OPPOSITION TO IMMIGRATION LAW CHANGES

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290002-8
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 23
• Document Creation Date: December 15, 2016
• Document Release Date: December 30, 2003
• Sequence Number: 2
• Publication Date: September 21, 1965
• Content Type: OPEN

19A6p5 Fegalftinegietr 816:RD_Pseffkliqi46R000100290002-8
September 21, p roved 23651
levels of understanding and improved stand-
ards of living.
Geographical barriers and political boun-
daries will be rendered meaningless in any
technical communications sense. Every
Item of information that man has accumu-
lated in his endless pursuit of knowledge,
every known process for human advance-
ment, can be made instantly available
through electronic communications and
computation for men everywhere to receive,
to store, to retrieve and to use as needed.
This is not a remote hypothetical possi-
bility. Progress in the area of satellite
communications technology is far more rapid
than was first anticipated. Only 3 years
ago, it was assumed that cost and technical
complexity would make impractical more
than a single satellite global system to serve
all countries for the foreseeable future.
That assumption has already been invali-
dated.
Technology, in fact, is moving so rapidly
that the establishment of a satellite service
has now come within the economic capa-
bility of many nations. Through a single
transmitting and receiving ground station
costing approximately 65 million, any nation
can have access to a satellite linked by sight
and sound to any other nation similarly
equipped. The cost of a satellite itself may
be as little as $1 million. Already, the So-
viet 'Union is operating a prototype satellite
communications system of its own.
But even developments of this significance
are likely to be eclipsed by a new revolution
in satellite technology. Within 5 to 10
years, I believe that we will develop high-
power broadcasting satellites capable of
transmitting television and radio directly
into the home.
These would be nuclear-powered synchro-
nous Satellites radiating up to 30 kilowatts
Of power, sufficient to transmit simultane-
ously on three television and three radio
Channels to home receivers within an area
of 1 million square miles. The present type
of home antenna could be modified without
difficulty to receive such transmissions in
the ultra-high frequency band.
For the North? American continent, a di-
rect-broadeast satellite could be positioned
in synchronous equatorial orbit over the
Pacific just west of South America. To pro-
Vide continuous service, three satellites
would be required. A standby unit would
be placed in orbit beside the operating satel-
lite in the event of failure. A third satel-
lite would be kept in readiness for launch-
ing should either of the first two fail to
operate.
The cost of such a three-satellite syste
would be far less than the establishm
of a conventional communications net rk
covering a large area such as 8outh rica
or nations such as Argentina or Br It
would enable the remotest village to be
linked to major industrial and cult al cen-
ters. It would give less developed eas
ac-
cess to the same communications chnology
that the industrial powers enjo
Direct broadcast satellites alter the
entire pattern of relationship in interna-
tional communications, and eir operation
Will obviously involve far e than simple
positioning of the satellites n orbit. When
many nations possess e capability for
transmission through sp e to any place on
earth, they must agree a new pattern of
global regulation. Ot rwise, the prospect
of social and economi gains will be thwart-
ed by the ensuing c os in the world's air
waves.
Anyone who lists to international short-
wa,X9 rutip, to av.rof the disorder that lack
Of ,affecti4e wort de regulation produces_
the jamming, the'censorship, the conflicts of
channels, the ontrlapping and garbled trans-
missions. Thesp are the outgrowth of an
earlier inability among nations to establish
a firm pattern of frequency use, and their
failure to adop? t appropriate international
regulations that would permit people every-
where the freedom to listen and look.
However, there is a hopeful precedent for
cooperation in the work of the International
Telecommunication Union which was found-
ed 100 years ago to bring order to inter-
national telegraphy.
Since 1865 the ITU has grown from 20 to
more than 120 member states and territories.
Its original terms of reference have been
expanded to cover certain aspects of doing
business in all present forms of international
electronic communications, including tariffs,
technical standards, and frequency alloca-
tions.
But the ITU, or any other international
agency, will be powerless to avoid conflict
In direct satellite broadcasting without ad-
vance agreement on certain fundamentals
among the nations owning and operating
the space systems.
For example, it will be difficult to avo
confusion both in space and on the gro ? d
without greater uniformity in world de
television standards. Ideally, there s ould
be agreement among all nations to ..erate
on standards that would enable evision
sets everywhere to receive broadc ts from
any part of the world. That i al is far
from realization, but it is wit ? the col-
lective power of the nations of he world to
achieve it.
Formidable allocations pro ems will also
require a high level of stat? manship to re-
solve. No legal basis yet xists for agree-
ments to prevent interfer nce among high-
power satellites in the co erage of geographic
areas. Nor has an in -rnational plan yet
been devised to avoid ontlicts between sat-
ellite and ground br casting services that
will operate in the me general frequency
ranges.
I present these hnical problems in terms
of broadcasting cause I believe that broad-
casting on a rld scale may prove to be
the most imp rtant function of these sat-
ellites of the uture. Yet, complex as these
technical p ?blems are, there are others of
an even re formidable nature that must
be consi red from a different perspective.
When or example, a Russian satellite can
broadc t directly to a Kansas farm, or an
Amen i an satellite can broadcast directly to
a H garian collective, what will be the re-
act n in both countries? When we can
re h the homes of the world with instan-
t'eons sight and sound, what rules of con-
uct are to apply, and who is to establish
them? This question evades the jurisdiction
of any established body, yet it will affect the
welfare of all nations and all people.
Today, the proliferation of nuclear arma-
ments has become an ominous threat to
world peace. No international agreement
has been reached thus far on a practical plan
that would solve this problem, but at least
its menace to mankind is now universally
acknowledged. Many able minds, in many
nations, are working hard to neutralize the
danger. But surely, had comparable efforts
been put forth at the earlier stages of nuclear
development, the task would have been far
simpler than it is today.
In the development of global satellite com-
munications?especially in the area of future
direct broadcasts from outer space to the
home?we face an analogous situation. Com-
munications satellites must not be allowed to
become propaganda instruments used pri-
marily for heating up the cold war, for stim-
ulating subversion, for promoting conflict
and confusion on a worldwide scale. These
uses, too, could proliferate if we ignore the
lessons of communications history.
- If direet satellite broadcasting is to fulfill
its destiny, I am convinced that some type
of modus vivendi must be established among
the many rival national and ideological in-
terests. -It would be a travesty on the hopes
of humanity if this immense force for en-
lightenment, understanding, and social ad-
vancement were to be subveyted to narrow
national ends, or become cllicredited by the
failure of nations to age i upon its bene-
ficial uses.
We live in a wor1511 in which open and
closed societies axis 'side by side in varying
degrees of mistr t. They differ, among
other things, o what is to be accessible
to the eyes, e , and minds of their people.
To counte this deeply rooted division, It
seems to m that we should begin to concern
ourselves nitially with an examination of
the bro fields of subject matter that might
be acc table to all nations and peoples. I
visu ze live broad areas in which we might
ach ve some form of understanding prior
to he orbiting of the first direct broadcast
s ellite.
The first is in the field of culture. In the
midest of national rivalries an interchange
of art forms continues to grow?in painting,
in music, drama, ballet, and the folk arts.
All of these are readily transferable to the
medium of global television, and all strike
a chord of response in civilized man re-
gardless of his nationality or ideological
allegiance.
The second area could extend to the pres-
entation of certain types of major news
events. Whatever our personal loyalties,
there are events and occasions that move us
all to wonder and pride. For example, the
first astronaut to set foot on the moon will
place man on the threshold of a world far
vaster than anything discovered in the age
of Columbus and Magellan. Happenings such
as this transcend all national boundaries
and, here too, it should be possible to reach
a broad consensus on what could be broad-
cast to all people everywhere.
A third area a exploration might be the
use of global satellite broadcasting as a di-
rect channel of communication between na-
tions. Agreement on this basic concept
might ultimately lead to summit conferences
in which the principals would confer face
to face without leaving their capitols. If
closed sessions were desired, the transmis-
sions could be scrambled and decoded by spe-
cial equipment at each terminal, comparable
to today's "hot line" between Washington
and Moscow. If no need for secrecy existed,
the conferences could be available for all
people to see and hear.
The fourth area of examination lies in
a realm of political activity where all na-
tions share a common interest. Perhaps an
agreement could be achieved that one chan-
nel in each space system would be allocated
for the deliberations of the United Nations.
It might not always be a placid picture that
humanity would view, but it would mirror
society through the only world forum where
all ideas are publicly exchanged and debated.
Global television by the U.N. would help at
least to create an understanding of the is-
sues involved, and thus further the cause of
peace.
The fifth area in the search for a common
accord is instructional. The greatest promise
of direct satellite television rests on its abil-
ity to educate millions simultaneously, to
bring people everywhere into instant contact
with technological and social progress. The
prospects for educational programing by sat-
ellites are virtually limitless, and they offer
perhaps the greatest hope for advancing the
world to a higher plateau of understanding
and peace.
If we can achieve broad agreement in these
five areas, it should not be beyond our in-
genuity to devise arrangements for utilizing
all satellite broadcasting facilities on suit-
able occasions as a world network serving
the interests of all nations. Inevitably, as
the world continues to grow smaller in dis-
tance and time, I believe we will find more
things to unite rather than to separate the
community of man.
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67600446R000100290002-8
Approved For Reemdfirl/J6 ? CIA:RDP67B00446R000100290002-8
23652 siONA1 RECORD ? SENATE September 21, 1965
No other generation has ever had so great
an opportunity to diminish the discords that
divide our world. It demands of all of us?
lawyer and jurist, communicator, statesman,
and diplomat?that we unite our best efforts
in establishing a basis for progress.
During the past week, you have devoted
pert of your attention to a consideration of
world communications. Its position on your
agenda indicates the importance you attach
to 1t,s potential contributions to world peace
through law. I earnestly hope that your ef-
forts in this direction vrill extend beyond
this constructive conference, for you have
more than your expert knowledge to con-
tribute. Among your own countrymen, you
possess the prestige and moral stature to
create broader awareness of the revolution
in communications and the need for new
agreements that will enlist satellite tech-
nology in the cause of a world founded on
peace throng. law.
The adj technology, and
of tee. to y well be the en-
during task eration. It is a chal-
to - .g' ned wisdom and leader-
We meet it by joining all man-
in a .rotherhood of sight ,and sound
gh global communications.
OPPOSITION TO IMMIGRATION LAW
CHANGES
Mr. BYE]) of West Virginia. Mr. Pres-
ident, on Tuesday, September 14, I stated
XV opposition to the proposed immigra-
tion bill except for speciftc reservations
Which I made, particularly with reference
to the need for a limitation on Western
Hemisphere immigration.
A number of newspapers in my State
of West Virginia have seen fit to sup-
port thy stand on this legislation, now
Under debate in the Senate.
I ask unanimous consent that these
articles be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the articles
*ere ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
p'roto. the Wheeling (W. Va.) Intelligericer,
Sept, 18, 19651
BYRD PULLS No PUNCHES LS PARTING COM-
PANY WITH CHIEF ON IMMIGRATION
The purpose of the immigration law now
in effect in the United States is both to
limit the number of foreigners admitted for
assidence here and to influence the character
Of the immigration by favoring those peoples
historically proven to be more readily assimil-
able by our society.
To implement this purpose annual quotas
are assigned non-American countries based
On the national origins of inhabitants of the
United States as reflected in the census of
020.
This principle was written into the law in
1924 and was retained in the Immigration
and Nationality Act of 1952, a codification of
various regulations then on the books deal-
ing with separate phases of &mai gration con-
trol.
There now is pending? in Congress a bill,
originating during the Kennedy administra-
tion, which strikes at the foundation of the
(dieting policy by scrapping the national
origins quotas. It has strong administration
Support and appears on the list of must reg-
islation earmarked by the President for ac-
tion at this session.
In the able speech he delivered on the
floor of the Seante the other day in which be
announced his intention of voting against
the,b111 because of its abandonment of the
national origins principle, West Virginia's
ROBERT C. BYRD made several telling points:
That it is "completely unrealistic for us
to be considering legislation that is going to
permanently increase our immigration to any
degree whatever."
That we have no need for more people at
a time when we are wrestling with an unem-
ployment problem and facing the conse-
quences of a population explosion, and that
other countries need more than we do those
possessed of special skills upon whom so
much emphasis Is placed by advocates of
change.
That "our first responsibility in matters
of Immigration is to the people of the
United States and not to the entire popula-
tion Of the world."
That it doesn't make sense to "develop a
guilt complex concerning immigration poli-
cies" when this country is "far more liberal
than other countries in this respect," and
when every other country "that is attractive
to immigrants practices selectivity and with-
out apology."
That those "who would have us believe
that our foreign policy will be ineffective and
hampered if we retain the national origins
quota system" are uttering "pure drivel."
Senator BYRD goes to the heart of the mat-
ter, we think, in this passage:
"But, Mr. President, if we scuttle the na-
tional origins quota system, we will have
many years and many reasons to regret it.
I do not claim that the existing national
origins system is perfect, but It has provided
a reasonably effective means of controlling
immigration, and where it has not worked,
we have enacted special legislation to allevi-
ate special problems as they have arisen.
"The national interest most come first.
Sentimental slogans have been all too
adroitly exploited, and the time is at hand
when we must resist the pressures for
sharply increased immigration of persons
with cultures, customs, and concepts of gov-
ernment altogether at variance with those
of the basic American stocks. We must not
throw open the gates to areas whose peoples
would be undeniably more difficult for our
population to assimilate and convert into
patriotic Americans. The alien inflow to
America from potential waiting lists of appli-
cants from Jamaica, Trinidad, Tobago, Indo-
nesia, India, Nigeria, etc., can profoundly
affect the character of the American popula-
tion, and in the long run can critically influ-
ence our concepts of government."
In this connection Senator I3ran voices a
criticism of the present immigration law that
would be met by an amendment?if it is per-
mitted to stand?now attached to the pend-
ing bill. That is its failure to limit inamigra-
tion from the Western Hemisphere. Apply-
ing the same reasoning to Latin American
Immigrants that he does to those from over-
seas, Senator BYRD fears that the impact on
us of population problems in the neighboring
countries to the south, while not seriously
felt as yet, will become serious in the years
ahead.
Because free access to this country by our
hemisphere neighbors is an integral part of
the broader good neighbor policy, this news-
paper has been disposed to agree with it.
But it may be, as the Senator says, that the
time has come when limitation in this direc-
tion also is necessary as a matter of national
interest. But a limit on Western Hemi-
sphere immigrations, as we are sure Senator
BYRD would agree, would be too much of a
price to pay for letting down the bars to the
type of immigrants the pending legislation
would encourage.
Our own feeling is that the law is sound
as it stands and should not he disturbed.
But whether or not a new law along the pre-
pared lines is enacted, with or without a limit
on Western Hemisphere immigration, Sena-
tor BYRD has performed a public service and
displayed again the political courage that
has characterized his tenure in the Senate of
the United States by putting the spotlight
on what's afoot.
[Prora the Huntington (W. Va.) Advertiser,
Sept. 17, 1965]
BYRD RAPS IMMIGRATION Buz,
-Problems resulting from unemployment
and the rapidly expanding population would
be complicated, Senator Rostar C. Bram,
Democrat, of West Virginia, has warned, by
pending legislation that would open U.S.
gates to more immigrants.
As a member of the Senate Appropriations
Subcommittee which this year approved ap-
propriations of more than $8 billion for the
Departments of Labor and Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare. Senator BYRD is
thoroughly familiar with the prof:114ms of
big cities into which immigrants usually
flock.
' At a time when the Government is spend-
ing huge sums to relieve unemployment
among native Americans, It seems highly un-
wise to expand the labor force with unskilled
and smiskilled workers.
Senator BYRD expressed particular opposi-
tion to the pending measure because it would
abolish the national origins quota system
on which immigration regulations have been
based since 1924 and would swell the flow
of immigrants from Asia and the newly
emerging countries.
Although the leveling tendency of the
times would wipe out distinctions of quality
and genius, it is highly unlikely that the
new law would increase the probability of
the arrival of an Einstein, a Carl Schurz, or
another great contributor to the progress
of the United States or the world.
The immigration bill seems to be an ex-
treme development in the liberal tendency
that has poured more than a hundred bil-
lion dollars of American money into aid for
less favored nations.
What might eventually happen in the
United States as a result of opening the
doors to those untrained in the ways of free-
dom has been demonstrated by the United
Nations' loss of prestige, influence, and
effectiveness by the admission of representa-
tives from many nations unable to govern
themselves.
Besides the political shifts that the new-
comers could produce, they could also in
future years complicate the problems of
health and survival by enlarging the popula-
tion and thus increasing the pollution of
air and streams, the shortage of water and
wild life and the demand for expanding wel-
fare programs.
Opening the way to more such difficulties
now is like abolishing capital punishment
and making the conviction of habitual
criminals more difficult at a time when the
rate of crime is spiraling alarmingly in every
city of the country.
[From the Morgantown (W. Va.) Post, Sept.
18, 1965]
BYRD PUTS IT ON THE LINE
In announcing he has decided to vote
against the pending immigration bill, Sen-
ator BOB BYRD was forthright enough to con-
fess he believes this is a time when Congress
should give its first attention to the Ameri-
can people and their welfare.
We say "forthright enough" because in the
present climate of Washington opinion en-
tirely too much emphasis is placed upon
what we can do for others instead a what
we should do for ourselves.
Senator 13van was certainly putting it
mildly enough when he said he deems it
"highly unwise to expand the available work
force (in the United States) with skilled or
semiskilled workers from abroad." Yet,
sensible as this is, little talk of that kind
has been heard in the congressional debate
of immigration problems.
The Senator made the further point?and
this, too, is rarely mentioned?that in con-
sidering the welfare of other countries we
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290002-8
B36p5roved FtroltMMIN/A/litiaBDPWRIII6R000100290002-8
September 21, 23653
should ask ourselves whether we are really
helping those countries by attracting their
skilled workers to our shores. "It seems to
me," he said, "that these countries need the '
services of their talented and trained People
more than do."
We do not know how Other members of
West Virginia's congressional -delegation feel
about lowering the immigration bars, but
they might well give heed to what Senator
BYRD said. We believe most West Virginians
agree with him.
[From the Wheeling (W. Va.) News-Regis-
ter, Sept. 1'7, 1955]
HOLD TIIE LINE ON IMMIGRATION
U.S. Senator ROBERT C. BYRD has taken a
very reasonable and sound stand in opposing
the administration's proposed new immigra-
tion bill which would scrap the basic na-
tional origins quota system first drawn in
1924.
Admittedly there are some weaknesses in
the present system as it applies no limita-
tions on immigration from South Ainerica
and other Western 'Hemisphere countries,
yet it has served the interests of the United
States well in the past. The proposed Iegis-
lation now being considered, however, would
pose grave problems for our country and in
a way could lessen the effectiveness of cur-
rent U.S. policy to help other countries im-
prove their economic conditions.
Certainly it is difficult to understand why
we would want to encourage massive migra-
tion to the United States at the very time
when ourNation is confronted with critical
problems of unemployment, poverty, de-
pressed areas, automation, integration, in-
creasing crime, and a skyrocketing welfare
bill.
In many parts of the country, including
our own, joblessness remains a nagging
problem. As stated by Senator Him, sooner
or later, we are going to have to recognize
the realities of this situation and admit to
ourselves, that our first responsibility in
matters of immigration is to the people of
the United States and not to the entire pop-_,
Illation of the world.
The advocates of the change, state that
under the proposed legislation it will be
easier for people of special skills to come into
the country and help the U.S. economy.
Yet, under the new legislation, there would
be an increase in quotas for such countries
ELS Trinidad, Jamaica, Tanzia, Malawai,
Yemen, and Nepal, and it would seem that
persons 'with special skills needed in the
United States might be very hard to find in
those countries. Besides these countries
need the services of their talented and
trained people more than we do if they
hope to build a better economy.
Under the present system, it is true, that
relatively larger quotas are assigned to such
countries as England, Scotland, Ireland,
Germany, France, and Scandinavia, but this
is because the basic population of our coun-
try is made up largely of stocks Which origi-
nated from those countries, and the reason-
ing back of the present system is that addi-
tional population from those countries
would be more easily and readily assimilated
into the American population. As pointed
out by the West Virginia Senator there are
fine human beings in all parts of the world,
but peoples do differ widely in their social
habits, their levels of ambition, their me-
chanical aptitudes, their inherited ability
and intelligence, their moral traditions, and
their capacities for maintaining stable gov-
ernments.
The United States need make no apologies
for its Immigration policies which already
are far more liberal than other countries
and in view of the fact that other advanced
nations are selective in dealing with immi-
grants.
No. 174-5
There time is here when we must begin
thinking about our own national interest
without being influenced by foreign nation-
als. We fully support the stand of 'Senator
BYRD on this vital issuer
[Froth the' Williamson '(W. Va.) Daily News,
Sept. 18,1965]
BYRD WARNS OF IMMIGRATION BILL PERILS
Once again U.S. Senator ROBERT C. BYRD
has demonstrated a keen sense of perception
with regard to potential perils posed by legis-
lation which is being advanced for congres-
sional approval. His latest warning comes
on the impending immigration bill which
SenatOr Drap says "will increase the prob-
lems of the expanding American popula-
tion."
Taking a forthright stand against the pro-
posal, Senator BYRD told his senatorial col-
leagues that "we are now encountering many
hazardous problems in our growing cities,
where most new immigrants settle thereby
creating the possibility of compounding these
dangers to public health by adding to the
population."
Bran further pointed out that "at a time
when we are making an all-out effort to re-
duce unemployment, I believe it to be high-
ly unwise to expand the available labor force
with skilled and semiskilled workers from
abroad."
In its present form, the bill authorizes an
annual increase in immigration. It would
also abolish the national origins quota sys-
tem on which immigration from various
countries into the United States has been
based since 1924.
BYRD said that "we are now experiencing
a number of problems which are directly or
indirectly attributable to our increasing pop-
ulation. These include pollution of our
rivers and streams and the air we breathe in
our great metropolitan areas; the first seri-
ous water shortages in the northeastern part
of the countEy; progressive extinction of wild
life; ever-increasing welfare costs at the non-
productive segments of our population con-
tinues to expand."
The West _Virginia Senator said he was
convinced. tat "our own problems of chronic
unemployment and underemployment, hous-
ing, job retraining needs, crime and juvenile
delinquency are so great that we should not
be considering any liberalization of the im-
migration laws.
"Advocates of the proposed legislation say
that it will enable us to secure a greater num-
ber of skilled aliens. A collateral question
that arises is whether we really want or need
to permanently attract skilled workers away
from other countries. This policy seems at
odds with our other efforts to help these
countries improve their economic condition.
It seems to Me that these countries need the
services of their talented and trained people
more than we do."
One of the big points made in favor of
the measure, already approved by the House,
is that by abolishing the national quota sys-
tem it discontinues the discrimination his-
torically practiced in favor of immigrants
from such countries as Germany, England,
Ireland, and France.
This newspaper's objection to the legisla-
tion is not that it will increase immigration,
although we see no great merit in this, but
that it constitutes an indictment of a per-
fectly legitimate public policy.
The purpose of any immigration law is to
serve the welfare of the American people,
not to cater to the wishes of those in other
lands vino would like-to come here to live.
In the old 'Uwe we favored some countries
over others because we believed their people
to be more assimilable: We opened our doors
to all of the Western Hemisphere because we
believed this to be in the interest of inter-
American solidarity. Both points of view
were and are, we think, sound.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there fur-
ther morning business? If not, morning
business is concluded.
CONTRIBUTION TO THE INTERNA-
TIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE RED
CROSS?CONFERENCE REPORT
Mr. SPA MAN. Mr. President, I
submit a repo t of the committee of con-
ference on th disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendment of the
Senate to the bi (H.R. 8715) to author-
ize a contributio by the United States
to the Internatio al Committee of the
Red Cross. I ask animous consent for
the present conside ation of the report.
The VICE PRES lENT. The report
will be read for the formation of the
Senate.
The legislative clerk cad the report.
(For conference repo see House pro-
ceedings of September 1 1965, P. 23180,
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.)
The VICE PRESIDE Is there ob-
jection to the present co ideration of
the report?
There being no objection, the Senate
proceeded to consider the r rt.
Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. Pre ident, the
Issue between the House of resenta-
tives and the Senate was ve ? simple.
The House bill authorized a cant 'bution
of not to exceed $75,000 a year aid the
Senate amendment one of $25,000 a ear.
The conference agreement is on a on-
tribution of $50,000 a year.
Mr. President, I m e that the Sen te
agree to the co
The P
questiop is
re ort.
rt.
CER. The
to the conference
rt w s agreed to.
NDMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND
NATIONALITY ACT
Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, I
move that the unfinished business now
be laid before the Senate.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The bill will
be stated by title.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERIC. A bill (H.R.
2580) to amend the Immigration and
Nationality Act, and for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. ER-
VIN in the chair). The question is on
agreeing to the motion of the Senator
from Alabama.
The motion was agreed to; and the
Senate resumed the consideration of the
bill.
Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, we
again are witnessing the assault on our
immigration laws by those individuals
and groups who feel that they can ob-
tain political mileage by this form of
appeal to the organized minority blocs
in the great urban areas of this country.
I have witnessed these efforts for many
sessions of the Congress, and this 1st
session of the 89th Congress is proving to
be no exception. In fact, Mr. President,
the efforts in this Congress to curry the
favor of the minority blocs of votes by
destroying our present national origins
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67600446R000100290002-8
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP671300446R000100290002-8
23654 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE September 21, 1965
quota system through bipartisan politi-
cal efforts exceeds all efforts in the past.
It is an assault which is dangerous and
which could have, in fact, most serious
consequences on our present form of gov-
ernment if not met with determined re-
sistance. I have opposed these efforts to
destroy the McCarran-Walter Act in the
Past and I shall oppose them now.
Mr. President, it has been my privilege
to be a member of the Committee on the
Judiciary of this body since February 7,
1944, which was in the 2d session of the
79th Congress. I have had a keen inter-
est in matters relating to our immigra-
tion and naturalization system since
jurisdiction over such matters was trans-
ferred to the Committee on the Judiciary
pursuant to the terms of the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1946. As a matter
of fact, my interest in these matters
antedates the transfer of jurisdiction
over them to the Judiciary Committee,
for I had the privilege of serving on the
TXamigration Committee prior to the re-
organization of the committees in the
Senate. As a member of a special sub-
committee which made a complete study
of our immigration and naturalization
systems, I became intimately acquainted
with many and varied groups that are
Interested in immigration matters and
the subtle ways in which pressures are
exerted in hopes of obtaining special
privileges and preferred treatment.
That subcommittee made the recom-
mendations to the Congress which ulti-
mately were incorporated into the Im-
migration and Nationality Act. Since
1956, I have been chairman of the ,Itn-
Migration and Naturalization Subcom-
mittee, and not only have I observed, but
I have had to resist continually, these
relentless yearly efforts to scrap our im-
migration laws or pass special enact-
ments for special groups of aliens in order
to gain what is thought to be a political
advantage. The fact that such precipi-
tate action might undermine our sound
system of immigration laws is lost sight
of in the hot pursuit of minority bloc
votes.
Over the course of the past several
years, there have been a number of
special enactments to take care of cer-
tain harship situations which arose in
the administration of the immigration
laws. For example, there was a special
enactment to offer relief to certain dis-
tressed aliens in the Azores and certain
Indonesian refugees in the Netherlands.
There were several enactments to facil-
itate the reunion of families by providing
special visas for certain relatives of U.S.
citizens and lawful permanent residents.
In addition, relief through special enact-
ments was granted to a large number of
Hungarian refugees and many other ref-
ugees from Communist oppression. In
all these cases the result was that more
Immigrants were permitted to enter the
United States. Mr. President, you would
think that after such acts of generosity
on the part of this Nation perhaps the
pressure would be relaxed, but that is
never the case. Immediately upon re-
ceipt of that bounty, the recipients sent
out a cry for more. There is always the
cry that unless more aliens are admitted
from special groups, families will be sepa-
rated for years and the hardships will be
unbearable. But we have seen that this
demand is insatiable. We have also
seen that when the politicians prevail
and legislate in the anticipation of com-
pensatory votes at the polls, we always
find that an even greater pressure is
created for the admission of more and
more aliens. To continue to follow such
a course of political expediency can only
lead to disaster.
It has been claimed by some that those
who advocate immigration reforms dem-
onstrate great political courage and that
there is no political mileage to be gained
from attacking our present system, but
rather that overt action could be polit-
ically damaging. To accept such a line of
reasoning one must be really politically
naive, and I would most certainly not
place the Members of this body in that
category. Nor do I for one moment be-
lieve that the thoughtful people of this
Nation fail to recognize the political im-
plications of the so-called drives for im-
migration reforms. It is no secret that
both national political parties have "na-
tionalities" divisions which actively direct
the efforts of pursuing the votes of the
hyphenated nationalities groups in our
population. Those groups are concen-
trated in our big urban centers. Is it any
wonder then that we are told that we
must have immigration reforms which
will favor those groups? When the
politicians are so busy, how can one say
there are no political motivations be-
hind the reform movements?
We now have before us the bill, H.R.
2580, which has been hastily passed by
the other body and sent over to this
body with the command that the Senate
adopt it in equal haste. This bill, Mr.
President, in my opinion, is not a good
bill and is deficient in many respects. I
intend to oppose it. The bill, H.R. 2580,
is an original bill which was reported by
the Subcommittee on Immigration and
Nationality of the House Committee on
the Judiciary and has not been the sub-
ject of hearings in either the House or
the Senate. The bill before the House
committee in the hearing stage bore the
same number, H.R. 2580, but as stated in
the House report?No. 745?the commit-
tee reported an original bill to the House,
which was promptly adopted with only
minor changes. The bill bears little re-
semblance to the original proposals made
by the administration, which were con-
tained in the bill, H.R. 2580, and the
companion bill, S. 500, which was before
the Committee on the Judiciary of the
Senate. Extensive hearings were held
by both the House and Senate Commit-
tees on the Judiciary on the administra-
tion proposals contained in S. 500, and
the original Ha. 2580, but the testimony
received in those hearings has little re-
lationship to this new bill which is before
the Senate today.
As a matter of background, I feel that
I should advise the Senate of the immi-
gration matters which have been before
the Committee on the Judiciary in this
session of the Congress. By doing this,
I feel that the Members of the Senate
will readily discern the hasty manner in
which the present version of an immigra-
tion bill has evolved. The divergent
views represented by the proposals before
the committee, in my opinion, illustrate
the confusion which is present in the con-
tinuing effort to destroy the present
quota system.
There were pending before the Sub-
committee on Immigration and Naturali-
zation 11 measures introduced in the
Senate which would have modified in
some manner our immigration or natu-
ralization laws. Three of these pro-
posals, namely, S. 500?the administra-
tion bill, S. 436, and S. 1093, represented
the continuing assault upon the national
origins quota system as embodied in the
Immigration and Nationality Act. Later
on, I intend to discuss more fully the im-
plications of MR. 2580. At this point,
since I do not feel it necessary to discuss
in detail the three bills mentioned pre-
viously, I shall merely point out the gen-
eral background in the committee of the
bill, S. 500, which has been so easily set
aside in favor of H.R. 2580.
The bill, S. 500, to amend the Immi-
gration and Nationality Act, commonly
referred to as the Kennedy-Johnson bill,
since it embraces the recommendations
made by the late President John F.
Kennedy, as well as those of the present
occupant of the White House. Similar
recommendations were contained in the
predecessor bill, S. 1932, 88th Congress,
which was introduced on July 24, 1963,
by Senator HART for himself and 26
other Senators. The bill, S. 500, did not
embody a comprehensive revision of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, but
had as its primary purpose the abolish-
ment of the national origins quota sys-
tem and the substitution of a new system
for the allocation of quota numbers.
Briefly, over a 5-year period, the present
annual quotas would be reduced 20 per-
cent each year with the numbers result-
ing from the reduction being placed in a
"quota reserve." The numbers in the
quota reserve would be issued without
regard to nationality on a "first-come,
first-served" basis. Thus in the fifth
year after enactment there would no
longer be national quotas as such, but all
visas would be issued on the first-come,
first-served basis under a system of
preferences for certain relatives of
United States citizens and aliens law-
fully admitted for permanent residence
and certain skilled aliens. Prior to the
beginning of this abolition through re-
duction plan, the minimum quotas under
the present quota system would be in-
creased to 200 for each minimum quota
country, which would result in an in-
crease in the present overall quota of
158,561 to approximately 166,000. In
addition, the bill would have substan-
tially enlarged the nonquota classes of
aliens and the number of refugees who
could enter the country each year.
Total immigration under this bill would.
therefore, be increased substantially
As a matter of interest to the Members
of this body, and as background for our
examination of this entire subject, I
would like to refer briefly to a bill in the
88th Congress, S. 747, to amend the Im-
migration and Nationality Act, which
was introduced by Senator HART on Feb-
ruary 7, 1963, for himself and 34 other
Senators. Senator HART had previously
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67600446R000100290002-8
Approved For Release 2014/01/16c: CIA-RDP6ZB00446R000100290002-8
September 21, 1965 CON6IttSSITAL RECORD ?.
introduced
introduced an almost identical bill, S.
3043, in the 87th Congress. Before the
advent of the bill, S. 500, and its predeces-
sor, S. 1932, which recently appeared to
be the major vehicle of the immigration
reformists and the politicians, this
measure, S. 747, appeared to have the
blessing of those bent Upon repeal of the
present national origins quota provisions
of the Immigration and Nationality Act
and replacing it with a new quota
formula.
S. 747, or the Hart bill, as it was com-
monly referred to, also was primarily
concerned with reforms in the immigra-
tion laws which would change the man-
ner by which qttotas are established and
which would increase the number of
aliens admitted as immigrants. The
present quota would have been increased
from 158,261, to an overall quota of
250,000 annually. Of that number
50,000 quota immigrant visas would have
been made available to certain refugees
and the remaining 200,000 immigrant
visas would have been distributed under
a quota formula based on, first, the re-
lationship of the population of each
quota area to world population, and sec-
ond, the relationship of the number of
Immigrants who entered the United
States from each quota area during the
15 years preceding the effective date of
the act to the total number of immi-
grants who were admitted during such
15-year period. Other provisions of this
reform bill would have enlarged the non-
quota classes and provided for the com-
plete utilization of quotas through the
poling of unused quotas, all of which
would have had the effect of substan-
tially increasing the number of aliens
who could be admitted annually.
When Senator HART introduced S. 747
in the 88th Congress he characterized it
as a reform bill which "follows closely
the counsel and wisdom of America's
foremost immigration specialists." It
was said to be "in line with the estimates
of our leading economists both in gov-
ernment and in the private sector, re-
garding the number of immigrants this
country can absorb.- He then paid
tribute to the American Immigration
and Citizenship Conference and its afft-
Rated organizations for the major role
that organization had played in the de-
velopment of this measure. He pointed
out that an ad hoc committee of the
American Immigration and Citizenship
Conference had given 2 years of intensive
study to American immigration policy
and that the proposals contained in S.
74'7, and its predecessor, S. 3043, closely
followed the recommendations of that
Organization. Yet, Mr. President, we
find that many of the sponsors of this
? measure, quickly abandoned their posi-
tion based on the allegedly extensive,
thorough, and searching study of Anieri-
can`inunigratrOn policy by the American
Immigration and CitizenShip Confer-
ence and its many affiliated voluntary
service organizations and community,
Civic, and labor organizations and em-
braced the proposals for the destruction
of the national origins quota system con-
tained in S. 1932 in the 88th Congress,
which was introduced only 6 months
after the introduction of S. 747. The
abandonment so hurriedly of a position
that was claimed to be based on the con-
sidered opinion of some of the best minds
in the Immigration field as the proper
approach to immigration reforms in or-
der to embrace the hastily conceived
broposals contained in S. 1932, and now
embodied in S. 500, indicates to me that
those in the forefront of the demands
for immigration reforms by their vacilla-
tions are sure of only two things: First,
they want to abolish the national ori-
gins quota system and, second, they want
to admit more immigrants. Such experi-
mentation as this will never produce
good legislation.
Mr. President, the bill, H.R. 2580, ha,s
as its purpose not only an increase in the
flow of immigrants into the United
States, but also the alteration of the
pattern of that flow. It seems to me
that our national welfare and the secu-
rity of this country demand that we ap-
proach this question of immigration re-
forms sensibly and sanely lest we, as the
nation we know, perish. In my opinion,
we must have detailed findings ai to how
many immigrants we should admit and
from what areas we should admit them.
These findings must be impartial and
unbiased and based on scientific facts
rather than political opinion if we are to
maintain a sound immigration system
which will serve the interests of every
part of this Nation. In my opinion, it
would be a grave mistake if we proceeded
with haste to adopt new concepts un-
supported by detailed factual surveys
and studies. Certainly, there are op-
ponents of the McCazran-Walter Act but
no one can say that that act was enacted
in haste and in the political arena. A
5-year investigation of every aspect of
the immigration question in the United
States, which was both extensive and
intensive, preceded the enactment of
that law. Its enactment was resisted to
the last ditch, and I am firmly convinced
that both its enactment and its ability
to withstand subsequent assaults is the
result of the fact that it had as its foun-
dation a solid basis of findings which
were impartial and unbiased. It would
be extremely foolhardy for this body to
proceed to a consideration of any of the
pending measures without similar find-
ings upon which to base its action.
Sound legislation has never been the re-
sult of hasty and reckless action, and I
sincerely hope that each of you will
ponder well the disastrous results that
could flow from the precipitate course
that is being urged upon us.
Let us now take a look at the bill be-
fore us to see just what it proposes to
accomplish. From a study of the pro-
posal, it is my understanding that H.R.
2580 would make the following basic
changes in the Immigration and Na-
tionality Act, and in making such
changes would substantially modify the
present immigration policy of this
Nation:
First. (a) The present system of na-
tional origin quotas is to be abolished
on June 30, 1968, and a new selective
system is established giving priorities
to close relatives of citizens and alien
residents, members of the arts and pro-
_
286.55
fessions, needed skilled and unskilled
workers, and refugees.
(b) In the interim 3-year period na-
tional origin quotas remain in effect, but
the unused quota numbers are pooled
and allocated under the new system of
preferences to intending immigrants
from oversubscribed quota areas.
(c) Spouses, children, and parents of
U.S. citizens are to be admitted without
numerical limitation as immediate
relatives.
(d) Natives of independent countries
of the Western Hemisphere are to be
admitted quota free as special immi-
grants for an additicnal period of 3
years. On July 1, 1968, a numerical
limitation of 120,000 annually would be
placed on immigrants from independent
countries of the Western Hemisphere
unless the Congress enacts legislation
providing otherwise prior to that date.
A Select Commission on Western Hemi-
sphere Immigration is established to be
composed of 15 members?the Chairman
and 8 members to be appointed by the
President; 3 members to be appointed
by the President of the Senate; and 3
members to be appointed by the Speaker
of the House. This Commission shall
study all aspects of Western Hemisphere
immigration and report its findings to
the Congress on July 1, 1967, with a final
report on January 15, 1968.
Second. An annual numerical limita-
tion of 170,000 is placed on the admission
of immigrants from Eastern Hemisphere
countries, other than immediate relatives
and including 10,200 refugees who may
be granted conditional entries. Immi-
gration from any foreign state outside
the Western Hemisphere, exclusive of
immediate relatives, is limited to 20,000
annually.
Third. After June 30, 1968, the 170,000
immigrant visas will be allocated on a
worldwide, first-come, first-served basis
under the following system of prefer-
ences:
(a) Twenty percent to unmarried sons
and daughters of U.S. citizens.
(b) Twenty percent to spouses and un-
married sons and daughters of lawful
alien residents.
(c) Ten percent to members of the
professions, arts and sciences.
(d) Ten percent to married sons and
daughters of U.S. citizens.
(e) Twenty-four percent to brothers
and sisters of U.S. citizens.
(f) Ten percent to needed skilled and
unskilled workers.
(g) Six percent to refugees from
communism, the area of the Middle East
and natural calamity.
Any numbers not required for issuance
to the preference classes are available to
nonpreference applicants.
Fourth. The special Asiatic Triangle
provisions of existing law are repealed.
Fifth. The Fair Share Refugee Act is
repealed and all refugees henceforth
must enter conditionally.
Sixth. In the case of aliens who seek to
enter the United States to be employed,
the Secretary of Labor must certify, on
an individual basis, first, that there are
not available American workers to fill the
particular jobs, and second, that the ad-
mission of the alien workers will not
Approved For Release 2004/01/16: CIA-RDP67B00446R00b100290002-8
Approved For Reease 2004/01/16 ? (IA-RDP671300446R000100290002-8
Mr. President, in all of my experience
in the Sen.ate of the United States, I be-
lieve that language is the most unique
I have ever seen in a statute. Note that
It begins "No person shall receive any
preference or priority or be discriminated
against" and then it lists numerous in-
stances in the act which are discrimina-
tions but which are specifically exempted
from the antidiscrimination policy.
First to be exempted from the bar against
discrimination are the natives of West-
ern Hemisphere countries. In the case
of these aliens they will be quota free
for the next 3 years while all other aliens
from other parts of the world, other than
immediate relatives, will be subject to a
number of limitations. Second, we find
that there is a category of aliens desig-
nated as immediate relatives who include
the children, spouses, and parents of citi-
zens of the United States who will not be
subject to the numerical limitations ap-
plicable to other aliens. Third, we find
that the bill establishes a system of 7
preferences within the numerical limita-
tion of 170,000 with fixed percentage al-
locations to each preference category
which, in effect, establishes priorities
among the group as between persons with
definite family relationships, persons
with definite skills and persons who are
in a refugee status. Fourth, a numerical
limitation of 20,000 per year Is fixed for
any foreign state, but that limitation is
not applicable for 3 years if it reduces
the present quota of any quota area. It
is difficult for me to see, Mr. President,
how anyone could possibly have written
so many discriminatory provisions in one
section of a law under the expressed
policy of eliminating discrimination in
the allocation of quota or visa numbers.
But, Mr. President, if one should feel
that perhaps there must be a certain de-
gree of discrimination in any law, let us
look further at this particular proposal
and you will be amazed at the instances
of discrimination that appear through-
out it. There is a provision designed to
strengthen the protection of the Ameri-
can worker from an influx of skilled or
unskilled workers from abroad. Under
that proposal the intending immigrant
must present a certification from the
Secretary of Labor that he will not dis-
place an American worker and that his
employment will not adversely affect the
wages of American workers. In order
for this provision to be nondiscrimina-
tory one would immediately assume that
it would be applicable in the case of all
immigrants. But such is not the case.
The drafters of this proposal well know
that such a policy would create many
more problems than it would solve. So
we find that the bill contains a compli-
cated system of exemptions from the
provision. Specifically, the provision
only applies to natives of Western Hemi-
sphere countries other than parents;
spouses or children of citizens of the
United States or lawful resident aliens;
to members of the professions, arts, and
sciences; skilled or unskilled workers;
and most nonpreference immigrants. In
other words, it will probably not be ap-
plicable in as many cases as it will be
applicable. Let us look at the different
23656 ONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE September 21, 1965
adversely affect the wages and working
conditions of the American worker.
Seventh. Aliens who are mentally re-
tarded may be admitted by the Attorney
General under proper safeguards if they
are the spouses, children, or parents of
citizens or lawful alien residents. Epi-
leptics are removed from the excludable
class of aliens.
Eighth. Alien crewmen are made eli-
gible for adjustment of their immigra-
tion status under section 244 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act.
Ninth. Aliens who have resided in the
United States prior to June 28, 1958, are
made eligible for adjustment of immi-
gration status under registry proceed-
ings of section 249 of the Immigration
and Nationality Act.
Tenth. Natives of Western Hemi-
sphere countries in general are denied
the privilege of adjusting their status
under section 245 of the Immigration
and Nationality Act, but refugees from
such countries may adjust.
Since this bill has the blessing of the
administration, I believe it would be ap-
propriate at this time to refer to the
message of the President of the United
States which he sent to the Congress on
January 13, 1965, requesting amendment
of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
In that statement the President %Aid:
The principal reform called for is the
elimination of the national origins quota
system.
There could be no doubt in anyone's
mind after reading the proposed bill that
it would accomplish the purpose desired
by the President, for it is crystal clear
that the national origins quota system
wbuld be abolished. Since that is true,
My purpose will be to take a careful look
at the act to see what its substitute would
be. In doing this, let us bear in mind
the words of the President that:
The fundamental longtime attitude has
been to ask not where a person comes from
but what are his personal qualities.
As used in the context of his message
requesting that all forms of discrimina-
tion be removed from the law. We
would expect, therefore, .that the bill
before the Senate would not only abolish
the national origins quota system, but
would replace it with a law which would
make no distinction between the peoples
of the earth because of their place of
birth in any form whatoever.
In an attempt to carry out the request
of the President, we find that section 2
of the bill has amended section 202 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act to pro7
vide as follows:
(a) No person shall receive any preference
or priority or be discriminated against in
the issuance of an immigrant visa because of
hit race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or
place of residence, except as specifically pro-
vided in section 101(a) (27), section 201 (b) ,
and section 203: Provided, That the total
number of immigrant visas and the
number of conditional entries made available
to natives of any single foreign state under
paragraphs (1) through (8) of section 203(a)
shall not exceed 20,000 in any fiscal year:
Provided further, That the foregoing proviso
shall not operate to reduce the number of
immigrants who may be admitted under the
quota- of any quota area before June 30, 1968.
manner of application to different groups
of aliens:
First. Exempted from the requirement
in all cases are "immediate relatives"
which include spouses, children, and par-
ents of U.S. citizens;
Second. In the case of aliens from the
areas outside the Western Hemisphere
in addition to the immediate relatives an
exemption is made in the case of unmar-
ried sons and daughters of U.S. citizens,
married sons and daughters of U.S. citi-
zens, spouses and children of alien resi-
dents, and brothers and sisters of U.S.
citizens;
Third. In the case of immigrants from
the Western Hemisphere the exemption
extends only to parents, spouses, and
children of U.S. citizens and alien resi-
dents. Thus, unmarried sons and
daughters, married sons and daughters,
and brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens
would be subject to the special labor
provision.
Fourth. I believe that I should also
call to the attention of the Members of
this body the manner in which this
labor provision would be applied in the
case of new seed immigration as com-
pared to the treatment of the preference
class of brothers and sisters residing
outside the Western Hemisphere. In the
case of a nonpreference immigrant who
Is the head of a healthy family and who
has a fervent desire to immigrate to this
land of opportunity, the bill would re-
quire that he obtain a certification from
the Secretary of Labor that he would not
displace an American worker or ad-
versely affect the wages of American
workers if he came to the United States
to engage in the same employment in
order support his family. That is the
immigrant we hear so much about and
whom the supporters of the bill have so
frequently described as the immigrant
who built this country from the wilder-
ness; and yet it is obvious that under
the proposed legislation he would have
little chance of gaining entry in view of
the continuing unemployment situation
here. On the other hand, take the case
of a brother of a U.S. citizen who has an
equally healthy family consisting of a
wife and three or four children whom
he must support after he enters the
United States. In his case, if he resides
outside the Western Hemisphere he is
not required to obtain the certification
from the Secretary of Labor but may
enter upon the assurance of his citizen
brother that he will not become a public
charge after entry. But obviously such
a man must work to support his family
and he will be permitted to enter regard-
less of whether he will displace an Amer-
ican worker. Is this not only discrimina-
tion against the two alien families, but
also the American worker who may re-
main unemployed or even lose his job?
Furthermore, it might well be discrimi-
nation against the interests of the United
States because it is quite likely that the
better qualified alien family would not
be permitted to enter.
Mr. President, there is another aspect
of the bill which has not received much
attention in the course of the hearings
either in the House or in the Senate.
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67600446R000100290002-8
September 21,App9'ed For851,effisqeM16 ? R EMP67130044SENATE6R000100290002-8
?
1Vluch has been said about the fact that
the bill does away with the national
origins quota system and places the op-
portunity to immigrate to the United
States on a first-come, first-served basis
but I ask whether that is really the truth.
Immigration during the interim period
when quotas are phased out and when the
new provisions become effective 3 years
hence in their entirety, will be based
upon the registration date of immigrants
on waiting lists at the consulates around
the world. It is well known to those who
are familiar with the immigration prob-
lem that the heaviest registration for
many years has occurred in a limited
number of countries where the pressures
and encouragement to immigrate have
been the greatest. In fact, in many of
the low-quota countries, immigrants have
been discouraged from registering on the
waiting lists. The heavily oversub-
scribed countries will preempt the avail-
able visa numbers under the first-come,
first-served basis for many years under
the new proposal. In order to remove
this discrimination in the treatment of
aliens in different areas of the world, if
that is what the proponents really want
to do, it would be logical and consistent
to provide for a reregistration of all in-
tending immigrants on a given date.
Then truly the immigrant visas would
be made available on a first-come, first-
served basis. But nowhere in the testi-
mony received by the committee was
such a proposal made by those who ad-
vocate the elimination of the national
origins formula which provides fixed nu-
merical quotas for every country de-
termined by fixed mathematical formu-
las equally applicable to all areas of the
world.
Mr. President, now let us look at an-
other provision of the proposed legisla-
tion which would modify the existing
provisions of section 245 of the Immigra-
tion and Nationality Act which, in gen-
eral, provide an administrative procedure
for the adjustment of status of aliens
who have entered or who have been Pa-
roled into the United States and desire
to have their status adjusted to that of
Permanent residents. At the present
time, this method of adjustment is not
available to natives of contiguous terri-
tory and adjacent islands. Under the
bill, HR. 2580, in section 13 this form of
administrative relief is denied to all na-
tives of Western Hemisphere countries.
I ask, Mr. President, does it not seem a
little odd that a person from Italy who
enters the United States as a bona fide
visitor and then decides to remain in the
United States may have his status ad-
justed under this administrative proce-
dure when he has come from a country
4,500 miles away while on the other hand
a native of Argentina, who has come from
a country 6,000 miles away would not be
eligible for the adjustment. To me, this
1S11a0uS CeAe.Of rank discrimination
againpersons beCaUSe of their place of
birth and yet we were asked and told that
the law must be changed to remove all
discrimination from our immigration
laws which would make distinctions be-
tween the peoples of the earth because
Of their place of birth. This discrimina-
tion is made even worse by the fact that
under the Immigration and Nationality
Act both the native of Italy and the na-
tive of Argentina may apply for this ad-
justment. This is really progress, Mr.
President. Elimination of discrimination
from the law when we are in fact adding
this new form of discrimination. If this
is discrimination under section 245, Mr.
President, let us take a further look. It
will be noted under the language of sec-
tion 13, which amends section 245 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act that
refugees from Western Hemisphere coun-
tries are eligible for an adjustment under
this same section 245. This language, of
course, would include Cuban refugees who
have been paroled into this country un-
der the program which has been in exist-
ence for several years and under which
approximately 225,000 Cuban refugees
have been permitted to reside in the
United States. At the present time, this
form of relief is not available to them
as native of an adjacent island, but un-
der the bill before us it would become
available. The joker, however, is that
under this form of relief a record of law-
ful admission is created for the alien as
of the date of the adjustment. Now let us
look at another section of the proposed
bill. Under section 3 of the bill section
203 of the Immigration and Nationality
Act is substantially revised and among
the preference classes created is one for
refugees. Such refugees are granted con-
ditional entries and under paragraphs 203
(g) and (h), as amended, their status
may be regularized after 2 years' resi-
dence and a record of lawful admission
created as of the date of the original ar-
rival in the United States. Thus in one
case, a refugee would be given credit to-
ward natura1i7at1on for the time he has
resided in the United States while wait-
ing for his adjustment, and in the other
case he would not be granted such credit
for naturalization purposes. A Cuban
refugee, therefore, might have to reside
in the United States 7 years before he
could obtain naturalization, while a sim-
ilarly situated Cuban or other refugee
who entered under the new provision will
have to wait only 5 years. The basis for
this discrimination is not apparent.
Mr. President, there is another provi-
sion in HR. 2580 which, in my opinion,
has not received enough attention. Sec-
tion 1 of the bill amends section 201 of
the Immigration and Nationality Act and
completely revises it. Section 201(c) as
revised provides that during the 3-year
interim period subquota areas are to be
limited to 1 percent of the maximum
authorized visa numbers available to the
mother country. Under existing law,
colonies and other dependent areas which
are classified as subquota areas have ac-
cess to the quotas of the mother coun-
tries to the extent of only 100 quota num-
bers per year, which places them in the
same category as the minimum quota
countries. Under the language of HR.
2580, it seems inescapable that during
the 3-year interim period the applica-
tion of the formula for the subquota
areas of 1 percent of the maximum num-
bers available to the mother country will
create some rather unusual and unique
results. For instance, the present quota
of Great Britain is approximately 65,000
23657
per year and therefore that would be the
maximum number of visas available to
Great Britain during the 3-year period.
Applying the 1-percent formula, each
subquota area under the quota for Great
Britain would have available to its na-
tives for use in each fiscal year a total of
650 visa numbers. It is interesting to
note that there are 15 subquotas under
the quota for Great Britain and each
subquota has access to 650 visa numbers
annually. Therefore, a total of 9,750
numbers will be available to the subquota
areas annually as compared to the pres-
ent total of 1,500. I might just name a
few of the subquotas involved: Antigua
with a subquota of 100 would have a
quota of 650; British Guiana with a
subquota of 100 would have a quota
of 650; British Virgin Islands with
a subquota of 100 would have a quota of
650; to name only a few. But now let's
take a look at some of the other quota
areas. Greece, for instance, during the
3-year ? period would have an annual
quota of only 308. Japan will have an
annual quota of only 185. China will
have only a quota of 105. Portugal will
have a quota of only 438. Spain will
have an annual quota of only 250. Tur-
key will have a quota of only 225. Mr.
President, it seems to me a little unusual
and a form of discrimination to make
such large numbers available to the col-
onies and dependent areas while the
quotas of many of the independent coun-
tries which are among this Nation's best
friends receive no comparable increase.
Mr. President, this is not just my own
understanding of the effect of this pro-
vision of the new bill, as a similar inter-
pretation has appeared in an official
State Department memorandum.
Mr. President, the proponents of HR.
2580 have placed a great deal of em-
phasis on the pattern of immigration
since the Immigration and Nationality
Act became law in 1952 in attempting to
demonstrate the necessity for changing
the present quota law. As I previously
pointed out, 3,108,538 immigrants have
entered the United States under the Im-
migration and Nationality Act. Of that
number 1,082,833 entered as quota immi-
grants and 2,025,705 as nonquota immi-
grants. It is the large number of non-
quota immigrants which gives rise to so
much concern, by the ?sponsors. It is
alleged that because of the inequities in
the national origins system, Congress
was forced to enact special legislation
during the period since the Immigration
and Nationality Act became law to allevi-
ate the hardship cases, and as a result
the admission of 2,025,705 aliens in a
nonquota status clearly establishes the
national origins quota formula to be out-
dated and out of step with reality. This
is not so, because they fail to recognize
that only 382,045 of the total of 2,025,705
nonquota immigrants entered under spe-
cial enactments. The bulk of those non-
quota immigrants, or roughly 1,643,660,
entered under the permanent nonquota
provisions of the Immigration and Na-
tionality Act. Those are the provisions
which the framers of the Immigration
and Nationality Act recognized as de-
sirable to include in the permanent law,
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67600446R000100290002-8
Approved For Release 2004/01/16: CIA-RDP671300446R00010029J002-8
23658 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE ,September 21, 1965
of the relative preference petition. It
although it was known that they would
increase total immigration. For obvious
compassionate reasons, it was accepted as
necessary to permit wives, husbands, and
children of U.S. citizens to enter with-
out restriction. For reasons of "good
neighborliness," it was agreed to permit
natives of independent countries of
North, South, and Central America to
enter free of the quotas. Likewise, quota
restrictions were not imposed upon the
free movement of ministers of religion
and their families. These policies are
imbedded in the national origins quota
law and it is under them that the bulk
of the nonquota immigration has entered
the country. There is just no justifica-
tion for saying that the quota law must
be scrapped because a significant number
of aliens were admitted outside of the
quotas under special enactments of Con-
gress. Those enactments were special
acts of generosity in response to appeals
to grant relief in particular situations
after careful study and I feel that they
should only be treated as such.
Now, Mr. President, let us take a look
at the new quota formula provided in
H.R. 2580. It is said that enactment of
this quota scheme will remove "the 1952
act's well-known restrictive provisions
against immigrants from eastern and
southern Europe," but I defy anyone,
from reading the Immigration and Na-
tionality Act, to find any special restric-
tive provisions against immigration from
those areas. Certainly, the law embodies
a policy of restriction, but as we have
seen, restriction has been the accepted
policy of this Government for decades.
The quotas of each quota area are estab-
lished under a formula which is applied
in identically the same fashion to all
Other quota areas in the world without
mentioning any country by name, and
yet it is said that the law restricts im-
migration from particular areas. The
truth is that it restricts immigration
from all areas, under a uniformly applied
rule, and that is as close as any law can
get to being nondiscriminatory. Quotas
for one country may be larger than
quotas for another under the national
origins formula, but the same will be true
Under the formula provided in H.R. 2580.
Thus, basically, it boils down to the
question of whose DX is being gored.
It is said that the new formula would
be based on equality and fair play, but
would it? In the eyes of the smaller
country is it equal and just to give the
larger share to the larger country? In
the eyes of the newer country is it fair
and just to give the larger share of the
huota to the older countries because they
have had immigration opportunities for
many years and have longer waiting
lists? It seems to me that the answers
to those questions are quite obvious. It
Is inevitable that the quetas will be dif-
ferent, and as long as they are, some will
say they discriminate and", unfortunately,
most of these charges originate in our
own country. Quite obilously, the only
quota law which could possibly treat all
Nations equally is one wilich would pro-
vide an identical quota for each country.
Such a law would not be subject to a
charge of discrimination, but I doubt
seriously whether it woadd receive any
support. The test of whether the law is
fair or just, Mr. President, is not whether
It discriminates, for all quota laws will,
but whether the law discriminates unrea-
sonably or unjustly. The national origins
quota formula is applied in the same
manner to all without qualification, and
as long as it is so applied it is certainly
not subject to a charge of unreasonable
or unjust discrimination. One may dis-
agree with the policy of the law, but I
fail to see how any workable quota could
provide any more uniformity of treat-
ment of the nations of the world.
There is another interesting aspect
of the system provided in H.R. 2580. In
allocating visa numbers, this Nation
would look first to the desires of the peo-
ple of other countries to come to the
United States, and visas would be al-
located on a first-come, first-served basis.
Under the national origins quota, we
look first at the composition of the pop-
ulation of this country; then we say
that each country shall have a quota
fixed on the basis of the ratio of the
number of persons in the United States
in 1920 attributable by nationality to a
given country to the population of the
United States, or reduced to the mathe-
matical formula of one-sixteenth of 1
percent of the persons of the nationality
of that country in the United States in
1920. In other words, we hold up a mir-
ror and look at ourselves and base the
quotas of those who wish to join us on
what we see.
Mr. President, for the life of me, I
cannot see how it can be said that it is
discriminatory to base the numerical
quota on factors derived from the popu-
lation of this country. I do not apologize
for the fact that, as an American, I feel
that we should and must give due rec-
ognition to the composition of the popu-
lation of this country in fixing our
quotas. That is what the present quota
law does and that is why I believe it to
be sound and in the best interests, not
only of this country, but also of the rest
of the world.
Mr. President, there are many other
provisions in H.R. 2580 which, in my
opinion, should be brought to the atten-
tion of the Members of this body, be-
cause I feel that they are a cause of real
concern. We are all familiar with the
continual attempt that is being made to
erode the constitutional powers of the
Congress. Whenever authority is dele-
gated to those groups charged with
administration of a law, I feel it is my
duty to point out the areas of possibility
of abuses of such authority.
As I have pointed out before, H.R. 2580
will eliminate the national origin quotas
and substitute therefor an overall nu-
merical limitation of 170,000 visa num-
bers per year for areas - outside the
Western Hemisphere exclusive of imme-
diate relatives. The allocation of those
numbers will be made in accordance
with the multitude of preferences set
forth in the act. The preferences inso-
far as they relate to relatives are - so
designed that if not used by one relative
preference group, then they automati-
cally become available to other prefer-
ence groupa. Priority in the issuance is
to be determined by the date of the filing
seems to me, Mr. President, that since
the total quota of 170,000 will be allo-
cated on a worldwide basis upon the
basis of these many preference petitions,
a great deal of confusion will result.
The bill itself provides that the Secre-
tary of State will be permitted to base
the quarterly allocation of visas to the
extent necessary upon estimates based
upon reports received from the consular
officers all over the werld. He is then
faced with the monumental task of allo-
cating the visa numbers to the various
applicants under the numerous limita-
tions provided in the bill. These include
not only the limitations on each prefer-
ence group, but also the numerical lim-
itation applicable to each country. The
manner in which the plan will work,
therefore, Mr. President, will depend to
a very large degree upon the ability of
the estimator to estimate. In other
Words, to put it more simply, there will
be much, much discretion vested in the
administrators as to how these numbers
will be dealt out to the various appli-
cants.
Mr. President, there is another un-
usual provision in the bill which seems
to leave a great deal of discretion in the
hands of the administrators. The sec-
tion of the bill which provides for the
allocation of 6 percent of the quota num-
bers for conditional entries to be granted
refugees contains a proviso that in lieu
of the total number of conditional en-
tries authorized, immigrant visas in a
number not to exceed 50 percent may be
made available to refugees in the United
States. This language is unique in two
respects. The first is that immigrant
visas can only be issued by consular offi-
cers and consular officers are only pres-
ent at pasts outside the United States;
and second, no provision is made for the
adjustment of the status of these refu-
gees to whom the visas are made avail-
able. In other words, in the absence of
specific language, an interpretation
would be required by the administrators
of the law. The framers of the bill must
have had something in mind with ref-
erence to the manner of adjustment and
if so, why was it not written into the law
where it properly belongs? The conclu-
sion is that this is another instance of
where the framers desired to retain for
the administrators the authority to write
their own rules.
There is another provision in H.R.
2580 which I believe should be viewed
with some alarm. Under the Immigra-
tion and Nationality Act, as you all know,
all immigrant applicants have always re-
ceived fair treatment because of the spe-
cific provisions that their applications
must be processed strictly in accordance
with the priority of their registration on
quota waiting lists. This becomes par-
ticularly important to the nonpreference
quota applicants where the demand has
always exceeded the supply. Under the
language of H.R. 2580, the numbers made
available to the nonpreference category
will be issued strictly in the chronological
order in which they qualify. It would
seem quite obvious that this is another
instance where a great deal of discretion
is left in the hands of the administrators
Approved For Release 2004/01/16: CIA-RDP67600446R000100290002-8
/moved FcteAldf&g16K1i1fuEeRIN31:16g#09i4MR000100290002-8
September 21, 23659
tS determine when and whether a Par- subject 'to a change of administrative ar-
ticular applicant is qualified and to be
granted priority by administrative order
rather than by law as at present. I do
not, believe that this reaction of mine is
at all unfounded in view of a statement
I have seen by an official of the Depart-
ment of State concerning the applica-
tion of this new provision to the effect
that new applicants in a particular area
Or foreign state will have an equal oppor-
tunity with all present applicants who
are on the waiting lists in the order in
which they qualify. In other words, a
new applicant may be qualified far ahead
of present applicants on the waiting lists.
Mr. President, my concern over this
matter of placing too much discretion in
the hands of those charged with the re-
sponsibility of administering the quota
law results from my observations over
the years of how the administrators fre-
quently twist and bend the law to suit
their purpose. At this point, I ask unani-
mous consent to insert in the body of the
RECORD complete documentation of such
, a case, which I believe quite clearly will
show that my concern in this regard is
not unfounded.
There being no objection, the state-
ment was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
The Immigration and Nationality Act is
quite specific with 'respect to the manner
in which quotas are to be determined and
established. Section 201(a) provides that
the annual quota for any quota area shall
be one-sixth of 1 percent of the number of
inhabitants in the continental United States
in 1920 attributable by national origin to
Such quota area with the proviso that the
Minimum quota for any quota area shall be
one hundred. Section 201(b) specifies that
the determination of the annual quota of
any quota area shall be made jointly by
the Secretary of State, the Secretary of
Commerce and the Attorney General, and
Upon the? basis of that report the President
shall proclaim the quotas. Section 202(a)
Makes it quite clear that each independent
country, self-governing dominion, mandated
territory and territory under the internation-
al trusteeship system of the United Nations,
other than the United States and its out-
lying posessions shall be treated as a sep-
arate quota area when approved by the Sec-
retary of State. Section 202 (e) sets forth
the procedure for the revision of quotas
whenever required by any change of bound-
aries, transfer of territory, or any political
change. Since that provision is directly con-
trolling in the case I shall discuss, I shall read
it in tote:
"(e) After the determination of quotas
has been made as provided in section 201,
revision of the quotas shall be made by
the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Com-
nierCe, and the Attorney General, jointly,
'whenever, necessary, to provide for any
Change Of boundaries resulting in transfer
of terirtory from one sovereignty to another,
a change of administrative arrangements of
a colony or other dependent area, or any
other political change, requiring a change in
the list of quota afeas or of the territorial
limits thereof. In the case of any change in
the territorial limits of quota areas, not
requiring a change in the quotas for such
areas, the Secretary of State shall, upon
_recognition of such change, issue appropri-
ate instructions to all consular offices con-
cerning the change in the territorial limits
of the quota areas involved. 'Whenever one
or More colonies or other conipanent or de.-
pendent areas overseas from the governing
country, or one more quota areas have been
mngements, a change of boundaries}, or any
other political change, the annual quota of
the newly established quota area or the num-
ber of visas authorized to be issued under
section 202(c) (1) , notwithstanding any other
provisions of this act, shall not be less than
the sum total of quotas in effect or number
of visas authorized for the area immediately
preceding the change of administrative ar-
rangements, change of boundaries, or other
political change."
On January 10, 1964, there appeared in
the Federal Register, Presidential Proclama-
tion No. 3569 establishing an annual immi-
gration quota for Malaysia and Presidential
Proclamation No. 3570 establishing annual
Immigration quotas for Algeria and Uganda
and a revised annual immigration quota for
Indonesia. In response to a request directed
to the Secretary of State for information con-
cerning the method used for the determina-
tion of the new and revised quotas, I re-
ceived the following communication from
the then Assistant Secretary of State, the
Honorable Frederick G. Dutton:
? FEBRUARY 17, 1964.
DEAR SENATOR EASTLAND: I want to thank
you for your letter of January 23, 1964, to
the Secretary of State in which you referred
to recently published Proclamations Nos. 3569
and 3570 and requested a detailed report on
the method used in determining the immi-
gration quotas for Malaysia and Algeria and
the revised quota for Indonesia.
The basic authority for the computations
which resulted in the newly proclaimed
quotas for Malaysia, Algeria and Indonesia is
contained in the last sentence of section
202(e) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act, as amended by section 9 of the act of
September 26, 1961. This sentence reads as
follows:
"Whenever one or more colonies or oth-
er component or dependent areas overseas
from the governing country, or one or mere
quota areas have been subject to a change
of administrative arrangements, a change of
boundaries, or any other political change,
the annual quota of the newly established
quota area or the number of visas authorized
to be issued under section 202(c) (1), not-
withstanding any other provisions of this
Act, shall not be less than the sum total of
quotas in effect or number of visas author-
ized for the area immediately preceding the
change of administrative arrangements,
change of boundaries, or other political
change."
The new state of IVIalaysia comprises what
was formerly a single quota area (Federation
of Malaya) and three subquota areas (North
Borneo, Sarawak, and Singapore). Prior to
the establishment of Malaysia, each of these
component parts of the new quota area was
entitled to 100 quota numbers annually and,
hence, the new quota of 400 for Malaysia is
equal to the total of quota numbers avail-
able to that quota area immediately pre-
ceding the political change, which took
place on September 16, 1963.
The annual quota for Indonesia was in-
creased from 100 to 200 by Proclamation 3570
because of the tranefer of Irian Barat (for-
mer West New Guinea) from the Nether-
lands to Indonesia on May 1, 1063. West
New Guinea was formerly a subquota area
under the Netherlands quota and, as such,
was entitled to 100 quota numbers annually
as provided in section 202(c) of the Im-
migration and Nationality Act. Thus the
increased quota of 200 for Indonesia is equal
to the total of quota numbers available to
the components of the new quota area im-
mediately preceding the political change of
May 1, 1963.
In the case of the new state of Algeria,
which the United States recognized as an
independent state on July 3, 1962, the prob-
lernorconiputing a new quota for that quota
area presented us with a unique situation.
This was so because the territory formerly
known as Northern Algeria was one of the
very few component areas overseas from the
governing country which were treated as an
integral part of the quota area of the gov-
erning country when the quotas were pro-
claimed under the Immigration and Na-
tionality Act (Proc. 2980 of June 30, 1952).
This being the case, intending immigrants
born in Northern Algeria had full access to
the French quota of 3,069. Southern Al-
geria was treated as a subquota area and
therefore was limited to 100 quota numbers
per year. A strict application of the na-
tional-origins formula for computing quotas
would have resulted in a minimum quota of
100 for the new state of Algeria. This seemed
unrealistic in view of the advantage which
Algerians had long enjoyed in relation to the
French quota, and not in keeping with the
spirit and intent of section 202(e) , as
amended by section 9 of the act of Septem-
ber 26, 1961. The main purpose of the 1961
amendment, as the Department understands
it, was to minimize the impact of political
changes affecting national boundaries so that
intending immigrants would be placed in a
position no less favorable than they en-
joyed prior to the political change. The
new quota of 574 proclaimed for Algeria bears
the same ratio to 3,069 (quota for France)
as the estimated population of Algeria bore
to the entire population of the French quota
area as of July 1, 1962. The number 574,
in other words, is roughly one-fifth of the
French quota.
If I can be of further assistance, please do
not hesitate to let me know.
Sincerely yours,
FREDERICK G. DUTTON,
Assistant Secretary.
It is the next last paragraph of that let-
ter relating to the determination of the an-
nual quota of 574 for the new state of Algeria
which illustrates the manner in which those
persons charged with the administration of
a law are able to thwart the legislative intent
by a strained interpretation. The Subcom-
mittee on Immigration and Naturalization
was concerned with the manner in which the
quota for Algeria was computed and request-
ed further enlightenment in the following
communication:
MAY 14, 1964.
Mr. FREDERICK G. DUTTON,
Assistant Secretary,
Department of State,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR M. Durrox: This has further refer-
ence to my letter of January 23, 1964, to the
Secretary Of State with reference to Proc-
lamation Nos. 3569 and 3570, and your
reply of February 17, 1964; but first I wish
to thank you for your detailed report on the
method used in determining the immigra-
tion quotas for Malaysia and Algeria, and
the revised quota for Indonesia.
The Subcommittee on Immigration and
Naturalization has expressed some concern
with respect to the State Department's ra-
tionalization of the method used in the de-
termination of the new quota of 574 an-
nually for Algeria. It is the subcommittee's
view that the last sentence of section 202(e)
of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as
amended by section 9 of the act of September
26, 1961, was added for the sole purpose of
assuring to all new political entities an
immigration quota at least equal to the total
of subquotas or quotas previously available
for each of the component parts of such new
entity. In other words, in amending sec-
tion 202(e), Congress was concerned with
the quota situation resulting from the com-
bination of minimum quota areas or sub-
quota areas and did not intend that the
new provision contained in the last sentence
of 202(e) should encompass revisions result-
ing from the transfer of allegiance of an in-
tegral portion of the population of a govern-
ing country to that of a new political entity.
Approved For Release 2004/01/16: C1A-RDP67600446R000100290002-8
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP671300446R000100290002-8
23660 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE September 21, 1965
It is believed that section 202(e), prior to
its amendment, adequately covered that
uation. This understanding of the purpose
of the last sentence of Section 202(e) is sup-
ported by the following language contained
in House Report No. 1086, 87th Congress, lit
session, which accompanied the amending
legislation when it was reported by the
Committee on the Judiciary of the House Of
Representatives on August 30, 1961:
"Similarly, anticipating the forthcoming
assumption of an independent status by the
West Indies Federation, this section of the
bill proposes to assure to this or similar new
political entities an immigration quota equal
to the total of subquotas or quotas now
available for each of the component parts
of such a new entity.
"Ts cite an example, upon the merger of
Syria and Egypt into the United Arab Repub-
lic, the new entity was allocated only 100
quota numbers annually, while prior to the
merger, each of the 2 component parts
had a 100 quota for itself. This situation
Will be corrected under section 9 of this leg-
islation"
In addition, that document refers to the
views of the State Department contained
in reports on similar legislation which ap-
pear to be in accord with the subcommit-
tee's understanding.
In the case of Algeria, it is the subcom-
mittee's understanding that historicalry
inarthern Algeria has been treated as an inte-
gral part of metropolitan France and intend-
ing immigrants from northern Algeria had
full access to the Prench quota of 8,069. In
view of the provisions of section 201(a) and
202(e) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act relating to the establishment and the
revision of quotas, it is difficult for the sub-
committee to find the justification for es-
tablishing for Algeria a quota equal to one-
fifth of the quota for France on the basis of
the ratio of the population of northern Al-
geria to France without making any corre-
sponding revision in the quota for France
as a result of the population transfer.
I Would appreciate receiving any further
comments you May have regarding this mat-
ter at your earliest convenience.
With kindest regards, I am
Sincerely yours,
Chairman.
In reply to that further inquiry the fol-
lowing letter was received from the then
Assistant Secretary of State, the Honorable
Frederick G. Dutton, which I read:
DEPARTMUNT OF STATE,
Washington, lune 9, 1964.
Hon. JAMES 0. EASTLAND,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
MS. Senate.
DEAR MR. Ciranosarz: I wish to thank you
for your letter of May 14, 1964, making fur-
ther inquiry with regard to the immigration
quota for Algeria (Proc. No. 3570 of January
7, 1964; 29 P.R. 249), and expressing the
Subcommittee's concern with the method
used by the Department in computing that
quota.
The Department's letter Of February 17,
1964, in reply to your letter of January 23.
1064, explained that the problem of comput-
ing a new quota for the independent State
of Algeria presented a unique situation. We
realized that the 1961 amendment of section
202(e) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (Public Law 8'7-901) contemplated po-
litical changes similar to those involved in
the formation of the West Indies Federation
and the merger of Egypt and Syria into the
'United Arab Republic. However, the lan.-
gauge of the amended section 202(e), as
interpreted by the Department, allows for a
broader application. It refers to political
changes involving one or more colonies ? ? ?
or one or more quota areas. (italics
supplied.) The change of boundaries which
resulted in the establishment of the State
of Algeria actually involved one quota area;
i.e., France, and one subquota area; i.e.,
southern Algeria. If the statutory language
had limited its application to political
changes involving two or more colonies or
two or more quota areas, as in the case of
the West Indies Federation or the United
Arab Republic, there would be little room
for doubt or misunderstanding.
So far as concerns the annual quota of
3,069 established for France, it was not con-
sidered necessary to make a proportionate
reduction in that quota when the Algerian
quota was proclaimed. The 192Q population
base on which the French quota was deter-
mined under section 11 of the Immigration
Act of 1924 did not include inhabitants who
attributed their national origin to Algeria.
It represented immigration from continental
France only.
Sincerely yours,
Faxenucic G. DIMON,
Assistant Secretary.
It seems to me that it is quite clear in this
case that there is no real foundation in the
statute for the conclusion which has been
reached through adnainistrative interpreta-
tion which completely disregards the legis-
lative history of the provision._ The lan-
guage of the sentence which was added to
section 202(e) is not complicated and when
read in the light of the statement of the
House Committee on the Judiciary when the
bill was favorably reported its purpose is ob-
vious. That purpose is to insure that when
one or more colonies or one or more quota
areas merge, that the new political entity
will have the same number of quota numbers
available to it is previously were available to
the component bodies under the Immigra-
tion and Xationality Act. Its purpose is not
to make quota numbers available where they
had not been available before under any
provision of that act. Let me read from the
House Report No. 1086 of the 1st session of
the 81st Congress which makes this pur-
pose abundantly clear:
"Similarly, anticipating the forthcoming
assumption of an independent status by the
West Indies Federation, this section of the
bill proposes to assure to this or similar
new political entities an immigration quota
equal to the total of subquotas or quotas
now available for each of the component
parts of such a new entity.
"To cite an example, upon the merger of
Syria and Egypt into the 'United Arab Re-
public, the new entity was alloCated only
100 quota numbers annually, while prior to
the merger each of the 2 component parts
had a 100 quota for itself. This situation will
be corrected under section 9 of this legisla-
tion.
"In reporting on July 10, 1961, on a simi-
lar provision contained in H.R. 6300, the De-
partment of State, over the signature of
Mr. Brooks Hays, Assistant Secretary of Con-
gressional Relations, recommended the en-
actment of this provision of the amend-
ment stating as follows:
"'Section 6 would amend section 202(e)
of the immigration and Nationality Act in
two significant respects:
" ' (a) It would eliminate the ceiling of
2,000 now imposed on the aggregate of all
minimum quotas within the Asia-Pacific
Triangle, and
''(b) It would assure to new political en-
tities an immigration quota equal to the
total of quotas or subquotas presently es-
tablished for each of the component parts
which comprise the new entity.'
"The Department strongly favors the
amendment (summarized under (a) above)
inasmuch as any reduction in quotas as re-
quired by existing law would adversely af-
fect the foreign relations of the United
States. The prompt enactment a the other
amendment to section 202(e) is of particu-
lar concern to the Department in view of the
imminent independence of the West Indies
Federation, now expected in the early part
of 1962. Upon gaining independence, the
Federation will be entitled to an immigration
quota which, if computed under existing
law, would amount to 100 compared with a
total of 1,000 quota numbers now available
to the component areas of the Federation.
This reduction would be highly undesirable
from a foreign policy point of view. Conso-
quently, the Department strongly endorses
the proposed amendment which would au-
thorize an annual quota of 1,000 for the
Federation. In the event that H.R. 6300
should not be enacted during the current
session of the Congress, the Department
urges that this particular amendment be
considered in a separate bill. Otherwise, the
United States would be placed in the position
of restricting the Federation to a quota of
100 upon its acquisition of an independent
status."
Admittedly, the situation in Algeria prior
to its independence was unique in that
southern Algeria was treated as a subquota
area while northern Algeria was treated as
an integral part of France and the inhabi-
tants of northern Algeria had full access to
the quota of France of 3069. The newly in-
dependent Algeria, then, did not result from
a merger of one or more colonies or one or
more quota areas as contemplated by the
new language in section 202(e), of the Im-
migration and Nationality Act. What oc-
curred was a political change in an area from
the Mother country, France, under which
Algeria became an independent nation. It
is true that quota numbers prior to inde-
pendence had been authorized for issuance
to inhabitants of the area involved under
both the French quota and a subquota of
that quota for southern Algeria. But does
this justify the establishment of a quota of
574 for Algeria on the ground that the new
language in section 202(e) guarantees an
=mai quota for the newly established quota
area which shall not be less than the number
of visas authorized for the area preceding the
political change? There were no specific
quota numbers previously authorized for Al-
geria other than the subquota of 100 for
southern Algeria, and so the State Depart-
ment explains that the new quota of 574
bears the same ratio to the overall quota of
3069 for France as the estimated population
of Algeria on July 1, 1962, bore to the total
population of France. This new quota is
roughly one-fifth of the French quota. The
State Department explains that a strict ap-
plication of the national origin provisions
would have resulted in the establishment of
a minimum quota of 100, to which it is en-
titled under the law, but this is considered
to be unrealistic. Accordingly, it created a
new quota and seeks to justify its action
under a provision of the law which is com-
pletely inapplicable to the situation with
which we are concerned. In other words,
the administrators decided what they wanted
to do first and then twisted the language
of the statute to justify their action railing
it a broader application of the provision.
Instead of establishing a quota of 100 for
Algeria they established a quota of 674, there-
by adding 474 unauthorized numbers to the
overall quota. If Algeria, as the State De-
partment contends, is entitled to part of the
French quota as a result of the political
change why was not the French quota re-
duced to the extent of the numbers trans-
ferred as a result of the boundary changes
as has been the practice under section 202(e)
of the Immigration and Nationality Act?
The State Department passes this off lightly
by saying that no proportionate reduction
was made because the population on which
the French quota was based did not include
inhabitants who attributed their national
origin to Algeria, but was limited to con-
tinental France. Then, the question might
be asked: Why were the inhabitants of
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67600446R000100290002-8
Approved For Release 20O4/01/16: CIA-RDP6MQ0#46R000100290002-8
Seeptember 21, 1965 CONORESSIONAL IttCORD SINAI
northern Algeria ever permitted to use he
French quota?
This raises the question of why Algeria
was accorded special treatment. Does this
not constitute administrative discrimination
against those countries whose quotas have
been established under the national origins
provisions? rs Algeria entitled to a special
quota of 574 while Greece has a quota of
308; Spain a quota of 250; Australia a quota
of 100? I hope that I have made my point
that it would be exceedingly unwise if not
disastrous to accept any proposal which
would vest administrative agencies with
broad discretionary control over the alloca-
tion of quotas. In the situation to which
/ have Just alluded, we have seen an example
of the liberties the bureaucrats will take in
interpreting any law in order to justify a
desired end result. Just imagine what would
happen if they had a statute which actually
granted them discretionary authority in the
allocation of visas among the peoples of the
world.
Mr. EASTLAND. In summary, then,
it may be observed that the proposed re-
visions of the quota provisions of the Im-
migration and Nationality Act contained
in the bill, H.R. 2580, constitute a com-
plete reversal of the policy expressed in
the national origins quota provisions.
The Immigration and Nationality Act
provides for a maximum quota with an
empirical formula for the allocation of
the quota numbers. That formula does
not contemplate the mandatory issuance
of all numbers made available, but rather
that the flow of immigrants up to the
maximum Will be in accordance with
the formula. Under the provisions of
H.R. 2580, however, the overall quota of
170,000 will be a minimum quota as the
provisions of the bill are designed to in-
sure full use of all quota numbers each
year.
Mr. President, this is the loosely drawn
bill which we are asked to hastily enact
into law for the avowed purpose of de-
stroying the national origins quotas.
Why, we must ask ourselves, is there such
a burning desire to destroy the national
origins quota? We are told that quotas
must be eliminated completely and that
determination of the order of admis-
sion of admissible aliens should be based
only on his relationship to persons in
the United States, his training and skills
and the time of his application. An ex-
amination of the measure clearly shows
that the idea of quotas has not been
abandoned, but only national origin
quotas. By the very words of the stat-
ute, 1 country may not use more
than 20,000 of the overall visa numbers,
so that certainly establishes quotas.
Does this mean that all men are to
be treated the same until 20,000 visa
numbers have been used by any 1
country? When that 20,000 limit has
been reached, the next man in line for
a number in that country is not going
to be treated the same as the man in
a country where the limit has not been
reached. If there are no quotas, then
how is it that in section 2 of the bill we
find that the provisions of the Immigra-
tion and Nationality Act relating to the
use, of the "Mother country" quota by
Colonies or other -dependent areas is to
be_amended to provide a specific formula
for establishing the number of imrni-
No. 174--6
grants in such colonies or dependent
Teas which may be charged to the gov-
erning foreign state.
Certainly, the measure recognizes that
there will be quotas or limits and that
they are bound to be different. Being
different, will not the quotas or numeri-
cal limitations be subject to a charge of
being discriminatory? Will the fact that
a different formula is used placate all
immigrant peoples when the inevitable
result will be to permit more persons to
enter from one country than another?
Why must we offend our friends by the
adoption of a formula under which it
Is highly probable that occasions will
arise when their natives will no longer
be able to obtain visas freely as formerly.
Will this promote good relations with our
friends? This measure does not even
provide a minimum quota for all coun-
tries, and yet its sponsors say the quota
system under the Immigration and Na-
tionality Act is discriminatory and un-
just.
This attack against the national ori-
gins quota system is not new, for it had
been subjected to constant sniping in the
decades following its enactment in 1924
and the same charges of discrimination
were constantly leveled at it; but yet a
two-thirds majority of the Congress ap-
proved its reenactment in 1952 when
Congress overrode a Presidential veto of
the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Why then is there this continuing at-
tack which grows more vociferous in elec-
tion years? Is it really a basic concern
of theory or is it in reality a desire for
more immigration? I believe it to be
the latter.
The national origins quota system al-
locates to each country of the world, and
I emphasize each, an immigration quota
of one-sixth of 1 percent of the number
of our people who attribute their na-
tional origin to that country. Thus we
have an invariable exact mathematical
formula equally applicable to all coun-
tries of the world, with one exception
and that is that no country shall be left
out, but shall have at least a quota of 100
annually. It has been described as a
mirror held up before the American
people and as the various proportions of
our national origins groups are reflected
in the mirror, computations of the quotas
are made in accordance with that reflec-
tion. Is this discrimination which we
find unjust? I think not. Certainly it is
discriminate action, but it is action
which recognizes the differences among
the ethnic groups in our population, and
It is not the practice of discrimination
in its abhorrent sense.
This formula which treats persons dif-
ferently, because they are basically dif-
ferent, was not hastily arrived at. There
was a special departmental committee
which undertook the task in 1924 of
determining the ethnic composition of
the population of the United States. It
did not complete its work until 1929 when
it made its report to the President. That
committee analyzed the population of
the United States and through most
careful research and study calculated as
exactly as humanly possible how many
of the members of our population at that
23661
time descended from the English, the
Dutch, the Italian, the Polish, the Ger-
man, the Spanish, the Irish, the Portu-
guese, the Greek, and so on. The for-
mula placed in effect is the recognition
by the Congress that it is in the best in-
terests of this country to maintain as
nearly as possible that basic composi-
tion. This was the purpose of the nu-
merical limitations imposed under the
national origins formula, and such nu-
merical limitation based on an invari-
able formula is not unjust discrimina-
tion. Those provisions which denied
quotas to persons because of race have
been removed from our law, and to
charge that the present formula is based
on a policy of deliberate discrimination
is just not based on fact.
Our immigration policy as embodied in
our quota law recognizes that people are
different and that nations are different
and that all have made a contribution to
the growth and development of this
country, but because of their very dif-
ferences their contribution has varied.
The fact that we recognize that different
peoples made different contributions to
the great American amalgamation does
not mean that we are saying that one is
superior to the other. We are saying
that we believe that our legal, political
and social systems derived from a popu-
lation composed of persons of those great
differences, and that we further believe
that the preservation of this new Ameri-
can culture and the fundamental insti-
tutions of this Nation can most likely be
preserved and strengthened by the pres-
ervation of the relative proportions of
those different people in our society.
Again, this does not mean that we say
that one group is superior or another
group is inferior, but simply that various
groups of people are different. The Im-
migration and Nationality Act does not
set forth any theory of racial or ethnic
superiority, nor is there valid ground for
saying there is an implication of racial
or ethnic inferiority, though some per-
sons for purely self-serving purposes seek
to draw such an inference.
Mr. President, I believe that it would
be interesting to read a commentary on
the national origins quota system which
appeared in an editorial in the New York
Times on March 1, 1924, when Congress
was considering legislation which it ulti-
mately enacted as the 1924 Quota Act
embodying national origins quotas:
In formulating a permanent policy two
considerations are of prime importance. The
first is that the country has a right to say
who shall and who shall not come in. It is
not for any foreign country to determine our
Immigration policy. The second is that the
basis for restriction must be chosen with a
view not to the interest of any group or
groups in this country, whether racial or
religious, but rather with a view to the
country's best interests as a whole. The great
test is assimilability. Will the newcomers fit
Into the American life readily? Is their
culture sufficiently akin to our own to make
It possible for them easily to take their place
among us? There is no question of "su-
perior" or "inferior" races, or of "Nordics," or
of prejudice, or racial egotism. Certain
groups not only do not fuse easily, but con-
sistently endeavor to keep alive their racial
distinctions when they settle among us.
Approved For Release 2004/01/16: CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290002-8
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67600446R000100290002-8
23662 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE -
September 21, 1965
They perpetuate the "hyphen" which is but
another way of saying that they seek to
create foreign blocs in on: midst.
The editorial policy of that newspaper
has changed considerably in the passing
years but its reasoning then is still valid.
I hope, Mr. President, that it has be-
come quite obvious that the critics of our
present immigration policy will find
themselves stuck with this spurious label
of discrimination which they have been
hurling at the national origins quota law
ever since its enactment. They shout
"discrimination" and then over the years
what have they done? They have of-
fered plan after plan to break down the
law: unified quota plans; family reuni-
fication quota plans; quota pooling plans;
population-immigration plans; and ad
Infinitum. But what has been the result?
In all cases the substitutes contained
quantitative variations in the selection of
Immigrants, but those who cried loudest
did not advocate unrestricted immigra-
tion. This is the dilemma of those who
cast these unfounded charges against a
formula which is based soundly on the
true proportions of the national origins
groups in our population. They do not
advocate establishment of numerically
equal quotas for all countries. They offer
a substitute without a sound formula
with built in mechanisms for the alloca-
tion of quota numbers by administrative
discrimination.
Mr. President, we hear the clamor of
the immigration reformists that we must
remove the national origin quotas be-
cause it offends other nations and dam-
ages our foreign relations. It has been
Stated officially that it would better our
foreign relations if we followed a differ-
ent immigration policy. Do these critics
ever attempt to explain the national
origins quotas from a position of
strength? Do they ever attempt to tell
the truth rather than malign this law
of ours which many of them are con-
stitutionally bound to uphold and sup-
Port? No, that is not the way they
proceed as Americans.
They engage in continuing campaigns
of self-condemnation and unceasingly
shout discrimination from the house-
tops. We have always honored our obli-
gations to the rest of the world and it is
time that we started defending our policy
rather than apologizing for it. Our do-
mestic strength is our concern and it
must not be governed by demands from
abroad. If there are claims from abroad
that our immigration policy discrimi-
nates against the peoples of a particular
country, it would occur to me that that
country is saying that it does not like
the composition of our population and
would like to see it changed.
Is this a valid position to respect?
There are many policies of this country
which will not please all nations and it is
a mistake to try to win the approval and
love of the outside world through the
enactment of such an immigration policy.
The pursuit of such a policy would in-
evitably lead to the weakening of the
institutions of this country, and if we
do not remain strong, then immigration
policy will become a moot question in
any event.
Mr. President, the advocates of the
proposed revisions of the quota system
contained in the bill, H.R. 2580 place
much emphasis on the assertion that it
will facilitate the admission into this
country of aliens with special skills
which are needed here. They would lead
one to believe that this is a new policy
and that it is imperative that we change
our quota system in order to grant pref-
erential treatment to those prospective
immigrants with much needed skills. I
feel that it is my duty to set the record
straight in this regard.
Since December 24, 1952, when the Mc-
Carran-Walter Act became effective, 50
percent of all the quota numbers have
been available for issuance to intending
immigrants with special knowledge or
skills whose services are needed in this
country. This first preference class of
immigrants, as they are called, are en-
titled to use 79,280 quota numbers each
year out of the total overall quota of
158,561. The visas for the first pref-
erence immigrants are issued on the
basis of petitions filed by the prospective
employer which establish the aliens
qualifications and the need for his serv-
ices. This selective feature of the quota
system permits those who establish the
need because of the nonavailability of
skilled persons in this country to obtain
a preference in the issuance of visas
under each quota for qualified specialists
or skilled workers from abroad. The
concept of asking the aliens what they
can do for this country, then, is not new
and has formed the basis for the
selectivity under the first preference
quota for the past decade.
It was after lengthy consideration that
the Congress decided that the interests
of this country required that at least 50
percent of each quota be reserved for
persons needed in the United States be-
cause of their special skills of training.
The remaining 50 percent of the quotas
was made available to close relatives of
U.S. citizens and resident aliens.
It is significant, Mr. President, that out
of the total of 132 principal quota areas
and subquota areas under which visas
are available to aliens, 110 of those quotas
or subquotas are current at the present
time. In other words, if an industry, or
a hospital, or a university, or a Govern-
ment agency needs the services of an
alien specialist or skilled worker,-no dif-
ficulty would be encountered in obtain-
ing a visa under the first preference por-
tion of the quota for 108 countries. It
is true that there would be a delay in
issuance in the remaining countries, but
not for an indefinite length of time. Per-
haps it would not be possible to obtain
the immediate entry from the Union of
South Africa of a physicist to do re-
search in the structure of metal, but it is
quite likely that the need could be met
under one of the other quotas. The law
is not intended to discriminate in favor
of skilled persons from particular areas
of the world, and I am satisfied that
if a need is established a qualified alien
can be found under the present quota
system.
The present system for according pref-
erential treatment is not so inflexible
as it is sometimes alleged. It may not be
generally known, but under present pro-
cedures if an alien who is temporarily in
the country acquires first preference
status upon the basis of a petition filed
by an employer who needs his services,
he will be permitted to remain here so
long as he maintains that status even
though the first preference portion of
the quota to which he is chargeable is
oversubscribed. He will be permitted to
carry on his essential work while he
awaits the availability of a quota num-
ber. In order to accommodate the need,
his spouse and children may be paroled
into the United States to be with him
while he waits. Furthermore, if it is de-
termined that national defense interests
warrant such action, a highly skilled
technician and his family may be paroled
Into the United States by the Attorney
General if the first preference portion
of the quota to which he is chargeable is
not immediately available. It seems
quite clear to me, Mr. President, that
when there is a real need for the special-
ized or skilled services of aliens in this
country, that need can be met reason-
ably well wider existing law while at
the same time the interests of our own
labor market are protected.
Concurrent with all the publicity for
Immigration reforms to facilitate the ad-
mission of skilled workers there is the
demand for reforms to permit the reuni-
fications of families. One might get the
impression that the national origins
quota system results in the separation of
families, but this is far from the truth.
The truth is that after 50 percent of
each quota is made available to the first
preference skilled group the remaining
50 percent is made available to close rel-
atives of U.S. citizens and resident aliens,
plus any numbers not used by the first
preference. The relatives entitled to the
preferences include parents of U.S. cit-
izens, unmarried children of U.S. citi-
zens, and spouses and children of resi-
dent aliens. The Immigration and Na-
tionality Act goes even further and pro-
vides that if any numbers remain after
the specific preference groups have been
served, 50 percent of any such numbers
shall be available to the brothers, sisters,
and married children of U.S. citizens.
This latter group is commonly referred
to as the fourth preference under the
quota.
In view of the fact that much of the
criticism of the McCarran-Walter Act
stems from the heavy oversubscription
of this fourth preference class, I feel that
a little clarification should be offered at
this time. In the first place, this com-
passionate feature was added to the law
for the first time in 1952 by the Immigra-
tion and Nationality Act. The attention
of Congress was brought to certain iso-
lated cases where elderly brothers and
sisters of U.S. citizens were alone in the
Old World an without any preference
faced the bleak prospect of never seeing
their relatives in the United States
again. They were single and in many
cases supported by the brother or sister
here. They were not given a true pref-
erence, but it was felt that if any num-
bers remained in the quotas after the
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67600446R000100290002-8
Approved For Release 20144/01L16 ? ClAzIRDREZBRON6R000100290002-8
September 21, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECUKD ? SEA
?
preferences had first call, then these
older brothers and sisters should have a
priority in the use of the nonpreference
portion of the quotas to the extent of 25
percent which was subsequently raised
to 50 percent. Since they were old and
alone it was considered reasonable to in-
clude them within the concept of a "fam-
ily unit" which should be maintained.
Similarly, the extension of this small
priority to married children of citizens
seemed justified. In other words, if any
numbers were left over, these relatives
of U.S. citizens should have a preference
over "new seed" immigrants. It was
never contemplated that this class of im-
migrant applicants would assume the
proportions it has today, and create such
pressures for measures to permit their
entry.
As of July 1, 1964, there were 163,805
aliens who had registered on quota wait-
ing lists under this fourth preference
category. This heavy demand was
never contemplated and may be attrib-
uted to the act of September 22, 1959,
which hastily enlarged the fourth pref-
erence group to include the spouse and
children of the principal applicant. Un-
fortunately by that action, which was
taken in the best of faith in answer to
appeals for relief in hardship cases, Con-
gress departed from the time-honored
concept of preserving the immediate
family unit of the immigrant or the citi-
zen, and extended it to include another
family unit.
Thus,. Congress through its act of
charity, 'multiplied many times the per-
sons eligible for fourth preference. The
Class by its nature will continue to in-
crease, and this points out quite clearly
the dangers involved in further exten-
sions of the relative preference groups.
It is an interesting fact, too, that out of
the total fourth preference registrations
of 163,805, nearly 114,717 of that num-
ber are registered on the 'quota of one
country.
? It is true, Mr. President, that some of
the quotas are oversubscribed and that
Certain relatives in those countries face
a delay in obtaining visas, but to me
those circumstances do not justify
Scrapping the quota system. In 90 of
the 114 principal quota areas, there is
no waiting period at all for immediate
family groups. In 54 of the countries
there is no waiting period for anyone.
It is only when you get beyond the "im-
mediate" family groups, such as the
fourth preference applicants that any
serious difficulty is encountered and, as
indicated above, even then only in a few
quota areas.
There is one aspect of the preference
quotas for each cduntry which I believe
Is of particular importance and which
is glossed over. While 50 percent of
each quota is made available for skilled
persons, that portion can only be used
if the persons are urgently needed in
this country. If such persons are not
needed, the unused part of the first pref-
erence becomes available to the close re-
lative preference cases in each country.
In other words, just because a person has
skills does not entitle him to displace a
relative of a citizen unless a need for his
services is firmly established. I believe
that this is as it should be and as long as
we live in a family of nations each nation
should have its quota with a system of
preferences which serves American in-
dustry by providing highly skilled work-
ers; which preserves the immediate fam-
ily unit of immigrants from that nation;
and which protects the American worker
in the skilled, semiskilled and unskilled
classes. All these things the Immigra-
tion and Nationality Act has done and is
continuing to do.
We have no cause to be ashamed of
our immigration policy. Since the enact-
ment of the Immigration and Nationality
Act in 1952 through June 1964 a total
of . 3,108,538 immigrants have entered
the United States under the provisions of
that act and special enactments. Of
that number 1,082,833 were quota im-
migrants and 2,025,705 were nonquota
immigrants. That is a larger share of
immigrants than any other nation has
received. The number of admissions as
nonquota immigrants, most of whom en-
tered under the regular provisions of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, is of
particular significance. Over 55,000 na-
tives of Japan entered as immigrants
while the quota for that country is 185
annually. Over 27,000 have entered from
the Philippines and the quota of that
country is 100 annually. Italy has an
annual quota of 5,666, but over the 11-
year period over 243,000 immigrants en-
tered from that country. From Greece
with a quota of 308, there came over
53,000. Portugal has a quota of 438, but
over 31,000 have entered from that coun-
try in the 11-year period. China has a
quota of 105, but over the 11-year period
46,000 immigrants entered from that
country. That is a good record and yet
it is said that we are making enemies
abroad through our immigration policy.
It is claimed that the increase in the
number of aliens who would enter under
H.R. 2580 would be more modest than
under some of the previous proposals,
but they would still be substantial. The
quota would rise from 158,561 to 170,000.
By extending nonquota status to adja-
cent islands which have recently ac-
quired independence, it is estimated that
approximately 15,000 nonquota immi-
grants would enter. We could expect
approximately 7,300 parents of citizens
under the new nonquota status. To
these increases we would add 55,000
Immigrants which represents the aver-
age quota numbers which have been
unused in past years and would now be
used. Thus, in the first year of the
operation of H.R. 2580, should it be en-
acted, we could expect an increase in
immigration of approximately '77,300,
plus a substantial number of Asiatics
who are natives of Western Hemisphere
countries and who would enjoy non-
quota status for the first time. From
this latter group we could expect over
5,000 in the first year alone. Last year
immigration totaled 292,248, and when
we add almost 85,000 more a year, immi-
gration will certainly approach 375,000.
And mark my word, should this effort
prevail, it will follow as surely as the
night must the day, that in the next
Congress the effort will be to increase the
overall number.
23663
Before seriously considering any
measure which would increase the num-
ber of immigrants to be added to our
population, we should ask ourselves some
very searching questions.
In view of the level of unemployment,
should we increase the rate of immigra-
tion?
In view of the threat of increases in
unemployment in the future as the result
of automation should we at this time
increase immigration?
In view of the population explosion
that is taking place in this country,
should we accelerate it artificially by
increased immigration?
In view of the shortage of classrooms
In schools and institutions of higher
learning, should we increase immigra-
tion?
In view of declining natural resources,
do we need increased immigration?
In view of the growing threat of a
water shortage through increased con-
sumption and contamination, do we need
increased immigration?
Mr. President, I believe this country
has certainly taken its share of the
oppressed and others desiring to join our
community of peoples and it has done
so gladly. However, no single country
can solve the population ills of the world
and to attempt to do so can only end in
disaster.
In conclusion, Mr. President, I urge
the Senate to reject the bill, H.R. 2580,
and thereby maintain a sound immigra-
tion and naturalization system for our
country.
MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE
A message from the House of Repre-
sentatives, by Mr. Hackney, one of its
reading clerks, announced that the
House had passed, without amendment,
the following bills and joint resolution of
the Senate:
S. 450. An act for the relief of William
John Campbell McCaughey;
S.1111. An act for the relief of Pola Bod-
enstein; and
S.J. Res. 98. Joint resolution authorizing
and requesting the President to extend
through 1966 his proclamation of a period to
"See the United States," and for other pur-
poses.
The message also announced that the
House had agreed to the report of the
committee of conference on the dis-
agreeing votes of the two Houses on the
amendments of the House to the bill (S.
4) to amend the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended, to establish the
Federal Water Pollution Control Admin-
istration, to provide grants for research
and development, to increase grants for
construction of municipal sewage treat-
ment works, to authorize the establish-
ment of standards of water quality to aid
in preventing, controlling, and abating
pollution of interstate waters, and for
other purposes.
The message further announced that
the House had agreed to the amendment
of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 9877) to
amend the act of January 30, 1913, as
amended, to remove certain restrictions
on the American Hospital of Paris.
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67600446R000100290002-8
(VIA/
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67600446R000100290002-8
2 64 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE September 21, 1965
I do not understand the attitude of
trembling in the presence of foreign po-
tentates, kings, dictators, or any other
heads of government, merely because we
have a little pride in our own country, in
our achievements, in our preeminent po-
sition in world affairs. Why should we
not have?
Because we have, because we have
reached these attainments, are we now
required by wisdom, by logic, by humani-
tarian causes, or any other persuasion to
say, "All we have achieved is yours"?
Say it to the rest of the world: Come.
Partake. Enjoy the privilege.
Mr. President, with that idea I do not
agree. America cannot survive as the
great Nation she is today if we ever so
modify and change our immigration pol-
icy so as not to protect that which we
have developed, produced, and now pos-
sess.
The Attorney General also pointed out
that under the present act we deprive
ourselves of skills that we could use in
this country, that is, we will be deprived
of the services of a brilliant surgeon from
India for several years because of that
country's limited quota of 100. I am sure
that this Indian surgeon is brilliant, but
If he is, could he not serve mankind far
better by remaining in his country and
ministering to the needs of the masses of
his own country whose population is
nearly triple that of ours?
Mr. President, I am sure that there is
just as urgent need?more, possibly?in
India for the skill of this brilliant phys-
ician than in America. Yet, the argu-
ment is made in support of the bill to
siphon him off, to take him away from
his native land, where he is needed most,
because we would be embarrassed if
someone should state that we were
discriminating.
Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Arkansas yield at that
point?
Mr. McCLELLAN. I am glad to yield
to the Senator from Florida.
Mr. HOLLAND. When it comes to the
charge of discrimination, is that not
mostly confined to some of our own liber-
als? I have not noticed that there is any
undersubscription of quota allowances
for the people of other nations who wish
to come to America other than those
which are already heavily represented in
this country. Every time a matter is
taken up with my office by citizens of
other countries, or their relatives, and I
check it with the State Department, I find
that there is a long list of oversubscrip-
tions. Does that look as though anyone is
desirous of going somewhere else except
to the United States, that they feel they
do not wish to come to this country be-
cause we are discriminating? Is it not
true that our quotas are generally over-
subscribed in many parts of the world
at this time?
Mr. McCLELLAN. That is certainly
true. I believe it can be said without
successful contradiction or challenge that
we have the most liberal immigration
policy in the world. I am not an expert
in this field, but I do not know of any
country which is more generous and
liberal than the United States.
MENDMENT OF IMMIGRATION
AND NATIONALTIT ACT
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill (H.R. 2580) to amend the
Immigration and Nationality Act, and
for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, I
have listened with very deep interest to
the address of the distinguished Senator
from Mississippi who preceded me. I
commend him for his very thorough and
penetrating analysis of the pending
measure. -
It is difficult for me to understand
how, after duly considering the salient
aspects of this bill, one could feel that
It- would be in the interest of our coun-
try to enact the measure into law.
Mr. President, I am epposed to the
pending immigration bill?the people of
Arkansas are opposed to it?and, accord-
ing to a recent national poll?the Amer-
ican people are opposed to it.
After several years of intensive study,
the Congress enacted less than 15 years
ago, the Walter-McCarran Act, which
sought to define and express this Na-
tion's immigration policy. That act was
an attempt to blend national interest
With the traditional American concept of
the brotherhood of man. It was a rea-
sonable act in that it attempted to build
our immigraion policy on the premise
that we should admit to our shores those
aliens who stood the best chance of be-
coming Americanized. The Act was
based on the national origins system
which has become a symbol it seems of
dread and discrimination if we are to
heed the emotional cries of those who
seek to change and liberalize that act by
the emasculating language of the pend-
ing bill.
National origins means, quite simply,
that system devised by this country fol-
lowing World War I whereby preferen-
tial immigration status was accorded to
those countries which contributed the
most to the formation of our country.
In effect, the system sought to reflect the
makeup of our people by allowing immi-
gration on a fractional basis of Amer-
ica's population. This is today baldly
labeled as a discriminatory system and
it is said that it has to go. I would ask,
discriminatory to whom? And I would
also ask, since when has it become dis-
criminatory to found immigration on a
reasonable and rational system designed
to accomplish the desired end of immi-
gration?
The decade of the 1960's promises to go
down in this country's history as the
decade of discrimination. The erroneous
connotation of the word "discrimina-
tion" has become so evil that I doubt that
there is an American alive today who
would want to be described as having
discriminating taste whether in food or
clothing. How ridiculous we have be-
come. Each of us in our everyday life
discriminates with every choice, be it
with friends, commodities, or facilities.
And regardless of some of the inane laws
passed by the Congress or twisted by the
Supreme Court, such discrimination will
Persist, for it is a natural compulsion of
the human mind.
If so many people are opposed to
changing our immigration policy as ex-
pressed in the Walter-McCarran Act,
then why the big rush to enact the new
law? Well, this concerned me, too, and
I reviewed again the testimony of ad-
ministration witnesses before the Senate
Judiciary Committee. The Secretary of
State said that he has often been ap-
proached by foreign ministers who be-
lieve that the national origins principle
discriminates against their countries.
This, according to the Secretary, creates
difficulties in establishing good relations
required by our national interest. Fol-
lowing this perverted logic to its end
conclusion would have the national Con-
gress taking a poll of foreign ministers
or getting a concensus from foreign
countries before acting on legislation in
many fields.
How utterly silly it is to base our im-
migration policy on the complaint of a
few foreign ministers who feel that our
policy is discriminatory. The cry to
amend the present law for the sake of the
tin god of discrimination does not move
me either by logic or emotion. Nor, ap-
parently did it move the drafters of the
original bill, who proposed the retention
of the discriminatory unlimited provi-
sions of the present law in regard to for-
eigners in the Western Hemisphere. The
Senate Judiciary Committee did amend
the bill to impose a 120,000 limitation
on Western Hemisphere immigration be-
ginning in 1968, but since a similar pro-
vision was defeated in the House, the
final version of the bill may well con-
tinue this discriminatory aspect of the
original bill.
Another witness before the committee,
Attorney General Katzenbach, also relied
heavily on the discriminatory features of
the national origins system in making
his plea for enactment of the pending
bill. He complained that the system
creates an image of hypocrisy which can
be exploited by those who seek to dis-
credit us abroad because we profess that
all are equal yet we use the "discrimina-
tory national origins system."
Mr. President, if we exclude anybody
by law from immigrating to our country,
to that extent we discriminate. The only
way to have absolutely no discrimination
in an immigration policy is to repeal all
immigration law, and let them all stand
equal. We might as well be honest about
it. We are discriminating with this law.
We shall discriminate with the next one,
and the next one, until we remove every
barrier.
So the argument about some country
feeling it is discriminated against loses
its appeal, loses its force and persuasion.
After all, whose country is this? Who
has a right?
No alien has a right to admittance.
We grant him a privilege, and we are un-
der no compulsion to do that, if the
granting of the privilege is against or
does not serve the national interest.
Woe betide us if we ever go down the
road in an effort to wipe out all the
things that our enemies might use in
their propaganda programs against us,
for this would result eventually in the
elimination of the free enterprise sys-
tem.
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67600446R000100290002-8
September 21, 19ermved&3eltMffATIartifia?
RDMAON46R000100290002-8 23665
? Mr. HOLLAND. Not many days ago,
I had the privilege of reading a long
article en immigration policy in Austra-
lia, which is vastly more restrictive than
ours. Australia picks not only the
countries from which it is willing to
invite migrants, but also picks the indi-
viduals in those countries. The article
Mentioned that oversubscription in Aus-
tralia was very great, that they had
almost an indefinite right of selection
between numerous individuals and nu-
merous families. Does that indicate that
there is any world disapproval of a people
who wish to protect their own civilization
and to bring to themselves, for their
benefit, those whom they believe will be
attuned to what their country is trying to
do?
Mr. McCLELLAN. Certainly not.
there is much reason or more for Aus-
tralia to throw down the floodgates and
open up its country to unrestricted immi-
gration because from the point of view of
Its geography, Australia has a much
Vaster area unpopulated and undeveloped
than has the United States.
The point is that if a good image of
this country is related to its immigration
policy, the United States should already
have the greatest image of any country
on earth because of its generosity and
liberal attitude toward inviting people
to its shores.
I do not understand why we must take
the attitude that, in order to please some-
one else, we must now further liberalize
our immigration policy.
Mr. HOLLAND, I agree with the
Senator from Arkansas completely. I
merely wish the RECORD to show that in
the case of Australia, whose policy is
'restrictive and highly selective, they are
being overwhelmed with applications to
Come in from good people who wish to
emigrate to Australia and settle there
and claim a part of the future of that
relatively new continent as pioneers and
settlers.
I am completely out of accord, however,
with the theery that we must change
our policy merely to suit someone else.
I do not believe that people in the world,
generally, will approve or disapprove of
America merely because of its immigra-
tion policy. It does not make any sense.
We have the right to be as restrictive as
we feel our own interests require, and I
am very, glad that the Senator from Ar-
kansas is bringing out that point so
clearly.
Mr. McCLELLAN. I thank the Sena-
tor from Florida for his valuable com-
ments. There is not a country on earth
which will not continue to have greater
respect for us because we are discrimina-
tory in our taste and in our selection
than if we were no longer to have any
pride in ourselves in what we are.
Secretary of Labor Wirtz testified be-
fore the comrnittee that the pending bill
would increase the opportunities for
Workers with needed abilities to come
into this country. The Secretary pointed
Obt?this ,is,?uncler our present law, Mr.
President, and I emphasize how generous
it is?that during the 1952-61 period,
some 14,000 immigrant physicians and
surgeons and about 20,000 nurses helped
alleviate the shortage of trained person-
nel in the critical medical field.
I do not know of any countries which
have less need for skilled doctors and
nurses than we have. They can do as
great a service for humanity?probably
greater, and with greater opportunities
to serve humanity?in their own coun-
tries, where the need is greater.
Are we proud, are we boasting of the
fact that we can offer inducements to
take them away from where they are
needed to most and bring them to this
country? Is that our policy?
Some 4,900 chemists and nearly 1,100
physicists, more than 12,000 technicians,
and about 9,000 machinists and 7,000 tool
and die makers entered during the same
period. With thesefacts in mind, it is
little wonder that we now find ourselves
continuing to spend billions abroad in
economic and technical aid, or that we
are sending hordes of Peace Corps work-
ers abroad. Do not these figures and
arguments clearly indicate that this
country has been siphoning away the
very people needed mostby the underde-
veloped countries of the World which we
are professing to help with our foreign
aid, our economic aid, our dollars?
But then, perhaps this is bureaucracy
at its best?taking away with the left
hand and giving away with the right
hand. We could eliminate the middle
Man in this process?our Government?
by letting these highly trained people re-
main in their own countries where they
could contribute much to their develop-
ment, local economy, and culture.
It is a poor excuse for amending and
liberalizing our existing law to say that
we are going to do it so we tan drain
off more talent and more skills from
other countries.
Two categories of the pending bill
aroused my attention. On page 22 of the
report, commenting on section 3 of the
bill, it is pointed out that 20 percent each
of the 170,000 will be used to take care
of unmarried "sons or daughters of U.S.
citizens, and husbands, wives, and un-
married sons or daughters of alien resi-
dents.
A little further on-in the subsection, it
is stated that 10 percent of the 170,000
are to be made up of skilled or unskilled
persons capable of filling labor shortages
in the United States?that is, 17,000 in
the category of the professions, scientists,
and artists that we are proposing to drain
off each year from other countries and
bring them to this country.
It is proposed to let into this country
17,000 skilled or unskilled persons capa-
ble of filling labor shortages in the
United States.
Where is the labor shortage that we
are undertaking to accommodate? My
understanding is that we have unem-
ployment in certain areas. My recollec-
tion is that We passed a $1 billion Appa-
lachia bill to take a sweep acrois a great
portion of the country and trYlo rehabil-
itate that Section. MY recollection is
that we passed another bill proposing a
study of other regional developments
where there are supposed to be depressed
conditions.
Where is the demand for foreign labor
In this country?except on some farms,
by some fruit producers and others in the
southern part of the Nation or in the
western or Pacific Coast areas where
fruits and citrus are grown?
When there was a demand for workers
in Florida, we had to fight for bills on
the floor over and over again to try to
get a little temporary help during the
season when the labor was needed most.
Mr. President, it seems to me that our
country, now streaking toward unprece-
dented expenditures to combat poverty,
to increase welfare programs, to provide
more job retraining, to provide rent sub-
sidies with wage subsidies lurking around
the corner?has absolutely no business
liberalizing its immigration laws.
Why should we bring to this country
persons from other countries, when their
skills and training are needed in those
countries? We appropriate money and -
give it to other countries on the pretext
that we are trying to develop underde-
veloped areas. At the same time we pro-
pose to take away from those countries
the very brains that are necessary, that
those countries already possess, which
can help those countries get out of a state
of underdevelopment and into a state of
a developed economy and society. It
does not make sense.
We are told that millions of Americans
today are existing on poverty wages and
we are spending more and more morieSrlo
raise their standard of living. Why, in
the face of this national problem, should
we deliberately add to it? Why should
we compound the problem by letting
down the floodgates and admitting thou-
sands and thousands of additional immi-
grants? Do we have an obligation to the
world to do this? The answer is no,
and we will be unwise and imprudent to
dolt.
America has?and has had for years?
the most liberal and compassionate im-
migration policy of any nation in the
world. According to testimony given be-
fore the Senate Judiciary Committee,
other countries of the world are not only
highly discriminatory in their immigra-
tion policy?indeed, some even preclude
immigration of any sort. This latter
policy is probably the ultimate in dis-
crimination as used by the proponents of
this bill. But lam not aware of any
great rush on the part of such countries
to alter their national policy simply be-
cause someone says it is discriminatory.
I think it is high time we practice more
discrimination?discrimination in favor
of America's self-interest. It saddens me
to see that it has become completely out
of vogue for an American to embrace na-
tionalism. For some time there has been
a trend in this country toward con-
formity, toward the norm with the re-
sultant_ lowering of standards of the
whole society. The immigration policy
provided for in the pending bill would
seek to extend that lowering of standards.
This despite the cries for excellence that
rang so eloquently across the land just a
few brief years ago.
For example, Australia bars all except
the white race; Canada bars practically
all Asiatic people; Israel excludes all but
those of Jewish origin. Switzerland ac-
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67600446R000100290002-8
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 CIA-RDP671300446R000100290002-8
23666 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE September 21, 1965
eepts no immigrants. Russia admits
only by special arrangement; and Eng-
land has further tightened her immigra-
tion laws even as they relate to members
of its Commonwealth. So if there is to
be world criticism of immigration
policy?if that is in order?let it be di-
rected to those countries and not against
the one country of the world which has
consistently taken the most humanitar-
ian attitude toward foreigners.
As I stated a few moment ago, im-
migration is not a right, but a privilege,
and it should be treated as such. If it is
in our own self-interest to restrict im-
migration?RS every great nation of the
world does?then let us frankly do so
without apologies, and not enact this ill-
advised piece of legislation.
Many proponents orthis bill base their
plea for support on humanitarian
grounds. I say to them that the greatest
service that this Nation can perform for
-the world is to remain strong, eco-
nomically and militarily. The greatness
of America just did not happen. This
Nation achieved its greatness by dedica-
tion to the principles of self-government,
to hard work and a strong sense of na-
tionalism. And I say that liberalizing
our present immigration policy will only
tend to dilute rather than to augment
our strength.
- What higl. purpose do we serve by let-
ting dOwn the bars? -Certainly we can-
not hope to relieve the overpopulated
areas of the world by easing immigra-
tion restrictions. The very idea is sheer
folly. It is equally a disservice in my
mind to establish an expanded immigra-
tion policy that seeks to drain the profes-
sional and the skilled workers from oth-
er nations who need them far more des-
perately than we do. By promoting this
so-called brain-drain on underdeveloped
countries, whose purpose do we serve?
Is that not a selfish attitude on our part?
And if we are to be selfish at all, then
let us be so at the threshold and set real-
istic immigration figures. Certainly I
contend that no useful purpose is served
by setting a completely arbitrary fig-
ure.
One of the crying issues of the day is
the problem of birth Control, and how to
check the population explosion. America
is currently faced with the problems of
the burgeoning cities, the need for more
and more schoolrooms, better housing,
more hospitals and highways. Local
governments are stretching dollars to
meet the need for more and more serv-
ices. The tax dollars are split as finely as
possible. Yet we in the Congress are
presented with an iminigration bill that
would admit more and more people to
further sap, if not burden, our resources.
We have had an influx of immigrants
at the rate of some 500,000 per year for
the past decade. It has been estimated
that this bill will increase that figure by
at least another 50,000land perhaps more.
Personally, I would think that another
100,000 per year would be a much more
realistic figure, bearing in mind the cur-
rent unlimited immigration from Latin
American countries and the tremendous
population increases Currently being ex-
perienced in those countries. It has been
estimated that the present population of
163 million in South America will mush-
room up to 600 million by the year 2000.
This can only portend more and more
immigrants from that area of the world.
In addition to the 4 or 5 million immi-
grants admitted to this country since
World War II, -we have given asylum to
more than 700,000 refugees and displaced
Persons. This action is a positive mani-
festation of this country's humanitarian
concern for the oppressed people of the
world. I wonder, however, how we can
afford to remove the restrictions in our
present immigration law and still main-
tain sufficient flexibility to offer asylum
to any future refugees and displaced per-
sons. And the tumultuous events of to-
day's world would certainly indicate that
the need for our accommodating refu-
gees or displaced persons has not ended,
and there is the strong possibility that it
may be tremendously increased.
As further evidence of the fact that
our present law is not too restrictive?
or sufficiently policed?as the case may
be, consider an estimate by the Senate
Internal Security Subcommittee that
some one-half million aliens enter this
country illegally every year. With the
population explosion echoing around the
world, attempts to enter this Country il-
legally will undoubtedly increase, as will
efforts to further liberalize and dilute
any immigration law we might enact, in-
cluding the bill now before us.
The enactment of the pending bill
would encourage and invite further ef-
forts to greater liberalization until ulti-
mately, for all practical purposes, we
shall have no immigration law.
With our millions of unemployed?
with our millions of poverty stricken?
with our housing shortage?classroom
shortage?hospital and nursing require-
ments?and burgeoning cities?how can
we hope to alleviate conditions here at
home by letting down the floodgates for
the streams of ever more immigrants
seeking entry?legally and illegally?into
this country? Have we not already
reached a reasonable limit?
This Congress recently created another
Cabinet post designed to take care of the
problems of the urban areas. Yet under
the proposed immigration bill we will be
letting in enough people in 1 year to
populate a larger metropolitan area.
Where is the rationale in such a practice?
By easing the restrictions on immigra-
tion we therefore make it easier for those
elements who hold beliefs inimical to our
own best interests to gain admission.
The internal security of this Nation is
already threatened to some degree from
members of the Communist Party with-
in our borders. More adherents to that
Ideology will be admitted through the
Instrument of the pending bill.
Will the addition of still more minority
groups from all parts of the world lessen
or contribute to the increasing racial
tensions and violence we are currently
witnessing on the streets of our major
cities? Will our crime problems be less-
ened or heightened by the influx, of the
new hordes from the far reaches of the
world? Under the national origins sys-
tem, an effort was made to bring into this
Country those people who demonstrated
the ability to assimilate readily into our
culture and civilization. Will the new
people to be admitted under the terms
of this bill so assimilate, or will they
end to gather into ghettoes? We are told
repeatedly that our society is to blame
far allowing ghettoes to exist now, and
attempts are made to rationalize away
riots and acts of violence on the ghetto
environment. If that is so, will not the
new bill contribute to the creation of still
more ghettoes and thus more and more
acts of violence and riots?
Remember that under this bill, immi-
gration will shift from those European
countries that contributed most to the
formation of this Nation to the countries
of Asia and Africa.
We are told that we need this bill, but,
Mr. President, I have searched the record
In vain to find out why. Certainly it
cannot seriously be founded on the
premise that the present law embarrasses
our diplomats.
The nations to which our diplomats
are accredited, and with whose represent-
atives they come in contact, have more
restrictive immigration laws than we
have. So why should we be embarrassed?
It is not apparent to me that we are
in such desperate need of "skilled tech-
nicians from abroad that we must pass
this bill. In fact, I can tell Senators
that not one single employer of the State
of Arkansas has asked me to find him
a skilled foreigner to work in his factory.
Perhaps the situation is a little different
in other areas of the country, but it
would be interesting to know how many
Members of Congress have received re-
quests from the major employers in their
States seeking skilled immigrants.
I might also note that I am a bit puz-
zled by the professed support of this
measure by our labor leaders. How, in
the face of unemployment, can they
justify support for increased immigra-
tion? If I were a union member, a
worker who belonged to a union, I would
want some explanation of that detri-
mental policy.
Aside from the immigrant, I still hav.
not found out to whom the alleged bene-
fits of this bill will flow?to pressure
groups, to foreign governments, to im-
migration lawyers, to embarrassed Amer-
ican diplomats? It seems that this
administration?which is noted for its
proclivity for survey and is often termed
"consensus-conscious"?is a way off base
by offering the bill now before the Senate
bill to liberalize our immigration pro-
gram in the face of majority opposition
of the American people. I am aware of
no clamoring for this legislation; in-
deed, as indicated, widespread public
opinion runs counter to this bill, if we
can believe a Harris survey conducted
May 31, 1965. I quote from that survey,
entitled: "U.S. Public Is Strongly Op-
posed To Easing of Immigration Laws":
The American public, although largely
descended from people who came to a new
land to escape the persecution, famine, and
chaos of other lands, today by better than
2-to-1 opposes changing immigration laws
to allow more people to enter this country.
What is more, President Johnson's proposal
that immigrants be admitted on the basis of
skills rather than by country quotas meets
with tepid response.
In fact, a survey of public opinion reveals
that Americans prefer people from Canada
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67600446R000100290002-8
September 21, 19RP
roved E,,tieggiEgifT1igorcekbRffigiTsli3M146R000100290002-8
and Northern and Western Europe as im-
migrants and tend to oppose immigrants
from Latin America, Southern and Eastern
Europe, Russia, the Middle East, and Asia.
The American people have a right to
know just whose interests we seek to
serve by passing this legislation. Are we,
by passing this bill, acting in the national
interest? Do we really need added
hordes of new immigrants to further
multiply the many acute domestic prob-
leMs we face today? Or are we just
being magnanimous in Slavish addiction
to some strained concept of altruism?
I am well aware that all Americans?
aside from the native Indians?are de-
scended from immigrants and that it can
be truly said that we are a Nation of
immigrants. But there comes a time?
as with most things?when a saturation
point is reached and moderation should
- be practiced. I think we have long since
reached the point in this field where
moderation is needed. America, the
world's great melting pot, already run-
neth over. We need no increase in im-
migration.
We need no change in our immigra-
tion law, and we should tell those who
? criticize our policies to direct their com-
plaints at the other countries of the
world whose immigration programs are
far more restrictive than our liberal laws
and practices.
This measure should be defeated, and
I shall vote against it.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent, as I conclude my remarks, to have
printed at this point in the RECORD an
editorial entitled "Why Do We Want To
Bring More People to the United States?"
published in the North Little Rock Times
Of September 16, 1965.
There being no objection, the editorial
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
WHY Do WE WANT To BRING MORE PEOPLE
TO THE UNITED STATES?
Now before the Senate is President John-
son's immigration bill, which has as its major
purpose the repeal of the national origins
quota system. What this means is that if
the bill passes, the United States would favor
no nation over another one in accepting new
residents. We have been showing favoritism
since 1924?admitting immigrants in pro-
portion to the makeup of our population.
For instance, since there were many more
'descendants of Englishmen living in this
country than Italians the quota for Great
Britain was set at 65,361 and for Italy, 5,668.
This looked lite raw prejudice when viewed in
the light of the Great Society. So it had
to go, even though most other nations see
nothing wrong in being arbitrary and highly
selective about whom they let into their
country. Australia, for example, takes no
Negroes, Liberia accepts no white people.
Israel will take only Jews, and Japan and
Switzerland allow no immigrants at all.
Of more concern to us than the origins of
immigrants, however, is the number of them
who come in each year. We hope the Senate,
unlike the House, will be able to do more to
limit immigration. Why should we?be look-
ing for ways to bring in more people? There
are 7,200 persons born every day in this coun-
try, a rate that will give us a population of
? 240 milliQn people in 1980. Seventy percent
of our residents live in the cities?the exact
spot that all immigrants seem to head for.
Right now we are passing all kinds of social
legislation to eliminate poverty and reduce
unemployment, which, among Negroes was
,
at an alltime high last month. More and
more of our unskilled and underprivileged
Americans are going to find it harder to sup-
port themselves as machines replace men.
Many immigrants will join these ranks of
the unemployed, no matter how carefully
they are screened. A Brazilian off a coffee
plantation can live a thousand times better
on relief in Chicago or New York than he can
on his country's average per capita income
of $129 a year.
Now the bill has a ceiling of 170,000 for
the Eastern Hemisphere. The very least that
the Senate ought to do before it passes this
bill is to put some kind of a ceiling on the
nations in this hemisphere, too?especially
Latin America, where the population is going
to double in 20 years. Congressmen MILLS
and GATirixos did their best to get a quota
of 115,000 for the Western Hemisphere put
into the bill, but the amendment was de-
feated mainly because the State Department
said that it would embarrass the United
States to limit immigration from our neigh-
bor countries. Why should it embarrass us?
Great Britain was not embarrassed when it
reduced immigration from its own colonies
in the Caribbean from 20,000 to 8,500.
Plainly, the English are disturbed about un-
employment and the population explosion
and are trying to do something about it.
Why should we be ashamed to do likewise?
Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, I
suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING atorICER. The
clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call
the roll.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
Mr. RUSSELL of Georgia. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will resume the call of the roll.
The legislative clerk resumed the call
of the roll.
Mr. KUCHEL. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER-. Is there
objection? The Chair hears none, and
it is so ordered.
THE SITUATION IN THE DOMINICAN
REPUBLIC?TRIBUTE TO AMBAS-
SADOR W. TAPLEY BENNETT, JR.
Mr. RUSSELL of Georgia. Mr. Presi-
dent, during the past several days there
has been a great deal of discussion and
debate on the floor of the Senate, and,
indeed, in the press and throughout the
country, concerning the President's de-
cision last April to intervene in the
bloody civil strife that then gripped San-
to Domingo.
The President was compelled to send
U.S. Armed Forces to that riot-torn and
chaotic island in order to prevent the loss
Of American lives and property and to
prevent the Possibility of a Communist
takeover.
Now, 5 months later, the President's
prudent, patriotic, and forthright action
has come under heavy criticism by the
-distinguished chairman of the Foreign
Relations Committee, the Senator from
Arkansas [Mr. FuLsaiorrrl, and others
who apparently feel that there was no
real danger to American citizens on the
island and that the threat of a Commu-
nist takeover was exaggerated.
Mr. President, a great deal of the
23667
criticism of our actions In Santo Domin-
go is apparently not directed directly at
the President personally, but the charge
has been made by certain critics that the
President was a gullible victim of faulty
advice given, among others, by our Am-
bassador in Santo Domingo, Tapley Ben-
nett, Jr.
I wish to emphasize that I vigorously
and categorically disagree with this crit-
icism of American policy in Santo Do-
mingo. It was not my privilege to be in
the city of Washington when the decision
to intervene was taken. I was not at the
conference at the White House at which
some of our hindsighters were apprised
of the action that would be taken, but I
did discuss the matter with the Presi-
dent over the telephone from my home
in Georgia.
The President was kind enough to ask
me what I thought of the situation. I
asked him if there were any indications
of a definite Communist influence in the
so-called rebel forces. He stated that
there was little doubt that there was a
definite Communist influence there, and
I told him that, in my opinion, he had
no alternative other than to proceed to
send the Armed Forces to San Domingo
to avoid another Cuba.
No one, of course, can know definitely
what would have happened had the Pres-
ident not intervened when he did. But
we do know that, subsequent to the land-
ing of U.S. troops, the fighting was
brought to a halt and we do not have
today another Castroite dictatorship in
the Caribbean.
I do not know, Mr. President, how it
would be possible to measure in exact
numbers how many Communists must be
involved in an operation of this kind be-
fore it becomes dangerous to a republi-
can form of government, or to any other
form of government. We do know that
a mere handful of Communists took over
in Cuba, and many of the most valorous
soldiers who assisted Castro in the revo-
lution have been compelled to flee from
that island, their homeland, because they
are not Communists.
We also know that in the case of
Czechoslovakia, a very small percentage
of the people of that country were ac-
tually Communists; those who were Com-
munists but were smart enough, tough
enough, and mean enough to take to the
streets with weapons while the peace-
loving people took to their homes. As a
consequence, Czechoslovakia wound up
behind the Iron Curtain.
Mr. President, I do not intend at this
time to go into any extensive discussion
of what has happened over the world,
and recount the instances in which small
numbers of Communists have succeeded
in taking over the government of coun-
tries where the majority of people were
anti-Communist. Nor do I wish to go
into an extensive discussion of our Do-
minican policy at this time. I will say,
in passing, that I do not have the con-
fidence of some that we will be able to
establish a permanent republican form
of government in Santo Domingo under
the procedures we are now following.
Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. President,
will the Senator yield for a question?
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67600446R000100290002-8
Approved For IReleeinTEVAgli/RAIIIM.7r133004A60.01(il 00290002-8
,september
23668
Mr. RUSSELL of Georgia. I yield to
the Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I do not wish
to draw the Senator into a discussion of
the illustrations he used a moment ago,
but it runs in my mind that there never
have been 20 percent of the Russian peo-
ple who are Communists, or even 10 per-
cent. In my judgment, less than 10 per-
cent of the people in Russia are Com-
munists.
Mr. RUSSELL of Georgia. Have never
been members of the Bolshevik orga-
nization; the Senator is absolutely cor-
rect in that.
Mr. HICKENLOOVEtt. Yes, the dis-
ciplined members of the Communist
Party.
Mr. RUSSELL of Georgia. That is
right. It only requires a very small per-
centage of dedicated Communists who
are absolutely indifferent to human life,
human suffering, human liberties, and
the rights of others, when a country is in
a chaotic condition, to seize the power
of government and impose their will on
the vast majority. It has happened time
and again.
Mr. HICKENLOOPER. The Senator
Is entirely correct.
Mr. RUSSELL of Georgia. I thank
the distinguished Senator from Iowa.
Mx. President, aside from this dis-
cussion, what concerns me today has
been the attempt to make a whipping
boy of Ambassador Tap Bennett by those
who happen to disagree with the policy
and the action of our National Govern-
ment.
Ambassador Bennett is an experienced
and distinguished career diplomat. It
happens that he is a native of my State.
I have known him since he was a small
boy. I have known his father and his
inOther for many years. I also knew
both of his grandfathers, and had the
honor to serve in the legislature in my
State, when I was the youngest member
of that body, with one of them. Only
last year, I enjoyed a midday meal,
which we still call dinner where I come
from, with Ambassador Bennett's father
and mother on their Franklin County
farm in the rolling red clay hills of
northeast Georgia.
I can assure the Senate that Ambassa-
dor Bennett does not come of a stock
that panics and frightens very easily;
he is a man of sound commonsense with
both feet on the ground, It is a grievous
disservice to this dedicated and patriotic
public servant to suggest that when the
chips were down and danger was im-
pending, he gave the President faulty
information and panicky advice.
I have known Ambassador Bennett in
other posts. I visited, him in Greece,
when he was serving in the Embassy
there. I have never known a career
diplomat who endeavors more strenu-
ously to keep in touch with the little
people in the country where he is sta-
tioned than does Ambassador Bennett.
He had visited virtually every Commu-
nity in the Dominican Republic prior to
the crisis, though he had not been in
that nation for any great length of time.
Last Friday, Ambassador Bennett was
guest speaker at a dinner given by the
professional communications media
groups in Atlanta. Characteristically,
he did not reply to his critics, but the
Ambassador did relate, from his rather
unique vantage point of having been on
the scene, some of the events that took
place in Santo Domingo during the
bloody fighting which initiated the revo-
lution. He also summarized three sa-
lient consequences that resulted from our
intervention in that fighting. They are
brief, and I should like to read them to
the Senate.
This is his own summary:
1. No American civilians lost their lives,
although one remembers with sadness that
24 gallant men of our Armed Forces gave their
lives in the stern tasks that fell their lot.
Close to 5,000 persons from 46 nations were
evacuated safely from the country. These
evacuees, almost 5,000 of them, went volun-
tarily, the departure of each testifying to his
individual estimate of the dangers in the
situation.
I interpolate here, Mr. President, to
say that that is a point that I have not
yet heard made, that almost 5,000 citi-
zens of 46 nations, who were in Santo
Domingo and saw what was taking place,
thought it was an extremely dangerous
and precarious situation, and voluntarily
left the country. Many of them left be-
hind substantial business interests. I
have talked to two or three citizens of
my State who were engaged in agricul-
ture in there, who left, and there was no
doubt in their minds but that it was a
very dangerous situation?one that they
considered to be critical insofar as pre-
venting a Communist takeover in that
unfortunate state was concerned.
I resume the reading of the summary
by Ambassador Bennett:
2, The Communists were prevented from
taking over in a chaotic situation and push-
ing aside democratic elements involved in
the revolt. Communist tactics contributed
to the long delay in reaching a settlement,
but at the same time made their presence
more publicly apparent than had been the
case at the beginning. Their leadership has
not changed.
3. Another development which thankfully
did not occur as that the fighting did not
spread throughout the country, as seemed
decidedly possible on more than one occa-
sion. Disorders were confined to one or two
areas in the capital city, and a major civil
war with much wider consequences and un-
told loss of life was prevented.
Mr. President, I believe Ambassador
Bennett's remarks in Atlanta were ex-
tremely timely and pertinent to the cur-
rent debate and discussion of our Do-
minican policy, and I ask unanimous
consent that his address be published in
the RECORD at the conclusion of my re-
marks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. RUSSELL of Georgia. Mr. Presi-
dent, I also wish to call to the Senate's
attention a telegram warmly praising
Ambassador Bennett sent by President
Johnson on the occasion of the Ambassa-
dor's appearance in Atlanta. I ask unan-
imous consent to have this telegram and
an editorial appearing in the Atlanta
Journal of September 17 concerning the
Dominican discussion printed in the
RECORD following Ambassador Bennett's
speech.
21, 1965
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibits 2 and 3.)
Moats= 1
COMMUNICATIONS AS A KEY TO
UNDERSTANDING ?
(Address by Hon. W. Tapley Bennett, U.S.
Ambassador to the Dominican Republic on
receipt of the Big Beef Award at banquet
sponsored by Atlanta Chapters of Amer-
ican Women in Radio and Television, Pub-
lic Relations Society of America Sigma
Delta Chi Fraternity, Theda Sigma Phi
Sorority, Atlanta, Ga., Sept. 17, 1965)
Only this morning I flew away from an
island in the Caribbean which in recent
months has known the tragedy of civil strife
and the horrors of violence out of control.
Decisive action by your Government and
other governments of this hemisphere
brought an end to the major bloodletting.
After arduous and often frustrating negotia-
tions by a committee of the Organization
of the American States which lasted more
than 3 months, a path for rehabilitation and
reconstruction has now been marked out.
We have known violent rioting in our own
country in these past month, and the death
toll in the recent events in Los Angeles came,
I believe, to some 35. By way of perhaps in-
apt comparison estimates of the deaths in
Santo Domingo in the chaos of late April
and early May run up to 9,000. I personally
think that figure is too high, that a more
correct toll of that fraticidal strife would be
somewhere between 1,500 and 2,000. But no
one will ever know for certainty.
I recall the worst nights in April and May,
when up to 70 people were using my house
to catch a few hours of sleep. During that
period nine snipers were despatched from
their positions around the Embassy property,
on which my residence also stands. Condi-
tions were obviously not such as to permit
people to go to their homes, and they groped
their way up through the garden from office
to residence in the pitch black night?and
there is nothing darker than a tropical night
without a moon?in conditions resembling a
London blackout. Most of them stretched
out on the floor, after the first 15 to arrive
had got the available beds. By way of per-
sonal footnote?during the 6-week period
from April 25 to June 2, my kitchen served up
1,963 meals, feeding everyone from the Amer-
ican President's Special Assistant for Na-
tional Security Affairs to the Dominican
gardener's granddaughter.
I think back to the bravery of young
American girls, some of them in their first
tour of duty as secretaries abroad, sitting
calmly and typing away at 3 in the morning
on telegrams to Washington while guns
popped outside. Then there was the young
civilian officer who day after day drove a
highly flammable fuel truck through the
fighting downtown because the powerplant
had to be kept going?and then indignantly
refused an honor award offered him from
Washington with the comment that he was
only doing his duty. And there was the
petite woman officer who shouldered her way
time and again through an undisciplined
mob in one of the dock areas because she
had things to do in the customs warehouse.
And the Army lieutenant colonel on my staff
who interposed himself calmly between two
groups of men armed with submachineguns
when they were about to open fire on each
other, acting to protect several hundred
Americans awaiting evacuation who were
directly in the line of fire behind one group.
Somehow these simple acts of heroism didn't
seem often to get into the press accounts
of the crisis. And so here I pay tribute to
those who did their duty?and more?at an
anxious time.
Certainly none of us there will forget the
lift we got one night when President John-
son with great thoughtfulness, called up at
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67600446R000100290002-8
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67600446R000100290002-8
MISSING
PAGE
ORIGINAL DOCUMENT MISSING PAGE(S):
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67600446R000100290002-8
Approved For ea_ke AARDP67A00446RQ00100290002-8
September 21, 1965 CO CRESSIO AL R RD ? SE A E
tary is authorized to publish recom- court is three ed to accept in evidence the
mended standards. transcripts of proceedings before the
If a State fats to establish standards -:conference and healing' board and to
consistent with-the ?purposes of the act accept other evidence relevant to the
within 6 Months after 'promulgation cf alleged viorations and the standards.
the Stanclarda?unless the "Governer of The court is to giVe dile consideration to
aP. affected State requests a pUhlIc hear- the "practicability and physical and
ing within that period?the Seeretaiy is economic feisibility" Of complying with
authorized to promulgate his Proposed the standards in making judgments in
6tandards The Governor of an affected such cases.
State would be permitted to petition for There was one final set of compromises
a public hearing within the 6-month pe- in the conference. The House managers
nod after publication of the proposed agreed to recede on the House "subpena
standards and up to 30 days following section" and insisted that the Senate
promulgation of the'Secretary'S stand- recede on the Senate "patents section."
, ards. The Secretary is required to call Measures contained in both versions
' such a hearing and to appoint five or were: a 10-percent bonus in sewage
more members to the board. The Secre- treatment plant grants for those projects
tary of Commerce and the heads of other carried out In accordance with an area-
affected Federal departments and agen- wide plan; a 4-year, $20 million per
cies are to be given an opportunity to se- year research and development program
lect one member of the board. The same for new and improved methods of con-
right is accorded the Governor of each trolling the aischarge'of combined storm
affected State. It is the intent of the and sanitary sewage; authorization for
conferees that the hearing board repre- the Secretaly to initiate enforcement
sent a balance of Pederal and state in- proceedings-in cases *here he finds sub-
terests. stantfal economic injury results from the
The hearing board may recommend inability to Market shensh or shellfish
either: Pirst, establishment of the Secre- products as a result of water pollution
tary's standards; or second, modification 'reodkeeping and audit provisions
of those standards. The Secretarymust 'authority for the Secretary of Labor
adopt the board's recorfanendations. If set laboi r stdndards on projects financ
the board recomm e pends adoption of the through
this act under Reorganizati
ry
Secreta's standardse they become f all No. 14 of1950; and an addition
fective immediately on the Secretary's
Al' ssistant Secretary of Labor in the De-
receipt of the board's recommendations. Part ment of Health, Education, and Wel-
If the board recommends mo cations fare.
in the standards theSee'retiii Mr: President, I believe this act, as
modify them in 'accordance" Withhe earnded, will give strong impetus to our
board's repornm. endations and ,promul to control and abate water pollu-
gate them. The revised standards-be- Lion ? ancf to improve the quality of our
come effective On promulgation. evi- water supplies.
eons in established standards can be The conference report is signed by all
considered and proposed by the Secre- the conferees on the part of the Senate
tary on his OVii motion or Onrequeit by ,and by all of the conferees on the part of
the Governor of an affected State in ac- The nouse.
cordance with the to
2'3671.
was passed by the Senate last January,
and by the House in April, and I know
that great differences had to be resolved
before a final measure could be pre-
sented to the Congress.
' The measure is of particular impor-
tance to the drought-stricken Northeast
which must begin extensive water pollu-
tion control programs immediately, and
is particularly vital to the State of New
York, which will begin a $1.7 billion pro-
gram with the aid of these funds.
I would also like to call attention to
two changes in the final version of the
bill which I sought to have adopted here
In the Senate. The first raises the dol-
lar limitation on any single project from
$600,000 to $1,200,000. The second pro-
vides $50 million a year to the grants
program, such additional money to be
distributed on the basis of population
alone.
The conferees and the distinguished
chairman of th subcommittee, the Sen-
ator fro ai
cmmere to
measure.
Epipi
regomg procedures. CongressiOnal staff members have an
Violations of standards under the pro- Important role in any legislation. in the
TiSions of this act are Subject to Federal development of S. 4 and in the achieve-
abatement action. TT the Secretary -Ment of the conference report the Senate
finds such violation -he must - ,ta d Rouge staffs made an invaluable con-
ParZ,tifgtv4e 11
violators and hitereSt la iution to our success. I am particu-
the violators 6 months withinIfwhictntint clerk
Y indebted to Ron M. Linton, chief
comply with the standards. et Committee
and staff direftor of the Senate
end of that period, the violator If,
oirittee on Public Works, William
COMPIied,"the Secretary is authorizsdnii9 Hato enbranct, legislative assistant to Sen-
bring suit through a State's ?It e i r Eocas, and my administrative as-
general in the case of intrastate peornlluey- -s stant, Donald E. Nicoll, for their imagi-
tionOr tt.S Attrn
rough the .
erai in the east opy 66/1.. nation, patience, and skill in making su
Of
erstate pollution, `gestions and drafting successive version
Gr the bill. A similar contribution was
it
ade by the able and cooperativeHouse
staff members: Richard J. Sullivan, chief
ciou nsel of the House Committee on Pub-
lc Works; Maurice Tobin, assistant to Congressman? BLATNIK; Clifford W. En-
field, minority counsel of the House Corn-
.-mittee on Public Works; and Robert L.
oe Hwson, assistant legislative counsel for
'the House. Without their assistance we
could not have this report.
- Mr. President, I move the adoption of
'the report.
- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
-question is on agreeing to the c f
? under section 10(h). (1) or (2) of the
amended 'WateredyollUtion Control Act..
This'
enforcemente
Proced d
ure ff
ers
from the procedure folIowed'unde. r the
present act by Omitting the conference
and hearing board stages. Because there
Is a conference and hearing 15Oafd Uncle
the standard-setting Procedure -
managers fgr, the liouse and geriati e
-did
nbt consider a rePetition _p
of these _ro-
ceatings necessary Tn cases Of vrolithms
Of standards. The conference and ee ar-
frig board tagels reMain in enforceMnt
proceedings .arisinLput Of endangerment
.cvf *gar.e,Yylier
S*. an h
daraave not h
der exfsf-' . e a Pilhe as
,
un
mg law. '
courtproceedings resulting" a
from
suit for violation Of wafer -gnality stand-
ards established under this act, the
on erence
-report.
The report was agreed to.
AMS. Mr: President I am
most pleased that the conferees on S. 4
have reached an agreement. The bill
r. MusKiEl are to be
ir fine work on this
alf of the people of the
St , I express my most sincere
fort their efforts in securing final
e during this session.
AMENDMENT OF IMMIGRATION
AND NATIONALITY ACT
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill (H R. 2580) to amend the
Immigration and Nationality Act, and
for other purposes.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, I rise
to support H R 2580, a bill to amend the
Immigration and Nationality Act.
We are about to write one 9f the finest
pages in the human history of America,
this land where only the red man is na-
tive, this land of immigrants since
Columbus first set foot on this sacred
soil.
This soil is sacred in the sincere faith.
of every American in whose youth, or the
youth of his parent, this land of liberty
was just beyond the horizon of hope as
he viewed it from his native soil.
Then came the day of welcome, of op-
portunity, of responsibility, of obliga-
tion. The record shows their obligation
has been discharged by 40 million immi-
grants and their offspring; discharged in
faithful service and sacrifice supreme.
This is an honest hour in which we are
about to remedy one of the faults of 40
years, the national origins quota system.
This was a device for discriminating
against races and places. It was illogi-
cal, ill conceived, un-American. It
opened our doors wide to people who did
not wish to come, and did not come. It
closed our doors to the willing and the
worthy. It refused those ready to share
our prospects and our perils. It mocked
our Founding Fathers; those who set our
standards of decency and dignity, those
who saw all men equal as created by
their God.
This inequity of 40 years ago was com-
pounded by the Immigration and Na-
tionality Act of 1952. This codified the
restrictions of the twenties?and con-
firmed the quota system.
Today, we are correcting that miscon-
ception of America's purpose.
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67600446R000100290002-8
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 .? CIA-RDP671300446R00010029002-8
23672 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE September 21, 1965
I have worked for it throughout the
15 years I have been a Senator.
I worked for it not only because the
quota system was an injustice to the
worthy, would-be immigrant?and I am
the son of immigrants.
I worked for it because I am a Senator
of the United States?and it is an injus-
tice to my country to turn away the clean
of heart, the sound of mind, the strong
of body, the soul stirred by the adven-
ture and opportunity that America
means.
I have worked constantly, continu-
ously, consistently, to make our immi-
gration laws speak the true spirit of
America without inviting to our shores
more people than we know we can afford
to welcome.
Mine was no lonely stand. I have
served under five Presidents of these
United States. Each of them; with a
responsibility higher than mine, an
understanding deeper than mine, and
an authority greater than mine, has
pressed for this triumph of justice.
This is a great hour for President
Harry Truman. He called the quota sys-
tem "at variance with American ideals?
out of date?invidious discrimination"
and in June 1952 he vetoed the act of
1952. It was passed over his veto.
It is an hour of satisfaction for Presi-
dent Eisenhower.
In 1952, in his state of the Union mes-
sage, he said of our immigration laws:
Existing legislation contains injustices. It
does, in fact, discriminate. I am therefore
requesting Congress to review this legisla-
tion and to enact a statute which will at
one and the same time guard our legitimate
national Interest and be faithful to our
basic ideas of freedom and fairness to all.
Again in 1956, President Eisenhower
addressed the Congress on immigration,
saying:
The national origins method needs to be
4reexamined and a new system adopted which
will admit aliens within allowable numbers
according to new guidelines and standards.
We did not have to wait for John F.
Kennedy to be elevated to the White
House to know his mind in this matter,
and President Lyndon B. Johnson has
been faithful to his memory and to his
trust in his earnest advocacy of equity
In these laws.
I will not stress the convictions and
dedication of these two leaders. We
knew these men?Lyndon B. Johnson
and John F. Kennedy?on this Senate
floor. We knew these men and we knew
their minds and their hearts.
I will borrow a few lines from a news-
paper editorial back home. It says:
Immigration reform is essential. A few
moments before his death, President Ken-
nedy launched a renewed effort to wipe out
patent inequities of U.S. Immigration policy.
President Johnson has continued it
The very simplicity of those sentences
make them eloquent.
Through the years I was honored to
be associated with Senator John F. Ken-
nedy?as I joined with him and he
joined with me in immigration measures
beyond count.
John F. Kennedy, who owed his Amer-
ican day to his immigrant /*bears, felt
deeply, spoke honestly, and acted earn-
estly in wanting America to keep faith
with the world. It is a world that looks
to us for standards of decency and dig-
nity?of equity and fair play.
John Kennedy's Immortal test?Ask
not what America can do for you?ask
only what you can do for America?
would still be his test.
He would remember what the immi-
grant had done for America?and the
need that still exists that our character
and courage and culture continue to be
stimulated by the qualities and equities
that made our history. These are the
qualities and equities that gave our
country growth to greatness in a world
that has become too small to permit us
to be too smug?too self-centered.
The act of 1952 was far from satisfy-
ing many of us?and it did not silence
us. In these 13 years we have not
merely marked time. By dint of dedi-
cation and determined effort, we have
made more than a score of corrections,
exceptions, alterations, improvements,
and advancements in our immigration
laws.
And now we make the major reform in
the iniquitous?and I say that ad-
visedly?quota system.
Two years ago, President John F.
Kennedy asked us to eliminate this dis-
crimination. His message might be
summarized in these excerpts:
The use of the national origins system is
without basis in logic or reason. It neither
satisfies a national need nor accomplishes an
International purpose * * * in an age of
interdependence among nations.
After 2 years, we are making our re-
sponse with this remedy. It seems his-
toric justice that the response?in large
part?is being made for us by another
Senator from Massachusetts?a Senator
bearing the name of Kennedy.
It might seem too emotional to call
this measure a memorial to anyone. So
I will just say it is an American mile-
stone?another measurement which
finds its principle in equality of oppor-
tunity?and finds its proof in the record
of responsibility of those to whom the
opportunity was given. That record is
written on every page of American his-
tory?and no page is ,more American
than the one we are writing today.
Mr. President, it is my fervent hope
that this measure will pass by an over-
whelming majority.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr.
President, will the Senator from Rhode
Island yield?
Mr. PASTORE. I am glad to yield to
the Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. As
a member of the committee, and Senator
in charge of the bill, let me express my
great appreciation for the statement of
the Senator from Rhode Island. He has
been a Member of this body for many
more years than I have, arid I know that
this is a subject in which he has been
greatly interested. His statement this
afternoon has summarized and captured
the fundamental theme which is basic to
this legislation before the Senate. The
Senator from Rhode Island has once
again addressed himself to, provided en-
lightenment on, and brought to bear a
dedication and interest on this problem,
which I know all Senators fully appre-
ciate. Therefore, I commend the Sena-
tor from Rhode Island for his support of
the bill, and I ask all Senators to read
his remarks.
Mr. PASTORE. I thank the Senator
from Massachusetts.
If I have said it once I have said it a
hundred times?we do not wish one more
person to come to this land than can be
comfortably absorbed into our way of life.
We do not wish one more person to come
to this country who will take a job away
from an American?and I have heard
that accusation made.
"How many" is not so important as
"how." The number is not so important
as the method.
Today America is the beacon light of
mankind. America is the hope and envy
of the world. America wears the mantle
of leadership. How we act and how we
speak has repercussions all over the
world. Let us do away with discrimi-
nation, because discrimination is invidi-
ous to our way of life. What we want
is equality and fairness. We want only
good people to come to America, who
will contribute to the welfare and gran-
deur of America.
I am not disturbed about numbers. I
do not care haw big or small the number
Is made, but once that number is arrived
at, it should be meted out with equality
and justice to all. We should say equal-
ly to an individual, "You can come here
for what you can do for America." That
is the only just way.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts.
Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. PASTORE. I yield.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts.
The Senator from Rhode Island has
touched on the most basic point of this
legislation. We have often heard in
speeches in opposition to the legislation
that because other countries throughout
the world have discriminatory and re-
strictive immigration policies, it is rea-
sonable to argue that our immigration
policy, in the year 1965, should be dis-
criminatory. The Senator from Rhode
Island, however, has underscored the
fundamental point that, as the leader of
the free world, and as a country that
tries to demonstrate leadership in the
whole cause of democracy and freedom,
it is essential that our immigration law
reflect our fundamental belief in the
dignity and worth of the individual.
That is the theme of the remarks of the
Senator from Rhode Island. It is basic
to this legislation. It is something that
all Senators should reflect upon. When
they do, I believe they will find that this
immigration legislation is fundamentally
based on the dignity of the individual.
It is in keeping with the growth of a
stronger national policy as regards in-
dividual rights that has been reflected
in many other measures enacted by the
Congress in recent years.
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67600446R000100290002-8
roved MrNReirms
September 21, flap
House of Representatives and have this
legislatIon enacted.
I raise my 'hat today to the memory
of John Fitzgerald Kennedy and to the
Ieadership'of President Lyndon Johnson.
By their efforts America takes a prouder
place in the galaxy of nations in a world
that seeks fairness and freedom.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. PASTORE. I yield.
Mr. JAVITS. I have heard the Sen-
ator from Rhode Island speak eloquently
before. I have always enjoyed his
speeches. Today I compliment the Sen-
ator on the deep feeling he has expressed
in the matter to which he has just ad-
dressed himself. I have heard the Sen-
ator speak on immigration bills before,
the so-called pistol point bills that the
Senate has' passed from time to time
because we could not get anything else.
This is one issue that absorbs the
humanitarian and patriotic feelings of
the Senator from Rhode Island. I con-
gratulate him for his outstanding speech.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I vigor-
ously support the immigration reform
bill of 1965.
Our present immigration law has split
families, forced us to forgo talents
needed for American science, education,
and industry, and has discriminated be-
tween peoples on the basis of the country
of their birth, without regard to the
hardship thus caused them, their fam-
ilies, and the United States.
The basis for our immigration laws for
the last 41 years has been a discrim-
inatory system called the national origins
system, designed to freeze the ethnic bal-
ance of our country in the form it had in
1920.
Instead of asking an immigrant what
he can do for America, the national
origins system has asked only, "Where
were you born?"
Instead of setting a limit on immigra-
tion and admitting persons under that
limit on the basis of their ability and
desire to immigrate the national origins
system has rejected many of those who
have wanted to immigrate and offered
permission to immigrate to people who
have no such desire.
The unfairness and discriminatory
nature of the national origins quota sys-
tem is nowhere more clearly demon-
strated than by the fact that in the last
20 years Congress has acted 10 times to
alleviate its hardships, and in the last
decade alone has passed hundreds of
pieces of special legislation to allow
373,000 individuals into the country who
were ineligible for admission under our
present immigration laws.
For as long as I have been in the Con-
gress, I have worked for a reasonable re-
form in the immigration laws.
I have introduced numerous bills deal-
ing with immigration reform and have
cosponsored others.
My efforts and those of my colleagues
to bring rationality and compassion into
Mr. PASTOR. I give the Senator
from ,Massachusetts a more dramatic
and classic example of why the free
world is secure today. Why is it se-
cure? Because the United States has
primacy in nuclear and thermonuclear
weapons. This country is the bastion
of freedom and liberty in an imperiled
world today because of its primacy in
that field.
In 1939 Niels Bohr, a Nobel Prize win-
ner, and a great Danish scientist, came
to the United States to meet Enrico
Fermi, here as a refugee from Italy. His
wife was a Jewess. He refused to return
to Mussolini's Italy after receiving the
Nobel Prize in 1938 because she was sub-
ject to persecution in Mussolino's Italy.
Fermi smuggled her across the frontier,
and fled to America.
When Neils Bohr landed in New York,
the man who met him there was Enrico
Fermi. Neils Bohr told Fermi about
two scientists in Germany, Strassmann
and Hahn, who were ready to break the
atom and who were on the verge of a
' significant nuclear discovery. Enrico
Fermi, an Italian, and Neils Bohr, a
Dane, went to see Professor Szilard, a
Jewtsh refUgee from the persecution of
Europe. So we are talking about Amer-
ica as a haven. The exiled scientists
talked it over. They were deeply con-
cerned over the , possibility that Hitler
might achieve the bomb. They went to
see another scientist by the name of Al-
bert Einstein, another Jew, another refu-
gee from persecution. Those four men
aroused Arneripa to its peril. Albert
Einstein wrote the famons letter to
President,Agosevelt. Roosevelt had the
courage to give the "go-ahead." The
best-kept secret of the war was launched.
This country then invested the money
and began our research for the atomic
bomb. How prophetic is the date
of December 2, 1942. 1942-1492. Trans-
form those dates. Columbus in 1492,
Enrico Fermi in 1942. It was Enrico
Fermi in 1042 who, at Stagg Stadium in
Chicago, first achieved an atomic Chain
reaction. He gave America the atomic
bomb.
If we had followed the logic of those
who are opposed to this legislation, we
Would have handcuffed America. We
would not have had an Enrico Fermi,
We would not have had, a Professor Szi-
lard. We would not have had an An2ert
Einstein. We would not have had Niels
Bohr. And we would not have primacy
In the development of a weapon that has
protected the cause of freedom in the
free world for these 20 years.
I am urging that it makes no difference
what the race is, it makes no difference
what the nationality is, it Takes no dif-
ference what the place of birth is. What
counts is the contribution that a person
can make to this great America of ours.
Let us open our doors and open our
hearts to such people. Let us remove a
stigma which would be a blot on Ameri-
can history. I am glad we are meeting
today. I am hopeful we shall meet the
/01116,: cl&RDP67BOD446R000100290002-8
L RECORD --- SENATE 23673
our immigration laws have been met with
some siiddeas.
Four times since 195'7 we have made
special provision for relatives of Ameri-
can citizens and for orphans.
Six times since 1948 we have enacted
laws to allow immigration by refugees.
And every year many private immigra-
tion bills are passed, each of them in-
tended to help people who are caught up
unjustly in the rigidities of the national
origins quota system.
But systematic and thoroughgoing re-
vision of the unfair and discriminatory
aspects of our immigration laws has yet
to be accomplished.
This year I am cosponsor of S. 500, the
Senate version of the bill now pending
before the Senate, to make the changes
in our immigration law which our econ-
omy needs, which our citizens want, and
which American tradition demands.
This immigration reform bill is not
designed to increase immigration.
In fact, it will not authorize a signifi-
cant increase over the number of immi-
grants now allowed to enter the United
States annually.
There will be some increase in im-
migration to the United States, but not
more than three ten-thousandths of 1
?percent a year of our present population.
The reason for this increase is not
primarily that the bill authorizes more
immigrants, but rather because the bill
provides for more efficient and fairer ad-
ministration of the whole immigration
system.
And most of this increase is devoted to
a special category to admit up to 10,200
refugees, a change which I have long
wanted to see made.
The immigration reform bill will au-
thorize the immigration of 1'70,000 per-
sons from outside the Western Hemi-
sphere each year.
Immigration from within the Western
Hemisphere will be limited to 120,000 a
year. Previously it has been unrestricted.
If these quotas are filled every year,
our total annual immigration will
amount to litle more than 11/2 percent
of our total population this year. By
1980, it will be barely more than 1 per-
cent of what our population will be in
that year.
Within these overall limits, permission
to immigrate will be allocated on a first-
come, first-served basis, with first pref-
erence to the families of immigrants al-
ready here and a 20,000-person annual
limitation on any one country.
The bill also gives preference to peo-
ple whose professional, scientific, or ar-
tistic ability will substantially benefit the
United States.
The bill contains a new feature de-
signed to protect U.S. workers from un-
employment. It requires each immi-
grant to obtain a certificate from the
Secretary of Labor that his presence in
the United States will not affect U.S.
employment, wages, or working condi-
tions.
Approved For Release 2004/01/16* CIA1RDP67B00446R000100290002-8
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67600446R000100290002-8
23674 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE September 21, 1965
In short, Mr. President, the immigra-
tion reform bill replaces outmoded prej-
udice with rationality.
It provides compassion for separated
families and protection for the United
States worker.
It replaces distinctions based on na-
tionality with distinctions based on in-
dividual worth and qualification.
The immigration reform bill will re-
place the existing law which makes a
man's ability to be reunited with his
family depend on the country in which
he was born.
It will replace the law which has kept
from our shores people whose skills we
need to make our Nation stronger.
It will replace the law which has kept
us from helping refugees from natural
and manmade horrors to make a useful
life for themselves and for our society
in America.
It will replace a law which has con-
tradicted the American heritage.
All of us in this country who do not
descend from Indians are immigrants.
Our Nation's greatest is as much due
to our diversity and our ability to live
together as to any other factor in Amer-
ican life.
On our Statute of Liberty in New York
Harbor we have written:
Give roe your tired, your poor, Your hud-
dled masses yearning to breathe free. Send
these, tlae homeless, tempest-tossed to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.
For 41 years a discriminatory immi-
gration law has barred and tarnished
our Golden Door. It Is time to strike
down those bars and restore its splendor.
It is time to pass the Immigration Re-
form Act of 1965.
Mr. SMATHERS. Mr. President, I
support the pending legislation which
amends the Immigration and Nationality
Act of 1952 because I sincerely believe
that it makes necessary and needed
changes in existing law. These changes,
in my opinion, protect the national secu-
rity, as well as the economic well-being
of this Nation.
The very able and distinguished Sena-
tor from Massachusetts [Mr. KENNEDY],
the very able and distinguished Senator
from Michigan [Mr. HART], as well as the
very able and distinguished Senator from
North Carolina [Mr, Eavig], have previ-
ously pointed out in detail the provisions
of the pending measure, Therefore, I
will not take the time of the Senate to
repeat what has already been adequately
and fully explained.
I would, however, like to briefly com-
ment upon the change made in the ad-
justment provisions contained in sec-
tion 245 of existing law. The change
made in this section does not repeal its
provisions. Frankly I do not think there
is any member of the Judiciary Com-
mittee who felt that this section should
be repealed. However, the committee
felt and rightly so that some leeway
should be made when normal procedures
cannot be followed by virtue of circum-
stances such as those which brought
about the entry into this coimtry of some
250,000 Cuban refugees since 1959.
Under section 13 of the ?bill, qualified
Cuban refugees will be afforded an op-
portunity for adjustment of status from
parolee to permanent residence upon
application made to the Attorney Gen-
eral of the United States without depart-
ing therefrom. I would like to point out
that the provision is permissive rather
than mandatory and does not blanket all
Cuban refugees with an adjustment of
status. The usual screening process will
apply in all cases.
Many of us are familiar with the Fed-
eral program of assistance administered
by the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare designed to render effective
asylum to Cuban refugees with oppor-
tunities for self-support, chiefly through
resettlement. The program is carried
out in cooperation with volunteer agen-
cies, religious bodies, and civic organiza-
tions.
Unfortunately, many of the Cuban
refugees who are skilled in the practice
of law, medicine, and teaching have
found it very difficult to apply their skills
not only to the detriment of themselves,
but to the detrhment of our Nation as
well. This is chiefly due to the fact that
most States require individuals to have
either permanent status or citizenship in
order to practice their skills or profes-
sions.
I feel that the action taken by the Sen-
ate Judiciary Committee in amending
section 245 of existing law is commend-
able indeed, and certainly will assist
greatly in phasing out the Cuban refugee
program.
By and large the Cuban refugees are a
highly skilled group. It is estimated
that at least 50 percent of them are in
the professional, technical, and mana-
gerial fields. This change in section 245
will speed up the resettlement of these
refugees and relieve their present de-
pendency on public and private assist-
ance programs. Such action is in our
own national interest.
As a whole the pending bill will great-
ly improve existing law. As reported
out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I
sincerely trust that my colleagues in the
Senate will give the measure their whole-
hearted support.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
committee amendment is open to amend-
ment.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I sug-
gest the absence of a quorum.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call
the roll.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OiggiCER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the pending
measure be temporarily set aside, so that
the conference report on the Defense
Department appropriation bill may be
called up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection? The Chair hears none, and it
is so ordered.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPRO-
PRIATION BILL, 1966?CONFER-
ENCE REPO
Mr. President, I sub-
of the committee of con-
he disagreeing votes of the
s on the amendments of the
the bill (H.R. 9221) making
ations for the Department of
for the fiscal year ending June
and for other purposes. I ask
consent for the present con-
e report.
OggeiCER (Mr. Rus-
ina in the chair).
for the informa-
Mx. S
mit a repo
ference o
two Ho
Senate
appropr
Def ens ?
30, 196
unanimo
sideration o
The PRESID
SELL of South Car
The report will be re
tion of the Senate.
The legislative cler
(For conference
proceedings of Sep
23071, CONGRESSIO
The PRESIDIN
objection to th
of the report?
There being
proceeded t
Mr. S
and-nay
this conf
plannin
Some ite
a history
speak fora
utes. This confe
to, will be succeeded
conference report on
struction appropriati
case, too, there will
yea-and-nay vote,
tion will be made.
Mr. President
Department a
year 1966, as
the comini
Houses co
000 in ne
Army,
Force.
amount
698,919,0
the House.
84
read the report.
eport, see House
mber 15, 1965, p.
L RECORD.)
OFFICER. Is there
present consideration
no objection, the Senate
onsider the report.
NIS. Mr. President, a yea-
ote will not be asked for on
rence report. So far as we are
we shall not ask for such a vote.
S need to be explained, so that
ay be made. I propose to
imately 15 or 20 min-
e report, if agreed
ediately by the
the military con-
n bill, and in that
e no request for a
ut a short explana-
? .
?4
.R. 9221, the Defense
ropriation bill for fiscal
greed to unanimously by
ee of conference of both
ains a total of $46,766,419,-
obligational authority for the
vy, Marine Corps, and Air
is is $10.1 million over the
rovided by the Senate and $1,-
over the amount provided by
It is a reduction from the
*1
revised budg stimate of $85,681,000.
I ask unani consent to have
printed at this nom n the RECORD a
tabulation by appropria ion titles, giving
the appropriation for cal year 1965,
the budget estimates fo fiscal year 1966,
the House and Senat allowances, and
the conference action,'
There being no objection, the tabula-
tion was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP671300446R000100290002-8