LETTER TO EDWARD F. WILLETT, JR. FROM CHARLES A. BRIGGS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP87B00858R000200300041-6
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 11
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: April 1, 2011
• Sequence Number: 41
• Content Type: LETTER

Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/04/01: CIA-RDP87B00858R000200300041-6
Central Intdli noe Army
Mr. Edward F. Willett, Jr.
Law Revision Counsel
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
I am writing to provide you the comments of the Central
Intelligence Agency on H.R. 3321, a bill to revise, codify and
enact without substantive change the provisions of Title 8 of
the United States Code relating to the immigration and
naturalization laws.
The Agency has carefully reviewed the provisions of
H.R. 3321. While it has no general objections to the bill,
there are two items of concern to the Agency which I wish to
bring to your attention.
Section 7 of the CIA Act Ought Not To Be Included
in H.R. 3321's Codification of the Immigration Laws
Under current law, the Director of Central Intelligence
(acting in conjunction with the Attorney General and the
Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization) is vested with
the authority to cause the admission to permanent resident
alien status of up to one hundred persons per year, without
regard to their inadmissibility under the immigration laws, if
that admission is "in the interest of national security or
essential to the furtherance of the national intelligence
mission". This authority was granted to the Director by the
Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949, Act of June 20, 1949
and is found in Title 50 of the United States Code, the Title
relating to national security affairs (50 U.S.C.S443h).
The authority granted by Section 7 is vital to the Agency's
mission. As such, Section 7 has traditionally been viewed as
part of the core of the laws providing for the intelligence
operations of the United States, not as a part of the laws
governing immigration. The Congress has recognized this on
several occasions. For example, in 1949, during its
consideration of the CIA Act of that year, the Congress saw fit
to include Section 7 in that Act, rather than in the
immigration laws of the time. Again, in 1952, when considering
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/04/01 : CIA-RDP87B00858R000200300041-6
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/04/01: CIA-RDP87B00858R000200300041-6
the Immigration and Nationality Act of that year, the Congress
did not include Section 7 in that Act but determined that it
should remain in the CIA Act.
AL R. 3321 would alter this situation by repealing Section 7
and reenacting it (with some substantive change as noted below)
as Section 1314 of the newly-codified Title 8 relating to
immigration and naturalization. This would have the effect of
removing this important intelligence authority from the body of
intelligence laws and placing it within the general immigration
laws. Section 7, however, is a central part of the former; its
relationship to the latter is, on the other hand, only
secondary. As such, the Agency believes that Section 7 should
remain as part of the intelligence laws. It should not be
transferred to the general immigration laws, especially through
the vehicle of codification legislation which, by nature,
affords little opportunity to give full recognition to such
important considerations.
No Change Should Be Made in the Substance of Section 7
Not only would H.R. 3321 transfer the authority contained
in Section 7 to the generally immigration laws, it would also
make two substantive changes in that authority. The Agency is
seriously concerned about these changes and believes, in any
event, that substantive changes, such as these, ought not be
made through the vehicle of codification legislation.
Section 7 currently provides in pertinent part as follows:
Whenever the Director... shall
determine that the entry of a
particular alien...is in the
interest of national security
or essential to the
furtherance of the national
intelligence mission, such
alien...shall be given entry
into the United States for
permanent residence without
regard to (his)
inadmissibility under the
immigration or any other
laws and regulations or
to the failure to comply
with such laws and regula-
tions pertaining to
admissibility (emphasis
added)....
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/04/01: CIA-RDP87B00858R000200300041-6
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/04/01: CIA-RDP87B00858R000200300041-6
Section 1314 provides in pertinent part as follows:
(1)Notwithstanding another
law or regulation on the
exclusion or the require-
ments for admission of
aliens, the Attorney General
shall admit an alien...
to the United States for
lawful permanent residence
if the Attorney General and
the Director decide that the
admission of the alien is--
(A) in the interest of the
United States security; or
(B) essential to the United
States intelligence mission
(emphasis added)....
By deleting the phrase "furtherance of" from the language
in Section 7 used to describe the operative standard for
exercise of this authority, Section 1314 narrows the scope of
admissions which can be made under the authority. Further, the
change, from Section 7 to Section 1314, in the language used to
describe the field of exclusions which can be overridden by
exercise of this authority arguably narrows that field. The
effect of these changes would be to restrict the scope and
flexibility of this important authority. Such a restriction
represents a substantive change in existing law and one which
is of very serious concern to the Agency. Accordingly, the
Agency objects to the inclusion of Section 1314 in H.R. 3321.
I hope that the Office of the Law Revision Co.unsel will
give these comments careful consideration in its review of
H.R. 3321. Any questions should be directed to
Chief, Legislation Division, Office of Legislative
The Agency appreciates the opportunity to comment on this
important legislation.
Sincerely,
Charles A. Briggs
Director, Office of Legislative Liaison
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/04/01: CIA-RDP87B00858R000200300041-6
 }] Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/04/01 CIA-RDP87B00858R000200300041-6
wawvswa;.7.7lVi~lILL KCWjij1T HOUSE 11
problems faced by those wl le the FOIA
to request doeameats. Prolis from the
Reagan administration are principally de-
signed to allow agencies to limit the avail.
ability of government information. The
business community has presented useful
amendments, but these only address the
proced0ral problems faced by submitters of
confidewtial business information.
Some existing bills-including m% own
bill (H.R IS$2 -.do contain provision, that
would make it easier for requesters to use
the FOIA. But no comprehensive package
of changes to help requesters has been of-
fered. low with the Freedom of Informa-
tion Public Improvements Act of 1985, we
have a set of amendments designed to ad-
dress the shortcomings of the act as viewed
from the perspective of active users of the
law.
I do not mean to suggest that this bill is
Perfect. It needs study and review as do
other bills. But this proposal will provide
some balance to the legislative debates and
will help us to fashion a workable Compro-
mise
I intend to begin more active consider-
ation of FOIA legislation immediateli. I
will work with all interested parties to de-
elop compromise legislation that will be
acceptable to all. Hearings will be held on
/ proposed legislation before an% formal sub-
A committee action. but no hearings are
i^ scheduled at this time.
~V J The SPEAKER pro tempore- Under
a previous order of the House, the gen-
leman from Illinois [Mr ANNUNZIO]
is
recognized for 5 minutes.
[Mr. ANNUNZIO addressed the
H
cuss His remarks will appear hereaf-
ter in the Extensions of Remarks.]
CODIFICATION OF TITLE 8,
y STATES CODE.
''ALIENS AND NATIONALITY"
tleman from Texas [Mr. Attests - is rec-
ognized for 00 minutes.
(Mr. ARMEY addressed the House.
His remarks will appear hereafter in
the Extensions of Remarks.)
East Relief-was \
American htunanit.
this troubled region.-
Most Importantly. the 54th and 66th Cori,
resolutions expressing (
.
THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE AND atrocities and calling for
AMERICA'S OUTCRY stricken. The rediscovery o
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under o)utions is extremely import
volt
a previous order of the House, the gen- of House of he Joint Congress. Resolution A
tlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs now be based c
JOHNSON] is recognized for 60 minutes. the can
historical precedent basedpre,
Mrs. JOHNSON. Mr. Sneaker there the set b~
have evoked American sympathy and
concern as did the Armenian genocide
in Ottoman Turkey 70 years ago. But
what is generally not known by our
citizens or indeed by our colleagues in
the Congress is the extent of Ameri-
can involvement in this tragedy as
earls as 35 years prior to the most
brutal massacres of 1915-23.
It is for the purpose of reacquaint-
ing ourselves with this forgotten
period of American history that I have
requested this time on the House
floor. The theme of this special
order-the Armenian Genocide and
America's outcry-stresses the efforts
of the Congress over a period of 24
years to bring about an end to the kill-
ings and offer relief to the suffering.
House Joint Resolution 192. a reso-
lution still pending before us, would
Commemorate the deaths of some 1
5
.
s of
million Armenians during this period. Pressure, the Department finally said
To the dismay of many of us in the that the statement was not intended
Congress, there has been a concerted as a statement of policy, and that U.S.
attempt by the present Government of Policy on the matter had not changed
Turkey to we to it that the Armenian The problem we still face is that wt
genocide be unremembered and that are left guessing as to what the-U.S
this commemorative resolution be de- Policy is on this matter.
feated. Just 2 weeks ago, a U.N. Human
It goes without saying that the Rights Subcommission accepted a new
present R
bli
epu
c of Turkey is a valued study which recognized the Armenian
The SPEAKER
pro tempore. Under NATO ally and that our two countries genocide. The study, entitled "Revised
a previous order of the House, the gen- enjoy good relations with one another. and Updated Report on the Question
tleman from New Jersey [Mr. RODINO] - This resolution is not in any way in- of the Prevention and Punishment of
is recognized for 5 minutes. tended
Mr. RODINO. Mr. S slight Turkey or even to the Crime of Genocide." was opposed
peaker. I am today imply that modem Turkey had any in- by the Government of Turkey because
introducing a bill to revise, codify, and volvement whatsoever in the tragic of the Armenian reference. Nonethe-
enact without substantive change certain events under the Ottoman regime. For less, by a vote of 14 to I with 4 absten-
general and permanent laws. related to this very reason, it is unfortunate that tions, the report was received with the
aliens and nationality, as title 8. I'nited modem Turkey has chosen to read Armenian genocide reference intact.
States Code. This bill has been prepared by into the resolution that which is not The most significant aspect of the
the Office of the Law Revision Counsel as there. U.N. subcommittee vote was that the
a part of the program of the office to pre- Those who oppose the resolution delegate from the United States voted
pare and submit to the Judiciary Commit- claim that it is not the role of U.S. in favor of accepting the report. I an
tee of the House of Representatives. for en- Congress to involve itself in writing encouraged that the United States
actment into positive law. all titles of the history. Mr. Speaker, our Government gave its endorsement and I interpret
t'nited States Code. has a proud record of speaking out re- this as a departure from
This bill makes no change in the sub- y of the us at-
stance of existing law. peatedly against the crimes committed tempts to cloud the history of the AT-
Anyone inerngted in obtaining a copy of under the Ottoman regime. Dating menian genocide.
the v
bill o and a cin the draft a cop) o back at least to 1880, U.S. State De- There is nothing ambiguous about
accompany the copy bill p should ,draft report to partment officials in the Ottoman the Armenian genocide. The issue here
Willett, a Lsh Revision Counsel- empire witnessed the excesses visited is simply one of fact, and we in the
F Representatives, ion upon the Armenian population and Congress are seeking to affirm that
House of R pr sente 1 2-3 4. House l- cabled this information back to Wash- which was established by prior Con-
Ann No. 2. wishing nto on ativ comment 51 the bill ington. Our own ambassadors pleaded gresses in 1896 and 1920. We are trying
should submit those comments to the with Ottoman officials to stop the to remember a very important period
shout os the Law Revion Counsel the massacres. Our Secretaries of State for all Americans. As I stated on June
later Office thf the
31, 1985. not were constantly expressing concern 4 prior to a suspension vote on House
about these events. Seven US
Presi
J
i
.
?
o
nt Resolution 192. our ally relation-
dents during three decades offered ship with modern Turkey must not re-
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under America's sympathy to the Armenian quire us to deny what is very real in
a previous order of the House, the gen- sufferers. A U.S. Federal agency-Near the lives of our own people as a fact.
lived during this tragic period
were made aware on a daily has.,
the events unfolding in Asia Minor
At the time these events were tak,
place. it would have been unthinkab
to suggest that the Armenian popul:,
tion of Ottoman Turkey had not beet
specificaliy targeted for mass slaugh-
ter. Yet, there are those presently in
the U.S. Government who are substi-
tuting their own judgment for that of
eyewitnesses and contemporaneous of-
ficials and who now declare that the'
history of these events is ambiguous.
In 1982. the U.S. State Department
issued this statement: "Because the
historical record of the 1915 event, in
Asia Minor is ambiguous, the Depart-
ment of State does not endorse allega-
tions that the Turkish Government
comrr:itted a genocide against the Ar-
meniar people." After 9 month
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/04/01 : CIA-RDP87B00858R000200300041-6
 _ ! 1L l! I _ III I_ -
uEllPUrlts OHIO wwr.~ Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/04/01: CIA-RDP87B00858R000200300041-6 ii t=~;
1wn iTOtE: "f01
?DAVr Y:j'jL?.2T. O[LA$OMA
N.-W'W' C t1'LNSON. C400"LA
l O t w ta!7t LtA WISCO, SI
DA%Dw.tL.v)4S'ru U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
6901401 t rPDwM CAU&ORMA
O
PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE
Ma-rr1w ! NEW ?ORK IK
. w;?IU4.I,
?1S.LRLJ DwlksrwJE1ls1Y ON INTELLIGENCE
?Ct M WO. 0701-L
A'. Isla.: ?LOR; A
rl?P? J r-DE ILtI.CS
D?CL c-.r'. %*VOW..c
. LOJ S.L.A
Tr:,rl V. LA-.;* p S-La 01>SCTOP
i?.ti.: C .EIL C? E' CJ_.SEL
IL !- -, COJNSL
lcillett, .Jr.
Riv_sion Counsel
of -,spres_nt_tives
?a-=. - -304, :i :se Annex tic 2
D. C. 20513
T_is is in response to Judiciary Corrmit_tee C;aai:---~n R' dino's rec est,
inter in the Congressional Record of Septeroer 17, 1985 (page H7514), for
s:.. nission to you of co rr,ents on H.R. 3321 to revise and codify title 8,
Unites States Code, relating to aliens ano ratio: 1ity. The bill states tat
its p.-use is to revise, codify and enact existir~ laws without substantive
chance. I an, concerned with two substantive cha.^:as made to the provisions of
Section 7 of the Central Intelligence Agency Act cf 1949 (50 U.S.C. 403h) as
revised and codified in Section 1314(b) of title F:, contained in Section 1 of
H.R. 3321. _
Section 7 of the CIA Act permits the Attorney Creeneral, the Director of
Central Intelligence and the Corrnissioner of L--migration, acting jointly, to
'r, anent U. S. residence individuals admission is in the
interest of national security or essential to the furtherance of the national
intelligence mission. The extraordinary authority granted in Section 7 of t e
CIA Act constitutes a critical element in the CIA clandestine huran
intelligence program. Any changes to Section 7 resit careful scrutiny because
of its irn ortance in meeting national intelligence needs.
The revision in H.R. 3321 of Section 7 of the CIA Act contains three
substantive changes,,as shown on the enclosed chart. One of these, deletion
of the role of the Corissioner of Migration, is appropriate for the reasons
set forth on page 49 of the September 17, 1935 Judiciary C. r ' ttee print of
to reprt to acco.:,nny H.R. 3321. The other two substantive changes merit
reconsideration.
The first substantive change of concern is the addition of the word
"lawful" to qualify "permanent residence." Section 7 of the CIA Act currently
refers to admission of an alien for "pe rranent residence," while proposer
Section 1314(b) of title 8 refers to admission for "lawful perT;la_nent
residence." The co;urittee print of the report makes no reference to this
change. If addition of the adjective "lawful" has legal consequences in light
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/04/01: CIA-RDP87B00858R000200300041-6
 .H U ... 1 III I. .
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/04/01: CIA-RDP87B00858R000200300041-6
of other provisions of the proposed title 8, the committee print of the report
should contain some appropriate brief mention of those consequences. If, to
the cone ary, the addition of the word "lawful" is of no legal consequence,
then the word sho:3ld not be added, to avoid any confusion or future
-.isi..teroretation arising from the unexplained change. At a minimum, t`.~
Ce 1:tel_1gence Agency an' the Departmc.nt of Justice should oe cons.:ltea
to ens;-..:e t*nat the substantive change in the la,,.: will not hinder achievement
of intelligence coals which Section 7 of the CL Act was originally
enactef to 1;_' achieve.
other s:iostantive change of concern is the mo. ification of the se_on
Of alternative determinations which precede adl. tting an alien.
^ _ i of tic `T' Act permits admission o' an alien when it is deter-.fried
t.^.=- ether "in the interest of r~aticnal sec rity" or is
es a ::ay tc t'ie Ii:.r trerance of the riatior,al irate' licence -:1SS1G :. " t~rG_~^.SEti
Sect`_ c- 131' r I'c:) elim:in.tes the "furtherance" land.. _efron the second
a1tE_._at_\'E ._tc ir:ction, ana instead 1 rovides for a? fission whhich is
ess__._.al to the United States intelligence missicn. ' the proposed
re- _re-_nt t: ._: ad .fission: be essential to the United States intelligence
m: e strict. u, ! the COrresoonding provision C- existing law
_. _ .cs for of .fission which is "essential to the fut-?erance o_ the national
ir.tc_licence m_SSion. " It may be essential Jr, ac p l i shin; a particula_r-
aC'_ivit'v`Wnich furthers the national intelligence mission to admit an alien,
but that activity, although it furthers the mission, -ay not be essential to
the mission, and thus admitting the alien could not be said to be essential to
the -:fission. Section 1314(b) should be modified to preserve existing la,;,
which zrovldes for admission essential to furtherance of the mission, not
aa..mission essential to the mission. Accordingly, proposed section 1314(b) (2)
should be chanced to read :
,e furtherance Unite-4 States essential _ to onof the _ intelligence
_ssi,-
"har_.: you for your time and attention.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/04/01: CIA-RDP87B00858R000200300041-6
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/04/01: CIA-RDP87B00858R000200300041-6
ll. lt. JJ2L, :~et_. LJ1~1(h) of '1'i C1.u tl
Nl(I) J'u1wilhsl:u,duig :ulollier law or nl;ulaliun on the esrlus,oil or the rc-
yuircu-culs fur utluu%s,on of ahrus, lilt! Allurnry (`,cuelal ~II11II adotil All alien
and the alien's iuunrtliute faulil)' III the Ilnilyd Slales fur lawful Iierimtlieul resi-
dence if the Allort,t?Y (:cuciul and Ow Ilircelur drridc llwt llic uiliuissiuii of the
,alien is-
(A) in the in:errst of llnilt?d :;Inks .rcuriiY; or
(11) esscutUnl to (lie Uuiled Talcs intelligence uussiou.
('') No mare thnu IUU Imlit?iJoals iuay lie uuluiittctl to Lilt! halted SIales iu It
fiscal year under this subsection.
CIA Act of 1949,' Sec. 7
Si:(,,. 7. [_50 U.S.C. 403h]. Whenever the Director, the Attorney
General and the Commissioner of Immigration shall determine
that the entry of n particular alien into the United States for per-
mal~ent residence is IL he interest. of national security or essential
to the furtherance of the n aLtollal intelligence mission, such alien
anti his irnnnediale family shall he I ,ven entry into the United
St,lles for permanent residence without regard Cu (heir inrtdrnissi-
bilily under the immigration or any other laws and regulations, or
to the failure to comply with such laws and regulations pertaining
to admissibility: Prouulec/, That the number of ;aliens and members
of their in,nledlate faunilles enterinf( the United Stales under the
authority of this section shall in no case exceed one hundred per-
sons in any one fiscal year.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/04/01: CIA-RDP87B00858R000200300041-6
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/04/01: CIA-RDP87B00858R000200300041-6
PIIOf'06M ODDIFICATI0U PRf SITiI' fAW
II.R. 3321, Sec. 1314(b) CIA Act of 1940, Sec. 7
"(b)(1) Notwithstanding another law "without regard to their inadmissibility [no substantive change]
or regulation on the exclusion or the under the immigration or any other laws
rc1uirements for admission of aliens," and regulations, or to the failure to
comply with such laws and regulations
pertaining to admissibility"
"the Attorney General shall admit an "such alien and his immediate family shall [no substantive change]
alien and the alien's immediate family be given entry into the United States"
to the United States"
"for lawful permanent residence" "for permanent residence"
addition of "lawful"
"if the Attorney General and the Director "Whenever the Director, the Attorney deletion of "Commissioner of Immigration"
decide that the admission of the alien General and the Commissioner of deletion of "to the furtherance of"
is-- Immigration shall determine that the
(A) in the interest of United States entry of a particular alien into the
security; or the United States for permanent
(B) essential to the United States residence is in the interest of national
intelligence mission." security or essential to the furtherance
of the national intelligence mission,"
"(2) No more than 100 individuals may "Provided, that the number of aliens and [no substantive change]
be admitted to the United States in a members of their :inunediate families
fiscal year under this subsection." entering the United States under the
.urthority of this section shall in no
cave exceed one hundred persons in any
on fiscal year."
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/04/01: CIA-RDP87B00858R000200300041-6
 I' sSanitizedCopY Approved oved for Release 2011/04/01: CIA-RDP87B00858R000200300041-6
Offict of Ot 1.ah 316fgion CcungtT
B.*. *oust of Rtprtgtntat(bts
iWasbtnyton, W.E. 20515
October 25, 1985-
Honorable Henry J. Hyde
Subcommittee on Legislation
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
H405 Capitol
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
LF LATIV1 UM
Dear Congressman Hyde:
Thank you for your prompt response in making comments
on H.R. 3321, a bill to revise and codify title 8, United
States Code, related to aliens and nationality.
Your first comment concerns the addition of the word
"lawful" before "permanent residence" in section 1314(b)(1)
of the revised title 8. You are correct that the draft report
contains no explanation of this addition and it should have.
We will change the revision notes for section 1314 in the report
to explain that the word "lawful" is inserted for consistency
with the defined term "lawfully admitted for. permanent residence"
in section 122 of the revised title 8 (that applies to the
entire title) and for consistency with the status of "lawful
permanent residence". The only permanent residence status is
the "lawful permanent residence" status, and that phrase has
been used consistently throughout the revised title B.
Your second comment concerns the omission in section
1314(b)(1)(B) of the phrase "to the furtherance of" before "the
United States intelligence mission". We agree that this phrase
should not have been omitted and we will see that it is put back
in.
Edward F. Willett, Jr!
Law Revision Counsel
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/04/01: CIA-RDP87B00858R000200300041-6
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/04/01: CIA-RDP87B00858R000200300041-6
Iq
Next 1 Page(s) In Document Denied
STAT
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/04/01: CIA-RDP87B00858R000200300041-6
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/04/01: CIA-RDP87B00858R000200300041-6
r4i
A6 WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1985
Immigration
Bill Finished
Panel Defers Plan
On Foreign Workers
By Mary Thornton
Washington Post Staff Writer
The House immigration subcom-
mittee finished work yesterday on a
major revision of the nation's im-
migration laws, and split off for con-
sideration next year a controversial
proposal to allow large numbers of
foreign workers into the country
temporarily to pick perishable
crops.
The Senate has finished work on
similar legislation, which would pro-
vide criminal and civil penalties for
employers who hire illegal aliens,
an amnesty program for undocu-
mented workers who have been in
the United States for a fixed num-
ber of years, and increased funding
for enforcement of U.S. immigra-
tion laws.
The Senate bill would grant le-
galized status to undocumented
aliens who can prove they have
lived in this country continuously
since Jan. 1, 1980. The House bill
has a Jan. 1, 1982, date, and would
give legal status to many more
aliens.
Another major difference be-
fween the two measures is in the
area of foreign labor for U.S. farms.
The Senate bill would streamline
and expand the H2 program, which
allows the Labor Department to
bring small numbers of foreign farm
workers into the country for fixed
periods. In addition, the Senate ap-
proved a new program that would
allow admission of up to 300,000
foreign workers for up to nine
months to pick perishable crops.
The provision was promoted by
lobbyists for U.S. growers and was
opposed by U.S. farm workers and
organized labor.
The House judiciary subcommit-
tee yesterday rejected an attempt
by Rep. Daniel E. Lungren (R-
Calif.) to put a similar provision in
the House bill. But Lungren made it
clear that his proposal and others
dealing with the foreign farm work-
er program will be dealt with when
the bill is before the full committee
and later on the House floor. The
House passed a similar provision
last year.
The House bill initially contained
much the same streamlined H2 pro-
gram as passed the Senate, but the
subcommittee adopted several mod-
ifications yesterday proposed by
Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.)
to protect the rights of U.S. work-
ers as well as foreign temporary
workers.
One amendment, adopted 6 to 4,
would give the foreign workers the
right to free legal assistance.
Another would force farmers to
provide American workers with' the
same inducements they give foreign
temporary workers, such as a travel
allowance to get to the job site. Ber-
man argued that such protection is
necessary for unemployed Amer-
ican workers, who, he said, would
take the jobs if they could get to
them.
His amendment also would make
it illegal to use foreign temporary
workers as strike-breakers.
Subcommittee Chairman Romano
L. Mazaoli (D-Ky.) said he hoped
the Judiciary Committee would be-
gin action on the bill the first week
of December, when Congress re-
turns from its Thanksgiving recess.
But Judiciary Chairman Peter W.
Rodino Jr. (D-N.J.) said he is not
sure when the panel will begin final
markup. Several members said they
hoped the committee could finish
early next year.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/04/01: CIA-RDP87B00858R000200300041-6