Speech #920194432

Chairman. the bill H.R. 9615 that the committee brings before the House today has a long history. Provisions of the bill have been discussed at length by the members of the Committee on the Judiciary. Numerous witnesses have appeared before the Subcommittee on Immigration and Nationality unanimously voicing their appeals that the two objectives of the bill be approved by the Congress. Permit me to backtrack for a moment in order that I may acquaint the House with the reasons why we should approve H.R. 9615. In 1965. Congress abolished the arbitrary and unjust national origins quota system which had been in effect since the 1920s. Under this system. Ireland had a guaranteed annual quota of 17.756 immigrant visas. a comparatively high allotment reflecting the large proportion of the Irish in our national population when the quota system was drawn up. Of this number. they used an average of about 7.000 a year. leaving more than 10.000 potential visas unused. The immigration law prior to amendment was a perpetual story of feast and famine. The Italians. in contrast to the Irish. had an annual allotment of 5.666 and a waiting list of a quarter million. The gross inequity reflected in these figures. combined with the ineffectiveness of the systemtwo out of three immigrants were nonquota in the years preceding its abolitionled to its abandonment in 1965. This move was long overdue. and criticism of the system which replaced the national origins quota system does not imply a desire to return to the past. I would indeed like to return to the days when Americas gates were open wide to the Irish. but not at the expense of closing them once again to the orientals and the Greeks. or keeping them barely ajar for the Italians and the French. This. fortunately. is not the choice before us. There can be no question that the abolition of the national origins quota system was highly desirable. The system was a disgrace. particularly to a nation which rightly regards itself as a nation of immigrants. Neither can there be any question about the value of the basic principles of the 1965 amendments: the reunion of families and the protection of American labor. It was most certainly not the intent of the 89th Congress to penalize Ireland. Great Britain. and Germany. and other countries which were the beneficiaries of high quotas. However. as the immigration statistics show. this. in fact. is what the Congress did. regardless of its intent. It now remains for Congress to correct its inadvertent errors of the past and the time is overdue. Not until 1964. after four decades of subjection to the principle that some immigrants were more acceptable than others. was there a coordinated effort and sufficient leadership to pave the way for repeal of the national origins systems. The impetus in this direction was supplied by the late President Kennedy when he sent an Executive communication to the Congress in 1663. The bill introduced as a result of the executive communication was a product of great study and sought to prevent problems before they occurred. To insure an orderly transition from the national origins system to a system based upon firstcome. firstserved. within preferences. a 5year phaseout period was proposed which the departmental experts and statisticians concluded would relieve the backlogs that had accumulated in some preference categories for some countries. Furthermore. this bill called for a reserve of visas which the President could allocate to those countries which had enjoyed large quotas under the old system and which would be disadvantaged by the change. The proposal recognized that these countries could not initially compete equitably on a firstcomefirstserved basis. simply because there was never a need to establish priority dates and a place in line for a visa. Unfortunately. by the time the bill was enacted. the 5year phaseout period was reduced to a 3year phaseout. The reserve of visas was deleted completely and a new featurethe labor certification requirementbecame an integral part of the act. a w e f Cautioned and warned of te problems that could arise. the Congress. in. its haste to attain the target of repeal of the national origins systems. cast probable problems aside. Today. we suffer the result of casting aside those safeguards that were originally proposed in the executive communication. We find that the fifth preference. particularly with regard to Italy. is oversubscribed and has been oversubscribed. and the backlog was not eliminated as the drafters of the legislation anticipated. We find that Immigration from Western Europe. particularly Germany. Great Britain. and Ireland. dissipated to a mere trickle. These results certainly were not intended. Until these results are corrected. our immigration policy is harnessed by the deadweight of discouragement. frustration. and dismay. H.R. 9615 is designed to correct the deficiencies resulting from the haste in approving the act of October 3. 1965. Before the Congress can build on that act and approve a worldwide immigration system with workable preferences. or any other legislation affecting immigration. we must backstep and put our immigration law in good order. We have waited for 5 years to determine if the shortcomings of the law would correct themselves. but it is obvious now that these shortcomings will only manifest themselves in greater hardship and unfairness. The only corrective method is by legislation. legislation which I hoped would not be necessary but which experience has dictated has become very necessary. This bill establishes a floor on immigration for each country by making special immigrant visas available equal to 75 percent of the 195565 average less visas issued under the permanent provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. as amended. No more than 7.500 special visas can be used by any country in each fiscal year. The bill is temporary in nature. designed to correct a temporary problem and will automatically terminate after 4 years. After carefully reviewing the abundant material and statistics on the problems which the Irish and other Northern European aliens have experienced in competing for immigrant visas. it was concluded that this 4year period would grant sufficient time for people from those countries to establish priority dates and thus eliminate the unintended inequities. That feature of the bill and the floor provision have been widely and thoroughly discussed. not only in the Congress. but by various interested organizations. I think that those of us on the Subcommittee on Immigration and Nationality can stipulate to the fact that immigration from Northern Europe has beeii drastically curtailed. We also stipulate that this result is directly attributable to the shortcomings in the changeover from the national origins system to the firstcome. firstserved system. I believe that "this teinporary legislation will correct -the deficiencies that* have caused a decline in immigration from those countries:which have .traditionally sent immigrants to the United States. :-The- second: th rtst of the bill is directed at -the backlog in the fifth preferene--brothers and sisters of U.S. citizenswhich was not eliminated by the time the landmark 1965 amendments became effective on July 1. 1968. It had been expected that the 3year phaseout period 196568. would eliminate the backlogs which had accumulated under the repugnant national origins quota system. However. the fifth preference category. particularly in the case of intending Italian immigrants. was and remains heavily oversubscribed. Without remedial legislation. it may be many years before the brothers and sisters who qualify for the present fifth preference can be united with their U.S. citizen families. Therefore. this bill would authorize the issuance of special immigrant visas to all qualified brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens who have petitions filed prior to July 1. 1971. I believe that it is patently important that we solve the major outstanding inequities stemming from the 1965 amendments before we can attempt to solve any other problems in the immigration field. Tomorrow is St. Patricks Day and it is my sincere hope that the days festivities will include celebration of our passage of the bill before us today.