Speech #900284839

Mr. Speaker. some 36 Members of the House have introduced identical legislation to overcome unanticipated and inequitable effects of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 by establishing a floor under the immigration levels from every nation. As the primary sponsor of this bill. H.R. 16593. I am anxious to see this legislation acted upon by the full House. Our working deadline of July 1. when the 1965 act went fully into effect. has already come and gone. Immigration from Ireland. the country most seriously affected by the 1965 act is expected to decline to onetenth of its traditional level. A hearing held by the Subcommittee on Immigration and Nationality of the Judiciary Committee on July 3 to consider H.R. 16593 and similar proposals has not resulted in further action. Now the deadline of adjournment is upon us. It is imperative that the Congress pass remedial legislation this year. H.R. 16593 makes sure that no nation would suffer a severe reduction in its level of immigration to the United States as a result of the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. The bill provides that a "floor" shall be established for every nation. based on Its average level of immigration to the United States during the decade prior to the enactment of the 1965 act. The floor would in no way be based on the former quota. but only on the actual numbers which came in during those years. The bill provides a floor. equivalent to 75 percent of the annual average level of Immigration during the 195665 base period. or 10.000. whichever is less. To the extent that immigration falls below the floor for a given fiscal year. extra numbers will be provided the following year. so that total immigration equals the established floor. H.R. 16593 is not in anyway a reversion to old national origins quota system. Under the 1965 act the immigration preferences are drawn in such a way that much of the potential immigration from several countries in Western Europe. which cannot meet the qualifications. is screened out. This is no more equitable than the old explicit national restrictions. which screened out Asians and Africans. If the State Departments projections at the time the 1965 act was considered had been accurate. it would. not be necessary to take remedial action at this late date.