A BI;LL;

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP77M00144R001100220020-7
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 8
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: April 25, 2005
• Sequence Number: 20
• Publication Date: July 19, 1976
• Content Type: REGULATION

Approved For Release 2005/06/02 : CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100220020-7
94TH CO ION S
2D SESSION 14705
IN TIIE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
JULY 19,1976
Mr. ARCHER (for himself, Mr. BEVILL, Mr. BURGENER, Mr. CLEVELAND, Mr.
CONTE, Mr. DAN DANIEL, Mr. DICKINSON, Mr. EDGAR, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr.
HYDE, Mr. KEMP, Mr. IcETCIIUM, Mr. LoTT, Mr. MOORIIEAD of California,
Mr. RoE, Mr. STEICER of Arizona, Mr. TREEN, and Mr. ZEFERETTI) intro-
duced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Post
Office and Civil Service
A BILI.
To amend title 5, United States Code, to exclude individuals
who are not citizens of the United States from appointment
in the competitive service, and for other purposes.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Represent a-
2 tines of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 That (a) subchapter I of chapter 33 of title 5, United
4 States Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the
5 following new section :
6 "?3328, Competitive service; citizenship requirements
7 "An individual may not be admitted to a competitive
8 examination held by the Civil Service Commission or ap-
9 pointed in the competitive service unless such individual-
10 " (1) is a citizen of the United States ; or
I
Approved For Release 2005/06/02 : CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100220020-7
 Approved For Release 2005/06/02 : CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100220020-7
2
1 " (2) owes permanent allegiance to the United
2 States.".
3 (b) The table of sections for subchapter I of chapter
4 33 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding
5 at the end thereof the following new item :
"3328. Competitive service; citizenship requirements.".
6 SEC. 2. Section 3302 of title 5, United States Code,
7 is amended by inserting "3328," immediately after "3321,".
8 SEC. 3. This Act shall take effect on the date of its
9 enactment and it shall not have any effect with respect
10 to individuals who have been appointed in the coinpetitive
11 service before the date of the enactment of this Act.
Approved For Release 2005/06/02 : CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100220020-7
 Approved For Rdeas%o /0 A P7 M 1100220020-7
2D SESSION n* A*
A BILL
To amend title 5, United States Code, to exclude
individuals who are not citizens of the
United States from appointment in the
competitive service, and for other purposes.
By Mr. ARCHER, Mr. BEVILL, Mr. BUR.GENER,
Mr. CLEVELAND, Mr. CONTE, Mr. DAN
DANIEL, Mr. DICKINSON, Mr. EDGAR, Mr.
GRASSLEY, Mr. HYDE, Mr. KEMP, Mr.
KETCHUM, Mr. LoTT, Mr. MoORHEAD of
California, Mr. ROE, Mr. STEIGER of Ari-
zona, Mr. TREEN, and Mr. ZEFERErn
JULY 19,1976
Referred to the Committee on Post Office and Civil
Service
Approved For Release 2005/06/02 : CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100220020-7
 Approved For Release 2005/06/02 : CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100220020-7
E 4128 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - Extensions of Remarks July 27, 1976
of her own mind, and with whatever counsel-
ing she seeks, she has the right to make her
decision, and no one is-better qualified. If
she is denied that right, the result may well
be an unwanted child, with all the attendant
possibilities of abuse and neglect.
Finally, as a practical matter, legalization
of abortion is a much more sound and hu-
mane social policy than prohibition. Banning
abortions does not eliminate them; it never
has and it never will. It merely forces women
to go the dangerous route of illegal or self-
induced abortions. Even worse, it makes
abortion a "rich-poor" issue. At a high price,
a well-to-do woman can always find a safe
abortion. But, unable to pay the price, the
poor woman all too often finds herself in in-
competent hands.
Experience in three Catholic countries of
Latin America that I visited provides dra-
matic evidence of a high incidence of abor-
tion even when it is against the law. Esti-
mates are that there is one abortion for every
two live births in Colombia, and that more
than half a million illegal abortions are per-
formed every year in Mexico. In Chile, hos-
_pital admissions caused by illegal abortions
gone wrong exceed 50,000 per year.
In contrast, the access to safe procedures
in the United States has resulted in a drastic
decline in deaths associated. with abortion. In
the period 1969-74, such deaths have fallen
by two-thirds. Statistics also strongly suggest
that about 70 per cent of the legal abortions
that have been performed would still have
occurred had abortion been against the law.
The only difference is that they would have
been dangerous operations instead of safe
ones.
When you combine the religious, moral and
social issues raised above with the fact that
women need and will seek abortions even if
they are illegal, the case for legalized abor-
tion is overwhelming. We dare not turn the
clock back to the time when the religious
strictures of one group were mandatory for
everyone-not in a democracy.
A PLEA FOR FREEDOM
We must uphold freedom of choice. More-
over, we must work to make free choice a
reality by extending safe abortion services
throughout the United States. Only one-
fourth of the non-Catholic general hospitals
and one-fifth of the public hospitals in the
country now provide such services. It is still
extremely difficult to have a legal and safe
abortion if you are young or poor or live in a
smaller city or rural area.
On a broader front, we must, continue the
effort to make contraceptive methods better,
safer and more readily available to everyone.
Freedom of choice Is crucial, but the deci-
sion to have an abortion Is always a serious
matter. It is a choice one would wish to avoid.
The best way to do that is to avoid unwanted
pregnancy in the first place.
CITIZENSHIP REQUIREMENT FOR
FEDERAL JOBS
.HON. THOMAS J. DOWNEY
OF NEW YORK
IN .THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, July 27, 1976
Mr. DOWNEY of New York. Mr.
Speaker, the recent Supreme Court rul-
ing, Hampton, Chairman, . U.S. Civil
Service Commission, et al., v. Mow Sun
Wong et al., striking down the U.S. Civil
Service Commission's regulation that
bars resident aliens from employment in
Federal competitive service jobs is open
to congressional correction. The decision
does not imply that nonhiring of aliens
by the Federal Government is in itself
unconstitutional; rather, the decision
states that it is unconstitutional for a
Federal agency to issue such a regulation.
on its own. The possibility of future limi-
tations on Federal jobs for aliens is left
open. In fact, the decision strongly hints
that Congress could pass legislation
limiting Federal jobs for aliens:
... Alternatively, if the rule were expressly
mandated by the Congress of the President,
we might presume that any interest which
might :rationally be served by the rule did in
fact rise to its adoption ...
In sum, . . . the national interests
identified by the petitioners would ade-
quately support an explicit determination by
Congress or the President to exclude all non-
citizens from federal service . . .
Congress should take immediate action
in placing a citizenship requirement on
Federal jobs. Surely our Federal jobs
pool is too large already, but it is not yet
so immense that there are not thousands
upon thousands of Americans qualified
and available to work for our Govern-
ment. American workers should hold
these jobs, especially during this period
of high unemployment. American citi-
zens should not. have to compete with
over 3.5 million resident aliens for Fed-
eral jobs: Americans must have prefer-
ence.
Consequently, I am introducing legis-
lation today that would amend title 5 of
the United States Code to exclude indi-
viduals who are not citizens of the United
States from appointment in the com-
petitive civil service. The bill does allow
the President to waive the prohibition in
special circumstances-if there is a need
of a special talent which could only be
provided by a noncitizen or if no Ameri-
can citizen has applied for a particular
position.
The question of restricting resident
aliens from employment in Federal serv-
ice jobs has been raised by the Hampton,
Chairman, U.S. Civil Service Commission
et al., v. Mow Sun Wong et al., decision.
It is impelutive that Congress take the
responsibility to act on this matter.
The text of my bill follows:
A bill to amend-Ml e-5 of the United States
Code, to exclude individuals who are not
citizens of the United States from ap-
pointment in the competitive service
Be it enacted by the Senate and House
of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That (a)
subchapter I of chapter 33 of title 5 of the
united States Code, is amended by adding at
the er.Ld thereof the following new section:
"$ 3328. Competitive service; citizenship
.,An individual may not be admitted to a
competitive examination held by the Civil
Service Commission or appointed in the com-
petitive service unless such individual (1) is
a citizen of the United States; or (2) owes
permanent allegiance to the United States.".
(b) The table of sections for subchapter I
of chapter 33 of title 5 of the United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end
thereof the following new item:
"3328. Competitive service; citizenship.".
SEC. 2. Section 3302 of title 6, United States
Code, is amended by inserting "3328," imme-
diately after "3321,".
SEC. 3. This Act shall take effect on the
date of its enactment and it shall not have
any effect with respect to individuals who
have been appointed in the competitive serv-
ice before the date of the enactment of this
Act.
HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN
OF CALIFORNIA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, July 27, 1976
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, it has be-
come distressingly fashionable for critics
and analysts of the Middle East to paint
Israel as the intransigent party in the,
area-that if only Israel would withdraw
to the 1967-1948?-borders, that if only
Israel would unconditionally turn over
the West Bank and the Gaza Strip to
the Palestinians, that if only Israel would
pay reparations to the refugees of the
1948 war of independence, peace would
come to the Middle East for all peoples.
It is a convenient and illusory argu-
ment. It is one which seeks to rationalize
the exploitative power shift which has
graced the Arab oil producing states, and
their Soviet arms backers, since the Yom
Kippur War. It is one which closes its
eyes to horror of terrorism, and which
washes its hands of the hemorrhage that
is Lebanon today. It is, finally, an argu-
ment which remains blind to the basic
obstacle to peace between Israel and its
neighbors: The refusal of the Arab States
and the Palestinians to acecpt Israel's
existence, within secure and recognized
borders.
Such a precept is the basis of all sover-
eignty. Those who fail to understand
Israel's emphasis on this condition fail
to appreciate the double standard by
which Israel is being judged throughout
the world.
Israel does cause the world a lot of
heartache and a lot of trouble. It is pain-
ful to confront a nation's insistence that
it enjoy the same rights and privileges
as nations everywhere. It is difficult when
one small and courageous country tries
to call into account the conscience of a
world which refuses to take responsibility
for the continuation of terrorism. It is
unpleasant to be reminded of the mort-
gaging of cherished values and principles-
in the scramble for OPEC oil. Yes, Israel
does not make life easy for us.
So it is not hard to understand why
much of the world does not like Israel
very much, and why so much of the world
finds it easy to assume an arrogant pos-
ture, and tell the Israelis what is best for
them.
But there are many who know better.
One of them, Leonard Garment, now
serves as the U.S. representative to the
United Nations Commission on Human
Rights. His is an apt vantage point. He
writes eloquently on these themes, on
the cruel untruths behind the code
word. I commend to my colleagues Mr.
Garment's essay on these issues:
[From the New York Times, July 18, 19761
CODE WORD
By Leonard Garment
One word has come to be applied as a code
to describe the position of Israel in the de-
bate over law and land in the Middle East.
Approved For Release 2005/06/02 : CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100220020-7
 Approved For Release 2005/06/02 : CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100220020-7
July 27 , 1976 . CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -Extensions of Remarks E 4127
problems for U.S. citizens in northern
Virginia. the Washington metropolitan
area, and in other cities with significant
numbers of diplomatic personnel. The is-
sues range from unpaid traffic tickets to
automobile accidents involving personal
injuries and fatalities.
I believe it is time to focus attention
on the proper use and increasingly fre-
quent abuse of the privilege of diploma-
tic immunity and to air the issue thor-
oughly.
For this reason, I have introduced,
with Representative THOMAS E. MORGAN,
,chairman of the House International
Relations Committee, H.R. 13828, which
clearly specifies the privileges and im-
munities to which foreign diplomatic
missions and their personnel are en-
titled. An identical bill was- introduced
in the Senate in February at the request
of the State Department by Senator
JOHN SPARKMAN. chairman of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee.
Current U.S. law, enacted in 1970, pro-
tides diplomatic immunity from crimi-
nal, civil, and administrative jurisdic-
tion to allforeign nationals who are not
permanent residents, and who are as-
signed the proper nonimmigrant status
as employees in emba=ssies in Washington
and other 'U.S. cities. Thus, diplomatic
immunity its granted to ambassadors.
clerks, secretaries, chauffeurs, and cooks
alike whether on embassy business or
on a personal night on the town.
My proposed legislation would repeal
these statutes and bring U.S. law into
conformity with the Vienna Convention
on Diplomatic Relations signed by the
United States and more than 100 other
nations in 1972. The Vienna Convention
restricts full diplomatic immunity to
high level diplomatic personnel and fur-
ther narrows the use of diplomatic im-
munity by distinguishing between the
performance of official and unofficial
duties. For example, service staff would
have the privilege of immunity only in
performance of official duties. Private
household servants would lose all im-
munity under the Vienna Convention.
The bill contains certain other pro-
visions that should be carefully dis-
cussed. Some nations covered by the
Vienna Convention grant more favor-
able treatment for U.S. diplomatic per-
sonnel than others.
The proposed legislation would allow
the President authority, to grant more
favorable treatment to certain nations at
his discretion. It may be wise to guaran-
tee in the legislation some congressional
role or oversight in the use of this au-
thority. Perhaps a congressional veto
would be in order. This point should be
examined during hea:'ings which I expect
the House International Relations Com-
mittee to hold.
Historically, immunity has been ac-
corded so that the essential work of in-
ternational relations may be conducted
without disturbance or harassment to the
diplomat by the host countries. Present
day facts are quite different. Unfortu-
nately, its most frequent use seems to be
in cases of automobile accidents. My bill
tries to separate the ordinary civil of-
fense from the traditional diplomatic im-
munity by sharply limiting the number
of persons who can claim immunity and
the circumstances to which the immunity
attaches.
This month I have also cosponsored
H.R. 11560, introduced by Representative
EDWARD KOCH, to assist American citi-
zens who have been injured in automobile
accidents involving foreign diplomatic
personnel. Persons injured have had
great difficulty or have been unable to
obtain proper financial relief because
diplomatic personnel were either not in-
sured or their insurance companies re-
fused to make settlements.
The proposed legislation would require
foreign nonresidents who bring auto-
mobiles into this country for personal use
to obtain liability insurance and to regis-
ter them with the U.S. Customs Service.
Because diplomatic personnel cannot be
sued in U.S. courts, the proposed law
would give the Secretary of State the
power of enforcement. It would also re-
quire liability policies to state that pay-
ment be made to injured parties regard-
less of whether the holder of the policy
has diplomatic immunity.
I expect prompt consideration of this
bill by the Trade Subcommittee of the
Ways and Means Committee.
The abuse of the privilege of diplomatic
immunity has become serious in the
Washington metropolitan area. I believe
H.R. 13828 and H.R. 11560 are a good
start toward correcting that abuse.
OF NEW YORK
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, July 27, 1976
Ms. ABZUG. Mr. Speaker, it has been 3
years since the Supreme Court decided
in Poe against Wade to grant women the
right to choose abortion. This historic
ruling, based upon the 200-year-old fun-
damental American judicial principals of
right to privacy, freedom of choice, and.
religious tolerance, placed the decision
to terminate a pregnancy where it rightly
belongs-with the women and her doctor.
However, this court decision has met vio-
lent opposition from a highly visible
group of antiabortion forces. While this
handful of individuals wage a massive
emotional publicity campaign, in reality
they only represent a minority of Ameri-
cans according to all the nationwide sur-
veys. Efforts to reverse the abortion de-
cision indicate a serious lack of concern
for the health and well-being of those
involved, disregard for the social cost
of the unwanted child, and denial of a
woman's constitutional right. I would like
to bring to your attention an article
written by John D. Rockefeller III, in
the June 21 edition of Newsweek, which
addresses the issues surrounding recent
attempts to retreat on abortion. The
House has once again been presented
with legislation to limit the application
of the Supreme Court decision affirming
a woman's right to an abortion, the Hyde
amendment to the Labor-HEW bill which
olild prohibit the use of medicaid for
.:.bortion. I would like to take this oppor-
unity to insert this article in the
tECORD:
No RETREAT ON ABORTION
(By John D. Rockefeller 3da
It is ironic that in this Bicentennial year
14iere is a strong effort across the nation to
iurn the clock back on an important social
issue. Ever since the Supreme Court -legalized
t bortion in January 1973, anti-abortion forces
lave been organizing to overturn the deci-
cion. They have injected the issue into the
Campaigns of 1976, including the- appearance
c f a Presidential candidate who ran on the
-Ingle issue of opposition to abortion.
There have been efforts within the Con-
lc ess to initiate a constitutional amendment
1._?ohibiting abortion. There is litigation be-
ing pressed in state courts and appeals to
i i re . Supreme Court. Last November ,he- Na-
tional Conference of Catholic Bishops issued
r "Pastoral Plan for Pro-Life Activities" call-
I g for a wide-ranging anti-abortion effort
L_ every Congressional district, including
v orking to defeat any congressman who sup-
1;,>rts the Supreme Court decision.
Those who appose abortion have won the
battle of the slogans by adopting "Right to
life" as theirs. And, by concentrating on
thie single issue of the fetus, they have found
ebortion an easy issue to sensationalize. Thus,
they have tended to win the publicity battle,
t 0.
CONSCIENCE AND COERCION
In contrast, those who support legalized
r bortion-and opinion polls demonstrate
them to be a majority-have been compara-
tively quiet. After all, they won their case
i . the Supreme Court decisioiy Legalized
e oortion is the law of the land. It is also in
t to mainstream of world opinion. The num-
ber of countries where abortion has been
broadly legalized has increased steadily; today
c:,vering 60 per cent of the world population.
In this situation, there is a natural ten-
c,!ncy to relax, to assume that the matter
i:: settled and that the anti-abortion clamor
1v ill eventually die down. But it is conceivable
that the United States could become the
f rst democratic nation to turn the clock back
by yielding to the pressilpe and reversing the
Supreme Court decision. In my judgment,
that would be a tragic mistake.
The least that those who support legalized
abortion should do is try to clarify the issue
arid put it in perspective. The most power-
fcl arguments about abortion are in the field
of religious and moral principles-and this
ir. where'the opposing views clash head-on.
A hortion is against the moral principles.de-
f=nded by the Roman Catholic Church, and
some non-Catholics share this viewpoint. But
a bortion is not against the principles of most
A--her religious groups. Those opposed to
abortion seek to ban it for everyone In so-
c, qty. Their position is thus coercive In that
it would restrict the religious freedom of
Others and their right to make a free moral
choice. In contrast, the legalized abortion
viewpoint Is non-coercive. No one would
t'iink of forcing anyone to undergo an abor-
t-on or forcingdoctors to perform the proce-
d,cre when it violates their consciences. Where
aortion is legal, everyone is free to live by
h r or his religious and moral principles.
SAFETY VS. DANGER
There are also strong social reasons why
abortion should remain legalized. In a
ikoman's decision to have an abortion, there
a i three key considerations-the fetus, the
woman herself, and the future of the un-
wanted child. Abortion opponents make an
emotional appeal based on the first consid-
eration alone. But there Is steadily growing
understanding and acceptance of a woman's
fundamental right to control what happens
t~ 9 her body and to her future. In the privacy
Approved For Release 2005/06/02 : CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100220020-7
 STAT
^ UNCLASSIFIED
1
^ INTERNAL
_ USE ONfl
^ CONFIDENTIAL ^ SECRET
eve
ROUTING AND RECORD SHEET
SUBJECT: (Optional) O Ce- 74
-7 -7 2 6
FROM:
EXTENSION
NO.
Office of Legislative Counsel
7D35 Has.
DATE 27 July 19 76
TO: (Officer designation, room number, and
building)
DATE
OFFICER'S
COMMENTS (Number each comment to show from whom
RECEIVED
FORWARDED
INITIALS
to whom. Draw a line across column after each comment.)
1. OGC Attn
7D07 Has.
2.
7 -2 =
Attached is a copy of
H.R. 14705, the most recent bill
introduced in the House related
to employment of non-citizens
in
com
etitive service
A
3.
--
-
p
.
.
s
you will see, H.R. 14705, unlike
S.3572, which I previously sent
ou and re
a
di
hi
h I
4'
y
g
r
ng w
c
am
awaiting your opinion, applies
only to the competiti-ve service.
5.
S
6.
7.
OGC has no objection to
HR-14705, inasmuch as the
proposed statute a
lies
8
pp
S
only to the competitive
services.
10.
Office of General Counsel
12.
13.
14.
15.
20020-7
FORM USE PREVIOUS INTERNAL
3-62 610 EDITIONS ^ SECRET ^ CONFIDENTIAL ^ USE ONLY ^ UNCLASSIFIED
AT
AT
AT
 STAT Approved For Release 2005/06/02 : CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100220020-7
Next 2 Page(s) In Document Exempt
Approved For Release 2005/06/02 : CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100220020-7
 12 JUL 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR: Deputy Director for Administration
FROM Robert W. Gambino
Director of Security
SUBJECT
~.7o03
The Office of Security has reviewed S. 3572, a
bill to prohibit aliens from employment in the Federal
competitive service. Since United States citizenship
is a prerequisite for Agency staff-type employment, the
provisions of the bill would seem only to support this
existing requirement. No problems from a security
standpoint are noted with reference to its passage.
STAT
o e am ino
W
for Release 2005/06/02 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100220020-7
Approved For Release 2005/06/02 : CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100220020-7