would not change any requirements under existing laws for preventing entry of undesirable persons. Applicants must still satisfy all security requirements we now have, and other requirements designed to exclude persons likely to become public charges.

The measure would only increase by less than 7,000 the total authorized quota immigration annually.

By seeking an immigration policy reflecting America's ideal of the equality of all men without regard to race, color, creed, or national origin, we would accomplish two purposes:

(1) We would enhance America's image as leader of the free world in according equal dignity and respect to all peoples of the world, and thus accomplish a significant forward stride in our international

relations.

(2) We would recognize the individual worth of each immigrant and his potential contribution to the development and growth of our national economy.

Mr. Chairman, these basic changes in American immigration policy are long overdue. Revision of our immigration laws is a logical extension of our efforts to achieve our ideal of equality.

Last year we enacted the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was designed to wipe out the last vestiges of racial discrimination against our own citizens.

As we reappraise the relationship of citizen to citizen under this law, it is also good for us to reexamine this same relationship of man's equality to man with respect to peoples of the world.

For as we move to erase racial discrimination against our own citizens, we should also move to erase racial barriers against citizens of other lands in our immigration laws.

I am encouraged that the President has called upon the Congress to accord priority consideration to immigration reform legislation. I have long regarded this as an issue of fundamental policy. For our present immigration laws disparage our democratic heritage. They directly contradict the spirit and principles of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, and our traditional standards of justice, decency, and the dignity and equality of all

men.

No legislation could more cogently and with more telling effect reaffirm our fundamental belief in the equality of man.

Mr. Chairman, during the 1st session of the 88th Congress, I conducted a rather exhaustive study of our immigration laws and policies. On August 23, 1963, in a 22-hour talk in the Senate, I presented this study.

I have been deeply grateful for the positive response that study has evoked-here in the Senate, across the country, and around the world. Because of the renewed concern and interest in this area, I have updated my study and intend to present it to the Senate at an early date. Senator KENNEDY. I want to express appreciation for your statement, Senator Fong.

Senator FONG. Thank you.

Senator KENNEDY. Senator Fong has been interested in immigration problems for many years. He brings much background and ex

52-441-65-pt. 1—4

perience in this area, and his comments are always of value and importance.

Without any further delay, we will have the testimony of the Secretary of State.

Mr. Secretary, this committee appreciates your appearance here this morning, especially in view of the urgent situation which exists in southeast Asia. We realize your time is limited, and will complete the record as rapidly as possible. You may proceed and, if you will be kind enough, introduce your associates.

STATEMENT OF HON. DEAN RUSK, SECRETARY OF STATE; ACCOMPANIED BY JAMES J. HINES, OFFICE OF THE LEGAL ADVISER, STATE DEPARTMENT; AND ABBA P. SCHWARTZ, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE BUREAU OF SECURITY AND CONSULAR AFFAIRS, STATE DEPARTMENT

Secretary RUSK. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate your consideration. I do want, of course, to be at the committee's disposal on this very important matter.

I have with me this morning Mr. Schwartz, who has been working on our passport and visa problems, on our refugee problems, and is deeply interested in this immigration bill, and Mr. Hines, who is a member of our Legal Adviser's Office, who is General Counsel for the Visa Office, a man of great experience in the administration of this law over the years.

It is a great privilege for me to have this opportunity to meet with this distinguished subcommittee to discuss the President's proposals for revising and modernizing our basic immigration law.

President Kennedy took a very important initiative in this matter and the committee is aware that President Johnson has given this immigration law very high priority indeed.

My comments today supplement those I made before this committee last July.

I believe this law should be amended to meet the requirements of domestic and international circumstances which are quite different from those which existed when it was enacted.

Today I would like to discuss only those aspects of S. 500 which relate to foreign policy and, therefore, are of primary concern to the Department of State. The Attorney General has recently testified before this committee on internal or national aspects of these proposals, as will the Secretary of Labor. My colleagues, Mr. Abba P. Schwartz, Administrator of the Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs, is available at the committee's convenience to discuss the refugee and other aspects of the administration's proposal which I may not be able to cover this morning.

There are three proposed changes in the present law which are of particular concern to our conduct of foreign relations. The first would eliminate the national origins system under which quotas for each country are determined. The second would eliminate the "Asia-Pacific Triangle" provisions which require persons of Asian stock to be attributed to quota areas, not by their place of birth, but according to their racial ancestry. The third would accord immigrants from newly

independent former colonial areas in the Western Hemisphere the same nonquota status that is presently enjoyed by immigrants from the other independent nations of the Western Hemisphere.

NATIONAL ORIGINS QUOTA SYSTEM

The principal reform called for in the administration's proposals is the elimination of the national origins quota system. That concept has produced some basic inequities and problems which are not solvable within the system's narrow context. Some nations, such as England and Ireland, have never used their large quotas, while other nations have small, heavily oversubscribed quotas.

Over the years, Congress has recognized these injustices by enacting special legislation and private bills to resolve them. Even private bills often do not provide solutions.

Beginning in 1948, the Congress has progressively liberalized our immigration laws to permit families to be reunited and to provide for the admission-generally on a nonquota basis of immigrants of different nationalities and circumstances who had been uprooted by natural calamities or displaced by political upheavals. The Congress thus put aside origin, race, and nationality for the refugees and displaced persons we have admitted over the past 16 years. Nonetheless, we continue to be judged abroad by a basic provision of law which suggests that prospective immigrants are selected on the basis of their national origins. I know this to be a fact because I have been approached on a number of occasions by foreign ministers who expressed their belief that this principle discriminates against their countries, where, although frequently ignored or overlooked or paid little attention in this country, it proves to be a point of high sensitivity among the other countries who are directly concerned. They were not complaining about numbers but about the principle which they considered discriminatory.

As long as our immigration law classifies persons according to national and ancestral origins, we cannot convince our critics that we judge each other on the basis of ability, industry, intelligence, integrity, and such other factors as determine a man's value to our society. On the contrary, the continuance of the national origins system suggests that we think less well of those citizens of the United States who are descended from certain ethnic origins than we do of others, andso the logic goes for that reason we are reluctant to receive more from certain countries.

Thus it is the national origins principle, rather than actual immigration, which is singled out by our critics. This makes it more difficult to deal with these countries and to establish the relations which our national interest requires.

The administration's proposals would eliminate the national origins system on a gradual basis by reducing all quotas by 20 percent each year for 5 years. The present total authorized annual quota will approximate 166,000 by raising the minimum quota for any country to 200. These minimum quotas would, of course, also have the 20-percent reduction each year applied to them.

S. 500 establishes a quota reserve pool from which all quota numbers would be allocated during the fifth year of transition and thereafter.

In each of the 5 years of the period of transition, the pool would consist of (1) the numbers released from national origins quotas each year under the 20-percent progressive reduction plan and (2) numbers assigned to the old quotas but unused during the previous year because of an insufficient qualified demand for them. However, the maximum allotment of numbers in any one fiscal year could not exceed the sum of all immigration quotas in effect on the date of enactment of the bill, roughly 166,000. To prevent disproportionate benefits to the nationals of any single country, a maximum of 10 percent of the total authorized quota is set on immigration attributable to any quota area. However, this limitation would not operate to reduce any quota in any of the 5 years of transition by more than 20 percent.

Since we oppose the national origins quota system, why do we not propose that it be abolished immediately rather than over a 5-year period? It is because we fear that too precipitous a change would result in reverse discrimination against those countries which now enjoy a situation where quota numbers are readily available to them and, for this reason, registrations are not necessary. Indeed, are not permitted in most cases. We do not believe it desirable to implement the new proposals in such manner as to reduce seriously immigration from these countries, since the aim of the bill is to continue immigration from all countries, and also because many of the countries which would be adversely affected are among our closest allies. At a time when our national security rests in large part on a continued strengthening of our ties with these countries, it would be anomalous indeed to restrict opportunities for their nationals to immigrate to this country. For this same reason the bill would authorize the President to reserve up to 30 percent of the quota reserve pool for allocation to qualified immigrants who could obtain visas under the present system, but not under the terms of the bill before the committee, and whose admission would further the national security interests. The 10-percent limitation on immigration from any single quota area would not apply to quota numbers so allocated to countries which, under the existing system, regularly receive allocations in excess of that limit.

THE ASIA-PACIFIC TRIANGLE

The second point which I would like to discuss today involves perhaps the most discriminatory aspect of the present law-the AsiaPacific Triangle which requires persons of Asian stock to be attributed to quota areas not of their place of birth but according to their racial ancestry. As I said in testimony last summer, this feature of the present law is indefensible from a foreign policy point of view. It represents an overt statutory discrimination against more than one-half of the world's population.

Here again the actual record with respect to immigration from the Asian countries is far better than a reading of our immigration law would lead one to expect. This is shown by the fact that from China, Japan, and the Philippines alone a total of 119,677 immigrants came to the United States during the 10-year period 1953-63. These facts may startle those who read in our immigration laws that Japan has an annual quota of 185, the Philippines a quota of 100, and that China has a total of 205 quota numbers a year. Any increase in the volume of

immigration resulting from the proposed amendments would be rather limited against the actual volume of Asian immigration into the United States between 1953 and 1963. We deprive ourselves of a powerful weapon in our fight against misinformation if we do not reconcile here, too, the letter of the law with the facts of immigration and thus erase the unfavorable impression made by our old quota limitation for Asians.

What we are urging Congress to do is to bring to a final conclusion a development which began more than 20 years age when the Chinese exclusion laws were eliminated and a quota for the immigration of Chinese persons was established. This was followed in 1952 by the elimination of race as a bar to naturalization and thereby to immigration. Asian spouses and children of American citizens were given the same nonquota status as was then enjoyed by persons of non-Asian ancestry. Finally, in 1961 Congress removed the 2,000 limit on the number of Asian immigrants from minimum quota areas within the Asia-Pacific Triangle. The only remaining discriminatory provision of the law having a racial connotation is the one requiring that an Asian person be charged to an Asian quota even if he were born outside the Asian area. This provision keeps an Indian wife separated from her husband who is a native of Burma. He entered the United States as a first preference immigrant whose skills were urgently needed by our country in medical research. His wife is chargeable to the oversubscribed Indian quota and cannot be admitted for many years. In all other cases the law permits an accompanying spouse to be charged to the quota of her husband to avoid separation of the family; that is, all except spouses of Asian ancestry. Under S. 500 this wife would be chargeable to the Burmese quota, which is open, so that she could enter immediately. I urge you most earnestly to eliminate this last vestige of discrimination against Asian persons from our immigration law by enacting S. 500.

WESTERN HEMISPHERE NONQUOTA AREA

The final problem which we hope that this Congress will resolve is the accidental discrimination against Jamaica and TrinidadTobago which resulted from the wording of the law exempting from quota limitations those persons born in Western Hemisphere coun tries that were independent at the time the law was enacted. Although the present law would grant nonquota status automatically to dependencies in Central or South America if they became independent, the automatic inclusion of these other sister Republics was not provided for in the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Governments of these two newly independent nations have made strong representations to our Government, asking to be placed on an equal footing with the other American states. In view of the consistent policy of the Congress in according our independent hemisphere neighbors nonquota status, and the fact that Jamaica and Trinidad-Tobago are among the friendliest of these neighbors, I do not doubt that the Congress will remove this unintended discrimination by granting them nonquota status. To prevent this kind of accidental discrimination, the administration's proposal would accord nonquota status to any dependencies that achieve independence in the future, making it clear